The Denver Post sucks (OS tests)

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
The denver post tested linux, windows, and mac boxes to see how they dealt with worm attacks and stuff. The Mac had 3 attacks but survived them all. but Windows XP SP2 and Linux survived theirs too. Then at the end of the article they listed the OS's. They were running Jaguar! How stupid can you be to "make sure" that all the operating systems are up to date so its a fair test and then not even have the right version of the OS installed? They made sure to get SP2 instead of just XP, but some dumbass wasnt smart enough to know that Panther was released. anyways, its a decent read.



link

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 9
    omegaomega Posts: 427member
    I somehow find it reassuring that a product that was put out years ago is "safer" than a product that was still available months ago by MS.



    Wonder what version of Jag they were using?
  • Reply 2 of 9
    mcqmcq Posts: 1,543member
    Are you sure the Denver Post tested it? Several times they mentioned StillSecure as the testing firm. As far as I'm concerned, StillSecure made the error... just happens to be that the Denver Post is using their report in an article.
  • Reply 3 of 9
    ipodandimacipodandimac Posts: 3,273member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MCQ

    Are you sure the Denver Post tested it? Several times they mentioned StillSecure as the testing firm. As far as I'm concerned, StillSecure made the error... just happens to be that the Denver Post is using their report in an article.



    oh thats probably true.
  • Reply 4 of 9
    qchemqchem Posts: 73member
    They also didn't perform any updates on the linux or Mac machines - yet let XP SP2 download its automatic updates.



    I didn't have a Mac when Jaguar was around, but I know in Pather software update launchs just after install - surely it would have been fair to click the button and download/install these updates?



    There may be a problem of bias in this article anyway - I'm sure StillSecure sell more services to windows based clients than to *NIX based ones.
  • Reply 5 of 9
    benzenebenzene Posts: 338member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Qchem

    There may be a problem of bias in this article anyway - I'm sure StillSecure sell more services to windows based clients than to *NIX based ones.



    Well, that's obvious!
  • Reply 6 of 9
    gene cleangene clean Posts: 3,481member
    It also says:





    Quote:

    Windows Service Pack 1, or SP 1, however, was another story. It's an older version of Windows that was sold in computer stores until a few months ago.



    SP 1 was attacked 4,857 times. It was infested within 18 minutes by the Blaster and Sasser worms. Within an hour it became a "bot," or a machine controlled by a remote computer, and began attacking other Windows computers.



  • Reply 7 of 9
    allanallan Posts: 26member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gene Clean

    It also says:



    Of course. After all, with SP 2 installed, it takes a whole 32 minutes for a box to become infected .
  • Reply 8 of 9
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by allan

    Of course. After all, with SP 2 installed, it takes a whole 32 minutes for a box to become infected .



    Stop the fud! the time is ~60 minutes
  • Reply 9 of 9
    allanallan Posts: 26member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by a_greer

    Stop the fud! the time is ~60 minutes



    You're right, I'm sorry
Sign In or Register to comment.