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

So Markoff Doesn't Care for Microsoft

[eldavojohn]

... 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 ...

I don't find it that unusual. I mean, I recall a bunch of articles in other newspapers talking about and recommending Firefox. I've also read many magazines & seen television news on the lack of viruses on an Apple.

I must admit that initially I was a bit humored by the idea that a New York Times author had a right to caution me about computer usage. But when I looked up his credentials, he seems to be a qualified and experienced tech writer who probably has good advice for the general public. Granted, his last recommendation: "Don't click if someone offers you something too good to be true. It is." worries me that people may be wary of certain open source projects but in the end, I'd agree that I'd tell my sister and friends just not to install anything and to ask me for specific links to programs that solve problems or fill needs.

In the end, it's a very short article and doesn't provide a very comprehensive picture of security for a home user. You may think its news that Mr. Markoff decided to push people away from Microsoft but he's only telling you the facts about the numbers. You won't have as many problems with Linux but there's no way your daughter's iPod will work with iTunes Music Store on your computer anymore. If he wanted to make this a notable article, he should have delved into trade offs and better coverage of issues.

So Markoff doesn't like the benefits of running Microsoft software. So what?

Re:So Markoff Doesn't Care for Microsoft

[fyngyrz]

Let me put it to you this way: I sell Windows software for a living. Not Mac-ware. Not yet. . Still, I recommend to everyone I know that they get a Mac. I can't, in good conscience, recommend Windows. Malware, yes, that's certainly a huge problem. DRM issues in Vista are another (such as degrading audio if unsigned.) Ridiculous license terms are another (no virtualization for home? Change your hardware, lose your authorization? ridiculous!) Constant reboots and restarts are another. Incorrect configuration out of the box is another - not just privileges, but what is running and what is not, what is turned on and what is not. As near as I can tell, the key Microsoft OS policy is "Wreck the user's day. Every day."

Re:So Markoff Doesn't Care for Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not totally convinced that automated silent virus/malware installation is a "benefit".

How about the benefit of being able to waltz into your local store (WalMart, Best Buy, whatever), pick up software or a peripheral device and see that it is supported and can run on your home machine?

For some people that's the only benefit they care about.

Re:ah yes...

[Aurisor]

Funny, where I come from, we call that the "don't use insecure products" solution.

Microsoft Astroturf

[PavementPizza]

There's only been 9 comments on this story at the time of this writing, and yet the following tags are already up: "flamebait, nytfud, troll". These guys work fast, don't they? What's flamebait, trolling, or FUD about this article? Avoiding Microsoft products is a perfectly prudent move, if you can. Is it untrue to say that Mac and Linux users are safer on the internet than Windows users, or that Opera or Firefox users are safer on the internet than Internet Explorer users? Far from it. It's demonstrable fact.

Re:ah yes...

[MoxFulder]

The product is only as secure as its users. If the mainstream Windows userbase switched to Linux, they'd take their bad habits (neglecting security hole patches, installing supposedly-required software to view web pages, logging in as root by default, etc.) with them. Linux would be the new hot target for malware. The same goes for OSX or any other operating system. Sure, there would be fewer holes, assuming that people made sure to apply the appropriate security patches, but we're assuming again that they wouldn't take their bad habits with them again, aren't we?

I disagree completely.

Windows makes it easy to practice these bad habits... default Administrator login, programs that don't work correctly when run without Admin access, ActiveX, etc. Contrast this with, say, Ubuntu... an excellent Linux distro even for newbies: by default the root account is disabled, when you want to do something system-alterating (e.g. temporarily gain root access), you have to put in your PASSWORD, not just click "Okay". The whole thing is so well-integrated that these password prompts aren't annoying or confusing. The system in general tries to explain to you what you're doing when it's something unusual.

Furthermore, most Linux distros are based on a central software repository which is supported, or at least approved, by the distro's developers. When you install open-source software from this repository, you can have confidence that you're not going to get spyware... and if you're running the stable distribution you can be pretty sure that you're installing software that has been thoroughly debugged as well--as opposed to some IE toolbar crap rushed out the door after a week's dev time.

I also think that Firefox 2.0 is far superior to IE 6 (haven't used 7 yet) in terms of alerting the user to potentially dangerous actions. When you install extensions, Firefox adds a 5-second time delay before you can click on "OK" to force you to actually read those stupid pop-up boxes. It detects suspicious obfuscated URLs, won't run downloaded executables without additional intervention, and checks HTTPS sites that improperly mix secure and non-secure content.

So I *do* think that PC security would improve substantially if the Windows userbase switched en masse to Linux. Granted, there'd be some of the problems with people doing stupid things and not reading warnings, but I don't think it'd just be same-old-same-old...