Mac vs. Linux: Which is More Secure?

In last month’s column, I said “I’m more secure on a Mac than I was on Windows XP.” Some of you asked how Linux fares in that comparison.

To that, I’ll say I’m marginally more secure on Linux than on a Mac, but I prefer a Mac anyway. I can almost see my inbox filling with flames from you penguin lovers everywhere, but let me explain my opinion.

First, though, I’ll again caveat these opinions by saying that I’m not saying Linux is or isn’t more secure than Apple’s OS X. I’m saying that I’m marginally more secure on Linux than on a Mac. Here’s why.

Seems like a good article. The guy seems knowledgeable about both OS's, and doesn't seem to have an ax to grind. Although I'm not familiar with Linux, what he states about Apple seems fair. The design premise for Apple is to put the features most likely to be desired and needed right out front in an easily accessible format, while burying the tweaks for the people who want to get out the manuals and goof with programming. Linux, OTOH, is still more of an "under the hood" OS, which tends to invite tweaking, but expecting users to have enough knowledge not to goof up their system. What he's describing seems to fit those philosophies.

I think a person like him would probably be marginally more secure on a Linux system, because he's knowledgeable and comfortable with the options. I'm not sure it would be true for an average user.

Comparing Unix to Mac OS is like comparing a swiss army knife to a butter knife.

Security is a function of your desirability as a target.

Mac's aren't a big target because there aren't many (relatively speaking) and very few, are doing anything worth attacking.

Where are hackers going to spend their time? On Unix and Win based machines which run virtually every where and everything or Macs which are mostly in homes and schools? It's the same reason so few hardware or software companies bother making products for the platform - in many cases, it's just no worth the cost.

A OS is trully only as secure as the idiot behind the keyboard, but hey removing that wild variable. I would swallow my microsoft lovin' tongue and say Mac's for a couple of reasons. Main one being the closed or limited hardware and software that can work with the OS.

Agreed --
Computer Security is a "meatware" issue. The meatbag physically controlling the computer is the biggest issue. Computer security is easily likend to home security, if you're really interested, you learn how to lock your doors and install alarms.
$0.02

^^^^^^^^^Security is a function of your desirability as a target.

Mac's aren't a big target because there aren't many^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That has nothing to do with it. That's a purely evasive argument to make. Anyone who makes the marketshare argument in context of security deserves to be laughed at.

Windows is insecure because it's inherently insecure, not because it's a bigger target. Likewise, Macs are inherently secure because they're secure, not because they're a lesser target. Same with linux.

That's why even though Apache has had a larger user base for a long time, for many moons you'd have been crazy for using IIS. IIS was the lesser target, but it was the *EASIER* target.

The writer of this article makes an excellent point about super user, root, administrator, user and etc priviledges. This is partially why winXP has become the laughing stock that it is. Who's brainchild was it to have standard users browsing the internet as an administrator??!?!?!?!

Likewise, if I constantly ran my linux computer, or same for a mac user.... as superuser/root you put yourself in the exact same position.

^^^^^^Where are hackers going to spend their time?^^^^^^^

I understand the argument.

But it has nothing to do with the platform's inherent insecurity, which is what the article is about.

OpenBSD prides itself on being one of the most secure OS's around. Their inherent security has nothing to do with how little marketshare they have. They're secure because they're secure.

Let's put it to you like this. A rich man's house and a poor man's house.

The rich man doesn't even have doors or windows on his house.

The poor man has an audible alarm, three pit bulls, two deadbolts on the doors, bars on the windows, and let's throw in a motion sensing gun turret in the living room just for the sake of argument.

That the poor man has absolutely nothing of value worth stealing(the item of value in this discussion is marketshare, he is obviously the lesser target, he's poor) says *NOTHING* about the inherent security at his home. His is clearly the more secure of the two.

if you switched micro~1 with mac as in # of users, the # of mac viruses and exploits would correspond to windows current woes.

The flawed assumption is based on the myth is that all operating systems are the same. They aren't.

Software design is the top factor for vulnerability - are Macs are designed to be more secure than Windows. If everyone dumped Windows and switched to Macs, the number of viruses, worms and spyware in the wild would plummet. There would be a huge leap in human productivity by recovering billions of man-hours that are currently being wasted on Windows malware. Billions of dollars wasted on troubleshooting unnecessary Windows problems would be saved.

As for Linux, there are many different distributions available. Out of the box, some of them are probably more secure than Mac, some less. But the Linux user interface is awful for the average computer user, and configuration and maintenance are difficult, so there is no improvement in productivity for the average computer user to switch to Linux. Linux is best suited for servers and hobbyists, where the users are willing to invest the extra time required to learn how to manage it properly.

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.