On 31/07/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tuesday 31 July 2007 15:36:48 Harold Fuchs wrote: > > It is moot as to whether the reason for this is because > > Mac/Linux are more secure or because Windows is more common and > > therefore more likely to yield the results an attacker wants. > > Both theories probably carry weight. > > This is totally wrong. Any Unix based operating system is by default > out of the box more secure than the most hardened install of > Microsoft. > > Microsoft is like your house; only the exterior points of entry are > secured but once someone enters the house they have access to the > entire house. This is because most people run Windows in an > administrator mode because it is more convenient and a pita to get > to the admin mode if you are not already there. > > Any Unix OS runs in a secure non-admin mode. Your house would need > to have all points of entry including the interior secured so, even > if someone got in, they would still have to go through the same > process to get to the next part of the house or system. For the > authorized person; moving into admin mode while in user mode is > very easy to do in a Unix OS. > > The argument about Windows being more widely used is just > Microsoft's way of trying to down play the superior security of a > Unix OS. Linux and MAC OSs are a Unix based OS. Also the Unix > platform is the most dominate platform used for servers and those > servers do not have a problem with viruses or worms. Unauthorized > entry into a Unix OS is not nearly as easy as it is with a > Microsoft OS. Be careful not to spread Microsoft FUD. > > -- > http://24.197.142.167/ See the Openoffice.org FAQ > Microsoft users go to http://www.pclinuxos.com for a great user > friendly Linux experience! > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > There is genuine and widespread debate i.e. it's moot about whether the popularity of the OS automatically leads to a corresponding popularity of attacks. Most serious players think it's true and that it adversely affects Windows. This seems to be confirmed by the rise in attacks on Apple systems as they sell more Macs.
During both 2006 and 2007 FreeBSD issued one security bulletin, most with *several* patches, per month. During 2007 Apple has issued 26 security bulletins. It's not only the OS. For example, Java - supposedly designed from the ground up to be secure - has had security problems that affect *any* OS it runs on; see for example http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-07-2007/jw-07-sunpatch.html?fsrc=rss-index. Firefox 2.x has had more than 30 security patches. There is little doubt that Windows is intrinsically less secure than *nix and, therefore than modern Mac systems. I personally am convinced that the very design of Windows is fundamentally and irredeemably flawed. However, to say that Mac and *nix systems are intrinsically *secure* is just muddle headed and spreads whatever is the opposite of FUD - CAC (Credulity, Arrogance and Complacency)? -- Harold Fuchs London, England Please reply *only* to [email protected]
