osx is the least secure OS?

[wellington1869]

http://gizmodo.com/5593660/apple-wins-software-insecurity-world-cup

update: correction, headline should maybe read, "apple is the least secure computer?", but same idea.

[ch_123]

Better the bugs you know about than the ones you don't?

Till we have something like the Summer of Worms happening to Mac OS X, I don't buy this insinuation.

Also -

This doesn't mean that Mac OS X is the most insecure operating system, since Secunia's report doesn't take into account the nature of the problems it registers.

So yeah, it really means nothing.

[wellington1869]

Better the bugs you know about than the ones you don't?

Till we have something like the Summer of Worms happening to Mac OS X, I don't buy this insinuation.

hey, i'm just the messenger

Also -

So yeah, it really means nothing.

not sure it means nothing. people use computers holistically and assume their reliability holistically. No one buys an apple and says "i'm going to use just osx and not install anything else on it ever". Ditto with windows pc's.

[ch_123]

Then that's a problem with the over-lying software, and not with the OS itself.

Again, where are the mass failings with OS X that we have seen with Windows?

Also, in before MW and EIBM see this thread =P

[microsoft windows]

Those Mac folks oughta use Windows.

[didjamatic]

The Mac user base used to be so small and wore less hats, they weren't worth going after.  Now that is changing as they grow and they have a larger target on their back for those fishing for exploits.

[ch_123]

Given that most of the computers in the world worth hacking have some sort of Unix OS on them, it's a sign of how well it works that we don't have the same ****ups we have with Windows.

That said, Unix is not invincible, especially not back in "the day". This one always made me chuckle.

[microsoft windows]

Don't go bashing Windows.

[hyperlinked]

Then that's a problem with the over-lying software, and not with the OS itself.

What this all means in practical terms is anyone's guess. Even though the Apple share of the computing world grows by the day, it is still pretty small in the US and totally puny internationally. For that reason alone, I don't think we'll see any massive pandemic OS X outbreaks anytime soon regardless of how good, bad, or the same OS X security is. Fewer viable hosts means that it'll take longer for a virus to replicate enough to be a serious problem and security teams will have more time to isolate it. All other things being equal, it will be a lot harder for an OS X virus to hit critical mass where it starts spreading like wildfire.

...not that I take chances with my computer. I always hear people brag about how they have a Mac and don't need malware protection. Haha those fools... I just hope they get some common sense soon enough so that I don't have to worry about them being carriers of viral loads that will infect my computer a few years down the line.

[ch_123]

This of course, assumes that all other things are in fact equal. Which my experience with different operating systems tells me is not the case.

[mcdonc]

That said, Unix is not invincible, especially not back in "the day". This one always made me chuckle.

While I agree violently that Unix isn't invincible, FWIW, that story isn't about Unix.

[firestorm]

All computers are vulnerable, period.  It's tough to argue that OSX is any better or worse.  I do however tend to lean toward the surface of exposure theory myself - small target, less attacks.  Where have you seen a massive corporate network that employees Apple PCs?  If you want to do damage, you'll put your effort toward taking down endless number of networks comprised of hundreds or thousands of Windows machines, many of which are operated by less than computer savvy users and administrated by a thinned out IT field.

You can argue that 'nix based OSes are stronger, but the fact is that most Unix systems are going to be servers or at least operated by highly competent users.  They're secured and not accessing phishing scams on Facebook.  I don't know of anybody running Linux on their personal machine that isn't at least a super-user of some sort.

[wellington1869]

 I do however tend to lean toward the surface of exposure theory myself - small target, less attacks.

most of my mac friends get really angry if i suggest that. they insist its the inherent qualities of the software that makes apples more secure rather than simply being a smaller target.

tho of course this isnt the first "hacking competition" that apple has lost to linux and windows.

[hyperlinked]

All computers are vulnerable, period.  It's tough to argue that OSX is any better or worse.  I do however tend to lean toward the surface of exposure theory myself - small target, less attacks.  Where have you seen a massive corporate network that employees Apple PCs?  If you want to do damage, you'll put your effort toward taking down endless number of networks comprised of hundreds or thousands of Windows machines, many of which are operated by less than computer savvy users and administrated by a thinned out IT field.

The small target factor is certainly a big factor, but the reason why I said "all things being equal" earlier was because the low population density of OS X users isn't favorable for unchecked spreading of malware even if people were targeting OS X with equal intensity. For a disease to spread like wildfire you need a high population density of potential victims who lack immunity to your attack.

