Vista more secure than OS X?

[Synaesthesia]

Ok, well i've seen it discussed everywhere, starting with Daring Fireball. Is Vista really more secure than OS X?

 

OS Security Chart

 

After Bill Gates' comments on this matter on the first of february, a large (not very clear) argument has sprung up around this (Dailytech)

 

Who am I to believe? All I can say, is that XP gave me HELL with viruses, malware, and upgrading to SP2.

 

As far as I know, there aren't any viruses on Mac OS X. Period.

 

Are new generations of hackers and virus creators going to break these advanced repellents?

[Patrix]

Hi,

 

Just bear in mind that security features don't translate directly into being more secure.

[cringemaster]

Vista, a Micro$oft product, MORE SECURE THAN OS X? Nah.

[joe75]

I wouldn't go as far to say Vista is more secure then OS X, but I would say it's the most secure M$ product to date

[robotskip]

Hi,

 

Just bear in mind that security features don't translate directly into being more secure.

Someone said something just like that in the comments and someone replied to it basically 'disproving' what you said.

 

"name one of those features that won’t translate to better security, and provide a quick justification.

 

These aren’t features like encrypted home directories that people have to “use”. These are features that automatically make the operating system more resilient to the same types of attacks that Macs face and don’t deal with."

 

Vista, a Micro$oft product, MORE SECURE THAN OS X? Nah.

That was quite an intelligence analysis there, kid. By the way, using an '$' in Microsoft is so 1990s, even /. is over it.

 

 

For those who want some indepth discussion on Windows security and how/why it may be better than OS X or simple not as bad as people make it out to be I have some links for you:

 

http://www.matasano.com/log/609/five-reaso...curity-pundity/

 

http://www.matasano.com/log/611/gunar-pete...features-chart/

http://1raindrop.typepad.com/1_raindrop/20...ver_happen.html

http://rjohnson.uninformed.org/toorcon8/rj...termeasures.ppt

http://blogs.msdn.com/michael_howard/

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsv...onvenience.aspx

http://www.tw.openbsd.org/papers/ven05-deraadt/index.html

Edited February 5, 2007 by robotskip

[K4bren]

Vista may have more security features doesn't mean it's more secure. The Windows OS still has a monopoly, so more people will be trying to break into it. There aren't that many people trying to break Mac OS X.

 

All else aside, I still think it's impossible for Microsoft to make a secure OS.

[Alucard!]

=)

[nagal]

Given MS track record on security, I would have to say its way too early to say how secure Vista will be. We can talk all day along about the features but these features are still untested.

[Lostgame]

lol

[Synaesthesia]

Thanks for the discussion guys Roboskip, thanks for the insight and links, most informative!

 

This is the original quote that made me start this thread (source : Daring Fireball)

 

David Maynor : "Take a seat, hold your hats because I am about to make a declaration: Windows Vista is more secure than OSX 10.4.8. Anybody that tells you anything different should immediately be treated with the same disdain as finding a parking ticket on your car."

 

Vista may have more security features doesn't mean it's more secure. The Windows OS still has a monopoly, so more people will be trying to break into it. There aren't that many people trying to break Mac OS X.

 

All else aside, I still think it's impossible for Microsoft to make a secure OS.

Well, it seems MS have really tried. But there is quite a lot of security in obscurity, as you say. Not as many people are trying to crack OS X, as Windows (or know how to).

 

Given MS track record on security, I would have to say its way too early to say how secure Vista will be. We can talk all day along about the features but these features are still untested.

 

That's how I feel. We will just have to see, but my gut feeling says, Mac OS X. I just feel more secure.

 

1 thing is for sure. Bill Gates was just talking out of his ***hole when he said, "Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine. "

 

We'll see Bill, you may yet regret those words!

Edited February 5, 2007 by Synaesthesia

[Guest goodtime]

It is too early to tell if Vista is even secure. However, Mac OS X has been around for about 5-6 years now. There has been less than a handful of viruses and I have yet to have a Mac Virus or Spyware show up on any of my four Tiger boxes.

 

My Windows XP home edition does have viruses and spyware. Some of the viruses are unknown to NOD32. I don't use Windows much anymore, so I usually just use Windows XP to run a program that I need every once in a while or to play one of my Kids games. I could reinstall Windowx XP fresh, but I don't use it enough to make it worth the effort. Plus, I dislike calling India to activate my Windows XP. What a pain.

 

With that said, Vista could be more secure than Windows XP, but I don't think it's more secure than Mac OS X.

 

Vista security is an unknown, but I bet any security holes in it will be exploited immediately by hackers. One thing that I don't like about Vista is its inconsistency. Sometimes the user has to enter their Admin password and for other things it does not require the Admin password. It should require the Admin password everytime if you are really concerned about security. My two cents.

 

gt

Edited February 5, 2007 by goodtime

[Urbz]

Well I truly hopw that Vista is as secure as they're all saying it is. I agree with whomever said it was too early to tell. Still, one thing is for sure:

the core of windows is less stable than the rock-solid Unix at the heart of every mac. I explained it a bit more in another post, but i've yet to really go into detail...it takes too long!

so that's why I think Vista definetly isn't more secure than Mac OS X.

Underneath it all, the security features are protecting a very insecure kernel.

In Mac OS X, few security features are protecting a super-solid kernel. And more and more security features can be added anytime to prevent idiots from screwing up their Macs. Can't say the same for windows...

[robotskip]

The fact they you think there is some single, mythical Windows kernel shows how little understanding you seem to have.

[A Nonny Moose]

Anything that supports legacy code will inherently be insecure.

[robotskip]

Every piece of software is somehow insecure by both design/code and via the people who use it.

