Discussion»Statements»Rosie's Corner» "No computer is safe". Sez Trump, sez he. Neither is he. Safe. Any one of you feel safe with Trump at the helm? Why?
No one should feel safe with him at the helm.. reasons for that include that he is incompetent, has no idea of how to do what he needs to do, of how to run a country..AND that he's a temperamental idiot who is inherently unstable... this makes him and his actions unpredictable.. and that's a danger.. by any reasonable assessment.
In this he is correct. Windows is inherently unsafe and the holes in it dont get fixed because most of the holes have been used as 'features' by serious programmers writing big corporate programs. Those programs would have to be re-written if the holes got plugged.
Windows is not inherently less secure than Linux or Mac. It's just more popular ( especially in business) and that makes it a better target. Sure Microsoft is slower to patch bugs than Linux ( Apple isn't any better at timely bug fixes really) but that does not mean the OS itself is inherently more flawed than others. It's a flaw in closed source programming. Also, these days especially, most maleware is accidentally, albeit actively, installed by the user themselves and it's often the user who failed to install security updates. That problem exists on all operating systems.
Unix like systems have one of the most dangerous viruses around right now that takes advantage of the BASH system. Mac and Linux are both highly vulnerable and many people aren't running the proper updates to SOME distros to fix it. Windows has been virtually safe safe from the Shellshock virus until Windows 10 when they included a modified and limited BASH system and even still the vulnerability is considered a lot lower than on true Unix based and Unix-like systems.
I'm not a fan of Microsoft either but to say Windows is inherently less safe than other OSes is a myth that had some kernel of truth 13 years ago but is pretty much BS since 7 came out. They are all vulnerable. Linux, Unix, Android, IOS, Mac, BSD, Chrome OS, etc. All of them.
The buffer overrun hole was introduced in the 1990s as part of the 'interconnectivity' craze, and it has been there ever since then. Yes, there have been improvements, such as checking where the program sending a com object comes from but they are tiny compared to the basic hole. And quite easy to get around.
PS: Microsoft is STILL plugging Interconnectivity as if it was a 'selling point'. It is in every version of windows there is.
This post was edited by JakobA the unAmerican. at January 1, 2017 12:43 PM MST
Actually buffer overruns being exploitable was first known about as a vulnerability back into the 70's. It wasn't until the late 80's and into the 90's that they were utilized. That's a problem with the programming languages themselves and that isn't going anywhere as long as C, C++, and Assembly are used so much and they are used in all systems for the most part. So what's your point? It proves nothing as to the claim that Windows is inherently less secure than any other OS being commonly used.
Oh, I thought the notion of Com-objects was a Microsoft invention, but you are right every Microsoft language: JScript, Net, ... and many Apps support them. I know of no language that have them in its basic specifications.
Benedict Arnold 