digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Mac OS X with 100 bugs still safer than Windows?

zdnet.com.au — Apple has plugged around 100 vulnerabilities in OS X so far this year but the malware threat to Mac customers is "insignificant" compared to users of Microsoft Windows, according to several antivirus industry experts.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • kinglenster, on 10/11/2007, -39/+12Get OS X running on a crap PC and then they can talk about competition.
    • xSeg, on 10/11/2007, -14/+6hey, are you dumb or do you just live under a rock? go to you tube and type in OS X Dell. There are tons of videos of people running OS X on a PC. And OSX would run faster and better than widows wil on the same computer.
    • WiseWeasel, on 10/11/2007, -4/+14Nicely done! Piss off Mac and PC users at the same time; apparently not a successful tactic... Too bad you left Ubuntu and Ron Paul out...
      • theonlyvlad, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5oh so now we only post what others like to hear? nicely done yourself.
  • rpgmaker, on 10/11/2007, -38/+32I don't know why some people argue that Windows is more secure than Linux/MacOS/BSD or any unix for what matter. Simply there's no point. Anyone that have the basic knowledge about the OS architecture know this. To Windows be more secure than any OS it needs to be rewrited from its core *for real*, not like the Vista fiasco. Microsoft, right now, is unable to do this, the company is too bloated and sick.
    • fjc8, on 10/11/2007, -24/+14What do you know about Windows NT internals? Nothing? Then shut the ***** up about things you know nothing about.
      • rpgmaker, on 10/11/2007, -9/+17What do YOU know about Windows NT internals? What version of windows is most secure than any Unix, if you can point at least one then a I shut the ***** up.
        • HunterTV, on 10/11/2007, -3/+15NERD FIGHT!
        • fjc8, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9I did not say that Windows is more secure than any Unix. I questioned your knowledge of Windows NT internals since you clearly know nothing about it beyond typical internet luser nonsense. Not understanding all of this appears to be the problem not only for trolls on the Internet but also for some third-party developers that don't pay quite enough attention.

          I know that Windows NT ("the core") has a very advanced ACL system that could protect many resources (more advanced than POSIX ACLs, comparable to NFSv4 ACLs as seen on ZFS) that effectively could be used to keep nearly all security vulnerabilities for actually touching anything beyond what that application should be allowed to touch. But too many processes run overpriveleged. That's basically it. It's got little to do with the core of the operating system.

          For example, when IIS4/5 were widely exploited at the beginning of the decade (with the % signs and numbers that allowed arbitrary commands), why did IIS have permission to run outside processes as CGI at all? Why were they privileged enough to install worms?

          Why do things that do not need to run in the background or have complete system access (such as licensing daemons) get implemented as services? And for things that must/should be ran as services, why are they ran with accounts that have access to the entire system?

          If the existing ACL functionality was actually implemented properly & perhaps expanded slightly, it would solve a significant amount of Windows issues. Not enough software does this today. Many of Windows NT 6.0 security changes do exactly that.

          How many network services on a Unix system run as root long enough for something major to happen? (Not too many.) What's the worst that usually happens when something like Apache or MySQL gets hacked? Some websites might get defaced or some cracker might use the box to do illegal stuff. But the system itself won't be violated; just the set of files/directories that the hacked application can write to.
          Nearly every daemon on my server runs on nonroot while doing actual work; apache runs as www-data, various parts of the email system have their own users, etc.
          Domains that run as root normally do so only because they have a need to launch processes as other users or access other user's files.

          When services in either operating system are given much more permissions than they actually need, or if local exploits make it easy for restricted processes to break out from their permissions, bad things happen...regardless of the operating system.
        • natenovs, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2people need to remember, malware doesn't have to run as root. most spyware doesn't run as root, and if it does, it doesn't use an exploit to get there, it just asks the user. there's more to the security argument than premissions and protection. currently, osx and linux is more secure simply because of the fact that there is less malware written for them. that does not mean they are better oses. an unlocked house in new hampshire is still safer than a locked one in dorchester.
      • TehDoctor, on 10/11/2007, -5/+6Windows doesn't have real file permissions and doesn't solidly implement separation of user/admin accounts (the UAC garbage in Vista is a joke). Microsoft and Apple's OS, and several Linux distros leave ports open. The interdependencies in Windows are ridiculous. I've fixed a computer on which Explorer completely died (no taskbar, no desktop) by upgrading the web browser.

        Until Microsoft can change these fundamental design flaws, Windows is not going to be secure. The code could be great, but the design is poor. I'm not saying Mac or Linux is perfect, because you can do horrible things with them as well, one example being the ability to get a root shell with only 30 or so bytes of perl code, but they have a better design.
        • MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7You're wrong on the first two points. Windows DOES have real file permissions. You'd be right in saying that seperatiion of rights was laughable in XP, but it's quite good in Vista. Processes can run at 6 different levels, and thus far, it has actually prevented one exploit from working (The ANI exploit + Protected Mode IE)
        • Tsen, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The problem is, they haven't patched everything. Privilege escalation exploits still exist, and the end user experience is generally that UAC is over reactive. The superuser/administrator setup in UNIX is undeniably as good or better than NT's, and manages to do so without annoying users nearly as much as UAC does.
    • jimic79, on 10/11/2007, -2/+19did you use the word rewrited? just checking...
  • geoken, on 10/11/2007, -26/+102Sometimes I think MS is unfairly attacked in these pieces. They come out with a new OS, which is excluded from most of the recent security bulletins I've seen, yet their current performance is still bieng judged by their last-gen OS. I think articles like this should specify what OS they're talking about (ie XP or Vista).
    • cjpro, on 10/11/2007, -15/+7Their last-gen OS still has many more users tan Vista. Therefore, the article pertains more to XP users as that is still the dominant OS. The only Vista user I've run into so far is one that was asking me if it was possible to downgrade to XP.
      • trippinlikegod, on 10/11/2007, -9/+7Why in gods name would you want to downgrade to a slower, less secure, and uglier OS?
        • threemagic, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5So you can accomplish things.. real things.. searching for drivers and apps that work is not accomplishing.

