distros like Linux Mint and Ubuntu are really easy to use. i been running them for a few months without problems. of course, not all Linux distros are easy to use as those two above. as for the weird filenames, i don't know what you are referring to. maybe you can give a few examples?
I remember seeing some official stats about that from the massive telemetry data of Microsoft, maybe on the official blog of Windows 7 development or Windows 8 development. I'll try to research it later on.
Well you know what they say, a gun is only a good at the person that shoots it. The same goes for operating system and the software that you utilize. Or my other favorite ... you can't fix stupid. I should known, my father is one of the few people on the planet that can break a computer before his browser even has a chance to connect. How? Hell if I can figured out what's going on in his brain. Thankfully, with a bit of computer education he's coming along way. Maybe that's why Mac is so popular?
The question of the thread is "Which desktop operating system is most secure?". Android isn't a desktop operating system.
Precision, desktops house the cpu in towers, mini towers, and all-in-one. Android OS is in desktops, laptops, tablets, and phones. http://www.hsn.com/products/android-215-hd-lcd-touchscreen-dual-core-all-in-one-d/7164988 http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&ke...aps&hvadid=3527346218&ref=pd_sl_2to3srfiqv_ee http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1004179-REG/hp_e2p19aa_aba_slate_21_all_in_one_android.html 01101110 01101111 01101111 01100010 I repeat Linux Android most secure. Ixquick Android desktops and there are more. I dont want to do the research you should have done. I wish you hadn't mention it. Androids are as individual as their makers. I have a Nexus 4 which comes out the box with only Google apps, not apps from the developers in the Google Play store where the problem exists. I got 16 if the 76 apps on my phone from Google; all but 3 I used on previous phones, from free versions I liked and bought paid one. I research the developers before I download. I have great security, Webroot SecureAnywhere Complete, Belarc, and Malwarebytes Anti-Malware. I got one app from Amazon, one from XDA Developers, and the remainder from F-Droid depositories. Google Play still has some problems, Apple fewer, but F-Droid depositories has had not one infected app. Ixquick it. Please dont just blurt out some generality without some fact checking. I believed that everyone know there were Android desktops, laptops, tablets, and phones. And book readers too. But I wouldn't say it here until I'd checked Tech moves as fast some human brains. They didn't check their information. Check anything they say carefully. Android is among the most secure OSs. Yes the Google store has had malware problems, but you check you'll see most is spyware. Mobile platforms big on spyware. Some put on by the carriers. Notably the Carrier IQ diagnostic software some carriers put on their phones to spy on you. That's why I bought Nexus devices directly from Google. The are in the class of HTC 1, Samsung Galaxy S series, and other high end but half the price. Nexus devices are about 300 o 400 dollars full price, unlocked, and have no carrier or hanset bloat or skins on the OS. Carriers put a skin of software to give features they believe folk want. Last year the Nexus 4 was best all round phone; this year it's the Nexus 5. For accurate information go to PhoneArena, Android Central, and xda developers.
Depends on one's concept of what constitutes "secure". And do they include privacy & anonymity part of the package? Out of the box only, or considering how secure the OS is capable of being in the hands of someone that can get the most out of it? Including 3'rd party software to assist you, or not? Including how much you trust it, even if only on gut feeling alone with no tangible proof to substantiate it? I'd have different answers depending on the criteria. Based on my concept of what secure entails my answer would be XP Pro. For privacy alone, Debian.
Well if you don't feel that the first party is trustworthy, then putting all your eggs into their basket is hardly a good idea.
Voted Linux (Other) I'd say Tails. https://tails.boum.org/ (Debian based) Though not ideal for daily use, it does have everything locked down before using (well, except having to enable Noscript). It'd be pretty hard to infect your system while using it anyway because it's a live cd made not to write anything to disk. For daily systems, well, that's why this forum exists. I wouldn't say Windows is secure by default, but can be made secure. There's probably tons of Linux distros that might be secure on install, but then once you start using them might just find their security setup is just a hassle to use. Default Fedora with SELinux isn't too bad though.
None of them are really, unless you just don't use the web or install anything beyond what comes in the box. Mobile systems are vulnerable to the ad networks embedded in apps and the vast permissions apps attempt to force. Windows, well, no explanation is needed for that. Linux is becoming targeted more every day.
According to some folks, XP and Win98. They are that 'secure' to the point where they no longer need updates. I wish it was that easy.
It is, for plenty of people in real world environments. You can't argue with results, and it's a fact that there are plenty of people out there running 98SE, Win2K, and XP and not only getting by just fine but thriving. I've never once been compromised, and until that changes why wouldn't I feel secure? At the same time I sleep easier knowing my OS isn't leaking like crazy, backdoored, and sending every click or keystroke I ever make to my nearest fusion center. I think a lot of people that migrated realize this too, but are too stubborn to admit it because they've made their beds and must now sleep in them. But I trust any M$ OS made since XP about as much as I trust the N.S.A. Exactly as much, actually, as I'm certain they're working hand-in-hand at this point. That cryptic (no pun intended) TrueCrypt message has much larger implications than just that 1 app. They tried to make it apparent without being obvious, with those who have eyes to see. But so many don't want to see/acknowledge it because they've already made their beds, and so they act oblivious to it, which is worse than actually being oblivious. The latter is understandable. The former types irk me, and I don't understand them. To claim to be a security advocate and then advise people to put their faith in a leaky, inherently flawed OS, and their own 1'st party solutions. That advice may be even worse than telling a laymen to stay with an unsupported OS... it's close anyway. Only I don't see any of the people staying with 98/2K/XP recommending their approach to other people, that's the difference.