It's just like a commmon cold. The immunity part is important because if half of the population has an effective defense because it's not the raw number of computers that matter, it's the number that are defenseless. The defenseless ones will get sick first, get more sick, and stay sick longer and the more the computers with strong defenses spend around the weak ones, the more likely they too will eventually fall sick themselves.

This is why this issue is for the most part an academic exercise right now. If anyone has Apple fanboi friends that they want to piss off, go ahead, but be prepared to be mad for a long time because neither of you will be able to prove your point. You'll just get to enjoy an endless argument. Laboratory results don't always indicate what really happens, but the fact that you can't get something to happen in the real world, doesn't mean that your lab tests were wrong.

[ch_123]

This leads on to a similar issue - will OS X ever had a large market share? I think that Apple deliberately tries to keep the Mac an elitist item through their pricing and marketing strategies. I think the main reason is that marketing through snobbery is extraordinarily effective. But I think there could also be some practical elements to it - such as what is being discussed here.

[wellington1869]

This leads on to a similar issue - will OS X ever had a large market share? I think that Apple deliberately tries to keep the Mac an elitist item through their pricing and marketing strategies. I think the main reason is that marketing through snobbery is extraordinarily effective. But I think there could also be some practical elements to it - such as what is being discussed here.

well, i think thats a hard call for Apple; shareholders generally would rebel against any CEO artificially limiting his market.  I think they're enjoying the benefits of lower market share for the moment, but as apple keeps gaining (and it does keep gaining market share steadily, if slowly, each year), i dont think shareholders would take kindly to any kind of artificial suppression of that growth.  But yea, when their market share hits a tipping point tahts when the pressure on apple to improve security (and/or open up its eco system) would rise greatly.

I read in a nyt article at some point, that market experts calculated that when apple hits 19% marketshare in PCs, thats when it would become a viable target for mass security attacks (viruses, worms, trojans, spying, etc).  They calculated that as the 'tipping point'.

[audioave10]

The last info I've read was stating about 9% market share for Apple.
However, I can't attest to its accuracy.

[ch_123]

well, i think thats a hard call for Apple; shareholders generally would rebel against any CEO artificially limiting his market.  I think they're enjoying the benefits of lower market share for the moment, but as apple keeps gaining (and it does keep gaining market share steadily, if slowly, each year), i dont think shareholders would take kindly to any kind of artificial suppression of that growth.  But yea, when their market share hits a tipping point tahts when the pressure on apple to improve security (and/or open up its eco system) would rise greatly.

I read in a nyt article at some point, that market experts calculated that when apple hits 19% marketshare in PCs, thats when it would become a viable target for mass security attacks (viruses, worms, trojans, spying, etc).  They calculated that as the 'tipping point'.

Low-end Macs were something that Apple tried in the 90s, and they failed miserably. I think market share will come from people deciding to cough up the extra money as opposed to Apple going out of their way to cater for mass market demand.

[hyperlinked]

The last info I've read was stating about 9% market share for Apple.
However, I can't attest to its accuracy.

I think that's 9% in the US or maybe 10%. World-wide we're talking a number that's much much much smaller. It's hard to make a splash with a virus when only 1 out of every 10 people in one area of the world is vulnerable and only 2 out of 100 elsewhere in the world can become part of your army of infection.

[hyperlinked]

Low-end Macs were something that Apple tried in the 90s, and they failed miserably. I think market share will come from people deciding to cough up the extra money as opposed to Apple going out of their way to cater for mass market demand.

They actually tried licensing to clone manufacturers the way PC industry worked and Steve Jobs put an end to to it when he got back. The clones were of varying quality, gave Apple tech support headaches, diluted their brand, and on top of it all it cannabalized their sales.

I'm not so sure that they're steering clear of the mass market out of brand image concerns. If that was their intent, the iPad would have started at $799. One tech writer wrote that the iPad was what Steve Jobs envisioned the original Macintosh to be. It was supposed to be the dead simple computer for everyone, but it was way too expensive to effectively succeed as the everyman's computer. The iPad is the idea behind the original Macintosh rebooted.

While I don't think they're steering clear of the mass market, neither do they appear to be making any real attempt to compete for business in the low end PC market lately. They were always a step behind in competitive pricing for the low end of their products, but they seemed to always be making an effort to keep the gap modest. When every popular laptop went below a $1000 US price point, Apple finally released their own sub $1000 US laptop around a year later. At some point, it appears that they decided it's just not worth their while to keep chasing the bottom feeders.

