|
|
|
Pentium
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 22:37:31
Posts: 5,714,
Visits: 5,669
|
|
conrad101 (01/09/2008)
It's been said that Linux is much less vulnerable (or invulnerable) due to the lack of executables and that a userwill notspend all their timeas administrator. Other than UAC which is a pain, I can't see why the Vista security model is less vulnerable.
I'm not sure that Apple is that hot at patching vulnerabilities.
Because Vista, as far as I know, is based on XP. And XP has been around for a fairly long time, so there will be a fair few similarities and this makes it easier. 
--------------------Signature. Containing hilarious remixes since 2008--------------------
If I'm not posting, I'm questing 
|
|
|
|
|
Pentium
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 20:48:17
Posts: 5,434,
Visits: 28,964
|
|
MartenReed (01/09/2008)
conrad101 (01/09/2008)
It's been said that Linux is much less vulnerable (or invulnerable) due to the lack of executables and that a userwill notspend all their timeas administrator. Other than UAC which is a pain, I can't see why the Vista security model is less vulnerable.
I'm not sure that Apple is that hot at patching vulnerabilities.
Because Vista, as far as I know, is based on XP. And XP has been around for a fairly long time, so there will be a fair few similarities and this makes it easier.
not at all.
Vista's security policy is much more like Unix than XP 
Vista is actually quite difficult ot break into. Just infecting it with a virus is.. easier..
But you can't run stuff as admin in the background without the user being asked. OFC that doesn't cover user error *but* it still covers a lot of the back doors that all those XP virus' use ;D
Cheers,
Tom
My Crime is that of curiosity, my crime is that of outsmarting you
|
|
|
|
|
Pentium
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 22:37:31
Posts: 5,714,
Visits: 5,669
|
|
|
|
|
|
486
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 21:22:25
Posts: 839,
Visits: 2,332
|
|
It's an interesting question whether Vista's architecture is that much more secure than XP, I'm certainly a bit sceptical about UAC as alot of people disable it due to the high nag factor.
______________________________________________________________________________
Vista/XP, Core 2 Duo E4500 @ 3.25 GHz, Scythe Kama Meter fan controller, Artic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro, Asus P5K Mobo, Antec 900 Case, 4 X 1GB Geil DDR2 800MHz (4 4 4 12), Samsung 22" 223BW display, Sapphire ATI X1950Pro, Hiper 580W PSU, Seagate Sata II 250GB HD, Maxtor Sata II 160GB HD, Samsung SH-S203 DVDwriter
XP Athlon 3700+ San Diego Core, Asus A8N, 1GB PC3200 DDR, Nvidia 6600 GT
Laptop: Ubuntu 8.10 / XP MCE + various virtualbox virtual OS
|
|
|
|
|
Pentium
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 22:18:18
Posts: 1,798,
Visits: 4,021
|
|
On a simpler note, have Macs done a better job of implementing Discretionary Access Control ?
It's all too easy to over-ride them when configuring XP, whilst some vulnerabilities that hackers know about are enabled by default, effectively offering plumbed-in back doors, like 'Remote Assistance' and the Windows 'firewall'. Subscribing to cock-up rather than conspiracy theory, this seems to have happened in the belief that it will make administration easier. In Linux and in UAC-activated Vista the defaults have to be more consciously and conspicuously over-ridden. Thank goodness that really critical, non-PC systems employ Manadatory Access Control, although still prone to human stupidity, like passwords written on screens, desktops or blotters. 'Nowt as queer as folk', but they do make the world go round. 
I don't know about Macs, is their security model simply better configured by default ? 
....................... Signature ......................
Still Learning and Trying to Keep It Simple in Sharing knowledge
[A] rig..ASUS-EN8500GT SATA-320+80GB G31MX-S2 2.6GHz E2160 2G
[B] rig..384M_XFX8800GS SATA-320+500GB G31MX-S2 2.9GHz E4600 2G
32-bit Mint4, Mint6rc1, WinXP & Vista Home Premium. http://tinyurl.com/MP3-Creation-with-the-Heron 
|
|
|
|
|
Pentium
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 23:08:04
Posts: 6,861,
Visits: 7,879
|
|
I have to say that I have come around to UACs way of thinking. It's annoying initially when you're setting all your usual programs up, but once they are all done, UAC is a good protection. I've stopped switching it off when I run it.
Disclaimer: Any advice I provide is only applicable in my reality and may need altering to fit yours There is no place like 127.0.0.1
Best Video Evar! UPDATED
|
|
|
|
|
Pentium
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 20:48:17
Posts: 5,434,
Visits: 28,964
|
|
conrad101 (01/09/2008)
It's an interesting question whether Vista's architecture is that much more secure than XP, I'm certainly a bit sceptical about UAC as alot of people disable it due to the high nag factor.
No, UAC is an extra layer. Or rather your referring too the extended control options (the darkened screen and the white/yelow popup). Evenif you turn that off there is baseline protection: you still get the "this program wants to run as an admin" little blue/grey dialogue box
Cheers,
Tom
My Crime is that of curiosity, my crime is that of outsmarting you
|
|
|
|
|
286
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 16:03:36
Posts: 492,
Visits: 1,156
|
|
I agree with FS that Vista UAC (mostly) goes away once your base programs are all set up, and I'm also quite happy to run Vista with all the UAC restrictions in force, (but then I always ran XP in 'user' mode too).
Segueing back into the thread; Vista with UAC is still not perfect, but that is mainly the fault of software developers stuck in the mode of mixing up code, user data and program config data. Even the authors of Nod 32 (ESET) can't get that balance right.
Linux is marginally better at separating these three, but sometimes makes it unnecessarily difficult to alter user configurable data. Linux programmers often err on the side of what they see as caution and dump what should be user alterable data into the protected area thereby forcing users to jump through hoops. This is self defeating as it often forces users to sudo, su or even worse gksudo or run as root which then makes Linux no better than XP.
Mac shares Linux's Unix heritage but does seem to get the human factors better balanced than the other OS's. A Google search on 'Mac Frustrations' only really gets hits for networking/comms and interoperability. Even these seem to be of lower frequency than Windows, where frustrations spread into many other areas, Linux has even higher and wide-spread frustration levels, but many are due to hardware issues, (which latter is now much rarer on Vista than it was). I'd therefore judge that Mac users are probably less inclined to subvert their systems, and it is therefore likely that a Mac has an overall lower security risk (ex the notorious Safari and DNS holes which hopefully are, or soon will be, fixed).
|
|
|
| | |