NYT Security Tip - Choose Non-Microsoft Products

Giorgio Maone writes "The New York Times article 'Tips for Protecting the Home Computer' follows a story we recently discussed about the proliferation of botnets, and contains some statements which may sound quite unusual from mainstream press, especially if targeted to home users: 'Using a non-Windows-based PC may be one defense against these programs, known as malware ... Alternative browsers, like Firefox and Opera, may insulate users ... NoScript, a plug-in utility, can limit the ability of remote programs to run potentially damaging programs on your PC'."

Comments

Alternative browsers = more secure?

[Myria]

We hear this suggestion all the time, but the reality is that the reason Firefox and Opera are "more secure" is that there are less people using them. Their market share isn't worthwhile to the commercial malware authors.

Every "dot" release of Firefox you'll see 5 more bugs colored red, indicating an exploitable bug. Opera fixes them in secret, but it still has them. All the browsers have security problems, and it's mostly due to the complexity of all the features that have to be supported.

I hope Firefox is at least compiled with /GS and /NXCOMPAT.

Melissa

Yeah, right

[El Lobo]

The most secure product EVER is the product that nobody uses. OK, follow the so called "expert's" advice. If everybody follows them, MS will be the most secure in the world.

Wow! Talk about complete incompetence!

[LinuxIsRetarded]

Mac isn't just "an" answer, it is the *only* answer. You want security and not too worried about simplicity? Linux or a Mac.

Talk about fanboy CYA. First you state that a Mac (presumably you mean the OS X operating system, as you use it in the same breath as Linux) is the only solution, and then only a few words later you state that Linux is a possibility as well. Can't risk being modded down for not being a mindless Linux fanboy on Slashdot, can you?

You willing to re-work of all Microsoft's incorrect settings

Windows lets you create normal user accounts with limited privileges. The installation requires that you create one administrative account and then as many limited user accounts as you desire. The only incorrect settings are those you ignorantly apply yourself.

patch all the browser vulnerabilities

How is this different than any other browser (or any other application, for that matter)? All applications have defects, such as Firefox, Quicktime, Opera, and OS X. These defects need to be patched (or perhaps I should assume that you don't patch vulnerabilities in software you use- including those in OS X- because you feel there's no threat).

reboot your PC every few days because MS has discovered another severe vulnerability in their spaghetti code

Are you serious? Every few days? Considering "Patch Tuesday" occurs once a month, you would be required to, at most, reboot your machine once a month. The reboot is only required in certain circumstances because Windows won't let you update a file that's currently in use. *nix systems allow modifications to active files, but active processes still only are able to use the previous version, which can be a nightmare when applying patches. While it's a matter of preference, I know many administrators that would rather reboot a machine to ensure that all processes are using the updated library than being forced to make this determination manually.

Endless entertainment for puzzle solvers who don't care about their data security or computer availability

This doesn't say much for your technical abilities. I have been highly successful in educating the least knowledgeable computer users (read: home users) in basic security practices. It's quite simple- don't run as an administrator.