|
Post by sts60 on Jul 21, 2006 9:09:52 GMT -4
One really has to wonder about the sites you visit.Now, now - I was speaking generically. I hasten to assure one and all that this has not happened to me. I use IE and have for the past 5 years since I got onto the net. I've never had that happen unless I caused it by clicking on a link that turned out to be a detour trap, and these days I tend to be able to spot them.Really, I was speaking to the wide bug- and security-hole-riddled world of Windows and Windows applications in general. I refer you to a June 18 Washington Post column by Joel Achenbach which is about computers in general but I believe best describes the Windows world. After recounting how sci-fi movies tend to show self-aware computers which are invariably homicidal, he says: P.S. You're still using Internet Execrableness? Get the hence to Firefox, young man!
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Jul 21, 2006 10:49:11 GMT -4
Firefox rules ... however, I think it is probably fair to say that a lot of non-MS software is also riddled with security holes, it is just that IE and its MS kin is more attractive to those who wish to exploit them because they can hit a large proportion of the user base by attacking it.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Jul 21, 2006 21:06:28 GMT -4
Firefox rules ... however, I think it is probably fair to say that a lot of non-MS software is also riddled with security holes, it is just that IE and its MS kin is more attractive to those who wish to exploit them because they can hit a large proportion of the user base by attacking it. I think you've hit the nail on the head; if Mac was 90% and Windows 10% (roughly), we'd be bitching about the Apple Computer Corp.'s security ethics...it does seem likely they might be better at it; but then again they control the WHOLE package, hardware and OS. Which is a major reason why they ARE in second place.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 21, 2006 21:27:37 GMT -4
Exactly. I know people that can hack Linux systems like they were play-doh, but it's because they know Linux inside and out and know where to hit it, They are specilists in the OS. Give them a windows system and they'd be stumped because they don't use it (and they can't play around in the code as easily since Windows in open source.)
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Jul 22, 2006 15:14:30 GMT -4
Firefox rules ... however, I think it is probably fair to say that a lot of non-MS software is also riddled with security holes, it is just that IE and its MS kin is more attractive to those who wish to exploit them because they can hit a large proportion of the user base by attacking it. I think you've hit the nail on the head; if Mac was 90% and Windows 10% (roughly), we'd be bitching about the Apple Computer Corp.'s security ethics...it does seem likely they might be better at it; but then again they control the WHOLE package, hardware and OS. Which is a major reason why they ARE in second place. So the theory is, which ever software product has the most market share will see the most security vulnerabilities. So all I need to do to disprove that theory is find an example where product A has >50% market share and product B has less than 50% market share, but product B still has mor security vulnerabilites. agree?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Jul 22, 2006 17:38:04 GMT -4
I don't think I ever put it forward as a theory, more a hypothesis, and even if it were it is not as simple as that ... It is interesting to note that as soon as Firefox started to take significant market share out of IE (although still much less than 50% of course) there was a massive increase in the number of security bulletins issued relating to security holes discovered in the software. It seems likely that those holes were always there, they had just never been discovered because no one could be bothered to find and attempt to exploit them until a worthwhile number of people were using it. Likewise are you less at risk from a virus using a Mac because a Mac is more secure ... or because a relatively small proportion of the total computer using population uses them so the virus writers can't be bothered with them. And your test would not really be that revealing, since there is so much crappy software out there, I would think it is pretty easy to find something with less than 50% market share that is riddled with more holes than all of Microsoft's output combined ... well, maybe not quite that many. After all that waffling, my point is that we just don't know how many security holes each piece of software has until someone discovers them, or tries to exploit them. It seems logical that there will be a greater exploitation of holes in more popular software because the exploitation has the potential for greater impact. It doesn't mean that those pieces of software actually have more holes, or are fundamentally less secure, except in the sense that they are under greater attack from those who are trying to find holes than the other packages. If no one were attempting to find and exploit holes in Firefox, then those holes may never come to light. Doesn't mean they aren't there ... just that they haven't been discovered.
|
|