How safe are apples?

Amalea

BillScarab wrote: »

Whatever OS you use though the biggest security risk is the person using it.

Reminds me of the other phrase: "Make something idiot proof and they'll make a better idiot".

JustPassingBy

BillScarab wrote: »

Whatever OS you use though the biggest security risk is the person using it.

It is good engineering design which minimises security risks. How a user chooses to interact with a system does not detract from that.

Brian.

JustPassingBy

tonyhague wrote: »

i don't think its true that macs are more secure than windows pcs, just the relatively small userbase makes it less worthwhile to the hackers.

Sounds similar to way burglars operate. They go for domestic dwellings rather than banks because there are more of them.

Brian.

superscaper

JustPassingBy wrote: »

Sounds similar to way burglars operate. They go for domestic dwellings rather than banks because there are more of them.

Brian.

I may not be an expert on the criminal mind but I doubt the prime motivation of a burglar going for a domestic dwelling is their abundance but more likely that home security is going to be nowhere near as secure as a bank.

Another simile IMHO is that there are far more petrol cars stolen and targetted by thieves than electric cars because there are more of them. And not anything to do with electric cars' security being better than a petrol car. Getting used to petrol cars security systems is more worthwhile than an electric cars' simply because there's more opportunity for the thieves to put that into practice.

JustPassingBy

superscaper wrote: »

I may not be an expert on the criminal mind but I doubt the prime motivation of a burglar going for a domestic dwelling is their abundance but more likely that home security is going to be nowhere near as secure as a bank.

Indeed.

Another simile IMHO is that there are far more petrol cars stolen and targetted by thieves than electric cars because there are more of them. And not anything to do with electric cars' security being better than a petrol car. Getting used to petrol cars security systems is more worthwhile than an electric cars' simply because there's more opportunity for the thieves to put that into practice.

Analogies are never completely satisfactory so rather than continuing with another one or analysing yours I'll simpley say that the OP's comment is not one I find in any way convincing. It was substantially repeated in post #4. I'd prefer to see something more technical in discussions on security.

Having said that, wouldn't someone who could severely compromise a unix type system be much admired by the cracker fraternity (if it exists)?

Ok, I'll relent. Your petrol and electric powered cars have the same level of security. Is that true of all operating systems?

Brian.

superscaper

JustPassingBy wrote: »

Ok, I'll relent. Your petrol and electric powered cars have the same level of security. Is that true of all operating systems?

Nope, I was just giving another analogy that could demonstrate an opposing point. Never said that was the case though. Don't think I've ever said that macs definitely are or definitely aren't more secure than Windows because it's impossible to say until we ever got to a situation with a much greater market share of Apple to show whether there'd suddenly be a huge increase in discovered vulnerabilities. I've always said they're not the most secure OS though (whenever someone has claimed they were and there have been a few). Off the top of my head the current versions of Riscos are still used on ROM chips which mean they physically can't be altered by a virus etc.

Blacksheep1979

alexjohnson wrote: »

Kudos to him. He is also, by definition, one of the best hackers in the world. In reality, if you put a Mac on the internet will you get that worm that floats around infecting XP machines? Nope. Are you vulnerable to fly-by Active-X exploits? Nope. Do you have to worry about attachments? Not really. Can anyone hijack your machine to make it dial up very expensive lines? Nope. Do you need to run anti-virus software that will slow down your machine? Nope. Let's cross the bridge about what might happen in the future, in the future. For right now in the real world it's still a perfectly fair comment that Macs are much safer: QED.

Food for thought indeed.

yes and he would have to be a decent hacker to create an exploit that would work on a fully patched machine not using a currently known vulnerability. So on a mac are you susceptible to quicktime exploits - yes, are you susceptible to exploits within safari (which this one was) - yes, are you susceptible when using m$ software on your computer - yes.

Basically the reason for the lack of apple targeted malware is the smaller user base, but with growing user numbers with the fingers in ear attitude of mine is safer than yours and I don't need antivirus as it slows down my (superior faster) machine like yours they are going to become more desirable targets .

And how come this guy is quoted as saying he chose the mac as it was 'easier' to hack....

JustPassingBy

superscaper wrote: »

Nope, I was just giving another analogy that could demonstrate an opposing point. Never said that was the case though. Don't think I've ever said that macs definitely are or definitely aren't more secure than Windows because it's impossible to say until we ever got to a situation with a much greater market share of Apple to show whether there'd suddenly be a huge increase in discovered vulnerabilities.

It is possible to make a judgement without waiting for a ten thousandfold increase in Mac usage, which may be a long time coming.

Market share is of no relevance; it is the security model a system adopts which is all important. The contention is that there is a correlation between the popularity of an OS and the prevalence of exploits on that OS. Now I know the OP referred to Macs but I do not think it unfair to take it as a statement which applies to all systems.

Imagine there was a massive reduction in the number of people on the planet using Windows XP in the coming year. If the correlation above is valid we might expect XP to be targeted less often but it would be absurd to regard its security status as anything but unchanged. Abandoning AV measures wouldn't be on the agenda. If in the following year XP returned to it present day popularity there would be no affect on its susceptibility to particular exploits.

Brian.

BillScarab

To be honest I don't think anyone has said OSX isn't more secure. However, the smaller user base does make it less worthwhile trying to find exploits. After all XP is more common and easier to hack, so which would you target?

What would be intersting is if OSX dominated the market place and XP only had a small share, which OS would be targeted then?

It'll also be interesting in a year or two when Vista has started to supplant XP to see what happens then as Vista is far more secure than XP.

As I said before the user is the biggest risk, and if people do start targeting OSX the attitude that a lot of Apple owners have of 'I don't need to worry about security' could be a problem for them.

Blacksheep1979

erm I'm saying and so is the person who did hack the macbook air that macs are easier to hack