PDA

View Full Version : Mac and Windows equal in security problems


MacBytes
May 12, 2005, 04:01 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: Mac and Windows equal in security problems (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20050512170143)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

iJaz
May 12, 2005, 04:28 PM
FUD! :mad:

mkrishnan
May 12, 2005, 04:32 PM
This article starts out trying to be very scathing, but the author keeps backing up until he trips over the curb and falls on his... assertion. :p

Peterkro
May 12, 2005, 04:33 PM
I suppose a point by point rebuttal is required,but I'm tired so, TOSSER!

wordmunger
May 12, 2005, 04:33 PM
The article simply asserts that Firefox and Mac are equally vulnerable to attack compared to Windows. No evidence, other than to show that they are theoretically vulnerable. Whereas Windows has thousands of actual attacks and known weaknesses.

GodBless
May 12, 2005, 04:33 PM
But a careful look at the last six months or so indicates that in terms of actual security problems there's not much of a difference between the platforms. And your proof? None.

Read more here about security issues in Apple's new operating system, Tiger. No read here to see about Tiger's security enhancements:http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/security/

The barriers to entry for Mac malware are much higher, both in terms of writing it and getting it to spread. This isn't because the Mac operating system is more secure, but because there are so many fewer Macs, and fewer qualified developers.
WHAT?! Unix is just as vulnerable as poorly coded Windows to security problems?! WHAT?!

It seemed like just after the cnet articles were getting better the eweek articles were getting worse for Mac OS X. Maybe Microsoft's contract with cnet expired and cnet didn't want to contract with them again so Microsoft contracted with eweek instead.

Blackheart
May 12, 2005, 04:38 PM
FUD! :mad:
I agree completely.

It would be nice if FOR ONCE an article about computer security, and the ability to penetrate the computer, was written by someone who anything about computers.

The barriers to entry for Mac malware are much higher, both in terms of writing it and getting it to spread. This isn't because the Mac operating system is more secure, but because there are so many fewer Macs, and fewer qualified developers.

Hmmmm, so what he's saying is that the UNIX base does nothing to help the security of the computer? Moreover, that the systems (OS X and XP) were written the same and that's the reason for their equal security?

Let us presume that malware writers are, like most PC programmers, familiar with Windows programming but unfamiliar with Mac programming.

If I had to take a guess, I'd say that virus writers use Linux. 1) Why would someone write a virus for their own system? 2) There are a large amount of people unhappy with MS and I have no doubt that some have taken it out on MS's OS. 3) In reference to the previous quote, wouldn't a Linux programmer know a thing or two about UNIX that would give them an edge over Mac OS X.

wrldwzrd89
May 12, 2005, 04:38 PM
I'm having a difficult time grasping the "big picture" of that article - a sure sign that it isn't written as well as it could be.

The author brings up some valid points, but, like mkrishnan said, trips and stumbles at the end.

winmacguy
May 12, 2005, 04:44 PM
Thought this might get a response, that it why I labeled it as OPINION :)
enjoy ;)

dejo
May 12, 2005, 04:45 PM
It seemed like just after the cnet articles were getting better the eweek articles were getting worse for Mac OS X.

And here's proof (something this article's journalist might wanna try some time):

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=124974

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=124969

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=125052

x86isslow
May 12, 2005, 04:48 PM
lets avoid giving him tooo much credit… journalist? :p

dejo
May 12, 2005, 04:55 PM
lets avoid giving him tooo much credit… journalist? :p

I mean that in the new definition of journalist, as supported by the EFF. That is, anybody that has written something somewhere at sometime.
:)

paulypants
May 12, 2005, 04:56 PM
An old and stale argument without any proof (as usual)
Pure FUD...

"The last few days have been embarrassing ones for Windows alternatives"

The only thing embarrassing that I've seen is that article.

daveL
May 12, 2005, 05:03 PM
Is it just me or does the latest batch of "OS X Security Problems" smell at bit like Billy Boy opening his wallet to buy some bad press for Apple?

SPUY767
May 12, 2005, 05:04 PM
I knew, when I saw the headlne, that this was going to be an eWeek article. They have no credibility.

bryanc
May 12, 2005, 06:45 PM
Is it just me or does the latest batch of "OS X Security Problems" smell at bit like Billy Boy opening his wallet to buy some bad press for Apple?

You nailed it. Microsoft invented the Astroturf technique in the 90's and they've been buying 'journalists' for the last decade. The really sad thing is the number of pathetic losers that think they're clever pundits while they regurgitate the FUD they've been feed by Microsoft's minions, and they aren't even on Microsoft's payroll.

I predict we'll be seeing a lot of clueless Microsoft apologists trying to hold the fort for the next year-and-a-half while Redmond tries to roll out Long-wait. When they finally do, the Microsoft thralls will probably have a fairly good OS, if you don't mind getting permission from Redmond every time you want to install software or change your hardware. But it won't be as good as Tiger, let alone 10.5, which we'll be enjoying on our Mac's by then.

