OS X is the SAFEST OS in the World

"Linux operating systems offer the worst track record, according to Mi2g, with Windows coming in second."

Uh oh, I can hear the Linux evangelists screaming already.
 
Of course it's the safest....why would you bother attacking a computer system that's only running on a tiny tiny percentage of the world's computers? I don't mean this as a knock on OSX, as I do like the product, but c'mon.....do some reading and thinking about this topic. Talk to some real security experts.
 
Wow, this isn't a troll.

The reason Linux has so many "holes" is because the defaults are there to be changed. If you really want security, you use *BSD, and everyone knows it. I use Linux because it is a tradeoff between getting things done and having security. YMMV.
 
djnes said:
Of course it's the safest....why would you bother attacking a computer system that's only running on a tiny tiny percentage of the world's computers? I don't mean this as a knock on OSX, as I do like the product, but c'mon.....do some reading and thinking about this topic. Talk to some real security experts.
Click to expand...

That is the pis-poorest arguement that one can think of. It actually should be easier to write them for OSX because its BSD core is open source. Windows isnt open and it has more holes than any other OS out there. Ever. OSX is the most widely used linux out there and it has had 0 count them 0 virii, trojans, etc. So lets use your logic and say that at last count there were just under 60,000 virii for Windows. We can conclude that because Apple only has 5% of the market share that it would also have 5% of the virii, meaning Mac OS X should have 3,000 viruses running wild. Well, we can conclude here that virii writers dont just love the Mac and hate Windows they simply cant write virii for the Mac. Even proof-of-concept virii for the Mac cannot thrive and every time you hear of a Mac virus it ends up being BS FUD campaign trying to sell some AV software. Grasp the logic here.
 
Do I have to close this thread to avoid a flamefest?

Seriously, the article and resulting discussions can be intelligent, let's keep it on the up & up people...
 
KaosDG said:
Do I have to close this thread to avoid a flamefest?

Seriously, the article and resulting discussions can be intelligent, let's keep it on the up & up people...
Click to expand...
will do
 
Brett13 said:
We can conclude that because Apple only has 5% of the market share that it would also have 5% of the virii, meaning Mac OS X should have 3,000 viruses running wild. .
Click to expand...
quite a jump in logic there bud. People who write virii are the same as spammers, they target the unknowing majority. Just as spammers aren't going to target a small percentage of people to spam, virus writers would only want to write virii for the majority of people. Writing virii for macs is kinda silly, as no one uses them, they wouldn't spread...
 
MikeF98765 said:
quite a jump in logic there bud. People who write virii are the same as spammers, they target the unknowing majority. Just as spammers aren't going to target a small percentage of people to spam, virus writers would only want to write virii for the majority of people. Writing virii for macs is kinda silly, as no one uses them, they wouldn't spread...
Click to expand...
But the jump from an expected 3,000 to 0 actual cannot simply be expalained away with the security-through-obscurity arguement. Besides, we know that there are atttempts at it because AV companies are trying unsuccessfully to make proof-of-concept virii. And we know that there is the desire to make virii because there are some rootkits out there. They just cant make the jump to virii because there are too many security measures in place.
 
Brett13 said:
But the jump from an expected 3,000 to 0 actual cannot simply be expalained away with the security-through-obscurity arguement.
Click to expand...
what expected 3000? Thats like saying that afghanistan has 1% the population of the US so we should have 100x the violence...

windows communities are just easy to fuck up, which is why people do it. They're all connected and 99% of them have no idea wtf is up
 
MikeF98765 said:
quite a jump in logic there bud. People who write virii are the same as spammers, they target the unknowing majority. Just as spammers aren't going to target a small percentage of people to spam, virus writers would only want to write virii for the majority of people. Writing virii for macs is kinda silly, as no one uses them, they wouldn't spread...
Click to expand...

Ah, my point exactly. Chill out, mac cultists....I wasn't flaming. Just pointing out the logical, common sense reasoning.
 
Brett13 said:
OSX is the most widely used linux out there
Click to expand...

A nitpick because I'm all about that. :p

OS X is not Linux (though I have read arguments going for either direction) Linux is just the kernel, and as Mac OS X uses the XNU kernel based on the Mach kernel with the BSD subsystem. However, as they are all Unix derivatives, they're all technically considered Unix or Unix like. Nitpick over. :p
 
MikeF98765 said:
what expected 3000? Thats like saying that afghanistan has 1% the population of the US so we should have 100x the violence...
Click to expand...
And we do. We just hear about it more over there.
 
