Look, as long as MS pushes their own software as default programs out of the box, the vast majority of windows users will use them. Only about 10% of Windows users use Firefox instead of IE. And a far greater percentage use WMP and OE.
And all of those programs allow hackers direct access into the operating system. That is a Windows security hole.
If not, then why is it that Mac users remain almost completely safe when Windows users are so often beset with viruses and spyware? The final, obvious, word is that OS X is relatively secure while Windows is so very not...
It's great that some people know to use non-MS programs and to use the right anti-spyware and -virus software but normal computer users don't have a clue about any of that. They expect that when they buy a computer it will have everything they need to run well out of the box (at least so much as a TV or a car). Apple provides that level of quality and service. Microsoft and PC hardware companies do not.
And all of those programs allow hackers direct access into the operating system. That is a Windows security hole.
If not, then why is it that Mac users remain almost completely safe when Windows users are so often beset with viruses and spyware? The final, obvious, word is that OS X is relatively secure while Windows is so very not...
It's great that some people know to use non-MS programs and to use the right anti-spyware and -virus software but normal computer users don't have a clue about any of that. They expect that when they buy a computer it will have everything they need to run well out of the box (at least so much as a TV or a car). Apple provides that level of quality and service. Microsoft and PC hardware companies do not.
avvie said:
Is it just me or does that guy have some anger issues?
Starkiller said:
You answered that yourself a couple of pages back. 95% of all viruses and malware is created for Windows, because it's the dominant OS. If OSX was the dominant OS, the tables would be turned. I could easily write a program that would mess up your Mac if you were to execute it (provided I had an API reference).
The problem many people have is that IE and Outlook in particular have been bad at executing malicious code contained in webpages and emails without the users knowledge. Now that's not the Windows fault, since Windows can't tell the users intentions. For instance, to Windows a trojan horse looks exactly the same as P2P Progams or even multiplayer games. The only thing preventing Trojans is the higher level application and the user not executing unsafe code. This holds true for all OS's.
Starkiller said:
True and I never argued that, but that doesn't change that the standalone "application" that is Windows, is not as bad as many people think, it's actually very good.
Vigsted said:
Well, let's see...I used Firefox, Earthlink web mail, and Musicmatch jukebox. I never used messenger or Office.
Still didn't work.
Wrong. I said that about 95% of the market was Windows, which is about 20:1. As far as viruses go, it is 1000:1 which is a completely disproportionate to the Windows:Mac ratio. That fact just proves that Windows is far more insecure, apparently about 50 times as much based on that math.Vigsted said:
Then why it is that Windows allows the installation of arbitrary code? Are you trying to tell me that a supposedly secure operating system would allow any code to run and any software to be installed directly into itself?
OS X doesn't let any program alter secured system files without the user approving it first. Apple had to patch a few specific security holes through that wall there themselves in the last few months, but Windows allows almost anything.
Your problem here is that Windows is not a "standalone application". Every other app that runs with it has full access to its inner workings. And the fact that the bundled programs that come with it are full of holes themselves makes Windows that much more vulnerable.
Starkiller said:
Just because there's a 20:1 ratio as far as marketshare goes, doesn't mean theres a 20:1 to ratio in applications developed for it. What is the ratio for games for instance? I'd bet you for every 1 Mac game, there's a 100 Windows games. So the fact that you see more viruses targeting Windows is primarily because it's in wider use, and people who write viruses want to hit as many as possible.
Starkiller said:
You can't alter Windows secured system files either as long as Windows is running. However you're free to delete and modify any nonsecure file. It you weren't you wouldn't be able to install or uninstall progams. The only way to alter system files is during boot and that usually requires infecting the bootsector or BIOS, which is outside of Windows domain.
If you have concrete examples of actual Windows files being infected I'd like to know.
Starkiller said:
Umm... the fundamental requirement of an OS is that applications have access to it. Otherwise it servers no purpose.
And again, if you have concrete examples of how applications have access to parts of Windows they have no business accessing, I'd like to know.
I'm sure it's a bit more than 20:1, but I seriously doubt it's 100:1.Vigsted said:
Either way, the ratio for Mac software versus Windows software should be roughly equal to the hardware all things being even. That's why the "malware market", if you will, doesn't follow that ratio. Because Windows is so easy to infect, hackers tend to ignore OS X. Not just because there are 20x more PCs, but because they are far easier to inflict damage on.
It's no like there are only 1000 Macs in the world. 5% of the global computer marketplace is still a huge number. If virus writers could tap that market, they would. They have targeted OS X when holes have shown up, but Apple has patched the few that became public in recent months.
