Most secure OS in 2013

Butchered?... why is it butchering when I do it on XP but it's hardening when you do it on 7? How is making something safer, more stable and more responsive "butchering"? As I look at the definition of the word, it just doesn't fit.

I hear the same thing regarding tweaking and using addons for Firefox. I see it as pure player hating, basically.

If you ask me Windows was butchered by turning a nice trim product into a bloated, convoluted one ever since Vista. That you now need 50 processes running, some of which even need to be able to leak through your FW for your box to function properly. You say it doesn't need to be done... but the fact of the matter is it CAN'T be done on post XP OS's. Not without breaking everything and rendering the box inoperable. Or I bet people would in fact do it.

I know most people will see this the same way you do though, and expected precisely this type of response (and know it won't be the last either). But this will be the last time I respond as I've said all that can really be said on the matter and don't want to turn this thread into a pissing match.

 

Based on my limited understanding of the OS' architectures, I'd say XP Pro is not quite as safe in its default as Win7/8, but it's very safe to use the way Lucid has it set up. My XP Pro SP3 set up dual-boot alongside Win 7 is imo perfectly secure for any general purpose online use.

• several Group Policy settings enforced
• MS EMET 3.0
• Chrome w/ScripSafe plugin
• SRP with all files (incl DLL's) enforced.
• Running as a Limited user
• several services disabled with 19 processes running at idle login state
• Behind a NAT/firewalled router

I don't see anything getting past this unless I allow it.

As for most secure, I don't know, although I tend to agree with Mrk's assessment

 

Agreed. Honestly whose to say Lucid's build is any more or less secure than windows vista or seven. Given Microsoft's track record, a custom proprietary version of windows XP could easily be 10 times better then the sh!t those monkeys at Microsoft keep flinging out. If you don't feel like hardening yourself then you might as well move to Linux. I simply do not trust running windows out of the box.

 

Well that's my point. It can't be done without breaking the OS.

 

The Most secure OS in 2013 is ..... are shown in my signature; which varies from time to time.

As many have said, this is really subjective and it really depends a lot on the person using the system.

 

I dare you to state that in all things UNIX, and get royally owned. Linux doesn't depend on obscurity, it uses solid security like limited rights, trusted repositories, open-source code, etc.
Also, the lack of good security tools is completely untrue. Linux is the OS of choice for hackers, because of its security tools. Read the comments before yours as well.

 

On the contrary it depends very much on obscurity at the moment. Most distros, by design anyway, are not any more secure than Windows 7; some much less so. But with a market share of ~2% they're not worth targeting for malware authors.

(Linux servers are another matter, but Linux servers generally don't run the bloated security nightmare that is X11.)

Oh hey, so does Windows.

This is more of an advantage against social engineering, I'd say.

Open source is compatible with good security. It is not necessarily conducive to good security.

Security tools on Linux may not be lacking, but they tend to be underutilized, difficult to use, or both.

 

The only thing Windows really has over Linux is UI isolation. And that is a tool developers need to take advantage of, otherwise it's just as weak as Linux in that area.

Patch management is much improved with a system like Apt.

Generally true. But even on Ubuntu there are apparmor profiles for default services, even if there could be more.

 

There are trusted repositories and similar free patch management solutions for Windows as well.

 

We're discussing default configurations, right? Because if we weren't it wouldn't really be much of a comparison - if we're talking about the "most secure linux" vs the "most secure windows" while still allowing a user to run their common programs, it's simply no-contest, hands down, Linux winning.

But by default Apt will cover far more than Windows Update.

 

The Windows 8 user may opt to use default Windows Store + Microsoft Update as well.

 

True for Windows RT, yes. For typical Windows users, unless they only use Apps (lol) that's unlikely.

 

For typical users on (not of) Linux, getting everything from Apt is unlikely too, unless they don't need things like commercial games.

 

Nope, for the average linux user (if there is one), I think they will get almost everything from the repositories.... I don't think there are many linux users with commercial games installed.

 

As stated on my post, I wasn't talking about typical users of linux, I was talking about typical users on linux.

 

What's the difference? I don't understand your distinction there....

 

I don't know how to explain it any better. So, I'll give you a rather common situation: imagine a typical Windows user who happens to be using linux instead of Windows because somebody brainwashed convinced him. Chances are he will need something Apt won't give him, like something that only works under Wine. Chances are he will follow some guides on the web to install whatever he wants and not even touch Apt.

 

That's possible for someone who brings a Windows mentality to linux and can't let go, yes... but I think it's not that common. Remember, right now here in Ubuntu for example, there are close to 60,000 apps in the software center, so you can find pretty much anything you want, and often many replacements for common Win apps.

As far as not even touching apt, that's impossible. Most of linux apps and all updates come from apt and the repositories... so even in your case, there's no avoiding it.

 

Can one replace most of the functionality aspect? Yes. But this is just one aspect. Usability, performance and other aspects can't be as easily replaced. And let's not forget commercial games as they're top sellers.

 

All updates are handled by apt. Whether you install through the software center or not.

 

That's why some people dual boot (myself also at the moment). I think the point was, in Win, most apps are likely to come from the outside, and not the app store, and in linux, the opposite, most apps and OS components come from the repositories and much more rarely, from the outside. Thus making linux more secure in general....

 

Why? Typical Windows users don't bother checking for updates manually.

 

The point was about out-of-the-box experience. If one takes other routes, there are several trusted repositories for Windows. I posted about this recently.

 

One can easily allow "untrusted repositories" (non-authenticated/unknown sources) on Apt too. Moot point.

 

Right. And they would be updated accordingly.