Surprise, Microsoft Listed as Most Secure OS

[Tetrahedron]

http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3667201

March 21, 2007
Surprise, Microsoft Listed as Most Secure OS
By Andy Patrizio


UPDATED: Microsoft is frequently dinged for having insecure products, with security holes and vulnerabilities. But Symantec (Quote), no friend of Microsoft, said in its latest research report that when it comes to widely-used operating systems, Microsoft is doing better overall than its leading commercial competitors.

[eeyrjmr]

Windows - 39, 12 severe, average 21 day fix
Mac - 49, 1 severe, average 66 day fix
Red Hat - 208, 2 severe, average 13 day fix


Windows had the fewest number of patches and the shortest average patch development time of the five operating systems it monitored
How, how is that statement the truth.
Windows has the highest sever count also 1/2 of RH ones are just crashes not expoits... I do get the GLSA feed ;) )
Likewise how can the report say they have hte shortest average patch dev time when RH is knocking them out in 13 days w.r.t. 21 for MS (not ot mention the number of zero-days expolits MS leave hanging around)

I really cannot see how these results say Windows is more secure?
its good that windows is getting more secure, its about time, but please such reports are biased (even the pro-linux ones) and even blatently lies

[markt435]

least it didn't take em as long to issue a patch as Apple did... :rolleyes: for marketing such a secure OS, they sure took their time patching it didn't they :D

[sn3ak3rp1mp]

least it didn't take em as long to issue a patch as Apple did... :rolleyes: for marketing such a secure OS, they sure took their time patching it didn't they :D

Now if they'd (Apple) only add an "Allow or Continue" feature, it'd give them some more patch development time! ;-)

[Catweazle]

Windows - 39, 12 severe, average 21 day fix
Mac - 49, 1 severe, average 66 day fix
Red Hat - 208, 2 severe, average 13 day fix

How, how is that statement the truth.
Windows has the highest sever count also 1/2 of RH ones are just crashes not expoits... I do get the GLSA feed ;) )
Likewise how can the report say they have hte shortest average patch dev time when RH is knocking them out in 13 days w.r.t. 21 for MS (not ot mention the number of zero-days expolits MS leave hanging around)

I really cannot see how these results say Windows is more secure?
its good that windows is getting more secure, its about time, but please such reports are biased (even the pro-linux ones) and even blatently lies

..Red Hat Linux was the next-best performer, requiring an average of 58 days to address a total of 208 vulnerabilities. ...

The 13-day turnaround figure referred to Microsoft's performance during the first half of 2006 ;)

[zacdl]

I knew Apple was awefully slow in security fixes, but I didn't know Linux has that many problems. You learn something new every day I guess.

I've said it before and I'll say it again- Apple is great at marketing. They dwell on misinformed users :)

[eeyrjmr]

I knew Apple was awefully slow in security fixes, but I didn't know Linux has that many problems. You learn something new every day I guess.

I've said it before and I'll say it again- Apple is great at marketing. They dwell on misinformed users :)

again define problems...
For starters the RH list actually contains vuln for the likes of Mozilla, gimp, PHP,... products that are actually NOT! part of the base-OS. MS and Apple fix's are for the base-OS. If you then go and look at the list that actually effect Base-RH the list is extreamly low

2nd the severity of the flaws in RH are completely different from the MS one (and where I have always had an issue with this report). you don't tend to get remote code execution via permission escalation as you do in MS ;)

All OS's can be as insecure or as secure as each other. This is just another pissing contest (like the AV one) in all honesty. The real show is the actual user who can completly ruin the security of an OS.

Even in Vista you still gotta go as admin to actually run and use application... in that respect Windows is an extreamly insecure system (I don't have to on my linux or OSX setup for games or applications for general use)

[bbz_Ghost]

Even in Vista you still gotta go as admin to actually run and use application...

No offense, but once and for all I think you need to just stop commenting on Vista since:

a) you don't use it and you're coming from the perspective of an admitted Linux user and...
b) what you just said about Vista is WRONG. PERIOD. FINITO.

'Nuff typed.

[Catweazle]

Even in Vista you still gotta go as admin to actually run and use application... in that respect Windows is an extreamly insecure system (I don't have to on my linux or OSX setup for games or applications for general use)
No you don't. That's simply not true.

[eeyrjmr]

No offense, but once and for all I think you need to just stop commenting on Vista since:

a) you don't use it and you're coming from the perspective of an admitted Linux user and...
b) what you just said about Vista is WRONG. PERIOD. FINITO.

'Nuff typed.


really!
Matlab needs to be run with escallated permissions
BF* needs to be run with escallated permission

End of!

and there are reason's I don't use matlab (and are sticking with XP) and that is because Vista just does not cut it yet. shite even been called "lazy" for not jumping on the band-wagon which is Vista, even tho I have always waited for SP1 for all MS operating systems :rolleyes:

When reports are skewed like this one some extra info is needed. MS patch's are for their products. RH patch's are for their bundle, some of which they have massive control over (libc) and other not really (conky)

before this continues down the slippery path it is going just look at the patch's like this
what is the patch:{product,application} ratio for all 3? and what single product/application has the most and what is that count

[Koko56]

least it didn't take em as long to issue a patch as Apple did... :rolleyes: for marketing such a secure OS, they sure took their time patching it didn't they :D

Took 18 months to fully 'patch' OSX

I knew Apple was awefully slow in security fixes, but I didn't know Linux has that many problems. You learn something new every day I guess.

I've said it before and I'll say it again- Apple is great at marketing. They dwell on misinformed users :)

100% true.

1wellhowdydo1 - he is a crazy MAc !!!!!! on youtube - check his comments out. lol

[zacdl]

Took 18 months to fully 'patch' OSX
You talk like it is history! They are still patching it! Did anyone else notice after this Symantec report- Apple announced that they are backing up the date for the Leopard release? I wonder why, lol. This is after all of Apple's talk of "reliability", "on time", and all that BS.
Like I said, Mac users are so misinformed. Really the only reason there are not more problems with it, is due to people don't want to waste time with 2% of the computer market.
But this guy (http://projects.info-pull.com/moab/)proves if you start looking for problems- they are all over. This was even after this Symantec report!