Hot answers tagged

5

There is one flaw in your premise that since those malware ran on windows 10 but not on 98 and hence windows 98 is safe. By that logic, I can say that my shell script cleared the contents of a linux box but not windows and hence windows is more secure. Edit: Modern operating systems are the primary targets for attackers as most of the users use them. If the ...


4

there are lots of attack vectors, such as : Sniffing admin/user passwords and exploiting systems using them Accessing an anonymous shares and planting malware there(if they're not read-only) Performing MitM attacks to steal data Exploiting IPv6 in LAN : it's often an IPv4 LAN's but people forget to disable IPv6, so it's a prioritized by OS, especially ...


4

You need to make one adjustment to your conclusion: So, I see Windows 10 gets more infected than Windows 98 Should be So, I see Windows 10 gets more infected than Windows 98 by the programs I tried You cannot make general comments about Windows based on the small sample set of software and malware you tried, especially since you indicate that ...


4

Linux isn't really more secure than Windows. It's really more a matter of scope than anything. No matter what malware, exploits, and bad users exist EVERYWHERE. One being more secure than the other is nothing more than anecdotal evidence. Malware exists for *nix, Mac, Windows, Android, iOS, Symbian, Xbox(yes), hard drives, and bios. No operating system is ...


2

First of all, it is possible (especially for the owner of the hotel) to edit the CCTV footage. However, I don't think this was the case. In fact, you haven't yet seen the CCTV footage and you just relied on what the security personnel told you. As such, it's more likely that the owner simply disabled the CCTV cameras, than he edited the footage either ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible