Microsoft Claim Windows 7 Will Be More Secure Than Linux And Leopard

[PhireWare]

Ok, so look what I found tonight while I was browsing. This ought to be interesting. Wonder what Apple may do....New Apple Commercial?:)

Found this article here: http://windows7news.com/2009/04/14/microsoft-claim-windows-7-will-be-more-secure-than-linux-and-leopard/


Microsoft Claim Windows 7 Will Be More Secure Than Linux And Leopard
April 14th, 2009 • Filed Under


Will Windows 7 be the most secure operating system ever? Microsoft seem to think so. Microsoft’s Chief Operating Officer Kevin Turner made the following bold statement yesterday:

"Vista today, post-Service Pack 2, which is now in the marketplace, is the safest, most reliable OS we’ve ever built. It’s also the most secure OS on the planet, including Linux and open source and Apple Leopard. It’s the safest and most secure OS on the planet today. Everything that we’ve learned in Vista will be leveraged in Windows 7, but certainly when we broke a lot of the compatibility issues to lock down user account controls, to lock do

wn the ability to manipulate states and all the things, that was a very painful process for us to grow through, but we had to do it. And the reason that Windows 7 will be successful is because of the pain we took on Vista. Because from a compatibility standpoint, if it works on Vista, it will work on Windows 7. If it doesn’t work on Vista, it won’t work on Windows 7."

I’m glad he stopped short of saying that Windows 7 will be the most secure operating system in the universe!



I have to say that I tend to agree with Kevin Turner. No OS is probed and attacked as often as Windows, yet it manages to keep its users safe. Yes there are always stories in the press about individuals and users who have been infected…but in the majority of cases these users haven’t taken the necessary steps to protect themselves i.e. downloading the latest virus definitions or running a decent firewall.

Gone are the days of 15 year old hackers thinking it was funny to send porn links via viruses. Most hackers now operate purely for commercial gain, and one of the reasons why hackers don’t probe Linux or Leopard as thoroughly as Windows is because even if they were successful the potential returns would be less because there are fewer users.

Producing Windows 7 has been a major undertaking for Microsoft and so far the signs are that it’s going to be major success, and it is unlikely that users will be as reluctant to Buy Windows 7 as they were with Windows Vista. Microsoft should be applauded for making an OS that can work with the millions of different hardware combinations that are possible with PCs, that provides a stable platform for developers, and that is also very safe.

With Windows 7, Microsoft finally might become cool.


What do you think? Sorry Windows, I use to be a windows fan, then Vista came out and I said, hello Mac OS X Leopard! :) Go Apple! :apple:

[Cassie]

Eh...kind of hard to believe. Besides the fact that there are so many more Windows viruses out there than for any other OS, the architecture that Windows uses has been shown to be pretty easy to exploit flaws in...

But it could be, I'm not an expert on this thing.

[flopticalcube]

I don't doubt it. Even Vista and XP are secure now. Comes across as a bit of a challenge to hackers, though. Some will undoubtedly try much harder to crack W7 than Leopard or SL.

[srl7741]

Time will tell, I don't buy it because I know Windows too well to believe that will turn out to be the case.

[MacDawg]

Not everything Microsoft claims is true... just sayin'

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[MisterMe]

Not everything Microsoft claims is true... just sayin'

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gifMicrosoft always claims that its new OS is better than ever before. It is always not true. Things will not be any different this time.

[BMWFan]

The security researcher that hacked the macs at pwn2own claims Macs are the least secure. I am sure he knows a thing or two about security.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2941


Why Safari? Why didn’t you go after IE or Safari?

It’s really simple. Safari on the Mac is easier to exploit. The things that Windows do to make it harder (for an exploit to work), Macs don’t do. Hacking into Macs is so much easier. You don’t have to jump through hoops and deal with all the anti-exploit mitigations you’d find in Windows.

It’s more about the operating system than the (target) program. Firefox on Mac is pretty easy too. The underlying OS doesn’t have anti-exploit stuff built into it.

With my Safari exploit, I put the code into a process and I know exactly where it’s going to be. There’s no randomization. I know when I jump there, the code is there and I can execute it there. On Windows, the code might show up but I don’t know where it is. Even if I get to the code, it’s not executable. Those are two hurdles that Macs don’t have.

It’s clear that all three browsers (Safari, IE and Firefox) have bugs. Code execution holes everywhere. But that’s only half the equation. The other half is exploiting it. There’s almost no hurdle to jump through on Mac OS X.

