Security, Mac OSX and Windows
Posted by Mr magoo on 05 July 2004 - 16:13 · 32 comments & 1505 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
Mr magoo
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
Mr magooContact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
#1 Posted by wildk on 05 Jul 2004 - 16:21
- Hmm Made interesting reading
QUOTE A product is not necessarily more secure because fewer vulnerabilities are discovered
Kinda looks like an answer in the browser flame wars that go on here!!!
-
(2 replies)
#2 Posted by OptiPlex on 05 Jul 2004 - 16:25
- Oh I smell the flame wars coming.
-
#3 Posted by Krankerz on 05 Jul 2004 - 16:38
- God who cares? I mean how many times can we call have the same conversation? This is just getting boring...
-
(3 replies)
#4 Posted by markjensen on 05 Jul 2004 - 16:49
- And the end result is...
Keeping your system up to date with the latest patches (and knowing what you are doing) is the only way to make sure that your OS is secure.
A Windows box with all the patches, a MacOS box with all the patches and a Linux box with all the patches are all pretty damned secure. -
#4.1 Posted by bangbang023 on 05 Jul 2004 - 17:16
- Exactly. Good man.
-
#4.2 Posted by krzystealth on 05 Jul 2004 - 18:04
QUOTE And the end result is...
Keeping your system up to date with the latest patches (and knowing what you are doing) is the only way to make sure that your OS is secure.
A Windows box with all the patches, a MacOS box with all the patches and a Linux box with all the patches are all pretty damned secure.
Having a tested and approved hardware firewall doesn't hurt either. Using a cable/dsl router at the very minimum and if you can afford it, throw in a real hardware firewall. Combine that with a good software firewall/anti-virus product and you should be set. While firewalls don't replace operating system updates, they can help to prevent most of the exploits out there.
-
#4.3 Posted by leojei on 06 Jul 2004 - 05:40
- Agree, I'm just using my MS MN-500 as a front line, and keep all comps behind it.
I dont even have anti-virus (just firewall to stop popup ads from websites), and no virus, no worms (i format comp twice a year, and scanning before each format), nothing...
to me, Windows XP is secure, so does MacOSX, and Linux cuz I haven't been hacked before (I got hacked in Win98 before though, pretty easy...)
All OSes got holes to plug, and all OSes got patches to apply. It's nothing new.
What sounds good in that article is the last comment "A product is not necessarily more secure because fewer vulnerabilities are discovered" and let some fanboys (and girls) think about it.
"
-
(2 replies)
#5 Posted by tiagosilva29 on 05 Jul 2004 - 17:16
QUOTE The Micorsoft Windows application 
-
#5.2 Posted by Himosan on 06 Jul 2004 - 06:05
- There's another thing wrong with that sentence, Windows is not an application. Clearly a brilliant and informed bit of spoon fed kaka. Sadly for the 10 billionth year in a row (and with no end in sight), Matthew Broersma of Techworld fails to win the pulitzer.
-
(8 replies)
#6 Posted by dmd3x on 05 Jul 2004 - 17:37
- Just because they found more security flaws themselves, doesn't meant that there is more.
If I throw 500 pennies into the grass in my lawn, and 1000 in yours, and you find only 100 in your lawn but 200 in mine, it doesn't mean that my lawn has more pennies in it than yours.
Also, in my experience, Macs have less virus problems, security problems, and stability problems. I'm not too sure about this article, or about this claim. It doesn't even look like they've used spellcheck. -
#6.1 Posted by dmd3x on 05 Jul 2004 - 17:41
- Also, the testing and the results revealed may be biased. Afterall, they're a security company. Insecurities keep them in business. If they recommend against the very kinds of software that keep them in business, it's a foolish move.
-
#6.2 Posted by Sn1p3t on 05 Jul 2004 - 17:49
QUOTE Macs have less virus problems, security problems, and stability problems.
Didn't we just agree that Mac's had MORE security problems? While I can't comment on stability (XP never locks up for me?), I can say that malicious code writers are going to target an OS that has 10-20 times more active installs than Mac.-
#6.4 Posted by Mattimeo on 05 Jul 2004 - 20:04
- Yea...I don't know why other people complain why their machine locks up on XP, I haven't really had one yet. If you keep up with patches, XP is a really secure machine I believe.
-
#6.5 Posted by tapo on 05 Jul 2004 - 22:24
- The OS itself dosn't lock up that often, it's just the incredible unresponsiveness when running applications and the constant times I need to control-alt-delete. This isn't as much the application's fault as it is general windows practice to make the OS seem faster then it really is. Ever notice that after boot, you still can't do anything for 20 seconds or so?
Personally, this is really, really annoying to me. When I see my Mac is on, the HD isn't still spinning. I can run whatever application I want. Same goes for linux. -
#6.6 Posted by rogerroger on 06 Jul 2004 - 05:48
- Man you really need another hobby than collecting pennies! That's down-right unhealthy!
-
#6.7 Posted by King_John on 06 Jul 2004 - 13:03
QUOTE (#6.5) "The OS itself dosn't lock up that often, it's just the incredible unresponsiveness when running applications and the constant times I need to control-alt-delete....."
