Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Vista Post-SP2 Is the Safest OS On the Planet 1010

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the color-me-skeptical dept.
pkluss noted Kevin Turner, COO of Microsoft making the proclamation that "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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Vista Post-SP2 Is the Safest OS On the Planet

Comments Filter:
  • by Drakin020 (980931) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @05:18PM (#27577429)

    That this thread will consist only of positive remarks, and supportive statements towards Microsoft.

    • by xmason (206262) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @05:21PM (#27577501) Journal

      That this thread will consist only of positive remarks, and supportive statements towards Microsoft.

      Well, they make some dandy keyboards and mice, and I've always been a fan of Flight Simulator...
       
      ...but that's about all I got here. OS X FTW!

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by DigiShaman (671371)

      Is it reliable (as in stable)? Sure. I have yet to have Vista bomb out on me that wasn't due to a buggy 3rd party driver or faulty hardware.

      Is it safe? Heh, so says the wife beater of software...

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nine-times (778537)

      And if it's not, then I suppose you'll claim it's evidence that this site is biased... as opposed to the site the article [microsoft.com] is on, which is completely fair and balanced?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @05:58PM (#27578159)

      I think securing any OS is a good thing but I'm strangely reminded of the win2k security certification. Win2k was certified secure as long as it wasn't networked. As the saying goes, microsoft are now 4/5 of the way to reinventing unix... badly. Any OS security can be easily subverted by an administrator, but Myopicsoft make it a necessity. In my case I run Fax and Scan as administrator on some client machines as I refuse to set up an AD domain for 3 clients. Endless examples of this kind of braindamage... runas isn't a patch on SxID and they didn't even get sudo right.

      Hopefully Microsoft will have a usable secure OS some time soon. In the mean time, there's unix.

    • by aliquis (678370) <dospam@gmail.com> on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @06:05PM (#27578311) Homepage

      ... and not only because the article isn't about OpenBSD at all.

      Anyway, yes, OpenBSD as an OS is probably pretty secure, but so are many others to, but the more crap you pile on top of it the more risk.

      Anyway, the OpenBSD people count their "security" (marketing vise atleast) in years since the last remote root(?) exploit.

      How likely is a remote root/administrator exploit vs Vista with a software firewall, no extra services and a user which don't do anything? ...

      When it comes to exploits vs browsers, mail clients, IM clients, document viewers and such the OS isn't the issue.

    • by Gerzel (240421) * <(moc.liamg) (ta) (terrefyllorb)> on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @06:24PM (#27578659) Journal

      Well they may have been right, but only in the short term.

      It takes some time for the bugs and exploits to be found. Even the best OS's will have them. And if not fixed the safest OS one year will be the wide open security hole the next.

      That said I seriously doubt they did any real checking to see if what they were saying was true.

      The best way to make a computer safe from hackers is to remove the power cord. The second best is to remove all network connections. But both of those are only if you are measuring purely from a safety from hackers and malicious use, as both also remove most all other use of the computer as well.

  • by b0ttle (1332811) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @05:20PM (#27577455)
    He should have stopped here.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      No, he is probably right.

      MacOS X isn't all that secure. Professional hackers have said that the implementation of ASLR/NX on Vista is far superior to Apples.

      And as for Linux? Well, it wasn't that long ago that a certain high profile distribution accidentally disabled the pRNG in its core crypto libraries ... for two years. And then another high profile distro let attackers actually sign some rogue packages with their private key. I don't think anybody should be making smart comments about the security of Li

      • That leaves Vista

        ...and all the security-designed systems. Do you really think Windows is safer than OpenBSD, let alone OpenVMS? Or whatever the NSA uses on their hardest systems? His quote is like saying that "the Ford Mustang is the fastest car on the planet".

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Does BSD do everything that Vista does? Those systems are so locked down that it affects their capabilities. I'm not saying it's bad, but I don't think you can compare BSD to Vista without starting by saying that BSD doesn't do alot of the important things that Vista users take for granted.

          Your comment is like saying that an Abrams Tank is more secure than a Mustang.

          True, but can a tank get on the freeway without causing a traffic jam?