          I am an OS X user and I like Vista.... Vista just needs time is all, when the hardware and software vendors catch up it'll be just fine
        • mysteri0usdrx, on 10/11/2007, -9/+4wow if you think vista is faster then xp you are sadly mistaken
          • MaxwellTD, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6vista IS faster than XP, everything loads faster in vista, the only thing that is not faster is games, which are a little slower...
        • MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Less secure? In the 8 months since Vista's RTM, have you heard about a serious exploit other than the ANI one? And guess what, the ANI exploit affected all versions of windows, as was thwarted by Vista's default security settings (UAC and Protected Mode IE)
        • MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Damn. I need to read better. I thought you were being sarcastic, and talking about "downgrading" to XP, like 99.9% of digg users. Stupid me, sorry Trippinlikegod.
      • javaroast, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Cipro that is just ridiculous logic and I'm not even Microsoft supporter. Maybe they should compare with Vista as it's the latest OS and it's installed base is not exponentially larger than OS X ... yet.
    • OrangeTide, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Tiger has been out for over two years, not fair to compare Tiger to XP ? XP is about 3 years older, you'd think they'd have time to address malware issues. And to be fair, Microsoft has attempted to fix many issues, but malware authors have always been a few steps ahead of Microsoft. Which is the largest software company in the world, which employs thousands of software engineers, and hundreds of security experts.
    • fuegosecret, on 10/11/2007, -7/+0Simple. Vista isn't new. Its the same lame (ok, not lame... just OLD, outdated) kernel with a slick interface. All they really did was make XP even prettier... that's really all Vista is, and XP is really just Win2K, and Win2K is really just NT. All M$ is doing is repackaging the same old thing.
      Now... Singularity
      http://research.microsoft.com/os/singularity/
      has potential.

      Also... just fyi... XP matches up with Panther, not Tiger. Jaguar matches with Win2K, Tiger matches up with Vista... and Leopard is just way ahead of the game (even before release).
      • FutureGuy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3vista kernel is a significant improvement over xp
        http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1931914,00.asp
        live and learn
      • geoken, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2If you're going to refute my point why don't you adress my reasoning for saying the two aren't the same (namely; the fact that recent security bulletins have excluded vista). For example, there was a story that hit the front page a few days ago about a trojan that re-directs people to iPhone related phishing sites. The trojan affected Windows 98, 2000, XP, 03 but not Vista. This seems to be the recent trend where security threats don't affect Vista. Even the .ani bug didn't affect a properly running Vista system.

        The cross platform Quicktime bug? It effected every version of Windows, as well as OSX, but didn't affect a properly running Vista/IE7
    • qualar, on 10/11/2007, -5/+0Don't be so stupid.
  • fpcyber, on 10/11/2007, -30/+21If OS/X was the most sold OS, you can bet that Microsoft would destroy the league in security. Hackers should focus on OS/X for a bit, they may have some more fun.
    • xSeg, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4oh god, not this stupid argument. what do you think people run on servers? GNU/Linux Distros and Unixes like solaris and BSD. Don't you think taking out the internet would be a good target? even digg runs debian. your dumb.
      • Nitrodist, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Wtf are you talking anbout. The poster doesn't even mention servers at all.

        No, "your" dumb.
        • threemagic, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3He's not dumb, he's got a very valid point. People always use the "well there's more MS users out there so that's why hackers hack it" but in the server world there are many more unix/linux boxes that are within sites of hackers yet they don't have the same problems.
        • bIuebonics, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6@threemagic
          yea, because there have never been hacked linux servers... right...
      • Kazbaeden, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Any decent server is secured and maintained by professionals. The only kind of attacks you're going to pull on them aren't the same type that affects Windows XP, which usually find their way onto a system by downloading and installing something. Some of the world's most highly visited sites run on Windows Server and they're not dropping like flies left and right. In fact they're very stable and very secure severs.
        • Herolint, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You're right. Personally, I don't have too many issues with Windows Servers with regards to stability anymore. However, all of the security and stability issues I have had have been with Windows servers. Also, having worked with Windows, Linux, Solaris, AIX, Netware, and HP-UX servers, unix-like servers are a heck of a lot easier to manage and maintain; which may be the root cause of many Windows problems.
  • lordtyros, on 10/11/2007, -34/+28"but he suggested that OS X users were also safer because of the lack of attention from criminals."

    Note to Mac users: No one gives a ***** about you.
    • joshpar, on 10/11/2007, -13/+16fine with me...

      That little slam is like saying no one gives a ***** about me, so I don't get shot at. Is that so bad???
      • LemmingJesus, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5It is if you like playing games.
        • Xyc0, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Should I direct your attention to the recent announcement of EA's Mac lineup?
        • JonnyTrombone, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Xyc0, don't get too excited over that. EA isn't a very good company- I know they've run one of my favorite series (Command & Conquer) into the ground.
        • LemmingJesus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Oh, EA? Quality stuff right there.
        • threemagic, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1What games? Is there a game you play that I can't (keep in mind I can boot into Windows directly if I wish). Although I never understood why games are an argument for what computer to buy...
          • Speed, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Because, if you like playing games on your computer, which are you more likely to buy? The one that can't play very many games, or the one that can?
      • trippinlikegod, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Bootcamp?
        • meatmcguffin, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Glorified games console. Exactly how WIndows should be used :)
      • PsychoDeli, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5Thing is, once you start using bootcamp to boot into windows...something happens...you become a WINDOWS user...doesn't really matter that u are running it on overpriced Apple hardware at that point...
        • TastyLamp, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Pffft it's not like the Windows installs running on Boot Camp are legal.
    • coolfactor, on 10/11/2007, -7/+9Grow up please. There's enough negativity in this world. We don't need your small penis contributing to it.
  • digitallysick, on 10/11/2007, -17/+9Well lets say i wanted to screw up some stuff, i would rather invest my time in a windows exploit, if i want to cause some damage. More people run windows, so you attack windows. who ever hacks the mac, will be very 31337, and get the recognition. But, its simply not worth the time at this point to try it

    look at the people that discovered the airport wireless hack, i bet you apple paid them off big $$$$$$$ to keep that quiet, while they released a patch
    • threemagic, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1it wasn't an airport wireless hack.. it was a hack on the airport card.. and it was a hack of the code on the card which was on several wireless cards at the time. No one covered it up but it was certainly made into a myth that idiots believe.

      If you wanted to screw stuff up, why not take on the linux servers on the web? There are way more of them than any other.. you'd get recognition AND it would be worth your time..(that would be a valid argument against your "well there's more" crap.
    • meatmcguffin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3"who ever hacks the mac, will be very 31337, and get the recognition. But, its simply not worth the time at this point to try it"

      You have no idea what hacking really is, do you? It's not about the reward or how much damage you can do - that's straight out of a crappy movie. Hacking is about trying something new and testing your skills. There's no fun in breaking windows for the millionth time and you can bet that people are trying to hack OS X to pieces as we speak. To say that "its simply not worth the time at this point to try it" goes against the entire point. The point of hacking something is because it exists.

      "look at the people that discovered the airport wireless hack, i bet you apple paid them off big $$$$$$$ to keep that quiet"
      Why? The airport hack was in a third party card which has nothing to do with Apple and seeing as they couldn't repeat the experiment with an first party airport card, i doubt Apple really cared too much. The exploit gave Apple the idea to check their own wireless cards but the hole they patched was still undiscovered at the time.
  • supermanred, on 10/11/2007, -51/+78Anyone who knows anything about OSes knows that Windows is insecure at its core. It's like making a building out of styrofoam. No matter what you do to fix the patches, some other ***** is just going to show up with a knife or spoon and get in. OS X and Linux are like buildings made of steel and concrete. You need a rocket launcher or a Knight 2000 to get through the walls.

