Re: OT: Update Virus Checker

rw <rw56_to_the_chase@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:zsLDf.3793$5E3.1105@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

>
> You are conflating two questions.
>
> The first question is: "Are you safer from virus attacks with OS
> X?" Clearly, based on the record, you are. You seem to be
> conceding that point, attributing the effect to Apple's small
> market share.

Actually I was not intending to argue that point. I posit that if we
follow the OP's advice we'd see a lot more virii on the Mac. I feel
sheer lack of numbers is the overwhelming reason we don't see more
attacks. In other words, I don't think it is immune from virii as you
believe it is. We can argue how much damage one can do, but there are
plenty of examples of Linux exploits giving root access. It's game
over at that point.

>
> The second question is: "Why are you safer?" Apple's small market
> share is certainly a part of the reason, but it's not the total
> story. Microsoft (along with Windows users) is in a sense a victim
> of their own success. When Microsoft engineers sit down to develop
> a new OS they don't start with a blank slate. Their requirements
> include backward compatibility with a long line of previous
> operating systems and applications.
<snip>

I agree with all of this but ...

>
> OS X, on the other hand, was a clean break with OS 9, and it
> happened relatively recently, when security was a top priority.

Apple has also been criticized for leaving flaws in the kernel from
more than a decade ago. Their legacy maybe was not OS 9, but it is
still a Unix derivative. I do concede if one could pick your parents
BSD Unix would be the one, but it is not perfect.

>
> Another problem with Windows has been Microsoft's tendency to
> tightly integrate the OS and applications, in violation of good
> software design practice. This was done in an attempt to use their
> OS monopoly to destroy the competition. It's especially clear and
> well documented (in their antitrust case) that they did this with
> Internet Explorer and Outlook Express, and that no doubt has led
> to many of the security problems associated with those products.
> I'll strongly second the advice not to use Internet Explorer and
> Outlook Express. I use Firefox and Thunderbird and I think they're
> great.

Agreed. I use the same apps too. I am not arguing Windows vs. OS X. I
just find the statement that if you move to some build of *nix, or OS
X you'll be alright, is misleading and will in the end turn out to be
a fool's errand. A false sense of security is a worse peril than the
real problems of Windows that you can protect yourself from quite
easily and for free.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SP2
    ... Q. "The first question is will SP2 cause any problems with the cumulative ... All were thoroughly tested for compatibility with SP2. ... Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies: ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin)
  • [NT] Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer (MS04-025)
    ... Get your security news from a reliable source. ... * Microsoft Windows NT Workstation 4.0 Service Pack 6a ... Navigation Method Cross-Domain Vulnerability ...
    (Securiteam)
  • [NT] Vulnerability in HTML Help Allows Code Execution (MS05-001)
    ... The following security advisory is sent to the securiteam mailing list, and can be found at the SecuriTeam web site: http://www.securiteam.com ... Get your security news from a reliable source. ... * Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 1 and Microsoft Windows XP Service ...
    (Securiteam)
  • Re: The Myth of the secure Mac
    ... OEM Windows XP Home goes for a bit under $100. ... >> secure than Home. ... Though this really has nothing to do with security. ... Microsoft counts on third-party developers to provide more ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • SecurityFocus Microsoft Newsletter # 149
    ... MICROSOFT VULNERABILITY SUMMARY ... EveryBuddy Long Message Denial Of Service Vulnerability ... Intellitactics Network Security Manager ... Windows operating systems. ...
    (Focus-Microsoft)