Another contributing factor is Apple's belief in the value of clarity of messaging. One of the problems Steve Jobs had with the Apple hardware when he got back to Apple was that it was a confusing mess. There were so many variations of models that it was hard for your non-technie shopper to pick out a model. For them to really compete in the low end would mean diluting the message of their main marketing message.

[microsoft windows]

I bet if Apple let other companies make clones today they'd be much more successful.

Back in the 90's, there was no reason to use a Mac. They were made of components that lagged behind PC's, their operating system stunk, nothing was compatible with a Mac, etc. Just about every processor they used till the Intel switch stank.

[stickemup]

LOL, c'mon guys - it's misleading in the title... it should read: "Apple's software for windows is the least secure!" OS X wasn't even evaluated. It's all about software running on a windows PC.

They are stuck on writing code for OSX where the risks are so much lower, that it's no wonder they are terrible at managing security issues in their apps on Windows.

Here's the full article text:

Apple the new world leader in software insecurity
By Peter Bright | Last updated a day ago
Apple has displaced Oracle as the company with the most security vulnerabilities in its software, according to security company Secunia. Over the first half of 2010, Apple had more reported flaws than any other vendor. Microsoft retains its third-place spot. Secunia has tracked security vulnerabilities and issues advisories since 2002, producing periodic reports on the state of software. Together, the top ten vendors account for some 38% of all flaws reported.

Though this does not necessarily mean that Apple's software is the most insecure in practice—the report takes no consideration of the severity of the flaws—it points at a growing trend in the world of security flaws: the role of third-party software. Many of Apple's flaws are not in its operating system, Mac OS X, but rather in software like Safari, QuickTime, and iTunes. Vendors like Adobe (with Flash and Adobe Reader) and Oracle (with Java) are similarly responsible for many of the flaws being reported.

To illustrate this point, the report includes cumulative figures for the number of vulnerabilities found on a Windows PC with the 50 most widely-used programs. Five years ago, there were more first-party flaws (in Windows and Microsoft's other software) than third-party. Since about 2007, the balance shifted towards third-party programs. This year, third-party flaws are predicted to outnumber first-party flaws by two-to-one.

Secunia also makes a case that effectively updating this third-party software is much harder to do; whereas Microsoft's Windows Update and Microsoft Update systems will provide protection for around 35% of reported vulnerabilities, patching the remainder requires the use of 13 or more updating systems. Some vendors—Apple, Mozilla, and Google, for example—do have decent automatic update systems, but others require manual intervention by the user.

EDITED TO ADD BOLD TO THE ABOVE ARTICLE.

[stickemup]

One other note - this study also indicates just how much people are loading apple software on their PCs now!

[wellington1869]

One other note - this study also indicates just how much people are loading apple software on their PCs now!

well, apparently apple software makes your PC crash!

on the flip side, its funny how much PC software is running on Macs now (esp with parallels and etc).  One of our depts bought 30 shiny imacs to put in the lobby  - and they're all running windows  My friend in japan recently noted how in the starbucks there, its wall to wall macbooks - all running XP

[stickemup]

Maybe the hardware is less money for the same performance? It was definitely the case with my mac pro. I couldn't get a dual xeon quad core (8 cores total) box for within $1,000.00 of apple's pricing (which was under 2,500.00). That was 2 years ago (maybe longer).

[ch_123]

The Mac Pro definitely represents good value for money. Even leaving aside the sheer cost of Xeon-related parts, you get a really well designed case with it too.

Too bad they start at 2 grand and go up

[microsoft windows]

well, apparently apple software makes your PC crash!

on the flip side, its funny how much PC software is running on Macs now (esp with parallels and etc).  One of our depts bought 30 shiny imacs to put in the lobby  - and they're all running windows  My friend in japan recently noted how in the starbucks there, its wall to wall macbooks - all running XP

Wow. Those guys are stupid. If you're getting a Windows machine, why not get a computer made from all the same Chinese components as the Mac for half the price?

[hyperlinked]

Even leaving aside the sheer cost of Xeon-related parts, you get a really well designed case with it too.

Whoa, don't get all excited now. It's still no 300PL.

