What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
218 Comments
- sprint84, on 12/03/2008, -2/+104"There is no antivirus for human stupidity"
- inactive, on 12/03/2008, -3/+100I like the fact that it wasn't a cheap shot at either operating system. Calmly explaining the differences is an uncommon occurrence when discussing any Microsoft vs. Apple scenario. Now if only we could get that attitude to spread.
- HookmasterCH47, on 12/04/2008, -2/+8899% of security flaws are still found between the keyboard and the chair.
- bap710, on 12/03/2008, -7/+58That's a very well written article. I've been making the same points to my non-technical family & friends for a long time.
- NathanCH, on 12/04/2008, -9/+53Finally someone puts the "Mac doesn't get viruses because barely one uses it" to rest. Yeah it's true to a certain degree but I'm sick of hearing it as the only reason.
- jasmus, on 12/04/2008, -1/+34Do you people post that just to get this in return:
Macs ARE PC's you *****! - jasmus, on 12/04/2008, -1/+28And they're cross platform.
- stockjones, on 12/04/2008, -1/+19Both systems have stupid users. 95% of them just happen to use windows.
- crazlunatic, on 12/03/2008, -5/+22this is a really good article and I wished somehow everybody who saw an apple ad attacking vista for getting viruses more easily could somehow indulge into this information. its quite obvious why windows is more vulnerable
- specialK16, on 12/04/2008, -8/+24Dugg, I loved it. It's nice to see well written articles like this around digg. Of course some of us know OS X is inherently more secure than Windows, and that the reason is not entirely "security through obscurity". There is a reason why and that is it's Unix subsystem.
Having said that, I really despise Apple's adverting campaign against Windows, and worse, macfags holy war against Windows users. (And let me be clear, not all apple users are macfags, only those morons that feel all hip and ***** because they use a mac)
It's a matter of choice in the end.
But heeey, I still have fun trolling apple fanboys. - ZombieJezus, on 12/04/2008, -0/+14There (almost) is as obvious a difference in security between Vista and pre-Vista operating systems as there is between OS X and pre-Vista. There truly is much less motivation for Vista users...
(btw, I'm currently on Ubuntu; I'm not a microsoft fanboy) - no2gates, on 12/03/2008, -8/+22Excellent article.
- jasmus, on 12/04/2008, -3/+16These aren't reasons to switch. They are just pointing out why there is a belief that OS X is less vulnerable to viruses and malware.
- pyrates, on 12/04/2008, -8/+20Good article I must say. However they continually say the pre-vista era for windows, which means for anyone using Vista already like me, they don't have these reasons for switching to a Mac.
- jasmus, on 12/04/2008, -0/+12If that's the one I think it is, you still need to willingly hand over your password to let it infect your system.
- naiku, on 12/04/2008, -4/+16maybe because of the bsd backend?
its not os x is all mighty, its because its running a chopped up version of BSD. - kiwi2008, on 12/04/2008, -1/+12Nicely stated.
The big problem for Windows is the complaining user. People who use Linux tend to appreciate the protections of not running as root so sudo and su are friends they really like. When Windows brings up the UAC to elevate privileges, most turn it off because it gets in the way. - spiffyfitz, on 12/04/2008, -2/+12You must also think that Macs have only one mouse button.
- penguinofspades, on 12/04/2008, -0/+10often times, in the event of a ham sandwich, the only thing you can do is replace your processor.
- sebby2022, on 12/04/2008, -0/+9This all depends on who's hand the gun is in. Everyone thinks everyone else is stupid.
- jasmus, on 12/04/2008, -1/+10Might be obvious to most of us, but there's a lot of people that don't know this, and still rely on the belief that OS X has too little market share, and that's ONLY reason there's no viruses for it.
- inactive, on 12/04/2008, -0/+8my lunch is a security flaw?
