Will Windows XP eventually become the most "secure" usable Windows OS?

I think it's a valid question. I think XP's usage will drop even faster this year with the release of Windows 8 and with official support ending in 2014. However, I suspect there will still be a significant proportion of people using it for many years to come (say 5-10%). Of course, the number of people using it will be influenced by whether third party software developers continue to support it. For me personally, I will certainly attempt to continue using it as long as these developers also continue to support it.

So why could XP eventually become the most secure Windows OS? I suppose it has to be called security through obscurity. For example, malware writers will no longer be targeting XP if Windows 7 and 8 become the majority. In fact, even now, we are seeing many vulnerabilities that affect Windows 7 and not Windows XP.

I know that many people would claim that security through obscurity is not (real) security at all. However, I believe it's arguably the best security of all in the REAL world. All software is "breakable". All kernels and associated protective mechanisms are "hackable". However, most people will want to "break" and "hack" for gain (eg. money), and this gain only becomes apparent if the right population is targeted. And in this context, the way to achieve the most gain is by targeting the most popular OS.

yes, security by obscurity is very important in the real world. That is an other reason why i use opera haha.

That is why malware writers do not spend time looking for kernel exploits, they just do not need it, even in limited accounts. Find an exploit in Firefox or Java and the job is done (you can then steal passwords, keylog, etc.).
And Linux is another example. We would see a "lot" of exploits for Firefox if Linux had more popularity.

But i have to admit, using an unsupported OS would not be my cup of tea .

No argument from me with Opera - it's a very good browser. And given its low market share, it's unlikely to be targeted extensively by malware writers.

And yes, Java seems to be having a hard time of late.

Using an unsupported OS also doesn't feel quite right to me, but I guess I'll find out when push comes to shove. For me, I don't think there would be any difference if I never patched my XP - in my opinion, the risk of getting infected with just a good security approach is probably negligible and will remain that way for the foreseeable future. Also, I've read more and more recently about people comparing REAL world perception of (general) speed between Windows XP and Windows 7 (for home users). For the same hardware, Windows XP always seems to come out on top. It's certainly consistent with my own personal experience too.

ssj100 wrote:
Using an unsupported OS also doesn't feel quite right to me, but I guess I'll find out when push comes to shove. For me, I don't think there would be any difference if I never patched my XP - in my opinion, the risk of getting infected with just a good security approach is probably negligible and will remain that way for the foreseeable future. Also, I've read more and more recently about people comparing REAL world perception of (general) speed between Windows XP and Windows 7 (for home users). For the same hardware, Windows XP always seems to come out on top. It's certainly consistent with my own personal experience too.

I understand what you are saying, but why not give open source a chance.
I recently switched from windows 7 to Linux and i could not be happier.

You have total freedom of choice. You have hundreds of Distros, and several desktops
In terms of hardware it is the same than xp or even better/faster.
You want the desktop of xp, no problem haha.

I know that there is the problem of having the software we need. But i was able of having perfect alternatives in Linux and some even better. If not there is always Wine. I have never used it by the way.

I know there is a learning curve with Linux, at least if you want to learn everything you can about your OS, but in the long run the benefits are way superior.
Its is free for ever, you will have all the freedom you want (you do not like it the way the OS is going change distro), almost no upgrading of hardware, virtually no malware, and the maintenance is the best (all applications are update by the software center, that includes Firefox, Java, flash, everything. Updating your software takes 30 /60 seconds even if you have a lot of applications. In windows is just terrible.)

The only drawback would be compatibility problems with hardware. I had to buy a powerline because because the driver for my wireless pen was not reliable.

Yes, I've used Ubuntu and Mint. They are great, and they'd be out of my VM and on my REAL system if not for software compatibility etc issues. I just don't want to spend hours working out issues or finding alternatives when everything's so simple with Windows right now.

But sure, when XP is truly dead, I may just consider making the switch.

But sure, when XP is truly dead, I may just consider making the switch.

i have already switched because i never quite liked windows (7 was not so bad).
So it was a easy choice.

ssj100 wrote:I think it's a valid question. I think XP's usage will drop even faster this year with the release of Windows 8 and with official support ending in 2014. However, I suspect there will still be a significant proportion of people using it for many years to come (say 5-10%). Of course, the number of people using it will be influenced by whether third party software developers continue to support it. For me personally, I will certainly attempt to continue using it as long as these developers also continue to support it.

So why could XP eventually become the most secure Windows OS? I suppose it has to be called security through obscurity. For example, malware writers will no longer be targeting XP if Windows 7 and 8 become the majority. In fact, even now, we are seeing many vulnerabilities that affect Windows 7 and not Windows XP.

I completely agree.

What do your think of Windows 8, have you tried it? You seemed to be pretty excited about the new OS before its release.

Haven't tried Windows 8 to be honest, and from the look and sound of it, I'm not in a hurry to.

Windows 8 looks more and more like an abomination. Hope it fails.

ssj100 wrote:
I know that many people would claim that security through obscurity is not (real) security at all. However, I believe it's arguably the best security of all in the REAL world.

I agree, although I feel more satisfied, even proud with the conviction that my XP security setup, or approach as you like to call it, adequately fortifies my setup against current and even future attacks. In short, I don't feel much satisfaction if I have to rely too much on "security through obscurity" to avoid exploits, but I do agree it's a valid type of security in the real world.

Is Linux still considered the most secure OS out there? Or has Windows gotten to a point to where its less vulnerable than it used to be?

chicagosecurity wrote:Is Linux still considered the most secure OS out there? Or has Windows gotten to a point to where its less vulnerable than it used to be?

Welcome to the forums! Think this is the first post in at least 5 years haha.

As for your question, I don't think it's easy to answer. I think on an intrinsic software approach level, "default" setting Linux is more secure than "default" setting Windows, although the gap has closed somewhat - for example, on Windows XP, the default user setting is to run basically in an Admin account, while with Windows 10, this "Admin account" is somewhat more restricted by default. Of course, you can still "configure" to run as a limited user in any Windows version from XP, therefore I'm not sure if there's ultimately much difference in how secure each OS is.

And of course, going along with the theme of this thread, Linux is certainly more secure from a "security through obscurity" perspective!