3 ms·

>By definition, the less code you have to maintain the less surface area for vulnerabilities. It does not sound like you have any legitimate information about

>By definition, the less code you have to maintain the less surface area for vulnerabilities. It does not sound like you have any legitimate information about how Windows compatability increases vulnerabilites beyond vague statements. Trust me when I say that no one here thinks Windows is terribly secure, just that Mac OS X isn't secure at all either, and doesn't provide backwards compatability on top. >If that were true, you would see Apple’s products trending downward when other competitors are trending upwards..... Is this not the case? Lowered product buys have been offset by higher prices, but the craze of Apple products of the early to mid 2010s is over; I have also only heard negative things about their recent products too. The failed keyboard on Macbooks, how buggy the recent OS release has been, both of my roommates who have iPhone Xs are thinking about switching to Android after being plagued with constant hardware and software issues. Of course, it is possible I live in a bubble, but most people I know who have Apple technology complain a lot more about their tech than I do.

scarface74 7y ago
Samsung and every other vendor outside of China have announced lower sales as people keep their phones longer. While everyone admits that Mac keyboards are horrible, Mac sales are so small compared to everything else Apple sells, it doesn’t really hurt their bottom line both of my roommates who have iPhone Xs are thinking about switching to Android after being plagued with constant hardware and software issues. Anecdote is not data. It does not sound like you have any legitimate information about how Windows compatability increases vulnerabilites beyond vague statements. Let me tell you a little story about how the half dozen different ways to represent and encode a string in Windows led to a security issue in IIS where you could just encode a DOS command in a browser window and have it execute remotely.... https://www.sans.org/reading-room/whitepapers/threats/paper/458 https://www.sans.org/reading-room/whitepapers/threats/paper/... Or a DCOM vulnerability in 2019. No one uses DCOM anymore. https://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2003-0352/ https://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2003-0352/
- edoceo 7y ago
  Oh, crap! DCOM! I'm have trauma just seeing those letters in that order.
- icebraining 7y ago
  As it says right on the URL, that CVE is from 2003, not 2019, and it doesn't affect any Windows version past XP.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Yes and by then you already had the 7 plus versions of defining a string dating back to Windows 3 (1992). Backwards compatibility was already a problem then. Since then, MS has had 15 more years worth of cruft on top of that s d yet more ways to define a string. If backwards compatibility caused a security vulnerability back then, how much old Windows 95 code do you think is causing issues now?

scarface74 7y ago

Samsung and every other vendor outside of China have announced lower sales as people keep their phones longer. While everyone admits that Mac keyboards are horrible, Mac sales are so small compared to everything else Apple sells, it doesn’t really hurt their bottom line both of my roommates who have iPhone Xs are thinking about switching to Android after being plagued with constant hardware and software issues. Anecdote is not data. It does not sound like you have any legitimate information about how Windows compatability increases vulnerabilites beyond vague statements. Let me tell you a little story about how the half dozen different ways to represent and encode a string in Windows led to a security issue in IIS where you could just encode a DOS command in a browser window and have it execute remotely.... https://www.sans.org/reading-room/whitepapers/threats/paper/458 https://www.sans.org/reading-room/whitepapers/threats/paper/... Or a DCOM vulnerability in 2019. No one uses DCOM anymore. https://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2003-0352/ https://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2003-0352/

edoceo 7y ago
Oh, crap! DCOM! I'm have trauma just seeing those letters in that order.
icebraining 7y ago
As it says right on the URL, that CVE is from 2003, not 2019, and it doesn't affect any Windows version past XP.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Yes and by then you already had the 7 plus versions of defining a string dating back to Windows 3 (1992). Backwards compatibility was already a problem then. Since then, MS has had 15 more years worth of cruft on top of that s d yet more ways to define a string. If backwards compatibility caused a security vulnerability back then, how much old Windows 95 code do you think is causing issues now?