On a scale of 1-10, how impressive was the Nils’ sweep of exploiting all three main browsers?

I was surprised. For IE 8, I’d give him a 9 out of 10. For Safari, maybe a 2. It’s just too easy to pop Safari. For Firefox on Windows, I give him a 10. That was the most impressive of the three. It’s really hard to exploit Firefox on Windows.

Really? What’s the difference between what you can do on IE but can’t do on Firefox?

The technique he used works against IE but not Firefox. It allows you to place code in a specific spot in memory. Mark Dowd and Alex Sotirov talked about this at last year’s Black Hat. You can use a technique to make .net not opt into the mitigations and jump over hurdled easily. With Firefox, you can’t do that.

For all the browsers on operating systems, the hardest target is Firefox on Windows. With Firefox on Mac OS X, you can do whatever you want. There’s nothing in the Mac operating system that will stop you.

[flopticalcube]

No point in locking your front door if you live where no one else does. :D

[Pika]

http://www.unix.org/images/unix_plate-med.jpg

[FX120]

The security researcher that hacked the macs at pwn2own claims Macs are the least secure. I am sure he knows a thing or two about security.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2941

Scary stuff, but I am glad that the "UNIX = secure" myth is starting to get some attention.

[ceezy3000]

a windows pc IS more secure than a mac. if there was a macbook and inspiron on a table somewhere and u told a thief to steal ONE hed take the mac :apple:

[Str8edgepunker]

A computer is only as secure as the person who is using it.

That is all.

[ceezy3000]

The security researcher that hacked the macs at pwn2own claims Macs are the least secure. I am sure he knows a thing or two about security.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2941
there is a difference in this thinking. for overall security Mac OS X is the best. but in certain aspects it loses to windows in security
1. as annoying as the windows security popups maybe, they do keep u secure
2.windows is a much more difficult OS tohack.
there is a difference in security, for a day to day user mac os x is much more secure. the main worry for computer users today are viruses and not being hacked or cracked by a security expert or hacker. theres a very small chance a hacker is outside ur window trying to get into your computer. there is a bigger chance of u downloading something stupid and having ur computer infected.
its just the peerspective
for a home user :mac os x
for a guy participating in something like cansecwest:windows

[Melrose]

Microsoft always claims that its new OS is better than ever before.

They're still saying that about Vista... gad..

[TSE]

In actuality, Mac OS X and UNIX based operating systems aren't much more secure, if at all, than Windows based of of DOS or the .NT Kernel, it's just that there are SO many more viruses made for Windows operating systems due to such a big share of the marketshare, I think Windows has something like 80-90% of all computer operating systems.

[michael.lauden]

A computer is only as secure as the person who is using it.

That is all.

that's not true at all. or atleast wasn't true after internet explorer came out.


however if all these claims are true. and windows keeps copying OS X.... i might have to purchase Parallels soon :)


just think - on a copy/performance scale - vista was like jaguar, 7 is more like panther.


if windows 8 is like tiger, i think i'd purchase it.

(i'm just kidding of course about the comparisons. lets not start another mac vs pc arguent and lock the thread)

[clevin]

the statement is vague and windows 7 is not out yet. We can do more research when its out.

For now, I would leave it alone.

False ads are everywhere, apple is leading the pack in that regard, who really cares?

[tubbymac]

The most secure OS on the planet?

Was he talking about Earth, or like Saturn where it could be true?

[WickedRabbit]

I've been saying for quite a while that the only reason Apple isn't more in the spotlight in regards to viruses is simply because hackers see no point in exploiting Mac when only 11% of the market has a Mac. Why waste the time when you can go after the big fish, the other 89% that Microsoft dominates and increase your profits even more?

I pay attention to the PWN2OWN all the time and year after year all the world's best hackers crack Mac OSX first and they all say the same thing: it's the easiest to crack.

The good news, is that as Apple's share in the market increases they will more than likely also start focusing on security more, as right now there really is no need due to the lack of interest from hackers. As they grow though, Apple will have to take steps forward in advancing its security.

You're only safe right now because no one cares about you - hard to believe for some, but that's the simple reason.

Remember the press Apple got not too long ago about when their site recommended using virus software and then it immediately got yanked when news sites around the web starting pointing fingers saying it's because the Mac isn't as secure as Apple wants you to think? I think that was Apple realizing that as their market increases, so will viruses and they currently have no real security software. But, Apple chose to protect their image instead of their customers, so they yanked the software and said Macs are secure. Good luck with that in the near future.

