Microsoft exec: Internet still not safe enough
SAN FRANCISCO--Microsoft's operating systems are still vulnerable to attacks, but more often than not it's older versions that are taking the big hits.
That was the message from Scott Charney, corporate vice president in Microsoft's Trustworthy Computing group, when he sat down with me on Tuesday. We chatted about the latest threats, including Conficker. The much-maligned Windows Vista, he noted, wasn't hit in the way that older versions of the operating system were.
"Some of those widespread exploits take advantage of older platforms," Charney said in an interview, following his keynote speech at the RSA 2009 conference here.
With Windows 7, Microsoft is trying to take security into a few more areas, such as extending encryption to removable devices.
Charney also noted that, as a whole, the Internet still should be safer than it is.
"There is still a sense that it is not safe enough," Charney said. "It was not built for the uses that we currently use it for, all these commercial transactions."
One of the answers, he said, is adding more security features into the PC hardware.
"In a nutshell, software is malleable and hardware is harder to tamper with," he said.
For my complete interview with Charney, check out the video below:
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
Windows 7.
That's what he wanted to say...
The Internet is pretty safe, just use another operating system. Any other operating system will do. It's just not safe for Windows.
Woops!
Thats how most malware is spread my friend.
never under estimate the human element
the human is the weakest link in the fence that protect against virii, trojans, and spyware
@Maccess
They said this when Vista was coming out, but in this case, we have thousands Beta testers to confirm that the hype is true
heard of security by obscurity, as soon as Mac OS hits a good percentage. like 20, hackers will start attacking it more intensely
Just kidding folks, don't get your tails in a knot. it's a joke, son. :)
Naw, I probably shouldn't. I wouldn't want to ruin the joke. ;)
It doesn't matter - it proves the theory that Macs don't get malware is bollocks and validates what everyone already knows: Macs are safer because nobody really cares about them.
Linux is one of the most efficient and motivated development efforts ever employed. The entire Linux kernel was written from scratch, without employing any code from any sources, that mean you Microsoft!!! LOL :- ) just joking
Lots of work was done to write Libraries, filesystem, hardware drivers.
You either get on the Linux bandwagon, or you will eventually die. The only exception will be I think in the long run apple and anything open-source.
Linux should be used to make Internet SAFER!!! is what I mean.
"(Linux) can still be affected by malware through social engineering". You got the point. Picture this:
An attacker requested for your root password over the line pretending to be a support desk engineer wearing a Mr. FixIt cap. You supplied it and eagerly wait for him to *fix* things up for ya. what happens next: total exposure! Your box can be brought down in a second, except if you have proper firewall settings in place and explicitly deny access to some sensitive operations.
In summary, Security has more to do with YOU and less do with the OS. Don't misquote me, OS security is the first, then yours. If you fail to play your part of the game, then you're doom and you fail altogether. I used XP for 2 1/2 years without an Antivirus. The secret? Riding my PC wagon with Least Priviledge Account! Unix does this from inception, then Linux follows suit. Windows ignored this from inception, and since Vista release, it not only showed it can also do it, but it does it better (remember User Access Control [UAC]).
According to that exec, Windows 7 is pushing this further with Adjstable UAC, more organized Security Center, etc.
Vista is good, but Windows 7 will definitely be better!
Thanks folsco. It's hard to appreciate the beauty of a rose (*nix permissions) without occasionally having to force your gaze at a stinking pool of diarrhea (UAC).
1) Opera as being leading the innovative part of web browser since its inception; but where is it on the list of browsers?
2) Unix servers are the pillar of the internet, some decades back, even before company like M$ knows what a server OS means (b4 NT); but are they still like that today?
What's do these have in common? Simple: they don't attend to what people really need! As such, as a software vendor, you develop your product to evolve with your users (consumers) as opposed to leaving the users of your product in the dust by doing something (that's really useful) but will take them time before they perceive its real benefit!
Adding features to a product is cool. But tailoring the introduction of such features to the knowledge and the technical level of the consumer of such product IS BETTER!
Cases:
1. OS/2 Vs. Windows [Vista is a lot better than 3.1, or even DOS]
2. Netscape Vs. IE [IE8 is extremely better than IE 4.x]
3. Unix (Linux) Vs. Windows Server [Server 08 is extremely and shockingly better than NT 4.0].
The bottom line? "Evolve with your User"!
As indeed are 99% of the computer using population apparently.
But don't let that spoil your dreams.
It's really that simple for you Windows aficionados; go back to school, better your education and get a good job, which in turn will afford you to buy a proper computer. Ditch Windows and IE. Enjoy surfing the net.
Mac fanboys should stop fapping to Steve Jobs for one day and get out of the basement.
That said, ditching winblows won't magically make the internet "safe" (safer yes, but not safe by any stretch of the imagination). Trojans still exist and will for the foreseeable future and can affect any platform. It's like playing outside - if you're stupid enough to dance out into freeway traffic you're going to get hit.
Funny thing is that there is not one Mac available that can outperform my vista box.
Xp downgrading is as popular as ever.
Not sure, I threw Vista into the trash can when I got it, haven't used Windows 7 yet, but I see more stuff borrowed from OS X.
MS is Shameless, but then again Jills usually are.
The internet will never be "safe", but if we were to banish all M$ "technology" from any and all public networks it would be a considerable step in the right direction. More irony?
You really think OSX would feel any need to compete if they had a monopoly?
- by Gambit642 April 27, 2009 8:56 AM PDT
- I have always enjoyed how people attribute the the lack of wild-threats for non-Window$ OS's as being an issue of superior security. Ignorance is bliss.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(37 Comments)The worm writers, like advertisers, know it is a game of numbers. Target the largest group of people to increase your rate of success. How many of the self proclaimed security guru's have actually read the published white-papers from the last 5 years? The days of IIS and RPC over-flows, ActiveX and browser based exploits are far in between.
A PC's biggest threat is a NEW Conficker worm which utilizes a 6 year OLD well-known RPC overflow fixed back in February of 2003? No originality...no skill...and nothing new. Either the hacker community has grown unmotivated and lazy or there is significantly less attack surface. M$ does have the burden of overseeing the most ignorant client base, a fundamental handicap. Consequently, it is hard to find a Linux user who can't understand why his mouse won't work. The title of "least secure" will always go to the platform with the least technical users.
pithenumber put it very eloquently.
Despite the platform, never under estimate the human element.