Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About mhbas0001

  • Rank
    InsanelyMac Protégé
  1. The figures cover both Tiger and Leopard, as well as Vista and XP. Besides, the older an operating system is, the more likely it is that flaws will be discovered. I don't recall anybody ever making that claim. God, you Mac zealots get so defensive.
  2. I did place a citation linking the article to the original site. The reason I didn't put the article in the quotation box was because the original table was scattered, but I finally gave up and linked that as well. I should also point out, I never suggested that Mac OS X was less secure than Windows. It's just an article about the number of vulnerabilities detected over the last year. The fact that Mac OS had more vulnerabilities on average than both Windows XP and Windows Vista combined says a lot about the quality of Apple's programming. At the very least, both Apple and Microsoft need to improve their game.
  3. The year 2007 has been an interesting year that brought us improved security with Windows Vista and Mac OS X Leopard (10.5). But to get some perspective of how many publicly known holes found in these two operating systems, I've compiled all the security flaws in Mac OS X and Windows XP and Vista and placed them side by side. This is significant because it shows a trend that can give us a good estimate for how many flaws we can expect to find in the coming months. The more monthly flaws there are in the historical trend, the more likely it is that someone will find a hole to exploit in the future. For example back in April of this year, hackers took over a fully patched Macbook and won $10,000 plus the Macbook they hacked. I used vulnerability statistics from an impartial third party vendor Secunia and I broke them down by Windows XP flaws, Vista flaws, and Mac OS X flaws. Since Secunia doesn't offer individual numbers for Mac OS X 10.5 and 10.4, I merged the XP and Vista vulnerabilities so that we can compare Vista + XP flaws to Mac OS X. In case you're wondering how 19 plus 12 could equal 23, this is because there are many overlapping flaws that is shared between XP and Vista so those don't get counted twice just as I don't count something that affects Mac OS X 10.4 and 10.5 twice. Windows XP, Vista, and Mac OS X vulnerability stats for 2007: Click to see table. So this shows that Apple had more than 5 times the number of flaws per month than Windows XP and Vista in 2007, and most of these flaws are serious. Clearly this goes against conventional wisdom because the numbers show just the opposite and it isn't even close. Also noteworthy is that while Windows Vista shows fewer flaws than Windows XP and has more mitigating factors against exploitation, the addition of Windows Defender and Sidebar added 4 highly critical flaws to Vista that weren't present in Windows XP. Sidebar accounted for three of those additional vulnerabilities and it's something I am glad I don't use. The lone Defender critical vulnerability that was supposed to defend Windows Vista was ironically the first critical vulnerability for Windows Vista. ZDNet.com
  4. The Vista Death Watch

    On what specifications are you trying to run Vista?
  5. The Vista Death Watch

    I agree completely. UAC is poorly implemented, and the prompts occur so often, that even the most experience user can become inclined to click through them without so much as a second glance. The only consolation is, once your computer is set up, UAC will prompt you far less often. In my opinion, it only really becomes usefull when a prompt pops up that you're not expecting (e.g. when you're browsing the internet), then it's important to make sure you read them properly before clicking ok. In this instance, the weakest link in computer security is the user - those who click allow without thinking will become infected. Those who read the prompts can happily run without antivirus software.
  6. The Vista Death Watch

    Sorry, my mistake. Your post doesn't demonstrate a lack of knowledge about Unix, it demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge about Windows Vista and User Account Control. UAC does not prompt you for every action, it only prompts you when you choose to run an executable that require administrative privlidges, and warns you when modifying system-critical components such as the registry. Nothing more, nothing less. For you to claim otherwise demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about the way Vista works, a readiness of your behalf to indulge sweeping generalisations, and a tenuous grasp on reality. That makes me smile.
  7. The Vista Death Watch

    The feature is question is running user accounts with limited privlidges as the default behaviour, instead of giving users full administrative access, and asking for their permission to execute programs that require unrestricted access to the system. It exists in Mac OS X and Linux, and If you don't believe such a feature exists in *nix based systems, then you don't know much about *nix at all.
  8. The Vista Death Watch

