If you were Big Bill, how would you fix the virus vulnerability?

[Mad_Dawg]

If you were Big Bill, how would you fix the virus vulnerability?

[aysiu]

I wouldn't. Instead, I'd sell an anti-virus program to rival Symantec and McAfee

[zipperback]

If you were Big Bill, how would you fix the virus vulnerability?

By releasing the source code of the operating system under an open source license and allowing the community to resolve the issues.

At this time, the open source community is much faster to resolve issues and get patches out to resolve major problems, than the big brother behemoth that is currently in place with their close source operating system.

- zipperback
:popcorn:

[LaRoza]

If I were in a position to fix that issue:

0. Make the default account a limited account, and either have a root account or a sudo like configuration

1. Get rid of IE and Outlook

2. Get rid of file extension associations and make a user explicitly make a file executable (sound familiar?)

3. Get rid of the registry

I realize we have all this in Linux, but they could be easily implemented for Windows.

[insane_alien]

if i was big bill? probably by removing the networking ability and releasing a networking addon which is just as insecure as always but i'd market it as having improved security.

if i was sensible, rewrite the OS from scratch. screw backwards compatability its a myth already anyway(with windows).

[rfruth]

bill, Steve etc are making lots of money whats there 2 fix ?

[CREEPING DEATH]

I'd base Windoze on BSD like Apple has done so well.

CD

[digital_exhaust]

Flame me if you want, but the simple fact is that when (if?) the Linux (or Apple) user base becomes as large as Microsoft's..... there will be virus problems for us that are just as bad and as wide spread as they are for Windows.. seriously, there will.

[aysiu]

Flame me if you want, but the simple fact is that when (if?) the Linux (or Apple) user base becomes as large as Microsoft's..... there will be virus problems for us that are just as bad and as wide spread as they are for Windows.. seriously, there will.
Why would self-replicating viruses be just as big a problem?

Trojans that rely on social engineering--sure. Those could work on any platform (Windows, Mac, Linux).

[jrusso2]

Get rid of Active X, redo Outlook and IE. Make user accounts limited rights.

[Steveway]

Flame me if you want, but the simple fact is that when (if?) the Linux (or Apple) user base becomes as large as Microsoft's..... there will be virus problems for us that are just as bad and as wide spread as they are for Windows.. seriously, there will.

No.
The whole Security concept in Linux is far different from WIndows.
Take Apache as an example, nearly every webserver runs it, it is a nice target for crackers etc but there are hardly any evidencies of viruses, compromised Apache-systems etc.
So your statement is a pure lie!
What we can't do is saving the Users from their own dumbness, so social tactics still apply. But for that the OS is not to blame.

[aysiu]

No.
The whole Security concept in Linux is far different from WIndows.
Take Apache as an example, nearly every webserver runs it, it is a nice target for crackers etc but there are hardly any evidencies of viruses, compromised Apache-systems etc.
So your statement is a pure lie!
What we can't do is saving the Users from their own dumbness, so social tactics still apply. But for that the OS is not to blame.
Still, because of the idea in your last sentence, new users should not feel smug using Linux if they are not savvy about what to click or not click on or what to install or not install.

[pjkoczan]

Flame me if you want, but the simple fact is that when (if?) the Linux (or Apple) user base becomes as large as Microsoft's..... there will be virus problems for us that are just as bad and as wide spread as they are for Windows.. seriously, there will.

Many servers run Linux. They are definitely targets since they have lots of important data and run lots of important services. There is no lack of incentive to go after Linux. And yet, there are no Linux viruses "in the wild", spyware is basically nonexistant, and most new reports about exploited websites and identity theft happen from Windows machines.

Linux attacks are like bank robberies (high risk, extremely high reward, very difficult to pull off, small sample of targets) while Windows attacks are like pickpocketing (lower risk, lower reward, relatively easy to pull off, wider sample of targets).

Linux has more secure and restrictive default policies, security flaws are dealt with more or less immediately, and Linux is a more heterogeneous community (not all flaws affect all distros).

If/When the Linux or Apple user base rivals MS, they will see some increased virus threats. It will, however, be nowhere near the scale and severity of the situation on Windows as it stands today.