But all of this is a carefully orchestrated distraction from the main event. Microsoft is happy to milk the Windows/Office franchise for as much as it can, but it's focus has moved to from the office to the living-room and the rest of the 'digital lifestyle.' Xbox, Media Centres, Mobile systems, and the content these devices provide is where Microsoft plans to build their next hegemony.

But they've got an uphill battle. Their brand is not something the average consumer trusts or even likes. And, unlike a computer for work, people are more emotional about their personal devices, making brand loyalty a bigger issue. On the other hand, fifty-billion dollars can buy a lot of loyalty :(

Just some random thoughts...

Cheers

macnulty
May 12, 2005, 08:04 PM
"The barriers to entry for Mac malware are much higher, both in terms of writing it and getting it to spread. This isn't because the Mac operating system is more secure, but because there are so many fewer Macs, and fewer qualified developers."

Honestly, I read the tile and passed on reading the article but this quote fascinated me. These two lines are a classic non sequitur. Fewer Macs or fewer developers do not create a barrier, it may create less of a incentatve. A smaller bullseye does not make it more bullet proof. Barriers may be a tougher authentication regiment or no open ports by default. It indicates an intellectual laziness, poor use of the language or just plain ignorant.

mainstreetmark
May 12, 2005, 08:58 PM
I think tomorrow's "daily" poll should be "How many viruses have you had in OSX". I'd check "0".

Mav451
May 12, 2005, 09:22 PM
Lol inevitable FF spy/malware? Where is it? I will soon be using FF for 2 full years, and I don't think that all of a sudden IE-like vulnerabilities will be opening up.

"One day in the distant, your car will break down. Yes, even a Honda." - author of eWeek article.

He thinks [Man...I'm such a good journalist. I can tell the future.]

daveL
May 12, 2005, 09:41 PM
Lol inevitable FF spy/malware? Where is it? I will soon be using FF for 2 full years, and I don't think that all of a sudden IE-like vulnerabilities will be opening up.

"One day in the distant, your car will break down. Yes, even a Honda." - author of eWeek article.

He thinks [Man...I'm such a good journalist. I can tell the future.]
It's a reference to recent press concerning Tiger Widgets being auto-installed; it's fixed in 10.4.1, which will probably be out next week.

StarbucksSam
May 12, 2005, 09:42 PM
Oh god please just.. people are so dumb.

Who wrote this? I didn't bother to look. How much is MS paying him?

Snort. What a load of bullocks. I'm not even English and I say that.

dotdotdot
May 12, 2005, 09:53 PM
So... how much is true?

Seriously that is about the dumbest thing about OS X i ever read.

"Uh... Windows has 76,000 + viruses but because macs have patches for download its very insecure"

slb
May 12, 2005, 09:55 PM
Anyone else notice eWeek has been running negative Apple articles since Tiger's release? Every time I see a negative article on MacBytes, I look over and see "eweek.com." Look and see for yourself.

iGary
May 12, 2005, 09:57 PM
OK, everyone here affected by malware, viruses, trojans or worms with OS X say so.

*crickets*

At least Apple fixes problems BEFORE they affect users. Unlike Billy's swiss cheese OS. :rolleyes:

Jalexster
May 13, 2005, 06:22 AM
larryseltzer@ziffdavis.com

TARGET ACQUIRED!

iJaz
May 13, 2005, 08:32 AM
I can't find the article any more! :eek:
The link takes me to another article called "How Long Can You Fly Under the Malware Radar?"

wrldwzrd89
May 13, 2005, 10:02 AM
I can't find the article any more! :eek:
The link takes me to another article called "How Long Can You Fly Under the Malware Radar?"
The title on MacBytes is different from the title of the actual article. What you're seeing is the same article everyone else has commented on.

iJaz
May 13, 2005, 10:34 AM
The title on MacBytes is different from the title of the actual article. What you're seeing is the same article everyone else has commented on.
Yes, sorry, my mistake. :o

Erendiox
May 13, 2005, 10:35 PM
larryseltzer@ziffdavis.com

TARGET ACQUIRED!

LMAO :D

That deserves ten points ;)

ibjoshua
May 15, 2005, 04:16 PM
Oh god please just.. people are so dumb.

Who wrote this? I didn't bother to look. How much is MS paying him?

Snort. What a load of bullocks. I'm not even English and I say that.
Think you mean "bollocks".
And I agree with you.

i_b_joshua

Plymouthbreezer
May 15, 2005, 05:11 PM
Someone send him a link to this thread... :D

mkrishnan
May 15, 2005, 05:54 PM
Think you mean "bollocks".
And I agree with you.

i_b_joshua

LOL *gives nod for post of the day*

I never knew that bullocks and bollocks were different words! I thought it was a figurative meaning! :rolleyes:

zap2
May 15, 2005, 05:59 PM
i bet he use windows, i know the truth, Mac IS safer,it is a fact