Want Security? Make The Switch 549
Lord_Slepnir writes "Security firm Sophos Security has released a report claiming that Macs will be more secure than Windows for some time to come. The report listed the 10 most common kinds of malware, and noted that they can only infect Windows systems."
EffPeee!!! No Surprise Here (Score:3, Informative)
Re:EffPeee!!! No Surprise Here (Score:5, Insightful)
I think we'll never see mass-migration influenced by arguments like those on the article.
People has been saying that security is THE good argument for switching forever, be it Linux, Solaris, BSD or Mac folks, but this has never been a sufficient argument to fuel the switch.
Maybe what we need is not a system with better security and similar software suit. People will only change when we have a system with better security and SAME software suit (or at least one that has similar interface).
Most users are lazy, and they don't want to learn how to use new interfaces.
Re:EffPeee!!! No Surprise Here (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:EffPeee!!! No Surprise Here (Score:3, Informative)
but then you still have the problem o
Re:EffPeee!!! No Surprise Here (Score:3, Funny)
Re: Overrated (Score:3, Insightful)
KeS
Re:EffPeee!!! No Surprise Here (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:EffPeee!!! No Surprise Here (Score:5, Insightful)
Therefore, articles like this will only encourage switching in that section of users who understand the differences (and even then it might not succeed). Which, in my experience, is a tiny fraction of the general computer-using population.
Re:EffPeee!!! No Surprise Here (Score:3, Insightful)
$499 isn't that exspensive compared to other products (car stereo, console gaming, tvs and so on) and chances are the average Joe just buys a computer based off what his kids, family members, or the store clerk tells him to.
From my experience, people who buy macs as their first computer did it because of family members that already had macs or they use macs at their college or wo
Re:EffPeee!!! No Surprise Here (Score:3, Funny)
Re:EffPeee!!! No Surprise Here (Score:3, Insightful)
They won't know, and they'll buy a PC anyway.
People buy all sorts of shit they don't need. It's fueled the home computer industry for years.
They end up using them mostly for games, when a console machine would be better from the standpoint of reliability and ease of use.
Re:EffPeee!!! No Surprise Here (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:EffPeee!!! No Surprise Here (Score:3, Interesting)
I must say, a well secured windows PC has no reason to become infected, you generally need to sit an idiot down in front of it for that to happen. To make infection even quicker you should explain to them that should not download and install every program advertised on every webpage, this ensures that they ignore your advice and do completely the opposite.
Re:EffPeee!!! No Surprise Here (Score:5, Insightful)
It has never been about what is easier or better, or even cheaper really... Remember, the reason Windows won was that everyone already had service contracts with IBM, so DOS won (in large businesses with IBM mainframes). Then they already had contracts with Microsoft, so they won. There really is not much more too it.
Re:EffPeee!!! No Surprise Here (Score:5, Insightful)
When buying a new computer most consumer want to re-use some of their software (games, financial programs (e.g., Quicken, MS Money, and maybe productivity software). Even if the Mac has an equivalent program, the added expense of re-buying stuff that you already own pushes up the mac cost. Also, many large companies have licenses that allow for home use of MS Office suite... on the Mac this will add another $100 to the cost.
Consumers may also want to recycle their existing printer, scanner, camera and may be concerned (rightly or wrongly) that it willn't work with the Mac.
Finally, there is a learning curve with the Mac...things work differently... maybe better, but different.
Market Pressure (Score:3, Interesting)
The only person really invested in Apple succeeding is Apple. Dell, HP, Best Buy, Gateway, AMD and many many more have a huge investment in being able to sell computers and computer components. Unless you're on Apple's "in" list of mandated components, you don't want to see a closed architecture win. To some degree Intel moving to the apple platform will at least bring on gia
Re:EffPeee!!! No Surprise Here (Score:3, Insightful)
What do you mean "surely not"? Can I run City of Heroes/Villains or DDO natively on an Apple machine IN OS/X (NOT in Windows dual-booted, and NOT in VirtualPC/VMWare/Other Emulation Sof
Re:EffPeee!!! No Surprise Here (Score:3, Informative)
Oh I don't know, but I'm with most of the millions of others who would rather play World of Warcraft and Starcraft... (the most popular games in history) lo and behold they work just fine on my Mac, even with the same discs from the PC version! Imagine that!
