Vista is still the most secure OS to date.

[~Phenom~]

^^well i dont hate MS but I just think OSS is better.
And about me using linux , I think if i can use linux and they can't , I am no more No.1

 

[gxsaurav]

^^well i dont hate MS but I just think OSS is better.
And about me using linux , I think if i can use linux and they can't , I am no more No.1

Ok, now don't critisize if you don't know how things in Windows world work.

 

[~Phenom~]

lol
Well , I have said it before and I am saying it again " Linux is the best."

End of debate from my end.

 

[iMav]

what does ur work is best for u ... as long as others dont go around bashing other os and its user we are cool ... we have always said if windows does ur work use it if linux does ur work use it but if ur using linux then dont go around bashing ms and windows users

 

[Zeeshan Quireshi]

Well, I use Windows (Vista & XP) without AV.

and in india too many people have genuine licensed Version of Windows. People who are concerned only buy genuine Software,

and yes Vista is and will be the most secure OS till M$ launches another OS with their Timeline.

Even i use XP without AV . i only have the XP firewall on and that does the job for me .

 

[Avatar]

" Linux is the best."

That's a better way of saying that you like linux . Why it has to be always like "linux is better , windows sucks" . Why do linux or mac users always have to mention windows in each of their statement. Why can't you people get out of the shadow of MS, if you don't like it, why is ever worth mentioning.

Point is, why people have to act like they are spreading a religion. "Come with us and be enlightned" my a$$. I hate these missionary people.

 

[iMav]

^^ it was worse until the three mustkuteers came together on this forum

 

[praka123]

this is nothing,there are more than 20+ "independent security" comparison studies done by other companies,at the end:sponsored by Mu$dcrosoft.LOL!
UNIX/Linux is meant for security and stability unlike the GUI gaming shell!
As against the FUD survey's from M$,read below :
Kernel Comparison: Linux (2.6.21) versus Windows (Vista)

Intro

This aims to be the most comprehensive0 kernel1, 2 comparison3 of the latest most popular Unix style kernel versus the latest most popular kernel. In Q2 2007, this means Linux 2.6.21 kernel versus Windows Vista kernel. In Q3 2007, this means Linux 2.6.22 kernel versus Windows Server 2008 kernel.

*widefox.pbwiki.com/Kernel%20Comparison%20Linux%20vs%20Windows
^let u decide.
Dont believe these FUD survey's; as of 2007 M$ seriously wants to kill Open Source and Linux-but they cant

 

[iMav]

this is nothing,there are more than 20+ "independent security" comparison studies done by other companies,at the end:sponsored by Mu$dcrosoft.LOL!
UNIX/Linux is meant for security and stability unlike the GUI gaming shell!
As against the FUD survey's from M$,read below :
Kernel Comparison: Linux (2.6.21) versus Windows (Vista)
*widefox.pbwiki.com/Kernel%20Comparison%20Linux%20vs%20Windows
^let u decide.
Dont believe these FUD survey's; as of 2007 M$ seriously wants to kill Open Source and Linux-but they cant

Point is, why people have to act like they are spreading a religion. "Come with us and be enlightned" my a$$.

 

[gxsaurav]

this is nothing,there are more than 20+ "independent security" comparison studies done by other companies,at the end:sponsored by Mu$dcrosoft.LOL!
UNIX/Linux is meant for security and stability unlike the GUI gaming shell!
As against the FUD survey's from M$,read below :
Kernel Comparison: Linux (2.6.21) versus Windows (Vista)
*widefox.pbwiki.com/Kernel%20Comparison%20Linux%20vs%20Windows
^let u decide.
Dont believe these FUD survey's; as of 2007 M$ seriously wants to kill Open Source and Linux-but they cant

So, if there is a survay praising MS it is FUD.

If there is survay for Apple it is also FUD

If there is survay from u, about Linux then it is not FUD against MS despite of the fact that u don't like MS.

Gr8 Logic.

 

[praka123]

A well known fact that is UNIX/UNIX-like OS's are the last word in security.
I never said MAC is not secure.MAC is based on FreeBSD UNIX* that means it is way better than what M$ can offer.
Vista can only dream of the security features of UNIX/Linux.
Security Report: Windows vs Linux


*www.askwebhosting.com/article/79/UNIX_vs._Windows-_What_server_operating_system_should_you_use_for_your_web_hosting?.html

 

[aryayush]

People who are concerned only buy genuine Software,

Oh, so the non-genuine versions somehow become less secure than the genuine ones? That's a new one.

Why it has to be always like "linux is better , windows sucks" . Why do linux or mac users always have to mention windows in each of their statement.

