Vista security claim challenged

Discussion in 'macOS' started by flopticalcube, Jan 31, 2007.

  1. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #1
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6316253.stm


    The article does NOT mention OSX. Some sloppy research there and they could have found a more informed "expert".
     
  2. Chaszmyr macrumors 601

    Chaszmyr

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    #2
    I don't think we have any reason to believe that OSX is any more secure than Vista, especially at this early stage.
     
  3. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #3
    fine line between usability and security, thats right, OSX isn't in the position of figure out that find line yet. wait until u get 20% market share, thats when u need to worry about security problems.
     
  4. erikamsterdam macrumors regular

    erikamsterdam

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Location:
    amsterdam
    #4
    That is not entirely true. OS X will always have way less legacy code in it compared to Vista because it is not backward compatible with old OS 9 code. Vista still has DOS/Win95 crap in it that is filled with holes.
    Apple made a very smart move to start all over again with OS X.
     
  5. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #5
    i sure agree with u, but before the reality comes, all u said is only suggestion and guessing, before hacker really pay attention to it, nobody knows how safe it is.

    safer? probably, but how much? 20% safer isn't good enough.
     
  6. MisterMe macrumors G4

    MisterMe

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    USA
    #6
    That old discredited marketshare argument again:rolleyes: But, where did you get that 20% figure? Don't bother. The smell gives it away.
     
  7. semaja2 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Location:
    Adelaide
    #7
    security... intresting word...

    windows is most likely more prone to a hacker breaking in rather then just making malware, however think about this...

    Say someone hacked a adium mirror (or any other big app) and included one line in the code that simply wiped your homedrive? or maybe it installs a daemon that opens adverts every 10 seconds? they are all possibly withOUT the use of the admin key

    Let see about limewire.. someone decides to have fun and adds the line into the installer to wipe everything from your system, since limewire already asks for the admin key you would never know what hit you.
     
  8. patrick0brien macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #8
    There's a big difference between being attacked, and being breached.

    Install base (not market share) only affects attacks.

    BTW let's not forget MoAB, these guys are actively trying to find critical bugs, and have only found obscure ones.
     
  9. dpaanlka macrumors 601

    dpaanlka

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Location:
    Illinois
    #9
    Surely some Apple hater out there in the past 7 years would have tried to create a real working Mac security breach by now.
     
  10. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #10
    nope - not correct. you have overstated your point. security and market share is not a proven fact - merely supposition.
     
  11. iW00t macrumors 68040

    iW00t

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Location:
    Defenders of Apple Guild
    #11
    I wouldn't worry.

    Until you can freaking get exploits where rendering malformed HTML in your email client can install a rootkit in your OS, any system is better than Windows.
     
  12. barnaby macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    #12
    1. If you have more users, releasing patches is more expensive.
    2. If you have more exposure, there is more interest to break your system.
    3. If you have more exposure, subtler flaws are more likely to be discovered.

    I agree with these three premises. I certainly don't agree that Apple isn't in a position to worry about balancing security and usability. That is patently absurd.

    Apple's website ranked 11 for number of visits last year. It runs on Apache 1.3.33 (Darwin). Should they not be worried about the security of the machine that runs their webserver? Or should they make it hard to use for the rest of us?

    Maybe you should tell Amazon that they don't need to worry about the security of their inhouse developed servers because they are the only one that use them.

    Perhaps you mean only security of end users? But if you're trying to defend Microsoft, they had a much larger market share when the majority of their end users logged in regularly with superuser privilleges available to every program.
     

Share This Page