Security in computers are there forever

No matter how tight the security of software is, vulnerabilities will be found to be exploited. Because the software is made by humans and humans make mistake, something will always be left to be exploited. It just takes enough will and dedication.

So sometimes I think the reason why Windows had more viruses than like Macs or how IE had more problems than Firefox other than shitty coding is because every hacker finds its a prime target because everyone uses it.

If lets say everyone used Linux and Firefox, I am pretty sure there might loads of virus and exploits occuring on them too (though Im sure not as much as Microsft's products).

I thought this was obvious.

Ideally, you'd have a heterogenious environment, one in which one product or mode of computing doesn't dominate the whole industry...  That way, a virus that affects one will not affect the other.  But Microsoft put an end to that possibility long ago.

It's the same concept that doomed the banana trees; most of them are cloned from one single individual cultivated long ago.  Now there is a fungus that has broken out, and is laying waste to them.  All banana plants posess the same vulnerability to this organism, there has never been any variation in their genetic line.

Linux is very secure because every linux installation is it's own custom OS.  exploits that may work on one linux box will probably not work on any other. 

Disproof by example of the "insecurity in numbers" theory:
Apache. It runs 2/3 of the web, yet there are still more exploits for IIS. Thanks for playing, better luck next time!

also mozilla has had assloads of vulns, firefox is no panacea

ie has just been targetted for much longer

plus the platform underneath the browser has much to do with it

There's certainly an argument to be had there, but the force behind the 'popularity breeds vulnerability' theory when dealing with Windows pales in comparison to the pillars of flaws with Windows security that exist not due to malicious research, but user laziness as well as Microsoft's. The average user does NOT care for security, they care for ease-of-use.

Computers themselves, even with a retard-friendly OS, are probably the most annoying problem to plague a human's life in a single day, do you expect Microsoft to make this even more difficult by forcing the user to learn more than how to right-click a shortcut and press OK to any prompts?

Users don't want passwords, they don't want prompts, they don't want hindrances, they don't want incompatibility, they don't want to think: they want an A-to-B solution with no work on their behalf. Security requires all of what users find difficult and until the 'base user' raises the bar on how much effort they're willing to contribute and if they are able to instinctively learn programs and know their OS security will always be an issue.

In closing: the issue is not with Microsoft's products, it's much more with their users and the programmers which herd them off cliffs. Do you know why Windows XP is insecure? Because you use an administrator account to download your viruses and you do this because Microsoft never educated you on limited accounts, so no one used them, so programmers did not design for them. Use a limited account, disable your services, and get a firewall with yes/no directions for programs. Yay, security.

To be fair, Window's seperation of user from administrator is painful. This is partly Microsoft's fault, and partly the fault of third-party developers. Running in a restricted account is no fun. That said, I don't like constantly entering my root password in my linux desktop either, and I do it far too often.

Several years ago, when I first entered university, I got in an argument with a professional software engineer (and a very good one at that) about Microsoft's insecurities. Being a linux neophyte, I was totally gung-ho on the "linux rules M$ droolz" spiel.

He owned me so bad. When it comes right down to it, there's an inverse relationship between ease of use and security. UNIX geeks like their security, so put up with the shit that comes along with authentication and authorization, but normal people won't. They just want it to work.

Can someone enlighten me on OSX's security model?

>Do you know why Windows XP is insecure? Because you use an administrator account to download your viruses

Not rly. I've been using root alone in Linux forever, and I never got screwed up (nor screwed my system up either). It's not a matter of handcuffing yourself, it's a matter of knowing what you do and not doing anything stupid. All incoming files (network or removable media) should be scanned, everything verified by hand, you must be firewalled and use the latest stable version of what you need, and you must have the ability to understand and fix whatever you use.

I personally find restricted accounts a pain in the arse. Due to the kind of stuff I do, I'd be always requiring to su.

Under Windows, I'm admin all the time too, and never had a problem. It's even easier today: in the MS-DOS times, viruses were targeted for computer users, which usually knew more of their system than today. Therefore, viruses really acted like viruses, infecting stuff as you run - or even as you touch. But today's viruses are only targetted to retards. You have to run these "viruses" for them to work, duh. What are the chances of catching me with that? If you get one of these modern "I love you", "kewwwl screensaver", "Double click www.myass.com";, etc. viruses, you're a moron and you deserve what you got.

I've been using root alone in Linux forever,

Fuck me, do people like this still exist?

Yes, it's my security model, it consists of:

1. Not being stupid

Worked wonders so far ^_^

>>9
seriously

somtimes i stay su - in a vc for some time during active maintenance

but always use a user account for anything that requires x or any sort of internet connectivity.. downloading/verifying patches for maintenance, bullshitting on irc etc

people idling their cool leenux desktops with the cool transparencies as root is first pointless and second retarded

Having to change to root to do anything is annoying for the "average user" - which is why OSes designed for the average user automatically call sudo if an app needs system access. All the user has to do is type in his password (his user pass, not even the root pass) and go about his business. Hardly inconvenient.

Before you argue with this, consider that this is the approach taken by OS X, the UNIX that comes from that company which is well known for its focus on usability.

Remind me again why we must sacrifice security for usability?

>>12
apple paid off the lead freebsd developer to jump ship and run their flagship-os farm project known as darwin

everyone sucks on the opensource community, like leeches

>>11
>people idling their cool leenux desktops with the cool transparencies as root is first pointless and second retarded

If you're too clumsy and screw your box up or allow others to, then it's your problem, not mine. I never had such problems.

>>14
you irc as root?

>>13
Despite the fact that you're addressing an unrelated point that no one made, hackers write code like the sun produces heat. Is making use of a naturally occuring resource leeching?

>>14
STOP BEING STUPID

>>12
That's why the Mac is a beautiful piece of work that many artists use for their niche graphical/audio programs. Does the rest of the world want it? No.

The point I tried to make was that there are many many many reasons why Windows has always failed in terms of superuser permissions, and the userbase has no one to blame but itself. Blaming Microsoft for insecurity is like blaming your government for not being democratic: it's that way because you wanted it that way, and you're getting it that way. Take a glance at some MS security forums; they revel in it. Microsoft is very similar to the current state of American politics, really. Their underlying framework may be a complete tower of shit with golden doors, but they're fucking raking it in.

>>17
WHAT THE HELL DO COMPUTER OPERATING SYSTEMS HAVE TO DO WITH AMERICAN POLITICS YOU HELLBENT EUROTROLL

Because capitalism is the ultimate democracy.
Also caps lock is cruise control for cool.

for you to find elegant wedding dresses and accessories that live up to your childhood dreams http://www.beendress.com/Wedding-Dresses-Lace-Wedding-Dresses.html  lace low back wedding dress . http://www.beendress.com/  discount wedding dress   http://www.beendress.com/Flower-Girl-Dresses.html  budget flower girl dresses

Additionally you should be certain with regards to the option of the fabric. Flower garments made from delicate material including Organza or chiffon will want far more care, and so better select silk http://www.portdress.net/  floral summer dresses , cotton or perhaps polyester clothes. From time to time long gowns trouble the kids and don’t allow them to take pleasure in their freedom of  Additionally, http://www.portdress.net/  Garter  choose a details neckline and also straight midsection. These will probably best improve your waistline thus making you look older in your wedding outfit. http://www.portdress.net/  discount gowns  <br>  <br> When most brides consider their bridal party, they possibly image their bridesmaids and maid of honour in matching outfits and shoes. even although you choose your wedding