      • by ushdfgakj (1218112) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @05:55PM (#27578127)
        Let's see here. On the left hand, we have the people at Microsoft claiming to make a secure operating system, and putting escrow into the encryption such that data can be seamlessly copied from the operating system to an unknown location. We witness Microsoft as an incredibly corrupt entity, in nearly every possible way - from locking in hardware manufacturers to using Windows to throwing lawsuits at everybody who even vaguely seems to threaten them (remember Lindows?). On the right hand, we have the code of Linux, FreeBSD, etc. available for the entire world to review, figures of authority are not chosen based on how much of a jackal they are, but how much their experience is worth. OpenBSD and FreeBSD have things like in-kernel crypto, chroot jails, are actually POSIX compliant, and seem to suffer from very little bloat due to the trend to make specific utilities as discrete as possible, and hence nearly as flawless as possible. Let's just agree to disagree. Or I can just call you an idiot. I'm fine with either.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @05:58PM (#27578157)

        The reason why Vista, Mac OS X, and Linux have fewer exploits is simple. Windows XP is easier to exploit.

        Just remember that the security of the newer OSes is only one factor in the availability of the exploits.

        If you want to visualize a flawed analogy; when you're being chased by a hungry lion, it doesn't matter how fast you run as long as you run faster than the guy beside you.

        In this analogy XP is the slowest runner who is still plentiful. When the XP prey dwindles away, the hungry blackhat lions will look for the next slowest runner.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @05:59PM (#27578191)

        "And as for Linux? Well, it wasn't that long ago that a certain high profile distribution accidentally disabled the pRNG in its core crypto libraries ... for two years. And then another high profile distro let attackers actually sign some rogue packages with their private key. I don't think anybody should be making smart comments about the security of Linux."

        Let's get this straight. You think *all* Linux distributions are unsafe because of TWO vendors. Do you believe in eugenics as well?

        You do realize that your comment glosses over the hundreds(thousands?) of holes and exploits that M$ is responsible for it every OS up to and including this one you're waxing poetically about, right?

        I wonder why I haven't ever had a rootkit on my Linux installations but I fix M$ installations all the time(Vista included) that have been rootkitted. Once a week at least.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Well, together Debian Ubuntu and Red Hat probably compromise the majority of Linux installs these days. If two large and well respected distros can fail in such basic ways, then it's reasonable to extrapolate that smaller and presumably less professional outfits will be even more flaky. Of course you can always find some Linux distro that has a perfect track record, but like I said above, usage counts. At some point if you want the word "Linux" to be meaningful you have to start talking about the bits actua

      • by spinkham (56603) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @06:06PM (#27578321)

        Vista is arguably the most secure OS suitable for desktop use.
        It is not the safest OS suitable for desktop use however.
        What's the difference?

        The President of the United States is arguably the most secured individual on the planet.
        However, due to the large number of threats against him and his need to travel and be in the public eye often, he is not the safest individual on the planet.

        Operating systems are the same. Vista has added many good defenses, but is still the OS with the target on its back.
        I'm ok with Microsoft claiming to be the most secure OS for desktop use. OpenBSD and some hardened Linux distros might wish to disagree, but most people don't run hardened systems on desktops, they want more functional systems that are easier to support.
        However, I'm not going to let MS get away with calling Vista the safest OS out there, because it just isn't.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        it wasn't that long ago that a certain high profile distribution accidentally disabled the pRNG in its core crypto libraries ... for two years.

        Umm, no.

        A certain high-profile distro accidentally disabled the pRNG in it's sshd initialization scripts.

        another high profile distro let attackers actually sign some rogue packages with their private key.

        again, no. The key was suspected to have been compromised, and as soon as it was discovered, the key was revoked, they performed a complete audit of all packages, and everything checked out.

        I don't think anybody should be making smart comments about the security of Linux.

        Least of all you... of course the fact that the only two incidents that you could come up with are entirely in your head actually speaks volumes.

  • what? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tumbleweed (3706) * on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @05:20PM (#27577483)

    "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."

    See any serious problems with this story?

    Do I see any serious problems with this story? Uh, yeah, maybe one or two...

    I'm not sure why this is news - MS says this about every OS release they put out...

  • Fail (Score:3, Informative)

    by clang_jangle (975789) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @05:20PM (#27577485) Journal
    April 1st was 2 weeks ago.
  • today.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SIR_Taco (467460) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @05:21PM (#27577487) Homepage

    It's the safest and most secure OS on the planet today

    Until tomorrow when all those pesky exploits come out

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by networkBoy (774728)

      5 bucks says some exploits launch just to poke holes in their statement.

      Next major worm will only target Vista and will spam MS addresses with

      EPIC FAIL
      This spam was sent from a compromised Vista machine.