    And yes, I challenge anyone to set up a Windows XP box WITHOUT ANTI-VIRUS. Patch it so its up to date and I'll set up an out-of the box OS X machine right beside it (without patching the 100 or so security holes) and we can surf some ***** on the internet and see who goes down first.

    • mikesty, on 10/11/2007, -10/+57It isn't unfeasible to run XP sans virus scan. Use FireFox with adblock, browse cleverly, and you're set.
      • Xyc0, on 10/11/2007, -15/+5So you think. Security through obscurity is not security.
        • Giever, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Er, that seems like it should be a reply to supermanred, as opposed to mikesty..
        • TenebrousX, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6that's not what that means. At all.
      • DanThePainter, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Browse cleverly, you say. You've never had a teenager use your machine, I'd surmise.
      • Zippo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4You could easily surf the web with Safari, the browser included with OS X, surf some nasty websites, and not run into trouble.
        I wouldn't want to try that with IE.
    • stickittothemon, on 10/11/2007, -12/+9This point has already been defeated by the comment above stating "no one give a f about you." Because of this naturally xp would be the first to get infected. PS: im a mac user by the way.
    • Reziarfg, on 10/11/2007, -5/+40What the hell are you talking about? Challenge me?! None of my XP machines have had any of that bloated virus protection. I just surf smart and use decent browsers. The big faux pas of windows was so closely integrating their browser with their OS. While I disagree with having users setup as administrators by default, their operating system isn't that defunct.
      • threemagic, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4I have os x and do what I want and go where I want on teh web without worry...

        • MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I have Vista, and protected mode IE7. I go where I want on the web without worry. Nothing can touch me. (Go on, try to find a single instance where protected mode IE was totally thwarted.)
        • drilldown, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Running Firefox with condoms, you can never be too safe. Vista is the only system that figured out how to run my system with no drivers from the get-go. Life is good. I keep IE around as bait.
    • scapermoya, on 10/11/2007, -12/+6yeah? if you know so much about OSes, what is it exactly that makes windows so insecure? you don't know *****. microsoft has made some boneheaded mistakes in the past (activex anyone?), but just because its called windows doesn't mean its made out of 'styrofoam'. nice analogy, retard
      • meatmcguffin, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I'll make this simple for you :

        When the switch to OS X came, the entire thing was ported from the nextstep project. This meant it was solid, tested code but essentially the whole thing was rewritten from scratch. The core of OS X is many years old but it's open source - ever since its creation it's been checked thousands and thousands of times until you end up with an incredibly stable and secure OS that everyone can use and improve. Legacy support was for the previous generation only; OS9 applications were run in a sandbox environment which meant that security flaws couldn't 'get into' OS X.

        XP, on the other hand, is built on top of a core which is many years old but is still the same core that ran underneath operating systems famed for their bugs and insecurities and viruses. They had the chance to scrap everything and start again but MS decided not to, but instead shoehorn a 'pretty' GUI onto an aging system. Worse of all is that its closed, no-one outside of MS can see the code which means no one can check it without MS losing developers from other projects, something they can't afford to do.

        The very worst thing MS did was to keep legacy support going back as far as pre-32bit DOS. This is where the styrofoam analogy comes in. Seeing as the legacy support is hardwired into the OS and not sandboxed, it leaves clutter and mess and ten years of code upon code upon code is difficult to check but dangerously easy to hack - it leaves too many holes. Hence the swearing when MS told the world that Vista would not be the complete rewrite everyone had hoped for.
        • MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2XP was built on the proven codebase of Windows NT. In the era that followed, it was decemated by a lack of their ability to take security seriously during its first few years, but they've fixed nearly all of those problems with Vista.
        • bobbyi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Cliff's notes: OS X is based on old software (BSD and NextStep). Therefore it is secure and well tested. Vista is based on old software (NT). Therefore it is buggy and insecure.
    • fatdog789, on 10/11/2007, -10/+34I don't run antivirus. I don't run a firewall. I don't run any security program. I use Windows XP. I'm still virus free.
      Hell, my mom's computer doesn't run any security and it's still virus free five years later.
      How is this possible?

      Common ***** sense: don't visit filesharing sites or porn sites. That'll cut out 99% of the ***** out there.
      • HunterTV, on 10/11/2007, -0/+37"don't visit filesharing sites or porn sites"

        Okay, just calm down, let's not talk crazy talk.
      • threemagic, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10How do you know?

        (this is a very important question)
      • tdowling, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13Yeah, I have to ask too: how do you know that you're virus free if you don't have software checking for viruses?
        • vanden9, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You can take a look at string commands in the window registry..For virus and such stuff tho it kinda hard...
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Yeah without any security program how do you know there aren't like a million worms and trojans running on your box right now?
        • Darcy, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3Why would there be? If you're not a complete idiot, you shouldn't have a problem with worms, Trojans etc. I've been running Windows machines with anti-virus for years, and I've never had a virus problem. Why would I suddenly start having problems now I'm not running anti-virus?

          And how do the Mac, and Linux users know that their machines are not infected with millions of worms and Trojans, if they don't run anti-virus software? There's no shortage of exploitable vulnerabilities in those platforms.
      • 35263526, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2To the people asking how he knows; he knows because there aren't any noticeable effects.

        If he does have 'a million worms and trojans' but they're not doing anything bad, it doesn't matter in the slightest. I ran XP without AV and just Windows Firewall for over two years without issue before I switched to Linux. It wasn't dangerous in the slightest because I knew what I was doing. Virus-writers exploit user stupidity far more than the OS codebase.
        • thinkdifferent, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Not exactly. A virus doesn't have to be doing anything malicious on your machine to be a problem. It could turn your machine into a spam node, or could install a keylogger to get access to your financial information. The harm of both of those types of viruses (spyware) do nothing directly to your computer, but have huge potential harm external of it.
        • mattprice, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"If he does have 'a million worms and trojans' but they're not doing anything bad, it doesn't matter in the slightest."

          Wooo, wait a minute there. Just because it's not doing anything to his computer doesn't mean that it's not harming other computers, or that it's not stealing your information. Ever heard of botnets? You might not notice it running, but it could still be sending out spam, performing DDOS attacks, and other malicious things.
      • jcostom, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2And I suppose you've never visited a regular, average site, like say the one for Dolphins Stadium that was passing out malware to thousands upon thousands of PCs just before last year's Super Bowl, eh? That's not an isolated incident either. Lots of drive-by malware installs by regular, average websites that have been cracked, but not defaced. Pop a well-trafficked site, insert malware code, wait. Blammo - instant bot army.
    • houndeyex, on 10/11/2007, -13/+5The fact that Windows allows you to run large amounts of software is what makes it vulnerable. No one writes ***** for mac, so there's nothing to crash it. Don't go acting all secure just because your mac runs a blank OS.
      • wordsofwisedumb, on 10/11/2007, -6/+8I'm running OS X and right now and have been for over 3 years. My applications folder has almost 600 unique applications in it. There are thousands more that I have no need for. I have never had a virus, I have never had any spyware. I do not and never have run an antivirus program. I do not run any anti-spyware software. I am not careful about where I go on the internet.

