Re: OS X "Security" myths

On 2005-10-08 04:57:56 -0700, Travelinman  <nowhere@xxxxxxxxxx> said:

In article <11kf0uta8k8gee0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
 Donald McDaniel <orthocross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

GreyCloud wrote: 


With OS X or any UNIX, it is damn near slim to nil.
So what does this tell you about the design of windows??

It's not so much that it tells me anything about the design of Windows. I already knew that Windows is not the most secure OS around.

It does tell me that there is not much "boast factor" for malware writers and script kiddies to attempt to get through OS X's defenses at the current time. There are not any OS's which are totally impossible to break into, IF they are connected to the Internet. All it takes to write an exploit is a "design feature" which is intrinsically vulnerable.

That's absurd. If there's ANY OS that has a high 'boast factor' for creating and releasing malware, it's OS X. How in the world would you conclude that there's no boast factor for breaking OS X?

Hackers don't do their hacking on the grounds of "prettyness" of the case or the GUI, they just want to capture machines, the easier the better.


That even Unix can be breached is evident from the fact that hackers and script kiddies break into Unix systems routinely. In fact, most serious hackers use Unix systems to do their dirty-work themselves. It's only a matter of time and chance before they break into OS X systems.

That may be. But it hasn't happened yet. 

So Apple claims.


Hint: OS X is not exactly like other Unixes.

I don't know why those like you put on your "rose colored glasses". It makes absolutely no sense at all to think that OS X is "not exactly like other Unixes" as if it is somehow superior to other Unixes (which have 20+ years of development behind them), when you claim at the same time that it is EXACTLY like other Unixes. You need to learn to talk out of only one side of your mouth.


Apparently, they have had no reason to get into OS X systems up till now (although I would advance the theory that this may happen more often than Apple would want its users to know.)

Other than the 'boast factor' you're talking about.

I guess you didn't see the "(although I would advance the theory that this may happen more often than Apple would want its users to know.)"





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.

You really exhibit a "Pollyanna" attitude, my friend. Hackers don't care what OS you use. They probably use the same one. As long as you are connected to the Internet via a public IP, they can get in. Some systems might take longer than others, but all systems are eventually breakable to hackers determined to get in.

If they can get in, why are there no reports of OS X being hacked?

Maybe because Apple doesn't want the rest of the world to know that it is possible (even probable?)

And also maybe because the best hackers never leave tracks behind, like script kiddies do.



Unix-based machines get hacked routinely. Hackers like to capture them because of their relative security over lintels (isn't that ironic), making it easier to defeat other less-endowed hackers in their interminable wars which they wage on the Internet.

Unix, in general? Yes. OS X? No.

First, I need to correct something I wrote: I said "Hackers like to capture them because of their relatikve securithy over 'lintels'...". This was an accident caused by my use of the Spell checker in Thunderbird. When it came across my use of "Wintels" in my original draft, it didn't like it and suggested "lintels". I stupidly clicked on "change" rather than "ignore", resulting in "lintels" being inserted.

Anyway, back to the point: Apple users actually claim that Darwin is so "much BETTER than other Unixes" (which have many more years of development behind them).

Most Unix machines are used in labratories, banks, government Defence installations, and Universities, not little home computers like the G5 (yes, even the G5 is a little machine when compared to big computers.) These installations have 24/7 full-time security staff, with layers and layers of defenses in place, most of it hardware. Yet Unix hackers have little problems taking them over routinely, leaving behind no traces of their activity.

You think they are going to be stopped by OS X (which you claim has a "better" Unix) if they are determined to get in? You are truly living in a cloud of Opium smoke from the 60s.

--
Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that others may be informed
=============================

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OS X "Security" myths
    ... >> lot of UNIX systems down to their knees. ... >>> their code, so they concentrate on developing exploits for Windows, ... > It does tell me that there is not much "boast factor" for malware ... Just like the Hackers convention in Las Vegas known as ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: OS X "Security" myths
    ... >> With OS X or any UNIX, it is damn near slim to nil. ... > It's not so much that it tells me anything about the design of Windows. ... > It does tell me that there is not much "boast factor" for malware ... > hackers use Unix systems to do their dirty-work themselves. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Mac OS X: How to get "route" listing?
    ... Windows, in OS X (which is a lot like the BSD flavor of the free Unixes)? ... Although the output is ugly (compared to "route" in Linux) ... are, as you seem intent on pointing out, Unix strictly speaking - the ...
    (comp.unix.programmer)
  • Re: how to get information about CPU number on the machine
    ... actually I need this also for windows, solaris, and HP Unix. ... is other unixes have /proc/info. ...
    (comp.lang.tcl)
  • Re: What is the more popular UNIX flavor?
    ... about my experience with Solaris and Cygwin. ... installing packages. ... needing eg tftp you only need to activate on a Unix system. ... probably need installing first on the equivalent Windows system. ...
    (comp.unix.questions)
Loading