Which desktop operating system is most secure?

Discussion in 'polls' started by Hungry Man, Mar 13, 2013.

?

Which OS is most secure?

  1. Windows XP

    3.3%
  2. Windows Vista/7

    18.7%
  3. Windows 8

    18.7%
  4. Windows (Other, post which)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. Ubuntu/Fedora Derivative Distros

    11.0%
  6. Linux (Other, post which)

    33.0%
  7. OSX

    6.6%
  8. Other

    8.8%
  1. Tarnak

    Tarnak Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2007
    Posts:
    5,285
    I voted other, and since I am still using XP, I really can't say it is worse or better than another. It still works for me.
     
  2. safeguy

    safeguy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Posts:
    1,797
    Am I the only one who's sick and tired of these same old rhetoric arguments pushed forward by proponents of older version of Windows? They know they lose grounds on the security aspect and keep pushing the idea of intertwining 'security' and 'privacy' to prove their point. How can one claim privacy when the foundation (the OS) itself is insecure by a huge margin in the 1st place? Seriously...think about it. Everything...every means you use to compartmentalise or make private on your OS is dependent on the system. It's like building a straw house...easily blown by the wolf.

    Just to point out the obvious (because somehow the other party keep using these as factors for their privacy argument)

    1. Open ports. Win98 had open ports with no built-in firewall. WinXP firewall was not
    enabled by default until SP2 came. Compare that to Vista onwards whereby the firewall is not only enabled by default, it had separate profiles to fit the environment you are in. Not to mention, the updated networking stack...

    2. Updates. If you are really that worried about the "calling home" factor, just get an offline update tool. Not getting updates is a dumb trade-off.

    3. Crypto libraries. If the argument is that the modern version of Windows is just an inconvenience to the NSA, imagine how much they must be laughing at those using Win98 and XP. "Peanuts" they say.

    4. If you cannot trust WinNT, what makes you think you can trust its predecessors? Look up the history of Microsoft and SDL.

    If privacy and anonymity of paramount importance to a person to the point where he or she cannot trust Microsoft, the answer isn't to use older obsolete Windows OSes. The code isn't open. To make things worse, you have outdated code with known available bugs and security issues. You can't honestly believe you are in a private paradise, do you?
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2014
  3. noone_particular

    noone_particular Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    3,798
    Almost as tired as I am of hearing the "you're screwed if you don't have the latest and greatest" sock puppet rhetoric. If you think an OS being hostile to privacy doesn't matter, you're either blind or part of the problem. I don't care either way. Use what you choose and I'll do the same.
     
  4. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    10,215
    sagefuy, and how is any of that important or relevant?
    Since when did security become the most important piece of computing?
    Since when did it matter?
    Mrk
     
  5. safeguy

    safeguy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Posts:
    1,797
    If you think Win98 or XP isn't hostile to privacy, you are definitely deluded. But go ahead and live in denial....not my problem either.
     
  6. safeguy

    safeguy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Posts:
    1,797
    Come on Mrk. Since when did I claim as such? Throwing lame questions like that seems to be a favorite signature of yours whenever it comes to security as a topic.

    Security matters ever since computing becomes integral part of our day-to-day life, at least in modern cities. Computing is no longer just about a person staring at his large desktop screen and playing games.
    If you are trying to bait me into a philosophical debate about security, I'm not interested.

    Now my turn to ask:

    Since when security matter does not matter?
    Since when has anything you say about security matter?
     
  7. luciddream

    luciddream Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2007
    Posts:
    2,545
    You know what these people remind me of?... a combination of 2012 Doomsday prophets (meets) Brawndo: The Thirst Mutilator "It's Got Electrolytes !"

    I fact I can envision that bit being the marketing campaign for Windows 11. Windows 11... It's Got Electrolytes.

    XP of course... water, ya know, that stuff that comes from the toilet?

    And the scary thing is I see an audience every bit as desensitized to the big picture as the people in that film wondering why the equivalent of Gatorade wasn't making their tulips grow.
     
  8. luciddream

    luciddream Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2007
    Posts:
    2,545
    There's an obvious answer to that, and every statement you make really. But it would require you to actually be objective for a moment, which you're completely and utterly incapable of.

    There are only degrees of trust, not absolutes. At least for me, and I'd guess it works that way with most people, even regarding their loved ones let alone a cold piece of hard/soft-ware.

    As time progresses, our liberties/freedoms have regressed. That is why an OS made 15 years ago is more trustworthy than one made today. Since that OS was created things like The Patriot Act, and many other Constitution rapes have been introduced to society.

    If you're unwilling to acknowledge the obvious implications of such things then you're the one living in denial here. But I get the feeling deep down that you do know this... all of us know this. It's just, as I said before, you've made your beds and now are stubbornly sleeping in them, even as they leak (I guess they're water beds).

    Add to this that XP is just far more customizable... far more "open", though not open source, no. And some of us have managed to not get compromised in that entire 10-15 years of using it, despite all those doomsday scenarios you and others have mentioned. And so why would we feel insecure? Add that feeling of security to an increased feeling of privacy, that it's something you are already familiar with, is more tweakable/trimmable (bit + to geeks) and, yes, even trust (to a larger degree than the newer ones).

    Do the math, and be truly honest with yourself, and it's no mystery at all... really.
     
  9. safeguy

    safeguy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Posts:
    1,797
    Look at the pot calling the kettle black. Joke of the day.
    Seriously though, I have been an XP user before. You talk about things that I know...I've been there, done that. The customization, the HIPS, all the things that make XP great. I don't deny.

    What I'm pointing out is the underlying problem manifesting in the OS; made worse by the end of support. It is this info that somehow differentiates where we stand...you can't seem to get it into your head.

    I have never seen Windows as an OS befitting the needs of privacy, regardless of which version. I don't see XP as more privacy-friendly than Windows Vista onwards. I cannot trust my system to be 'private' enough when I know how insecure it is. No amount of firewalling, port closing, is enough when I know the kernel is weak and there is no ASLR. The NSA isn't my biggest fear...but if it was, I wouldn't want to use an OS that I know is peanuts for them to pass through.

    I just see the newer modern version of Windows as better fit for general use in today's threat landscape.

    I don't proclaim myself smarter than you lucid or no one particular but here is where we differ. I am open to the idea of learning. I don't stick to preconceptions forever.

    You know what. I'm done here. I can talk to a dumb person who takes time to listen and learn. I can't talk to a person who's set in his ways and have a thick skull. Roger and out. You go your way while I go mine.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2014
  10. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    10,215
    In the argument of XP versus whatever, it matters not. In fact it's overrated.
    The new Windows don't offer any great improvements. Some yes. Great no.
    Tell me, 64-bit support. Bravo! Kudos! Yup.
    Better hardware support? Yes!
    Security? Meh.
    Mrk
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.