It's you turn Mac

[anonymous Mac Tech]

Apple has very little focus on security does not release updates frequently. Having built in Safari (pretty exploitable) with flash out the box make it a target for hackers.

OSX sends out updates at least once a week. Also, Apple has been trying to get away from Flash for years. they've pretty much eliminated Flash from everything but the personal computer line-up. They are probably the biggest voucher for HTML5 right now.

Crazy enough, just got a call for this rogue. Customer i had in last week for font issues with Microsoft Office. She knew she installed it too. We'll see if she brings it in. More than likely take me 5 minutes to get rid of. Go into activity monitor and kill the running process, drag and drop the app in the trash, empty trash and reboot. All better!

 

[MrUnknown]

OSX sends out updates at least once a week.

This doesn't mean they patch critical vulnerabilities. They let a Java vulnerability go for 5 years.

Apple has a history of not patching exploits very quickly.

Also, please let us know how easy it is to remove the rogue. Considering they entered their root password, there are plenty of things it could have done.

 

[gunslinger]

OSX sends out updates at least once a week. Also, Apple has been trying to get away from Flash for years. they've pretty much eliminated Flash from everything but the personal computer line-up. They are probably the biggest voucher for HTML5 right now.

Crazy enough, just got a call for this rogue. Customer i had in last week for font issues with Microsoft Office. She knew she installed it too. We'll see if she brings it in. More than likely take me 5 minutes to get rid of. Go into activity monitor and kill the running process, drag and drop the app in the trash, empty trash and reboot. All better!

This is 100% true. Apple is pretty much the loudest one speaking out against flash.


*GASP* You mean no digging around in a cluttered registry for hours or running multiple scanners? Then trying to fix all the things that got screwed up by the malware. Wow.

 

[iisjman07]

*GASP* You mean no digging around in a cluttered registry for hours or running multiple scanners? Then trying to fix all the things that got screwed up by the malware. Wow.

I remember when malware was easy to kill on Windows. Now it's all about the rootkits and bootkits, which are time consuming...

 

[Ccomp5950]

The only "virus" I've ever written for *nix deleted everything in your home directory. It's not self replicating, so I don't exactly call it a virus.

Good luck just dragging it to the trash bin and having everything back then. Damage is done, it even deleted it's own binary for you!

 

[Paul Rodgers]

Let me ask you this. If you live in a neighborhood that had lots of gang activity and a very high crime rate meth house on every corner and had locks on your doors, I live in a neighborhood with almost no crime or gang activity and I also have locks on my doors, which home is more secure? (What home , using common sense is less likely to be broken into?)

Do you actually lock your doors in this scenario?

@MrUnknown

Microsoft should destroy native backwards compatibility and then offer emulation for backwards compatibility. If done properly they could get rid of the traditional Windows problem areas while still maintaining security.

 

[gunslinger]

Do you actually lock your doors in this scenario?

@MrUnknown

Microsoft should destroy native backwards compatibility and then offer emulation for backwards compatibility. If done properly they could get rid of the traditional Windows problem areas while still maintaining security.

The doors are locked in both. Remember you have to enter the root password in OS X and you have enter the password in the UAC in Windows.


As for the comment about Microsoft and backwards compatibility I completely agree. This is another area where OS X is years ahead of Windows. Windows could be so much better if they did this.

 

[MrUnknown]

Let me ask you this. If you live in a neighborhood that had lots of gang activity and a very high crime rate meth house on every corner and had locks on your doors, I live in a neighborhood with almost no crime or gang activity and I also have locks on my doors, which home is more secure? (What home , using common sense is less likely to be broken into?)

Missed this because you edited your original post.

The scenario is based on how secure the actions of others are (applications, user actions), not the house (or OS).

Also, neither home is more secure than the other. Security is not achieved through obscurity. My house could be solid titanium requiring 3 fingerprints to unlock the door, but if I have a key under the welcome mat, it is not secure. You are basing your security on the actions of others, not on how secure it actually is.

I believe you actually accidentally agreed with my malware writer point. Less people wanting to break in "Feels" more secure, but isn't actually more secure.

 

[gunslinger]

Which house would you feel safer leaving your wife and kids in?

My point was they both have some type of lock (UAC for Windows, Root for OS X) Both houses are secured with locks. One just happens to be in a much better neighborhood ( 9% of the market vs. 90%) So even if you believe what makes OS X more secure is its obscurity and not the "locks" you still must except it simply is less likely to be infected.