        I do agree partially with one of your statements, "No one writes ***** for mac". Most developers do not write "*****" for Mac, they write very nicely polished applications. The only software I have ever had take my system down was using a kernel extension which is a risky type of software. Every other application I have ever had crash only crashes itself instead of taking down everything with it like a house of cards.
      • MacParrot, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3What's sad is that you really believe this.
      • threemagic, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2my mac runs all sorts of software.. including vmware that runs windows and it's ton of programs..
      • meatmcguffin, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4I take it you've never touched a mac. I have 370 apps in my apps folder right now and there's about fifty updates or new programs per day listed on http://www.macupdate.com/

        I bet you've used Winders all your life and think Linux looks exactly like DOS, right?
    • zeptobyte, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7I don't use anti-virus software and I don't have any problems.
    • Dotmeister, on 10/11/2007, -9/+8Actually I've been using a XP box for nearly 3 years without any anti-virus nor firewall (only the XP one) on it. Zero infections since then. The only thing it gets is a fresh reformat every 2 months. As mikesty said, you just need to be carefull on what you do on the internet. That and know what's in your computer. I know that when the computer is idle it has exactly 16 processes running, one more and I go psycho trying to figure what's going on. Remember, is is your computer and it should only do what you want it to do.
      • mysteri0usdrx, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13holy sh1t a reformat every 2 months?
      • sp1keNARF, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11"t gets is a fresh reformat every 2 months"

        lol
      • meatmcguffin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6What kind of operating system in this century needs a reformat every two months to work correctly? Hell, my mac mini has an uptime record of more than that.
        • zdiggler, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1Yeah, because you mac don't got ***** for software to run. No Video card drivers to install because you can't upgrade it. You can't buy generic memory nor buy cheap MB that may or may not work.. lol.

          • meatmcguffin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4You really think people would buy macs if there was no software for them? Wake up.

            And you can use whatever RAM you want in a mac and i'm assuming by MB you mean hard drives, in which case you can put whatever hard drives you want in them too. The mini takes a laptop drive.

            If you're going to regurgitate crap from the net, you might as well make it accurate.
          • MacParrot, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4The sad thing is that you really have no idea how stupid you sound.
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Reformat every two months... replace the hard drive every two years...lol
      • grumpyrain, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Reformat every 2 months? I wouldn't even need to restart XP that often if not for patch tuesday (although most of the time restart is not REALLY necessary).
    • foofightrs777, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10I'm guessing that none of the Windows users commenting here run their machine on a network of any size. On my dormitory network an unprotected XP machine would be infected within a minute or so. So please if your on a network run an antivirus. You don't have to go on a website or download a program for your PC to be infected.
      • bIuebonics, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1that's why you use a firewall jackass...
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1Truth.
        So all you do is use a firewall and that crap is blocked.

        And 99% of those vulnerabilities are useless services like messenger that can be simply shut off, closing the hole.

        Oh and if OSX has the wide spread use this would be a problem for them too.
        • gmprunner, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4"Oh and if OSX has the wide spread use this would be a problem for them too."

          Not necessarily. OSX has a lot more going for it than just a smaller user base.
      • MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Then your school is incompetant. On my school's network, nothing would happen, because if a machine is found trying to do anything, it is cut from the network.
    • JeremyBanks, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3I used a Mac now, and love it, but XP boxes aren't _that_ unsafe. I ran without antivirus while I was on windows (I won't trade half my resources for a slight bit of protection, thanks), and only one time was I affected by something that Norton could have caught. (It did on another machine.)
    • MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -5/+7I run Vista without any antivirus, and I'm perfectly fine.

      Why would anyone want to set up an XP box? It doesn't have half of the security features Vista does.
      • mattprice, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Because not everyone can afford to upgrade to Vista. Oh, sure, Home Basic is cheap, but some people need more features than Home Basic and they can't afford it.
    • bIuebonics, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4i've been running windows for a long time without anti-virus. it's not needed if you're not a complete moron. here's the secret: the 32kb teenporn.exe and poker.exe aren't porn and gambling...
    • JonLatane, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8As a recently converted Mac user, I have something I think I need to point out to XP users who say that an XP box can remain malware-free without anti-virus.

      In XP, which I used alone for 3 years (2004-2007), there is performance degredation every time you install something. Seriously. I can browse the internet in Firefox or Internet Explorer, install a legit copy of Photoshop, MS Office, the necessary power management drivers for the laptop, the necessary touchpad drivers for the laptop... well, you need to get a lot of stuff post-install in XP just to have a fully-functional system.

      By the end of this, XP is absolutely *****. It now takes over 3 minutes to get the system to sleep, and then another 30 seconds to wake up. Starting a trivial application takes WAY longer than it used to. As far as system performance goes, everything is malware in XP.

      On OSX, after installing iWork '06, some mouse drivers for my Logitech mouse, lots of illegal music, pirated Final Cut Pro, pirated Photoshop, and several freeware games... everything is the same speed.
      • MasterGrief, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1Well, apparently, you weren't doing something right.
      • FutureGuy, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1my xp laptop (3 years old) has the same software you mentioned (office, photoshop) in addition to sql server 2000, sql express, visual studio 2003, visual studio 2005, biztalk I haven't seen a noticeable performance degradation. may be I am a genius ;)
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Majority of these problems are simply because the Windows XP user is running in Administrator mode.

      Use a guest or limited user account and most attacks fail.
      • anonym41414, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4So do most attempts to, you know, work.
        • 35263526, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Someone hasn't actually tried.

          Sure, it's annoying when an application won't work in User mode, but the list of 'em is pretty small, and most aren't particularly productive programs anyway.
      • grumpyrain, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Limited user can be pretty annoying. You can't even change the clock or change between power save and peformance mode unless you play around with a bunch of ACLs. Vista is much better than XP in that respect if you leave UAC enabled. You get the benefit of running as administrator but without the risk (unless you stupidly click Allow without consideration).
      • FKnight, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yeah, I gotta change my clock all the time.
    • cynicist, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2 s
    • FutureGuy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I have run xp (2000 before and vista now) with no antivirus and never had a issue.
    • jabberwolf, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Do you READ?
      Mactards rarely do.

      The report said it was SAFER, not because it was more secure, but because malware and viruses were INSIGNIFICANT!! Meaning = they can BE crud at security because no one cares about a very small percent of the market share!

