Man, I was looking around Cnet.com, and look what I found. http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6282718.html?tag=cnetfd.sd Geez...the thing isn't even out yet, and people are already making viruses for it.
don't underestimate the power of jealous mac/linux fans. when they have no shame and pride, they will do whatever it takes to satisfy their balls
They will use the 'new', (s************), Microsoft Command Shell. Ooh, fancy... shell programming, huh? Forward with Microsoft folks... to the 1970's.
I know that you are being sarcastic, but you should be aware that Apple has recently released updates for OS X that patch "vulnerabilities". It is not farfetched that virii exist and will be created for Macs, however the numbers dictate that the cyber-cretins will get their biggest thrill attacking the big dog. Here's a new Micro$oft slogan: Bill's Gates, swinging wide for hackers since 1980.
And here's another one referring to Microsoft support. Well, a story really. There's two fellas in a helicopter and they're lost because the fog's come down quickly and they're instruments have gone pear shaped. All of a sudden they see this big building. They can't make out who owns it but, unbeknown to them, it's Microsofts main headquarters building at Redmond. One guy say, 'Quick, ask them where we are'. So the other fella gets a piece of paper and writes on it in big letters using a felt tip pen. 'WHERE ARE WE?'. There is much fevered action in the building, the people in it rushing about because they realise the seriousness of the situation. All of a sudden the answer comes back. The people inside hold up another piece of paper with the words 'YOU'RE IN A HELICOPTER' written on it. Great, eh? Actually my brother told me that. He has to run Windows Server 2003 or something because of the organisation he sells to. He says it pretty much sums up their attitude to support. I wouldn't know... I'm glad to say. What I DO know, however, is this. Think about it for a minute. You've written a piece of software, finishing on a Friday night and, inevitably, there's some bugs in it. So far, big surprise, I'm sure we'll all agree. Now... You come in on Monday and find one of your bugs. What do you do. Do you, a) Issue an immediate updated release, or, b) Save the bug up, (there's gonna be more after all), to add to the new, improved release, update, bug-fix, patch or whatever the hell you want to call it. If you're a commercial organisation the LAST thing you can do is to tick off your customers so you pick option 'b'. Unfortunately hackers, virus writers, script kiddies and various other sundry low-lifes AREN'T constrained by your finely developed sensibilities. They may not have the source code but they've got a lot of time on their hands and some of the, believe it or not, are extremely clever. Thus commercial software will always be more likely to have insecurities simply because of the business model it employs. There's something else as well, not particularly relating viruses for Vista but about Microsoft in general. I don't know if any of you remember but there was an episode of Doctor Who many years ago. The Doctor, (can't remember which one, but it's not important), says to his assistant "Here, put one of these batteries into that sonic screwdriver". "When will it need replacing?" she asks. "It won't", he said. "It's one of those everlasting batteries". "Wow, that's amazing. The people that made them must have made a fortune". "No. They went broke years ago." "WENT BROKE?" She asks incredulously. "Why?". "Who needs TWO everlasting batteries?". There's no way Microsoft will EVER produce a piece of software that runs properly for an extended period in my opinion. They can't afford to.
I'd say this is pretty much true. No software is 100% secure. Yes, there is software that is weaker than it's competitors, but nothing is 100% secure. With only (I forget how few) people using Macs, the virus writers and hackers don't want to spend their time going for that information. However, my money says that as more and more people jump onboard to Mac, the virus writers will slowly start to write "iVirus."
Indeed. If they wrote UltraSuperDuperWindows, they wouldn't need to release any updates. Updates are what MS (and other companies) thrive on. Hell, without updates, OS 7 never would have been released, let alone OSX.
How does Microsoft make money on updates? To me, constantly fixing ******** seems like a diversion of company resources that could be used for development...thus costing them money.
Yeah. They'll make money off selling copies of the latest version of their program, but then pump that money back into development. Companies definetly don't make money on minor updates that are downloaded. If MS does make money, if it's off the $300 copies of Windows. The new versions make money, which is spent on the patches and minor monthly updates.
