Microsoft Defends Win 7 Security After Pwn2Own

Status
Not open for further replies.

flyinfinni

Distinguished
May 29, 2009
2,043
0
19,960
74
Interesting. Security really is a continual work in progress as Hackers will continue to find new exploits and they will continually be in the process of being fixed. Nothing is perfect and more and new ways to attack will continue to be developed.
 

thedipper

Distinguished
Mar 3, 2009
97
0
18,630
0
My defense for Microsoft is:

It's Microsoft. They can have almost any exploitable security hole repaired and the patch rolled out to users all within the same day.
 

bigrigross

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2009
17
0
18,510
0
Thats why I use chrome. The sandbox environment in Chrome makes it next to impossible to crack. But of course, someone will develop a hack for it. Its inevitable.
 

jhansonxi

Distinguished
May 11, 2007
1,262
0
19,280
0
When you hear that Windows 7 is the most secure OS ever, they don't mention that this is only when compared to the previous Windows version, not any other OS. I've heard this line from Microsoft with every release since Windows 95 (before that they didn't care about security at all and I've used Windows since version 2.0). Just slap some firewalls and anti-malware apps on it and everything will be wonderful, just like the advertisements claim.

ASLR is like building a maze around your house. It may delay entry for a bit but if you built a proper security fence you wouldn't need it in the first place.
 

jhansonxi

Distinguished
May 11, 2007
1,262
0
19,280
0
[citation][nom]thedipper[/nom]My defense for Microsoft is:It's Microsoft. They can have almost any exploitable security hole repaired and the patch rolled out to users all within the same day.[/citation]They can but usually don't. You can't just deploy patches without testing. They've had patches break apps in the past.
 

trandoanhung1991

Distinguished
Nov 7, 2009
83
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]jhansonxi[/nom]When you hear that Windows 7 is the most secure OS ever, they don't mention that this is only when compared to the previous Windows version, not any other OS. I've heard this line from Microsoft with every release since Windows 95 (before that they didn't care about security at all and I've used Windows since version 2.0). Just slap some firewalls and anti-malware apps on it and everything will be wonderful, just like the advertisements claim.ASLR is like building a maze around your house. It may delay entry for a bit but if you built a proper security fence you wouldn't need it in the first place.[/citation]

All of you who talk crap about Microsoft and how their OS security sucks, do you know how hard it is to write software? When you have to write 100,000s lines of code (I doubt it's that little to be honest), do you think every line would be perfect?

Every kind of defense/security can be broken given time and effort. Nothing is unbreakable. It's just that either technology hasn't catch up yet OR the return is not worth the reward.
 

masterjaw

Distinguished
Jun 4, 2009
1,159
0
19,360
40
^ Unfortunately, I agree with you. But the important thing is that those loopholes should be fixed immediately as soon as it is discovered to minimize the damage. Hacking events would help improve security of softwares involved.
 

jhansonxi

Distinguished
May 11, 2007
1,262
0
19,280
0
[citation][nom]raithedavion[/nom]Actually, Windows 7 is the most secure OS ever created. It has been compared to both Linux and Mac OS X Snow Leopard.[/citation]By who?
 

phantomtrooper

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2008
194
0
18,690
2
[citation][nom]thedipper[/nom]My defense for Microsoft is:It's Microsoft. They can have almost any exploitable security hole repaired and the patch rolled out to users all within the same day.[/citation]

And thats why I will keep buying Microsoft products. Not because they have less exploits in their programs, but because they are so concerned about patching them. I will support any company who is that concerned with my post purchase experience.
 

phantomtrooper

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2008
194
0
18,690
2
[citation][nom]mlopinto2k1[/nom]Why doesn't Linux need anti-virus protection? I KNOW code can be executed but in general... when I was using it I never had any problems of any sort. Why is this? I don't want to hear, "it's because the way it's designed"... NO SH!T[/citation]

Because the small portion of people that use Linux aren't worth hacking. Hackers will always focus on the largest market share which is Microsoft. Unix(like Linux) and Unix-like(like OSX) OS's are NOT invulnerable.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Actually, Windows 7 is the most secure OS ever created. It has been compared to both Linux and Mac OS X Snow Leopard.

OX10 is actually pretty weak in the security department. Win7 is a lot more secure. Not enough money is made from hacking them since they are such a low % of the computer population which results in all the hackers going after windows.
 