Re:EffPeee!!! No Surprise Here (Score:3, Informative)
Now, playing CoV/CoH and DDO is a different story, but, two of the most popular games ever are Mac native and have been for quite a while.
Answer to your question - Yes, it'll run 100% (Score:3, Informative)
I suspect you're just creating a hypothetical situation in the hopes of finding a combination where you can say "See... the Mac can't do everything I need." But to answer your question, you can run most WinXP software full-speed alongside Mac OS X by using a virtualizer such as Parallels Desktop ($50 - www.para
Re:Answer to your question - Yes, it'll run 100% (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, I dunno... maybe to avoid viruses, spyware, adware, hackers, and gain ease of use, more control, real security, better user experience, included high-quality development tools, a real OS built on Mach Unix where you can drop to a terminal and get real work done, etc.? That's up for you to decide. Like I said, it's about choices.
But hey, it's pretty clear from your attitude that no answer is going to be acceptable. You want a Windows box and nothing but Windows is acceptable. That's okay... just say so. (Though I suppose that would make you a fanboy, wouldn't it?) Nobody's forcing you to switch. You asked if something was possible without emulation, I told you it was and now that answer's not good enough. Just as I predicted.
Settle down, Beavis. The "product plug" and mention of Bootcamp was part of my attempt to provide a complete answer. Had I not stated it, I suspect you would have criticized me for giving an incomplete answer. Besides, you said no emulation ("...NOT in VirtualPC/VMWare/Other Emulation Software...") but you didn't mention virtualization. Virtualization is not emulation, do you even understand the difference? You should, since it is significant.
Now run along and play your little hero game on Windows.
Re:Answer to your question - Yes, it'll run 100% (Score:3, Insightful)
Geez for all I care you can run windows all day long on it
Why yes, you could run games and applications on Windows, and not bother at all with dual booting into an OS that's not up to the job... that was my point.
but then when the opportunity to do some real work does come
Re:EffPeee!!! No Surprise Here (Score:3, Insightful)
Had you considered the possibility that we might actually prefer Windows, or even think it's better?
I'm perfectly serious here. I'm not clueless or an idiot; I probably know more about
Re:EffPeee!!! No Surprise Here (Score:5, Insightful)
For me... it's all about "free" in both senses of the word. I exclusively use Linux at home for everything. There are tons of applications that do everything I need. Since I don't need to go to print with my graphic work, GIMP works fine for me. As does GIMPrint for printing out family photos and the like. When it comes to the professional audio and video work I do, GIMP is leaps and bounds ahead of what the Windows platform provides and way cheaper than most decent Mac solutions. The amount of time spent getting mys systems configured (from source typically as I despise pre-packaged software) is not any greater than the amount of time I spent tweaking my Windows systems when I used that OS in the past. This is because for many of us, we like to get every ounce of performance out of our hardware and no matter what OS or platform we're on, we're going to investigate EVERY option all the way down to the code itself. Linux is not hard and the GUIs are much more polished and feature filled than anything that the Windows platform offers. But yes, you do have to spend some time learning the new approaches. I did and it was worth every second.
It still an argument that's stupid and pointless though. It's not about "Good OS" vs. "Bad OS". It's about a "Good for Me OS" vs. a Bad for Me OS". For me, Windows is too limiting and far too expensive when you factor in how much you have to spend on extra apps to actually make it useful. For you the GUI options on Linux didn't suit you, likely due to the learning curve and possibly due to the time you tried it (Development is moving fast and both GNOME and KDE are far better than the Explorer interface in my opinion). Linux also failed you in that you probably aren't the kind of person who likes to work all the way down to the metal to get the most out of your machine (again, not an insult just a basic fact based on what you posted. I don't know, so I can't say 100% that this is true. You might have the
1. I used Windows all the way from DOS/Win3.1 to XP and I only got hit with one exploit through a stupid move (putting my XP laptop directly on a DSL link in an emergency with no firewall at all Pre-SP2). I found that putting my Windows boxes behind a decent firewall (typically linux based) stopped a whole host of problems. Even without EVER using any antivirus software (I simply avoided Internet Explorer and any version of Outlook).
