8 ms·

Think Windows is insecure? You're wrong, says security firm Kaspersky.

53 points by barista 15y ago

runjake 15y ago
Windows 7 is pretty damn secure, perhaps more so than Mac OS X and Linux with a default install. The problem is all the common shortcuts people (in some cases are forced to) take to use the applications they need/want. I still see regular end users routinely made administrators of their computers for no good reason, or due to sloppy software (hello, Intuit).
- ams6110 15y ago
  Absolutely. For most of the existence of Windows, even when it was notably insecure, the vulnerabilities were all the worse because most users routinely used "Administrator" as their default account. For many years this was in fact the default out of the box, so no wonder that it was such a common thing. This then precipitated the number of software applications that required Administrator permission to install or in some cases even to run, because it was assumed this was "normal" anyway.
- beaumartinez 15y ago
  > Perhaps more so than Mac OS X Windows 7 is many orders more secure than OS X—just look at Pwn2Own, OS X is regularly the first to be eliminated.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    Pwn2own performance is a hint, but isn't decisive evidence. And you have to take into account the improvements in Lion.
  - tzs 15y ago
    Pwn2own doesn't work the way you think it does. The participants use prepared exploits. You can't infer anything about the relative security of different systems that both get exploited there.
    - recoiledsnake 15y ago
      Zero day hackers and the malicious Chinese hacker spies also use prepared exploits, so you can infer something about the relative easiness of finding exploitable holes.
      - tzs 15y ago
        What do you think you can infer?
        recoiledsnake 15y ago
        Pwn2own may use prepared exploits, but researchers tend to go for the easy low hanging fruit, so there is a lot to infer from who falls on the first day etc. Read this from the horse's mouth and see what you can infer from it. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/questions-for-pwn2own-hacker-charlie-miller/2941 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/questions-for-pwn2own-hac...
        SageRaven 15y ago
        I thought the Mac was exploited first because a Mac is more valuable than most Wintel machines, thus a better material prize.
        barista 15y ago
        You really think the hackers who spend hours of meticulous planning in preparing the hacks do it for the material prize? Insightful...
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    All things equal, the most desirable computer will always be the first to go.
  - astrodust 15y ago
    Don't confuse Safari, the browser, with OS X the operating system.
  - tzs 15y ago
    The people who actually have beaten OS X in Pwn2Own say Lion is MORE secure now than Windows 7 or Ubuntu Linux: http://www.macnn.com/articles/11/07/23/leapfrogs.windows.7.linux.but.still.not.perfect/ http://www.macnn.com/articles/11/07/23/leapfrogs.windows.7.l...
- icebraining 15y ago
  What's a Linux default install?
  - mikemaccana 15y ago
    In the major distros, Fedora and Ubuntu and OpenSuSE, a lot of packages, some of which aren't used by most users, sometimes default iptables rules, sometimes no iptables rules at all. In newer, less friendly but more tech oriented distros (these aren't opposing forces, but in Linux they're misunderstood to be) like Arch, a lot less.
grandalf 15y ago
I don't understand why in Windows Vista the security escalation dialog box has several different appearances depending on the context.
- simonbrown 15y ago
  It's explained here: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2007/03/30/1991616.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2007/03/30/19916...
  - grandalf 15y ago
    interesting! thanks for posting that. I still think it's bad design b/c it fails to train the average user to avoid false privilege escalation dialog boxes.
beck5 15y ago
Im not a security expert but saying something isn't in the top 10 worst anymore isn't the same as saying its now better, Flash & Java may have become more insecure.
oconnore 15y ago
People who say Windows is insecure aren't comparing it to Flash or Java, they are comparing it to OS X, Linux, or *BSD. Without addressing that comparison, this article is useless.
- tptacek 15y ago
  Windows is comparably secure to Linux and OS X. This stuff is hard to pin down; for instance, there's a lot of hardening you can (but most people do not) do on Linux, and Lion changes the game on countermeasures for OS X. So it's a uniquely bad time to try to resolve this controversy decisively. But it's also hard to ignore the fact that much of what Lion is doing was pioneered in WinAPI. (I'm an OS X user; also, I do systems software security). Whether Windows (Vista+) is safer than Linux is up for debate. But safety and security are different concepts.
  - niels_olson 15y ago
    > safety and security are different concepts I did anti-terrorism in the military for awhile and I totally agree, but I would love to read the great tptacek's breakdown of the differences.
