Captain's log. On StarDate Sun, 21 Sep 2003 14:01:42 -0500 received comm from "Tim McNamara
<[email hidden]> on channel rec.bicycles.tech ":
: In article <[email hidden]>, Martin Törnsten
: <[email hidden]> wrote:
:
: > Captain's log. On StarDate Sat, 20 Sep 2003 21:33:05 -0500 received comm from "Tim McNamara
: > <[email hidden]> on channel rec.bicycles.tech ":
: >
: > : In article <[email hidden]>,
: > : -= ®atzofratzo =- <[email hidden]> wrote:
: > :
: > : > On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:08:03 -0500, Tim McNamara <[email hidden]> wrote:
: > : >
: > : > >Thank you Microsoft for creating so *many* opportunities for creative software writers.
: > : >
: > : > If the tables were turned and the predominant OS and computer was made by Apple for the last
: > : > several years, you'd be blaming them instead of MS. The [censored] that write bugs write them
: > : > to infect the greatest number of computers at one time, hence Windows attacks.
: > : >
: > : > Blame the [censored] that write the bugs, not the [censored] at Microsoft.
: > :
: > : Unfortunately it is a team effort between the various [censored]. Microsoft creates the climate
: > : in which the vermin can flourish.
: >
: > Don't be that foolish Tim. Apple also creates a lot of such opportunities (and even free
: > software like Linux), but just like with most applications and software in general, also virus
: > and worm makers has less interest and support for platforms who isn't used by that many people.
:
: While there is some truth to what you say, Windows is far more rife with security holes than the
: Mac OS (either OS 9 and earlier or OS X)
See further down in my comments.
: or any flavor of Unix. It's simply easier to write worms, viruses and
I quote this (from Paul Thurrott wininfo short takes):
Linux Still Less Secure Than Windows On the flip side of the coin, I should point out that Linux
still suffers from far more security bugs and other vulnerabilities than Windows does. Researchers
at mi2g Intelligence Unit, which has been tracking and verifying computer-based vulnerabilities
since 1995, say that in August 67 percent of all successful and verifiable attacks against servers
targeted Linux, compared with just 23.2 percent that targeted Windows--and August was the month
during which SoBig.F and MSBlaster hit. Furthermore, 12,892 e-business sites running Linux were
successfully breached during that month, compared with just 4626 sites running Windows. Windows
vulnerabilities get more press because more people run Windows on the desktop, so any Windows-based
worms or viruses will generally affect a far larger group of individuals. But anyone who thinks that
jumping to Linux is a cure-all should think again. Even if you don't consider the usage numbers,
everyone's favorite open-source poster boy is still a huge target for attackers.
: Trojan horses for Windows. It's not merely a matter of installued user base, it's also a matter of
: ease and accessibility.
I thin your deluded my dear Tim.
The Open SSH bug didn't hit you? I hope you patched that one (I think Apple has a big fix out for
that one, which I can strongly recommend).
security.itworld.compage 1.htmlOpen ↗
: Apple has been far better at identifying vulnerabilities and fixing them than has Microsoft. A fix
: is usually available within 24 hours of a vulnerability being identified, installable with one
: click of the mouse. Like you, in the 17 years I have been using Macs I have never
It was quite amusing (as you claim that Apple is, and always has been better than Microsoft) to see
a common bug hit a lot of different operating systems in 1998 I think it was. It was an old bug in
the TCP/IP code from BSD, which most systems was derived from. If you sent a ping with a non
standard packet size you could cause a buffer overflow and crash the stack. How fast did the
different operating systems get a fix for this common bug? Well, the Linux community had a fix 1-2
days after the known problem. Microsoft provided a fix for Windows NT after 4-5 days. After 45 days
they bothered to provide one for Windows 95 (which they didn't think was as mission critical as it
was mostly targeted for home users, which I can agree with). How did Apple manage? Well IIRC it took
them over half a *year* to provide a fix for Mac OS.
Lesson learnt? Well I fully agree Microsoft can do better with security (just like I think the Linux
community can), but Apple is far from the gods like you seems to hold them.
: had problems with a virus infection- the basic OS is quite secure, the virus protection software
: is effective, and Apple has proven to be quite vigilant (as befits a company with a small fraction
: of the market).
And my basic systems are quite secure as well (even if their under much more attack from virus
makers and others, than your much less commonly used system).
Your point? I really don't think you have any.
My point? I have in fact two points I try to make here:
1. Windows with it's extremely big market share is in deed the target for most software developers,
both the good and also the bad ones.
2. Regardless of which operating system you chooses to run (I'm actually quite found of Mac OS X and
like it a lot, if I had a Mac myself I would love to use it more) you should be paranoid about
security and not take a too relaxed view about it (whatever reason you have that you try to talk
yourself into that you somehow is not a possible victim).
Best regards,
martin törnsten