      SO MS has to be superior, and MAC, because of insignificance must be INFERIOR !
      At least concerning viruses among many other things.
  • wildfire, on 10/11/2007, -3/+76Malware = software installed by idiot trying to get free porn/games/movies/money
    • MalDON, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Look at the people who visit MySpace. They wouldn't show the "free smilies" ads if they didn't work.
    • Tenoq, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Here's a one-liner that explains why OS X & Linux-based systems are more secure than their Windows counterparts:

      "Vulnerabilities != Exploits"

      Sure OS X or the various flavours of Linux might have patched more 'security' flaws than Microsoft recently, and even if we assume for a moment that MS is disclosing all their flaws fully, the fact remains that no-one is exploiting Linux/OSX vulnerabilities. If there's no viruses or worms designed, there is no security threat. So by definition, OS X & Linux are safer for the masses to use.

      For now. :-)
      • wildfire, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1Go back to playing solitaire.
        • jaxcs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I think tennog is right. I have no idea what your response is supposed to mean. Even if OSX and Linux has a 1000 vulnerabilities, if virus creators do not exploit them, preferring to work instead on the dormant windows platform, then in effect, OS x is safer, even if it is not due to inherent technical superiority.
        • wildfire, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Safer to use perhaps, but not as popular (for users and developers).
  • catfish182, on 10/11/2007, -15/+78blah blah blah MS sucks
    blah blah blah apple blows.

    Who ***** cares already.
    I use at home XP, Vista, OS 10

    They are all fine cuase i dont do stupid ***** on the computer. Some things suck on each while other things are cool.

    • stockjones, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Amen. Dr Common Sense has spoken.
    • cynicist, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Most of you saying that only morons get infected are hiding behind hardware firewalls. (routers) Connect your machine directly to the internet and see how long it takes...
      • FKnight, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3If you don't have a firewall in front of your computer, regardless of OS, you /are/ a moron.
  • christopherRB, on 10/11/2007, -13/+7Nothing is safe. If your using any OS and think your safe, your wrong.
    • Giever, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6I'm running Windows XP! It's locked in a vault 200feet underground with no internet, just running the Flying Toasters over and over and over and over..
  • mtotten, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1Wildfire, there are plenty of 'safe' ways to get any of that stuff, free, and NEVER get malware.
  • silverwolf761, on 10/11/2007, -14/+9Security through obscurity
    • shaungc, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8...is a myth
    • warragul, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0Yes, that's why we don't have secret passwords... Oh wait!
      The best way to keep a secret is not to let anyone know you have one.
  • petereality, on 10/11/2007, -3/+36how many times must we rehash the same old arguments
  • NnyCW, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1Anyone with any knowledge of how to handle a computer doesn't have this problem with Windows even with as much floating around as there is that could infect it.
    Also, the fact that there are so many is because people and businesses actually use Windows in such a large amount. OSX or a Linux distro ever get to make that claim, I'll bet my very life they'll have the same "security problem" Windows is so famously known for among the anti-Windows group.
    • MacParrot, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"Anyone with any knowledge of how to handle a computer doesn't have this problem with Windows even with as much floating around as there is that could infect it."

      This is very true. People who know how to use Windows properly don't have problems with all the Malware and viruses out there. Unfortunately, most people who use Windows DON'T know how to do this as evidenced by the millions of bot-infected PCs.

      The argument that Macs or PCs are better is pointless. People will use what they prefer and no amount of BS thrown at the wall will convince someone to switch. Stop rehashing this stupid garbage.
  • DMBmelch, on 10/11/2007, -14/+8(Insert Any OS Here) with 100 bugs still safer than Windows?

    Indeed
    • itsinmyeyes, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Haha, I like this because it's really funny, yet really true.
  • scapermoya, on 10/11/2007, -11/+4maybe that's because no virus writer will make malware for someone with no market share? i'm no windows fan, but this BS about OS X being INHERENTLY safer is hogwash.
    • Xyc0, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1The inherently lies with the architecture. Flying below the radar just keeps you safe from random fire.
      • scapermoya, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3meaning what? what is it about the OS X architecture that is safer?
        • meatmcguffin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Open source kernel. The OS is broken into small, manageable chunks. Doesn't run potentially dangerous legacy code from ten years ago. Doesn't automatically run as superuser. Unix-like architecture including permissions and a divisions between root and admin. The whole OS is fresh from six years ago, the Windows core was getting on in years when OS X came out. Anything i've missed?
          • FKnight, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1as far as software running as admin ....


            ...if software vendors were intentionally ignoring Apple development guidelines, like they intentionally do with Windows development guidelines, most of the Mac software would come with instructions that say 'you must be administrator to use this program' too.

            It's not the OS's fault when developers can't read.
  • petereality, on 10/11/2007, -3/+20how many times must we rehash the same old arguments
    • avihappy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Why is Digg ***** up so badly with all these double posts?
    • geoken, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Get ready for a lot more. Leopard promised a lot but delivered little. Apple fanboys are on defensive seek and destroy mode. Every anti-MS story in existence will be found and submitted. They'll even go so far as to submit their anti-MS stories into the Apple section to ensure they get dugg.
      • cerealman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Still waiting to see what's so special about Leopard. I'm seeing posts on Digg that talk about new things coming in Leopard. It includes things like rounded menu corners and document previews.

        Things that have been on Windows for a LONG, LONG time.
  • Nick22, on 10/11/2007, -10/+4If things were the other way around, and OSX had the majority market share that windows has, I garuntee it wouldnt be as secure as people seem to think it is. Same goes for linux or any other OS
    • MacParrot, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4Well I feel better since you garuntee it.
  • wjackson, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10"The Mac maker has plugged security flaws that could have resulted in OS X customers being "owned" by basic actions such as visiting a malicious Web site, watching a video file or opening an e-mail attachment."

    "owned"? Srsly?

    • Ladon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2They mean controlled. Not 'pwned, bitches' like some idiotic fps lover.
  • everfresh59, on 10/11/2007, -4/+32I gave up with Windows and OSX and went back to Pencil and Paper v.3.453
    • MacParrot, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3Look out for the SharpenerBOT virus. It results in your write capabilities being reduced every time it's accessed.

      Like Windows? Hey that's great. Like Linux? Wonderful. Like OS X? Way to go!

      Use the tools that gets your tasks done and stop whining about who has a bigger ePenis you idiots
  • wonderchemist, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4Could it be malware authors are just too lazy to learn a new platform?
    • dippyskoodlez, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2They're too lazy to actually have to LOOK for a vulnerability rather.
  • chuuchdizzle, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8did they just say "owned"??.....really??....lame...
  • trunkster, on 10/11/2007, -1/+23You would think a hacker would want first blood for a major OSX worm if it was possible.
    • scapermoya, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7except that 'worms' require a certain density of the system in question. is there aren't enough computers on the internet running the operating system with the hole in it, then the worm can never propagate. microsoft has so much trouble with worms because, given a random IP address, its VERY likely that it is a windows box.
      • meatmcguffin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1There was a proof of concept a few years back that ran via propagation through iChat but it involved about eight very specific actions the user had to take and you then had to ignore about three warnings that OS X gave you. That's about the closest anyone's come to a worm so far.
    • houndeyex, on 10/11/2007, -7/+6He'd crash all 5 macs on the local network and the worm would run out of food. Way more fun for them to crash Windows, since people like... use it.
      • meatmcguffin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3You are aware that roughly one in twenty computers is a mac right? And if you take away the HUGE numbers of those being used as work machines, the mac personal market share is pretty large.
    • threemagic, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3well given 60-70 percent of windows boxes are run behind a server in a corporation.. I'd be the home user market if probably fairly close. I know which home user group would get the worm and who wouldn't

      BTW try writing a worm for linux.. since the majority of web servers are linux based and they are open to the world by default..it'd spread.. but it doesn't happen
      • bIuebonics, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2hasn't happened in a while, but it has happened. linux isn't invulnerable...
    • geoken, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3You say that as if OSX exploits haven't been developed - they have. First blood has already been drawn. The problem, as scapermoya pointed out, is that the worms can't propigate due to the ultra low population of OSX based machines.