    - StavrosK 15y ago
      I'm not tptacek, but I think it's mostly clear that a castle in Compton is more secure than a cottage in a village in the Alps, but less safe.
      - cosgroveb 15y ago
        I believe I've seen tptacek say a liquor store in Englewood, Chicago with bulletproof glass in front of the cashier is more secure than a 7-11 in Lincoln Park, but the 7-11 is safer. Or something like that. :)
        StavrosK 15y ago
        Oh, hm. Sounds like I was close, then :)
Herring 15y ago
>living in the past Yeah and so is everyone on XP, and there are a lot of them worldwide.
- discreteevent 15y ago
  Its not necessarily my favorite OS but I think that in general a lot of commenters have been living in the past (particularly wrt performance and reliability) since windows switched from 3.1 to NT.
aneth 15y ago
The millions of hijacked Windows XP machines ready to a botnet's bidding might beg to differ. Let us never forget that Microsoft Windows is responsible for, among much else, the transfer of critical trade secrets, diplomatic communications, and weapons technologies to our competitors and enemies. If China wins World War 3 in 50 years, Windows, albeit indirectly, will be significantly responsible. Windows 7 may be more secure, but XP is still a major drain on society.
- recoiledsnake 15y ago
  By that same token, Windows was responsible for commoditizing the hardware by keeping the OEMs in competition with each other, leading to free fall of computer prices and thus putting a computer on almost every desktop and in most laps around the world. Even Apple moved to the x86 platform to take advantage of the scale and prices. If you think Apple hardware is overpriced now, imagine if they didn't have any competition from Sony, Dell, HP, Acer, etc. Back to your argument. Lets see: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/02/technology/02google.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/02/technology/02google.html?p... >She highlighted a fake document titled “Draft US-China Joint Statement” that was circulated among people with e-mail accounts at the State Department, the Defense Department, the Defense Intelligence Agency and Gmail. Clicking to download the document directed users instead to a fake Gmail log-in page that captured their passwords. So that attack wouldn't have worked if the user was on an iPad or Droid or a Macbook Air or running the most hardened Linux computer. Right? Zero days have been found in every browser/OS combo around. It's hard to see how OS X would fare better in a very targeted attack as Safari/OS X is usually one of the first to fall in PWN2OWN where the reward is a Macbook (not a win in a World War). Stop getting your news only from places like Boyocott Novell, Groklaw,Slashdot, HN and the comments there. It warps your mind.
  - aneth 15y ago
    You are correct that Windows was responsible for the commoditization of computing. You are also correct that many hacks occurred through means other than unpatched Windows machines. Neither of those truths changes the fact that Windows XP has been and continues to be a serious issue for national and corporate security. Almost every computer in China runs a pirated version of XP that can not be patched and is vulnerable and likely infected with some sort of botnet software. Many corporations and agencies in the US have been compromised in this way as well.
tristanperry 15y ago
I'd agree with these findings. Windows 7 especially does seem fairly safe and secure. The only time I've had a virus on my current computer is when I've actively downloaded files and run them without properly scanning them first (which is 100% my own fault of course; not a wise idea to download when rushing!) I know some non-tech-savvy users who literally have 200+ programs installed and 3+ of those spammy toolbars on their IE installs. When you've got people who will download anything and everything they see, it's no surprise they get loads of viruses - and then blame Windows when thing go awry. I agree that the architecture of Unix-based OSes is probably more secure than Windows 7 overall, although this doesn't mean that W7 is insecure.
seivan 15y ago
BS. Kaspersky and others biggest market is on Windows. They thrive on sold Windows copies.
- barista 15y ago
  by that logic touting that their biggest market is a secure OS does not help their bottomline does it?
  - epo 15y ago
    Not necessarily, it could mean that one market is saturated and they are looking to open up new markets.
phatbyte 15y ago
"...that conventional wisdom is wrong..." ... "...For the very first time in its history...". So people are wrong to assume that windows products are vulnerable just because for the first in years it happend not to be ? This article is pointless imo, doesn't explain why is it any safer, only assumes it because some hacker HIRED by microsoft said so.
- Iv 15y ago
  Even worse : it just says that flash is more insecure than windows. Nothing more.
ldar15 15y ago
On the one hand, the evidence provided to back this claim is pretty lame: 1. Microsoft vendor says so. 2. Windows blogger says so. 3. Person *hired* by Microsoft says so. That said, if Adobe can no longer say "hey, at least we're not as bad as the people who make the operating system", we may finally see some effort by them. More public shaming the better.
