Posted on 05/28/2005 8:24:15 PM PDT by quidnunc
A Seminole technology security expert is surprised by reaction to his post of frustration with Windows and Intel.
Winn Schwartau switched his office from PCs to Macintosh computers, a seemingly simple move that created an overwhelming reaction in the online world.
Schwartau is no mere computer user. He's a nationally known technology security expert from Seminole, so when he wrote in his online blog that he was tired of unreliable technology and fending off virus and spyware threats to his office PC he triggered a torrent of attention.
"I just didn't know this was going to be controversial," Schwartau said.
In a column titled "Mad as Hell," posted Monday at the Network World Web site and his blog (securityawareness.blogspot.com) on Wednesday, Schwartau declared that systems using Microsoft's Windows software and Intel processors are "a threat to the national economic security of any organization or nation-state that relies (upon) it."
The Macintosh community, always on the lookout for good news about Apple Computer and its products, started a flood of reaction. Schwartau's blog tracked 9,000 visitors Wednesday, 40,000 Thursday and 12,000 by midafternoon Friday. In a month, it usually gets 4,000 visitors.
According to Greg Hoffman, chief marketing officer for Schwartau's Security Awareness Co., responses were running 10-1 in favor of and praising the switch, which occurred last month.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at sptimes.com ...
On reflection, I think that you are right when it comes to standalone restaurant POS systems.
I knew a guy that developed a very early one back around 1985 that worked on a Kaypro system. It was used in at least one resaurant in Berkeley or Emeryville. I'm sure that since then these kinds of vertically integrated systems have become far more sophisticated and probably don't exist in the Mac world.
In that situation, your choice is clear; you go with the system that offers you the features you need.
What OS are they running. I'll bet it is OS 9 or earlier.
That's just a horrid design, not a horrid Mac design.
If I looked, I'm sure I could find bad application interfaces on plenty of PC programs as well, and I have had to work with a lot of them.
Anyway, I don't disagree one iota with using the system- hardware and software- that geets the job done for you. I certainly wouldn't run out and switch to a Mac system in order to run the software you showed me- far from it.
These theoretical vulnerabilities do not translate into self replicating viruses, worms, or trojans. What is absent in the Mac world are REAL WORLD secuirity issues.
As I said in an earlier post, if ALL malicous hackers switched their effort over to writing malware for the Mac, the result would be no new security concerns for either platform.
Careful- it's very addicting. And you will become a Mac evangelist.
My business runs on Macs.
Yes, absolutely.
If I looked, I'm sure I could find bad application interfaces on plenty of PC programs as well, and I have had to work with a lot of them.
Yes again! My point is that I have yet to run across a system on the Mac platform that was even close to being excellent, but there are several on WinPCs using SQL. Of those, I narrowed it down to 2 or 3 to examine closely and found one that works *exactly* the way I want/need it to. (What works for a burger/fries diner would be a failure in a pizza place, and Denny's runs very differently from a sushi bar, for example.) Plus, the vendor is quite responsive to suggestions.
And whatever people might say about Microsoft, their SQL database engine is rock solid; through occasional power failures (yes, we have UPSs but batteries don't run forever), Internet crashes and even hardware lockups, we haven't lost a single byte of date - it's just amazingly robust.
People designing these systems need to have worked the user side to really understand what's needed - then envision a completely-full restaurant. It's more than being able to perform the functions; workflow, sequencing and efficiency is extremely important. Then imagine the scene if the entire POS system goes down, and the consequences of 40-50 patrons being simultaneously pissed off.
This is the acid test, and fortunately our selected system (even with the occasional crash, which takes about 90 seconds to recover) passes easily.
I'm lucky; in a past life I was a computer geek, so I have a good understanding of both sides of the screens. I can't imagine someone who's only been a geek or only been a chef trying to find the right fit without a knowledgeable consultant.
ROTFLMAO ... you're such a kidder.
I've heard rumors that there are a few that do. Congratulations.
If it was hosted on a Kaypro, that's early-on for micro-based POS. I fooled with selling Osborne-based video-rental software during the same era. The very first hard drive I ever sold a customer cost $3,200 for a 20mb Seagate ST-225. Man, I feel old!
The good thing is that, for several years now, the hardware has gone non-proprietary, so you can shop for the best software and set up hardware that fits best as well. No more Micros, Squirrel or Aloha unless you really want those for some reason.
probably. I will have to see.
_Jim,
UNIX IS inherently more secure than windows. Sure, UNIX does have it's weaknesses, and you can indeed crash it, but...there is no comparison to the vulnerability of Windows if UNIX is correctly configured.
Having more hacker resources thrown at it is not going to make UNIX inherently weaker than Windows.
