{"id":155,"date":"2008-02-17T02:42:52","date_gmt":"2008-02-17T10:42:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cubist.cs.washington.edu\/Security\/2008\/02\/17\/microsoft-bad-practices\/"},"modified":"2008-02-17T02:43:49","modified_gmt":"2008-02-17T10:43:49","slug":"microsoft-bad-practices","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/secblog.cs.washington.edu\/Security\/2008\/02\/17\/microsoft-bad-practices\/","title":{"rendered":"Microsoft bad practices"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Given all the Microsoft-bashing that takes place among Linux-users, I&#8217;m surprised that no one has posted an article (that I&#8217;ve seen, at least) that clearly has an anti-Microsoft bias. Despite the bias of the following <a href=\"http:\/\/www.techuser.net\/msftblame.html\" title=\"article link\">article<\/a>, it makes a valid argument that Microsoft should adopt some C-variant that is more safe with regards to buffer-overflows, which are still the &#8220;bread and butter&#8221; (according to the article) of malware-authors.\u00a0 The author definitely overestimates the amount of time required by a user to maintain a reasonably secure and patched system. That said, the author makes a valid point: it is the algorithm, not the language, that dictates the overall speed of an OS &#8211; hence a &#8220;safe&#8221; language would be a better choice.\u00a0Unix worked fine on hardware 20+ years ago, so there is no reason Windows should not be both\u00a0secure and speedy on today&#8217;s hardware.\u00a0 Windows\/ze-bashers, indulge.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Given all the Microsoft-bashing that takes place among Linux-users, I&#8217;m surprised that no one has posted an article (that I&#8217;ve seen, at least) that clearly has an anti-Microsoft bias. Despite the bias of the following article, it makes a valid &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/secblog.cs.washington.edu\/Security\/2008\/02\/17\/microsoft-bad-practices\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":45,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-155","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-policy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/secblog.cs.washington.edu\/Security\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/155","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/secblog.cs.washington.edu\/Security\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/secblog.cs.washington.edu\/Security\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/secblog.cs.washington.edu\/Security\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/45"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/secblog.cs.washington.edu\/Security\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=155"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/secblog.cs.washington.edu\/Security\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/155\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/secblog.cs.washington.edu\/Security\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=155"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/secblog.cs.washington.edu\/Security\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=155"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/secblog.cs.washington.edu\/Security\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=155"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}