Author Topic: Windows XP More Secure than Linux  (Read 17223 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

kubecj

  • Guest
Re: Windows XP More Secure than Linux
« Reply #15 on: January 17, 2007, 07:29:13 PM »
The _NUMBER_ of vulnerabilities means _NOTHING_.

If you don't understand the above, the discussion is useless.

Offline bob3160

  • Avast Überevangelist
  • Probably Bot
  • *****
  • Posts: 48697
  • 64 Years of Happiness
    • bob3160 Protecting Yourself, Your Computer and, Your Identity
Re: Windows XP More Secure than Linux
« Reply #16 on: January 17, 2007, 11:21:39 PM »
As one of those folks:
Quote
"Maybe because some folks from the land of the free would have (again) objections and would like to teach us apes what is a freedom of speech?
Thanks for not closing this thread.  :) I just don't know where the remark to apes applies ???
Free Security Seminar: https://bit.ly/bobg2023  -  Important: http://www.organdonor.gov/ -- My Web Site: http://bob3160.strikingly.com/ - Win 11 Pro v24H2 64bit, 32 Gig Ram, 1TB SSD, Avast Free 24.4.6112, How to Successfully Install Avast http://goo.gl/VLXdeRepair & Clean Install https://goo.gl/t7aJGq -- My Online Activity https://bit.ly/BobGInternet

justin1278

  • Guest
Re: Windows XP More Secure than Linux
« Reply #17 on: January 17, 2007, 11:32:22 PM »
Linux may have a few more vulnerabilities, but last I checked, Linux didn't need additional security software....

Mastertech

  • Guest
Re: Windows XP More Secure than Linux
« Reply #18 on: January 18, 2007, 01:05:10 AM »
The _NUMBER_ of vulnerabilities means _NOTHING_.

If you don't understand the above, the discussion is useless.
Really so if someone has 30 more ways to compromise your system that is not less secure? Try selling someone else a bridge. No I don't understand denial of the obvious.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2007, 01:16:22 AM by Mastertech »

Offline DavidR

  • Avast Überevangelist
  • Certainly Bot
  • *****
  • Posts: 89428
  • No support PMs thanks
Re: Windows XP More Secure than Linux
« Reply #19 on: January 18, 2007, 01:11:04 AM »
Yawn, time for this one to go to bed we aren't interested.
Windows 10 Home 64bit/ Acer Aspire F15/ Intel Core i5 7200U 2.5GHz, 8GB DDR4 memory, 256GB SSD, 1TB HDD/ avast! free 24.6.6121 (build 24.6.9241.848) UI 1.0.809/ Firefox, uBlock Origin, uMatrix/ MailWasher Pro/ Avast! Mobile Security

Offline bob3160

  • Avast Überevangelist
  • Probably Bot
  • *****
  • Posts: 48697
  • 64 Years of Happiness
    • bob3160 Protecting Yourself, Your Computer and, Your Identity
Re: Windows XP More Secure than Linux
« Reply #20 on: January 18, 2007, 01:14:55 AM »
Agree with you David.
The easiest way to accomplish this, is to not post in here any more which is exactly what I'll be doing.
Free Security Seminar: https://bit.ly/bobg2023  -  Important: http://www.organdonor.gov/ -- My Web Site: http://bob3160.strikingly.com/ - Win 11 Pro v24H2 64bit, 32 Gig Ram, 1TB SSD, Avast Free 24.4.6112, How to Successfully Install Avast http://goo.gl/VLXdeRepair & Clean Install https://goo.gl/t7aJGq -- My Online Activity https://bit.ly/BobGInternet

Mastertech

  • Guest
Re: Windows XP More Secure than Linux
« Reply #21 on: January 18, 2007, 01:17:41 AM »
Yawn, time for this one to go to bed we aren't interested.
Aren't interested in security? Shock. :o

Offline Lisandro

  • Avast team
  • Certainly Bot
  • *
  • Posts: 67194
Re: Windows XP More Secure than Linux
« Reply #22 on: January 18, 2007, 01:40:23 AM »
Agree with you David. The easiest way to accomplish this, is to not post in here any more which is exactly what I'll be doing.

Thanks for not closing this thread.  :)

I'm not following your mind Bob  ???

The best things in life are free.

Offline .: Mac :.

