Re: OS X "Security" myths
- From: GreyCloud <cumulus@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 14:32:20 -0600
Donald McDaniel wrote:
>
> On 2005-10-06 01:56:36 -0700, C Lund <clund@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>
> > In article <ByV0f.1735$y_1.517@edtnps89>, "Fred" <Fred@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> Windows is more secure than you think, and Mac OS X is worse than you
> >> ever imagined.....
> >>
> >> http://www.techworld.com/security/news/index.cfm?newsid=1798
> >
> > So where is the malware for OS X?
> >
> > You wintrolls can spin like tops all you want. But the fact remains;
> > there is currently no known malware for OS X.
>
> This apparent lack of exploitations for OS X may be a simple matter of
> Apple's market-share of desktops as compared with Microsoft's
> market-share.
>
Not likely. Market share has nothing to do with it.
Back around 1990 or so, a fellow that worked for NSA in the
computer division. His son figured out how to perform a
"Denial Of Service" attack on UNIX systems. It brought a
lot of UNIX systems down to their knees. But all that did
was jiggle the UNIX vendors into cleaning up their code,
which they did. A nice wake up call. But there really
hasn't been any major problems since, and no viruses were
ever able to get into UNIX boxes due to the way the o/s is
designed. Same for the WallStreet VMS machines which never
had even these problems. The real problem is that the
dominant operating system on the market today happens to
also be poorly designed. You did know that Jim Alchin
tossed out Longhorn due to its crappy designed and chastised
the software engineers?? They have started from ground-zero
and redoing it. It is called Vista. But with M$ track
record for poor security, we'll see.
> Most malware writers want to reach as many desktops as possible with
> their code, so they concentrate on developing exploits for Windows,
> rather than OS X.
With OS X or any UNIX, it is damn near slim to nil.
So what does this tell you about the design of windows??
>
> Probably, if Apple ever gains a significant market-share of desktops,
> the malware writers will begin concentrating more of their time and
> resources on Apple.
Only a guess in the dark, and when you turn on the lights
the imaginary roaches scatter.
>
> As to the relative secureness of Windows and OS X: having used both a
> Wintel and a Mac, I prefer OS X over Windows. At least I don't have to
> purchase and install an antivirus product every year, as I did while
> using the Wintel machine.
>
Absolutely. One of the main reasons for moving to a Mac in
the first place.
My Solaris box also doesn't have these problems.
> Being on a local network, I don't have to worry too much about
> exploitation by hackers, anyway. This, in combination with OS X and
> safe surfing habits, makes me feel much safer than I did while running
> Windows.
Safe surfing habits?? Some sites you'll never know are safe
till after the fact.
No problems with all the other o/ses.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OS X "Security" myths
- From: Donald McDaniel
- Re: OS X "Security" myths
- From: Donald McDaniel
- Re: OS X "Security" myths
- References:
- Re: OS X "Security" myths
- From: C Lund
- Re: OS X "Security" myths
- From: Donald McDaniel
- Re: OS X "Security" myths
- Prev by Date: Re: CTL-A, CTL-C, CTL-V
- Next by Date: Re: more annyoing OSX stuff.
- Previous by thread: Re: OS X "Security" myths
- Next by thread: Re: OS X "Security" myths
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
