Think Windows is insecure? You're wrong, says security firm Kaspersky.

I still see regular end users routinely made administrators of their computers for no good reason, or due to sloppy software (hello, Intuit).

Windows 7 especially does seem fairly safe and secure. The only time I've had a virus on my current computer is when I've actively downloaded files and run them without properly scanning them first (which is 100% my own fault of course; not a wise idea to download when rushing!)

I know some non-tech-savvy users who literally have 200+ programs installed and 3+ of those spammy toolbars on their IE installs. When you've got people who will download anything and everything they see, it's no surprise they get loads of viruses - and then blame Windows when thing go awry.

I agree that the architecture of Unix-based OSes is probably more secure than Windows 7 overall, although this doesn't mean that W7 is insecure.

This article is pointless imo, doesn't explain why is it any safer, only assumes it because some hacker HIRED by microsoft said so.

In most Linux distributions, the user is encouraged (by the design of the system) to, in almost all cases, either install cryptographically-signed software packages vetted and maintained by the vendor; or download a source package and compile it themselves. In Windows, the user is encouraged (by the design of the system) to download unsigned binaries from all over the Web and run them.

That's why I'll never consider Windows to be comparably secure to modern Linux distributions. Sure, you can keep a Windows system airtight, but the way the system is designed makes it require effort, so users, in general, don't.

Yeah and so is everyone on XP, and there are a lot of them worldwide.

It would be like if I railed against Linux being usable by complaining about how bad the sound subsystem was...

This Usenix video from last year of Crispin Cowan going over improvements to Windows security was interesting:

http://www.usenix.org/multimedia/sec10cowan

I know that if a popup tells me I can get free cat screensavers at 'randomwebsitewitharandomname.com', it's most likely fake and might have a virus attached. I don't download it and my system is 'secure'. However, if I don't know it's fake (i.e., I'm not experienced with computers at all,) I might download it. Now my system is insecure. Whoopee.

You could say that a system is only secure if it can catch things like that before it's too late. The problem there is that Windows, like other OSes, does not come with any anti-virus program built into the system itself (I'm excluding security measures built into Windows as this doesn't fully protect it.) Windows is only secure from viruses when an antivirus program is used.

Of course, that doesn't make other systems safe. Just because Mac and GNU/Linux viruses are rare doesn't mean it's secure. This mentality is 'security by unpopularity'. The real argument is in how these systems would protect themselves from viruses that actually ran on them if those viruses were as prevalent as Windows viruses and the systems were used as much as Windows. On that, we can only speculate.

My point is that I'm only secure if I know what I'm doing; software is not built to replace common sense

  1. Microsoft vendor says so.
  2. Windows blogger says so.
  3. Person *hired* by Microsoft says so.

Let us never forget that Microsoft Windows is responsible for, among much else, the transfer of critical trade secrets, diplomatic communications, and weapons technologies to our competitors and enemies. If China wins World War 3 in 50 years, Windows, albeit indirectly, will be significantly responsible.

Windows 7 may be more secure, but XP is still a major drain on society.