2. Nearly every Linux distro I've used has come with everything I've needed at a basic level and the only extras I ever install are typically because of my interests in the rarer fields of computing. Linux is certainly more complete when compared to Mac or Windows, but that's only if you're willing to put the time into learning it.
So there you have it. I hope you can see the wisdom in this piece and take no offense as none was meant.
Re:EffPeee!!! No Surprise Here (Score:4, Interesting)
Considering that most graphic designers don't know much about networking, scripting or coding, they tend to prefer the Mac.
Does this statement make any sense? OS X has built in scripting interpreters for numerous languages, a functional command line, GUI piping/tranforms/scripts via Automator, free dev tools including gcc. On Windows the user has to install cygwin, which does not even interact with cygwin in any meaningful way. On OS X you can pipe things to and from Photoshop. OS X wins hands down if for no other reason than I can run perl scripts without a huge hassle.
Aside from that, you make some good points. Different OS's are better for different tasks and different people. I use Linux, OS X, OpenBSD, NetBSD, and Windows XP regularly. The only thing about the previous poster that gives me pause is that based upon their comments, I don't think they've used OS X to try to do their tasks, or if they did they tried to replicate them exactly and do things just how they used to on Windows. It is hard to argue that for basic command line usage or for commercial graphics work is not king of the hill. The level of integration between gui apps and the cli, the ability to see previews of photoshop files and globally search text within them, scripting, system services, and both free and commercial application availability from both open source and commercial sources just makes those workflows so much easier.
Now Windows certainly has its uses in a lot of areas and is hands down the best for niche application availability in most fields, but I'm suspicious of anyone arguing it for the above uses over OS X.
Re:EffPeee!!! No Surprise Here (Score:4, Funny)
No. In all fairness, neither had I considered the possibility that you might be afflicted with rabies or fetal alcohol syndrome.
Re:EffPeee!!! No Surprise Here (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here here! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:EffPeee!!! No Surprise Here (Score:3, Funny)
And as for the second part, Rosy and her daughters are calling you...
Re:EffPeee!!! No Surprise Here (Score:5, Insightful)
Well... We'd better not tell them about the Windows/Office Vista menu changes then.
Re:EffPeee!!! No Surprise Here (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll tell you the three reasons this "lazy" user has stuck to a Windows/AMD box (you acknowledge the first one):
Re:EffPeee!!! No Surprise Here (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there a reason why you feel qualified to tell others what "the point" is? From the profile:
So it's impossible to "do something original and creative with a computer" if what you're doing relates to business? I'm glad the folks at the engineering firms that brought this technology to us in the first place didn't feel that way.
And FW
However.... (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, it will be years before OSX overtakes Windows, if it ever does. Still, with OSX's mature tried-and-true UNIX core, I don't see as many problems as with MS's OS.
Re:However.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:However.... (Score:5, Informative)
You don't need admin privileges to screw a users account and do "useful" things. Point of example - MyDoom.A didn't need Administrative privileges for anything it did.
Re:However.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:However.... (Score:5, Informative)
The perms in general are a good deal looser than a normal Unix system in order to make it more useful as a single-user desktop. Totally understandable decision, but peopel tend to make assumptions about the protection level of OS X sudo login system that aren't true.
Re:However.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:However.... (Score:4, Informative)
On your Mac, as a default admin user, try and delete an application from your Applications directory?
Can you do it without typing in your password?
Nope; The directory is writable, however, the contents are not. Interesting, no? You can create new entries, but you cannot alter/delete existing entries.
Seems like a satisfactory security model to me. I guess it enables "spoofing" issues.