I think you need to learn how to use your computer.-
#6.8 Posted by Fowen on 06 Jul 2004 - 14:20
QUOTE (#6.7) I think you need to learn how to use your computer.
and run a spyware check. While your at it, take a look at your start up items (Which both of these would require you to learn how to use your computer).
I don't ever have to wait any amount of time after boot up. After the start button shows up (unless I am on a incredibly slow machine with a small amount of ram) I can start going.
-
#7 Posted by jerry on 05 Jul 2004 - 20:32
- Biased. This statement has been repeated many many times and most of the times people who have said it dont know much. Refer evn's post in the forums about this.
QUOTE A product is not necessarily more secure because fewer vulnerabilities are discovered
-
#8 Posted by Himosan on 05 Jul 2004 - 20:51
- Countdown to "Secunia getting $5 Million under the table from Microsoft" story at 3 weeks...
Really, counting the number of advisories has little to do with overall security and their own statistics don't reach the conclusion they advance in the beginning. Compared to XP Professional, OS X had half the number of advisories that could gain system access and most of these are inherently more secure because they dont grant root access. And of those most are turned off by default and pose no threat to most OS X users.
Last edited by 43182 on 05 Jul 2004 - 21:02
-
(1 reply)
#9 Posted by Himosan on 05 Jul 2004 - 21:21
- And another thing, IE vulnerabilites aren't included in the XP numbers and Safari ones are included in the mac numbers. Add 38 more advisories for windows and that's just IE 6...
-
(2 replies)
#10 Posted by ScottKin on 05 Jul 2004 - 22:10
- Let the pissing match begin - oh, wait...it already did!
Any OS will be as secure as the user or users allow it to. Uneducated users or users who don't care are the biggest problem. There *are* ways to secure your system:
- Reliable, time-proven Anti-Virus software and regularly update
- Reliable, time-proven software firewall
- Reliable, proven hardware firewall with SPI for broadband users
- Reliable, proven site-wide firewalls and IDS/HIP products for data centers.
- Sensible passwords & procedures that will cause dictionary attacks to fail
- Apply all recommended and suggested software patches & updates.
Do you keep your house & car unlocked? Do you write your PIN on your credit & debit cards? If we used the same logic against lock manufacturers as we do software companies like Microsoft when it comes to security we would have companies like Schlage, Kwik-Set and MasterLocks running scared:
"I'm going to sue you because your flimsy lockset didn't keep someone with a lockpick from entering my house"
If you want to secure your home from intrusion, you take many steps; alarms, tougher-to-pick locksets, motion detectors, etc. Do the same with your Internet-connected PC and you'll be safe.
Security is not a feature - it's a mindset. -
#10.1 Posted by Fowen on 06 Jul 2004 - 14:22
- That is the best description I have seen on this issue and I agree 100%.
!!-
(1 reply)
#11 Posted by SintaX on 05 Jul 2004 - 22:14
- Microsoft is spelled wrong in this article
just thought i'd mention that.
-
#12 Posted by duhk on 05 Jul 2004 - 23:19
- Excuses excuses...
-
#13 Posted by Domino76 on 06 Jul 2004 - 17:50
- Anybody know who finances this company. This smells a lot like the attacks on Linux by firms who get 90+ percent of their financing from Microsoft. The truth is, it's very easy to twist statistics to say whatever you want them to say by changing the wording a little bit. I don't have WinXP because I hate the new licensing but I though the number of patches for that OS was over a hundred, not the 38 mentioned in the article.
The statistics, based on a database of security advisories for more than 3,500 products during 2003 and 2004 sheds light on the real security of enterprise applications and operating systems. Each product is broken down into pie charts demonstrating how many, what type and how significant security holes have been in each.
The figures have shown is that OS X's reputation as a relatively secure operating system is unwarranted, Secunia said.
This year and last year Secunia tallied 36 advisories on security issues with the software, many of them allowing attackers to remotely take over the system - comparable to figures on operating systems such as Windows XP Professional and Red Hat Enterprise Server.
"Secunia is now displaying security statistics that will open many eyes, and for some it might be very disturbing news," said Secunia chief executive Niels Henrik Rasmussen. "The myth that Mac OS X is secure, for example, has been exposed."
Building on the success of the Warcraft® series, Blizzard hopes to expand the MMORPG genre by creating a deep, immersive, user-friendly experience that will appeal to both veteran gamers and casual players alike. World of Warcraft™ takes place three years following the aftermath of Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne™, when a great tension has settled over the ravaged world of Azeroth. As the various races begin to rebuild their shattered kingdoms, new threats, both ancient and terrifying, have arisen to plague the world once again. Players must explore the lands of Azeroth, forge fellowships with other players, and build their strength in order to prevail. World of Warcraft™ will be fully localized into French, German, and English in Europe.
Best known for blockbuster hits including the Warcraft, StarCraft, and Diablo series, Blizzard Entertainment (www.blizzard.com), a division of Vivendi Universal Games, is a premier developer and publisher of entertainment software renowned for creating many of the industry’s most critically acclaimed games. Blizzard’s track record includes eight #1-selling games and multiple Game of the Year awards. The company’s free Internet gaming service Battle.net® reigns as the largest in the world, with millions of active users.