World Police
Posts: 4,771 
Videos: 1
Videos: 1
March 23rd, 2007, 08:27 AM
This is kind of ammusing, Microsoft is listed at the most secure OS over the last 6 months, according to symantec.
http://www.internetnews.com/security...le.php/3667201
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.
The information was a part of Symantec's 11th Internet Security Threat Report. The report, released this week, covered a huge range of security and vulnerability issues over the last six months of 2006, including operating systems.
The report found that Microsoft (Quote) Windows had the fewest number of patches and the shortest average patch development time of the five operating systems it monitored in the last six months of 2006.
During this period, 39 vulnerabilities, 12 of which were ranked high priority or severe, were found in Microsoft Windows and the company took an average of 21 days to fix them. It's an increase of the 22 vulnerabilities and 13-day turnaround time for the first half of 2006 but still bested the competition handily.
Red Hat Linux was the next-best performer, requiring an average of 58 days to address a total of 208 vulnerabilities. However, this was a significant increase in both problems and fix time over the first half of 2006, when there were 42 vulnerabilities in Red Hat and the average turnaround was 13 days.
The one bright spot in all of this is that of the 208 Red Hat vulnerabilities, the most of the top five operating systems, only two were considered high severity, 130 were medium severity, and 76 were considered low.
Then there's Mac OS X. Despite the latest TV ads ridiculing the security in Vista with a Matrix-like Agent playing the UAC in Vista, Apple (Quote) has nothing to brag about. Symantec found 43 vulnerabilities in Mac OS X and a 66 day turnaround on fixes. Fortunately, only one was high priority.
Like the others, this is also an increase over the first half of the year. For the first half of 2006, 21 vulnerabilities were found in Mac OS X and Apple took on average 37 days to fix them.
Bringing up the rear were HP-UX from Hewlett Packard (Quote) and Solaris from Sun (Quote). HP-UX had 98 vulnerabilities in the second half of 06 and took 101 days to fix them. Sun, though, really dragged its feet, taking on average 122 days to fix 63 vulnerabilities. It wasn't doing much better in the first half of 06, either. It took 89 days to fix 16 vulnerabilities.
Alfred Huger, vice president of engineering for Symantec Security Center, said the real problem is with Web applications, where two-thirds of all vulnerabilities are found. Operating systems are fairly minor, and despite the long time periods, the vendors are doing "an ok job, just not stellar."
The response from vendor's mentioned in the report was mixed. A Microsoft spokesperson issued a statement to internetnews.com that said in part "As a part of this industry, Microsoft continues to adapt to address these threats and continues to work with others in the industry to protect customers as a whole."
Anuj Nayar, manager of Apple's Mac OS X and developer relations, would only say "Apple takes security very seriously and has a great track record of addressing vulnerabilities before they affect you."
Sun specifically disputed Symantec's data and conclusions in a statement emailed to internetnews.com:
"Symantec's data on security vulnerabilities simply does not match Sun's. We can't verify Symantec's sources and consider their report on Sun inaccurate. From 7/1/06-12/31/06 we published 54 Security Sun Alerts, of which 36 were for Solaris - substantially less the 63 Solaris vulnerabilities claimed in the Symantec report. Past analysis of our vulnerability response shows we responded within five days for the vast majority of vulnerabilities, but averages are skewed by a small minority of 3rd party applications (or code) that are included/bundled with Solaris. Sun responds to all reports of security vulnerabilities, and we stand by our reputation and established track record of responding to security vulnerabilities with Sun Alerts and a quick turnaround time for patches.
Analyst Charles King with Pund-IT said Microsoft has had to be aggressive about dealing with security issues because it's such a big target. In that regard, the company has met the challenge.
"I think in a way that a culture of having been under attack for a decade or more has led to the company taking a very proactive approach to fixing those problems," he told internetnews.com. "In the last 24 months, they've taken a very aggressive stance toward the security of their system. In review after review of Vista, despite its faults, the security of the system has been considerably better than XP."
