This again. Security through obscurity, AKA, bullshit.

Just because your software doesn’t detect a virus/rootkit/malware etc, does not mean you’re not infected. Anti-virus is only one toll that you should have in your armoury ie. a good software firewall such as Zonealarm….malware detection like Spyware Terminator, regular windows updates and good old common sense like not opening unknown emails etc, installing hacked software etc Use WPA-PSK for wireless/hide SSID etc. Use mixed letter number upper/lowercase passwords and even consider hard disk encryption.

So basically, I should run an OS that is by its very design so insecure that I need to do all of that just to be safe? Okay to the strong passwords, and for very sensitive data, encryption, and I’m down with regular updates and some common sense for users (as if that would ever happen), but come on…antivirus (maybe additional online scans just to make sure) and a firewall and anti-spyware? If it takes that much add-on software to render the system reasonably secure–add-on software that is running atop my OS, using my system resources–seems to me that it might be time for a new OS. P.S. WPA has been broken since (at least) last month, and it’s “tool”, not “toll”, you….tool. Also, etc. needs a period after it because it’s an abbreviation. Tool.

I always hear this argument about Linux and Apple being free of viruses. Well, they are not more protected…it’s just that virus writers love attacking Window operating systems more and tend not to attack others. So, don’t fall into this false sense of security.

Bollocks. Those who write malware target Windows for three reasons; it’s the most common OS, has the highest number of clueless users, and….drum roll, please…it’s the least secure and easiest to access at the system level! To be fair, Vista’s UAC is a start, but it’s just a bolt-on, and users are so accustomed to being nagged by Windows every time they do much more than move the mouse that they’ll just click whatever it takes to make the window go away and let them do what they wanted to do. Linux (for sure) and OSX (I believe) are more protected; they don’t just pop up a cute little dialog and let you click “Allow”; they make you enter a password if you’re going to be given any write-access to system files. Psychologically, that forces the user to pay more attention to what they’re actually doing, and understand that it’s different from just clicking “Ok” to some stupid little nagging dialog box, of which Windows seems inordinately fond. If it’s something that can be installed by a user without root access, the worst it can do is fuck up his /home. Sucks for them, yes, but the system will still be fine. Some malware authors do it for the money, but not all of them. Imagine the prestige involved in writing and releasing into the wild a virus, not just proof-of-concept, for OSX or Linux…and yet there have been few, and none current. That’s because it takes more than a 14-year-old script kiddie with a pirated copy of VB to write a virus for OSX or Linux.

When you log into your computer, use an ordinary user account, so if your system is attacked, your less likely to be infected as at times it needs administrator level to install, infect etc.

A good idea….but unfortunately, not the default for a Windows install (maybe Vista? Dunno…haven’t yet had the pleasure of installing it), and also one that will prevent you from actually doing much that is useful. Fine if you’re just browsing or checking your email, or watching some jackass get whacked in the ‘nads on YouTube, but if you have to actually install something or make any changes to the system, you’ll have to log into the administrator account. There is a difference between forcing the user to notice that what they’re doing is a little more important than just acknowledging that the mouse has moved (heh) and annoying the living bejeezus out of him (grammatically correct, if not politically). The savvy user already knows, and the clueless user just wants it to be easy. The average Windows user is as clueless as they come, and will make no distinction between “browsing with IE 6 and outdated antivirus as admininstrator” and “browsing with IE 6 and outdated antivirus as a limited-privilege user”. To them, it’s all the same.

So, do your research, learn as much as you can and use good old common sense……..i mean even the likes of NSA etc have been infiltrated. So, there is no such thing as 100% secure.

No, there is no such thing as 100% secure, but there is such a thing as reasonably secure, and most certainly such a thing as more secure than Windows. That applies to practically every other OS in existence. If you are not computer-literate (or can’t be arsed to configure anything), you like pretty, are willing to accept someone else’s idea of pretty, and don’t mind vendor lock-in, then get a Mac. You don’t have to learn anything because Apple hardware is all designed to work together, and you can just sit there, saying, “Ooooh, pretty!” and let a sensible, well-designed OS protect you from yourself. If you prefer more control and don’t mind rolling up your sleeves and getting your hands dirty, then opt for some flavour of Linux. You’ll be safe because the OS is reasonably secure by design, and it won’t take more than one or two serious fuck-ups before you’ll learn how to fix anything you break. The only people who have any business whatsoever running Windows are power users; they know how to protect the OS from itself.

I don’t understand people. Why use an OS that essentially puts its users under siege every time they boot up, and especially when there are other, better options? It’s the vicious circle of “no software available because there aren’t enough users, but there aren’t enough users because there isn’t software”, but if people would grab a clue and just start switching, there would be more software available. Maybe Windows 7 will be better, I don’t know, but then again, that’s what they promised with Longhorn, didn’t they? By the time it was Vista and made it to release, it was as much a dog as ME.

Entirely unrelated…
I had come across an article whereby the publication had asked for various people’s opinions on how difficult it is to learn Swedish. It varied, depending upon the background of the people (the American guy said “extremely difficult and some sounds are unpronounceable”, but the guy who already spoke German and Dutch said it’s relatively easy). I had to laugh, though, at the one who said that the vocabulary was easy, the grammar rather confusing, and the sounds themselves not difficult, except for the more bizarre (his word, not mine) regional accents…such as SkÃ¥nska. Hehe. 😛