- rolf, on 12/04/2008, -2/+10It was okay but nothing great. It again shouts the marketshare mantra as one of the main causes, but it goes against the common sense of whether someone, as a malware writer, would rather be a little fish in a big, crowded lake, or a big fish in a small pond. You'd think some of them would want to try the little pond... right?
For instance, I would imagine that people would love to take control of all the linux based servers out there, but where are the viruses or malware/botnets for it?
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com ...
I would like to see the marketshare mantra tested somehow, because it's parrotted endlessly until it is true in the collective. Yet, Mac pre-OS X had several viruses and it's marketshare was abysmal. - Me1000, on 12/04/2008, -1/+9Ummm... How is a Media Access Controller better than a PC?
Or did you mean "Mac" as in Macintosh? - ileftfark, on 12/04/2008, -2/+9MAC = Media Access Control
- jasmus, on 12/04/2008, -2/+9Troll.
- Mithivh, on 12/04/2008, -0/+7"Don't do anything stupid, and you'll be fine" is right in the article.
- inactive, on 12/04/2008, -2/+9I really wish that the arguement that Windows is less secure because more people have it would just stop. It is simply untrue. If you think for one second that OSX or Linux would have the craptonne of virii that windows has if either had 90 percent of the market share, you are an idiot. Windows has more because it is more vaulnerable, and easier to attack.
- jasmus, on 12/04/2008, -1/+8"without a doubt"
"Not much proof either way." - novakane, on 12/04/2008, -1/+8Remember kids, practice safe surfing.
- inactive, on 12/04/2008, -0/+7If you hand me over your password and your account number, i will give you $10,000. Promise.
- dacjames, on 12/04/2008, -4/+11I don't know if this makes me stupid or really smart, but I haven't had anti-virus on XP for over a year now. Still problem free. Just be careful what you download, people!
- inactive, on 12/04/2008, -4/+11If each OS were just as secure as all others, then vulnerabilities would scale linearly with market share. Since this is not the case, this doesn't happen.
Another thing, why write a Windows virus with very little chance of becoming famous, when a successful OS X virus would make you instantly famous?
Market share certainly comes into play, but in the opposite direction that most people think. - grumpyrain, on 12/04/2008, -1/+8The article tries to dumb down a lot. Strictly speaking, anything from NT4 onwards had proper file system level security. A correctly configured XP box would be no more at risk than a correctly configured OS X or Linux box. The problem was that it was such a PITA to run XP as a limited user, no-one bothered. For example, I have had to manually set ACLs on different registry keys to allow me to change the time and power mode on my laptop as a limited user. Otherwise, it is drop to cmd and use runas to elevate yourself.
So while it was technically possible, in practice users were given administrator privileges and many programs unnecessarily required administrator privileges to run. This was a catch-22.
The difference Vista made was that by default, all users are limited. UAC operated in the same sort of concept as sudo, allowing a tolerable compromise. This experience has improved over time as more developers have removed unnecessary expectations of administrator privilege. Vista also allows a LUA concept (think opposite of sudo) with IE7 or 8. Here the OS is specifically told that this particular process cant do jack with the file system (even the home folder equivalent). The only files that can be read or written by the IE process is the temporary internet files, which means if it is compromised by a flaw, there is another OS security layer preventing any drive-by downloads.
There is no need IMO to run any anti-virus on Vista providing you don't disable the automatic update and UAC security provided by the OS. - penguinofspades, on 12/04/2008, -0/+6the cross-platform Id10T error. corruption between the chair and the keyboard.
- LxTxJx, on 12/04/2008, -2/+8FTA: "But suppose this was some bizarro world where OS X was king. Would Microsoft run ads about how virus-plagued OS X was? Well, it would still be more prudent to run anti-virus software, since there'd be a lot more crap thrown at the Mac OS, but if malware acted mostly like it does today, it likely wouldn't have the same impact as it did on Windows pre-Vista."
malware and viruses would not have been developed like they are now because they would've been developed for Unix not windows.
they even mentioned this earlier in the article...