  • Safest? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jhon (241832) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @05:21PM (#27577495) Homepage Journal

    Even if it is, it's too late. Vista is already perceived as the new Windows ME. With Windows 7 coming up soon, I doubt there will be much sales increase for MS.

  • by Daimanta (1140543) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @05:21PM (#27577497) Journal

    In the history of man there have been several cases of fatal hilarity(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_Hilarity) and this article might inflict this seemingly comical effect on technically concious people.

    Posting an article like this without thinking about the consequences might actually hurt and kill people. Please don't.

  • ORLY? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @05:22PM (#27577513) Homepage Journal

    It's also the most secure OS on the planet

    Trusted Solaris would like to have a word with you.

  • by m0nkyman (7101) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @05:24PM (#27577555) Homepage Journal

    Waving red in front of the bull. Always a good idea.
    Pity that it will be MicroSofts' customers, not MS that will suffer when the hackers, script kiddies and miscellaneous ne'er-do-wells inevitably trash the security for their latest offering.

  • Fools? (Score:3, Funny)

    by JJman (916535) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @05:25PM (#27577565)
    Checks current date. No, not the 1st.
    Checks date on the article. No, still not the 1st (though eight days different).

    Well, somebody's a fool.
  • post SP2? (Score:5, Funny)

    by mugnyte (203225) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @05:25PM (#27577585) Journal

      Did he mention that Vista post SP2, there is no network stack? Fwoppies FTW!

  • by YesIAmAScript (886271) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @05:27PM (#27577611)

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pwn2own-mac-hack,2254-4.html [tomshardware.com]

    'The NX bit is very powerful.When used properly, it ensures that user-supplied code cannot be executed in the process during exploitation. Researchers (and hackers) have struggled with ways around this protection. ASLR is also very tough to defeat. This is the way the process randomizes the location of code in a process. Between these two hurdles, no one knows how to execute arbitrary code in Firefox or IE 8 in Vista right now. For the record, Leopard has neither of these features, at least implemented effectively. In the exploit I won Pwn2Own with, I knew right where my shellcode was located and I knew it would execute on the heap for me.'

    And this was with Vista SP1. No one knows how to exploit Firefox or IE on Vista due to NX and ASLR.

    This seems to be a pretty powerful statement, from someone who would stand a chance of knowing.

    My only question is, where is Vista SP2? Last I checked, it was not yet released.

    • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @05:33PM (#27577747) Journal
      Thing is, NX and ASLR are not unique to Vista.

      Linux, and the BSDs have, at least optionally, had them for some years now. I'm not sure about OSX.

      There is a very large difference between saying "most secure MS OS ever" and "most secure OS".
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Have Blue (616)
        Leopard was sort of a field test of ASLR, it can relocate a small subset of its system libraries. Allegedly, Snow Leopard will bring full pervasive ASLR.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by YesIAmAScript (886271)

        How about you read the link and then post again?

        Charlie (the winner) says due to ASLR and NX, no one knows how to inject code into a Vista SP1 machine. That seems pretty good to me.

        If you take his comment "safest OS" (not most secure) as an absolute, he's surely wrong. But the most secure OS is also probably not nearly as useful for getting actual work done as many other OSes that present a compromise, like various forms of Linux or Vista.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Lennie (16154)

      What I've heared is, the people who do that work, like any hobbiest or professional for that matter, doesn't want to use Vista.

    • by GNUbuntu (1528599) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @05:46PM (#27577953)

      And this was with Vista SP1. No one knows how to exploit Firefox or IE on Vista due to NX and ASLR.

      Wow with Vista SP1?!??!?! Gee that totally beats out the fact that the Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD kernels had support for that back in 2004 with OpenBSD having support in 2003 and Solaris having NX support as early as 1997 in Solaris 2.6, right?

  • by starglider29a (719559) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @05:27PM (#27577619)
    You are about to boot up your Windows Computer -- (C)ancel, (A)llow, (F)ail

    Yep, most secure, indeed!
  • by Jason Earl (1894) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @05:28PM (#27577637) Homepage Journal

    Richard Stallman announced in a press conference today that Emacs is the safest operating system on the planet. According to Stallman Emacs is safer than Linux, Windows Vista, or Apple's Mac OS X.

  • by tenchima (625569) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @05:30PM (#27577683)
    He never stated which planet...
  • oops (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @05:31PM (#27577701)

    "..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.... oh...uh.... i mean NOT including.. NOT including, sorry i misread that part, it actually says NOT including so.... can i start again please?"