Besides, why the heck would you wish such a thing? I am a Mac user, and the last thing I want is more Windows viruses (if that is indeed possible)
Ahh. The ad-hominem attack. The last refuge of those with a lack of a valid position (or those just looking for a laugh...would that be you?)
Okay, as I read more of your posts, you obviously aren't looking for laughs. Just filled with vitriol then, Hank?
Whassamatter, Dagny not giving you enough nookie?
Or perhaps, found another man...:)
I agree. They all have flaws. To the degree they are exploitable and the number that are truely exploitable is where we probably differ.
I can appreciate the list of vulnerabilities you posted, but how long is the list in comparison for any Microsoft OS, and what is the probablity of unknown vulnerabilities existing that are waiting to be exploited?
I also agree that "The trick is to stay on top of the problem...", but use the example of two buildings.
One building was designed from the ground up with security in mind. It was built on top of thick, reinforced concrete. The windows and doors are limited and known, and are placed in ways that it is difficult for intruders to enter without either being seen or using a ladder to get to a window. The person tasked with guarding the building can see all the approaches from a single vantage point, and can move easily to that area in the event of a breach. In general, intruders rarely even try to break in, because there are easier pickings up the road in another kind of building. When the shift is over, the guard looks at his watch, punches his card, and hands the security off to the next guard who expects a long, boring night.
The other building was originally built for some other purpose, and security was not a consideration initially. There are existing tunnels and pipes underneath, and the foundation is dirt with a veneer of concrete, which is unreinforced. The vantage point from which the guard watches cannot directly visualize the majority of the ingress points, and only finds out after the fact when a breach has occurred. Since these buildings are very common, there is a whole cottage industry devoted to selling special alarms, locks, aftermarket reinforcements, intruder detection, etc. for these structures. But since the stuff is all aftermarket, people always find ways around it, so these devices are constantly being changed and updated, but it does not prevent the theft of damage of property. There are hidden flaps and doors which do not show up in the orignal blueprints, put there for convenience's sake, which are constantly being discovered and exploited. The poor guard spends his day hurrying from one breach to the next, hiring new people, etc., but property theft and damage continue to take place. When his shift is over, the guard updates his replacement on the breaches and actions taken last night, and then meets with the supervisor for another half hour to formulate long term solutions to the vexing security problem. He dreads his next shift, wondering what kind of new, devious break-in will occur, how he will deal with it, and whether all the goods will be stolen or destroyed next time. He wonders, as he lays awake in bed trying to fall asleep, eyes wide open, if he has all the bases covered, and has done everything he can to insure the security of the building.
Don't get me wrong. I use PC's and administer several hundred of the desktop variety. They do, in general, what we ask them to do, with the occasional standard type of mishaps that occur with computers. I manage an information system with an RS6000 running AIX, and another speech recognition system with 4 components running Win2000. I also am the defacto Mac guy for my organization, because I know Macs.
Bottom line: I am not that worried about my RS6000. I figure when it fails, there will be some kind of equipment or vendor software flaw related type of issue. But I lay awake wondering when some kind of wierd, unknown virius will attack my speech recognition system. Even though they are as up to date as can be with all service packs and virus definition updates...I don't take that one for granted at all. And at my facility, which has a damned good IT department with an extremely strong security policies which are reasonably restrictive, has been attacked by viruses more than once, and on at least two occasions, had a previously unknown virus variant that required Symantec to create a hot fix.
Most of the security flaws in Windows have to do with trying to maintain backwards compatibility for applications. There have been quite a few. Both Operating systems have an unknown number of available exploits. That number is very high. Microsoft at least has procedures in place to analyze security vulnerabilities before release. Apple on the other hand ignores security concerns by developers and builds new applications with no thought to security in mind (for example DASHBOARD -- which is an enormous security hole all wrapped in nice new functionality.)
If you want to drive a truck through a security hole, that's the place to start.
Apple has gotten a lot of mileage out of the concept that Mas OS was "Secure". This mileage is undeserved because the statistics that they built on were those largely of the original Mac OS which was extremely limited in what could be done on it remotely. It was simply not valid of Apple to use those numbers as if they pertained to Mac OS X.
I use both OSes in day-to-day work, am involved with security for both.To think one is more secure than the other is based on ignorance and wishful thinking.
I'm sure Mr. Peel has been involved in UNIX kernel work and porting UNIX to super computers for the last 20 years and is very, very competent. The internal combustion engine was built on early technology, but that does not inherently make it bad.
UNIX was not designed for security from the perspective of the threats known today, but is well adapted for it.
If you somehow think Windows is better, then I do not believe I am the one whose conclusions are based on ignorance or wishful thinking, no disrespect intended, but I was not the one to use those adjectives.
I didn't install micro$soft office much to my sister's dismay :-)
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.