      It's like a virus which only spreads between green eyed people with black skin vs a virus that spreads between anyone with dark hair. Virus A will probably die before the host even comes in contact with another suitable host. Conversely, the host of virus B comes across multiple suitable hosts on a daily basis.
  • juiceman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13YAWN............
  • schoate09, on 10/11/2007, -6/+8OMG with this stuff, let's compare Apple's 2001 OS then. Sure, maybe that was secure, but it sucked. Xp adapted, and besides, Vista's out now, use the current stuff.
  • eliasg, on 10/11/2007, -8/+23Let's see...
    Windows = Users are Admins by default
    Mac/*Nix = Users are NOT Admins by default, and in most cases the root account is disabled.
    • scapermoya, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9this isn't the case with Vista, and i'd like to see which operating system you are referring to that has root 'disabled', whatever that means.
      • MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Indeed. Under Vista, you're a "Protected" Admin. In this case, you're protected by UAC. The first person who replies to me with a "The average user will just click continue" doesn't grasp the primary benefit of UAC: running processes with least privledges under normal circumstances.
        • meatmcguffin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1"The average user will just click continue" doesn't grasp the primary benefit of UAC"

          UAC, in theory, is great and not running as admin by default anymore is a relief but this is what you end up with. MS should have at least put an OS X style system in where you have to put your password in for privilege escalation, it makes you think about what you're doing before you agree to anything.

          Lowered privileges or not, the crux of the problem is that if you're going to raise it for anything that requests a sudo, its just like having no protection at all.
        • input, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Isn't it possible to make UAC behave like this? To ask for a password? Like if you're not an admin user. Excuse me for my ignorance if I am wrong.
        • MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Of course it is. Just run as a normal user.

          The problem with that is that some XP-era software will disagree with running as a normal user, and have to be elevated, so running as a limitted user would kinda suck. I don't have any software like that, but some people do.

          But it doesn't matter. UAC can still thwart attacks even if the user blindly clicks every 'accept'. Imagine if an exploit is found in outlook. Because outlook doesn't START with admin privledges, the exploit can't do anything that would require admin privledges. There's no UAC prompt, it's just flat out denied.
      • bunnyhop45, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1They're basic UNIX, Linux commands, you n00b
      • geoken, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@nickgravelyn

        Root isn't disabled, you're just not logged in as root. Having root disabled means you type sudo anycommand and anycommand is not executed as root because it has been disabled. There is a difference between disabled root and forcing everyone to log in as a user/non-root admin.
    • Gametophyte, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3I believe that they're referring to Ubuntu. eliasq root be "disabled" isn't typical in a Nix enviroment, not to mention that OSX is based on BSD, Darwin, and Nextstep.
  • stickittothemon, on 10/11/2007, -13/+8Anybody can say what they want. There is a reason Windows is dominating the world. I can hardly imagine they day when 90% of the world will be using osx made by apple on a white imac also made by apple.
    • consonance, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Apple may not dominate, but it's good for both sides to criticize each other when they deserve it. That fosters a sense of competition and thusly leads to greater quality output. As long as the atmosphere remains professional, there's nothing wrong with friendly criticism. The problem with fanboys is that they make their attacks personal and irrational.
    • FunkyNuts, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4The reason you speak of is called "monopolistic predation".

      As for the white imac also made by Apple......Xbox 360, that's all I'm sayin.
      • silverwolf761, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3So.... Apple has a copyright on the letter "i" and on the colour white?
  • RonPaulPres2008, on 10/11/2007, -17/+10Mac fans are getting desperate. I don't know how many of these biased reports people have to see before they realize that there's some type of pro-mac conspiracy group on digg.
    • MacParrot, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4Pro-Mac conspiracy? Wow, I sure hope you aren't a typical Ron Paul supporter. Paranoid much?
      • RonPaulPres2008, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3Emo much?
        • MacParrot, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Because I realize that a fragile ego like yours could be seriously damaged when ignored, I'm acknowledging that you just made a desperate attempt to insult me. Feel better now?
    • zionKing, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"pro-mac conspiracy group"? Lol. All it takes is a little observation and you'd see most Diggers (since Digg went mainstream) are a bit hostile to the Apple folks... two years ago maybe Digg was more of a Mac/Linux lovefest but these days since Digg has gotten really popular, I see way more Mac bashing than Mac loving going on. It's kind of interesting to have seen the transition slowly happen.
  • modifiedbears, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16This the same antivirus industry that bitched and moaned when Microsoft was taking steps to make them obsolete?
    • k3vinmartian, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Is that supposed to be a question or statement?
    • zongamin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1So ***** what - you dont have a point
  • Gametophyte, on 10/11/2007, -6/+12Windows is the most widely used operating system on the market today; therefore it's a primary target for programmers who write malicious code. If OSX was in the same position, and I have a feeling that it eventually will be; I'm sure more issues would be raised with Apple's product.Security also relies on administrative knowledge and hardening, installing antivirus and a firewall simply doesn't cut it. I'm not in favor of any OS. That being said, you're giving users a false sense of security.
    • dippyskoodlez, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2It also relys on not making up useless and retarded services that run by default on a release. cough messenger cough
      • xmodem2, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Messenger service did actually have a use - to notify users in a network of outages. Shouldn't have been turned on by default, though.

        What IS a retarded service is the security center - Even when you tick the three boxes telling it not to notify you, there's still a service running in the background. Its the first thing to go when I reinstall my Windows box
    • zionKing, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7Whenever I hear this "OSX is secure because it is obscure" line of thinking... I shake my head because that's like saying I'd be safer living in a neighborhood with few houses than a neighborhood with thousands of houses... the number of homes isn't the core vulnerability... it's how secure the actual house is. I'm not saying the smaller Apple community wouldn't be a line of defense in the hypothetical case a nasty OSX virus was discovered tomorrow. What I am saying is the main retardant for OSX viruses isn't mainly a matter of popularity, but a matter of good OS design. It amazes me how many people fall into this security through obscurity fallacy.
      • Darcy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Do you really believe that security through obscurity is a fallacy? Give me a break.

