Symantec says Winows is the most seure OS just because other OSes' users doesn't need their products....

Cheers!

What a wacky standard. Windows is the most secure OS because it released the post patches in the quickest time? Well if you have 200, 000 plus security holes, I suspect your going to be releasing patches at quicker intervals. Moreover, the article doesn't even evaluate the seriousness of the security breaches.

It's a joke isn't it? Isn't it?

...Microsoft had 12 serious flaws and it's safer than other operating systems that only had 2 and 1?

Huh?????

Gee, I shouldn't have sold that 1987 Mazda I used to drive. I took it in for repair all the time. My new car isn't nearly as reliable, because I never have to repair it.

The Norwegian-Danish comedy playwright Ludvig Hoberg wrote a comedy - Erasmus Montanus - in which the son of a farmer went to the University, learnt latin and logic and came back with a new name and through logic "proved" that his mother was a stone! Poor Nille began to cry because she wouldn't be a stone, so the good Erasmus proved that she was Ma Nille after all!

They must have read that comedy at Symantec!

Quote

Guest wrote:
Symantec says Winows is the most seure OS just because other OSes' users doesn't need their products....

Cheers!

exactly what i was gonna say *cheers, and a sip*

Quote

Guest wrote:
It's a joke isn't it? Isn't it?

April Fools day is next week

That's not what the report actually said. That was the spin that one "journalist" put on it.

Quote

Intruder wrote:
That's not what the report actually said. That was the spin that one "journalist" put on it.

Yes, thank you.

Symantec didn't say any of this. They just reported the numbers and others used those to make silly cases with them. Hardly Symantec's fault.

More:
http://www.tuaw.com/2007/03/22/fud-windows-is-most-secure-os/

That's the funniest dumbest idiotic thing I've read in a long time! Now read who actually does have the most secure operating system according to the National security Agency.
http://www.applelinks.com/index.php/more/national_security_agency_gives_os_x_104_tiger_thumbs_up_os_x_odyssey_862/

I just read the whole report. The reason that Apple Safari (and it is the Safari web browser, not the whole OS) gets any kind of a black mark is because the one vulnerabilty took over 62 days to patch. However, in the paper, Symantec takes care to mention that "this increase is based on a sample set of only one vulnerabilty, a sample size that is too small to ensure valid conclusions." They also mention that the problem "affected a third-party HTML rendering component, so it is possible that the third-party nature may have slowed the patch release time."

Meanwhile, for the same time period, MSIE had 15 vulnerabilities with a maximum development time of 78 days.

So in other words, although MSIE had 14 more vulnerabilities and actually took longer to sort out at least the worst one, it supposedly is more secure ... right?

First, you don't just count up the number of vulnerabilities and then count up the average number days to fix those vulnerabilities. OS X had less than 10% of the serious vulnerabilities that Windows had, so by this metric Windows is far less secure than OS X.

But let's look at it another way: your average well-run Windows network has multiple layers of defense from malware. My little 20-node network as three different products protecting Exchange, and two more protecting the filesystem on the servers and on the workstations. No Windows network admin in his right mind would run a Windows network without multiple layers of defense. All these defenses cost thousands of dollars a year to implement.

I know of no Macintosh user who uses any protection from viruses or malware. I also know of no Macintosh user who has ever suffered from even one attack from a virus, keylogger, trojan horse, etc.

By this much more practical metric, which OS is more secure? OS X, hands down.

ok and Mac OS X only had 1 serious issue.
Even those Mac Bug a Day guys lost steam pretty quickly in January.

sorry, I find it hard to believe any of the big guys anymore. first Symantec's all PO'd at Microsoft, now they're best friends?

I’m pretty certain that those drugs must be illegal. Either that, or they got hold of a bad batch of moonshine.

What Symantec really wants to do is drum up business by scaring Mac and Linux users into buying their products. Their report doesn't have any basis in reality.

Symantec should have their butts kicked over this one. To ignore the unpatched exploits that STILL exist in the wild is totally reprehensible. Not to mention the millions of Windows users pre-XP SP2 that no longer get patches. And my suspicion that significant numbers of Windows users don't systematically patch anyway..

Here is a section of the actual report, note what they say are the real secuerity threats. Stop being blinded by the Steve Jobs reality distortion field.
"Instead of exploiting high-severity vulnerabilities in direct attacks, attackers are now discovering and
exploiting medium-severity vulnerabilities in third-party applications, such as Web applications and Web
browsers. Those vulnerabilities are often used in “gateway” attacks, in which an initial exploitation takes
place not to breach data immediately, but to establish a foothold from which subsequent, more malicious
attacks can be launched.
Symantec has observed high levels of malicious activity across the Internet, with increases in phishing,
spam, bot networks, Trojans, and zero-day threats. However, whereas in the past these threats were often
used separately, attackers are now refining their methods and consolidating their assets to create global
networks that support coordinated criminal activity."

Those may very well be the security threats. However, how many of them are actually working on OS X? I've seen no hard numbers regarding Macs involved in 'bot neworks, nor anything other than anecdotal reports of trojans affecting the average OS X user. Where are the reports from respected companies that say "200,000 Macintoshes were enslaved into a bot network."? Or "Trojan horse affects 50,000 Macintoshes."? But you do see reports of the Blaster worm affecting over 25 million Windows computers, for example.

Phishing is primarily social engineering, and probably affects all OS's equally (as it is successful because of the user, not the OS). The same could be said of spam.

And none of it has anything to do with the base article,which erroneously states that the Symantec report claims that Windows is the most secure OS. Not even Microsoft believes that.

I wonder how the author of the article responds to this?

Quote

Intruder wrote:
I wonder how the author of the article responds to this?

Check the oldest comment on that article.