It can be argued that technically Windows is more secure but the numbers don't lie and you are many many times more likely to be infected using a Windows system than an OS X system. Its funny because the same people who argue against me on this most of the time like Linux...lol Its a hatred towards Apple 9closed and secretive) and its user base (snobs in coffee shops) pure and simple.

 

[Ccomp5950]

The illusion of security is an issue in many instances, you appear to be a victim of it here as well.

A house in the middle of the slums that has automated turrents with friend or foe targeting routines, 3 inch steel walls and bullet proof glass in the worst neighborhood in America is more secure than a tent in the best neighborhood in America.

Other instances where illusion of security gives way to problems: TSA

as for my biases, I use Linux in the shop, Windows has more countermeasures and security implemented into the OS than *nix. Where *nix shines is in it was designed with security in mind from the outset where as windows was designed with a useability first mindset.

 

[Paul Rodgers]

Other instances where illusion of security gives way to problems: TSA

The TSA is reactionary security and a government power grab/kickback program.

 

[gunslinger]

The illusion of security is an issue in many instances, you appear to be a victim of it here as well.

A house in the middle of the slums that has automated turrents with friend or foe targeting routines, 3 inch steel walls and bullet proof glass in the worst neighborhood in America is more secure than a tent in the best neighborhood in America.

Other instances where illusion of security gives way to problems: TSA

as for my biases, I use Linux in the shop, Windows has more countermeasures and security implemented into the OS than *nix. Where *nix shines is in it was designed with security in mind from the outset where as windows was designed with a useability first mindset.

Really? Now all that being said I'm still not seeing Macs get infected and and until I do start to see it I'll keep recommending them to people who don't want to be infected. You can call it the "illusion" of security all you like and you still can't show me Macs getting infected in the wild like PCs. Technical points aside the end user is far less likely to be infected on a Mac, end of story. At the end of the day thats all the end user cares about. I'll let you tell them how secure their Windows system is the next time they are infected.

windows was designed with a useability first mindset

I think anyone who has ever used OS X would say its by far the king of useability.

 

[Ccomp5950]

The TSA is reactionary security and a government power grab/kickback program.

Fair cop, it was a cheap jab.

Really? Now all that being said I'm still not seeing Macs get infected and and until I do start to see it I'll keep recommending them to people who don't want to be infected. You can call it the "illusion" of security all you like and you still can't show me Macs getting infected. Technical points aside the end user is far less likely to be infected on a Mac, end of story. At the end of the day thats all the end user cares about. I'll let you tell them how secure their Windows system is the next time they are infected.

Currently yes, end users are far less likely to be infected on a mac, no one contests that. At issue, is how big a difference it would be if all else (number of users mainly, effort and intelligence of creating malware for each archetecture) being equal which system would be most secure. I believe at this time windows would be better off.

As for useability, that wasn't a jab at any other OS to say which one is better it's just from a design perspective windows started out "**** all" to security but tried for usability, through the years they have added security to the OS instead of having it from the outset. The fact you are seeing it as a jab makes me wish to stop speaking with you on this subject since your ability to discuss things with an objective mind is in question.

 

[MrUnknown]

That's the problem with the argument here.

You are stating OS X is more secure for different reasons than technical ones. We are saying it isn't based on those technical reasons.

You are stating it is more secure simply because it has a extremely low infection count, which by that standard, it is secure. However, most people out there wouldn't call that secure.

As for using OS X. I have used it, and being used to Windows, I had no clue to what the hell I was doing. I have very limited experience with Mac, but I can't tell you how to install an application and it took me a while to figure out that closing an application doesn't close an application, it minimizes it to the dock. Or at least that is how I remember it. I know the icon didn't disappear from the dock unless you right clicked it and chose close.

It just depends on how much you use either one. I get around on Windows and Linux far better than any OS X machine.

 

[gunslinger]

Fair cop, it was a cheap jab.



Currently yes, end users are far less likely to be infected on a mac, no one contests that. At issue, is how big a difference it would be if all else (number of users mainly, effort and intelligence of creating malware for each archetecture) being equal which system would be most secure. I believe at this time windows would be better off.

As for useability, that wasn't a jab at any other OS to say which one is better it's just from a design perspective windows started out "**** all" to security but tried for usability, through the years they have added security to the OS instead of having it from the outset. The fact you are seeing it as a jab makes me wish to stop speaking with you on this subject since your ability to discuss things with an objective mind is in question.

Ah but thats the whole point. All you have is a theory that if the market share was equal the situation might be different. This is only a theory and not reality. Until it is a reality its as you said:

Currently yes, end users are far less likely to be infected on a mac, no one contests that.