        Malware creators rely on the masses of naive users to make their money, and considering the vast majority of these naive users are running Windows, then Windows is pretty much the only platform they need to target. It really is that simple.
        • input, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Do you not understand the concept of a *nix environment? Truly the OS design is better for the reason that it was built to be used by multiple users in an insecure environment (i.e. the Internet).
    • kerplunk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Boy, am I ever sick of hearing this reply.

      Windows is unsecure and vulnerable, no many how many people do or do not use it.
    • zongamin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Why do people still come out with this *****?
      • Darcy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Because it's true.

        You may not like this fact, because it doesn't fit with the 'Macs are superior' BS, but you're kidding yourself if you really believe that Windows popularity means nothing.
  • pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10it was nice not having mac vs pc debates on the front page for a while. oh well.
    • markthegoth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1better than the phone that shall not be named -shhhh but at the moment no (certain phone) stories on the digg front page !!!
    • geoken, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1What are you talking about. All the iPhone stories were simply mac vs pc debates bieng filtered through a proxy.
  • FKCommander, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5I'm still waiting for a Zune-Phone
  • wesw02, on 10/11/2007, -11/+6I'm not defending Windows, I think its a worthless OS, but I think its important for people to realize that one of the reasons windows is so exploited is because its main stream. People with malicious intents typically target what is mainstream. If Windows and OS X switched "popularity" I think its a safe bet that you would here more about OS X exploiting. Windows would probably still be the worse OS, but it's reputation may not be as bad.
    • warragul, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0Yes, popularity is the key. That's why there were no viruses for the pre-OSX Mac OSs... Oh wait!
      Windows has 95% of the market and 99.999% of the known viruses.
      • pantsbandit, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Back in pre-OS X mac days viruses weren't about money, they were about fame, and there was a little fame to writing mac viruses. Now everything malware is about money, when it comes to money, a little bit of money [mac] is never compelling against a lot of money [windows]. When an exploit is found it is usually patched the next month, it takes a lot of work to keep finding and developing these, versus using the same file/boot infector techniques in the pre-mac os x days, which is only worth it if you get a non-trivial amount of money out of the deal, which would again push the malware writer towards windows. So take your wannabe arguments and stuff 'em, because you don't know enough about this topic to address it.

  • TeamWookie, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3If OS X is so safe then Steve Jobs should have no problem letting developers write apps for iphone.
    • oyster, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Safety isn't the concern with the iPhone...stability is. As someone who spent a fair amount of time troubleshooting the PalmOS, I can tell you that smart phones loaded with 3rd party apps take a nosedive in stability. Apple couldn'thave that...not with the whole wrold breathing down its neck.
    • TeamWookie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Stability and safety are both concerns for any OS using the internet and I promise you malware is one of the reason the iphone dev team locked out 3rd party apps. If the iphone did allow 3rd party apps do you really think OS X would be immune to malware?
      • MacParrot, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1TeamWookie, I think you're wrong and oyster is right. Think about this...with all the hype surrounding the release of the iPhone (I don't have or want the iPhone with it's current config) a lot of Apple's prestige was wrapped up in this. It had to be as flawless as possible out of the gate. Once the noise surrounding it dies down, we probably will see many third-party developement for the iPhone. The good apps will rise to the top and the bad ones will sink.
  • JoEb0x, on 10/11/2007, -10/+3I agree,mac fans are getting desperate. Mac fans always get a blank stare and change the subject if you tell them that nobody hacks into macs because of it's tiny amount of users. One should not claim that their county is secure from any military invasion, based on the fact they've never been invaded before - right? So why are mac users so, um, "outgoingly" ridiculous?

    Maybe some of the anti-virus and anti-malware software companies would also like some bad beef on MS. I mean, with them focusing more on security those folks will lose business - nothing like a couple cheap shots at vista's security to keep people worred right?

    ubuntu will be bigger than mac osx..
    • mentor972, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2"ubuntu will be bigger than mac osx.."

      LOL. While I love Ubuntu. I don't think that will EVER happen.
      • MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2If someone passes out another 3 or 4 ubuntu livecds, it might happen....
  • mentor972, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3Here's the difference... Apple finds security holes and fixes them. While Microsoft gets word of holes from other companies that are trying to help them, they ignore the problems, then wait until hackers create a terrible exploit. Then they decide to release a patch... the following patch Tuesday.
  • geekee, on 10/11/2007, -9/+10The opportunity cost for writing malware for Macs is too great to bother, given the Mac market share.
    • GregR, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2It's a myth - do some reading.
      • pantsbandit, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1It's not a myth, YOU do some reading.
    • jtbndy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I approve of your economic evaluation. :)
  • oyster, on 10/11/2007, -8/+8Can we finally stop trotting out the tired "macs suck cuz theres no games" nonsense? Please? I've spent A LOT of time at my local Apple store getting a sense of what people buy and what they don't. Guess what? Mac folks don't seem to buy games. The boxes gather dust on the shelves. I was at Macworld Expo a bunch of years ago, and I remember asking a guy at the Logitech booth why it was that they didn't make a left-handed mouse. The guy put it quite plainly... "Because they don't sell." Same goes for games. Games that require a good computer (like World of Warcraft) exist and do fine on the Mac. For those who want really good games and use a Mac, they buy an XBox or PS2/PS3. Simple as that.
    • bIuebonics, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1it's too bad the 360 and ps3 won't be able to compete with computer graphics already...
    • alarik, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Sorry but ur argument makes no sense all i can make out is that ur sayin ppl dont buy apple coz of no games for mac as an excuse...but then u say ppl u see that buy macs dont wanna play games...so wheres the ppl who wanna play games? then if sum1 who has a mac and wants to play games they bought a mac which is more expensive than a pc and then also buy a ps3 or xbox, the average person is gonna buy the cheaper alternative if there gonna listen to ur recommendation.
      • MacParrot, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1My God alarik, could your argument be filled with any less comprehension? There's this new thing called grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Maybe you haven't come across it yet in whatever they call a school in your parts...sorry...mabe u hvnt com acros it yet in whutevr tey cal a scul in ur parts.
  • reverb, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Yes, it is. Because nobody figured out how to actually exploit those vulnerabilities. Besides, what's the number of vulnerabilities found in Windows over the same time period?
    • MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Vista? Far less. There have been surprisingly few exploits discovered in Vista, only one of which has been exploited, not widely, and users running with UAC were immune to it. So basically, users who didn't turn off Vista's security features were immune to the only threatening Vista exploit in existance.
      • pantsbandit, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Exactly, it's the truth you won't read in the tech blogosphere.
    • MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Vista? Far less. There have been surprisingly few exploits discovered in Vista, only one of which has been exploited, not widely, and users running with UAC were immune to it. So basically, users who didn't turn off Vista's security features were immune to the only threatening Vista exploit in existance.
      • pantsbandit, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Smart comment, and completely correct, but I thought the exploit that affected vista was stopped by protected mode in IE7, though that could be called the same as UAC, I guess.
        • MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Technically any browser can run in protected mode. Opera was considering it, I think.
  • derelicte, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1I'm afraid your statement is completely biased and false.

