Interesting article on Mac security.

asininity

This isn't meant to but obviously will start another argument but heres an interesting article

Here a quote from the article:

I've noted numerous times that Apple's software security is lacking, especially when it comes to enterprise-class security. In fact, not much has changed since I penned this post in January 2008. Things have probably gotten worse for Apple users, in fact.
And, if you're a fanboy and starting to get your knickers in a knot, please be aware that this post is being written on a Mac Pro, and I own three Macs that I love, and use every day.
I'm just not thrilled with Apple proffering more marketing savvy when it comes to security than providing real security.

Marty_J

Apple are a pretty tight-lipped bunch, especially when it comes to security, which is a pity. It would be nice if they were a bit more open about it.

I've never been entirely convinced though by the argument that the only reason there's hardly any Mac-targeted malware is that it's such a small target. Apple has a much larger market share than Linux, and there's much more Linux malware than there is Mac malware out there.

aliEnRIK

Marty_J wrote: »

Apple has a much larger market share than Linux, and there's much more Linux malware than there is Mac malware out there.

How much are we talking about?

RobTang

I refuse the believe that there are more computers running mac os, than there are computers running a linux disto.

than again Im not too sure on the small market thing either, virus writers will write anything for anything they can really. although it probably has more relevance in crime related malware.

But I think Apple's OS are probably more secure than your average Linux disto, however the problem with security through obscurity no ones really sure about how much is out there and / or how much has been fixed.

asininity

I actually read some of this guys other articles from the links provided and I think this guy loves macs and is frustrated by apples complete refusal to help out in this area. LINK

I dont think macs are more secure than linux or windows.Linux and windows are definitely more security concious. Linux is very secure from years of people trying to hack servers to infect windows pcs, and in that vein windows is more secure (once the correct security is running on it).

I think they aren't attacked as much purely down to their application in a business environment which I'm sure most would agree is design.

Windows business pcs and linux servers are obviously a better target for thieves. No one really wants whats on a home windows pc but hacking it so it can be used within a bot net makes sense.

thescouselander

RobTang wrote: »

I refuse the believe that there are more computers running mac os, than there are computers running a linux disto.

than again Im not too sure on the small market thing either, virus writers will write anything for anything they can really. although it probably has more relevance in crime related malware.

But I think Apple's OS are probably more secure than your average Linux disto, however the problem with security through obscurity no ones really sure about how much is out there and / or how much has been fixed.

Mac OS has around a 9% market share while Linux has only just passed the 1% market share so there is a pretty big gap there.

The thing is with security is that you can always take it a step further. The problem is that with more security comes a penalty in terms of a reduction in functionality or performance. At work I use some extreamly secure computers; they are so locked down that are almost unusable but they are secure - most people would find this unacceptable though.

Up to now there has been very little explotation of Apple OS security weaknesses so you could argue that its security is good enough (although obviously not perfect).

Personnally, as a Mac user I am not too worried but I do remain vigilant because its probably only a matter of time before some exploit gets out in the wild. I will take the appropriate action when this happens (although I doubt this approach would be acceptable to a business).

asininity

Are we talking desktop market, server market ,etc? Where did you get the stats from? Some claim for the desktop market 2.02% as of 2008 which increased 85% from 2007. Some state 4% as of Jan 2009 with Macs at 6%. Who to believe???

Statistics like that can be misleading, simply to to the fact the one downloaded distro CD can be used on more than one machine and you dont have to register anything not even to update.

thescouselander

asininity wrote: »

Are we talking desktop market, server market ,etc? Where did you get the stats from? Some claim for the desktop market 2.02% as of 2008 which increased 85% from 2007. Some state 4% as of Jan 2009 with Macs at 6%. Who to believe???

Statistics like that can be misleading, simply to to the fact the one downloaded distro CD can be used on more than one machine and you dont have to register anything not even to update.

I was talking about desktop machines - there are plenty of sources for stats on the net. Obvoiusly statistics can be manipulated and are highly dependant on how they are sampled and processed.

In terms of Mac I think its easier to determine marker share as sales of Apple machines can be compared with sales of PCs. Mac owners are unlikely to run Linux while PC owners might swap from Windows to Linux. The usual estimate I've seen for Mac Market share (world wide) is about 2.5 - 3.5%.

The estimates I have seen for Linux usually range from 1 - 2% (2009 figures) - maybe this is higher. In any case it seems (with some degree of uncertainty) that for the desktop market the Mac OS is more prolific.

asininity

Statistics are based on biases which is why I dont place much stock in them, and there are limited in this case many to sales and mainly for desktop use linux is free and unmonitored.

As an example figures about the uptake of vista and its use dont take into account the amount downgraders after sales. Not to mention on new computers unless a netbook, vista is preinstalled.

Not arguing about osx being used more just about the statistics. Quotes from linux blogs about the 1-2% share fyi.

"Alternatively, you might prefer -- as I do -- to question the statistic's accuracy, and look at other ways to estimate GNU/Linux's presence.



"The problem, of course, can never be settled with any certainty. GNU/Linux comes from dozens of vendors and community projects, rather than a single corporation, and, since it requires neither registration nor activation, a single DVD could be the source of half a dozen installations. Under these circumstances, any estimates quickly trail off into speculation whose credibility depends on your own biases on the subject.

thescouselander

asininity wrote: »

Statistics are based on biases which is why I dont place much stock in them, and there are limited in this case many to sales and mainly for desktop use linux is free and unmonitored.

As an example figures about the uptake of vista and its use dont take into account the amount downgraders after sales. Not to mention on new computers unless a netbook, vista is preinstalled.

Not arguing about osx being used more just about the statistics. Quotes from linux blogs about the 1-2% share fyi.

Fair enough, I except that the statistics are inaccurate. My point is just that it would appear from a number of different statistical sources that Mac OS is probably more prolific than Linux at the moment.

Marty_J

Usage statistics are a pretty hard thing to pin down. You can do it by measuring the OS the visitors to a particular website are using, but that can be skewed; one could argue that the particular website is of more interest to people using a certain platform, or that people using one platform use the internet more than another (I know a few people who have a PC and no internet; I don't anyone who has a Mac and no internet).

Then one could do it by sales, but that's not exactly accurate too. Microsoft cited the sales figures for Vista as proof that it was immensely popular, but they neglected to mention that on a lot of machines, the computers were sold with XP downgrade licences, and had XP installed, not Vista. Then one could argue that Mac users buy a new computer less often, whether because they last longer, or are more expensive. We could try to throw Linux into the mix by measuring the amount of downloads, but just because someone downloads a distro doesn't mean that it's ever going to be used.

Then even if we were able to pin down a reliable figure, there are different markets. Most usage figures don't really differentiate between home and business users, which could be argued as not being exactly accurate. Apple are a consumer electronics company, and don't really compete in the business marketplace, whereas Microsoft obviously do. There are a lot of cash registers out there running Windows. Interestingly, Linux has a big share at both ends of the market, namely, servers, and low-cost netbooks.

And then there are different markets within markets. Apple don't do budget computers, which account for most computer sales. In the US, about two thirds of all computers sold costing $1,000 and up are Macs. As previously mentioned, Linux has a huge share of the netbook market.

So, even if one can pin out a reliable figure, it's still fraught with problems. It is possible to read certain trends into usage figures though, however you define them, and those trends tell us that Mac OS X and Linux usage is on the rise, and Windows usage is falling. And that can only be good news.