Call it what it is
Windows virus
Windows spyware
Windows adware
Windows security holes

not

Computer virus etc.

By not calling it what it is, MS positions it as a computer problem they they are battling on behalf of ther users.

Regrdless of how much blame is allocated to inherent vulnerabilities vs market share (monoploy), it's still the WIndows brand products that should be taking the hit, not computers or the internet.

Semantics gone wild
"In a recent Ford Probe accident two passengers have been injured and ..."

You get the point.

Call it what it is
Fool.
You still don't get it do you?

If (not when!) you get your wish and Windows (which you seem to hate so much) gets replaced by your holy grail of operating systems (probably linux) THAT will become the main target of the lowlifes who write virusses, spyware, etc.

Even now linux has far more holes than Windows ever had, and they're not being closed for the simple reason that it's not "kewl" to work on existing code, the holy open source gurus would rather be writing new and exiting features instead of getting down to business and hammering shut the gaping holes in their products.

Call it what it is
Linux, and more generaly open source software, is very popular, and in fact largely orriginated in accademic environments. The fact is that accademic settings have the twin features that hacking of the ssytems can cause enormous damage, and are infested with the most motivated, talented and aggressive populations of hackers found anywhere on earth.

BSD is widely considered to be the benchmark for secure and stable server operating systems - it's accademic free software. Kerberos is the orriginal security technology underlying many secure networking systems, including Microsoft's Active Directory - it's accademic free software.

Linux, and the culture it comes from have security and reliability ingrained at the genetic level.

Simon Hibbs

Not get it?
It seems you're the one who "doesn't get it." Unix-type systems (including Linux) have been designed for decades with security in mind. Windows simply wasn't -- it wasn't considered important. Maybe Longhorn will change that -- I hope so. But in the meantime, Unix OSes run the major hubs on the internet -- you really think that no cracker would want to infect those?

I would be very surprised if you could even name one "gaping hole" in Linux, at least one that isn't be actively closed. I know I couldn't.

The Mac is a good example -- it used to get viruses on pre-MacOSX systems. Now that it's based off of a BSD kernel, it doesn't. So, you can't say nobody would ever write a virus for a Mac, because they sure used to.

Call it what it is
"exiting features"? Like the Blue Screen o' Death?

Semantics gone wild
If Ford Probes overwhelmingly featured in crash statistics while people had to talk about theoretical 'accidents' that may occur with Mazda and Mercedes if/when they become as popular as Fords, then yes, people would be calling them "Ford Probe accidents", particularly if even the most careful of drivers where suffering random gas tank explosions when driving.

Also people would start haranging Ford for their ridiculous security record, recommending/buying other brands citing security fears, and generally being quite negative about Ford because of the carnage they are inflicting on the general populace and its impact on productivity and society generally.

You get the point.

acl based systems insecure in networked environments
Both Windows and Linux have an ACL based security model, the only significant difference between them in security is that Windows comes with many features turned on that Linux has turned off by default (that and, as I understand it, the Windows encryption for their ACL private keys is flawed http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/breakms.txt however that is beyond my specific area of expertise)

ACL based security allows all processes running in a system to run as the top level security model, in other words, to run as the User. This is fine in a non networked environment because the main point of attack becomes then cracking the system itself, in a networked environment each connected application becomes a point of attack, if we can compromise an application on the users machine we can run as that user. As the clear trend is towards more and more connected applications in a world wide network we have a greater number of possible points of attack (wonder how the growth is on this).

hence the need for capability-based security in a internet world.

As far as only spyware attacking Windows machines I think this indicates an excellent financial opportunity, a spyware firm concentrating on a non-Windows environment could corner the market, there are good arguments for doing so, especially in the case of MAC, given that users of alternative operating systems while not as numerous might be in a significantly higher income bracket. I want to see some capitalism here people!

Semantics gone wild
Hmmm....so the Pinto gas tank explosion "accidents" should have been called "automobile" gas tank explosion accidents?

Not get it?
Unix designed with security in mind?
Don't make me laugh.

Unix was designed to be used on networks where everyone knew and trusted everyone else, security was purely on a user level only (file permissions, logins).

Unix indeed runs the major internet hubs and routers. There are constant attacks on those and sometimes they succeed for a while. You just don't hear about it a lot because there's not a lot of them and the perpatrators aren't script kiddies who shout their success all over the place, they're people who don't want attention.
Remember the Cisco problem a few years ago? Almost every Cisco router (all running Unix) on the net was installed with a well known public account and password that granted admin priviliges.

Gaping holes in Linux: X, sendmail, the constant stream of kernel exploits.
Just because you don't read about them on /. doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Call it what it is
No, you're wrong.

Call it what it is
No. You're wrong.