I run virus software on both my Mac and PC. I'm just anal like that because no matter how secure your software may be, doesn't hurt to have a little extra protection.

[dsharits]

Let's not forget that Bill Gates promised zero viruses for Vista too...

[yetanotherdave]

I've been saying for quite a while that the only reason Apple isn't more in the spotlight in regards to viruses is simply because hackers see no point in exploiting Mac when only 11% of the market has a Mac. Why waste the time when you can go after the big fish, the other 89% that Microsoft dominates and increase your profits even more?


You are wrong to say it though. THink of the fame, the first person to successfully write a virus for OS X. Think of the attention and the money, there have been prizes of around $50k for a OS X virus.

No one has done it. Not one single virus. If there were OS X virus' but less than Windows, then you can pull out your market share argument. But NO OS X virus' absolutely means it's a lot harder. Hacking a box locally in a contest and getting a virus to work are two different things.

Back to the original article, I assume the MS guy means consumer OS's only, either that or he's ignorant of OS's such as OpenVMS.

[dvdhsu]

Let's not forget that Bill Gates promised zero viruses for Vista too...

So basically, this doesn't mean much.
Ah well, time to start sending porn links to everybody using Windows 7.
*Takes gloves off*:D

[techfreak85]

a windows pc IS more secure than a mac. if there was a macbook and inspiron on a table somewhere and u told a thief to steal ONE hed take the mac :apple:

haha that made me laugh!

but,
@Microsoft: Bologna.

[WickedRabbit]

You are wrong to say it though. THink of the fame, the first person to successfully write a virus for OS X. Think of the attention and the money, there have been prizes of around $50k for a OS X virus.

No one has done it. Not one single virus. If there were OS X virus' but less than Windows, then you can pull out your market share argument. But NO OS X virus' absolutely means it's a lot harder. Hacking a box locally in a contest and getting a virus to work are two different things.

Back to the original article, I assume the MS guy means consumer OS's only, either that or he's ignorant of OS's such as OpenVMS.

Yes, because surely what a hacker wants is to be famous and win a measly $50,000 and waste a great hack that everyone will patch immediately afterwards. I think your level of thought is extremely close minded. I bet you save your credit card info and take a picture of your social security card "for emergencies" and store it on your iPhone too.

If I've come up with the perfect way to rob a bank and get away with it, i'm going to save it to use on Fort Knox, not go rob a Seven Eleven. I wouldn't even be surprised if the exploits/viruses for Mac OSX all ready exist and people are simply just waiting for Apple's market share to increase to make it all worth while. The whole point is that USUALLY you will only get one great shot at pulling off something spectacular because after that, the heat is on. So, with Apple being completely laid back on security my guess is that the very first full on attack will be highly successful and by the time people figure out what's going on, it'll be too late and millions of people would have gotten ripped off. Afterwards, Apple will ramp up their security, but at the cost of millions of customers all ready.

The very first person to write a Mac virus will use it steal millions of people's credit cards, social security numbers, etc. that all you people that think you're safe over in La La Land with your unicorns and rainbows.

The point of PWN2OWN is not to write a virus, it's to gain control of a system by any means because that's more valuable than a virus. Year after year they all are picking OSX and it's always the very first one cracked. In a lot of situations, the Windows exploits aren't even successful, meanwhile everyone else hacks OSX in 10 seconds. Someone can be remotely connected to your machine without you knowing and what could they do? Well, when you go spend $3000 on a MacBook Air they could write programs to take screenshots of your credit card number and all information associated. They could create keyloggers that specifically start recording only when a 'longer digit' begins to be entered because it could possibly be a credit card number. Plenty of things.

No one is going to waste their time until they deem they can reap the benefits.

[jav6454]

Doesn't Microsoft always make this claim for each new update? Call me crazy, but last I checked, Corficker was still making trouble for all Windows based machines even if they had the patch Microsoft had pushed. I mean, how can a machine still fall victim even with the exploit fixed? Leaves so much to ask...

Windows 7 will still be unsafe, it is still based on Vista, which is based on XP, which is based on NT, which is an 10-12 year old architecture of ancient code and exploits waiting to be found.

