Windows More Secure Than Mac OS X
 

Hacker: Windows More Secure Than Mac OS X

Regardless of which side you're on (though as a true computing enthusiast, you shouldn't be taking sides), you've heard the arguments back and forth on the which operating system is truly safer – Mac OS X or Windows.


It is of the opinion of Charlie Miller, a well known Mac security guru, that even Snow Leopard, the latest version of Mac OS X, isn't as safe as Windows.


One key point is that Snow Leopard still doesn't have ASLR, or address space layout randomization, which randomly arranges the position of key data making it harder for hackers to target for exploits.


Miller said to TechWorld that Apple didn't change the ASLR from 10.5 to 10.6: "Apple didn't change anything. It's the exact same ASLR as in Leopard, which means it's not very good."


Apple didn’t completely missed the chance to tighten up security in Snow Leopard though, as the new QuickTime solves a lot of the issues that Mac OS X had before.


"Apple rewrote a bunch of QuickTime," said Miller, "which was really smart, since it's been the source of lots of bugs in the past."


One thing that Snow Leopard did adapt, which Windows has had since XP SP2, is DEP (data execution prevention). With DEP, buffer overflow attacks are much harder to execute.


Despite Miller's opinion that Windows is the more secure OS, the large install based of Microsoft-based systems make them a much more attractive target for hackers. Still, Miller would like to see security on all platforms.


"Snow Leopard's more secure than Leopard, but it's not as secure as Vista or Windows 7," he said. "When Apple has both [in place], that's when I'll stop complaining about Apple's security."

Source : Tom's Hardware US

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

Switcheroo.... :D

Windows still makes me cut my wrists... If you're using your computer for top secret shit it shouldn't be connected to the internet.

Try using Windows 7 :thumbup: It'll make you smile :cool:

Charlie Miller is the guy who in 2008 hacked into a Mac in 2 minutes and won $10,000. He did it again in 2009 but it only took him a couple of seconds to hack into a fully patched MacBook.

Macs have fewer viruses because they are an insignificant target to hackers not because they are inherently more secure.

my host brother has it. It reminds me very much of the 2008 Explodition I rented... I like it, its very shiny, and clean, smells good, has some nice features and makes nice bonging noises, and works... for the first 3 months.

Then I took off the training wheels and got back on my Macbook and opened final cut and had to change my pants. oops.

I'd say on the whole, neither OS has an inherent technical advantage. There are pluses and minuses in each column, but no clear winner.
Is Apple OS X More Secure than Windows? - O'Reilly Broadcast

I know my mac can be hacked just as fast as any windows machines, but I also know in the last 3 years of having this mac I have had absolutely no problems with it except the batteries in my bluetooth mouse running out once a month...

Meanwhile I don't personally know anyone, including my parents and close friends, that hasn't had some sort of major problems with the windows machines. Whether it be XP home, XP pro, Vista, etc. Most, probably 2 out of every 3, have had to reformat and reinstall windows after major issues... usually trojan viruses.

I reiterate... I know my mac can be hacked just as easy as a windows machine (supposedly) but I know it hasn't and is 20 times less likely to.

Weasel, you are spot on!! The joy in having a mac is that it simply works. I was advised against going to a mac by my computer engineer brother in law. I think even he is now impressed (although he won't admit it) about how reliable the mac is and the fact that while it may just as easy to hack, I have had no viruses and the rest of the family has had countless.

That statement says more about the users than the computers or OS's they're using. I've been using Windows for 20 years on at least 25 different computers, both at work and at home, and I've never had a virus. Does that mean Windows is bullet proof? Absolutely not. It just means you can't blame unsafe user behaviour on the OS. It's like walking down the street waving cash in both hands. If you get robbed you really can't blame the street for being unsafe.

Fair call rayxi. I would say that I do the equivalent of "waving cash in both hands" on my mac regularly by not worrying about which sites I go to. Maybe I have just been lucky.

I'm with Mozzie on this one. I always used some cautions when it came to different sites and downloads on my windows machines and still always had viruses, about every 3 months I'd have something to get rid of... no matter which antivirus programs I had. (just by the nature of my online use) On the MAC I fell more free to just click away and have not yet had one problem... ever.

On the other hand, I am currently putting together a windows PC for my mother. I guess it all depends on your needs... just like a car.

I thought that wasnt out yet?