Well, if they didn't provide fixes for their dodgy software NOBODY would buy it. The income for MS is also in the 'tax on computers' from the normal sales of PC's.
Wouldn't it be a batch of honor for the first hacker to produce a virus that severely cripples the supposedly more secure Mac system? If I were a good hacker, I would get bored with the MS stuff and aim higher.
When we're forced to go to Longvistahorn I'm going to downgrade all my home PC's to Microsoft Bob. I'm fairly certain nobody wrote a virus for that and won't in the near future.
Rather than just making stupid bloody comments maybe you should try and explain WHY Microsoft is more secure if that's what you think. Do you actually KNOW anything about computers at all?
The problem with all versions of MS personal operating system's is that they are based around the idea of an individual user being able to have total control of the machine. Even the later versions, such as XP, only accept the idea that the end-user , (Joe Public in other words), should be put to any trouble rather grudgingly. In the security world the idea is axiomatic. It's actually quite difficult to write viruses for Unix and Linux for that reason because they're based on the idea that an individual user is only allowed to do a restricted amount of stuff. Sure, it's a bit of a pain the backside sometimes but it is inherently more secure.
Actually I was making a a joke, but point taken. The key word, though is "personal". With business systems whether they be 2000 workstations logging into 2000 domains, Unix work stations/servers, heck AS/400 and mainframes, or extending it to tiers thus databases, there is a team of individuals dedicated to security on those closed systems. To get something, they have to open it up. In the personal/home world its different. The person sitting in front of the tube is probably the both user and administrator trusting the operating system to either do all the work or assist them greatly with the work. True story. When I set up the XP Professional machine my kid used I locked him down as a user, took away administrator roles and privledges, set up the software firewall strictly, etc. Along comes a game call Call of Duty, which requires not only administrator roles to install but run (copy protection). I immediately thought "crack" but nowadays so many software items "phone home" and this game even has some sort of "checker" to make sure you aren't cheating with an altered version of the game. I reluctantly gave him administrator power. Within 5 days he had three spyware screen savers, a keystroke logger, and (can't remember). When I checked the firewall configuration, he allowed everything out instead of denying and calling me like he was supposed to. Now there's probably away to grant administrator mode to just one item or instance or some group policy but I'm still a little green on XP security and policies and such. All of that goes out the window, though if certain kids (or users) don't follow directions to begin with. It's frustrating.
Grouchy makes some good points. The issue of OS superiority and security is not something that is quite as simple as a lot people make it out to be. Market share and malignant users have a strong influence of the production and efficacy of virii for Microsoft products. Unpateched Linux systems are just as easy to get into, but they're less likely to have a stupid user who clicks on the "Your Computer Has Spyware- Click On This To Install More!!!!" or whatever. There are almost certainly more undiscovered vulnerabilities than there are known issues on all systems. It's just a matter of time & discovery. Grouchy, yeah there's a way to granularly assign rights in XP, but I'm not remembering right off the top of my head. Do you know about this though? Start>Run> Put 'mmc' in the little box. <Enter> Once Microsoft anagement COnsole Opens File>Add/Remove Snap-in>Add Scroll down to 'security configuration and Analysis', select and click Add, Close Ok, to get back to mmc console Right click on 'security configuration and Analysis', click 'open' and put your hostname in as the file.>OK "Import Template" will pop up- you will probably want to select secws.inf Right click on 'security configuration and Analysis' and select 'analyze computer now' go through the interface and you can compare your computers ettings to a relatively secure deployment on the database. Following that template could temporarily break some apps, btw. Right click on any setting and select 'properties' to edit your computer setting. Once you've hardened your OS to your liking- Right click on 'security configuration and Analysis' and select 'save' Then, right click on 'security configuration and Analysis' and select 'configure computer now' and you're done.
Well, to be honest I can see the point in giving people complete access to everything for a games machine. I run a Windows ME PC for just such a purpose in which I've made every attempt to keep the thing secure but there is nothing, absolutely nothing on it of any significance. No documents or spreadsheets, (other than doodles), which I'm bothered about. I also never use it to access any bank or other secure data.