As long as Windows depends on the DLLhell, Registry and System32 and pretty much everything its handled, it will still be insecure. UNIX based OS's have a clear advantage, no I am not saying this to support OS X. It is a blunt truth. However, I think Linux is much more secure than OS X, but that last statement is IMO.

[yetanotherdave]

Yes, because surely what a hacker wants is to be famous and win a measly $50,000 and waste a great hack that everyone will patch immediately afterwards. I think your level of thought is extremely close minded. I bet you save your credit card info and take a picture of your social security card "for emergencies" and store it on your iPhone too.

If I've come up with the perfect way to rob a bank and get away with it, i'm going to save it to use on Fort Knox, not go rob a Seven Eleven. I wouldn't even be surprised if the exploits/viruses for Mac OSX all ready exist and people are simply just waiting for Apple's market share to increase to make it all worth while. The whole point is that USUALLY you will only get one great shot at pulling off something spectacular because after that, the heat is on. So, with Apple being completely laid back on security my guess is that the very first full on attack will be highly successful and by the time people figure out what's going on, it'll be too late and millions of people would have gotten ripped off. Afterwards, Apple will ramp up their security, but at the cost of millions of customers all ready.

The very first person to write a Mac virus will use it steal millions of people's credit cards, social security numbers, etc. that all you people that think you're safe over in La La Land with your unicorns and rainbows.

The point of PWN2OWN is not to write a virus, it's to gain control of a system by any means because that's more valuable than a virus. Year after year they all are picking OSX and it's always the very first one cracked. In a lot of situations, the Windows exploits aren't even successful, meanwhile everyone else hacks OSX in 10 seconds. Someone can be remotely connected to your machine without you knowing and what could they do? Well, when you go spend $3000 on a MacBook Air they could write programs to take screenshots of your credit card number and all information associated. They could create keyloggers that specifically start recording only when a 'longer digit' begins to be entered because it could possibly be a credit card number. Plenty of things.

No one is going to waste their time until they deem they can reap the benefits.

Your theory only holds water if all hackers and virus writers all over the world are colluding and collectively have decided to wait for the jackpot.
In reality this doesn't work because
1) there will be a hell of a lot of "credit" for being the first
2) someone else may beat you to it
3) if someone else beats you to it, apple will patch it
4) apple may patch it anyway, without it being exploited
5) apple may never get anywhere near a MS market share
6) why wait on a money maker. 11% market share is still a lot of people, especially as 99% of them don't have antivirus. An effective virus could hit millions of mac users and catch them with their pants down.
7) as we know from MS ads, Mac users have more disposable income, as we buy ridiculously expensive computers, that's attractive in a "more $ per victim" / "less work for return" sort of way
8) etc etc etc

[WickedRabbit]

Your theory only holds water if all hackers and virus writers all over the world are colluding and collectively have decided to wait for the jackpot.
In reality this doesn't work because
1) there will be a hell of a lot of "credit" for being the first
2) someone else may beat you to it
3) if someone else beats you to it, apple will patch it
4) apple may patch it anyway, without it being exploited
5) apple may never get anywhere near a MS market share
6) why wait on a money maker. 11% market share is still a lot of people, especially as 99% of them don't have antivirus. An effective virus could hit millions of mac users and catch them with their pants down.
7) as we know from MS ads, Mac users have more disposable income, as we buy ridiculously expensive computers, that's attractive in a "more $ per victim" / "less work for return" sort of way
8) etc etc etc

You make valid points on the whole time thing and waiting could result in someone else beating you to the punch, but I think this is where simple math and greed comes in. As you said, 11% of the market share is still quite a lot of people and you could catch them off guard.

My reasoning is based simply off of greed and also off of people that are probably doing this for PC's all ready and seeing that the results are pretty fruitful. On a PC, even if their virus is only 25% effective, that's still almost double the amount of return a hacker would get with Mac assuming it's 100% effective on the Mac. Obviously, no one will ever get a virus that infects absolutely everyone, so they establish a guestimate (yes, I said guestimate and I know how wrong that just sounds) and factor in effectiveness to profit and no matter how you slice it, PC currently is just way more profitable on all scales simply because of the vast amount of users.

Greed is a very powerful factor in everything. You can change the TV channel to anything on any given day and see people on gameshows for money and they've all ready won a million dollars, or half a million dollars, more money than they'd ever see in their life the way they currently live and they could take it all home if they just walk away. But, what do they do? They go for even more and typically end up losing everything. The gameshows know that greed will typically prevail. You think they just want to give out money? It's cause they get advertisement cash and they know that 9 out of 10 people will be greedy and lose. I would only imagine that someone smarter (referring to a hacker) would have the patience to know when to play his cards and when to back out.