    Programs have bugs. Operating systems have bugs. Hackers abuse these bugs to find holes to profit themselves.

    Apple is smaller than Microsoft, but they chose a base that originated on Unix. Thus, they have a lot less trouble with bugs and can afford to fix them.

    Microsoft is the current holder of many computer standards (EXE ring a bell?) and are much bigger than Apple, with a lot more employees. They made their own base, not to mention several frameworks. On top of this, large servers with big internet lines run Windows, thus creating a profit point for hackers.

    Hackers would love to take control of several high speed EDU or GOV computers, while they would ignore the Macs.

    Unfortunately, what the person in the earlier posts said was true. Hackers still hack Linux and Unix, and quite frankly, they really don't care about Mac OS/X or Apple.

    Microsoft doesn't wait for exploits to fix bugs. They are probably getting so many bugs that they cannot fix them all, so they do critical patches on the worst ones, then figure out how to fix the worser bugs without killing half the programs that use whatever was broken.
  • aznhomig, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3I love how Apple claims that their OS is secure, despite the fact that hackers and spyware don't write their code for ***** Mac to begin with, since no one of any virtual importance uses OS X.
    • GregR, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3What about all the graphics houses, architects and writers - to name a few?
    • meatmcguffin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You can add to that a huge amount of scientific processing, publishing houses and a *massive* amount of web developing.

      Oh, and Apple's professional suite is used *a lot* to make TV programs and movies, including 300.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_cut_pro#Major_feature_films_edited_using_Final_Cut_Pro
      • pantsbandit, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0What? Sheesh, idiots, he means the hackers have to work hard to infect systems now [with protected memory, firewalls, quick patching, etc.] and only well paid hackers [I.E. windows hackers] are going to do it profusely.
  • diggnationdevon, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6I really get tired of reading articles like these. Who cares which is safer? A fact people need to focus on and recognize is that both Mac OS X and Windows can be effectively treated with security protection software.
  • wenwon, on 10/11/2007, -5/+11No operating system is totally safe. OSX is as close as you're going to get to having a rock solid safe system. The reason why the bad guys like Microsoft products is simply because it's easier for them to break into it and manipulate.
  • vvaduva, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9If it's still secure, why plug 100 holes then? To claim that any system is secure from an attacker is simply ignorant. A determined attacker can gain access to any system, regardless of OS. Stop spewing fanboy garbage and face reality...
  • kethraal, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6"I don't run antivirus. I don't run a firewall. I don't run any security program. I use Windows XP. I'm still virus free. "

    You know this how?

    Seriously though -- some of the rootkits out there are evil little bastards, and the well written ones are hard to find _even with_ the right tools, let alone without them.
    • Rodinau, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It doesn't take much if you really want to be sure, but chances are most people with some idea of what they're doing would notice. A strange process running, higher memory usage, odd crashes and notificaction if you did end up with something (e.g. even a rootkit has to install itself, which leaves a trace).

      To be certain, you can use something like HijackThis (set to turn every boot) and see what's happened to the comp;uter since you last used it, good for catching out most things. Can find the majority of everything except the nastiest rootkits (which are quite rare unless you deliberately download nasty things). Even then, there's a trace to find them. If not, just boot outside the OS to a live CD if you're paranoid there's something there. Compare the files on the hard drive outside and inside the OS to find any discrepencies to find where the rootkit may be hiding, if there is one.

      Plenty of ways to check and make sure if you really want to, but likeliness is that if you don't go downloading and running nasty things, tjhere's nothing to fear anyway, but if you want to make certain you easily can.

      When you look at viruses today, I mean it's quite humorous. I mean, look at email viruses, they seem to spread via email, with zipped attachments and some that are actually password protected and require you to enter a password from the email, unzip and then run. People do, and then get infected, and then wonder why? No OS can save people from themselves. Those that don't do that sort of thing generally have no problems, not had a problem myself for 10 years of using Windows.
  • stockjones, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3Good lord I hate these type of article's. OSX is nice but please spare me the Apple hubris stupidity. First its the MAC cant get viruses. THen its well it has 100 or so security holes but its still 100% secure. Whats next.
    • willi, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Next you learn how to write Mac correctly.
      • pantsbandit, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Wow, such a good argument, pack it up everyone, the mac users have outsmarted us, they write Mac 'correctly'.
  • kiwimonk, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3Hey.. If you have trouble with this stuff then by all means. Run osx :) I've run XP and now Vista Malware free for years. Do what cha gotta do.
  • xtraa, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6@dumbasses arguing 'it is because OS X has just about 5% marketshare':

    OS 8 had about 0.5% marketshare without the internet as we know it today. And there were tons of viruses available.
    • pantsbandit, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2OMG YOU ARE TEH GENIUS WE NEVER THOUGHT OF THAT!!@!oneone

      Look, Mac OS 8 didn't get patched constantly, obseleting virus hooks quickly, which meant there was pay off to writing viruses for Mac OS 8: you'd get your name in the cyber papers, which is why all viruses were written back then. Now windows and mac get patched quickly, necessitating that malware authors do hard work to find new exploits [or pay for them] and constantly update the codebase, etc. It's like a fulltime job now, and the only people who are going to do it are people that get maximum profits from it, I.E. attackers of windows. Do you still feel so smart, Mr. smug mac user?
      • xtraa, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1[X] I'm still feeling smart
        [ ] you got the point

    • CrankyMcGuy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Thanks for making that point, xtraa. Something people seem to forget as well is that the Mac's share may be 5% but that represents over 20 million users. That's an awful lot of bank accounts and address books filled with email addresses to tempt malware and virus writers. Anybody can write a trojan for OSX today (Download hot new Jessica Alba pictures!!! Load this FREE screensaver!) but self-propagation is not currently possible. The only computer I have that's had a virus is my PC despite my associates smugly declaring that the Mac will get a virus any day now. They've been saying that for 6 years and it still hasn't happened.

      I'm glad that Apple plugs holes regularly, even if ZDNet Australia cheers for glee each time. I like working in a secure environment and wish to continue doing so. Vulnerabilities need to be plugged so my Mac doesn't end up like my in-laws' PC - choking to death on viruses. They've lost so much data to viruses taking their PCs down. There may be guys on digg who have locked down, safe Windows machines, but they are rare and not the norm.

      There's so much more to OSX's security than obscurity.
  • richmondphotog, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2ms programming for the mac platform is so awesome. they crank out masterpieces by the dozen. in response to those saying that apple don't know how to program for windows.
  • Livewired, on 10/11/2007, -11/+2It's called 3% market share.
    • Livewired, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Go ahead and digg down. You know it's true.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.