BillLeeLee said:
A nitpick because I'm all about that. :p

OS X is not Linux (though I have read arguments going for either direction) Linux is just the kernel, and as Mac OS X uses the XNU kernel based on the Mach kernel with the BSD subsystem. However, as they are all Unix derivatives, they're all technically considered Unix or Unix like. Nitpick over. :p
Click to expand...
I know, i know like calling KDE an OS. Just trying to keep it simple.
 
If malware writers only target the vast majority, how come there have been worms attacking specific Windows software, that hold a smaller user-base than Mac OS X?

Couldn't one assume that if malware writers only target the majority, goodware writers would do the same? Mac OS X has more software written for it (or ported, or whatever) per end user than Windows. The reverse is true for malware. The small user-base doesn't seem to be a logical reason, so why?

I'm not saying that Mac OS X "should" have 5% the amount of malware Windows do, or even 5% the amount of attacks, but rather that there ought to be at least a couple by now. The OS has been out for what, three or four years? Numerous security issues have arisen in that time, but not once has a worm or virus been caught in the wild.

And no, Opener does not count. Yes, it's malware, but it's really no more dangerous than rm -r * or whatever. A foolish user can get infected by it, yes, but no operating system is ever safe from a foolish user! When engineers invent an idiot-safe machine, God invents a better idiot, as the saying goes.
 
Black Morty Rackham said:
I Mac OS X has more software written for it (or ported, or whatever) per end user than Windows.
Click to expand...
"per end user"

i think that says it all.
 
MikeF98765 said:
"per end user"

i think that says it all.
Click to expand...

Care to explain how that matters at all? Adobe obviously doesn't care. I'm pretty sure The OmniGroup are turning a profit. Doom 3 is coming for Mac OS X. All this despite "programmers only coding for the most profitable platform."

And there are other goals behind malware than just a short period of fame... Macs are very common in the printing industry. Quite a few newspapers run only Macs, for instance. Don't you think it might be even slightly likely that someone would want to code a piece of malware to knock out a good portion of the media?

The only malware I've ever seen for Mac OS X are no more than a rootkit and a few AppleScripts that remove your home directory. That's not even proof of concept, and only one of them were ever caught in the wild!

Plus, weren't there a Windows virus or worm targetting a specific third-party firewall a year or so ago? It attacked and knocked out all the couple of hundred thousand computers running it in a few days' time.

I'd say it's fairly clear that just the market share argument simply doesn't cut it, and I don't say that as a Mac user, but as someone trying to draw logical conclusions.
 
Black Morty Rackham said:
If malware writers only target the vast majority, how come there have been worms attacking specific Windows software, that hold a smaller user-base than Mac OS X?

Couldn't one assume that if malware writers only target the majority, goodware writers would do the same? Mac OS X has more software written for it (or ported, or whatever) per end user than Windows. The reverse is true for malware. The small user-base doesn't seem to be a logical reason, so why?

I'm not saying that Mac OS X "should" have 5% the amount of malware Windows do, or even 5% the amount of attacks, but rather that there ought to be at least a couple by now. The OS has been out for what, three or four years? Numerous security issues have arisen in that time, but not once has a worm or virus been caught in the wild.

And no, Opener does not count. Yes, it's malware, but it's really no more dangerous than rm -r * or whatever. A foolish user can get infected by it, yes, but no operating system is ever safe from a foolish user! When engineers invent an idiot-safe machine, God invents a better idiot, as the saying goes.
Click to expand...


Thank you. At least one person understands. I must say that your sig is very correct.
 
honestly, how many people does it effect? Who can go out there and purchase a powerpc mobo and powerpc proc easily? WHy don't we all just use some BSD x86 derivitive, much easier to get use to............I have windows up with no firewalls or antivirus, and I swear to god I haven't gotten one hint of malware. Never switching away from Mozilla firefox ever
 
so osx uses the linux kernel , but it isnt linux>? ?<? = ?>? go-figure.
sounds like linux to me. I cant wait to get a free copy and fold with it ,
OSX sure looks nifty ( but then again, all linux does )
 
well technicly and os not connected to the internet is the safest...
 
I think virus writers get off on causing so much harm to people. When Joe Blow writes the newest trojan or worm, and it makes the front page of the newspaper and the 6 o'clock news... he's happy. Damn those technology terrorists. :) Of course they are gonna write viruses for Windows... it's easier for them to make the evening news.