Re:However.... (Score:5, Insightful)
And how will that help? If a user is willing to click to run untrusted programs, he is willing to type a password to do so. This will only help in cases where a user does not have the priviledge to install programs (which the OP explicitly discounted by saying "and has the right to install programs").
Re:However.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:However.... (Score:3, Insightful)
People are not installing "Malware.exe" they are installing "SuperSmiley.exe", "NudeBritneySpearScreensaver" or "WindowsKernel_1337_Accelerator.exe" They will do whatever it takes to install them, including entering the appropriate credentials.
The real security problem is social.
Even if a system becomes very safe ( call back Apple every time you need to install a program. Store your data on Apple site only, and no executio
Re:However.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:However.... (Score:3, Informative)
Not quite.
When you double click a document that tries to open an app that has never been run, you'll get a warning. Double clicking the app itself will happily run it the first time, no questions asked.
Re:However.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Whatever... same with Windows (Score:3, Insightful)
Now every frickin time I want to run some executable I have to click "Yeah, ok, fine, do it".
Providing a dialogue that is a confirmation, not a choice is a usability and security flaw. OS X does not do this. What is does is when you run a program for the first time, it tells you it is a program and then asks if you want to run that program or not run that program. You are not given the option of clicking "ok" like on Windows, which with a ridiculous number of said, useless dialogues trains everyone to re
Re:Whatever... same with Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm, obviously you're just looking for some way to criticize Microsoft without actually knowing what you are talking about. Whether it says 'OK' or 'RUN', a dialog is a dialog. The fact is, people don't read them after they've popped up a handful of times.
Read a book on interface design. Most all of them will cover the "ok/cancel mistake." It is classic operant conditioning. By providing the same two buttons over and over again, buttons that are not actions, and by not providing the user with the means to make a good decision, users are conditioned to always click "OK." If, however, users are provided with buttons that are actions and which are pertinent to the question asked the response is very different. On Windows users reflexively click the "OK" button that is always there and which is always in the same place and which means "keep working" to the average user. On other systems the user can't just click the same button in the same place, because they are not given that option. Instead they see the buttons, "don't run the program" and "run the program." Simply be reading these buttons the user is made aware that it is a program about to be run and not a picture about to be opened. It takes them a half a second and they have to think. At this point users that know what they want click and those that don't pause, and most read the dialogue box looking for help.
This has been demonstrated time and again in usability studies and human/computer interaction experiments. The key is having different choices for different situation, using actions as button names, providing regular English in the dialogue messages, and providing reasonable choices. Windows does a terrible job of this and even after moving to another system, some users (but not most) take a little while to break conditioning and not just click on a random option all the time. Many other OS's and applications have varying levels of success with their implementation of this concept. OS X is one of the better ones, although far from perfect.
Please, if you are going to comment and sound credible, at least know what you are talking about.
I've studied UI design both formally and informally for years. I've read quite a few good books, and reviewed quite a few experiments. I've attended conferences and conducted usability testing. Using Google you should not have too much trouble finding information on this concept. UI design is part engineering and part psychology, but it is a maturing field. Windows is a poster child for what not to do in this case (although they do manage some other good UI design here and there in Windows). The fact is, people do read dialogue buttons and boxes as is appropriate, if they are presented with the proper frequency and in the correct way, instead of in the terribly broken way Windows has implemented them.
The MSFT Security Analogy (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The MSFT Security Analogy (Score:5, Funny)
* WinYY (after WinXX) - They blocked the chimney
* WinZZ (after WinYY) - They rebuilt the walls, this time out of bricks, instead of paper.
Re:The MSFT Security Analogy (Score:3, Funny)
*WinYY.a (in between WinYY and WinZZ) - With the chimney blocked, the paper walls quickly charred and caught fire, burning the whole thing to the ground. (See WinME.)
10 most "common" kinds? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:10 most "common" kinds? (Score:5, Insightful)
I love my mac too (all four of them). There is a bit more to it than that. A large part is the predominant number of windows. To effectively spread, a virus must have reasonable access to new hosts to infect. Also, the harder it is to infect, the more hosts the virus must have access to in order to spread. The concentration of macs is low enough that this significantly inhibits the ability of viruses to propogate.
