What is Digg?42 Comments
- DigitAl56K, on 11/18/2007, -3/+14Oh look, the fanboys are out in force again.
Go look at how many vulnerabilities Apple patches and compare it to how many Microsoft patches. Shocker: There are just as many.
One day we'll be able to have a conversation about operating systems without acting like 12 year olds. - crammaz, on 11/18/2007, -0/+10@Joey86
Was that sarcasm? I collect Apple Macs, but that kinda attitude is gonna come back to bite us one day! - maninblac1, on 11/18/2007, -0/+660% less likely to be infected using Vista over XP SP2, 91% less over XP alone. Say what you will about vista, it's doing what it claimed it would.
- veduvaru, on 11/18/2007, -7/+12apple also have viruses.
- maninblac1, on 11/18/2007, -0/+2If you actually watched the webcast, and or read the report, said numbers would be sourced. Sorry i assumed that you RTFA, i was wrong.
- DigitAl56K, on 11/18/2007, -1/+3You see? This is *exactly* what I'm talking about. I post two links to an actual security tracking site showing Apple has recently had more issue than Microsoft, and all I get is "you can't really deny that OS X is much more secure".
What... the.. *****... - maninblac1, on 11/18/2007, -1/+3Wait, correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't Apple just release 41 security updates in 10.4.11 2007-008? 9 for webcore, 6 of which were for the kernel, 5 for networking, 2 for safari, i wouldn't want to plug a 10.4.11 mac into the wall without that update....that's for sure. I could probably sneeze on it and it would get sick, give me a break, "Mac Security" is a joke.
- DigitAl56K, on 11/18/2007, -0/+2There are lots of sources. Here's one. The list of vulnerabilities since this Thursday runs off the page:
http://www.securityfocus.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?o=0 ...
By comparison, Microsoft seems to be doing better, at least for the volume of articles securityfocus is tracking:
http://www.securityfocus.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?o=0 ...
It's very irritating when Apple's customers tout security and turn their noses up at Windows because they're usually doing so based on hearsay alone. Both sides should realize that they're imperfect. - maninblac1, on 11/18/2007, -1/+3Why wouldn't you believe it to be true? Are you that skeptical?
- MioTheGreat, on 11/19/2007, -0/+2What IIS flaws?
There have been like 3 in the last 5 years. - robmiller99, on 12/11/2008, -0/+1Apart from the sluggishness of vista is does do what it says on the tin and looks better while doing it.
http://news-about-spyware.blogspot.com/ - mrBitch, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1more like 15 in the last few months :
http://searchSecurity.techtarget.com/originalConte ...
http://searchSecurity.techtarget.com/originalConte ...
http://searchSecurity.techtarget.com/originalConte ...
http://searchSecurity.techtarget.com/originalConte ...
http://searchSecurity.techtarget.com/originalConte ... - mrBitch, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1" Wow, are you living in 2 years ago, seriously. Yes, the "maliciously crafted webpage" exploits still exist, but guess what, they can apply to safari to...OMG, shock "
- Wow, you think that a safari exploit can exploit OSX ? You really are thinking in a Windows way aren't you ?
A browser exploit is a security breach in Windows as well.
A browser exploit under OSX ( no matter whether it's Safari, Opera, FireFox, etc. ) does NOT breach OSX.
If you can't understand that, then you truly do not understand the difference between how Windows works, and how OSX ( or Linux, or ANY OTHER Unix / *nix based OS ) work. - sheise, on 11/18/2007, -1/+2Well, neither are perfect, like any OS they have flaws. But you can't really deny that OS X is much more secure than Windows. If you use Mac or Linux, you don't need to use a virus scanner or anything, (unless you are worried about spreading viruses to Windows users) and chances are you will still never encounter a virus. But in Windows you can use a virus scanner, and you will most likely still get a virus or two.
- mrBitch, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1I absolutely LOVE how you spout the Microsoft press releases on the dangers of open source, and how " closed source " is more secure !
Your argument is sheer idiocy.
http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php/id;12111608 ...
" The regularity with which Microsoft has taken to announcing vulnerabilities and consequent software fixes has left few cheering about its security. In contrast, high expectations endure for open source, with proponents arguing that it's inherently more secure because a much larger set of developers can read the code, vet it and correct problems.
"I'm struggling to think of anyone who would argue the other way," says Adam Jollans, chief Linux technologist at IBM Software Group. " - sheise, on 11/18/2007, -2/+3That isn't necessarily a good thing. It doesn't matter how many are patched, what matters is how many aren't patched.
- maninblac1, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1Or, you could not get biased crap from RD, read the security report that was actually issued and realize they didn't report any for SQL server because there weren't any reported for 1H07. And they do include the reports for IIS, both 5 and 6.
