Luke points out some of the disadvantages of running Windows.
As a friend of mine mentioned it is possible to get 0 errors back from ad-aware by using your computer smartly (not running IE, watching cookies, changing your security zone, not running as admin), but in my opinioin this isn't the way that most "normal" people work. They turn on the computer and use what is available, click on pop ups, click executables that come in email, and are blissfully are hosts to adware, spyware, worms and viruses. The number of worms and crap that float around support this theory :)
Posted by Arcterex at May 27, 2004 11:08 AM
Disadvantage of Windows? No, its a user who has no clue how to properly secure their desktop. Perhaps if he ran as a normal user instead of an administrator, enabled proper zones in IE (or use something like FireBird with control over his cookies) and ensured untrusted code didn't enter the system he wouldn't get nailed as much.
I just downloaded Ad-Aware and this is the result of my system: http://silverstr.ufies.org/dana-adaware.jpg
It is possible to secure it. You just need to actually go do it. Hopefully Microsoft's next service pack will address a lot of this and make it much more difficult to taint a system as bad as this person did.
But it doesn't have to be a disadvantage of running Windows.
The operative word is "can"... most people don't. I'm consistently VNCing over to a friend of Kirsten's computer every month or two and cleaning out a virus and/or spyware app for her.
She has the tools in place, has been told many times to use them, but still doesn't. That's your normal user.
Course a security professional like Dana probably should get that response from AdAware. An the other hand mortals shouldn't have to go through all those hoops to be able to check email, browse the web and do there taxes.
I am a somewhat aware user. I run all the users with no privs. I seldom log into the 'admin' account. I've still had virus' in Win XP. It was designed with only usability in mind, not security. They are *starting* to think about security, but have a long way to go.
The onus should NOT be on the user. Just like I trust my car to be reliable and trust the work of it's designers, engineers, mechanics and auto body repair people, the average Jane/Joe should not need to troubleshoot bizarre errors and computer unhappiness other then perhaps "out of disk space".
Windows needs to ship secure - people who buy software of the shelf just want to use it and have it work, and not run into bizarre quirks after 6-12 months and be forced to download new updates.
I don't believe in the concept of having to log in as another user. It's a hastle for the average use to not be able to buy a program, insert CD, wait for autorun, and click the big Install button. Since being "secure" is a pain, people would rather just take the easy way out and then spend a couple of hours at the end of the month to clean up and rectify things. Sometimes being reactive requires less work and thought/effort then being reactive.
In my current job, I see the direct effects of bad security. I am in the field having to deal with patches and security updates, etc. etc. Believe me when I say that it is a supreme pain in the 4$$, as well as a horrendously Byzantine and unmanageable situation.
When dealing with software that is mission critical, patching is a slow, rigorous and frustrating process.... what happens if you add a patch and suddenly you hose a critical server, rendering it unable to boot or perform its job for several hours to days? (and believe me, it HAS happened on both NT4 *and* windows2000 server/advanced server).
When dealing with mission-critical systems, you have to be super careful, especially because the industry has traditionally been so awful at dealing with security issues and patches. And what about systems that are connected to a netowrk, but can't immediately be updated? Ooops.
While I deal mostly with Windows, I hear the same problems with Linux and MacOSX, just not as terrible or immediate.
If I may add my own take on Silvrstr's argument, it would be that Windows is no worse than the other desktop OSes out there. I agree. However, I also agree with Wim that the average user shouldn't need to worry about such things, shouldn't have to worry even about keeping the absolute latest software updates/AdAware/AntiVirus software else their machine is in danger of being possessed by some demon or other.
The industy as a whole (and Microsoft being its most powerful member, has failed in particular) to really solve this problem. It seems the only machines that are actually secure are the old, reliable, un-sexy mainframes of yesteryear. Web surfing on an AS/400 anyone??
