Microsoft security has been intentionally sucking so the audiance will be ready for a DRM based OS like Longhorn. Microsoft will not put security as an issue until there is money and power in it for them.

-Posted by Jake of 8bitjoystick.com on August 13, 2003 01:35 PM

I'm surprised that thew money thing hasn't come up yet. With the constant bad press about constant security issues, one might think that purchasers of the insecure OS would think twice.

FWIW, I don't do anything on my PC that I feel is important. I can't trust it to be there for me when I need it. Doesn't anyone else feel that way?

-Posted by Dan on August 13, 2003 02:04 PM

Microsoft can literly shit in a software box and it will 10,000,000 copies. If you have ever used Windows ME you would agree.

-Posted by Jake of 8bitjoystick.com on August 13, 2003 10:20 PM

I had the luxury of converting a couple of MSBlast infected machines to linux today. Oh, sweet heterogeneity.

-Posted by Trevor on August 14, 2003 07:43 AM

Have to dissent a bit here. If you run win2k and aren't an idiot, you'll almost never have any problems. Keep up with the patches, sure, same as with OSX.

And ME isn't that bad. I ran ME for a year or so at home because that's what my dell came with, and I think I might have had 2 or 3 blue screens in that time period. It's been my experience that ME runs perfectly fine if it's installed from scratch, but as an upgrade it's unstable.

For the most part, Win2K is as stable as OSX. Has more potential problems, but doesn't suffer from them if you just use normal care. Far more important than the OS in my book (at least once you pass the level of "deleting files to get more space" and installing poorly written jesus saves screensavers that hose the system) is a well-built machine that doesn't overheat, and a UPS system to clean the power input so you don't get the tiny surges and lulls that cause most otherwise unexplained system problems.

And Dan, the patch for that worm came out in the middle of June. Should have done it then. Of course, we had it running through my company on monday taking down XP machines left and right. Only one of our (our meaning the web dev group) machines was infected, though.. a dev activedirectory box or something.

-Posted by JC on August 14, 2003 09:47 AM

I have three Windows boxes, two of which I develop on, and they haven't crashed for at least a year. I bought an iBook (OS X Jaguar) a couple months ago, use it sparingly, and it has crashed a half dozen times. I'm not saying Windows is any more or less stable than OS X, I'm saying that results vary.

The reason you don't see linux viruses is not because its more secure, because it actually isn't (as an operating system). The key is that each individual system is different enough to make viruses ineffective. All windows share the same code so once you can break one you can break them all. Properly configured (very few are) a Linux box can be rock solid. Properly configured (very few are) a Windows server can be pretty solid too.

The reason you don't see Mac viruses is because there isn't much point in writing one. Viruses rely on critical mass to spread and they won't get it with Macs.

And yes, ME is by several orders of magnitude the worst OS I have ever experienced. I borrowed an ME laptop one time that crashed, without any exageration, every 30-40 minutes.

-Posted by Eric on August 14, 2003 11:45 AM

I think part of the problem is that MS issues so many security patches which are "critical". It's gotten to the point where people say, "gee, another critical update. Nothing happened because I didn't install the last one, so why should I bother?" It's only when reports spread of computers getting affected that people patch their systems.

If everyone was to install most patches within a week or so of when they come out, Windows would, in general, appear to be more secure - even though it would be no different than it is now.

-Posted by milbertus on August 14, 2003 12:02 PM

Isn't anyone absolutely shocked that you can have your computer running just fine one moment, and the next it's shutting down because a port was open and willing to take in files from anyone at any time? That's so fucking egregious.

Now, take that situation, and apply it to zillions of people who have no clue what RC is, or what a port is, or that it might be open and is willing to make love to whatever bizzo shows up.

JC said... "And Dan, the patch for that worm came out in the middle of June."

I know. If one keeps up with the patches from MSFT, you can generally avoid people sticking their stuff in your gaping holes. However, as milbertus says, another critical update is like the boy crying wolf. And I ask, should I be alone in the forest in the first place? Hell no. And that goes double for Joe Schmoe.

FWIW, my win2k box never crashes, but I never do anything that really taxes it too much. One weird problem I get all the time tho is that View Source will suddenly not work in Ie until I reboot. Weird.

Last point: imho, the guy who wrote blaster did us a favor. A pretty benign worm has forced many people to apply the patch. When someone places a malicious payload in a variant sometime soon, the aggregate impact will be less than what it could have been.

-Posted by Dan on August 14, 2003 01:29 PM

I get that same IE problem on occasion... except all I usually have to do is refresh the page. Seems to usually happen when a graphic doesn't load properly or something.

And yeah, just imagine if mister RPC worm had something in it to wipe hard drives....

-Posted by JC on August 14, 2003 01:49 PM

I think it requires a logic short circuit to say "I fixed the last security patch and nothing happened, so why install this one". The last patch is WHY nothing happened!

Its like that asshat senator who said "We spent billions of dollars preparing for Y2K, and nothing happened." Of course nothing happened, because you spent billions of dollars fixing the problem.

Yes Dan, you are right that we are lucky that such a fool released this virus (that was not sarcastic). If a clueful hacker had written this it would have been far worse. Plus people probably applied a dozen other patches when they did this one.

-Posted by Eric on August 15, 2003 02:05 PM