- olliesaunders 15y ago
  Kapersky sell security software, if anything they’re likely to make claims about how bad security is so that people will buy their software.
Mithrandir 15y ago
Define insecure/secure. I know that if a popup tells me I can get free cat screensavers at 'randomwebsitewitharandomname.com', it's most likely fake and might have a virus attached. I don't download it and my system is 'secure'. However, if I don't know it's fake (i.e., I'm not experienced with computers at all,) I might download it. Now my system is insecure. Whoopee. You could say that a system is only secure if it can catch things like that before it's too late. The problem there is that Windows, like other OSes, does not come with any anti-virus program built into the system itself (I'm excluding security measures built into Windows as this doesn't fully protect it.) Windows is only secure from viruses when an antivirus program is used. Of course, that doesn't make other systems safe. Just because Mac and GNU/Linux viruses are rare doesn't mean it's secure. This mentality is 'security by unpopularity'. The real argument is in how these systems would protect themselves from viruses that actually ran on them if those viruses were as prevalent as Windows viruses and the systems were used as much as Windows. On that, we can only speculate. My point is that I'm only secure if I know what I'm doing; software is not built to replace common sense
- pnathan 15y ago
  * I'm only secure if I know what I'm doing; software is not built to replace common sense* That's an excellent and succinct statement of security; can I use that line?
  - Mithrandir 15y ago
    Haha, sure!
- bad_user 15y ago
  I once installed Windows XP on a machine that got compromised in the first 20 minutes just because I forgot to unplug the network cable while installing it -- although I wasn't prepared for offline updating anyway. When a machine gets compromised by just being connected to a network, that's pretty bad and I sure hope Windows 7 is a lot better.
  - harisenbon 15y ago
fractalcat 15y ago
Security isn't just about lack of buffer overflows. It's in the way users interact with the system, and the way they're encouraged to interact. In most Linux distributions, the user is encouraged (by the design of the system) to, in almost all cases, either install cryptographically-signed software packages vetted and maintained by the vendor; or download a source package and compile it themselves. In Windows, the user is encouraged (by the design of the system) to download unsigned binaries from all over the Web and run them. That's why I'll never consider Windows to be comparably secure to modern Linux distributions. Sure, you can keep a Windows system airtight, but the way the system is designed makes it require effort, so users, in general, don't.
- epochwolf 15y ago
  Apparently you haven't seen the latest trends in the ruby development world. Here's two examples I've seen lately. The first is for OSX only but the second is for *nix. curl get.pow.cx | sh bash < <(curl -s https://rvm.beginrescueend.com/install/rvm)
  - drdaeman 15y ago
    RubyGems version 0.8.11 and later supports adding cryptographic signatures to gems.
- bad_user 15y ago
  I'm a Linux user and I do agree, but I do have to tell you - the lack of universal binaries that you can just download and install on a Linux workstation is one of the reasons Linux will never be as popular as Windows or even OS X. People want convenience over anything else. A computer has to be secure in spite of people downloading software from all over the web.
  - xilun0 15y ago
    Considering how i use computers, most of the time i found it far more convenient to apt-get search and 20s latter install (or the equivalent with the package manager you use) than downloading a random piece of software from a random internet site, which from this point might become a risk if it does not auto update, and if it does it's with a stupid yet-another rewritten auto update program that always uses 50 MB of RAM for just one program installed on the system, even when the program does not run. And considering the success of "app stores" and the general dislike of the traditional windows desktop computers by the general public (except if you are fool enough to help them for free doing all the busy work maintenance tasks that can't even exist on serious systems), I guess the centralized packaging and distribution model is also pretty convenient for the general public...
m0nastic 15y ago
To be fair, almost all of the proclamations I see from people about Windows being insecure are based on old, pre-SP2, pre-SDLC anecdotes and experiences (which were definitely true at one point, but haven't been true for quite a while). It would be like if I railed against Linux being usable by complaining about how bad the sound subsystem was... This Usenix video from last year of Crispin Cowan going over improvements to Windows security was interesting: http://www.usenix.org/multimedia/sec10cowan http://www.usenix.org/multimedia/sec10cowan