  • Avast Überevangelist
  • Ultra Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 5093
Re: Windows XP More Secure than Linux
« Reply #23 on: January 18, 2007, 04:41:15 AM »
Im with kubecj on this one.  Security takes in to account other things besides the number of vulnerabilities.
"People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware." - Alan Kay

justin1278

  • Guest
Re: Windows XP More Secure than Linux
« Reply #24 on: January 18, 2007, 05:13:07 AM »
Im with kubecj on this one.  Security takes in to account other things besides the number of vulnerabilities.


Exactly, even though XP may have less vulnerabilities you still are required to use security software if you want to keep your system running. But with Linux, you don't need to have security software, the risk is not there, yes there is security software available for Linux, but it isn't needed as much as XP. Why? Because Linux isn't a target.

Its like saying OS X has more vulnerabilities then XP, it doesn't matter, OS X is not as big a target as Windows, and by default is more secure.

Mastertech

  • Guest
Re: Windows XP More Secure than Linux
« Reply #25 on: January 18, 2007, 05:27:35 AM »
While it is a good idea to have security software it is not required for Windows XP and your system can stay running. All you need is what comes with Windows XP; fully patch XP, enable the Firewall and run as a limited user, nothing will happen to you and your system will stay running fine. This is how most Linux users run which is impractical for the average Windows user.

Security has everything to do with the vulnerabilties since they are how the far majority get infected.

Offline FreewheelinFrank

  • Avast Evangelist
  • Ultra Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 4872
  • I'm a GNU
    • Don't Surf in the Nude!
Re: Windows XP More Secure than Linux
« Reply #26 on: January 18, 2007, 10:02:34 AM »
People get infected through exploited, unpatched vulnerabilities. A concept which you have bone headedly refused to comprehend.

I'm sure this applies to Linux as well as to other software, but as a Windows user, I can't really add anything further.
     Bambleweeny 57 sub-meson brain     Don't Surf in the Nude Blog

Offline igor

  • Avast team
  • Serious Graphoman
  • *
  • Posts: 11865
    • AVAST Software
Re: Windows XP More Secure than Linux
« Reply #27 on: January 18, 2007, 11:14:03 AM »
People get infected through exploited, unpatched vulnerabilities.

That's not true, of course. Not all vulnerabilities, even if exploited, can be used to infect the target machine.

The word "vulnerability" is way too general to draw any conclusion from it... and that's why the "number of vulnerabilities" means nothing for the "security" (also somehow general term).

If Windows had 200 vulnerabilities, allowing remote code execution by simply sending a handcrafted network packet there, and Linux had 201 vulnerabilities, allowing DoS attack on the machine if you already had an account there - which one would you call more secure?
[Disclaimer: I'm not saying that it's this case, neither I'm saying that Linux is more secure than Windows or vice versa - I'm just trying to get the point through.]

To learn anything relevant about security, you'd have to weight each vulnerability by its seriousness (which is something hard to evaluate objectively), you'd have to consider how easy it is exploitable, how many machines it affects, for how long it remained unpatched... and finally, you should also count all the unknown vulnerabilities which might be exploited in the future. So, all in all, you're up for a mission impossible.

Offline polonus

  • Avast Überevangelist
  • Probably Bot
  • *****
  • Posts: 33976
  • malware fighter
Re: Windows XP More Secure than Linux
« Reply #28 on: January 18, 2007, 11:30:27 AM »
Hi Igor,

Isn't it so that all malware for it to be activated has to be run wittingly or unwittingly. I agree you do not know what is coming down the pipeline in the order of exploits. Important is to block general malware vectors (active script, insecure links with malware code), so the user can take a scala of measures to deminish the risks he or she runs. Keep all your software up to date, patch fully, and run a minimal user account helps a lot.

polonus
Cybersecurity is more of an attitude than anything else. Avast Evangelists.

Use NoScript, a limited user account and a virtual machine and be safe(r)!

Offline FreewheelinFrank

  • Avast Evangelist
  • Ultra Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 4872
  • I'm a GNU
    • Don't Surf in the Nude!
Re: Windows XP More Secure than Linux
« Reply #29 on: January 18, 2007, 11:33:33 AM »
Hi Igor,

Quote
People get infected through exploited, unpatched vulnerabilities.

I meant if course that all infections via a security vulnerability are the result of an exploited, unpatched vulnerability (whether because no patch exists or because the user has not applied it).

This does not imply that all vulnerabilities can be exploited and used to infect a program or OS. As you rightly point out, vulnerabilities may only allow DoS attacks. They may not even be exploitable.

     Bambleweeny 57 sub-meson brain     Don't Surf in the Nude Blog