Phil Schiller Tweets Link to Mobile Malware Report That Slams Android

[freejazz-man]

How and why are the parts of OSX that are open source (which parts are those btw?) significant in comparison to windows?

1999 called and what? That's how the computer malware market works. A better question is why do you think it was true in 1999 but isn't today?? I'd like for you to explain how it's been debunked. Do so technically. Demonstrate to me why OSX doesn't have security holes that windows does and what they are.

Short of that you aren't saying anything but unfounded nonsense. iOS does not have the significant global marketshare. If you haven't noticed, most malware authors aren't American.

I'm well aware of the differences between open source and closed source software. But OS X isn't open source software. So what parts of the OS do you think are more secure than windows?

Open source software isn't proactive, it's open. It's doesn't employ security through obscurity. But OSX isn't an open source product, so why do you keep bringing the point up?


It's not that I think you are too stupid, you guys just say stuff that's completely unfounded and then rely on tropes as if they were evidence. Unless you've ever looked at an exploit, I don't think you are qualified to make a statement on the nature of the secure design of operating systems. You certainly can't parse the evidence to understand. You clearly have no idea what is involved in developing secure software (you can make secure closed source software), so it's pretty annoying to see you posting otherwise. If you can't understand what a NOP-slide is from googling it, then you are most definitely not qualified to talk about computer security in any sort of authoritative manner (i.e. at least admit you are completely full of it).

But hey, maybe you could tell me something about what you actually know?

 

[KdParker]

Which brand is better, Fiat or Ferrari?
And yet, Fiat owns Ferrari.

(Edit: As pointed out before by others, Apple isn't really the Ferrari of phones. Far from it.)

Really...

Of course the high end brand is better.

As pointed out before by others, the iPhone does fit the description of a Ferrari of smart phones.

 

[Oletros]

As pointed out before by others, the iPhone does fit the description of a Ferrari of smart phones.

Well, if you want to believe that it is your right

 

[freejazz-man]

better doesn't mean more secure, jeeeesus

 

[Dave.UK]

Really...

Of course the high end brand is better.

As pointed out before by others, the iPhone does fit the description of a Ferrari of smart phones.

That gave me a chuckle for today!

As pointed out by who? iPhone fans? What a surprise!

 

[WatchTheThrone]

If this isn't a hint at the upcoming iPhone 5S (secure) then idk what is!!

 

[chrisbru]

Really? Nope it's slander in my eye's and shall we bring it all back down to earth and get all you lot of your incredibly high horses? Because you have all rather conveniently totally forgotten about Apple being demanded to attend congress over questions of it's apps it sold through it's app store stealing users information! No jailbreaking required.

http://www.cultofmac.com/146540/con...apple-on-apps-stealing-address-book-contacts/

Oh yes, you ALL forgot that one haven't you when attacking Android, stop being so damn hypocritical you lot.

Wut? Slander isn't subjective, its objective. It is just absolutely not slander if the information being conveyed is truth.

What does the App Store information stuff have to do with it? No one is saying Apple is perfect, we're just commenting on a graph that shows Android is effected by malware far more often than iOS.

 

[linux2mac]

Really...

Of course the high end brand is better.

As pointed out before by others, the iPhone does fit the description of a Ferrari of smart phones.

...and the Ferrari of desktops, tablets, laptops.

 

[hchung]

But whether an OS is open or closed is a fundamental part of the design so your explanation is a bit of a non sequitur.

I disagree.
It feels like you're conflating two different uses of the word "open" :
1) the restrictiveness to the user
2) whether or not it's open source

By design, an OS shouldn't be open, where open refers to allowing the user to have full control. Afterall, if an OS was truly open, it by definition has zero security.

You try to make the point later that open source OSs would be more secure. But being open source has nothing to do with design. It's simply the license.

I won't go toe-to-toe with every point you make because I agree or already understood most of what you went over, but I would point out that most of the "time-tested command line tools" in Linux and OS X are open source so you're really arguing against yourself pointing that out.

Where I disagree with you is whether or not being open contributes to software security. I think it does. One of the things I've observed over the years is that open source security issues are usually noticed and patched before it becomes a widespread problem. That's a direct result of so many eyes looking at the code and so many programmers having access to it. Noticing the security issue and patching it becomes a proactive thing, i.e., action is taken before it becomes a problem for end users.

With Windows, it seems to be more of a reactive environment. The issue gets patched after countless machines have already been compromised and it has already become an issue for end users. Because fewer eyes are seeing the code and fewer programmers can contribute a fix, the process is a lot slower and more painful.

I actually see both Unix and Windows as reactive security, because I'd have a hard time believing there are people combing the GNU/BSD tools for security holes as opposed to adding neat features. Oh, and because all the original viruses were written for Unix first because Windows and PC networks didn't exist yet.

So, maybe we're both right but looking at it from different angles. Maybe OS X and Linux are no more secure than Windows, but because there's a larger degree of openness with them, the potential for viruses is minimized because of reaction time.

Exactly. I'd argue that both Unix and Windows ecosystems are as secure as they are, not because of the licensing, but more because of they are time-tested. But that the advantage goes to the open source model because of the faster reaction time pre-internet, and because of age.

