Think mac users are safe from hackers and viruses?

[Andy]

Think Different.

[wtd]

Yes, Mac users everywhere should trade in their Macs for Windows boxes because of this.

[Andy]

that wasnt my point, my point was mac users should stop bashing windows users so much about the whole security issue

[wtd]

Yes, well... the problem with that is that they aren't. The people complaining about Windows security problems are people who have to use Windows. Mac users who don't also fit into that group don't give Windows security issues much thought.

And there are fundamental reasons why Mac OS X is significantly more secure than Windows.

[wtd]

Oh, and this article has already been discredited.

There is no root account in Mac OS X (by default). There is no way to "root" a Mac server unless the administrator has deliberately crippled security.

The security vulnerabilities being mentioned are largely vulnerabilities in third party software. If PHP has some vulnerability, and a site being hosted on a Mac gets hosed because of it, does that mean the Mac is not secure?

[md]

root can also refer to gaining root level priviledges... The point is that OS X is secure only because it is obscure (ish). It has it's flaws just like everything else; they are simply not nearly as well publisized.

I think the real point is that no matter what OS your using if you don't take some care to keep it secure it won't be.

[Andy]

couldnt have said it better than you cornflakes.. but anyways, the article was biased.. read here

[wtd]

Cornflake wrote:

root can also refer to gaining root level priviledges... The point is that OS X is secure only because it is obscure (ish). It has it's flaws just like everything else; they are simply not nearly as well publisized.

I think the real point is that no matter what OS your using if you don't take some care to keep it secure it won't be.

I agree mostly, though not that it's only reason for being secure is obscurity.

The thing I take issue with is people taking this and saying, "Aha! Macs are just as bad as Windows!" That is a blatant lie.

[md]

I agree. Macs aren't as bad as windows, but that does not mean they are not bad. If I were to rate OS's that I am familiar with by security then it's have to be (from most holes to least)

Windows <= ME
Windows 2000/XP
Windows Vista
Mac OS X
Most Linux Distros
Minix
un-plugged computer

Minix in case your wondering is secure because of it's super small code base (you can actually verify it's code without years and years of study); and because it's so obscure.

Linux can be really secure, or not secure at all; it really depends on how it's set up. Most distros do a good job of only setting up things you need for a desktop though and don't enable things like sshd or apache unless you set them up yourself. There are plenty of holes still; but they are harder to exploit and more limited in the number of computers effected.

Mac OS is based on a unix kernel; and so it has many of the unix security features like linux does. On the other hand some of these are weaked (justifiably) to make the user experience better. That combined with the fact that the kernel and most of it's related libraries and tools are closed source means that bugs and vulnerabilities are not as easy to find by Apple outsiders. I would argue that this means that the security of Mac OS is thus somewhere between being equal to linux, to just a wee bit better then windows.

Windows is pretty bad. Older versions are horrible, while the newer versions are getting better. Unfortunately the fact that each version is backwards compatible with previous versions means that many of hte vulnerabilities of previous APIs and code is brought forward into newer versions through code used to support APIs that are in some cases 15 years old. Security is definitely possible with windows; so long as you know what your doing and make sure to keep everything patched.[/list]

[rizzix]

That's the stupidist thing I've ever heard. Just because the news does NOT rant like "Oooh look gaim has a flaw, now all linux distros are vulnerable" or "Oh redhat was hacked big-time now all redhat distros are vurnable", does not mean linux is any better than Mac OS X.

I believe it was SuSE who once boasted to have the most secure linux distor ever? Not sure, but i know they got hacked. Geez. If you are inviting trouble, you are going to get it.

In fact OSX is safer than Linux largely because of the apps developed for osx are developed using Apple proprietary (closed sourced) libraries. And for the most part, apple releases a Security Update ASAP. Apple also shares security patches with FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD, and visa-versa.

Oh and it is OpenBSD that has proven to be the most secure OS to date.

[md]

Err... I didn't say anything was totally secure... nor did I say that X is Y% more secure then Z. Everything is vulnerable; and there will always be holes (no matter what some people seem to think).

Apple may patch things quickly, but that doesn't mean anything. The same problem applies to all OS's and software; you can release the patch but you can't force people to apply it.

In any case it is my opinion that a properly secured OS X is no more secure then a properly configured linux box; and both are probably more secure then a secured windows box. Having never used or looked into OpenBSD I cannot say what it's security is like. I did say that the list was out of the operating systems I was familiar with after all. Reading is good rizzix

[rizzix]

By that reasoning, since you are unfimiliar with OS X you shouln't have included it in your list. Simple as that.

(you do realise you wrote an ordered list?)

[rizzix]

wtd wrote:

The security vulnerabilities being mentioned are largely vulnerabilities in third party software. If PHP has some vulnerability, and a site being hosted on a Mac gets hosed because of it, does that mean the Mac is not secure?

If that PHP was bundled with the OSX Tiger installation disc, then the blame goes to the OS not necessarily just only the app.

[Martin]

Cornflake wrote:

un-plugged computer

Speaking of this, when I worked for DND certain computers had to be verified for resonance and shielded accordingly. Similarly, the side case on these computers had something like 100 screws.

The cost of securing one of these unplugged $3000 computers ran at about $50,000. Pretty nuts.

[md]

Oh yeah; EM sheilding is key. I don't know of any specific cases of it, but given that there are government mandated countermeasures for it... Van Eck phreaking is definitely a security hole found in any personal computer.