By contrast, King said there have been complaints in the past about Apple's lack of response to security issues. But as the Mac and Linux gain marketshare, they will have to respond much quicker.
"Are the old models of response to security issues going to be able to fly or will those companies start to take some serious publicity hits from these increasing vulnerabilities and a relatively lackadaisical response to fixing those vulnerabilities?" he asked.
This article was Updated to include comments by Sun Microsystems that were received after the original story was filed.
This is kind of ammusing, Microsoft is listed at the most secure OS over the last 6 months, according to symantec.
http://www.internetnews.com/security...le.php/3667201
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.
The information was a part of Symantec's 11th Internet Security Threat Report. The report, released this week, covered a huge range of security and vulnerability issues over the last six months of 2006, including operating systems.
The report found that Microsoft (Quote) Windows had the fewest number of patches and the shortest average patch development time of the five operating systems it monitored in the last six months of 2006.
During this period, 39 vulnerabilities, 12 of which were ranked high priority or severe, were found in Microsoft Windows and the company took an average of 21 days to fix them. It's an increase of the 22 vulnerabilities and 13-day turnaround time for the first half of 2006 but still bested the competition handily.
Red Hat Linux was the next-best performer, requiring an average of 58 days to address a total of 208 vulnerabilities. However, this was a significant increase in both problems and fix time over the first half of 2006, when there were 42 vulnerabilities in Red Hat and the average turnaround was 13 days.
The one bright spot in all of this is that of the 208 Red Hat vulnerabilities, the most of the top five operating systems, only two were considered high severity, 130 were medium severity, and 76 were considered low.
Then there's Mac OS X. Despite the latest TV ads ridiculing the security in Vista with a Matrix-like Agent playing the UAC in Vista, Apple (Quote) has nothing to brag about. Symantec found 43 vulnerabilities in Mac OS X and a 66 day turnaround on fixes. Fortunately, only one was high priority.
Like the others, this is also an increase over the first half of the year. For the first half of 2006, 21 vulnerabilities were found in Mac OS X and Apple took on average 37 days to fix them.
Bringing up the rear were HP-UX from Hewlett Packard (Quote) and Solaris from Sun (Quote). HP-UX had 98 vulnerabilities in the second half of 06 and took 101 days to fix them. Sun, though, really dragged its feet, taking on average 122 days to fix 63 vulnerabilities. It wasn't doing much better in the first half of 06, either. It took 89 days to fix 16 vulnerabilities.
Alfred Huger, vice president of engineering for Symantec Security Center, said the real problem is with Web applications, where two-thirds of all vulnerabilities are found. Operating systems are fairly minor, and despite the long time periods, the vendors are doing "an ok job, just not stellar."
The response from vendor's mentioned in the report was mixed. A Microsoft spokesperson issued a statement to internetnews.com that said in part "As a part of this industry, Microsoft continues to adapt to address these threats and continues to work with others in the industry to protect customers as a whole."
Anuj Nayar, manager of Apple's Mac OS X and developer relations, would only say "Apple takes security very seriously and has a great track record of addressing vulnerabilities before they affect you."
Sun specifically disputed Symantec's data and conclusions in a statement emailed to internetnews.com:
"Symantec's data on security vulnerabilities simply does not match Sun's. We can't verify Symantec's sources and consider their report on Sun inaccurate. From 7/1/06-12/31/06 we published 54 Security Sun Alerts, of which 36 were for Solaris - substantially less the 63 Solaris vulnerabilities claimed in the Symantec report. Past analysis of our vulnerability response shows we responded within five days for the vast majority of vulnerabilities, but averages are skewed by a small minority of 3rd party applications (or code) that are included/bundled with Solaris. Sun responds to all reports of security vulnerabilities, and we stand by our reputation and established track record of responding to security vulnerabilities with Sun Alerts and a quick turnaround time for patches.
Analyst Charles King with Pund-IT said Microsoft has had to be aggressive about dealing with security issues because it's such a big target. In that regard, the company has met the challenge.