You're right, that no matter how you look at it, it is profitable either way, but due to greed, it's simply not worth the effort to target such a small market. They might get away, but then Apple starts immediately focusing on security afterwards and they could have waited for a much bigger pot.

Granted, I made it sound like a mass attack would happen in the near future and that's my fault. We're probably a good 5-10 years before I think a first "major" attack is made on Mac, and I'd guess that it happens once Apple breaks at least 25% marketshare. I don't see Apple ever really challenging Microsoft on a marketshare battle for a lot of reasons, but I do see them becoming quite a bit more mainstream and a lot less niche over the next decade.

I'm just the type of consumer that looks at the big picture and doesn't take anything for granted. Despite the fact that I think it's a ways away from happening, doesn't mean I'm going to go on my daily life as if I know that for a fact not considering that it could also happen tomorrow. As someone who's had his identity and money stolen in the past, I'm not as naive as I use to be.

[Eidorian]

They say this for every new version of Windows. Move along now. :rolleyes:

[SnowLeopard2008]

No chance. The Windows kernel makes it weak, not the actual OS. Linux and Mac OS X both utilize UNIX foundations. Windows relies on ancient kernel coding. Not a chance. Heck, I already got a a few viruses on my beta copy of Windows 7.

[ravenvii]

No chance. The Windows kernel makes it weak, not the actual OS. Linux and Mac OS X both utilize UNIX foundations. Windows relies on ancient kernel coding. Not a chance. Heck, I already got a a few viruses on my beta copy of Windows 7.

Windows 7 is based on the NT kernel. It's not exactly ancient - UNIX is older than NT by a decade or so.

I don't know if the NT kernel is inherently weak, though, I'll leave that up to the code monkeys.

[BMWFan]

Doesn't Microsoft always make this claim for each new update? Call me crazy, but last I checked, Corficker was still making trouble for all Windows based machines even if they had the patch Microsoft had pushed. I mean, how can a machine still fall victim even with the exploit fixed?

And where exactly did you get this fact from?

[clevin]

No chance. The Windows kernel makes it weak, not the actual OS. Linux and Mac OS X both utilize UNIX foundations. Windows relies on ancient kernel coding. Not a chance. Heck, I already got a a few viruses on my beta copy of Windows 7.

just a honest suggestion, you should be careful in how you make statement, dont be so absolutely, there are several erroneous statements i read from you. this is one of them.

[ejb190]

The only way to make a truly secure computer is to isolate it - no internet connection or movement of software of any kind (disks, flash drives, etc.).

Beyond that, it is all about minimizing risk.

[nick9191]

Highly doubt it.

There is so much legacy crap that needs to be in Windows for businesses that cannot be removed or improved without breaking compatibility. Internet Explorer for one. All through the 90's Microsoft used their own proprietary standards instead of following industry standards. When IE7 came out, a lot was removed to try and make the browser more secure, now many businesses can't upgrade to Vista because their stuff doesn't work anymore.

Microsoft is the only company that hurts itself by innovation.

And you can bring up Pwn2Own (a Microsoft sponsored event by the way) all you like, the statistics speak for themselves, 70,000 viruses for Windows, 0 for Mac.

[Berlepsch]

No chance. The Windows kernel makes it weak, not the actual OS. Linux and Mac OS X both utilize UNIX foundations. Windows relies on ancient kernel coding. Not a chance. Heck, I already got a a few viruses on my beta copy of Windows 7.

Quite the opposite. The NT kernel is robust and has all the necessary security mechanisms you need. The problem is that the OS contains too many loopholes for malicious code to obtain root privileges, for compatibility reasons. In addition to that, Microsoft has added and continuously changed so many programming interfaces (Win32 API, OLE, ActiveX, COM, DCOM, RPC, .NET, WPF and whatever they are called) over the years, that development is dragged down by the sheer mass of it.

[Locoweed]

No facts, just my opinion!

I think that one of the reasons for all the virus/worm, etc. problems with Windows is that Microsoft's business model has pi$$ed off a bunch of folks that like to get some revenge.