Do a little search and find out who plays the spoilsport in each and every Apple related thread started on this forum.

Hint: It is not a Mac or Linux user.


And then, also note that very rarely do Mac users jump in any thread related to Windows to criticise it.

 

[infra_red_dude]

Vista "might" have virus in the future, well...I will get worried at that time then. Right now It has none....

hmmm.. i dun understand this statement of urs! do u mean to say that viruses prev. existant for windows do not affect vista??!!! huh??

Even i use XP without AV . i only have the XP firewall on and that does the job for me .

ditto here. but i use vista. use only the built in firewall coupled wid a nice li'l utility called Vista Firewall control (free version), which lets me haf more control over the built in firewall.

i also use my ubuntu 7.04 out of the box for net surfing.....

 

[Quiz_Master]

And then, also note that very rarely do Mac users jump in any thread related to Windows to criticise it.

Thats because after years of experience with MACs they knew that Windows is Far better.

Linux is secure only and only because Virus programmers are not interested in developing Viruses for it. Its not popular. Same can be said for MACs.

Viruses meant for XP can still affect Vista but they will not cause as much damage as they will cause in XP cause Vista has better user account controll,
Protected mode in internet explorer, windows defender, and Network Access Protection to name a few. There are more deep level enhancements.

So for now Vista is secured. Not much secured then Linux or MAC, but who cares.

But seriously.. For us Home users,does security really matters?
What kind of confidential data we have? How much someone will gain by hacking our Vista system? NOTHING!!!

For us what matters is usability... and Windows is far more easier and efficient then Linux or MACs. Atleast we can Play our fev. games and watch TV on our PC using Windows.

 

[gxsaurav]

hmmm.. i dun understand this statement of urs! do u mean to say that viruses prev. existant for windows do not affect vista??!!! huh??

nope, they don't. Try running Nimda on Vista (i tried on Vista RC1). it didn't affect anything. On next boot up Vista disabled those registry entries.

How will u get virus?

1) Web based E-Mail. - All of them have some sort of anti virus inbuilt, like Hotmail has trend micro while yahoo has norton

2) CD DVD Disks, Pen drive from friends - One word, be careful.

3) Outlook, Thunderbird etc - They all block .exe & .com attachments & give the user a warning when opening zip files with malicious software inside.

And then, also note that very rarely do Mac users jump in any thread related to Windows to criticise it.

Hey look, a kid is lieing . Gosh, kids they just don't know what they are speaking.

 

[iMav]

Oh, so the non-genuine versions somehow become less secure than the genuine ones? That's a new one.

Do a little search and find out who plays the spoilsport in each and every Apple related thread started on this forum.

Hint: It is not a Mac or Linux user.


And then, also note that very rarely do Mac users jump in any thread related to Windows to criticise it.

how many copy-paste apple related threads are there and how many purely anti-MS apple/OSS threads are there

and what was happening on this forum when news of vista being released came out and when news of the zune came out ... arya ur naivity has started to annoy me now ... arrogance and ignorance is 1 thing u r at an altogether another level of those characteristics

 

[praka123]

Linux is secure only and only because Virus programmers are not interested in developing Viruses for it. Its not popular. Same can be said for MACs.

^yet to try Linux,I think.if volume of users increases,then viruses will be for Linux too is an absurd comment.the permission system in UNIX and Linux are system-wide and universal.U can learn why Linux or UNIX is virus proof,here before commenting:
Note to new Linux users: No antivirus needed

One of the most common questions I hear new Linux users ask is "What program should I use for virus protection?" Many of them lose faith in me as a source of security information when I reply, "None." But you really don't need to fear malware on your new platform, thanks to the way Linux is built.
Savvy Windows users have to watch their virus checkers as closely as the head nurse in the ICU keeps an eye on patient monitors. Often, the buzz in the Windows security world is about which protection-for-profit firm was the first to discover and offer protection for the malware du jour -- or should I say malware de l'heure? The only thing better than having backed the winning Super Bowl team come Monday morning at the office coffeepot is having the virus checker you use be the one winning the malware sweepstakes that weekend. If a rogue program finds a crack in your Windows armor, paying $200 per infection to have your machine scrubbed and sanitized by the local goon^H^H^H^H geek squad not only helps to reinforce the notion that you have to have malware protection, but that it has to be the right protection, too. The malware firms are aware of this, and all of their advertising plays upon the insecurity fears of Windows users and the paranoia that results. Chronic exposure and vulnerability to malware has conditioned Windows users to accept this security tax.
It's no wonder, then, that when Windows users are finally able to break their chains and experience freedom on a Linux desktop, they stare at me in disbelief when I tell them to lay that burden down. They are reluctant to stop totin' that load. They have come to expect to pay a toll for a modicum of security.
I try to explain that permissions on Linux make such tribute unnecessary. Without quibbling over the definitions of viruses and trojans, I tell them that neither can execute on your machine unless you explicitly give them permission to do so.