Well said, after owning a macbook pro for 2 years, I hate windows, which i have used all my life. Mac just flows better, and its easier to organize, and it look so much nicer!!

I have the final release by virtue of my Microsoft Technet subscription. Got it over a month ago.

BTW, buying that 1-year subscription was a better deal than upgrading to Windows 7 Ultimate and buying Office 2007.

I installed Windows 7 on my laptop a couple days ago. So far, so good. Boots up and shuts down dramatically faster than Vista. Seems stable. My only gripe has been a couple of programs that are not (yet) compatible with 64 bit Windows. If I had bothered to install 64 bit Vista on this machine instead of 32 bit, I would have had the same thing when I bought this laptop a year ago.

I have around 100 programs installed on Windows 7 64-bit. Not one of them have a compatibility issue. You must be running some "specialized" (or possibly outdated) software...

The only one, that I can think of, that I tried to install and had to remove, was Norton Utilities but I don't really need that anyway. Symantec says they'll have that one fixed soon.

:iagree:
I guess it all depends on how you define "security". Is it based on how many defensive shields you put up, or is it based on being a less lucrative target?? I would say it's an equal combination of both. So by that definition, Mac is way ahead as of today. Just as Switzerland is more secure than the US (by virtue if its neutrality), despite the fact that its' armed forces are tiny compared to the US.

Yes, both of the programs are a bit dated. One I abandoned for something else, and the other was already dated when Vista came out (it requires an old version of SQL). I haven't decided what to do about that one.

On the other hand, I am running Norton 360 without any problems. :thumbup:

Before embarking on what was likely to be an annoying effort to install this one program, I called the company. :D I was told that they had given up trying to create versions for all the various operating systems, and were moving to a web-based version of the program. I will be moved to it free of charge. I can email them my backup, and they will input my data for me. Best of all, this is supposed to go live MONDAY!!! They have been keeping it under wraps, as it has been a slow process. So, I have no more concerns about Win7! :thumbup:

Interesting. It's great that they're moving you to it at no charge. Developing for many platforms can be such a nightmare. Unfortunately, these days, web app developers now have to worry about all the different browsers. The web apps that I use all behave differently on IE vs. Firefox vs. Chrome. I would like to use Firefox all the time but that doesn't work.... The developer build of Chrome is a great product -- they just don't have bookmarks in a manageable form like other browsers though.

so after a week with Windows 7 in the room next to mine, I can say that I will officially kill the next person to say "vie de merde." (fuck my life) I guess its a success! (He's going back to XP :nanana:

Maybe the French version isn't as good? :dunno: All I can say is that I see nothing negative (at this point) with Win7.

My latest observation about Windows 7. I keep reading that the power management is much better than on prior versions, and apparently it is true. I am actually on a plane right now, and the power outlet under the seat doesn't work. So, I am dependent on the battery. I rarely run on strictly battery for very long, and almost never use the "power saver" mode. Of course, I am right now. The same laptop that under Vista would run ~3 h (even on Power Saver) is saying it will last 6 hours right now. Even if it is wrong, it is clearly running leaner.

How the hell are you on the internet?! :nanana:

Its from Polytech so it better be! Or that could also explain a lot :rofl:

Internet service on airlines. It is a much nicer way to pass the hours than reading the in-flight magazine 3 times. ;)

What airline? The only one I knew of is Airtran introducting wifi then Jetblue has blackberry service on a couple planes...

If the new Windows is so secure, why do you need to run anti virus?

What a great question :rolleyes: Give it a break, this thread has evolved to internet use on airplanes...

Delta. In fact, I am flying home again now, and am back on the onboard wifi. Very cool.

Does that mean you don't have an answer and rather talk about another subject?:stickpoke

I have an answer AND I'd rather talk about another subject :nanana:

On a side but related note, Recently it was interesting to see
Jet Blue require people with electronic devices to turn them
completely "OFF". No airplane mode accepted......:dunno:

Good bye Jet Blue! Thats retarded, sorry. Its been proven a cell phone won't affect anything, now if they want to stop me from listening to music on my iPhone they can truly kiss my ass... At least they have TV though.

I will assume that JetBlue is doing just like everyone else, and saying all devices have to be turned off below 10k feet. At that point, you can use "certain" devices. Although I don't know, I bet the "no airplane mode" is only for the "below 10k" portions of the flight.