But there are also other issues. The article notes that email virus have become the most predominant malware. Certain email client programs are much more suceptable to these viruses that others. A large number of Windows users switching email clients would reduce the number of viruses significantly. I can tell everytime a new virus comes out, I suddenly see
Re:10 most "common" kinds? (Score:2)
Mea Culpa.
Macs safer... (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, they managed to predict the present.
This just in.. (Score:5, Funny)
I'm just going to keep all my important stuff on a TI-99/4a [wikipedia.org] from now on. Let's see the botnets get hold of that!
Re:This just in.. (Score:2)
They probably can, but only if you have Extended BASIC and the dual floppy drive add-on.
Why Bother? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why Bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would I write a piece of malware that would only target a small segment of the market? If one wanted to further one's nefarious plans wouldn't it be smart to go after the biggest slice of the pie?
That would depend upon your goal, now wouldn't it? For botnets, it is probably too difficult compared to the return to go after OS X boxes, but for other types of malware it makes some sense to add OS X as a secondary vector for a cross-platform worm. If, for example, you're gathering credit card numbers and accounts to online stores, you'll get a better return from OS X boxes than from Windows machines since you eliminate the chunk that is pirated and running in the third world, and basically limit yourself to the wealthy first worlders, and usually even the higher end of that group. You also, unfortunately, are targeting a lot of the security expert crowd, almost guaranteeing early detection of your worm.
If, however, your goal is hactivism or prestige, well the first worm that targets OS X machines and actually propagates significantly in the wild will be big news and generate a lot of press. It is an ideal target, if you can pull it off.
There is plenty of motivation to attack OS X boxes, but the difficulty of doing so, due to more reasonable security and architectural choices and because the skillset of malware authors is usually very Window's platform specific has played a big part in making sure that it has not yet been a concern.
Re:Why Bother? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you say "a lot of security people use macs" and are not implying that Mac users are generally more secure because of it, then the statement might as well say "a lot of security people use Windows PCs." Because, a lot of "security people" use windows. I would wager a guess there are significantly MORE "security people" that use Windows than OSX.
When a worm is propagating, every propagation exposes it to potential detection. If malware hits my box and my IDS notices an anomalous outgoing communication that does not match my normal pattern, I'm going to look into it and find out what happened. Suddenly the malware is exposed to the security community.
The vast majority of the time, a worm hits a non-expert's machine and is not detected. For simplicity's sake, lets say there are 100,000 users in some network. 80,000 are using Windows. 4,000 are using OS X. 16,000 are using other OS's. Say there are 500 security experts in this group. 250 are using macs, 150 are using alternative OS's and 100 are using Windows (based upon the attendees of security conferences this is being overly generous to Windows by a lot).
You write a Windows worm. Every propagation it has a 1 in 800 chance of being detected. You'll probably net 400 machines for your botnet before anyone is even investigating and a lot more before anyone gets around to writing a signature.
Suppose you write a OS X only virus. Every propagation has a 1 in 16 chance of being detected. You'll probably net about 8 machines before someone is investigating. The investigation will likely go faster as there is a lot more interest in a mac worm than a Windows worm, due to the novelty. The propagation will likely be slower due to the scarcity of targets (only 1 in 25 targets is viable).
Suppose you write a cross-platform Mac/Windows worm. Every propagation has a 1 in 240 chance of being detected. You'll probably net a 120 before the investigation starts.
Because the percentage of security people who use OS X is so much greater than the percentage that use Windows, an OS X worm faces a much harder "market" for propagation and is likely to be detected while many fewer hosts have been compromised. This has been demonstrated in the real world as well, with the case of the dropper trojan on a mac forum. Do you understand now?
Call home (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Call home (Score:2)
...Again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:...Again? (Score:4, Insightful)
The majority of security related incidents are not due to the infamous and dreaded "determined cracker". They are due to "script kiddies" - people who don't have the skills required. Security is not an absolute, it is a relative scale. Most of the people dropping shots on MS OSes are those who ony do it because it is easy. They then go brag to their equally skill-free friends about their supposed 'leetness.
