“Microsoft made noises about security in Service Pack 1, and with Windows XP when it was first released several years ago. The promises have had a hollow sound, in part because ever since those products were released, Microsoft has been issuing one ‘critical update’ after another, plugging this security hole and that security hole,” Dan Gillmor writes for The Mercury News. “But there’s no question that the company with an operating-system monopoly is finally confronting the scandalous quality — at least in terms of safety — of its products, a reality that has been a constant pain to users and threatened to have an impact on the bottom line. (I, for one, keep wondering why the trial lawyers haven’t noticed the target Windows must surely represent.)”
“Unfortunately, due to the basic nature of Windows — even XP, which is definitely sturdier than its predecessors — Microsoft’s efforts to make it safer remind me of the old days when I owned a car in snow country. You can’t paint over rust and expect the car to last,” Gillmor writes. “This is one reason why I continue to prefer my Macintosh computer, which is my primary machine for everyday use. The Mac operating system, OS X, is based on a form of Unix. It’s relatively secure but not absolutely safe, either. But Apple has been more careful to make the default settings less open to troublemakers.”
“There’s little doubt, of course, that if Macs suddenly had Windows’ market share, the malevolent hacker community would turn to the Mac for their nasty kicks. But for basic architectural reasons, it seems at least probable that the bad guys would have a somewhat more difficult time making trouble if the Mac was the target,” Gillmor writes.
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: For our Windows-only friends, information about smoothly adding a Mac OS X machine to your computing arsenal can be found here.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Defending Windows over Mac a sign of mental illness – December 20, 2003
Is Mac OS X really inherently more secure than Windows? – August 26, 2003
BusinessWeek’s Haddad gets it wrong; thinks low market share spares Macs from viruses – August 28, 2003
Shattering the Mac OS X ‘security through obscurity’ myth – August 28, 2003
Fortune columnist: ‘get a Mac’ to thwart viruses; right answer for the wrong reasons – September 02, 2003
New York Times: Mac OS X ‘much more secure than Windows XP’ – September 18, 2003
Columnist tries the ‘security through obscurity’ myth to defend Windows vs. Macs on virus front – October 1, 2003
Gates: Windows ‘by far the most secure’ system; tries to use ‘Mac OS X secure through obscurity’ myth – January 27, 2004
Mac OS X has no viruses; what’s wrong with Windows? – February 11, 2004
Spyware, adware plague Windows users online; Mac OS X users surf freely – April 19, 2004
Gartner: Worms jack up the total cost of Microsoft Windows – May 07, 2004
Apple exec: Mac OS X is ‘more secure than other platforms, certainly more secure than Microsoft Windows’ – June 14, 2004
Microsoft developing own antivirus software for leaky Windows – June 16, 2004
What’s the point of Anti-Virus for already-virus-free Mac OS X? – June 24, 2004
Microsoft Windows is a sieve, easy-to-compromise – August 13, 2004
Win XP SP2 enhancements cause conflicts, don’t protect as claimed – August 14, 2004
Hey… not a bad article. I like. And exactly my view on OSX Security – partially the whole security through obscurity, but also because it is harder to hack.
Now gotta run to church!
I switched my primary computer to Mac and OSx in March of 2002, and I haven’t lost an hour since to any sort of computer trouble.
Not so with the Windows machines in the office – which have been down for what must total weeks in the 2 and a half years since I switched.
In November of 2004, our last Windows machine will be taken off line.
Goodbye to one of the most critical liabilities and dangers faced by any business – Windows is a toilet that will suck hours, days and data right down to the sewer.
Mac only for us from November on!
Have fun in Church BriAnimations.
Pray for Paul Thurrotard’s soul.
Reminds me of the Dutch Boy with his finger in the dike — only XP has 22 leaks — one more than the kid can handle even if he were a contortionist. Someone should make a cartoon out of this.
Hansje Brink… yes… I am so grateful to that boy! He kept me from drowning!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” /> Whomever came up with that silly story….
yes that was me! but my name is brinker not brink… now excuse me, I have to plug some holes…
How dare he malign rusty cars like that! My old rusty car is way more reliable than XP. It hasn’t crashed even once.
title should of been:
Windows XP SP2 you can’t polish a turd; Apple’s Mac OS X much safer
: )
A painted turd is still a turd.
Of course “Longhorn” is going to be much more secure and better looking OS.
Then what will us Mac users have over PC users then?
Reality sucks I know.
Then what will us Mac users have over PC users then?
—
Uhm I think we’ll be on Mac OS 11 by then…
If M$ delays like they usually do, we will be on OS XII when Loooonghorn debutes.
P.S.
Paul Thurot has a soul???
A Taste of Computer Security is worthwhile reading.
I wonder how many conflicts will pop up with SP2? I heard that was why they delayed it a bit.
sjk, nice site, thanks. Also the conclusion is something I have written on this site again and again: ” If you were to enumerat what constitutes “Unix” today, you would get maddening diversity: in architectures interfaces, flavors, distributions, and many more. Even apparently similar Uni systems, such as two Linux distributions, might be different enough to warran considerable extra “work”, if an attacker were to create (the easy part) and deplo (the hard part), say, a virus. Creating malware, as we have seen, is a technica problem, easily solved on any platform. Spreading malware involves operational an situational issues, which are apparently less of an obstacle on Windows than any other platform.”
The difficult part is not writing a virus, it is spreading it. On Windows it happens very easily, on other OS the effort is too big and the result is marginal (wrt Windows spreading).
My old time motto: “If it does not spread is not a virus, it is a joke”.
So funny, I love reading these comments!
Wake up and smell the bacon, you M$ gibbons!
Re Hans Brinker – I think you mixed up two stories with Dutch themes. Hans Brinker was an ice skater, not a plugger of leaks in the dike. Google “Hans Brinker or the Silver Skates” for the whole story. He might have been a Dutch boy, but he wasn’t the “little Dutch boy” who put his thumb in the dike.
sjk, nice site, thanks.
Amit’s site is one of my technical favorites. Smart guy.
If you were to enumerat what constitutes “Unix” today, you would get maddening diversity
Reminds me of this recent comment from Dan Shoop on the macosx-admin list:
another problem is the plethora of new pop-ups from the firewall that sp2 pops up.
user experience = user annoyance.
It is perfectly feasible, technically and otherwise, for malware to bree on Unix, say, if Unix becomes more popular. However, why does it have to happen, simply because it can? Perhaps it will, perhaps not. While Windows has the misfortune of having decades of malicious momentum, Unix might have the advantage of having decades of inactivity in this area: no rampant viral activity (even if technically feasible), no existing momentum, no traditionally tarnished image, elitism (and snobbery against Windows), and in general, inertia.
There are other factors in favor of Unix
If you were to enumerate what constitutes “Windows” today, you would get handful of systems providing essentially the same execution environment “The” Windows environment is abundant and homogeneous
Recall that we defined “Unix” to be a family of systems. If you were t enumerate what constitutes “Unix” today, you would get maddenin diversity: in architectures, interfaces, flavors, distributions, and many more Even apparently similar Unix systems, such as two Linux distributions, migh be different enough to warrant considerable extra “work”, if an attacker wer to create (the easy part) and deploy (the hard part), say, a virus. Creatin malware, as we have seen, is a technical problem, easily solved on any platform. Spreading malware involves operationa and situational issues, which are apparently less of an obstacle on Windows than any other platform