Gotta love the FUD here. Windows, according to the DoD, when properly configured, is more secure than Unix, Linux, MacOS, and all the rest. If a person (or persons) know what they're doing Windows can be unbreakable.
Plus even Linux zealots aren't so stupid to put their product unprotected on the Internet: use a firewall or NAT (ideally both.)
Plus, the computers to car anaolgy is severely broken, no respectable person would even attempt to use it as a method of comparison.
His "step 5" (dl firefox) is nothing more than an attempt to lull the user into a false sense of security. Sure, because Firefox is relatively new it hasn't had the barrage of vulnerabilities that IE, through plain use for the past few years, has had. But how long can that hold up? It won't. Nothing is perfect, FF is no exception. Soon there will be new drive-by attacks on it that will make people wonder ... then since it will be ingrained into the culture of the anti-IE crowd, it will be too late.
One thing the guy never mentions is simple: never run as Administrator or as a user with administrative rights while on the Internet. Make a normal User, they have far less access to the core of the OS. This is something the Linux crowd gets right (mostly, there are a few dopes out there, but that's gonna happen.) And if you need to burn a CD/DVD as that user, you can use the trusty "Run As" to accomplish pretty much the same thing as "su" or "sudo". I'm amazed the author didn't mention it....no, wait, I'm not amazed, I should have expected such from a moron.
He also fails to mention that DirectX is a major path to patch as well, but that's being nitpicky.
|