- maninblac1, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1Or, the fact that apple doesn't update it's open source components regularily leaves easy pickings for people willing to sift through changelogs to find vulnerabilities that are exploitable that apple hasn't bothered to update to. That's another beauty of opensource.
- mrBitch, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1" Or wait, apple just patched a vulnerabilities in safari that could do said thing? Weird, who will i believe, RD biased evangelism, or apple's own security details. "
- Wow, you think that a safari exploit can exploit OSX ? You really are thinking in a Windows way aren't you ?
A browser exploit is a security breach in Windows as well.
A browser exploit under OSX ( no matter whether it's Safari, Opera, FireFox, etc. ) does NOT breach OSX.
If you can't understand that, then you truly do not understand the difference between how Windows works, and how OSX ( or Linux, or ANY OTHER Unix / *nix based OS ) work. - maloventevil, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1i lold.
- mrBitch, on 06/27/2009, -0/+1Ok, let's look at those security threat summaries :
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/96/?task=sta ...
" .. OSX : extremely critical security advisories for 2009 : zero "
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/22/?task=sta ...
" .. Windows XP : extremely critical security advisories for 2009 : 10%"
( from remote attacks : 50%, from network, 30% )
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/13223/?task= ...
" .. Windows Vista : extremely critical security advisories for 2009 : zero
.. Highly critical : 29%
( from remote attacks : 57%, from network attacks, 29%) - mrBitch, on 11/19/2007, -0/+1well if you suggest that getting an OSX user to install a virus ( mount a DMG, run the app, enter your root password to install the app / virus into OSX ) is as easy as having a " drive by " virus installed under Windows ( just surf to a web page or open an email ), then you, sir, are an idiot.
- chugger1992, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1I hate to prove you wrong, but...
http://secunia.com/product/96/?task=statistics
http://secunia.com/product/22/?task=statistics
However, look at Vista:
http://secunia.com/product/13223/?task=statistics - maninblac1, on 11/18/2007, -1/+2Or, you could not get biased crap from RD, read the security report that was actually issued and realize they didn't report any for SQL server because there weren't any reported for 1H07. And they do include the reports for IIS, both 5 and 6.
- maninblac1, on 11/18/2007, -2/+2Or wait, apple just patched a vulnerabilities in safari that could do said thing? Weird, who will i believe, RD biased evangelism, or apple's own security details.
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=307 ...
There's another 40 to go along with that one too. - maninblac1, on 11/18/2007, -1/+1They keep getting reused because they work? You're kidding right? The days of the virus are over, no one really writes a virus anymore sure, there are handful, but when was the last time a person you know got infected with an item that was actually catagorically a "virus", or better yet had a scan indicate the presense of a "virus", or stop a "virus". Probably not in the last 2 years. The items that are being reused are worms and trojans. And they don't magically just keep working because MS or the AV companies have done nothing to stop them, they keep working because people are dumb enough to keep clicking on the damn things.
The same is true for OSX, if you can get a user to consent to running your software, it has no limits. Social engineering, the greatest hole in your operating system. - DigitAl56K, on 11/18/2007, -1/+1I didn't say that I didn't believe it. I said (the equivalent of) "even if that is the case".
However, since you ask, I don't have any reason to believe numbers someone posts on Digg with no reference. I do give you the benefit of the doubt, though. - mrBitch, on 11/18/2007, -1/+1@veduvaru RE : " apple also have viruses. "
Not True :
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/08/02/10-fas-10 ...
" The fact that Windows is a big, easy target does help the Mac platform remain unattractive to attacks. A related fact is that there are lots of ready-to-deploy malware delivery tools for Windows. Of the hundreds of thousands of known Windows viruses, there are less than 100 that are responsible for nearly all damage suffered by users. They simply keep getting reused because they work.
There are no viruses for Mac OS X. Of course, there is no magical barrier that prevents malware from being developed for Macs; it is trivial to create a Mac application or script designed to delete files or display ads. What prevents this potential from becoming a problem is that there are no easy ways to shove malware on users, install it without their knowing and in a way that is difficult to remove, and get it to automatically replicate and distribute itself.
This is easy to do on Windows. " - maninblac1, on 11/19/2007, -1/+1Wow, are you living in 2 years ago, seriously. Yes, the "maliciously crafted webpage" exploits still exist, but guess what, they can apply to safari to...OMG, shock. Why don't read what your almighty apple actually fixes before you believe that you are not suceptable to a drive by.