Like I said the end user could give a crap about theory its about facts and there here and now.



I could have been mistaken taking it as a jab but given the context of the debate it seemed to be. If it was not intended to be I apologize.

As for using OS X. I have used it, and being used to Windows, I had no clue to what the hell I was doing. I have very limited experience with Mac, but I can't tell you how to install an application and it took me a while to figure out that closing an application doesn't close an application, it minimizes it to the dock. Or at least that is how I remember it. I know the icon didn't disappear from the dock unless you right clicked it and chose close.

I was the same way about my first week on a Mac. After getting used to it most things in OSX make more sense than Windows. These days I'm on Windows boxes far more than Macs but I when ever I get on a Mac I ask myself "hmmm, Microsoft tries to copy OS X so much why don't they make this of that work correctly"


As for closing an app there are 3 or 4 ways most of the time. The most common are going to the top and clicking quit, or go to the dock icon and right click and select quit, or press command Q. All will get the job done. If you need to force quite press Command - Option - Escape simultaneously

 

[anonymous Mac Tech]

At issue, is how big a difference it would be if all else (number of users mainly, effort and intelligence of creating malware for each archetecture) being equal which system would be most secure. I believe at this time windows would be better off.

Yes, Windows would be better off with all the improvements they've made over many years while assuming at the same time Apple would do absolutely nothing to secure any vulnerabilities, but all else being equal for both platforms.

Microsoft could easily lock down Windows by locking down the kernel. There problem solved! But at the same time they would practically shut down a several billion dollar industry which has flourished by the actions of corporations who's sole purpose of existence is dealing with Windows exploits. Not to mention, how many on this forum would be practically put out of business if Windows locked down the kernel? I would assume that Apple would take a hint from Microsoft history on top of their world renowned business sense to not walk down this path in the first place.

 

[BryanLee]

I think it ultimately comes down to the user. Even in an environment full of potential infections you can avoid getting infected. The problem as mentioned before is that the end user is generally always the weakest link.

There will always be a disparity between the amount of virii for other OS's as opposed to window, but as these other OS's gain market share they will also gain interest from the makers of said virii. In my opinion its the same as a legitimate software maker. Why would they invest the time and money developing a piece of software for an OS that only get 1% (not a real value) of the market share when they can concentrate on Windows and get the vast majority. This is especially important when you consider that only a percentage of people presented with a virus will actually become infected. You want to start with the highest number of potential victims as possible.

 

[Ccomp5950]

I could have been mistaken taking it as a jab but given the context of the debate it seemed to be. If it was not intended to be I apologize.

Fair enough, accepted.

I have to apologize now because I didn't realize the discussion wasn't about the theory should market share be equal. It is a hypothetical situation from the outset then. But ...

Yes, Windows would be better off with all the improvements they've made over many years while assuming at the same time Apple would do absolutely nothing to secure any vulnerabilities, but all else being equal for both platforms.

... like he says, should effort be equal in protecting it when faced with the same situation, it's to many variables to tell which would win out. This variable "given equal effort in securing your OS" is not one I included above in all else being equal.

Interesting thought but ultimately no real way to make any sort of guess as to who would do better. Having thought about it, my money would be on Apple in that instance.

 

[wimwauters]

Your password could be CcompI$ADoodieHead382@76342182 or 12345 (the combination to my luggage by the way) if /sbin/login is infected you're for all intents and purposes, fucked.

Not on properly designed systems, i.e. all modern unix/linux . This might be true on old OSX systems.

Macs aren't secure, in some ways Windows is more secure (DEP (Data Execution Prevention) as well as IE8 ASLR (Address Space Layout Randomization), etc.

I suppose you think Microsoft invented these things and/or implemented them first? Think again.

Also, this partial ASLR is pretty lame when you compare with the complete system ASLR which the *BSD projects achieved many years ago...

 

[Ccomp5950]

Not on properly designed systems, i.e. all modern unix/linux . This might be true on old OSX systems.

Before we continue this conversation, do you have any clue what /sbin/login does and how it is called?

I suppose you think Microsoft invented these things and/or implemented them first? Think again.

Actually it's a part of PAE as implemented by AMD, DEP is really just the NX Bit being set (No eXecute bit). Microsoft wouldn't have even implented PAE in their desktop OS if it wasn't for NX Bit benefit, with PAE you can have more than 4GB of ram addressable in a 32bit system, however Microsoft didn't implement this portion of PAE.