Microsoft says Vista and Windows 7 are one of the most secure OSes
Windows generally has a lesser reputation in terms of security when put up against Linux and Apple. But this didn’t stop Microsoft’s chief operating officer Kevin Turner, from making this daring statement at the Midmarket CIO Summit:
Vista today, post-Service Pack 2, which is now in the marketplace, is the safest, most reliable OS we’ve ever built. It’s also the most secure OS on the planet, including Linux and open source and Apple Leopard. It’s the safest and most secure OS on the planet today. Everything that we’ve learned in Vista will be leveraged in Windows 7, but certainly when we broke a lot of the compatibility issues to lock down user account controls, to lock down the ability to manipulate states and all the things, that was a very painful process for us to grow through, but we had to do it. And the reason that Windows 7 will be successful is because of the pain we took on Vista. Because from a compatibility standpoint, if it works on Vista, it will work on Windows 7. If it doesn’t work on Vista, it won’t work on Windows 7.
It was pretty bold of Turner to place Windows on the same field as Linux and Leopard and claim them all as most seure OSes on the planet. He just placed three very different OSes in comparison and called them the most secure – how does that work?
Here are a few comments from the community in response to his statement. The first one is from Adrian at ZDNet. I don’t understand why Adrian feels Microsoft is calling Windows the most secure OS, since Turner made sure to include Linux, open source (?), and Leopard.
Being primarily a Windows user, I can’t help but feel that Microsoft’s “most secure OS on the planet” statement is rooted more in hyperbole than fact. If Turner had said “most secure Windows OS on the planet” I might have been happy to buy that. But to say that it’s more secure than Mac OS X or Linux, gimme a break. All my Windows machines are beefed up with additional body armor in the form of firewalls and antivirus applications, additions that are unnecessary on my Linux or Mac systems.
Ron from LockerGnome raised a good point:
Is it the OS that protects the user or the user that protects the OS? Let me explain. I’ve used Windows since Windows 3 and have used every version up to and including Windows 7 beta. I personally have never had an infection on any of my computers. Yet millions of other have been infected. I know some of you who visit LG regularly have also stated that you also have never been infected.
At the end of the day, no matter how secure Microsoft claims Windows to be, it would be a difficult statement to believe in. With the largest market share in the world, common sense tells us attackers would go for what affects most people, and that there are more attackers using Windows and are familiar with it than any other operating system. Can Windows ever be the most secure OS? What’s your take on this?
Related posts:
Tags: windows 7, windows 7 security
To discuss this topic, head on over to our forums!
9 Responses to “Microsoft says Vista and Windows 7 are one of the most secure OSes”
Leave a Reply
To discuss this topic, head on over to our forums!
Loading ...
I wouldn’t say it’s the most secure because of a secondary reason.
Those that use Linux are probably very well versed in technology already and know the odds and ends to securing their system.
Those that use Mac benefit from a strictly closed source system which is very difficult to break, indirectly protecting the end user.
Windows, being so mainstream, has users with different levels of technology literacy. The more literate are obviously more security conscious but not everyone is at the same level and that’s not really anybody’s fault; it’s just fate. Ideally if everybody was security conscious, there wouldn’t be so many issues and Windows wouldn’t be in the hot seat so many times. I know many might try to dispute me but I believe Windows isn’t exactly very secure and that may not really have much to do with Windows itself but the user base.
I agree with you on your points, and I had wanted to state in the article but didn’t to keep it as “news.”
It’s hard to measure how secure an OS is given that they have different demographics and different market share. I breifly mentioned at the end that being the most popular OS, it makes sense that it is most often hacked into, most often infected by viruses, etc.
So in a way, I think Windows might actually be the most secure OS ever if you think about the amount of research, money, and manpower that goes behind making Windows secure versus making Mac OS X secure. But in reality, it will never be.
I don’t think Microsoft’s any OS will be the secure than Mac OS X in a 100 years…
Macs blow.
Like mentioned above, the demographics of users also matter. Windows could be more secure than Mac but the end user ultimately determines the security of the system. A person that is warned by both Firefox and Google that the website is a reported attack site and still visits the site does so at his or her own risk and there is no security for those that take risks like that.
So you are all saying that because Windows has a bigger user base, it is safer? Thats just bollocks.
No, the bigger user base just adds a lurking variable that could contribute to why windows is preyed on more that the other OSes. Also I believe the user is responsible for the security of the OS to, not just the OS manufacturer.
I agree with Geo too. I think the larger the user base, the less safe it is though. You have more variety of computer users now, information is harder to get across. I touched upon this a bit near the end, but a popular or mainstream OS would most likely be popular because its able to be used by non-techies. This just increases the room for exploitation
Btw did anyone notice that the other sites are reporting that Microsoft thinks Windows IS more secure than Linux and Mac? Where are they getting that conclusion from?