53 points by barista 15y ago

Windows 7 is pretty damn secure, perhaps more so than Mac OS X and Linux with a default install. The problem is all the common shortcuts people (in some cases are forced to) take to use the applications they need/want. I still see regular end users routinely made administrators of their computers for no good reason, or due to sloppy software (hello, Intuit).

ams6110 15y ago
Absolutely. For most of the existence of Windows, even when it was notably insecure, the vulnerabilities were all the worse because most users routinely used "Administrator" as their default account. For many years this was in fact the default out of the box, so no wonder that it was such a common thing. This then precipitated the number of software applications that required Administrator permission to install or in some cases even to run, because it was assumed this was "normal" anyway.
beaumartinez 15y ago
> Perhaps more so than Mac OS X Windows 7 is many orders more secure than OS X—just look at Pwn2Own, OS X is regularly the first to be eliminated.
- tptacek 15y ago
  Pwn2own performance is a hint, but isn't decisive evidence. And you have to take into account the improvements in Lion.
- tzs 15y ago
  Pwn2own doesn't work the way you think it does. The participants use prepared exploits. You can't infer anything about the relative security of different systems that both get exploited there.
  - recoiledsnake 15y ago
    Zero day hackers and the malicious Chinese hacker spies also use prepared exploits, so you can infer something about the relative easiness of finding exploitable holes.
    - tzs 15y ago
      What do you think you can infer?
      - recoiledsnake 15y ago
        Pwn2own may use prepared exploits, but researchers tend to go for the easy low hanging fruit, so there is a lot to infer from who falls on the first day etc. Read this from the horse's mouth and see what you can infer from it. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/questions-for-pwn2own-hacker-charlie-miller/2941 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/questions-for-pwn2own-hac...
        SageRaven 15y ago
        I thought the Mac was exploited first because a Mac is more valuable than most Wintel machines, thus a better material prize.
        barista 15y ago
        You really think the hackers who spend hours of meticulous planning in preparing the hacks do it for the material prize? Insightful...
- rbanffy 15y ago
  All things equal, the most desirable computer will always be the first to go.
- astrodust 15y ago
  Don't confuse Safari, the browser, with OS X the operating system.
- tzs 15y ago
  The people who actually have beaten OS X in Pwn2Own say Lion is MORE secure now than Windows 7 or Ubuntu Linux: http://www.macnn.com/articles/11/07/23/leapfrogs.windows.7.linux.but.still.not.perfect/ http://www.macnn.com/articles/11/07/23/leapfrogs.windows.7.l...
icebraining 15y ago
What's a Linux default install?
- mikemaccana 15y ago
  In the major distros, Fedora and Ubuntu and OpenSuSE, a lot of packages, some of which aren't used by most users, sometimes default iptables rules, sometimes no iptables rules at all. In newer, less friendly but more tech oriented distros (these aren't opposing forces, but in Linux they're misunderstood to be) like Arch, a lot less.

grandalf 15y ago

I don't understand why in Windows Vista the security escalation dialog box has several different appearances depending on the context.

simonbrown 15y ago
It's explained here: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2007/03/30/1991616.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2007/03/30/19916...
- grandalf 15y ago
  interesting! thanks for posting that. I still think it's bad design b/c it fails to train the average user to avoid false privilege escalation dialog boxes.

beck5 15y ago

Im not a security expert but saying something isn't in the top 10 worst anymore isn't the same as saying its now better, Flash & Java may have become more insecure.

oconnore 15y ago

People who say Windows is insecure aren't comparing it to Flash or Java, they are comparing it to OS X, Linux, or *BSD. Without addressing that comparison, this article is useless.

tptacek 15y ago
Windows is comparably secure to Linux and OS X. This stuff is hard to pin down; for instance, there's a lot of hardening you can (but most people do not) do on Linux, and Lion changes the game on countermeasures for OS X. So it's a uniquely bad time to try to resolve this controversy decisively. But it's also hard to ignore the fact that much of what Lion is doing was pioneered in WinAPI. (I'm an OS X user; also, I do systems software security). Whether Windows (Vista+) is safer than Linux is up for debate. But safety and security are different concepts.
- niels_olson 15y ago
  > safety and security are different concepts I did anti-terrorism in the military for awhile and I totally agree, but I would love to read the great tptacek's breakdown of the differences.
  - StavrosK 15y ago
    I'm not tptacek, but I think it's mostly clear that a castle in Compton is more secure than a cottage in a village in the Alps, but less safe.
    - cosgroveb 15y ago
      I believe I've seen tptacek say a liquor store in Englewood, Chicago with bulletproof glass in front of the cashier is more secure than a 7-11 in Lincoln Park, but the 7-11 is safer. Or something like that. :)
      - StavrosK 15y ago
        Oh, hm. Sounds like I was close, then :)