Also, there are many Mac OS X users in the graphics design world, and most of them aren't even connected to the Net. So those Mac users have the best protection of all... no Internet connection. I've been to small and medium sized design shops... and while they have an internal network to connect their Macs to their printers, etc... there are only a few Macs in their offices that they use to check e-mail and FTP.
 
Black Morty Rackham said:
Care to explain how that matters at all? Adobe obviously doesn't care. I'm pretty sure The OmniGroup are turning a profit. Doom 3 is coming for Mac OS X. All this despite "programmers only coding for the most profitable platform."
Click to expand...
there are very very few mac users, that alone drives the "per user" percentage way up.

also, people who own macs tend to be professionals, and BUY their software.
 
DR_K13 said:
so osx uses the linux kernel , but it isnt linux>? ?<? = ?>? go-figure.
sounds like linux to me. I cant wait to get a free copy and fold with it ,
OSX sure looks nifty ( but then again, all linux does )
Click to expand...

Hmm? OS X doesn't use the Linux kernel. It uses the XNU kernel, derived from CMU's Mach kernel, and with a BSD subsystem, like I said in an earlier post.

Linux nitpicker over and out. (and yes, I think OS X is neato as well :) )
 
bountyhunter said:
honestly, how many people does it effect? Who can go out there and purchase a powerpc mobo and powerpc proc easily? WHy don't we all just use some BSD x86 derivitive, much easier to get use to............I have windows up with no firewalls or antivirus, and I swear to god I haven't gotten one hint of malware. Never switching away from Mozilla firefox ever
Click to expand...


exactly. i have my router's firewall and thats it.
 
What do the majority of pc owners own ? a pc with windows. Really who is the biggest operating system in the world or biggest company? Microsoft/windows. Now of course hackers will attack the best to be the best.

p.s. any users of linux/x os please dont take offense just the way it is.
 
If I recall correctly, Linux suffers more attacks than Windows (per user, that is)... and no, that's not "just the way it is." I have already shown how that argument isn't really all that logical, and nobody has really posted anything proving otherwise, expect claims and opinions.


And we still haven't touched the fact that a pathetic little AppleScript that removes your home folder got quite a lot of attention in the media, while something similar for Windows barely even gets a yawn. Can you imagine the attention you would get if you wrote an actual functioning virus for Mac OS X?
 
Ok im sorry i guess the majority of people in the world use linux and mac os x sorry. i forgot microsoft arent about the richest and biggest company in world too sorry bout that.

p.s. lets get some sales figures see which sells more? And then you see why people attack windows users and not the others ones.


BUT im not saying mac os x isnt safe... maybe they could be but my argument cant just be looked at as rubbish.
 
The fact of the report is that it is stating that BSD as a whole (which includes Open, Free, Net, OS X, etc) is "the most secure." Not just OS X, so don't get your panties all in a bunch because the "enemy" OS was listed. :p

Also keep in mind that the report is based on security breaches, NOT spyware / malware BS.

This line here:
mi2g said:
The study also reveals that Linux has become the most breached 24/7 online computing environment in terms of manual hacker attacks overall and accounts for 65.64% of all breaches recorded, with 154,846 successfully compromised Linux 24/7 online computers of all flavours.
Click to expand...

Manual hacker attacks, meaning that someone is actively LOOKING to get into these systems. Not some scripts that zombie the box and do all sorts of random things.
(ie windows worms, that proliferate via emails)
Mind you this is overall we're talking; Meaning home users, small businesses, etc. And only for systems that are online 24/7.

So for the comments about user-base? Yes, it definitely plays a role in how these numbers are attained. (Basically you can't attack what's not there.)
But you also have to look at other factors.
Linux is extremely popular with the "l33t" crowd, so you'll have hundreds of inexperienced and incompetent people installing it and toying around with it.
Not saying that the kernel is holier than Jesus, but they will tend to leave things open or install some daemon/apps without thinking about what they do.
(notice in the report that in larger businesses with dedicated staff the breaches dropped substantially)

So even though windows is probably more prevalent on the desktop, I find it funny that Linux was breached the most. (spyware, trojans and worms aside)
 
Black Morty Rackham said:
Can you imagine the attention you would get if you wrote an actual functioning virus for Mac OS X?
Click to expand...

Sure it would make the news... but it would be discarded in the minds of most people except for the 5% of Mac users. Most people are only interested in how things affect themselves... or they just ignore the warning and continue to use a virus/spyware filled computer.

Imagine if there was suddenly some horrible discovery about diesel fuel... it might be a concern to the trucking industry... but most people don't use diesel in their everyday cars... except maybe the 1% of Volkswagen TDI drivers. :)
 
MScrip said:
Sure it would make the news... but it would be discarded in the minds of most people except for the 5% of Mac users. Most people are only interested in how things affect themselves... or they just ignore the warning and continue to use a virus/spyware filled computer.

