ramfree17 Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3667201 dont kill the messenger. i find the article both funny and infuriating for being idiotic err simplistic. its just too easy to skew statistics to show your own version of the truth. :) ciao! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulSe Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 Uh... the stats were released by Symantec, not Microsoft. So why would they want to skew the statistics? In fact, if anything, Symantec would be more interested in making Windows seem less secure. The problem is not the skewing of facts, but rather the approach. The vulnerabilities repaired in Windows were less than, for example, Red Hat - but that is vulnerabilities found by Microsoft. There might be thousands more that were just never detected. Of course, this could be true for Linux and OSX too ;) But - the difference is the reaction time to detected vulnerabilities. Here again we deal with the nature of the beast. Holes in Windows tend to be way more serious than those of other operating systems. A threat that is serious will obviously be dealt with more quickly, whereas the typically minor vulnerabilities in Unix-based systems do not require urgent attention. The article is waste of bits and means nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramfree17 Posted March 23, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 symantec might or might not be skewing data, and i have no idea what they plan to gain with the publishing of results (a toehold in the MacOSX scene?). i am also after the sensationalistic journalism and the skewing of data to attract attention. the title and the content just dont match unless we are talking about sheer numbers and not context. i should have placed a wink smiley instead of a plain old smiley in the original post. :) ciao! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelcole Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 I read the brief report but not the entire report. It could be as they said Red hat was not as good. They may really be referring to the entire package not the Kernel, as microsoft and other do. If that is so then they could be correct. If you add Open Office - Firefox and some other important business applications then put them against windows and the office suite then MS will lose hands down. So its all relative. If it is in an application the flaw it 99% of the time will not affect the Kernel, But on Windows 99% of the time it can kill the OS. Look at the Sony "Bug" java script:emoticon(':o', 'smid_6') where they Rootkited all the windows machines that ran the music on their computers. That is a MS fault for it being so easy to do. then so hard to remove.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulSe Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 i am also after the sensationalistic journalism and the skewing of data to attract attention. the title and the content just dont match unless we are talking about sheer numbers and not context. Yup, I would say the journalist (or editor, more likely) is more to blame than Symatec here. They knew that a headline like that would lead to big hits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gowator Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 The problem is not the skewing of facts, but rather the approach. The vulnerabilities repaired in Windows were less than, for example, Red Hat - but that is vulnerabilities found by Microsoft. There might be thousands more that were just never detected. Of course, this could be true for Linux and OSX too ;) No because that is the difference between OS and closed source. Linux is ....... just what it is.... OS-X benefits from being built on top of OS... whereas Windows noone can see the code except MS... But these always make me laugh.... the question I ask is why did MS have all these vulnerabilities in the 1st place? On what benefits Symantec.... ?? well saying linux is more secure doesn't help if they sell 90% of theit stuff to Windows users? Telling windows users it CAN be secure, just give us a subscription .... generates income. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkelve Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 (edited) It makes sense... Windows is the most secure OS obviously, because Symantec anti-malware runs on it... but on Linux, Symantec anti-malware does not run on it, so it MUST be less secure Now where's my briefcase full of infringing code? Edited March 23, 2007 by Darkelve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ixthusdan Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 Symantec would be foolish to poke Microsoft too hard, since Microsoft is in the process of ridding the world of unneeded software, like what Symantec produces! :P I also see things differently. For all the shear number of people working on their stuff, Microsoft had 12 serious problems; Red Hat had only 2. As far as the numbers of vulnerabilities, who can say? Microsoft code is a secret. We all must wait until the criminal tells us about the problem before Microsoft will admit to it! Last I checked, Linux stuff has people poking at it all the time; we are not waiting for a criminal to show us a hole in the system. The article is the typical misguided journalistic attempt at "keeping me interested." You want to know about security? Just ask any system administrator how secure windows is! When I recently installed a windows server in a small business network (don't ask why), I also installed other security measures. Naturally, I found every work station infected with various Trojans and spyware. Don't get me wrong. It made me look great. The network sped right up with the reduction of unnecessary traffic. B) The work stations were all windows machines. Their server had been Linux, and the yahoos who sold it to them told them they didn't need to worry about viruses. I guess the journalists aren't the only ones who misguide! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javaguy Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 If it is in an application the flaw it 99% of the time will not affect the Kernel, But on Windows 99% of the time it can kill the OS. Bingo. Counting the number of "flaws" discovered is meaningless. Security flaws discovered in Linux tend to be fairly minor theoretical problems, while Windows malware makes headlines every time millions of computers around the globe are infected and massive amounts of productivity lost. It is not informative to count the number of the former type of flaw and compare it with the number of the latter type--but it makes sense to Symantec, since they sell Windows software and obviously want everybody to be using Windows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw1974 Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 I'd look at it this way. Symantec have to say Windows is more secure to stop people moving away to Linux. If people do that, then Symantec can't sell their products for Linux, because, well, they don't make any!!! If they said Linux was more secure, they'd lose their business instead of gaining it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artificial Intelligence Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 I think they hope to get some cheap points at Microsoft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioEar Posted April 5, 2007 Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 Symantec would be foolish to poke Microsoft too hard, since Microsoft is in the process of ridding the world of unneeded software, like what Symantec produces! :P I don't know why, but I'm sitting here thinking after it's all over with Vista, Microshaft will need Symantec more then ever. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misfitpierce Posted April 5, 2007 Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 Microsoft probably paid symantec to make that statement... lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw1974 Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 Most likely :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.