[iMacmatician]

a windows pc IS more secure than a mac. if there was a macbook and inspiron on a table somewhere and u told a thief to steal ONE hed take the mac :apple:The most secure OS on the planet?

Was he talking about Earth, or like Saturn where it could be true?You two made my day. :D

[FX120]

Doesn't Microsoft always make this claim for each new update? Call me crazy, but last I checked, Corficker was still making trouble for all Windows based machines even if they had the patch Microsoft had pushed. I mean, how can a machine still fall victim even with the exploit fixed? Leaves so much to ask...No, you're wrong. Conficker does not affect patched computers, so unless you can provice contrary evedence, you're already off to a bad start.

Windows 7 will still be unsafe, it is still based on Vista, which is based on XP, which is based on NT, which is an 10-12 year old architecture of ancient code and exploits waiting to be found. And NT is an incredably robust architechture, that has evolved greatly since it's early years. Vista introduced several new security models and completley changed the way the OS operates, read up on it. And NT is actually more like 17-18 years old, which means absolutely nothing.

As long as Windows depends on the DLLhell, Registry and System32 and pretty much everything its handled, it will still be insecure. UNIX based OS's have a clear advantage, no I am not saying this to support OS X. It is a blunt truth. However, I think Linux is much more secure than OS X, but that last statement is IMO.
Now you've gone off the rocker and have just started spouting out things you've heard, without any actual understanding of what they are. Without sourcing some online website to look it up, do you know *exactly* why it was called "DLLhell", what caused it, and why it's an irrelevent thing to even bring up today?

[clevin]

Its unbelievable how erroneous some information here are.

Its fine you dont like microsoft, its fine you are apple fanboy. But to spread false information like these, is just incredible.

Please, if you want to state a "fact" while don't even know what you are talking about. either wiki them before you make them, or add some statement such as "I heard.." , "my impression is ....".

False accusation is not gonna help anything, except portray apple people as ill-informed.

[Mousse]

The only way to make a truly secure computer is to isolate it - no internet connection or movement of software of any kind (disks, flash drives, etc.)

Yep. That's how I run my WinXP system. No Internet on that puppy, so no need for spy-ware/ad-ware/virus blocker. It runs pretty quick for a Pentium III (faster than my Core2 at work loaded down with 10 different copies of said spy-ware/ad-ware/virus blockers.:() Good thing I use Tiger for my home Internet needs.

From the article:
we broke a lot of the compatibility issues to lock down user account controls, to lock down the ability to manipulate states and all the things

If I reading that right, basically you can't do squat unless you're logged in as Administrator. Maybe I'm reading between the lines too much.

[martychang]

No chance. The Windows kernel makes it weak, not the actual OS. Linux and Mac OS X both utilize UNIX foundations. Windows relies on ancient kernel coding. Not a chance. Heck, I already got a a few viruses on my beta copy of Windows 7.

Uhhh, the exact opposite brah. The NT kernel is beyond fine, and the NT security model is a bit more complicated, but technically IS more flexible than UNIX, while affording "full" protective capabilities.

The problem is as another poster stated, legacy BS for businesses. Software from single user systems like Win 98/ME/95 and DOS still needs to run for businesses, and as such the system has provisions for old, awful code that assumes it has every right to use everything it wants. Loopholes for exploits are everywhere because of it, it's just and endless wild goose chase. The only way to solve it is to make a pure NT OS, which isn't likely to happen any time soon.

[Consultant]

I don't doubt it. Even Vista and XP are secure now. Comes across as a bit of a challenge to hackers, though. Some will undoubtedly try much harder to crack W7 than Leopard or SL.

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/042309-researchers-show-how-to-take.html

The security researcher that hacked the macs at pwn2own claims Macs are the least secure. I am sure he knows a thing or two about security.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2941

Wrong. He says Macs are safer than Windows.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/03/26/pwn2own_contest_winner_macs_are_safer_than_windows.html

[Eraserhead]

Let's not forget that Bill Gates promised zero viruses for Vista too...

And Vista is far more difficult to attack than XP, you need user intervention which means any system can be attacked.

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/042309-researchers-show-how-to-take.html

Wrong. He says Macs are safer than Windows.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/03/26/pwn2own_contest_winner_macs_are_safer_than_windows.html

That's just down to obscurity so Mac OS X is safer. Windows is more secure.