[citation][nom]PhantomTrooper[/nom]Because the small portion of people that use Linux aren't worth hacking. Hackers will always focus on the largest market share which is Microsoft. Unix(like Linux) and Unix-like(like OSX) OS's are NOT invulnerable.[/citation]

I hope to god you are kidding about this.
 

jhansonxi

Distinguished
May 11, 2007
1,262
0
19,280
0
[citation][nom]PhantomTrooper[/nom]Because the small portion of people that use Linux aren't worth hacking. Hackers will always focus on the largest market share which is Microsoft. Unix(like Linux) and Unix-like(like OSX) OS's are NOT invulnerable.[/citation]Only on the desktop. On Internet servers *nix is much more popular. Even Tom's Hardware uses it.

Desktops are an easier target, not a more valuable one. If a desktop gets hacked only the users of that desktop are subject to identity theft. It takes a lot of them to be useful as bots. If an Internet server gets hacked then the accounts of every user of that server are targets, SSL or not, and even the connecting client PCs can be compromised. If a web store is breached then the credit card numbers or bank account info of every customer is in jeopardy.
 

beergoggles

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2009
34
0
18,530
0
MSFT hamstrings itself, justifibly so IMO, by continuing to give backward compatability. Sure, a more modern from-the-ground-up OS or an OS that completely scraps prevous versions can be tougher to crack because they don't have to carry that baggage. But by offering such support MSFT allows enterprise or personal investments in software to not be flushed down the toilet whenever and upgrade is required. I'll take the trade off in security over functionality any day. Of course, I don't think it is THAT much of a trade off in Win7 .
 

XD_dued

Distinguished
Dec 23, 2008
415
0
18,810
6
[citation][nom]ahnilated[/nom]I hope to god you are kidding about this.[/citation]

Well...if you were a hacker spending hundreds of hours trying to utilize an exploit would you have it hit 90% or 10%?
 
G

Guest

Guest
I'm with Microsoft. Those anti-MS people keeps yapping about Linux and MACOSX....Hello, independent test has shown Mac OSX is actually less secure than Windows. And Linux isn't hack proof either. It just that nobody wants to waste time attacking < 10% of the world, when they can attack 90% of the rest of the world!!!

So far, i'm very happy with my Windows 7!
 

rhelme

Distinguished
Oct 4, 2008
64
0
18,630
0
Nothing about this screams worry or anything to me.... 6-7 days to develop an attack.... that is a lot of time and sounds like it may or may not have to do with certain modules being loaded.... some IE 8 extensions or whatever.

We already know that there is not one O/S that is not 100% hack proof.... Even you linux boy's can be subjected to hacks and it has been shown...

You just love to jump for joy when someone comes out and says that Windows 7 which has been shown to be the most secure Windows yet, has a fault... yet didn't it last the longest of the O/S's at a recent event??

The only 100% secure O/S is one that isn't written.

If you think any machine is stable, remember that 2 things control your PC.... it having power, and its CPU having clock cycles... done correctly and altering these in combined ways can open access to any system... just ask directTV... As the software grows better, hardware hacks will be the next wave in...

 

enforcer22

Distinguished
Sep 10, 2006
1,692
0
19,790
1
[citation][nom]ahnilated[/nom]I hope to god you are kidding about this.[/citation]

about what? you actualy think for one second these things dont effect linux? or that by some act of god someone coded linux so good that no viruses could effect it? perhaps the gods them self made linux to fend off the evil viruses. or perhaps its used by so little people that no one gives a damn about it.. The second option seems alot more resonable.
 

Supertrek32

Distinguished
Nov 13, 2008
442
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]doc70[/nom]Wasn't that hard? At least 6-7 days to overcome?Doesn't sound too easy to me.A little confusing there, Kevin.[/citation]
In the scheme of things, a week of work isn't very much if you can steal hundreds of thousands of dollars through identity theft.

It's obviously not "easy," but I'd say it's not *that* hard for what's at stake.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Nothing is un-hackable, it is only making them harder to do that's all. Windows, Linux, Unix, Mac OS, etc etc, all can be hacked with enough time.

How can software and hardware made by imperfect creatures such as humans be perfect, it doesn't make a sense.

Imperfect creators will always create imperfect creations, that's the law of the universe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS