Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Are Macs More Secure? They've Got My Bet!!
Security Awareness for Ma, Pa and the Corporate Clueless ^ | 6/13/2005 | Maudy Grunch

Posted on 06/13/2005 10:11:27 PM PDT by Swordmaker

A few years ago I wrote "Network Security for Dummies" for the intent purpose of explaining computer security to home users, small office/home office (SOHO), and anyone else who wanted a basic primer on the subject. In that book I focused on the three major OSes: Linux, Windows, and Macs. Probably 86% of the book is about Windows security (or lack thereof) simply because that's where most the problems come from. That's not a judgement call; that's the truth.

I was very hot to evaluate the Macs for security because OS X had just shipped and I had heard that it used a UNIX flavor as its core. I looked LONG and HARD for security problems in the Mac because I had an entire chapter to fill about it in my book. Well, try as I might, I couldn't find much wrong with Macs' security - in fact, that chapter is the shortest one in the book! (only about 15 pages long).

Think about it ... When you hear of new viruses on CNN (or whatever), the newsreaders tell us that the virus attacks Windows machines only. When you hear of a big hack (a bank, the Pentagon, NASA, etc.), more often than not the target of the attack was running a Windows network. Web sites are notorious for introducing train-sized security holes in networks, but the only web servers that seem to get hacked and defaced are ... Yep, Windows machines, again.

Think INTEROPERABILITY. If you want a spreadsheet to automatically update itself even when it's embedded into a word processing document, the two programs have to be able to exchange a LOT of data. That means you have to leave a LOT of doors open between the two programs. And, it doesn't end there. Windows is probably King in that regard ... the OS leaves literally hundreds of back doors open just so everything can talk to everything else. Trying to close all those holes while maintaining the ability to swap data around is a huge task. It's no wonder that we can count on the fact that MS will offer at least two MAJOR fixes annually just to try to keep its head above water security-wise. Yes, it's true that all MS engineers now have to read "Writing Secure Code" (ISBN 0-7356-1722-8). It's too bad they weren't using that book even five years ago ... they would have saved themselves (and the computing worls!!) a lot of grief. Anything MS does now in regards to security is much like the Little Dutch Boy sticking his finger in the dike ... after a while you run out of fingers!

So, for now, I'm very happy I went back to Macs. There's only TWO things that bug me about the Mac apps ... (1) There's no "right-click" button (2) You can't kill an app by clicking in the "X" box in the upper-right-hand-corner of the window.

So, if you have a network of ANY size, you can save yourself a LOT of time and money by buying Macs ... you'll need fewer security apps or security devices and you won't spend as much time plugging those myriad holes. Yes, they are more expensive. But you're paying for quality ... consider it like buying a Beemer or a Lexus - people will always "ooooo" and "ahhhhh" and envy you!

Cheerz, Maudy Grunch


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Computers/Internet; Education
KEYWORDS: fud; macintosh; macsaregay; osx; security

1 posted on 06/13/2005 10:11:28 PM PDT by Swordmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Bush2000; antiRepublicrat; Action-America; eno_; Glenn; bentfeather; BigFinn; Brian Allen; byset; ..
Maudy Grunch, Author of "Network Security for Dummies" says "Are Macs More Secure? They've Got My Bet!!" PING!

If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.

2 posted on 06/13/2005 10:13:53 PM PDT by Swordmaker (tagline now open, please ring bell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

Well we have never had a virus on any of our Macs. Can't say the same for the Windows machine. The virus we got almost shut our business down. You are probably asking why we have a Windows machine. We do merchant services with Bank of America and at that time it only was compatible with a Windows machine.


3 posted on 06/13/2005 10:24:29 PM PDT by Vicki (Washington State where there are no rules or standards in elections.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

I am using a Mac as I type. (I acutally have two Macs but not using the other right now). It is an older G3 Imac with Mac OS 9.2. It works beautifully for the internet. NEVER gets viruses/worms/spyware/adware. Occasionally it does freeze but I can keep it to a minimum if I empty the cache manually at least once per session.

HOWEVER, last fall we bought a Dell with Windows XP. I have had to reinstall the OS 4 times since we bought it. It got so infected at one, my daughter's entire year of work on her computer homeschool application file was corrupted. After the last time I reinstalled the OS, all I did was 1.dial into eartlink 2. attempt to go to symantec.com to update my Internet security, and we got so much infestation the computer would not run AGAIN. I just got through reinstalling the OS (AGAIN) on Monday.

We use the MAC for the internet and we use the PC for the kids' computer games and some word processing. I think separating your tasks for different computers is NOT a bad idea if you have more than one. I would probably buy a Mac again if I were going to buy another computer. Most apps run on Macs these days. For those that don't, PC's are getting so cheap now, just get one for those if you need to.


4 posted on 06/14/2005 3:58:38 AM PDT by Conservatrix ("He who stands for nothing will fall for anything.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservatrix
If you are using software that have OSS equivalents (OS, Office, Internet, etc), I would sugget using your Intel hardware with Linux. It has the same strengths as the Mac (Posix-based OS), and surfing the Net is 1000 times safer. Plus all your documents can be MS Office compatible if you wish.

Windows should only be used when there are no Linux equivalents--which is a rarity.

5 posted on 06/14/2005 6:03:50 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

How would I switch from Windows to Linux? Where do I get it?


6 posted on 06/14/2005 6:19:12 AM PDT by Conservatrix ("He who stands for nothing will fall for anything.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Conservatrix
How would I switch from Windows to Linux? Where do I get it?

You can download it from a variety of sites. I like to use DistroWatch or Linux ISO.

A couple of good General Purpose distributions are Fedora (which I use), Suse, and Ubuntu.

If you are nervous about switching over, you can use a distribution like Knoppix, which doesn't install anything (or even touch) anything on your hard drive. It's called a "Live CD" and it boots directly from the CD you burn it to. It will run an entire Linux distro from the CD to give you a taste of Linux without altering your system in any way.

7 posted on 06/14/2005 7:05:59 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

I received a nasty virus about 18 months ago that caused me real heartache. Since then, I have educated myself on the need for AV protection and the use of a personal firewall. I have been free of any problems for more than 12 months now ...

I dont know why this topic keeps coming up ...

When I wrote my thesis in college, Mac was the tool of choice. When I do business communication, its Windows. When I want to do large scale data analysis, Unix is the only OS that will do.

Each has its use ... the right tool for the job ...


8 posted on 06/14/2005 8:24:32 AM PDT by dartuser (We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the complete works of Shakes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

4 macs on 10.4.1 ....no problems!


9 posted on 06/14/2005 8:50:41 AM PDT by afnamvet (31st Fighter Wing Tuy Hoa AB RVN 68-69 "Return with Honor")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

Thanks, will have to check into this.

Bill Gates REALLY should do better with Windows OS, with all that money he has.....


10 posted on 06/14/2005 3:36:41 PM PDT by Conservatrix ("He who stands for nothing will fall for anything.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
When I wrote my thesis in college, Mac was the tool of choice. When I do business communication, its Windows. When I want to do large scale data analysis, Unix is the only OS that will do.

You are aware that Macintosh OSX is UNIX, aren't you???

11 posted on 06/14/2005 3:55:27 PM PDT by Swordmaker (tagline now open, please ring bell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

No I didn't know that. Interesting, will have to check out their Unix sometime. But even though you can run Unix on a Mac you still wouldn't do large-scale data analysis or a major software development with it ... you would be using something like a Sun Server.


12 posted on 06/16/2005 2:18:06 PM PDT by dartuser (We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the complete works of Shakes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
Interesting, will have to check out their Unix sometime. But even though you can run Unix on a Mac you still wouldn't do large-scale data analysis or a major software development with it ... you would be using something like a Sun Server.

Actually, many do exactly that on Macs... especially on Mac Clusters.

Virginia Tech has built a cluster of 1100 xServe Macintoshes (2,200 processors) each with 8 gigabytes of RAM. When it was first built using G5 desktop boxes, at 10.37 teraflops it was the 3rd fastest supercomputer in the world; and at $5 million, by a factor of seven, the cheapest to build in those supercomputers faster than 10 teraflops.

It was rebuilt the following year with G5 xServes and boosted its performance by 20% to 12.26 teraflops. At the last listing of the top 500 fastest, I believe it has dropped to seventh place.

UCLA's Plasma physics lab is building a 256 xServe Macintosh cluster for their large scale data-analysis.

Another company, COLSA Corp. is building a 1556 computer Xcluster... which is expected to turn in better than 25 teraflops when completed and configured.

Many bio-companies are building or buying off the shelf Apple Mac clusters for Genome research.

13 posted on 06/16/2005 7:00:09 PM PDT by Swordmaker (tagline now open, please ring bell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

Impressive ... but can I play Doom 3 on it? lol

Here's wishing I could get an account on Virginia Techs cluster ... I have a few search algorithms that are poorly conditioned and could use a few hundred billion iterations.

Wonder what a microsecond of processor time costs on that thing ...


14 posted on 06/17/2005 5:10:19 AM PDT by dartuser (We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the complete works of Shakes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson