Comments on: Why Windows 7 has forced me to worry about security

By: pcunite

pcunite — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 19:37:42 +0000

Please note that Windows 7 configured to be LUA+SRP is the most secure operating system today rivaling Linux configured to use SELinux mode. The sad thing is that it is not well known.

By: Phillip

Phillip — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:52:49 +0000

I believe this '8 of 10' statement of originated from an article by the security software company Sophos. It has been, understandably, refuted by MS, but it does seem to have some merit to it. I, like the author, have been running without any AV, but I think I will ride it out. I feel my best practices combined with the Windows offering will be enough to suit my admittedly small needs.

By: Joker

Joker — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:34:24 +0000

In my opinion an intersting article. It’s not the first time that someone said that Windows 7 is susceptible to a lot of viruses. As a result of that I’ve bought an up-to-date internet security software from softwareload.co.uk (with a special 50% offer).

I recommend this downloadshop if you need an up-to-date internet security too!

Best regards,
Joker

By: infernoz

infernoz — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:47:39 +0000

Newbie, Idiot, and Mac Troll!

You should NEVER trust a bare ‘consumer’ OS to protect you from on-line threats (yes than includes OS-X), only properly configured specialist security OS’s can hope to get close to being secure!

1st layer of defence is an independent NAT firewall; this includes USB firewall sticks, for WiFi users.

2nd layer of defence is a software firewall, which blocks vulnerable ports to/from unapproved devices; this can be rendered useless if you are such an idiot as to use WiFi without a WPA2-only configured router.

3rd layer of defence is avoid all Microsoft internet application software as much as possible, because it is insecure and badly coded, by design, e.g. its FTP support is a joke!

Apple internet software has also been found to be less secure that open source alternatives.

By: Alvin

Alvin — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:25:19 +0000

The whole time I was reading the article, I was waiting for a conclusion that justified his blog post title of “Why Windows 7 has forced me to worry about security”.

It’s was like listening to a rambling long joke that finishes without any punchline.

By: Gosh

Gosh — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:07:09 +0000

Windywoo – I meant no disrespect and expected none in return.

Regardless of posturing or otherwise, regardless of which OS is more vulnerable, the point here is that this user claims that Win7 anti-virus never occurred to him, and that’s hard to swallow given that Win7 makes it very clear to you that you have no anti-virus.

Following through, he’s been alerted to the fact he has no anti-virus software and blithely told his system not to worry about it, because he’s never had to concern himself about it with a Mac.

Clearly there’s something wrong with that thought process.

Steve Cassidy’s point is interesting so far as I have also experienced Windows machines running for years without AV software suffering no ill effects, nonetheless, he does realise that there is opportunity for infection.

This blogger clearly fails and subsequently calls into question his standing as an IT expert, which, I believe, is the point of most non-”my os is better than yours” responses.

By: HawkA

HawkA — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 07:18:12 +0000

@Tomasz
$30 for a yearly virus subscription vs $500(over-the-top) for a Mac….

Lets examine:
-$30 over a 5 year period (estimated lifespan of a mac) = $150.(not counting upgrades of software and assuming it’s only one piece of software that’s needed)
-Rate of devaluation of PC vs Macs means i will get more for a Mac in 5 years than what i would if anyone would buy the Windows box after 5 years.
-Time/effort saved from having to worry about, read up on malware and download/install patches on a daily/weekly/monthly/yearly basis….. priceless(imo).

The worst case for the Mac is that it’s about as secure as Windows7, but even then, it’s a lot safer due to the sheer volume of malware…. until that changes, the Mac is still the safer computing platform, irrespective of reason.

By: Alan

Alan — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:49:10 +0000

there are plenty of excellent free solutions.

firewalls (all free versions [only use one]):
online armor
outpost
pc tools
comodo

av (all free versions):

avira antivir
spyware doctor (free through google pack)
malwarebytes

behavior-based protection:
threatfire
prevx (free for detection)

internet virtualization:
sanboxie

for added security, browse the internet via a limited use account. also, use firefox with no script.

this set up is very safe, provides protection that rivals or exceeds paid solutions, and is totally free

By: Philip

Philip — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:23:36 +0000

It’s easy to say that Windows is not as structurally sound, but Microsoft are not entirely to blame for this. I believe that they were planning to lock down the system much tighter from outside influence, but the AV companies cried foul as that would effectively put them out of business.
I personally use OneCare with Windows 7, because I feel it’s right that Microsoft be responsible for fixing their own security holes; I’m not paying someone else to do that for them.

By: Nick

Nick — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:03:34 +0000

There are structural reasons why Mac OS X and Linux, and Solaris are far, far more protected from viruses.

Windows is, by design vulnerable because of what it allows the user account to do.

Until this nonsense is changed at the basic level of what systems can write to others, Windows is fragile and flawed.

Steve, of course, is correct. Solid border defences are vastly more important than local AV.