[wellington1869]

Wow. Those guys are stupid. If you're getting a Windows machine, why not get a computer made from all the same Chinese components as the Mac for half the price?

dont know why they went with imacs running XP's.  My only guess is that it was a high-visibility, high-traffic lobby area, and they might have figured that that was a way to attract the younger generation (lots of shiny imacs in the lobby).

[wellington1869]

Maybe the hardware is less money for the same performance? It was definitely the case with my mac pro. I couldn't get a dual xeon quad core (8 cores total) box for within $1,000.00 of apple's pricing (which was under 2,500.00). That was 2 years ago (maybe longer).

i have to admit that sometimes apple's pricing comes close to high-end pc pricing. Not always tho, since pc component prices fluctuate up and down so much. There are periods when PC pricing blows apple out of the water. Then there are periods when they come close. Lately Dell's pricing for high end i3's and i5's comes pretty close to similar-performance imacs (around $1300 w 22" monitor) (the dells' come out to about $1200).

PC prices have been trending up lately (in last few months). But like I say, it fluctuates a LOT. Last year we were getting core 2 duos (which are perfectly fine machines) with monitors for like $800.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

I'm not so sure that they're steering clear of the mass market out of brand image concerns. If that was their intent, the iPad would have started at $799. One tech writer wrote that the iPad was what Steve Jobs envisioned the original Macintosh to be. It was supposed to be the dead simple computer for everyone, but it was way too expensive to effectively succeed as the everyman's computer. The iPad is the idea behind the original Macintosh rebooted.

With all that in mind, I'm not completely joking that Apple might just dump the mac altogether relatively soon and just focus on more "consumer oriented" devices. Just port their development tools for the iOS stuff to linux and/or windows and get out of the "personal computer" market.

The only thing Apple has going for them in the PC market is the laptops. Which are pretty decent, and doing well for them, but AFAIK the iPad/Phone/Pod/Tunes stuff is much more profitable for them and they seem to have no long-term dependencies on the mac platform (compared to Microsoft, which is - currently - completely dependent on their OS and office suite) - they can just quit selling the computers and it won't affect their sales of anything else except dev tools.

[microsoft windows]

I get my PC's (and macs) for pretty cheap.

Just bought an iMac G3 to play around with for $10. It's one of the best ones Crapple ever made: 600Mhz with 1GB of RAM. However, with the crappy CPU, since it's only got a 100Mhz FSB it can't handle anything better than PC100.

[ch_123]

i have to admit that sometimes apple's pricing comes close to high-end pc pricing. Not always tho, since pc component prices fluctuate up and down so much. There are periods when PC pricing blows apple out of the water. Then there are periods when they come close. Lately Dell's pricing for high end i3's and i5's comes pretty close to similar-performance imacs (around $1300 w 22" monitor) (the dells' come out to about $1200).

PC prices have been trending up lately (in last few months). But like I say, it fluctuates a LOT. Last year we were getting core 2 duos (which are perfectly fine machines) with monitors for like $800.

When you go up into the rarefied heights of workstation computing, prices are constant - constantly expensive that is.

The only thing Apple has going for them in the PC market is the laptops. Which are pretty decent, and doing well for them, but AFAIK the iPad/Phone/Pod/Tunes stuff is much more profitable for them and they seem to have no long-term dependencies on the mac platform (compared to Microsoft, which is - currently - completely dependent on their OS and office suite) - they can just quit selling the computers and it won't affect their sales of anything else except dev tools.

Mac Pros are good. Mac Minis are good (but the new one is bloody expensive), and the iMac would be good if it wasn't so expensive.

I'd be more inclined to believe that we're going to see a touchscreen iMac sooner or later...

[microsoft windows]

Apple's craptops would be a million times better if they had a real pointing device (aka Trackpoint).

[gr1m]

If you're getting computers for a business, chances are using a Windows operating system would be a wiser choice than Mac operating systems if only because the employees are more likely used to Windows. Besides, I hate Apple software. I only install Quicktime for some streaming porn capabilities and iTunes makes me want to kill myself. I'm going to put Linux on my iPod when it becomes supported by iPod4Linux but until then, I sync it with Media Monkey. I don't think anybody likes iTunes, I think there's just either tolerating iTunes or not.

[ch_123]

I have yet to find something that offers me better usability over iTunes. I really don't like that every other music player under the sun forces you to make a play list before you can play music. It's like it punishes people who don't want to listen to the same stuff over and over again.