As for getting you to do all that, i'm pretty sure i could get you to visit a webpage of steve jobs having gay sex with wozniak, or the author of RD, that might interest you enough to click it. Or if i need to you install something cause no drive by exists at this point in time for safari, convince you you need a special codec to play my media format. Surprise it happens all the time, which is why these social engineering methods work. The OS trusts the user, all OS's do. - mrBitch, on 11/19/2007, -1/+1I was referring to your comparison of " total known security vulnerabilities " - which is complete and utter crap, as the total warnings / vulnerabilities ARE absolute rubbish when the following unfair comparisons are made between Windows and other OS :
" Security reports for both Mac OS X and Linux commonly include hair pulling warnings about vulnerabilities in open source software that is distributed with those operating systems, including the Apache web server and MySQL database. These have no affect on users who don’t manually turn on database or web hosting services.
Microsoft’s vulnerably reports do not include flaws in its IIS web server or SQL Server products, as Microsoft sells these separately and at extra cost. That makes vulnerability counts easy to misrepresent. " - mrBitch, on 11/18/2007, -2/+11. You are not comparing Apples to Apples ( Yeah I know - but the simile is valid, and you understand what I mean ).
2. You are not counting known OS exploits and viruses - OSX has none of those. Windows has over 50,000 known exploits ( and counting ) :
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/08/02/10-fas-10 ...
" The Vulnerability Distraction from Real Security.
Security reports for both Mac OS X and Linux commonly include hair pulling warnings about vulnerabilities in open source software that is distributed with those operating systems, including the Apache web server and MySQL database. These have no affect on users who don’t manually turn on database or web hosting services.
Microsoft’s vulnerably reports do not include flaws in its IIS web server or SQL Server products, as Microsoft sells these separately and at extra cost. That makes vulnerability counts easy to misrepresent. " - thespace2, on 11/18/2007, -5/+3Please quote your source. Not being fanboyish, I just don't believe that to be true.
- mrBitch, on 11/18/2007, -3/+1http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/08/02/10-fas-10 ...
" The Vulnerability Distraction from Real Security.
Security reports for both Mac OS X and Linux commonly include hair pulling warnings about vulnerabilities in open source software that is distributed with those operating systems, including the Apache web server and MySQL database. These have no affect on users who don’t manually turn on database or web hosting services.
Microsoft’s vulnerability reports do not include flaws in its IIS web server or SQL Server products, as Microsoft sells these separately and at extra cost. That makes vulnerability counts easy to misrepresent. - mrBitch, on 11/18/2007, -3/+1http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/08/02/10-fas-10 ...
" Deriding Macs for their supposed “security through obscurity” actually gets things backward however. The core of Mac OS X, including its kernel and BSD userland, is open source that can be examined like a set of blueprints to determine how the system works, and how it could be attacked. Mac OS X also incorporates external open source code including the Apache web server, and other open code maintained by Apple including the WebKit rendering engine that powers its Safari web browser.
While access to this source code isn’t necessary for finding flaws and vulnerabilities that could be exploited by attackers, it does make it much easier to discover issues and test them. It also makes it possible for third parties to recommend and develop solutions for potential problems.
Conversely, Microsoft’s NT kernel and core OS inside Windows NT, 2000, XP, and Vista has always been closed source, making it far more difficult for third party researchers to examine how it works and directly locate vulnerabilities. The rendering engine of Internet Explorer is also closed source, making it another black box.
That closed nature hasn’t prevented security exploits however; Windows users have suffered more frequent and serious attacks than any other platform on earth. " - gpcprog, on 11/18/2007, -3/+1Why does the guy's shirt still have a sales tag (or something like that) on it?
- mrBitch, on 11/18/2007, -4/+1Look this is really simple - OSX has NO viruses :
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/08/02/10-fas-10 ...
" The fact that Windows is a big, easy target does help the Mac platform remain unattractive to attacks. A related fact is that there are lots of ready-to-deploy malware delivery tools for Windows. Of the hundreds of thousands of known Windows viruses, there are less than 100 that are responsible for nearly all damage suffered by users. They simply keep getting reused because they work.
There are no viruses for Mac OS X. Of course, there is no magical barrier that prevents malware from being developed for Macs; it is trivial to create a Mac application or script designed to delete files or display ads. What prevents this potential from becoming a problem is that there are no easy ways to shove malware on users, install it without their knowing and in a way that is difficult to remove, and get it to automatically replicate and distribute itself.
This is easy to do on Windows. " - DigitAl56K, on 11/18/2007, -4/+1Even if that is true I'd *still* rather use XP over Vista, and I do use both at work.
- sirhomer, on 11/18/2007, -14/+11People who care about computer security shouldn't be using Windows.
- fergnab, on 11/18/2007, -6/+2Do they ever quit marketing?
- inactive, on 11/18/2007, -17/+11We never hear this for apple or linux coz they dont have viruses... :P
- inactive, on 11/18/2007, -14/+6The Windows OS is a security threat, and it's EULA is terrifying.
- URnotheonly1, on 11/18/2007, -11/+2Forgot democrats
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is