FTA: "most malware writers obviously use Windows. They're going to whip up code for the OS they're familiar with and know best. And more to that point, most of the tools and scripts used to wreak havoc on computers are written for Windows. The same ecosystem that provides the biggest, most susceptible audience also provides the most fertile breeding ground for the nasty executables."
if they're going to use the flipside argument, then they must flip everything, just not one part of it. - jasmus, on 12/04/2008, -1/+7Let's not forget that both sides of the Windows vs. OS X debate can be just as bad as each other at times. That's not even mentioning the Linux people, and even worse, the "Freedom" Linux people. Calling someone a "Macfag" only confirms your bias here.
- spiffyfitz, on 12/04/2008, -1/+7Same here. The number one defense against viruses is your own personal behavior.
I don't need any software taking up those precious CPU cycles ;) - trogdoor, on 12/04/2008, -0/+6"You can even set OSX and Linux so that the root files are unchangable irregardless of what you do which makes it immune to any real threats."
I guess you think that being able to view, modify, and delete all of your user's files doesn't constitute a "real" threat, or having your computer be part of a botnet. Your computer can be controlled and used as part of a DDoS attack for instance without needing root privileges. And if you don't like it your own files may be held ransom, all without needing root privileges. - jasmus, on 12/04/2008, -1/+7You can't confirm what the article is saying, them dismiss the point because you can confirm it.
- lazy6pyro, on 12/04/2008, -0/+5It's called looking at porn while you are asleep.
- adcheung, on 12/04/2008, -0/+5My macbook pro has no buttons =(
- redwallhp, on 12/04/2008, -0/+5Lot's of people ON DIGG.
- pyrates, on 12/04/2008, -3/+8I should also point out the title should say Pre-Vista versions of Windows instead of trying to lump in all versions of windows together, when vista clearly is not a part of what the article is attempting to show.
- UKsHaDoW, on 12/04/2008, -0/+5Techincally os x is more unix then linux.
OS X is a certified unix. Linux conforms to it, but a lot of disto's arn't offically unix certified. - Louis11, on 12/04/2008, -1/+6Yea, never mind the abundant software available that is compatible with windows that will help a business run - No one uses Macs because they "arn't" PCs.
I'm on OS X now, btw, and it's so much better than Windows, though still isn't as great as Linux :) - jasmus, on 12/04/2008, -1/+5Yup, and this article specifically states pre-Vista windows. So they weren't even talking about Vista.
- inactive, on 12/04/2008, -0/+4no, but how about stealing your credit card info from the itunes store?
- Zera, on 12/04/2008, -0/+4Your argument is not relevant, since webservers are maintained by experts, the "success" of a virus on a webserver would be extremely short, as the problem would be dealt with by thousands of IT Professionals, immediately. Also, in order for your virus to spread, it would need to propagate itself somehow to other webservers, which when you being to tackle that problem, you see a myriad of roadblocks preventing it.
The real goal is to make a virus that can last. Lasting viruses are only ever going to find long term homes on unpatched, and unprotected machines with no virus software, e.g. the home user.
So only the home user market is relevant to the discussion. You can make many points about how OSX protects itself in a superior fashion, but the "security through obscurity" argument still holds true. Its very simple. Virus writers are going to target anywhere they have the biggest pool of computers to infect. Until an OS has a large market share, (I'd say at least 30%-40%) there is proportionally LESS motive to spend the time and effort trying to write a successful virus. - damack, on 12/04/2008, -3/+7It was a good article I just wish it was more detailed I think he coulda easily made it 4 times as long.
Inherent security is the most important factor here.
The only real reason Linuxand Mac OSX are more secure is because getting to the root of the OS and the bread and the butter files is difficult.
You can even set OSX and Linux so that the root files are unchangable irregardless of what you do which makes it immune to any real threats.
Theres nothing really stopping Microsoft from doing the same with Windows practically wiping viruses out for the most part why they haven't gone that direction is probably down to their laziness. -
Show 51 - 100 of 225 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is