That's not true. Viruses infect critical windows files all the time, so don't try and tell me that it's not easy to do. Registry settings get hacked. DLLs get infected. Spyware gets installed at will. This is script-kiddie stuff.
That kind of stuff doesn't happen on a Mac without the user specifically allowing it by manually entering a password.
No, apps don't need access to alter system files in normal situations. That's the biggest reason OS X is secure and Windows isn't. Windows programs have access to modify system files almost at will. OSX apps don't have such access unless the user OKs it.
Starkiller said:
For one you give virus authors more credit then they're due, they target whatever they can hit the most the fastest, since it takes time to write something new for relatively small Mac market, it happens rarely. Also remember that somewhere between 50-90% of viruses and malware are just copycats, you rarely see something genuinely new.
Secondly, which system files get infected? A DLL is just a linked library, it can belong to any application, and are often needed to be updated or removed as part of application maintainance.
Windows has it's own share of DLL's and these are often protected (certainly the system critical ones are). I actually just tried to modify some of them, and they were promptly overwritten by proper versions.
Starkiller said:
I agree that one improvement in Windows would be to prompt the use everytime code is executed, especially if it attempts to modify files or the registry. Just like it does if applications are trying to access the internet. However I think MS believes it will be an inconvenience for the average user.
Starkiller said:
I didn't say it needs access to change system files. I said it needs access to the OS functionality, process handling, file operations, etc. But I still maintain that you can't alter critical system files as long as Windows is running, because they are locked. Non-critical files you can change though.
Vigsted said:
This is reportedly part of Windows Vista if it ever gets released. You must be a local adiminstrator and enter your password.
Yeah, that should certainly help. And they are making IE7 a separate app rathing that having it integrated into the OS like IE6 is in XP.Broken Record said:
Starkiller said:
Microsoft is obviously very concerned about Mozilla's recent surge because IE7 is stealing alot of things from Firefox like tab browsing, integrated popup blocker, etc.
Classic Microsoft thinking is that if they offer all the features of Firefox, folks will stop using it anyway.
I think I read somewhere last week that Vista has been pushed back to first quarter 2007 by the way.
They target whetever market they can hit, period. They know it's harder to hit OS X. You don't think that they would go after 15 million OS X users if they could???Vigsted said:
For example, there was the Mac virus that spread via IM early this year that posed as a picture that was instead a trojan. You had to put in your password, yet some people were still fooled. Anyway, it was quickly coppied. The moral to the story is that people still will program viruses for Macs if they can simply find a security hole to breach. There just aren't many (known anyway) to exploit. There are tons in Windows...
And yet it happens anyway, doesn't it? I've seen explorer.exe infected and system files don't get any more critical...
Long story short, any time you can modify Windows to execute a virus or spyware on startup, it's critical. I don't care if you are modifying whatever you consider a "critical" system file or simply add a malware program to the startup list. Either way, it's a major security hole that isn't there in OS X.
Really? An inconvenience like having their computer bogged down by spyware? Or an inconvenience like having to reinstall Windows from scratch because it is so badly infected?
Non-critical files like what? The registry files??? The startup list??? Hey, who cares if stuff like that gets modified, right? What harm can that possibly do...
Yes, MS announced that about 2 weeks ago.Broken Record said:
Apple's next OS upgrade (10.5 aka Leopard) is due about the same time, somewhere between the end of 2006 and early 2007. You know Apple would love to steal Microsoft's thunder by making it to market in time for the Christmas sales season.
Starkiller said:
vigsted said:
hell, actually ..... I agree with StarKiller 100%
Starkiller said:
Yeah, I'm sure Apple would love to be able to get Leopard on the market prior to Christmas, particularly if Vista doesn't hit shelves until 07. The Christmas season is when a lot of home user sales happen and I think Mac has an opportunity to make a dent in the home user market more than business at this time.
Apple needs to slow down with all these OSX upgrades
before long, they'll start running out of cool cats to name them after.
and i'm not quite sure how they'll market OS11 - to me OSX just sounds cool (and hopefully there wont be an OS11) OSX works just fine for me - I can't imagine what they'd do to revamp it
I'm gonna guess that OSX v.6 will be called Ocelot :ha:
before long, they'll start running out of cool cats to name them after.
and i'm not quite sure how they'll market OS11 - to me OSX just sounds cool (and hopefully there wont be an OS11) OSX works just fine for me - I can't imagine what they'd do to revamp it
I'm gonna guess that OSX v.6 will be called Ocelot :ha:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
