Microsoft Claim Windows 7 Will Be More Secure Than Linux And Leopard

[PhireWare]

Ok, so look what I found tonight while I was browsing. This ought to be interesting. Wonder what Apple may do....New Apple Commercial?

Found this article here: http://windows7news.com/2009/04/14/microsoft-claim-windows-7-will-be-more-secure-than-linux-and-leopard/

Microsoft Claim Windows 7 Will Be More Secure Than Linux And Leopard
April 14th, 2009 • Filed Under


Will Windows 7 be the most secure operating system ever? Microsoft seem to think so. Microsoft’s Chief Operating Officer Kevin Turner made the following bold statement yesterday:

"Vista today, post-Service Pack 2, which is now in the marketplace, is the safest, most reliable OS we’ve ever built. It’s also the most secure OS on the planet, including Linux and open source and Apple Leopard. It’s the safest and most secure OS on the planet today. Everything that we’ve learned in Vista will be leveraged in Windows 7, but certainly when we broke a lot of the compatibility issues to lock down user account controls, to lock do

wn the ability to manipulate states and all the things, that was a very painful process for us to grow through, but we had to do it. And the reason that Windows 7 will be successful is because of the pain we took on Vista. Because from a compatibility standpoint, if it works on Vista, it will work on Windows 7. If it doesn’t work on Vista, it won’t work on Windows 7."

I’m glad he stopped short of saying that Windows 7 will be the most secure operating system in the universe!



I have to say that I tend to agree with Kevin Turner. No OS is probed and attacked as often as Windows, yet it manages to keep its users safe. Yes there are always stories in the press about individuals and users who have been infected…but in the majority of cases these users haven’t taken the necessary steps to protect themselves i.e. downloading the latest virus definitions or running a decent firewall.

Gone are the days of 15 year old hackers thinking it was funny to send porn links via viruses. Most hackers now operate purely for commercial gain, and one of the reasons why hackers don’t probe Linux or Leopard as thoroughly as Windows is because even if they were successful the potential returns would be less because there are fewer users.

Producing Windows 7 has been a major undertaking for Microsoft and so far the signs are that it’s going to be major success, and it is unlikely that users will be as reluctant to Buy Windows 7 as they were with Windows Vista. Microsoft should be applauded for making an OS that can work with the millions of different hardware combinations that are possible with PCs, that provides a stable platform for developers, and that is also very safe.

With Windows 7, Microsoft finally might become cool.

What do you think? Sorry Windows, I use to be a windows fan, then Vista came out and I said, hello Mac OS X Leopard! Go Apple!

 

[SkyBell]

Eh...kind of hard to believe. Besides the fact that there are so many more Windows viruses out there than for any other OS, the architecture that Windows uses has been shown to be pretty easy to exploit flaws in...

But it could be, I'm not an expert on this thing.

 

[flopticalcube]

I don't doubt it. Even Vista and XP are secure now. Comes across as a bit of a challenge to hackers, though. Some will undoubtedly try much harder to crack W7 than Leopard or SL.

 

[srl7741]

No deal

Time will tell, I don't buy it because I know Windows too well to believe that will turn out to be the case.

 

[MacDawg]

Not everything Microsoft claims is true... just sayin'

Woof, Woof - Dawg

 

[MisterMe]

Not everything Microsoft claims is true... just sayin'

Woof, Woof - Dawg

Microsoft always claims that its new OS is better than ever before. It is always not true. Things will not be any different this time.

 

[BMWFan]

The security researcher that hacked the macs at pwn2own claims Macs are the least secure. I am sure he knows a thing or two about security.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2941

Why Safari? Why didn’t you go after IE or Safari?

It’s really simple. Safari on the Mac is easier to exploit. The things that Windows do to make it harder (for an exploit to work), Macs don’t do. Hacking into Macs is so much easier. You don’t have to jump through hoops and deal with all the anti-exploit mitigations you’d find in Windows.

It’s more about the operating system than the (target) program. Firefox on Mac is pretty easy too. The underlying OS doesn’t have anti-exploit stuff built into it.

With my Safari exploit, I put the code into a process and I know exactly where it’s going to be. There’s no randomization. I know when I jump there, the code is there and I can execute it there. On Windows, the code might show up but I don’t know where it is. Even if I get to the code, it’s not executable. Those are two hurdles that Macs don’t have.

It’s clear that all three browsers (Safari, IE and Firefox) have bugs. Code execution holes everywhere. But that’s only half the equation. The other half is exploiting it. There’s almost no hurdle to jump through on Mac OS X.