"I think in a way that a culture of having been under attack for a decade or more has led to the company taking a very proactive approach to fixing those problems," he told internetnews.com. "In the last 24 months, they've taken a very aggressive stance toward the security of their system. In review after review of Vista, despite its faults, the security of the system has been considerably better than XP."
By contrast, King said there have been complaints in the past about Apple's lack of response to security issues. But as the Mac and Linux gain marketshare, they will have to respond much quicker.
"Are the old models of response to security issues going to be able to fly or will those companies start to take some serious publicity hits from these increasing vulnerabilities and a relatively lackadaisical response to fixing those vulnerabilities?" he asked.
This article was Updated to include comments by Sun Microsystems that were received after the original story was filed.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,612
March 23rd, 2007, 08:50 AM
It's not often a single thread provides the opportunity to respond to several others...
Inspiration of the Holy Spirit...
What happens after you die....
Migrate to Vista...
After you die you go to live in Ontario where you will have to use Vista...ultimate proof of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit....
It's not often a single thread provides the opportunity to respond to several others...
Inspiration of the Holy Spirit...
What happens after you die....
Migrate to Vista...
After you die you go to live in Ontario where you will have to use Vista...ultimate proof of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit....
World Police
Posts: 4,771
Videos: 1
Videos: 1
March 23rd, 2007, 09:02 AM
Quoting MikeyDB
Vista is the new testament Mikey.
It's not often a single thread provides the opportunity to respond to several others...
Inspiration of the Holy Spirit...
What happens after you die....
Migrate to Vista...
After you die you go to live in Ontario where you will have to use Vista...ultimate proof of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit....
Inspiration of the Holy Spirit...
What happens after you die....
Migrate to Vista...
After you die you go to live in Ontario where you will have to use Vista...ultimate proof of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit....
World Police
Posts: 4,771
Videos: 1
Videos: 1
March 23rd, 2007, 09:25 AM
Quoting MikeyDB
Depends on the operating system I think. If you are running 98/ME you can do that I believe. If you are running Win2K/XP, there is no fdisk.
format for exorcism....I like it!
Say Mr. Resident Windows Guru...
Can I fdisk a second hard disk and reformat it while its installed in my machine as a slave?
Say Mr. Resident Windows Guru...
Can I fdisk a second hard disk and reformat it while its installed in my machine as a slave?
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,612
March 23rd, 2007, 09:33 AM
Followup to the Guru...
I'm using WIN XP Pro....other than all the security holes...and the endless 'patches' it works OK...
I've used fdisk from a DOS 6.22 disk to fdisk my hard drives before I install a new OS and it seems to work OK...
The slave drive I have I rescued from the dumpster behind my place and it had Compaq's Windows on it ...
Not a fan of Compaq by any stretch of the imagination...
Can I do this fdisk trick from the floppy DOS 6.22 to prepare the slave as a "scratch-pad drive"...i.e. no operating system...just gigs of empty space...
Thanks Durk
Followup to the Guru...
I'm using WIN XP Pro....other than all the security holes...and the endless 'patches' it works OK...
I've used fdisk from a DOS 6.22 disk to fdisk my hard drives before I install a new OS and it seems to work OK...
The slave drive I have I rescued from the dumpster behind my place and it had Compaq's Windows on it ...
Not a fan of Compaq by any stretch of the imagination...
Can I do this fdisk trick from the floppy DOS 6.22 to prepare the slave as a "scratch-pad drive"...i.e. no operating system...just gigs of empty space...
Thanks Durk
World Police
Posts: 4,771
Videos: 1
Videos: 1
March 23rd, 2007, 09:44 AM
Mikey, if the drive you picked up only has one partition, I would just format it within windows. Go to my computer, right clock the drive and choose format. If it has multiple partitions on it, I would boot to dos and fdisk.
Do you plan on moving your swap file on to the drive?
Mikey, if the drive you picked up only has one partition, I would just format it within windows. Go to my computer, right clock the drive and choose format. If it has multiple partitions on it, I would boot to dos and fdisk.
