Symantec says OS X has security flaws

[HooHaw]

Saw this at Google news:

http://www.thewhir.com/find/articlecentral/story.asp?recordid=1209&page=1

[jbd]

I believe it. Heck, Linux Fedora Core 3 has security releases being done every other day if not every day to fix "vulnerabilities". Even when using Windows I have never been infected with viruses or been compromised. Good firewalls and browsing habits go a long way. All my computers use firewalls, and they themselves are behind a firewall. I don't trust even my own computers.

However, sometimes I wonder if Symantec is just saying "oh crud... all my profits are dropping because people are moving away from Windows... lets scare them!" :evil:

[nargalzius]

Medyo mali yung header na yon, masyadong negative sa OSX.

Truth is ALL OSes have security flaws, and will never be perfect. And how "easy" it will compromised I believe depends on how big it's userbase is... or how "above radar" it is.

Let me rephrase, not "easy" but "how many instances." I think unix and all its other flavors are all tough cookies to crack compared to MS, but that doesn't mean they can't be hacked/cracked.

I believe the same can happen to OS X. And who knows, maybe Longhorn will once again be king of the vulnerable OSes once it's released.

I totally agree with JBD that PLBCAK for the most part - and that good surfing/mailing/maintenance habits go a long way. But there is still always is a possibility that there will be an exploitable flaw in every OS build... it just needs to be discovered. And the userbase expedites the time needed for that exponentially.


[Edited on 3-22-2005 by nargalzius]

[Eric]

The only virus checker that mattered for me was Disinfectant. It was installed on my circa-90's, Mac OS 8.1 LC 575 and Umax C600x (PPC 603) clone and it was successful in detecting and eradicating a then popular strain of virus (forgot the name) on both these machines.

IMO this report from Symantec is more of FUD than fact. Still, that's not to say that I don't have any anti-virus protection installed on my current Macs.

[piedad]

Baloney. Hog Wash. Windows OS design is based on flawed architecture (DOS) and for as long as it puts in compatibility with the old DOS-based programs/code libraries, it will have this inherrent flaw...like unprotected memory spaces, etc....The same cannot be said of Unix, which from inception was designed to be multi-user, multi-process. Go Figure.
Many of the security flaws are not "flaws" strictly speaking, but rather just bad programming which is partly due to human error, partly due to bad programming practice, and partly due to marketing pressures. History will prove that programmers of Microsoft are inferior to programmers of Apple.
At the end of the day, I am excited to use my OS X, but am unmotivated and scared to use a Windows machine.

[piedad]

Read this page of Security Advisories of Symantec: http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/security/Advisories.html
Any kid who can count can tell you what software is most insecure.

[cyberprince]

I think they just want to more software to Mac users too.

[nargalzius]

Hehehe, I think we're reacting too violently to the article... the issue was never "which OS was _more_ secure," because the answer to that is clear (as Piedad stated) but simply that as OSX (or any other OS for that matter) gains more users, the more problems (aka vulnerabilities) related to it will popup - which is a reasonable assumption.

But I agree that it's probably just a marketing gimmick to get people to use their software; though what the article claims is valid to some extent, as JBD and the rest would say, usually its the end-users themselves that allow malicious software to damage their machines (when in a unix environment).

[Edited on 3-22-2005 by nargalzius]

[El CaMOTe]

more on this -

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050322/tc_nm/tech_apple_dc_1