*www.linux.com/articles/60208

Linux and viruses. Life may be hard for companies that are selling word processors for Linux, but they must have it easy compared to those who would sell us anti-virus systems. After all, the world has not yet been overwhelmed with reports of killer Linux viruses. Nonetheless, some people are trying.
Consider, for example, the folks at Kaspersky Labs. Their AVP for Linux Server package has been available for a while. It can perform some useful tasks, such as scanning for email-based viruses passing through to Windows victims. But it also claims to protect against native Linux viruses; as the product page says, "...new viruses for Linux appear every day."
That claim is clearly a bit over the top, as even Denis Zenkin, Kaspersky's head of corporate communications admitted to us. In fact, no "in the wild" Linux virus has ever been recorded by that company, leaving one to wonder exactly what AVP protects against. Kaspersky does maintain a list of known Linux viruses, which contains five entries. Again, none of them have ever been known to propagate and infect systems.
One can probably be justified in concluding that the threat is not all that great. After all, there are plenty of virus writers out there; there are also plenty of crackers looking for vulnerabilities in Linux systems. One would really expect to have seen at least one hostile Linux-based virus by now. Denis Zenkin disagrees; he told us:

I would add that as soon as this operating system will become a desktop standard or gain at least 50% of the Windows popularity there will be real 'wild' viruses... There is no absolutely secure environment and I believe as soon as Linux growing popularity will reach some limit malicious persons will turn their attention there. ​

Again, it is hard to believe that no malicious people have yet tried. For a lot of reasons, Linux systems are a difficult environment for viruses. A virus that runs on one system will have only limited access, and will have a hard time infecting files on even that one system. Propagation to another system requires getting over a whole new set of hurdles. Finally, free software writers are (usually) smart enough to avoid creating easy propagation mechanisms for viruses; in the case where they are not, others will close any holes quickly.
So Linux will probably never have the virus problems that certain other systems experience. That said, it would be foolish to assume that Linux is immune to such things. The Morris worm showed just how vulnerable we all can be, many years ago. Linux security holes do exist now. The drive to create bigger, fancier, component-oriented applications will certainly open up new vulnerabilities in unexpected ways. Sooner or later, somebody is going to figure out how to exploit a hole and create problems - at least for people who do not apply their security patches.
So, while we enjoy our relative immunity to viruses, it's probably wise not to be too smug. It's a hostile world out there.

*lwn.net/2000/1130/
btwn u can play with winblow$ viruses using win32 emulator under linux(Wine)

Running Windows viruses with Wine
[SIZE=-1] It just isn't fair that Windows users get all the viruses. I mean really, shouldn't Linux users be in on the fun as well? Well... thanks to the folks running the Wine project, Linux users can "catch the virus bug" too -- sort of. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Linux just isn't user-friendly when it comes to viruses. You have to work to find and run them. It doesn't happen automatically as it does with Windows. The GNU/Linux folks really should improve this glaring discrepancy.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]While I have friends that collect viruses, I didn't need to bother them. I found plenty by looking through my staggering collection of bogofilter sorted mail. I apt-getted a copy of ClamAV, and after siccing it at my spam-and-other-things-I-don't-want-to-read collection, I yanked out a half-dozen unique, only Windows-compatible, viruses. That "only Windows-compatible" part was about to change.[/SIZE]

*os.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/01/25/1430222&from=rss

 

[alsiladka]

There was a comment above about MS and Social Work. I think you missed the IM campaign and the Live Search Campaign.

I have been using Xp and now Vista from the past 3 years without an anti virus and let me tell you, if you know your way around and you know what you are opening, there is no need for an anti virus.

 

[vish786]

infact i already have 2 cds of only viruses.... trying to understand each of them and how strong viruses coding is done.

 

[Desi-Tek.com]

lets test our self with xp virus on vista? if it will make any damage than it is insecure if it will not make any damage than no further argument on its security? just install vista on vmware on linux and than test it? and pm me for virus
great thing about linux is if ur pc will get infected with linux virus that virus will ask or ur permission.
"Do u want to screw up ur system or not?" and if it will try to do any thing without ur permission virus will get error "are you root?" "this even will me reported (on fedora and redhat) and root will get the report through internal mail"