[stainlessliquid]

Let's not forget that Bill Gates promised zero viruses for Vista too...
Well when was the last actual virus to infect Vista? Real viruses are not used anymore because today's OS's are too secure. Technically speaking he was right, but everyone calls trojans and worms viruses now so realistically speaking he was wrong. Trojans are by far the most popular virus and are what everyone complains about, but theres no stopping them since they are installed by user stupidity. All those people who switched to Mac because of viruses on Windows are going to be in the same situation once trojans start popping up for OS X.
Wrong. He says Macs are safer than Windows.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/03/26/pwn2own_contest_winner_macs_are_safer_than_windows.html

How is he wrong? He didnt say Macs are less safe, he said they are less secure, the same thing the expert said.

Since viruses are used for financial gain Macs are safe for now. They wont be forever though and once they see that theres money to be made from Mac users its going to hit them hard, it will probably end up like Windows 98 with Apple being forced to create an entirely new operating system to fix the security issues.

[Eraserhead]

it will probably end up like Windows 98 with Apple being forced to create an entirely new operating system to fix the security issues.

I doubt it, they just need to add memory randomisation and other security features to OS X.

[macfan881]

i can never take that seriously when some one says Windows and secure :D i think the Pittsburgh pirates have a better shot at winning a world series than windows ever being secure :p

[amd4me]

Remember when they said the Xbox360 would be unhackable?

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n210/amd4me/star-wars-darth-vader-sense-1.jpg

[Goona]

Damn I hope viruses on OSX never gets this serious:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=3207

[dsnort]

Ok, so look what I found tonight while I was browsing. This ought to be interesting. Wonder what Apple may do....New Apple Commercial?:)

This already a well accepted argument in the Mac vs. Windows debate.

The security researcher that hacked the macs at pwn2own claims Macs are the least secure. I am sure he knows a thing or two about security.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2941

And has absolutely no vested interest.

However, I think Linux is much more secure than OS X, but that last statement is IMO.

Linuxes biggest enemy is.... uh.... Linux! Synaptic package manager is great for what it covers, but I recently tried to add a program that was not in SPM. The installation instructions covered 2.3 printed pages. ( I gave up, I have better things to do with my time!)

[cuestakid]

so i was perusing the feature comparison of the different versions. I read something a tad frightening. Based upon this comparison, encrypting File System (EFS) is now essentially a premium feature in windows. That is, you must purchase the Professional or if you can the Enterprise or Ultimate versions in order to use this feature. Furthermore, Bitlocker Hard Drive encryption is only in Enterprise and Ultimate versions. Based on this finding, I really dont know how Microsoft can make such a bold statement when not even the most expensive retail version of Windows 7 will give people a key security feature.


See here for a complete comparison.
http://www.winsupersite.com/win7/win7_skus_compare.asp

[BMWFan]

so i was perusing the feature comparison of the different versions. I read something a tad frightening. Based upon this comparison, encrypting File System (EFS) is now essentially a premium feature in windows. That is, you must purchase the Professional or if you can the Enterprise or Ultimate versions in order to use this feature. Furthermore, Bitlocker Hard Drive encryption is only in Enterprise and Ultimate versions. Based on this finding, I really dont know how Microsoft can make such a bold statement when not even the most expensive retail version of Windows 7 will give people a key security feature.


See here for a complete comparison.
http://www.winsupersite.com/win7/win7_skus_compare.asp

You do realise there are plenty of free offerings for Windows that do the same thing?

[cuestakid]

You do realise there are plenty of free offerings for Windows that do the same thing?



Absolutely-I was only referring to things out of the box. There are also plenty of Mac related offerings as well. All I was trying to point out is that at least out of the box, Windows 7 cannot really be claimed to be more secure that Mac OS X out of the box.

[BMWFan]

Absolutely-I was only referring to things out of the box. There are also plenty of Mac related offerings as well. All I was trying to point out is that at least out of the box, Windows 7 cannot really be claimed to be more secure that Mac OS X out of the box.

Well some versions of 7 will and some not. Just like how OS X doesn't have all the features of OS X Server Edition.

[FX120]

Absolutely-I was only referring to things out of the box. There are also plenty of Mac related offerings as well. All I was trying to point out is that at least out of the box, Windows 7 cannot really be claimed to be more secure that Mac OS X out of the box.

Drive and file encryption isn't required to protect the OS from outside attacks, only outside-of-system reading of user files.

File and drive encryption is really an enterprise level feature, so that users can take secure and confidential information off premises without worry of data theft, the average home user has no need for it.