"Vista Shows Better Security Than Mac OS X does"

[subratabera]

Here are some hard facts...

The first confirmed Windows Vista flaw, a denial-of-service issue that was publicly released on an underground Russian hacker site, is still unpatched. And, yes, it hits both Vista and older versions of Windows.
The MSRC is expected to issue a formal security advisory with pre-patch workarounds. In the interim, the company is urging customers to enable a firewall, apply all security updates and install anti-virus and anti-spyware protection.

Source

 

[aryayush]

I haven't seen anyone so far say that Linux/Mac/Solaris/BSD etc are virus proof.

Exactly. No one, either me or Anand, said that it is virus proof. But it is inherently much more secure than Windows is. It is far easier to create a virus for Windows than for Mac OS X (and even Linux, for that matter).

I hope aryayush got his answer.

No, I didn't. First of all, I am not aware of this exploit thing you guys are talking about but after reading mail2and's posts, it is quite clear that the incident does not reflect anything on OS X's security. It was an incredibly stupid thing to do and anyone could have cracked it. Basically, mail2and has debunked whatever you've said thus far. And secondly, finding links to random articles from random people who have some grudge against OS X and go on record saying things against it, evidently backed by research, is not going to prove anything. If Mac OS X really had security holes fixed by Windows 5-10 years ago, wouldn't it have been all over the internet? Wouldn't it have been quoted in every Windows vs. Mac debate? C'mon guys, at least check the authenticity of the sources you refer to.

Apple is slow to fix them after they are found, and doesn't use the right software to preven them in each release, according to the firm.

First of all, that firm is craptastic. Second, Apple is slow in fixing bugs, right? The Month of Apple bugs project, in their thirty days, announced four bugs that were directly related to Apple and Apple has already fixed the first one. Apple releases updates to their operating system every three-four months. Microsoft does it in two-three years.

To all those who say that other OS'es don't have viruses, why does symbian, whose userbase is not so large as Windows have viruses, too. OK symbian usage is growing exponentially now, but there have been viruses for it since the time it wasn't so popular.

Exactly.

 

[praka123]

why Linux,Mac or any UNIXens are more secure.

the main curiousity of windows users about why Linux or Mac not getting affected by Viruses easily can be explained in a single line-these UNIX derived OSes are having a user-file permission system which is RWX(read-write-execute) .and only through any loophole(like setuid) that it can get a root user power can a so called POC viruses propagate or do its destruction work in UNIXens.while DOS and Windows are inherently insecure,it can at max set a read only permission to prevent a file misuse.

though afaik UNIXens can be affected by worms,not a virus.

UNIX is quite Old nearly 30? years..and it is staying here and will stay tomorrow too.it is its inherent security features that is rocking in 21st century also

To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it

We've all heard it many times when a new Microsoft virus comes out. In fact, I've heard it a couple of times this week already. Someone on a mailing list or discussion forum complains about the latest in a long line of Microsoft email viruses or worms and recommends others consider Mac OS X or Linux as a somewhat safer computing platform. In response, another person named, oh, let's call him "Bill," says, basically, "How ridiculous! The only reason Microsoft software is the target of so many viruses is because it is so widely used! Why, if Linux or Mac OS X was as popular as Windows, there would be just as many viruses written for those platforms!"

read more(is a must read for windows/microsoft only users(fanboys):
*www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/


The short life and hard times of a Linux virus

 

[mail2and]

Exactly. No one, either me or Anand, said that it is virus proof. But it is inherently much more secure than Windows is. It is far easier to create a virus for Windows than for Mac OS X (and even Linux, for that matter).

I think GNUrag can explain this bit very nicely. GNU where are you!

 

[Kiran.dks]

To all those who say that other OS'es don't have viruses, why does symbian, whose userbase is not so large as Windows have viruses, too. OK symbian usage is growing exponentially now, but there have been viruses for it since the time it wasn't so popular.

Now why did you bring in Symbian issue here? Get your facts right before commenting.

World’s first Symbian OS phone "Ericsson R380" was launched way back in 2000. The first malware "SymbOS/Cabir" for a Symbian OS was seen in June 2004. It was around the same period the Symbian OS occupied a considerable amount of market share. Popularity DOES make a huge difference in development of malwares, may it be Windows or Mac or Linux.

Aryayush & mail2and, hold your horses for a while till I reply to you.

 

[gxsaurav]

this thread is still in news section?