Herring 15y ago

>living in the past Yeah and so is everyone on XP, and there are a lot of them worldwide.

discreteevent 15y ago
Its not necessarily my favorite OS but I think that in general a lot of commenters have been living in the past (particularly wrt performance and reliability) since windows switched from 3.1 to NT.

aneth 15y ago

The millions of hijacked Windows XP machines ready to a botnet's bidding might beg to differ. Let us never forget that Microsoft Windows is responsible for, among much else, the transfer of critical trade secrets, diplomatic communications, and weapons technologies to our competitors and enemies. If China wins World War 3 in 50 years, Windows, albeit indirectly, will be significantly responsible. Windows 7 may be more secure, but XP is still a major drain on society.

recoiledsnake 15y ago
By that same token, Windows was responsible for commoditizing the hardware by keeping the OEMs in competition with each other, leading to free fall of computer prices and thus putting a computer on almost every desktop and in most laps around the world. Even Apple moved to the x86 platform to take advantage of the scale and prices. If you think Apple hardware is overpriced now, imagine if they didn't have any competition from Sony, Dell, HP, Acer, etc. Back to your argument. Lets see: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/02/technology/02google.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/02/technology/02google.html?p... >She highlighted a fake document titled “Draft US-China Joint Statement” that was circulated among people with e-mail accounts at the State Department, the Defense Department, the Defense Intelligence Agency and Gmail. Clicking to download the document directed users instead to a fake Gmail log-in page that captured their passwords. So that attack wouldn't have worked if the user was on an iPad or Droid or a Macbook Air or running the most hardened Linux computer. Right? Zero days have been found in every browser/OS combo around. It's hard to see how OS X would fare better in a very targeted attack as Safari/OS X is usually one of the first to fall in PWN2OWN where the reward is a Macbook (not a win in a World War). Stop getting your news only from places like Boyocott Novell, Groklaw,Slashdot, HN and the comments there. It warps your mind.
- aneth 15y ago
  You are correct that Windows was responsible for the commoditization of computing. You are also correct that many hacks occurred through means other than unpatched Windows machines. Neither of those truths changes the fact that Windows XP has been and continues to be a serious issue for national and corporate security. Almost every computer in China runs a pirated version of XP that can not be patched and is vulnerable and likely infected with some sort of botnet software. Many corporations and agencies in the US have been compromised in this way as well.

tristanperry 15y ago

I'd agree with these findings. Windows 7 especially does seem fairly safe and secure. The only time I've had a virus on my current computer is when I've actively downloaded files and run them without properly scanning them first (which is 100% my own fault of course; not a wise idea to download when rushing!) I know some non-tech-savvy users who literally have 200+ programs installed and 3+ of those spammy toolbars on their IE installs. When you've got people who will download anything and everything they see, it's no surprise they get loads of viruses - and then blame Windows when thing go awry. I agree that the architecture of Unix-based OSes is probably more secure than Windows 7 overall, although this doesn't mean that W7 is insecure.

seivan 15y ago

BS. Kaspersky and others biggest market is on Windows. They thrive on sold Windows copies.

barista 15y ago
by that logic touting that their biggest market is a secure OS does not help their bottomline does it?
- epo 15y ago
  Not necessarily, it could mean that one market is saturated and they are looking to open up new markets.

phatbyte 15y ago

"...that conventional wisdom is wrong..." ... "...For the very first time in its history...". So people are wrong to assume that windows products are vulnerable just because for the first in years it happend not to be ? This article is pointless imo, doesn't explain why is it any safer, only assumes it because some hacker HIRED by microsoft said so.