    Windows XP is slightly different, in that it only warns the user about the dangers of executing a file downloaded with Internet Explorer, but it doesn't address the issue of malicious files which might infiltrate your computer through an exchange of media (such as CD or DVDs), or through email messages, et cetera. Although I agree with you to the extent that most computer users either won't bother to read the prompts, or won't understand them, you're pretty safe if you're an experienced computer user who takes the time to read the messages. For example, in Windows Vista if I download an attachment from Windows Mail, before I open it the screen will grey and a prompt will pop up asking me if I should execute the file, and it will tell you the name of the file, the type of file, and the digital signature on the file (I.e. whether it was made by Microsoft, Adobe, Symantec, or whether it does not have a digital signature), thus, as a user, it's pretty easy to tell that a file signed by Microsoft is safe to run, but one that isn't signed, and has a file name of "Bank.exe" or "????.exe" is not safe to run. I don't use realtime virus protection myself, but I do a manual scan every so often, and scan individual files I think are suspicious before opening them.
  9. The Vista Death Watch

    Guess again. For the record though, I never stated that either Linux or OS X weren't based on unix code. I use both of them, and I'm familiar with the way they work. Oh, no, UAC doesn't identify viruses, that's not what it's designed to do. It identifies executables that attempt to run with administrative privileges (such as viruses, trojan horses, spyware, etc), and asks for the user's permission to allow them to execute. During the prompt, it gives the user a file name, and a directory, as well as the software company. It's pretty obvious to even the most computer illiterate user that a file with the name "??????" is not safe to run. A little common sense goes a long way.
  10. The Vista Death Watch

  11. The Vista Death Watch

    Something funny?
  12. The Vista Death Watch

    In actual fact, with user account control there's absolutely no need to run antivirus software, so long as you take the time to read the prompts before you click ok. Nothing can run on a Vista based machine unless it has your explicit permission, and by default, all user accounts run in restricted mode, just like a Unix-based system. I'm pleased to see Microsoft took a page out of *nix's book and added a useful (and powerful) security feature.
  13. The Vista Death Watch

    I have an Acer Aspire laptop that came with an OEM version of Windows XP Home Edition, which I upgraded to Windows Vista in February. On the whole I haven't had a single problem with Windows Vista: It hasn't crashed once, it looks beautiful, and it runs quite smoothly. I can't comment on gaming performance since I don't use this laptop for gaming, but overall the system seems to work quite well. Having said that, for reasons I don't understand, I do occassionally reinstall Windows XP. Compared to Vista, XP feels and looks archaic, and I don't enjoy using it as much as I enjoy using Vista. I will qualify those statements by saying that although I've not had any problems with Vista, I'm sure other people have, but it seems to me that the people having problems with Vista are those who either use it in a way it's not supposed to be used (by tweaking it to extremes), or are the same people who had trouble with Windows XP (the computer illiterates). As for Windows Vista "dying", I don't see it happening. People said the same thing about Windows XP, which quickly became Microsoft's most successful operating system, and, like it or not, by the end of next year the majority of PCs will be running Windows Vista because of Microsoft's sheer dominance over the OS market.
  14. Apple Developer one of us?

    If it does everything I need it to do, and it's now safer to use than Firefox on Windows Vista, why should I use another browser?
  15. Apple Developer one of us?

    I own both an Acer laptop (running Windows Vista, and a Macbook Pro, and I enjoy using both of them for different reasons. In that respect, I'd hardly call myself a fanboy, for either company. I was just making a valid point about how both technologies work. Also, I use Internet Explorer 7 in Windows Vista because it operates in a sandbox with heavy restrictions, thus any malicious software downloaded during my regular surfing doesn't have the chance to infect the system. Prior to Vista, I used Firefox on XP. Although, I'm not sure why somebody would laugh at something so trivial...