Thus the intent of security is to raise the bar, the barrier to entry if you will, on what it takes to "get in". If an OS makes it more difficult to break in, more tedious to do it, then you will decrease your risk by driving off the lesser "skilled", regardless of the size of the target.
Consider transporting large amounts of cash and other valuables. Armored cars can be "cracked" by sufficiently determined theives. Yet we don't see banks transporting their cash by unescorted, unarmored car. Again, it is a matter of raising the bar. Do you lock your car or house? Why? A sufficiently determined thief will easily bypass your lock. But just as with OS level security, bank security, etc. you weed out the "petty" or "lesser" thieves/crackers. This reduces your risk and reduces your response work.
So IF OSX raises the bar, then it is a good thing regardless of the size of the target on it's back. Anything short of recognizing this is short sighted and missing the picture.
So GundamFan, do tell: Do you lock your vehicle? Do you lock the doors of your house? Do you store your money in a bank? Do you hide your valuale or use a safe? Why bother, since "where there is a will, there is a way"?
malware's not the only problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the OS-dependent malware is on Windows but not MacOSX, but there are still some serious computer-delivered attacks that don't depend on the operating system. Social exploits like phishing and pay-forward scams still attack the gullible on any platform. Cross-site scripting exploits can still put web services such as PayPal and Amazon at risk. This has little to do with the platform, and I think many MacOSX fans are falsely smug over the whole thing.
True... (Score:4, Insightful)
Security through... (Score:5, Insightful)
Macs and... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Macs and... (Score:2, Insightful)
Switch to abacus, pen and paper (Score:2)
Re:Switch to abacus, pen and paper (Score:3, Funny)
Gold-pressed latinum! w00t! Oh, you said "laminated"? nevermind....
Apple fud cake (Score:3, Insightful)
It reads the new updated statistics about the problems of ms windows, and clichés it's way to declaring apple fairly safe.
this article does admit apple has security flaws, but does not extend it beyond that.
In short, the article doesn't do much to bring perspective, or depth to an already longwinded debate.
In my opinion, changing to apple because it's less of a target is comparable security through obscurity.
Real security comes through proper training of administrators and users. Real security does not come with the operating system
Re:Apple fud cake (Score:3, Insightful)
JAB FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with the first part of your final line - "Real security comes through proper training of administrators and users." But the operating system is an integral part of that. Ever used any trusted platform? (a real one, like trusted solaris or hpux) There's some os-down security enforcement!
All security decisions are a compromise between usability and security. All of them. I can make my windows boxen 99.999% secure by unplugging them from the network and controlling all physical access. But in the real world, a useful system is attached to a network, and the OS is a vital part of that security arrangement.
Anyone who truly believes that *nix isn't attacked constantly, or for that matter, by very high-level attackers, is too limited in experience and not in a position to have reality impinge upon his or her preconceptions. Watch the firewalls protecting any *nix network - say at a bank - and then tell me that there just aren't that many attacks on *nix. Or - try this... run up your linux box, rename your root user to something else, and create an unprivileged user named root. Then log in to any IRC server that will let you, join #linux, and watch your firewall go stupid as script kiddies and various other bored hackers try and 'pwn' your system. The reason there aren't many worms for *nix at all is mostly because the security model makes it extremely difficult to build a useful worm/virus, and it's likely to stay that way.
User is the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
If a user has permissions to run any program he wants then malware will remain.
In a corporate environment, the users' rights should be such that unknown applications cannot run.
Home users don't have the same protections and must rely on virus checkers and spyware scanning to tell them that "this screensaver your mum sent you is infact a trojan which will send itself out to all your friends".
Windows, Linux, Mac, BSD are all susceptible to users' bad decisions.
