Mac OS X security myth exposed

Techworld ^ | 24 June 2004 | Matthew Broersma, Techworld

[Bush2000]

Bump and weep...

[bikepacker67]

Ohh know!

What will the haughty, pretentious Mac heads do now?

[Vermonter]

Per the same source:

Mac OS X - Currently, 0 out of 41 Secunia advisories, is marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database.

Microsoft Windows XP Professional- Currently, 20 out of 80 Secunia advisories, is marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database.

Let's include all the information available, why don't we?

[solitas]

Let's include all the information available, why don't we?

<snicker>

[HAL9000]

Windows users have spent literally billions of man-hours on security problems - a disgusting waste of time, money and productivity.

Here is the current situation -

Windows worms, viruses and spyware: 70,000+.

Mac OS X worms, viruses and spyware: near zero.

[Doohickey]

Deny and obfuscate.

[KoRn]

Well if the socialist/liberal/gay/transexual/gungrabbing/globalist/antichristian/democrat/bisexual/lesbian/terrorist/antiAmerican/communist/anticapitalist/anarchist Mac and Linux users would stop pushing open source products we wouldn't have these problems.

/sarcasm_off

[Doohickey]

Let's try to stick to the topic, shall we?

[HAL9000]

Let's try to stick to the topic, shall we?

I am sticking to the topic. Which OS do you believe is more secure?

[Bush2000]

Mac OS X worms, viruses and spyware market share: near zero.

Fixed it for you.

[Squantos]

Yep gonna go get some popcorn........this'll either be really good or a cricket concert !

[cyborg]

LOL

[Vermonter]

cricket chirp

[Doohickey]

The topic is how many security vulnerabilities exist in various operating systems, NOT how many of those vulnerabilities have been exploited.

The question you pose is a "theory to practice" one. In theory, they are about equal. In practice however, you need to look at how tight the nut is between the keyboard and the chair.

Linux users are usually more computer savvy, so I think Linux is the most secure operating system. Mac users generally don't know or care how thier computer works, but they are also less likely to do things that make their systems less secure. Many Windows users shouldn't even be allowed to own computers. They are clueless to the point of being dangerous.

Anyway, any OS is as secure as the person who uses it wants it to be. Security isn't easy, convenient or fun. If you want to be secure, you have to do without certain things. Add functionality, take away from security.

[Squantos]

LMAO......I'm just here for purely scientific reasons ya know ....:o)

[cyborg]

I'm just here to watch the bloodbath debate.

[JoJo Gunn]

bump

[Squantos]

Yep , I have all the updates, etc and run zone alarm, AVG, Spybot and spyblaster with a proximation program with the service pack 2 firewall and such ta boot so I have no dog in this fight. I have never used Mac so can't say pro or con whats best.

[supercat]

Having a monoculture is dangerous; if different companies use different systems which have different security holes, the risks of a massive worm or virus attack are smaller than if everyone has the same security holes, even though in the former case the total number of security holes may be larger.

It may well be that the only reason for the smaller number of attacks on Apples and Linux systems is that they're less popular and present a less-appealing tharget, even if there are no technical security advantages to them, the fact that they represent a smaller target is a major practical advantage.

Indeed, my biggest complaint with the DOJ's attacks on Microsoft is that they completely ignored the national security implications of having an OS monoculture. Pricing and trade practices pale in importance compared to that.