On a scale of 1-10, how impressive was the Nils’ sweep of exploiting all three main browsers?

I was surprised. For IE 8, I’d give him a 9 out of 10. For Safari, maybe a 2. It’s just too easy to pop Safari. For Firefox on Windows, I give him a 10. That was the most impressive of the three. It’s really hard to exploit Firefox on Windows.

Really? What’s the difference between what you can do on IE but can’t do on Firefox?

The technique he used works against IE but not Firefox. It allows you to place code in a specific spot in memory. Mark Dowd and Alex Sotirov talked about this at last year’s Black Hat. You can use a technique to make .net not opt into the mitigations and jump over hurdled easily. With Firefox, you can’t do that.

For all the browsers on operating systems, the hardest target is Firefox on Windows. With Firefox on Mac OS X, you can do whatever you want. There’s nothing in the Mac operating system that will stop you.

 

[flopticalcube]

No point in locking your front door if you live where no one else does.

 

[Pika]

 

[FX120]

The security researcher that hacked the macs at pwn2own claims Macs are the least secure. I am sure he knows a thing or two about security.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2941

Scary stuff, but I am glad that the "UNIX = secure" myth is starting to get some attention.

 

[ceezy3000]

a windows pc IS more secure than a mac. if there was a macbook and inspiron on a table somewhere and u told a thief to steal ONE hed take the mac

 

[Str8edgepunker]

A computer is only as secure as the person who is using it.

That is all.

 

[ceezy3000]

The security researcher that hacked the macs at pwn2own claims Macs are the least secure. I am sure he knows a thing or two about security.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2941

there is a difference in this thinking. for overall security Mac OS X is the best. but in certain aspects it loses to windows in security
1. as annoying as the windows security popups maybe, they do keep u secure
2.windows is a much more difficult OS tohack.
there is a difference in security, for a day to day user mac os x is much more secure. the main worry for computer users today are viruses and not being hacked or cracked by a security expert or hacker. theres a very small chance a hacker is outside ur window trying to get into your computer. there is a bigger chance of u downloading something stupid and having ur computer infected.
its just the peerspective
for a home user :mac os x
for a guy participating in something like cansecwest:windows

 

[Melrose]

Microsoft always claims that its new OS is better than ever before.

They're still saying that about Vista... gad..

 

[TSE]

In actuality, Mac OS X and UNIX based operating systems aren't much more secure, if at all, than Windows based of of DOS or the .NT Kernel, it's just that there are SO many more viruses made for Windows operating systems due to such a big share of the marketshare, I think Windows has something like 80-90% of all computer operating systems.

 

[michael.lauden]

A computer is only as secure as the person who is using it.

That is all.

that's not true at all. or atleast wasn't true after internet explorer came out.


however if all these claims are true. and windows keeps copying OS X.... i might have to purchase Parallels soon


just think - on a copy/performance scale - vista was like jaguar, 7 is more like panther.


if windows 8 is like tiger, i think i'd purchase it.

(i'm just kidding of course about the comparisons. lets not start another mac vs pc arguent and lock the thread)

 

[clevin]

the statement is vague and windows 7 is not out yet. We can do more research when its out.

For now, I would leave it alone.

False ads are everywhere, apple is leading the pack in that regard, who really cares?

 

[tubbymac]

The most secure OS on the planet?

Was he talking about Earth, or like Saturn where it could be true?

 

[WickedRabbit]

I've been saying for quite a while that the only reason Apple isn't more in the spotlight in regards to viruses is simply because hackers see no point in exploiting Mac when only 11% of the market has a Mac. Why waste the time when you can go after the big fish, the other 89% that Microsoft dominates and increase your profits even more?

I pay attention to the PWN2OWN all the time and year after year all the world's best hackers crack Mac OSX first and they all say the same thing: it's the easiest to crack.

The good news, is that as Apple's share in the market increases they will more than likely also start focusing on security more, as right now there really is no need due to the lack of interest from hackers. As they grow though, Apple will have to take steps forward in advancing its security.

You're only safe right now because no one cares about you - hard to believe for some, but that's the simple reason.

Remember the press Apple got not too long ago about when their site recommended using virus software and then it immediately got yanked when news sites around the web starting pointing fingers saying it's because the Mac isn't as secure as Apple wants you to think? I think that was Apple realizing that as their market increases, so will viruses and they currently have no real security software. But, Apple chose to protect their image instead of their customers, so they yanked the software and said Macs are secure. Good luck with that in the near future.

