most secure operating sys

[Cleric7x9]

i think you need to take into consideration the level of user as well. for the average user, i would say that macs are the most secure against viruses/spyware/etc. for higher level users i would say that unix/linux would be the best. take an average user, stick them on linux, take away the fancy GUIs and give them a command line, and its like a drunk chick on prom night: open for business. take that same user and stick them on a windows PC or a mac, with built in firewalls, pop-up blockers, installshields, and all that other jazz, and i would say they would be less likely to get a virus (assuming attackers hit both machines equally which they dont)

 

[Jonyboy]

I'm going to have to disagree with you there Cleric that a "Newb" to Linux would make it vastly open even without a GUI. But i would have to say that linux does tend to be stronger because on average, a higher calibre of computer user, uses Linux (one that doesn't open "I LOVE YOU" emails).

I'm not saying all windows users are idiots (far from it) but the people using Linux have a higher computer knowledge than your average person who uses there computer for music and mail.

 

[tlarkin]

i think you need to take into consideration the level of user as well. for the average user, i would say that macs are the most secure against viruses/spyware/etc. for higher level users i would say that unix/linux would be the best. take an average user, stick them on linux, take away the fancy GUIs and give them a command line, and its like a drunk chick on prom night: open for business. take that same user and stick them on a windows PC or a mac, with built in firewalls, pop-up blockers, installshields, and all that other jazz, and i would say they would be less likely to get a virus (assuming attackers hit both machines equally which they dont)

I agree with you but on a different perspective. Most of the time it is the user's fault. I run a windows XP pro box with NO anti-spyware, NO firewall, and NO anti-virus and have done so for years with out ever having a problem. I don't allow websites to install active x controls (I don't use IE at all actually), I don't use crappy P2P programs like limewire and the like, and I don't download anything unless its from a trusted source. I haven't had a virus since like year 2000 on my PC. I run a hardware firewall and my router is NAT enabled. 99% of the time a windows user has something bad happens it is the user's fault either out of doing something they shouldn't do (mess with pirated media or software that has spyware in it) or out of sheer ignorance.

The level of the user does not change the fact that some OSes are just coded sloppy and allow the script kiddie of the week to write exploits, and allow actual programmers to write nasty and massive spam/spyware/malware/viruses. Sure there have been viruses for Unix out since before windows was ever even around, but at the same time its harder to write a unix virus so there is a lot less of them. It is easier to write one for windows so there are 100s of thousands.

 

[tlarkin]

I'm going to have to disagree with you there Cleric that a "Newb" to Linux would make it vastly open even without a GUI. But i would have to say that linux does tend to be stronger because on average, a higher calibre of computer user, uses Linux (one that doesn't open "I LOVE YOU" emails).

I'm not saying all windows users are idiots (far from it) but the people using Linux have a higher computer knowledge than your average person who uses there computer for music and mail.

Even if you open an "I love you email" that has a windows virus on it on a Linux box, you know what happens?

Nothing. The windows virus lives there and does nothing, because its a different OS.

 

[Cleric7x9]

i dont think anyone would disagree that there are more viruses for windows because it has such a large userbase. my argument is that windows makes it easier for the average user to protect themselves than any distro of linux does. windows comes preinstalled with a firewall, a pop-up blocker, and an installshield, and sometimes even comes with AV software because of its huge marketshare. you must include those apps as part of the OS bc they are built in, just as a the calculator and explorer.exe are. i personally use slackware on my servers and i have one laptop that runs ubuntu. i dont know about any other distros, but those didnt come with any of those things. so, i feel i must restate what i said earlier, the average user is more protected with windows than they would be with linux, meaning that a higher percentage of viruses will be prevented with windows. now, there are 1000x as many viruses for windows, so even if they are rejecting a higher percentage of them, they still may net more viruses in the long run. but that is why i think the level of the user needs to be taken into consideration

 

[tlarkin]

i dont think anyone would disagree that there are more viruses for windows because it has such a large userbase. my argument is that windows makes it easier for the average user to protect themselves than any distro of linux does. windows comes preinstalled with a firewall, a pop-up blocker, and an installshield, and sometimes even comes with AV software because of its huge marketshare. you must include those apps as part of the OS bc they are built in, just as a the calculator and explorer.exe are. i personally use slackware on my servers and i have one laptop that runs ubuntu. i dont know about any other distros, but those didnt come with any of those things. so, i feel i must restate what i said earlier, the average user is more protected with windows than they would be with linux, meaning that a higher percentage of viruses will be prevented with windows. now, there are 1000x as many viruses for windows, so even if they are rejecting a higher percentage of them, they still may net more viruses in the long run. but that is why i think the level of the user needs to be taken into consideration

Again, read my previous post. I don't run any of that software at all on my windows box and I am 100% spyware and virus free. On rare occasion i will run a spyware scan to get rid of suspicious cookies and other small annoying things but nothing major on my system.

Linux gives you plenty of security software. Almost every OS has a built in firewall, and there are free anti virus apps for Linux. The thing is if a user runs as root or installs software that requires root and they don't know what it is, it is ultimately the user's fault. You should research what it is you are installing before you install it.

 

[JamesBart]

i'd say mac imo but you peeps are going for linux! so it must be!

 

[Cleric7x9]

You should research what it is you are installing before you install it.

now THAT is the truth. unfortunately most people dont.

 

[Irishwhistle]

Is this a joke including 2 MS OS's in that list? I believe the last count was that Windows had 130,000 known viruses.