[g2g591]

if I was Bill Gates, I'd write my own virii and sell the uninstaller as an antivirus program.
If I wanted to fix the virii I'd rewrite Windows from scratch and base it heavily on GNU/Linux and KDE

[Scotty Bones]

He already has a solution. It's called the Trusted Computing Platform.
This is his reason for the crapware that is windows. It's his hope that people become so annoyed and upset with the situation that his solution will look like some kind of savior. Thus coaxing the ignorant masses into accepting this monstrosity with open arms while blinding them to the fact that they have just given full control of their computers to billy boy himself.

[Takmadeus]

Base it on a BSD plataform would be a lot more secure.... (preferrably openBSD, it is rock solid).... it would make their products more respectable

[seanc7]

This was already mentioned a couple of times but if they go the same route Apple did by using BSD source code for the Kernel and drivers then write their Windows GUI to run on top of that.

Using BSD they don't have to deal with the GPL and they have a much more secure base system which would stop people from leaving Windows when they get tired of viruses and spyware. And it would give Windows more credibility as a server OS again.

[Elvish Legion]

Sell windows to the highest bidder, retire on a private isle and not give a damn anymore

[trash]

I wouldn't. Instead, I'd sell an anti-virus program to rival Symantec and McAfee

LOL, the first thing i thought was, i'm making billions.. if it ain't broke don't fix it!

[MONODA]

I wouldn't. Instead, I'd sell an anti-virus program to rival Symantec and McAfee
They already have that, its called Windows Live Onecare or something like that... But its nothing compared to norton's products.

[Vince4Amy]

Finding a way to make people more cautious before running applications from unreliable sources.

[Calash]

1 - Close all network ports by default
2 - Default accounts to limited user with root user login for admin rights. Vista has this partly but it needs to be streamlined and then forced
3 - Open IE source for securing and quicker patching
4 - Dump Active X in favor of other standards
5 - Change Outlook default settings to increased security

[snickers295]

If you were Big Bill, how would you fix the virus vulnerability?
trash the windows code and make a linux-based open-source system.

[poisonkiller]

I would dump Windows and start investing millions into developing Ubuntu. Then I would start selling it, 'cause Windows is so buggy, nobody wants to use it anymore. Then everybody starts making their programs/games for Linux and I would get much richer than I would with Windows.

[motoperpetuo]

i'm still relatively new to linux, but as someone else suggested, wouldn't linux be somewhat less vulnerable to viruses because of the hundreds of different distros out there?

also, someone suggested that MS should get rid of the registry. why would that help, specifically? how could this be implemented in windows? something similar to the /etc folder in linux? am i correct in thinking that the linux approach is similar to what windows 3.x did, with configuration files for the OS and applications spread out all over the hard drive? i remember the registry being considered a big innovation back in the mid-90s when it was introduced, because it centralizes everything. how is this better or worse? (i'm just interested in some technical discussion here.)

[Ocxic]

the registry also gives locations for programs, and startup files, it's too easy to add a key to the windows registry, not to mention, programs have a tendency to leave registry entries after being un-installed, ever wonder why you can remove a program then re-install it without needing the key for said program. I've had this problem when trouble shooting problems with my windows program. especially when the key your entered is wrong by one letter.
also any program can be run by the user at anytime, and does not need to be set as an executable, if the file is .exe you can run it, regardless of your actual admin or limited account status. as well as the ability to change system files without special permissions.

windows was not designed with networking security in mind, since the internet wasn't around then and there was no need, Linux was.

[pjkoczan]

The registry has also been known to be prone to some nasty corruption issues and race conditions. I've read that this isn't so much the case with Server 2008 and Vista (registry operations are transactional).

[steveneddy]

If you were Big Bill, how would you fix the virus vulnerability?

Port everything to Linux and buy Novell.

[stalker145]

If you were Big Bill, how would you fix the virus vulnerability?

Dear Customer,
I thank you for your question and wish to assure you that there is no vulnerability to virus resident in your copy of Windows. Windows has been built by some of the finest programmers and quality checked by the world's finest engineers. There is no reason to fear any malicious code affecting your installation. Rest assured that we at Microsoft only have your well-being and enjoyment in mind.

Thank you, again, for your concern.

Sincerely,
William Henry Gates III