 

Edited February 6, 2007 by robotskip

[Urbz]

The fact they you think there is some single, mythical Windows kernel shows how little understanding you seem to have.

Kernel, core, jeeze I don't give a damn what you call it. I was trying to be nice. Guess i'll just call the core of the OS windows. Because the whole thing is the problem anyways...

 

Every piece of software is somehow insecure by both design/code and via the people who use it.

 

How sad to know then that Microsoft, for their design/code, only hires retards... and is used by their own kind

[robotskip]

I never said your naming was wrong, just that you think there is some single kernel for all of Windows, which there isn't. I don't think I could have made that any more clear in my previous post.

 

Yup, I'm sure the millions upon millions who use Windows will be switching to Mac in a heartbeat now they they know they're 'retards' - and people wonder why there is so much hatred for the pro-Apple kids.

 

You might want to read this and than maybe you'll actually have somewhat of a clue. It also happens to disprove Microsoft only 'hires retards' (aka, writes worst code than Apple).

MacOS X Code Is Better Designed Than Windows Code.

 

No it isn’t. For example:

 

(a) Microsoft pioneered the Secure Development Lifecycle. ( Microsoft delayed a critical operating system release to scrub integer overflows out of the codebase. © Microsoft invented the Threat Modeling methodology. (d) Microsoft Visual C builds executables that resist memory corruption. (e) Virtually every line of Windows Vista has been audited by third parties.

 

Does this mean Microsoft is perfect, or that MacOS X has bad code? No, but where are the Apple counterclaims? Here’s a question for Daring Fireball: without arguing that Apple somehow employs “better” OS developers than Microsoft, honestly guess which OS team puts more effort into code security, and estimate by how much.

Edited February 6, 2007 by robotskip

[xtraa]

It is too early to tell if Vista is even secure.

 

I don't think so.

 

There is already a really dumb exploit, that every kiddie can make.

 

Take a trojan, lets say xxx.exe, and modify the hidden desktop.ini from vista.

 

Edit the desktop.ini with the texteditor in a very easy way, and the file will be

no longer shown as xxx.exe, but xxx.jpeg, xxx.txt, xxx.png, whatever you choose.

 

if you rar or zip both files, there is a big chance that the average user will open it

via doubleclick and extract it on the desktop.

 

Now who would expect a virus by clicking an xxx.txt?

 

Vista is really retarded. I mean it's out one week.

 

(And everyone has to turn of the speakers btw )

[Guest goodtime]

What I mean is Vista has a whole new virgin networking stack. It can only be proven whether it is secure or insecure over time. Most likely it is insecure because M$ programmers will repeat previous mistakes (BTW, this happened with the Vista beta) that were fixed in the old Windows NT networking stack and M$ will also accidently introduce new vulnerabilities as history has shown. History does repeat itself. M$ can't create a new networking stack and expect the stack to be perfect. It needs to be banged on again and again by users, programmers and hackers. Then it will be patched and fixed and become more secure over time. Bill Gates can't declare victory just yet. The security war has only begun.

 

gt

Edited February 7, 2007 by goodtime

[solaar]

Vista more secure than OS X?, Seriously?

If I planned to purchase a licence of Vista I wouldn't expect anything less as a paying customer (Vista Ultimate is expected to come in at about 500$ in my neck of the woods) as it took them almost 6 (!) years since their last major release.

[Lostgame]

This is the funniest title topic ever. To even think that is a joke.

 

You know how Vista is more secure? It annoys the {censored} out of you.

 

To install Windows Live Messenger, I literally had to pass 7 little 'confirm' dialogs.

 

You can say "hey, you can disable the UAC" but then you don't get this terrible "security".

 

There's a reason Vista and the Zune are the laughing stock of the computer and music industries at this time. They're terrible things.

[robotskip]

7 ? I did it just yesterday and I think it required.. 1, or 2 max.

 

Laughing stock ? You do realise there is a real world which exists outside of this forum and the fabulous interweb where logic, reason and facts live, right ?

[Kenta]

Okay. I'll sit here on my Vista and remind myself how much more secure OS X and Linux is.

 

Hell, I think most Windows Fanboys agree that Windows is not secure.

[Guest goodtime]

Apple's website says there are 114,000 PC Viruses.

 

So far I can count the Mac OS X viruses on one of my hands.

 

Now, I am not saying that Mac viruses are not possible. In fact it would be easy to write one. It could be a phishing virus, a key stroke recorder, a virus that phones home and sends personal information without your knowledge, a malware virus that clicks on ads off screen, a virus that swaps out the kernel, takes over and all bets are off. Now most of these viruses would probably require the user to enter their password. One way to get the Mac victim to enter there password would be to modify a multi pkg installer as add in a custom package that inserts the virus. Put the hacked software up on a torrent site (make it a popular program like iLife) and you've got yourself a pool of users.

 

While Mac viruses are entirely possible. Mac hackers that I know are not malicious. They are more interested in figuring out what makes OS X tick from a curiousity level than from a destructive force level. Many PC hackers are interested in controlling a botnet and using their skills to make money. There is a big difference between the average Macintosh hacker and a PC hacker. Don't get me wrong, I am sure there are PC hackers that work for the forces of good and not evil. I am just saying that I don't think there are many Mac hackers that try to hurt someone's computer or try to take a computer over. Plus, many IT departments are afraid of Macs, and I assume many Windows/PC only hackers are afraid of Macs as well. Market share is too low for most bad hackers to worry about Macs. I think that is why there are not many Mac viruses. Think different. Use the force, Luke.

 

gt

Edited February 8, 2007 by goodtime

[solaar]

Once again, an OS with a price tag of Vista Ultimate and a development span of 5.something years should be expected to be literally the Fort Knox of the OS'es, the incarnation of security. Anything less would be a rip off.