Iv 15y ago
Even worse : it just says that flash is more insecure than windows. Nothing more.

ldar15 15y ago

On the one hand, the evidence provided to back this claim is pretty lame: 1. Microsoft vendor says so. 2. Windows blogger says so. 3. Person *hired* by Microsoft says so. That said, if Adobe can no longer say "hey, at least we're not as bad as the people who make the operating system", we may finally see some effort by them. More public shaming the better.

olliesaunders 15y ago
Kapersky sell security software, if anything they’re likely to make claims about how bad security is so that people will buy their software.

Mithrandir 15y ago

Define insecure/secure. I know that if a popup tells me I can get free cat screensavers at 'randomwebsitewitharandomname.com', it's most likely fake and might have a virus attached. I don't download it and my system is 'secure'. However, if I don't know it's fake (i.e., I'm not experienced with computers at all,) I might download it. Now my system is insecure. Whoopee. You could say that a system is only secure if it can catch things like that before it's too late. The problem there is that Windows, like other OSes, does not come with any anti-virus program built into the system itself (I'm excluding security measures built into Windows as this doesn't fully protect it.) Windows is only secure from viruses when an antivirus program is used. Of course, that doesn't make other systems safe. Just because Mac and GNU/Linux viruses are rare doesn't mean it's secure. This mentality is 'security by unpopularity'. The real argument is in how these systems would protect themselves from viruses that actually ran on them if those viruses were as prevalent as Windows viruses and the systems were used as much as Windows. On that, we can only speculate. My point is that I'm only secure if I know what I'm doing; software is not built to replace common sense

pnathan 15y ago
* I'm only secure if I know what I'm doing; software is not built to replace common sense* That's an excellent and succinct statement of security; can I use that line?
- Mithrandir 15y ago
  Haha, sure!
bad_user 15y ago
I once installed Windows XP on a machine that got compromised in the first 20 minutes just because I forgot to unplug the network cable while installing it -- although I wasn't prepared for offline updating anyway. When a machine gets compromised by just being connected to a network, that's pretty bad and I sure hope Windows 7 is a lot better.
- harisenbon 15y ago

fractalcat 15y ago

Security isn't just about lack of buffer overflows. It's in the way users interact with the system, and the way they're encouraged to interact. In most Linux distributions, the user is encouraged (by the design of the system) to, in almost all cases, either install cryptographically-signed software packages vetted and maintained by the vendor; or download a source package and compile it themselves. In Windows, the user is encouraged (by the design of the system) to download unsigned binaries from all over the Web and run them. That's why I'll never consider Windows to be comparably secure to modern Linux distributions. Sure, you can keep a Windows system airtight, but the way the system is designed makes it require effort, so users, in general, don't.

epochwolf 15y ago
Apparently you haven't seen the latest trends in the ruby development world. Here's two examples I've seen lately. The first is for OSX only but the second is for *nix. curl get.pow.cx | sh bash < <(curl -s https://rvm.beginrescueend.com/install/rvm)
- drdaeman 15y ago
  RubyGems version 0.8.11 and later supports adding cryptographic signatures to gems.
bad_user 15y ago
I'm a Linux user and I do agree, but I do have to tell you - the lack of universal binaries that you can just download and install on a Linux workstation is one of the reasons Linux will never be as popular as Windows or even OS X. People want convenience over anything else. A computer has to be secure in spite of people downloading software from all over the web.
- xilun0 15y ago
  Considering how i use computers, most of the time i found it far more convenient to apt-get search and 20s latter install (or the equivalent with the package manager you use) than downloading a random piece of software from a random internet site, which from this point might become a risk if it does not auto update, and if it does it's with a stupid yet-another rewritten auto update program that always uses 50 MB of RAM for just one program installed on the system, even when the program does not run. And considering the success of "app stores" and the general dislike of the traditional windows desktop computers by the general public (except if you are fool enough to help them for free doing all the busy work maintenance tasks that can't even exist on serious systems), I guess the centralized packaging and distribution model is also pretty convenient for the general public...

m0nastic 15y ago

To be fair, almost all of the proclamations I see from people about Windows being insecure are based on old, pre-SP2, pre-SDLC anecdotes and experiences (which were definitely true at one point, but haven't been true for quite a while). It would be like if I railed against Linux being usable by complaining about how bad the sound subsystem was... This Usenix video from last year of Crispin Cowan going over improvements to Windows security was interesting: http://www.usenix.org/multimedia/sec10cowan http://www.usenix.org/multimedia/sec10cowan