Do you plan on moving your swap file on to the drive?
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,612
March 23rd, 2007, 09:53 AM
Hey DurkGuru...
It has Compaq's "recovery" (system software) on a second partition....I've never liked the idea that HP and Compaq et al can get away with not providing a system CD and instead put this "recovery" software on the same drive as a person uses daily...what happens when daily use...picks up a sector virus or some other bad nasty and the drive goes for a dump....you're "recovery" partition is toast too...poor planning in my mind...
Yeah I'm gonna move all my dynamic stuff to that drive and hope that if something evil this way comes....it'll just eat this dumpster drive...
Hey DurkGuru...
It has Compaq's "recovery" (system software) on a second partition....I've never liked the idea that HP and Compaq et al can get away with not providing a system CD and instead put this "recovery" software on the same drive as a person uses daily...what happens when daily use...picks up a sector virus or some other bad nasty and the drive goes for a dump....you're "recovery" partition is toast too...poor planning in my mind...
Yeah I'm gonna move all my dynamic stuff to that drive and hope that if something evil this way comes....it'll just eat this dumpster drive...
World Police
Posts: 4,771
Videos: 1
Videos: 1
March 23rd, 2007, 09:57 AM
I remember having a compaq about 10 years ago which encountered the exact problem you mentioned. Ended up having to kill all the partitions to get the virus off.
Dell, Compaq etc should provide their customers with real windows disks, none of this hidden partition BS.
I remember having a compaq about 10 years ago which encountered the exact problem you mentioned. Ended up having to kill all the partitions to get the virus off.
Dell, Compaq etc should provide their customers with real windows disks, none of this hidden partition BS.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,612
March 23rd, 2007, 10:06 AM
AMEN Durka!
I just prepared a Lenovo laptop....for a buddy. No system CD's but it did have a utility for burning "recovery disks"....
Have you had any experience with this methodology? If you have...does one of the recovery disks actually boot the puter into WIN XP...?
AMEN Durka!
I just prepared a Lenovo laptop....for a buddy. No system CD's but it did have a utility for burning "recovery disks"....
Have you had any experience with this methodology? If you have...does one of the recovery disks actually boot the puter into WIN XP...?
World Police
Posts: 4,771
Videos: 1
Videos: 1
March 23rd, 2007, 10:17 AM
Mikey,
I have never burned a recovery disk, I suspect it will basically copy the contents of the hidden partion on to the cd allowing you to boot the disc and do a system wipe.
Mikey,
I have never burned a recovery disk, I suspect it will basically copy the contents of the hidden partion on to the cd allowing you to boot the disc and do a system wipe.
Bright Spark
Posts: 315
Location: Atikokan, Ontario
Location: Atikokan, Ontario
March 23rd, 2007, 11:17 AM
I'll have to say, the only good thing about computer manufacturers leaving the install files on the hard drive is that when people bring in their computers to get fixed because they've gotten so much ad-ware and viruses from porn sites and dodgy emails, it's easy for me to just format it for them and charge them a buttload of money. Software repairs on computers has to be one of the largest ripoffs I've ever seen; it's all profit, no work at all if you know what you're doing, and can be done without you even being there.
It doesn't matter how many times you say "Bring all of the CDs the computer came with," or "Bring the Windows Setup Disk," they never do, or they bring just the disk and not the serial number on the sleeve. At least this way with the streamlined version I can just set it and get on to selling other stuff.
I'll have to say, the only good thing about computer manufacturers leaving the install files on the hard drive is that when people bring in their computers to get fixed because they've gotten so much ad-ware and viruses from porn sites and dodgy emails, it's easy for me to just format it for them and charge them a buttload of money. Software repairs on computers has to be one of the largest ripoffs I've ever seen; it's all profit, no work at all if you know what you're doing, and can be done without you even being there.
It doesn't matter how many times you say "Bring all of the CDs the computer came with," or "Bring the Windows Setup Disk," they never do, or they bring just the disk and not the serial number on the sleeve. At least this way with the streamlined version I can just set it and get on to selling other stuff.
