Slashdot Mirror
Vista Post-SP2 Is the Safest OS On the Planet
pkluss noted Kevin Turner, COO of Microsoft making the proclamation that "Vista today, post-Service Pack 2, which is now in the marketplace, is the safest, most reliable OS we've ever built. It's also the most secure OS on the planet, including Linux and open source and Apple Leopard. It's the safest and most secure OS on the planet today."
That this thread will consist only of positive remarks, and supportive statements towards Microsoft.
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
He should have stopped here.
It's the safest and most secure OS on the planet today
Until tomorrow when all those pesky exploits come out
I say don't drink and drive, you might spill your drink. Before you get behind the wheel just stop and think.
In the history of man there have been several cases of fatal hilarity(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_Hilarity) and this article might inflict this seemingly comical effect on technically concious people.
Posting an article like this without thinking about the consequences might actually hurt and kill people. Please don't.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
It's also the most secure OS on the planet
Trusted Solaris would like to have a word with you.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Waving red in front of the bull. Always a good idea.
Pity that it will be MicroSofts' customers, not MS that will suffer when the hackers, script kiddies and miscellaneous ne'er-do-wells inevitably trash the security for their latest offering.
~ a low user id is no indication I have a clue what I'm talking about.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pwn2own-mac-hack,2254-4.html
'The NX bit is very powerful.When used properly, it ensures that user-supplied code cannot be executed in the process during exploitation. Researchers (and hackers) have struggled with ways around this protection. ASLR is also very tough to defeat. This is the way the process randomizes the location of code in a process. Between these two hurdles, no one knows how to execute arbitrary code in Firefox or IE 8 in Vista right now. For the record, Leopard has neither of these features, at least implemented effectively. In the exploit I won Pwn2Own with, I knew right where my shellcode was located and I knew it would execute on the heap for me.'
And this was with Vista SP1. No one knows how to exploit Firefox or IE on Vista due to NX and ASLR.
This seems to be a pretty powerful statement, from someone who would stand a chance of knowing.
My only question is, where is Vista SP2? Last I checked, it was not yet released.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
He never stated which planet...
If at first you don't succeed, so much for skydiving.
That leaves Vista
...and all the security-designed systems. Do you really think Windows is safer than OpenBSD, let alone OpenVMS? Or whatever the NSA uses on their hardest systems? His quote is like saying that "the Ford Mustang is the fastest car on the planet".
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Richard Stallman announced in a press conference today that Emacs is the safest operating system on the planet. According to Stallman Emacs is safer than Linux, Windows Vista, or Apple's Mac OS X.
Yes, but it's missing a decent text editor.
"Do I see any serious problems with this story? Uh, yeah, maybe one or two..."
How about the fact tha Vista SP2 is not "in the marketplace" at all.
It hasn't been released yet and is still an RC candidate in beta testing!
If Microsoft wants to compare imaginary not yet released software to actual software, I set let them and Google play games with beta releases. The rest of us have actual work to do.
Let's see here. On the left hand, we have the people at Microsoft claiming to make a secure operating system, and putting escrow into the encryption such that data can be seamlessly copied from the operating system to an unknown location. We witness Microsoft as an incredibly corrupt entity, in nearly every possible way - from locking in hardware manufacturers to using Windows to throwing lawsuits at everybody who even vaguely seems to threaten them (remember Lindows?). On the right hand, we have the code of Linux, FreeBSD, etc. available for the entire world to review, figures of authority are not chosen based on how much of a jackal they are, but how much their experience is worth. OpenBSD and FreeBSD have things like in-kernel crypto, chroot jails, are actually POSIX compliant, and seem to suffer from very little bloat due to the trend to make specific utilities as discrete as possible, and hence nearly as flawless as possible. Let's just agree to disagree. Or I can just call you an idiot. I'm fine with either.
The reason why Vista, Mac OS X, and Linux have fewer exploits is simple. Windows XP is easier to exploit.
Just remember that the security of the newer OSes is only one factor in the availability of the exploits.
If you want to visualize a flawed analogy; when you're being chased by a hungry lion, it doesn't matter how fast you run as long as you run faster than the guy beside you.
In this analogy XP is the slowest runner who is still plentiful. When the XP prey dwindles away, the hungry blackhat lions will look for the next slowest runner.
Vista is arguably the most secure OS suitable for desktop use.
It is not the safest OS suitable for desktop use however.
What's the difference?
The President of the United States is arguably the most secured individual on the planet.
However, due to the large number of threats against him and his need to travel and be in the public eye often, he is not the safest individual on the planet.
Operating systems are the same. Vista has added many good defenses, but is still the OS with the target on its back.
I'm ok with Microsoft claiming to be the most secure OS for desktop use. OpenBSD and some hardened Linux distros might wish to disagree, but most people don't run hardened systems on desktops, they want more functional systems that are easier to support.
However, I'm not going to let MS get away with calling Vista the safest OS out there, because it just isn't.
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
Your comment is like saying that an Abrams Tank is more secure than a Mustang.
True, but can a tank get on the freeway without causing a traffic jam?
If the internet was a warzone, would you take the tank which is impervious to nearly everything they'll shoot at you with, or would you take the Mustang, paint a target on the back of your head, and relax, knowing you can have air conditioning while trying to dodge the bullets?
See all those wrecked Mustangs on the side of the road? They too can cause a traffic jam. It's called a botnet.
Windows XP was not a continuation of the 95-98-98SE-ME hybrid 16/32bit product line. It is a continuation of Windows NT->2K line, which was 32-bit pure and already very stable in comparison. Apples and oranges.
If you're the one driving the tank there are no traffic jams.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
The sad truth is the majority of people using Vista have it because that was the only choice at the computer store.
(Then there is the fun bit where MS counts every Vista license purchased as a downgrade to XP as a "Vista sale".)