Re: Windows 7
Posted: 17 Nov 2009, 19:28
Gota wrote:Micro$oft.
they do it for delicious cake - whats wrong with it?
they do it for delicious cake - whats wrong with it?
Gota wrote:Micro$oft.
have you ever hardened a linux system? played with linux security more than idly? do you have ANY idea what you're talking about?Forboding Angel wrote:linux and macs are more susceptible to tampering because they do not have the years and years of hardcore security testing that MS has painfully learned from.
If all virus makers and hackers to to today turn their sights on mac and linux (in this example, ubuntu) and the user being an average know nothing computer user (like a grandmother using windows), I think that mac and linux would crumple much faster than a vista/win7 machine would. Of course that is highly debatable, however, linux in particular does not have all the "common" safeguards that windows machines have. No OS is unhackable, no piece of software is unhackable, that is simply a fact of the game.
aegis wrote:have you ever hardened a linux system? played with linux security more than idly? do you have ANY idea what you're talking about?Forboding Angel wrote:linux and macs are more susceptible to tampering because they do not have the years and years of hardcore security testing that MS has painfully learned from.
If all virus makers and hackers to to today turn their sights on mac and linux (in this example, ubuntu) and the user being an average know nothing computer user (like a grandmother using windows), I think that mac and linux would crumple much faster than a vista/win7 machine would. Of course that is highly debatable, however, linux in particular does not have all the "common" safeguards that windows machines have. No OS is unhackable, no piece of software is unhackable, that is simply a fact of the game.
I am a bit confused, but what part did he address then?neddiedrow wrote:He didn't claim it was unhackable, he didn't even address that point of your argument, Forb.
If all virus makers and hackers to to today turn their sights on mac and linux (in this example, ubuntu) and the user being an average know nothing computer user (like a grandmother using windows), I think that mac and linux would crumple much faster than a vista/win7 machine would. Of course that is highly debatable, however, linux in particular does not have all the "common" safeguards that windows machines have.
you'll be happy to know ubuntu comes off-the-shelf with security hardening, then.Forboding Angel wrote:We aren't talking about hardened here are we? We are talking for the most part off the shelf installs. For windows that also happens to include a virus and spyware checker (as they are an ingrained thing), for linux, it's just an install of the distro.
Your grandmother doesn't know how to harden a linux system any more than she does a windows system, so talking about how hardened something could be is totally irrelevant in this instance.
Edit: Wait a sec... did you just claim that linux is unhackable? That's a bit bold isn't it?