It depends who you ask, MS insist Vista is the most secure which is a complete joke, Solaris say there's is, we all know Linux beats MS hands down on security and you didn't even add BSD which is supposed to be more secure than Linux!

If XP and Vista are in that list where is Panther? And then of course all the Linux distros should be listed. Where is BSD? 7 votes for Vista?! lol Isn't Vista actually worse than XP as far as security goes?


~Jordan

 

[tlarkin]

If XP and Vista are in that list where is Panther? And then of course all the Linux distros should be listed. Where is BSD? 7 votes for Vista?! lol Isn't Vista actually worse than XP as far as security goes?


~Jordan

It is definitely more annoying thats for sure...

Are you sure you want to click this?

YES

Are you sure you want to run this?

YES

are you sure you want to...

*disables all security features from widows*

That is pretty much my first 45 seconds of running vista.

 

[Deepblue]

^ what he said.

Windows users always pull that one... "if Linux had more users it would be just as insecure." It's simply not true!

Lots of companies and web services run on *nix based systems, so the users are already there...

I didnt say Linux wasnt the more secure , I did how ever say linux was more secure. but what i did say was the if linux had the userbase that windows did you would have more hackers and such attemting to to crack it and would.

I agree windows is a hack job but if people want to break into things they will.

 

[tlarkin]

I didnt say Linux wasnt the more secure , I did how ever say linux was more secure. but what i did say was the if linux had the userbase that windows did you would have more hackers and such attemting to to crack it and would.

I agree windows is a hack job but if people want to break into things they will.

Even then it is still going to be how the user uses the OS. If you log in as admin/root to run your linux box then you are already running a risk. Since you need to allow something to run as root, it would prompt you for your password and you would have to give it permission. By design that is more secure because you are allowing the virus to run as root. Meaning that the user has to willingly let it run. Then again it all comes down to the user.

 

[Irishwhistle]

It is definitely more annoying thats for sure...

Are you sure you want to click this?

YES

Are you sure you want to run this?

YES

are you sure you want to...

*disables all security features from widows*

That is pretty much my first 45 seconds of running vista.

Yeah, Isn't XP annoying enough?

 

[tool72]

I think that Linux has a superior platform for security. Well, atleast some versions. That's just me though.

TOOL

 

[Cromewell]

The Kernel is a locked down layer of the OS which is not touchable by any type of application, software, driver, etc.

Vista tried to lock the kernel down but symantec and mcafee whined because then they couldn't use their kernel hooks anymore.

But unix and it's derivitives are better from a security standpoint because windows assumes you want to run everything, unix makes you say it's OK to run it.

 

[tlarkin]

Vista tried to lock the kernel down but symantec and mcafee whined because then they couldn't use their kernel hooks anymore.

But unix and it's derivitives are better from a security standpoint because windows assumes you want to run everything, unix makes you say it's OK to run it.

Sorta true, MS also makes it so every user has to run with admin rights to do anything in the OS. There is no authentication process for kernel level access like in *nix OSes. So it is way easier, the problem is that even with *nix OSes the user is likely to allow things to run unless they know what they are doing. So even with Linux becoming more and more popular, it will still happen unless people take the time to learn, and most people don't. They just want it to work, which is why I think the Mac is so appealing to people. They don't have to worry about using a Unix OS and they get all the benefits.

 

[Platinum]

So even with Linux becoming more and more popular, it will still happen unless people take the time to learn, and most people don't. They just want it to work, which is why I think the Mac is so appealing to people. They don't have to worry about using a Unix OS and they get all the benefits.

Agreed, I was just going to make a similar point. As far as default settings are concerned I'd consider a Mac OS to be the most secure. With *nix OSes youd have to make sure the settings are how you want, you'd have to allow or not allow certain things, like you said. End users don't have to worry when they buy a Mac because they are very secure. If you don't know what you are doing with a *nix OS, you can very easily be hacked.

 

[tlarkin]

Agreed, I was just going to make a similar point. As far as default settings are concerned I'd consider a Mac OS to be the most secure. With *nix OSes youd have to make sure the settings are how you want, you'd have to allow or not allow certain things, like you said. End users don't have to worry when they buy a Mac because they are very secure. If you don't know what you are doing with a *nix OS, you can very easily be hacked.

Well that is a two sided blade. On one hand Apple does put forth a lot of tools that help users when they botch things up, like repair permissions under disk utility in OS X. The thing is, it resets everything back to default permissions and the default permissions is what Apple considers to be the best default settings, when of course in some cases they are not. So, if you botched your Home directory and made it say, read only, you can run the repair permissions utility instead of dropping into a Unix terminal and doing a chmod -R 711 or 755 or whatever you want the permissions to be in ~/.

What I love about OS X and what Apple did, is they took a Unix OS (BSD) and gave it a very nice intuitive shell which is highly emulated these days, and they mask the user from ever knowing they are running Unix. If you look in the utility folders though, they have graphical front ends of many nice little unix tools like whois, ping, finger, top, etc. These are all GUIs now and are built into the OS. Then if you wanted to add all the nice *nix commands you are used to, fink commander ports them over to OS X and allows you to install things like nmap, wget, etc etc.

OS X is not bullet proof, Apple does release security updates for it all the time. However, the approach they took I think was wiser than what MS has done with windows.

 

[2048Megabytes]

After reading thru this thread it makes me glad I decided to dual boot with Ubuntu 7.10. I know what operating system I am going to use now to browse the internet.