Are you STILL using Internet Explorer? You were warned...

Since there have been a couple of threads on computer security, a few thoughts. Obviously Windows is vulnerable mainly because it has the largest user base and thus the largest number of hackers finding entry points. If everybody switched to a cut down browser that would become the next target.

In the meantime any security programme (e.g. firewall) that runs on Windows is vulnerable simply because it is Windows based. The only long term viable solution is to use a hardware firewall Sonicwall for example.
 
Just one other observation....

Firefox is becoming extremely popular.... and as its open source, exploits are potential more readily discoverable than a closed source environment....

I don't think it'll be long before its exploited in some way or another.....
 
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously Windows is vulnerable mainly because it has the largest user base and thus the largest number of hackers finding entry points.

[/ QUOTE ]That is what I thought for a long time as well. However, having discussed this issue with a lot of people who clearly know a lot more about computer security than I do, another picture emerges; the vulnerability of IE has everything to do with how badly it is designed, and not necessarily how widely it is distributed. This argument really has some weight, knowing what we now know about how messy the Windows OS is. MS clearly has the largest number of software engineers; that does not necessarily translate into producing the best software, as IE and Vista are very clear examples of.

And before I get a bust-up for being a Mac fan (which I am); I have been working with MS software from the first MS-DOS until I finally left MS in 2004, so I do have had some experience with it.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Just one other observation....

Firefox is becoming extremely popular.... and as its open source, exploits are potential more readily discoverable than a closed source environment....

I don't think it'll be long before its exploited in some way or another.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Because Mozilla Firefox *is* open source the holes that are found are patched by feedback from its user base more quickly than is the norm for I.E.
There are also large numbers of people writing extensions and add ons to supplement the, already better, security.

[ QUOTE ]
That is what I thought for a long time as well. However, having discussed this issue with a lot of people who clearly know a lot more about computer security than I do, another picture emerges; the vulnerability of IE has everything to do with how badly it is designed, and not necessarily how widely it is distributed. This argument really has some weight, knowing what we now know about how messy the Windows OS is. MS clearly has the largest number of software engineers; that does not necessarily translate into producing the best software, as IE and Vista are very clear examples of.

And before I get a bust-up for being a Mac fan (which I am); I have been working with MS software from the first MS-DOS until I finally left MS in 2003, so I do have had some experience with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a long time Linux fan it hurts me to say so but the main reason why Windows is "messy" is historical, based originally on DOS which was designed to run on the misconceived architecture of the IBM PC.
The OS has been continually *improved* with backwards compatibility in mind because users would not accept a complete rewrite which left their precious apps unusable.

This constraint has *evolved* windows into a bit of a "rag tag" OS which nevertheless I use every day (there, I admitted it
/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif ).

The problem being discussed is only that, if you leave a fresh installation of windows completely unprotected, it almost certainly WILL get compromised if you connect to the web, whereas Mac OSX and Linux (including all Unix derivatives) are inherently more secure, but still need protection!!

For Windows you need;

A firewall
Extreme caution before clicking
A good browser/email (Firefox/Thunderbird?)
AntiVirus/AntiMalware
Process/code execution protection.

It's not difficult and can be done free as has been discussed in the previous threads.
 
I was hoping to hear from Paul99 about his statement that paid for security is better than "FREEBIES" as he put it.

I believe that to be an over simplification based on prejudice, rather like "you get what you pay for", which is usually untrue.

Comodo has 110 people working on it's security suite and yet it is free for everyone to use. It is an interesting business plan which deserves to succeed.
 
and a very good product too..... Its the most useable AV combo i've come across yet, and seems to have a good protection profile as well....

(and our security team at work seem to rate it highly too.... and they know what they are doing - amongst their number are pro hackers)
 
[ QUOTE ]
For Windows you need;

A firewall
Extreme caution before clicking
A good browser/email (Firefox/Thunderbird?)
AntiVirus/AntiMalware
Process/code execution protection.

[/ QUOTE ]This reminds me very much of a discussion I had with a restaurant in St Lucia two years ago; they assured me that our yacht would be safe while we visited them because they were going to put an armed guard aboard while we were having dinner ashore at their restaurant. I never managed to make them understand that if we thought we needed an armed guard aboard; this was probably not an area that we wanted to visit. We never went there.

It seems we have this same discussion around the various IE and Windows insecurities. Why would you want to put yourself through all that trouble, having to select among and install all that multitude of security layers just to get your PC to work? Who has the time? Life is really too short. I repeat what I have said many times; get a Mac and spend your time sailing.
 
So explain why there is a burgeoning Mac security industry to deal with the increasing number of Mac exploits being developed?

My point is.... no system, once it becomes popular is immune......

on ANY system, on ANY OS, you need basic security tightened down.... think otherwise at your peril.........
 
Since my original thread was about the ship's computer may I just take issue with the argument for going for a mac, LJ? Apart from the software compatibility issues (does Maxsea or GPSGate run on a Mac, for example), they are expensive.

I have two computers on board. One is my photo editing and film watching laptop, a powerful, big screened Dell that is processor-hungry. It needs to be because of the photo and video editing I do. Alas, when it dies we won't have the money to buy a new one.

The other laptop, however, is a GBP300 Acer. This one runs my ship's apps. The great thing is that if and when it dies or gets swamped by a big wave, I can bin it (environmentally correctly of course) and buy a new one. The model Acer I bought is now less than GBP250.

I laughed when I saw in YM the other month a review of a boat-specific laptop at over GBP2,000! What a waste of money. I could buy 10 Acer cheapies for that.

By all means buy a Mac. I'm not saying they are a bad purchase, but whilst Acer and the like are producing them for peanuts I just can't justify spending all that cash on a ship's computer.
 
[ QUOTE ]
nd before I get a bust-up for being a Mac fan (which I am); I have been working with MS software from the first MS-DOS until I finally left MS in 2004, so I do have had some experience with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't Mac really a Unix type environment. Back in '97 we used to run word and excel under Sco Unix - never had a CNTRL ATL Del day, and it was so fast - Large spread sheets were some 100 times faster to recalc.

We are a Microsoft house for all our software development. Frankly you have to throw so much tin at it, and its capability of backing up large (numerous folders and files) is so slow, let alone the restore time. I have been out of the tech side now for years, but I don't think MS should have won the race - I wonder how much the development of computers has been held back by them - or perhaps performance has had to increase more than it would have because it is so rubbish!!!! /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Any way - I retire on Friday - so I don't give a Flying F%$£ any more!
 
Just changed to Firefox -- nothing lost I guess and it does seem to be faster. Is their any downside that you know of?
 
Re: Save your sympathy

Charles
spot on, even now peeps with all sorts of antispy ware, antivirus etc etc come in to my little workshop with their pooters hopelessly compromised, BUT they say I have all this anti stuff on my pooter, why have I beeen got at? Because, say I, you have clicked on something and all the antis wont save you.
I recommend AVG (only because it is the easiest to download and load and is competent enough) and thats it!
All the rest of the things just slow the pooter down and wont help if the punter is going to click!!
I also, as I have said before, recommend a reload of the OS to cure the prob. Having spent hours fannying around with spybots, hijack this etc etc have learned that it is quicker, cheaper and more effective in the long term.
Stu
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top