For a long time, privacy and security were regarded as separate but related issues. Privacy used to be thought of as keeping your personal data and internet usage away from the big money grubbing corporations. Very few viewed their own government as the biggest enemy to privacy. Almost no one thought that their internet searches would get them placed on watch lists. The collaboration of companies like Google and Microsoft with the NSA make the problems of privacy and security one and the same. What used to be strictly a privacy issue is now a security issue for both your PC and your person. IMO, the definition of internet/PC security needs to expand beyond resistance to malicious code. Out of the box, Windows and current software is more resistant to malicious code than it used to be. Thanks largely to corporate influence/control, that security has come at a price, the complete eroding of privacy. There's nothing private about a browser that announces itself to the vendor and Google servers when it comes online. Your OS does the same thing when it checks for updates. IMO, those who view Microsofts latest and greatest as the most secure versions of Windows need to take a long look at their definition of security and what it includes. It's much more than just being resistant to malicious code and known exploits.
Yes I agree, definition of security is expanding and privacy is becoming an important part of it. Also choosing "right OS" to get privacy is IMO not that important. Using non-MS OS doesn't mean you are automatically protected from prying eyes of Google, NSA and others. I believe that big brother is more interested in your on-line activities than on that what's happening on your local computer. So if we would like to be secure (private) we would all have to switch to Tails, Tor and similar.
And I'm sure the NSA doesn't know of any implementation bugs in old PRNGs and crypto libraries... Right. They're dumping billions of dollars a year into hacking and spying on you. If you think that your Win98 setup is secure against their resources indefinitely, you are deluding yourself. If you think that any setup is secure against them, you are deluding yourself. You're not going to escape them, unless you're living "off the grid" (and good luck making any social impact that way).
You keep missing the point. Security isn't just resistance against malicious code or being hacked. It's also about what they can and can't get from your system if they do compromise or seize it. If they want a list of every page I've looked at, they'll have to get it from my ISP. My unit doesn't have that data to give them. Google, Facebook, and others don't have it. Mine has no records of what I've used or installed or when I used them, when I attached external devices, etc. It doesn't matter how good they are. There is no browser history to explore, no cache to examine, no recent, temp, temporary internet folders with data, shellbags, prefetch, hibernation files, etc. They can't make a PC give them information that it doesn't have. Contrast that to Win 7 and 8. Everything you've done and seen is there, available on demand. You can delete much of that data but you can't hide the fact that you did so. Big difference between deleting data (evidence) and not storing it in the first place. I don't doubt that they could hack into my system if they wanted to. I'd bet that they can go into Win 8 just as easily if not more so. It doesn't matter if you're the best hacker around or some script kiddie wannabe down the street. There's only so many ways into a system that don't involve social engineering. Either you have to connect to that PC via an open port or it has to connect to you, either by calling home or by being redirected to a malicious site or server that exploits your system. On Vista onwards, you can't close all of the ports. The only thing preventing access to those ports is the router, routers that are being backdoored at the factory. If the services that open those ports can be exploited, the NSA is the one who can do it since they're the ones that helped to "secure" those systems. Do you really believe that they were being benevolent in trying to help MS secure Windows while subverting everything else at the same time. That's beyond naive. I don't have to worry about anything connecting to open ports, save those opened by Tor. There are none. I don't have to worry about any adversary exploiting UPnP to open a port either. Win 98 didn't come with UPnP installed and enabled by default, and I didn't choose to install it. Current Supported operating systems, browsers, AVs, etc automatically call home by default, looking for and installing updates when available. Try to find and disable all of the mechanisms and reasons a system calls home without allowing it to succeed. It's a nightmare. Do you think for one minute that this calling home doesn't include unique identifiers or that the NSA can't create a malicious update with all of the necessary signatures to install it? IIRC, according to the Snowden leaks, this is already happening in some places. It's documented that they have the ability and the exploits at the ready. Automatic updating is a two-edged sword, both an asset and liability to security, but in regards to privacy it's all liability. I choose to disable all auto-updating and calling home. I'll update manually when I choose from where I choose, and monitor every step of the process. As for the crypto libraries, do you really think that the new ones are any more secure against them than the old ones? They not only subvert encryption, they help choose the standards. None of it is anything more than an inconvenience to them. I don't expect any operating system, mine included to be secure against them, indefinitely or otherwise. OTOH, I don't believe that the current operating systems are secure against them at all. IMO, the NT systems were designed to be spyware. On XP, those "features" can be largely disabled or removed. On newer operating systems, even that is no longer possible.