And I agree that we're pretty in agreement everywhere except how much licensing affects security.

Who knows? But I think it's inaccurate to say open source software is no more secure than closed. It's pretty clear that it is in most cases.

And in the case of Android versus iOS, I'd point out that Android's jaw-droppingly poor support for OS updates probably makes security issues far worse than they should be.

I feel that it's inaccurate to say open source software is more secure than closed, because we're trying to attribute characteristics to huge swaths of code which all show different levels of security for different reasons.

Off the top of my head, here's a listing of complex software (in my opinion) from most secure to least secure, and they're all for different reasons:

BREW (closed source)
QNX (closed source)
OpenBSD (open source)
iOS (closed)
Windows Phone 8 (closed)
Gentoo (open)
OS X (closed)
Debian (open)
Windows 8 (closed)
Windows 98 (closed)
Android (open)
BeOS (closed)
Mac OS Classic (closed)
Palm OS (closed)
Newton Intelligence (closed)

The way I see it, open source hits both the higher security and lower security tiers, just as much as closed source.
But why they're at their positions relative to each other has more to do with design and age rather than license.
Afterall, all 4 underneath Android were designed for a single user who has all the power in the first place. (not secure)

 

[apolloa]

Really...you haven't backed up anything you have said yourself.

Just making the point that your statement is comparing Apples to Oranges when you say android has more market share.

There are more Toyota cars on the streets than Ferraris, does that mean Toyotas are better cars?

What? Why are you 'trying' to be smart and twist the facts around, you fail to provide any facts, and now you use the analogy about cars? Once again please try to find where I claimed Android was better then iOS? Because I bet yet again you won't and you will try another twist what I said reply..

And yes, Android DOES have more market share:

http://www.zdnet.com/android-apple-ios-flip-consumer-corporate-market-share-7000011255/

https://www.macrumors.com/2013/03/06/apple-makes-gains-in-u-s-smartphone-market-share/

http://9to5mac.com/2013/01/28/repor...rcent-of-global-smartphone-market-in-q4-2012/

Oh look, I WAS RIGHT, you WERE WRONG. Fancy that You need to try harder if your trying to create clever reply's.

 

[Fatalbert]

I just did, like three times. Do you have trouble reading? 99% of the world uses windows. When you write exploits, they don't always work, especially on modern systems. You have to chose targets that are more likely to get hit. When 99% of the world uses windows, it's a pretty easy choice.

Tell me how it's related to the OS design, please.

It's apparently not so easy a choice as you say because some opt to write malicious code for Mac OS X. None of those have managed to get too far or write a virus. There have been some Trojan horse scares that have been beaten down quickly. Nobody has successfully made a Mac virus. Once again, the 99% statistic is false, too.

If you're going to argue that it's just because of the malware market, you'd have to say that people write Trojan horses but not viruses for Mac OS X and only write the viruses for Windows since it's more popular, which makes no sense. Why would they CHOOSE to write Trojans but not viruses for Macs?

----------

As pointed out before by others, the iPhone does fit the description of a Ferrari of smart phones.

No, it's the pre-recession Jaguar of smartphones. American. Or if you want to look at it another way, it's the Mercedes of smartphones, and Samsung is the Hyundai, if you know what I mean.

 

[dontpannic]

Oh look, I WAS RIGHT, you WERE WRONG. Fancy that You need to try harder if your trying to create clever reply's.

All three of your links are smartphone only. They do not count MP3 players and tablets.

 

[AaronEdwards]

Really...

Of course the high end brand is better.

As pointed out before by others, the iPhone does fit the description of a Ferrari of smart phones.

In what ways is the iPhone the Ferrari of smart phones?

Does it have the same market share as Ferrari?
Does Google own Apple like Fiat own Ferrari?

 

[freejazz-man]

It's apparently not so easy a choice as you say because some opt to write malicious code for Mac OS X. None of those have managed to get too far or write a virus. There have been some Trojan horse scares that have been beaten down quickly. Nobody has successfully made a Mac virus. Once again, the 99% statistic is false, too.

If you're going to argue that it's just because of the malware market, you'd have to say that people write Trojan horses but not viruses for Mac OS X and only write the viruses for Windows since it's more popular, which makes no sense. Why would they CHOOSE to write Trojans but not viruses for Macs?

----------

Ok, smarty pants, what about OSX makes it possible to write trojans, but not any other kind of malware? Furthermore, does this feature exist in windows (or any other OS)?

If you aren't going to answer that, please just stop with the nonsense already. I have a degree in networking and systems admin, I've worked as a security analyst for years. You can write malware for anything. Certainly any consumer operating system. OSX offers no more protections in terms of memory management than windows (and if anything has been historically behind). OSX does no more code checking than windows does. There are no heuristics in the system that detect bad behavior patterns. You can't load custom securitized modules like in SElinux. It doesn't have the years of eyes and the community that openBSD does. What you don't realize is that it literally is not worth the money in the time it takes to write the malware. Can you please freaking explain to me what about that you don't understand??

no one is saying the iphone is dumb, or sucks compared to android, so you can stop getting your panties in a bunch over something you clearly don't understand anyway.