A modern nomad
Posts: 1,118
Location: Berlin, Germany
Location: Berlin, Germany
March 23rd, 2007, 11:54 AM
Its almost like they told the truth: they went out and asked a bunch of people what bothered them about windows, and then they fixed it as best they could.
I vote for Vista. It runs amazingly smooth, and by ensuring that more people are running genuine, maybe the number of windows users will decrease and the virus writers will start targetting linux.
Quoting snowles
That is exactly the system my wife is running and Vista is amazing on that, not just passable, I mean fantastic. There are a few minor nuisances, which are basically the equivelent of having to have a root terminal opened up in linux (so you can install stuff without hastle), but I have never seen an operating system load up in ~2s before. Even linux using twm takes more time than Vista.
Despite their 'minimum' claims, you pretty much have to have a dual-core, 256mB video card, 2 gigs of RAM and a buttload of hard drive space for it to run even reasonably well.
Its almost like they told the truth: they went out and asked a bunch of people what bothered them about windows, and then they fixed it as best they could.
I vote for Vista. It runs amazingly smooth, and by ensuring that more people are running genuine, maybe the number of windows users will decrease and the virus writers will start targetting linux.
Member
Posts: 52
March 23rd, 2007, 12:23 PM
@MikeDB
New breed laptops have two or more hidden partitions - Usually One partition is for Diagnostics and second partition is for Holding Restore points(Like Ghost) or Operating System Driver Disk. so Check at least dozen times before you delete/format any partition. just my 2 cents.
@Niflmi r
Good you like Windows Vista, But for People who have a lesser hardware - Do they deserve lesser computing/functionality. Dunno.
@durkadurka
A few years - say about 2000 - Industry Experts (OS/Software) predicted that MS was gonna launch its own version of most popular softwares in Market - Symantec too was in list - MS has now its own Anti Virus and with forthcoming releases of Windows - Symantec wont even be compatible. Netscape(IE) was first to take bow. Then came Wordperfect(MS Word), then it was novell netware (Windows NT), then it Virtual Machine/vmware, Right now we have SQL Server vs Oracle, Linux vs Windows,Apache vs IIS and more . But worst part was when MS started charging Software Vendors for MS compatible Logo. MS was also charging Hardware vendors for bundling drivers for related hardware. MS also had Visual C++ or Visual basic and more.
But again its just me.
@MikeDB
New breed laptops have two or more hidden partitions - Usually One partition is for Diagnostics and second partition is for Holding Restore points(Like Ghost) or Operating System Driver Disk. so Check at least dozen times before you delete/format any partition. just my 2 cents.
@Niflmi r
Good you like Windows Vista, But for People who have a lesser hardware - Do they deserve lesser computing/functionality. Dunno.
@durkadurka
A few years - say about 2000 - Industry Experts (OS/Software) predicted that MS was gonna launch its own version of most popular softwares in Market - Symantec too was in list - MS has now its own Anti Virus and with forthcoming releases of Windows - Symantec wont even be compatible. Netscape(IE) was first to take bow. Then came Wordperfect(MS Word), then it was novell netware (Windows NT), then it Virtual Machine/vmware, Right now we have SQL Server vs Oracle, Linux vs Windows,Apache vs IIS and more . But worst part was when MS started charging Software Vendors for MS compatible Logo. MS was also charging Hardware vendors for bundling drivers for related hardware. MS also had Visual C++ or Visual basic and more.
But again its just me.
That's why I swithed to Mcafee.
Member
Posts: 52
March 23rd, 2007, 12:37 PM
one of the reason for starting this thread was to analyze the usablity of given tool(in given case - Vista) and if pricing/ecnonomics had anything to do with choice, since MS is already a big player. What are the motivating factors - Functionality, Price, or other. Later on that.
one of the reason for starting this thread was to analyze the usablity of given tool(in given case - Vista) and if pricing/ecnonomics had anything to do with choice, since MS is already a big player. What are the motivating factors - Functionality, Price, or other. Later on that.