  • Awesome! (Score:4, Funny)

    by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @05:40PM (#27577855)

    "Vista today, post-Service Pack 2, which is now in the marketplace, is the safest, most reliable OS we've ever built.

    Security through obscurity?

    Brilliant!

  • by Targon (17348) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @05:46PM (#27577951)

    one that allows the user to decide not to install potentially insecure software during the initial OS install. This is the biggest problem with Microsoft Windows when it comes to security, the huge amount of crap that gets installed automatically without the ability to decide DURING the install what features you want or do not want.

    Linux as a whole does provide the ability to make a very minimal install with only those applications that you want on the machine. Solaris used to have this ability as well, though I am not sure if you can go package by package during the initial install to decide what you want or do not want on the machine.

    You hear about Linux problems, but then it only applies to a specific Apache version that comes with a "typical" RedHat install, or some other issue which only applies to a certain software package. When a problem can be traced to the kernel or some other core component, that is when it applies to the OS as a whole.

    So, saying that Vista is the most secure after SP2 means nothing if garbage like Internet Explorer is still open to all the exploits that Microsoft doesn't like to talk about.

  • by killmenow (184444) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @05:49PM (#27578009)
    Today Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, proclaimed "Google search is the best search on the planet!"

    Also, Tom Long, CEO of Miller Brewing Company announced, "Our beer is the best tasting beer in the world!"

    Here's a template: [Insert Person's Name Here], [insert title here] of [insert company name here] [announced|proclaimed|stated|declared|quothed] "[insert company's product here] is the [insert positive attribute here] in the entire [world|planet|universe]."

    Repeat, ad infinitum.
  • by Greyfox (87712) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @05:50PM (#27578029) Homepage Journal
    Tell ya what. I have a cable right here that will connect your computer directly to the internet. Lets plug in a computer and kick off a Vista SP2 install (I assume you can get an installation disk that's pre-patched to SP2, right?) Then we'll measure how long it takes for the system to get taken over. Then we'll do the same thing with a stock Debian install CD. Then we'll post our results on the Internet. If your operating system is indeed so secure, you should have no problem with this, right?
  • No... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jrothwell97 (968062) <jonathan@nCHEETAHotroswell.com minus cat> on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @05:51PM (#27578057) Homepage Journal
    the safest OS on the planet is one stored in non-erasable ROM.
  • Microsoft is reeling from the vicious and unwarranted slanders [today.com] of security companies and the US government's Computer Emergency Response Team that its Internet Explorer web browser has alleged "security holes" or is in any way less than the finest software known to mankind and excellent value for your money.

    The festering paedophiles of CERT have gone so outrageously far as to make the ludicrous claim that just viewing a malicious webpage in IE could leave your computer open to being hacked and turned into a Russian Mafia spam server. "We don't know what could have triggered such vindictiveness," sobbed Microsoft marketing marketer's marketer Steve Ballmer. "Do they hate free enterprise that much?"

    There are things you can do to make your computing experience even more secure. Microsoft's official suggestion -- make sure your anti-virus software is up to date and using an entire CPU doing nothing much, click through five screens to run IE in "protected mode," click through four screens to set zone security to "high," click "JUST BLOODY DO IT WILL YOU" when the User Access Control asks if you really want to do this, enable automatic updates with the minor side-effect of installing Microsoft DRM on your system or Windows Genuine Advantage randomly turning your computer into a paperweight, and sacrifice a goat to Microsoft at midnight on a moonless night -- is simple and straightforward. "It's the quality you're paying for."

    On no account should you consider that there might be other web browsers out there, as researchers have demonstrated that all of them automatically download the cover of Virgin Killer. "I saw a report," said marketing marketer John Curran of Microsoft Completely Enderlependent Analysts, Inc., "that another browser had more vulnerabilities than ours! People would be very foolish indeed to move from the latest IE to Netscape 4.01."

    "These CERT wankers are Mactards and trolls," said Guardian marketing marketer Jack Schofield. "They just want to take IE users out, brutally sodomise them, gas them in concentration camps and" [This comment has been removed by a Guardian moderator. Replies may also be deleted.]

  • 2008 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Bert64 (520050) <bert@noSPam.slashdot.firenzee.com> on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @01:40AM (#27582683) Homepage

    So they're saying that their client OS vista is more secure than windows 2008?

Nondeterminism means never having to say you are wrong.

Working...