(and the critical mass of malicious folks exist in Windows, but that could change quite quickly)
Its the same argument of firefox vs IE (Score:5, Insightful)
And now, apple wants to run Windows? (Score:2)
Re:And now, apple wants to run Windows? (Score:2)
The REAL reason OSX is more secure than Windows (Score:4, Funny)
Less Targeted = More Secure? (Score:5, Insightful)
*Troll*
-Matt
Misleading metrics (Score:5, Insightful)
What matters is rate of contact and rate of infection after contact.
A well configured Windows machine, with a good up-to-date virus/spyware scanner and firewall which prevents unauthorized registry changes is pretty hard to actually infect.
I'm sure that "out of the box" Macs are better. But it's not "out of the box" that I care about. My concern is level of security during actual operation.
I have no problem believing that Macs are more resistant to malware, but this measure doesn't show that to necessarily be the case.
Re:Misleading metrics (Score:2)
Yes I know what firewalls do.
When I wrote "with a good up-to-date virus/spyware scanner and firewall which prevents unauthorized registry changes" the "which" is refering to the virus/spyware scanning not the firewall.
Not that this'll actually teach me to poof-read.
Re:Misleading metrics (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, this only addresses number of viruses, not level of security, making this a dumb study. Yes, I own a Mac, and will be buying another.
Where's the "duh" button when you need it? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Where's the "duh" button when you need it? (Score:3, Insightful)
So that is why so many people tried to rob Fort Knox.
obscure != secure (Score:5, Insightful)
Faith in obscurity means you'll be totally unprepared when disaster strikes.
tag (Score:2)
That's not what the article says (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the BBC article linked to says:
Kinds of malware means categories - eg trojans, viruses, etc. That's absolutely not what the BBC article says.
Sober-Z 'worm'? (Score:2)
So what you're saying is... (Score:2)
Personally, I'd say that it would make a lot more sense just to switch to Linux – not only does it work with your existing PC hardware, but it's also usually free or inexpensively-priced. And despite what a lot of people have claimed, it's really not very hard to install or use
Re:So what you're saying is... (Score:3, Insightful)
But personally, I have to say I find Linux more convenient, because you get a complete, ready-to-go desktop with all your applications and settings nicely pre-configured, right out of the box
We were actually trying to figure this out at work. We get our choice of machines and OS's. The estimate right now is it takes the average Linux install and config about 4 business days to get everything they need installed and configured and working with all our resources. It takes the average Windows user 3 days (
But, but, but weren't TWO GUYS abandoning the Mac? (Score:5, Funny)
Macs are not just more secure... (Score:3, Informative)
They're also easy to perceive as being "user friendly", stylish (if aesthetics matter to you), very versatile, and over-all are just more "welcoming" to those people who don't know a lot about computing in general and easily anthropomorph their PC's into something that "hates them" every time a program suffers from buggy construction.
My parents and an Aunt just bought themselves new computers - Dad got a 20" iMac, Mum got a 17" MacBook Pro (not a single problem with heat or "moo" yet), and Aunt picked a 13" MacBook (she hasn't said anything about problems yet either) - based on my recommendations and their experiences with Windows installs degrading overtime - seriously, barely touched PCs and Windows had to be re-installed at least once every six months, even with anti-spyware/virus and firewall software and hardware.
They bought them with a three-user licence of Windows XP as well - for those few programs that they use that aren't on Mac OS X - and are now quite happy doing a lot more on their computers, and watching a lot less television, than they were before.
Most of the time they're booted up into Mac OS X. Sometimes my Aunt uses Windows for when she's working on Family Tree's, and once Mum installed Mac:Office she stopped using MSN on Windows so it's already been left alone after two days. Dad doesn't know why he's got Windows, it just seemed like a good idea to him, and I'm getting him off of it slowly because seriously, he doesn't use his computer for anything that he can't do in Mac OS X; when he does need Windows though, it'll be there on another partition waiting to be used.
Macs are the best computer for the general consumer to buy today, whether it be a Mini, an iMac, or a MacBook (Pro or "Regular"), simply because the core OS that comes on them provides a good place for a "noob" to learn about the web, email, writing letters, making movies, playing with photography, simple programming, etc... and because of Mac OS X's overall design and default configuration (very important because no "noob" is going to first secure their PC when they unpack it) it is a secure place to play.