 

[samcraig]

Hmmmmm.

I'm not I heard about this - but apparently a known flaw in iOS...

Apple has finally fixed a security flaw in its application store that for years has allowed attackers to steal passwords and install unwanted or extremely expensive applications.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-5...ixes-app-store-flaw-by-turning-on-encryption/

 

[riverpoet]

Interesting discussion in this thread, esp. regarding there the money is.

Apparently, money can be made writing apps for iOS, since iOS users actually do buy apps.

Android users are (excluding geeks) mostly the ones who think Android = Google = free or the ones who are used to pirating stuff like in Windows. So, the money here is in writing exploits and harvesting user data.

 

[AshtonTS]

Phill forgot to mention the fact that all of these viruses come from obscure Chinese apps from third party stores that no one uses. I, nor anyone I know, have aver gotten a virus on android. And no one I know uses antivirus on it.

Apple fanboys will drink the kool-aid

 

[NT1440]

Phill forgot to mention the fact that all of these viruses come from obscure Chinese apps from third party stores that no one uses. I, nor anyone I know, have aver gotten a virus on android. And no one I know uses antivirus on it.

Apple fanboys will drink the kool-aid

All?

Come on buddy. Think a little.

The department of homeland security has issued warnings on the prevalence of malware on Android, even ones available right through Google's store. So...reality, welcome to it, stay a while.

 

[freejazz-man]

So...reality, welcome to it, stay a while.

that goes both ways

 

[AppleScruff1]

...and the Ferrari of desktops, tablets, laptops.

Wouldn't it actually be more like the Toyota or Honda of desktops, laptops, phones, etc? Ferrari is quite exclusive and very limited in production and uses technology that isn't widely available. Ferrari's are at the cutting edge of performance, very high performance equaled or surpassed by only a handful of automobiles. Ferrari's are also not super reliable and require frequent and expensive maintenance.

Apple products are widely available sell in huge numbers, are available everywhere, even WalMart. Even kids have iPhones. Everywhere you go you see people with an iPhone, etc. Hardly an exclusive product like Ferrari. I bet you'll see thousands of Toyotas and Hondas on the road for every Ferrari you see.

 

[swagi]

...and the Ferrari of desktops, tablets, laptops.

With Alienware being the Lamborghini then (aggressive design, no consideration of battery time, sheer performance) I'd rather opt for the Lambo currently considering desktops.

 

[NewAnger]

Wouldn't it actually be more like the Toyota or Honda of desktops, laptops, phones, etc? Ferrari is quite exclusive and very limited in production and uses technology that isn't widely available. Ferrari's are at the cutting edge of performance, very high performance equaled or surpassed by only a handful of automobiles. Ferrari's are also not super reliable and require frequent and expensive maintenance.

Apple products are widely available sell in huge numbers, are available everywhere, even WalMart. Even kids have iPhones. Everywhere you go you see people with an iPhone, etc. Hardly an exclusive product like Ferrari. I bet you'll see thousands of Toyotas and Hondas on the road for every Ferrari you see.

Thanks for pointing out WalMart. People seem to forget that it is for sale there.

Bck in 2007 when the iPhone cost $499 for 4GB and $599 for 8GB and then in February of 2008, $599 for 16GB, maybe back then it could have been considered a Ferrari due it's insane high price.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Thanks for pointing out WalMart. People seem to forget that it is for sale there.

Bck in 2007 when the iPhone cost $499 for 4GB and $599 for 8GB and then in February of 2008, $599 for 16GB, maybe back then it could have been considered a Ferrari due it's insane high price.

It may be priced like a Ferrari, but it is by no means an exclusive ownership group like Ferrari, hence my Toyota analogy. Nothing wrong with Toyota at all. Good quality and great reliability, but not exclusive in any way. Apple sells far more iPhone's, iPads etc than Toyota sells cars. I think it is a better analogy than using Ferrari, IMHO, of course.

 

[NewAnger]

It may be priced like a Ferrari, but it is by no means an exclusive ownership group like Ferrari, hence my Toyota analogy. Nothing wrong with Toyota at all. Good quality and great reliability, but not exclusive in any way. Apple sells far more iPhone's, iPads etc than Toyota sells cars. I think it is a better analogy than using Ferrari, IMHO, of course.

Plus every year now there IS a free iPhone. Currently it is the iPhone 4, next free iPhone will be the 4S and then after that will be the iPhone five for free.

Ferrari doesn't give previous year models away for free.

By the way, I have a Honda, that thing just keeps on going and going.

 

[apolloa]

Interesting discussion in this thread, esp. regarding there the money is.

Apparently, money can be made writing apps for iOS, since iOS users actually do buy apps.

Android users are (excluding geeks) mostly the ones who think Android = Google = free or the ones who are used to pirating stuff like in Windows. So, the money here is in writing exploits and harvesting user data.

uhu, and the reason the Apple app store is STUFFED FULL of free games and I would state was the birth ground for F2P and IAP business models is what then......

I think you have your opinion completely the WRONG way round. Also funny about Apple knowingly selling apps that stole your data without you knowing last year, did you know that one?