[gr1m]

I remember plugging my iPod into iTunes in once to put a single video on it. After it was done, I realised that everything except the video was gone. Lolwut. I still don't regret it, it's a nice piece of hardware (the second-last generation of Nano, without the camera).

MediaMonkey works well enough for me. That + VLC player and I'm set for all audio and video. I had heard Foobar was good but if it's even possible, I hated it more than iTunes. No, no, not Foobar. It was something else. Foobar is still OK. This one was voted best freeware media player of 2010 and it sucked. I forgot what it was called though.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

I have yet to find something that offers me better usability over iTunes. I really don't like that every other music player under the sun forces you to make a play list before you can play music. It's like it punishes people who don't want to listen to the same stuff over and over again.

I use rhythmbox. It doesn't suck too much, and it doesn't try to copy or delete stuff without you knowing about it.

And yes, you can just press "play". I've got only one play list and that's for parties.

[microsoft windows]

If you're getting computers for a business, chances are using a Windows operating system would be a wiser choice than Mac operating systems if only because the employees are more likely used to Windows. Besides, I hate Apple software. I only install Quicktime for some streaming porn capabilities and iTunes makes me want to kill myself. I'm going to put Linux on my iPod when it becomes supported by iPod4Linux but until then, I sync it with Media Monkey. I don't think anybody likes iTunes, I think there's just either tolerating iTunes or not.

Windows machines are also a lot cheaper. I work in a school system, an environment where hundreds of computers are used and maintained. Two of the schools use Macs, one one uses Windows. The Mac's are much more expensive, so they are replaced much less often than the Windows machines. We just got rid of the 450Mhz Imac G3's while we got rid of the 933Mhz P3's 3 years ago.

[gr1m]

Yeah but wellington mentioned that they had Mac computers with Windows XP installed on them at his workplace. That eliminates the hardware cost advantage of Windows PCs.

[ch_123]

I use rhythmbox. It doesn't suck too much, and it doesn't try to copy or delete stuff without you knowing about it.

And yes, you can just press "play". I've got only one play list and that's for parties.

I use Rhythmbox under Linux. It's kinda like a clone of iTunes really...

[microsoft windows]

Yeah but wellington mentioned that they had Mac computers with Windows XP installed on them at his workplace. That eliminates the hardware cost advantage of Windows PCs.

They probably used the Mac's to dual-boot Mac OSX and Windows. There's some like that at my workplace, but they're used for both.

[gr1m]

I do all my media browsing by artist, and I am the type that does listen to a song over and over.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

I use Rhythmbox under Linux. It's kinda like a clone of iTunes really...

A spartan, uglier iTunes. Which is an improvement, IMHO.

[microsoft windows]

Don't bother with iTunes and Mac OS. Windows 3.1's much better. It's got plenty of great features.

Once you all watch this video I'm sure you'll agree with me after all these years.

[instantkamera]

I use Rhythmbox under Linux. It's kinda like a clone of iTunes really...

yeah ... it's a POS. I cant stand all these audio players that try to index the **** out of my music collection. amarok too, can blow me.

OG xmms please (I guess audacious now). If I need to use a "smart" media player, exaile is definitely my choice.

Really just trying to steer this away from yet another hardware discussion, despite being way off-topic.
And while im there (in off-topicland) I must profess my love for gpodder.

[Input Nirvana]

Apple hating Apple lovers. Really? I just like the pictures.


 

[EverythingIBM]

I get my PC's (and macs) for pretty cheap.

Just bought an iMac G3 to play around with for $10. It's one of the best ones Crapple ever made: 600Mhz with 1GB of RAM. However, with the crappy CPU, since it's only got a 100Mhz FSB it can't handle anything better than PC100.

Hey, if I don't get the iMac G3s from my school -- would you be able to keepsafe that one. I really want one to try out warcraft 2 and caesar 3 for Mac OS9 because they're superior to the windows versions: only because they were released way later. I want one with a good tube too: I hate blurry CRTs.

I suppose I could always get something else rather than an iMac G3: but as much as I hate those computers, they still have a place in my contorted mind (certainly more interesting than other computers, and since I've used them for a long time, I'd like to use one again after all these years). Perhaps it's just reminiscing over old computers.
You have to admit, there won't be any crazy designs like the iMac G3 or 300PL cases anymore.

And I found these ergonomic iMac G3 mice, anyone else know about them? I like the swappable faceplates. Clever:

[microsoft windows]

I got the Imac just to play around with. I hate them too, but they're just funny computers.