Imagine if there was suddenly some horrible discovery about diesel fuel... it might be a concern to the trucking industry... but most people don't use diesel in their everyday cars... except maybe the 1% of Volkswagen TDI drivers. :)
Click to expand...


well, that diesel analogy doesn't really work because the diesel vehicles and it's problem *may* have an effect on the environment or something else.

Same with a REAL virus for OS X. Sure, the rest of the world may put it out of its mind, but we have to look at certain things now.

HOW was that virus written? Can it be easily ported to other BSD's? How about Linux? Solaris? any other form of Unix.

Certainly, a true functioning OS X virus would gain much more notoriety than people would accredit it.
 
Certainly, a true functioning OS X virus would gain much more notoriety than people would accredit it.
Click to expand...

Most definitely, yes.

Now, we've been through this already. The market share is an important factor, yes, and if Mac OS X suddenly climbed to 30% or whatever, I'm sure the security might be compromised, but just the market share argument doesn't explain the fact that there isn't a single!virus, worm or trojan for it.
 
Black Morty Rackham said:
Most definitely, yes.

Now, we've been through this already. The market share is an important factor, yes, and if Mac OS X suddenly climbed to 30% or whatever, I'm sure the security might be compromised, but just the market share argument doesn't explain the fact that there isn't a single!virus, worm or trojan for it.
Click to expand...
I think it could when you consider the number of years its stayed so low. Writing viri for Windows has quite a legacy now due part to the huge market share and certainly influenced by the fact that MS has left some juicy soft spots to sneak in through... but I still think the biggest factor is the huge amount of market windows has... and has had for quite some time.

Every day I feel like we're closer and closer to a cripping virus for OS X, and that once that day comes it'll be like opening the flood gates.
 
So you admit that the fact that MS has left a bunch of wide-open holes in the OS might be a contributing reason? ;)
 
This was already posted in the OS forum, here.

In that thread, Mi2g was accused of spreading the FUD and a link was provided. YMMV.

Also I took note of potential problems with their sample size, which could be answered, but wasn't in the article. I wrote:
"I think it's a little flawed anyways, but there might be more data we aren't seeing. I don't like this: "The latest mi2g Intelligence Unit study analyses 235,907 successful digital breaches against permanently connected - 24/7 online - computers across the globe."

How did they choose those 235k machines? Random? What countries? Did they try any with firewalls or simply skip them? Who knows?"

Then there is the painfully simple question: Why would you hack OSX? If you want to annoy people or destroy their data, go for the largest user base, not the smallest. That leaves you with linux and windows.
 
Black Morty Rackham said:
So you admit that the fact that MS has left a bunch of wide-open holes in the OS might be a contributing reason? ;)
Click to expand...
Duh, but I doubt they'd be attacked if they didn't have the market share they do have.
 
i consider OSX to be 'safer' than XP because with a mac there are so few viruses and trojans and worms and things to worry about as others have said. also macs by nature seem to get virtually no pop ups..a good perk of course :)
 
emorphien said:
Duh, but I doubt they'd be attacked if they didn't have the market share they do have.
Click to expand...

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts... ;)

Surely you must agree that the market share is not the only reason for Windows being so exploitable, and the lack of market share is not the only reason Mac OS X is entirely free of viruses.

And do I really have to remind you people that there were actually viruses for Mac OS pre-X?! The market share wasn't really higher in 1996, was it? I'd say the effect of a low market share is not primarily disproportionally fewer viruses, but rather a disproportionally lesser spread of existing viruses. The fact that there were no hybrid viruses meant that only Macs could propagate Mac viruses, meaning that the ones that existed had a very hard time spreading efficiently. It obviously didn't mean that there were no virus-makers for the platform. Surely, if some people thought it was worth spending the time on making viruses for Mac OS 8, some people would feel the same about Mac OS X.
 
As I read these 2 pages of posts, it's starting to sound silly. The whole topic is about safety, but let's examine that word. People are saying Mac OS X is safe, while Windows is considered unsafe.

I'm imagining Mac users who have the most pleasant computing experience, while Windows users' keyboards catching on fire, towers emitting radioactive gas, and other general nastiness. Windows should come with seatbelts and airbags, as well as a popup blocker. Unsafe at any speed. :)

Sorry... "safe vs. unsafe" put strange images in my head. I'm crazy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top