With the change to Intel CPU's they become even more useful across the broad spectrum of people using computers because suddenly that program that you had to use for work and couldn't change for something else cheaper or OSS can now be run on Windows... natively on a Mac; allowing you to "cool off" from Windows once in a while by rebooting and firing up iPhoto or iMovie, potter around with that masterpiece you're gonna release one day to rival The Big Lebowski, and then reboot and get back to work.
There was virtualisation software before but now Parallels and the Intel CPU switch has made Windows in Mac OS X even more practical, and now Windows can be run while enjoying some of that OS X security. You're firewalling Windows XP with Mac OS X! You, the noob, has his own UNIX firewall! Now how cool is that?
If you've got the cash and a looking for a good all-round computer, get a Mac. If you don't have the cash, save up and then buy a Mac. If you're a gamer... get whatever the hell you want because you're likely to have already set you're mind on something and anything else is just "bogus", and if you're a Linux/BSD geek like me, well... one day you may want a Mac and run Gentoo or something else on it, but I'm personally enjoying this use I have of my Dad's older iMac G5 and am seriously considering turning my Gentoo Desktop PC into a server and buying a MacBook Pro like Mum's for my main machine. :)
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Motive behind Sophos' press release? (Score:5, Interesting)
If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would think this is a warning shot aimed at Microsoft because of MS' sudden focus on security, to the detriment of companies such as Sophos; send Microsoft's small clientle to the enemy - it's no skin off of Sophos' corporate nose. As a PR exercise, Sophos otherwise just released a piece of fluff. They're talking to an audience that they don't serve or interact with.
Mac Security Isn't Technical (Score:5, Insightful)
I've come to the conclusion that the biggest reason for why the Mac is a more secure platform isn't because of technology, but because the Mac userbase tends to be a lot more savvy than the Windows userbase.
I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of Windows malware comes not from the inherent insecurity of the Windows platform but from users doing dumb things. Someone who installs some stupid little weather applet and gets infected with spyware got infected not because of a flaw in the system, but because they didn't bother to determine whether or not the source of their software was credible or not. Even if they got a prompt like Vista and OS X present they'll still authorize the program. There's no patch that can be applied to a system to prevent stupid users from mucking it up.
John Gruber wrote a really astute article on why Macs don't have the level of malware that one would think they would [daringfireball.net]. If Apple has roughlt 5% marketshare, why isn't 5% of the total malware population targeting Macs? I think he's right when he notes:
Macs are more secure because Mac users have a much tougher stance towards crapware. Mac users tend to be much more technically proficient than the average. If that "zero-tolerance" policy changes, I'm not so sure we'll see an increase in the amount of malware targeting Macs.
OS X does a great job of providing technical barriers against malware, but nothing can prevent malware that uses social engineering to do its work. Mac users are safer because they choose to be - but if you get a group of users who have no awareness of security and will blindly execute anything they come across, even if the system specifically tells them not to, that could change very quickly.
Education is the solution ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows is secure enough, user behavior isn't.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't buy "osx is safe because no one uses it" (Score:5, Insightful)
Most hackers don't need a huge number of installs to stroke their ego. The opportunity to prove that OS X is just as vulnerable as Windows should be more than enough to motivate someone to release an OS X virus into the wild. Yet no one has done it.
There must be more at work here than OS X's small market share. OS X must be inherently more secure than Windows to not have a virus in the wild six years after its release. Certainly there are enough hackers out there who would love to show their prowess by writing an OS X virus, even for the relatively small number of OS X installs that exist; but nobody has been able to do it yet.
Re:First Post (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It may be true but... (Score:2)
But I think people using Apple computers are the one with less technical knowledge...
Not really. A lot of people who use macs are clueless, but a significant portion of the security professional industry is also using macs. Think of the attempt to spread a worm using a dropper on a mac discussion site that happened last year. The trojan itself was discovered, analyzed, and documented everywhere within hours and the infection was contained at the source.
So, if there was a company creating malware for th