 

[Kiran.dks]

No, I didn't. First of all, I am not aware of this exploit thing you guys are talking about but after reading mail2and's posts, it is quite clear that the incident does not reflect anything on OS X's security. It was an incredibly stupid thing to do and anyone could have cracked it. Basically, mail2and has debunked whatever you've said thus far. And secondly, finding links to random articles from random people who have some grudge against OS X and go on record saying things against it, evidently backed by research, is not going to prove anything. If Mac OS X really had security holes fixed by Windows 5-10 years ago, wouldn't it have been all over the internet? Wouldn't it have been quoted in every Windows vs. Mac debate? C'mon guys, at least check the authenticity of the sources you refer to.

First of all, that firm is craptastic. Second, Apple is slow in fixing bugs, right? The Month of Apple bugs project, in their thirty days, announced four bugs that were directly related to Apple and Apple has already fixed the first one. Apple releases updates to their operating system every three-four months. Microsoft does it in two-three years.

See who is making big comments here. A Mac guy who doesn't know the famous hacking issue. This shows how much updated you are in OS knowledge.
It is very easier to dismiss facts as "non-authentic". Anyway, if that was non-authentic for you and mail2and, then take this one from "Secunia". Now don't ask me about "Secunia".

Windows is more secure than you think, and Mac OS X is worse than you ever imagined. That is according to statistics published for the first time in 2004 by Danish security firm Secunia.

The stats, 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, according to the firm. Each product is broken down into pie charts demonstrating how many, what type and how significant security holes have been in each.

One thing the hard 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."

More info

 

[s18000rpm]

this thread is still in news section?

i too wonder why.



*img220.imageshack.us/img220/6193/userbar324809pb1.gif

 

[gxsaurav]

yo S1800RPM how did u made that image bar?

@kiran

Who are u arguing with man, it won't make any difference, don't waste your time, they are not going to understand anything. U got a life man, do other things....arguing with macboys is just waste of time. They say the same thing again & again, get pawned, & then come again with the same old thing. Anything Anti-Apple is war material for them. Just let them post & my advice is that do not reply. It won't make any difference, be happy with what u use.

(issued in public interest)

 

[s18000rpm]

i made the first one using "Userbar Generator 2.2"
*img256.imageshack.us/img256/1921/s18kbmwm3gtrot2.png

rest i d/l frm the links given in this thread - SiggyBar/UserBar Creation

& created the animated gif usin that s/w




*img220.imageshack.us/img220/6193/userbar324809pb1.gif

 

[Kiran.dks]

yo S1800RPM how did u made that image bar?

@kiran

Who are u arguing with man, it won't make any difference, don't waste your time, they are not going to understand anything. U got a life man, do other things....arguing with macboys is just waste of time. They say the same thing again & again, get pawned, & then come again with the same old thing. Anything Anti-Apple is war material for them. Just let them post & my advice is that do not reply. It won't make any difference, be happy with what u use.

(issued in public interest)

I completely agree with you saurav. Enough is enough. I am fed up of these guys. I see other recent thread which is really against all morals. I simply don't understand them. I know how much frustrated you are (so as I am).

 

[mehulved]

Now why did you bring in Symbian issue here? Get your facts right before commenting.

World’s first Symbian OS phone "Ericsson R380" was launched way back in 2000. The first malware "SymbOS/Cabir" for a Symbian OS was seen in June 2004. It was around the same period the Symbian OS occupied a considerable amount of market share. Popularity DOES make a huge difference in development of malwares, may it be Windows or Mac or Linux.

Read my reply again and understand if you can't then forget it. There's no point in explaining it to you cos you surely do selective reading.

 

[rajasekharan]

My new o.s "kataboom" the best ever . To be released sometime by me . Install it and FORGET it . Please include my "kataboom"in this section too

 

[mail2and]

I completely agree with you saurav. Enough is enough. I am fed up of these guys. I see other recent thread which is really against all morals. I simply don't understand them. I know how much frustrated you are (so as I am).

So, simply because you were wrong, and I corrected you, makes me immoral?

I am still waiting for your reply to my post. I've posted the link twice. Here is it, for the third time.

*www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2151455/false-hacking-report-prompts

BTW, your reply to tech_your_future's posts and his observations proves my point very well.

And, oh, please do read this.

I've posted it three times now.

However, I do understand that conscience and common sense aren't rationed.



I quote:

The University of Wisconsin's challenge provides contestants with a URL for the system that they need to hack.

The system is a Mac Mini running the latest version of OS X as well as all the latest security updates. It has been configured with two local user accounts and has SSH and HTTP open. The latter are not typical settings for an average user, according to Schroeder.

Contestants who claim to have succeeded in hacking the system must provide details about how they breached the security walls, which will be provided to Apple. The winner gets a claim to fame, but no material price.