I run virus software on both my Mac and PC. I'm just anal like that because no matter how secure your software may be, doesn't hurt to have a little extra protection.

 

[dsharits]

Let's not forget that Bill Gates promised zero viruses for Vista too...

 

[yetanotherdave]

I've been saying for quite a while that the only reason Apple isn't more in the spotlight in regards to viruses is simply because hackers see no point in exploiting Mac when only 11% of the market has a Mac. Why waste the time when you can go after the big fish, the other 89% that Microsoft dominates and increase your profits even more?

You are wrong to say it though. THink of the fame, the first person to successfully write a virus for OS X. Think of the attention and the money, there have been prizes of around $50k for a OS X virus.

No one has done it. Not one single virus. If there were OS X virus' but less than Windows, then you can pull out your market share argument. But NO OS X virus' absolutely means it's a lot harder. Hacking a box locally in a contest and getting a virus to work are two different things.

Back to the original article, I assume the MS guy means consumer OS's only, either that or he's ignorant of OS's such as OpenVMS.

 

[175170]

Let's not forget that Bill Gates promised zero viruses for Vista too...

So basically, this doesn't mean much.
Ah well, time to start sending porn links to everybody using Windows 7.
*Takes gloves off*

 

[techfreak85]

a windows pc IS more secure than a mac. if there was a macbook and inspiron on a table somewhere and u told a thief to steal ONE hed take the mac

haha that made me laugh!

but,
@Microsoft: Bologna.

 

[WickedRabbit]

You are wrong to say it though. THink of the fame, the first person to successfully write a virus for OS X. Think of the attention and the money, there have been prizes of around $50k for a OS X virus.

No one has done it. Not one single virus. If there were OS X virus' but less than Windows, then you can pull out your market share argument. But NO OS X virus' absolutely means it's a lot harder. Hacking a box locally in a contest and getting a virus to work are two different things.

Back to the original article, I assume the MS guy means consumer OS's only, either that or he's ignorant of OS's such as OpenVMS.

Yes, because surely what a hacker wants is to be famous and win a measly $50,000 and waste a great hack that everyone will patch immediately afterwards. I think your level of thought is extremely close minded. I bet you save your credit card info and take a picture of your social security card "for emergencies" and store it on your iPhone too.

If I've come up with the perfect way to rob a bank and get away with it, i'm going to save it to use on Fort Knox, not go rob a Seven Eleven. I wouldn't even be surprised if the exploits/viruses for Mac OSX all ready exist and people are simply just waiting for Apple's market share to increase to make it all worth while. The whole point is that USUALLY you will only get one great shot at pulling off something spectacular because after that, the heat is on. So, with Apple being completely laid back on security my guess is that the very first full on attack will be highly successful and by the time people figure out what's going on, it'll be too late and millions of people would have gotten ripped off. Afterwards, Apple will ramp up their security, but at the cost of millions of customers all ready.

The very first person to write a Mac virus will use it steal millions of people's credit cards, social security numbers, etc. that all you people that think you're safe over in La La Land with your unicorns and rainbows.

The point of PWN2OWN is not to write a virus, it's to gain control of a system by any means because that's more valuable than a virus. Year after year they all are picking OSX and it's always the very first one cracked. In a lot of situations, the Windows exploits aren't even successful, meanwhile everyone else hacks OSX in 10 seconds. Someone can be remotely connected to your machine without you knowing and what could they do? Well, when you go spend $3000 on a MacBook Air they could write programs to take screenshots of your credit card number and all information associated. They could create keyloggers that specifically start recording only when a 'longer digit' begins to be entered because it could possibly be a credit card number. Plenty of things.

No one is going to waste their time until they deem they can reap the benefits.

 

[jav6454]

Doesn't Microsoft always make this claim for each new update? Call me crazy, but last I checked, Corficker was still making trouble for all Windows based machines even if they had the patch Microsoft had pushed. I mean, how can a machine still fall victim even with the exploit fixed? Leaves so much to ask...

Windows 7 will still be unsafe, it is still based on Vista, which is based on XP, which is based on NT, which is an 10-12 year old architecture of ancient code and exploits waiting to be found.

As long as Windows depends on the DLLhell, Registry and System32 and pretty much everything its handled, it will still be insecure. UNIX based OS's have a clear advantage, no I am not saying this to support OS X. It is a blunt truth. However, I think Linux is much more secure than OS X, but that last statement is IMO.