backtop


Print 63 comment(s) - last by crystal clear.. on Mar 27 at 3:52 AM

"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town."

The battle between Microsoft and Apple in the computing market has raged on for decades. While Microsoft has a commanding lead in the operating system market with Windows, Apple isn't exactly backing down with OS X -- in fact, the Cupertino-based company continues to grab market share and a large portion of the $1,000+ computing market.

When Windows and OS X users get into arguments on the web, Windows users often point to OS X's tiny market share while OS X users point to how vulnerable Windows operating systems have been in the past to exploits. However, according to security guru Charlie Miller, OS X users should subscribe to the idea that "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones".

Miller claims to have found no less than 20 zero-day exploits within OS X. Miller will present the exploits at CanSecWest next week in Vancouver, British Columbia.

Miller told Heise Security, "Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town."

"They sell lots of computers and nobody [shies away from] Apple computers because of a perceived lack of security," Miller added. "So in their minds, they don't have a security problem until it affects their bottom line, which hasn't been the case, yet"

OS X has made the news plenty of times over the past year for security holes. Last June, Apple finally fixed a Java exploit which went unpatched for nearly a year. In late August, Apple shipped Snow Leopard with a version of Flash that was susceptible to outside attacks.

Miller also took Apple to task last year saying that security protections in OS X weren't quite up to par with Windows 7. He noted, "It's harder to write exploits for Windows than the Mac, but all you see are Windows exploits. That's because if [the hacker] can hit 90% of the machines out there, that's all he's gonna do. It's not worth him nearly doubling his work just to get that last 10%."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

$1000+ Computers
By HotFoot on 3/19/2010 10:46:29 AM , Rating: 5
Outside of work, I don't know that many $1000+ computers that aren't home-built. My understanding is that those don't show up in the market share figures, so how meaningful are those statistics for the price bracket? Stats might be meaningful for $800 and less.




RE: $1000+ Computers
By Pirks on 3/19/2010 11:19:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Stats might be meaningful for $800 and less
On the other hand same could be said about cheap computers. People build them to save money, if you can go to newegg, make a few clicks, wait a few days and then quickly build machine faster than some generic Dell or Acer, also more reliable and more quiet, of a less size and weight too, and in addition a couple of hundred bucks cheaper, then why the heck not? So your $800 and cheaper statistics is just as unreliable.

Whatever is said about Apple grabbing major chunk of $1000+ computer market is said about retail sales only so take it as it is. This is about average Joe population choosing computers. This statistics excludes techies with DIY boxes for ANY price.

Makes this statistics unreliable? I don't think so because there are much less techies out there compared to number of average Joes buying computers in the stores like Walmart or dell.com.


RE: $1000+ Computers
By HotFoot on 3/19/2010 11:30:38 AM , Rating: 3
Fair enough, but my assertion is that more techies, like readers on these pages, are inclined to invest more in their computers. My thought is that most of the DIY crowd are after a bargain, but are also enthusiasts.

For the average joe-blow, buying a $600 machine from an OEM can make a lot of sense because they are either not comfortable with assembling the computer, or put value in a full-service warranty in case something goes wrong and they don't know how to fix it. In this case, I believe the majority of these folks aren't enthusiasts, and of that crowd, most just want something that works and aren't buying the high-performance parts.

I'd build a sub-$1000 machine for a HTPC or if a friend asked me to build them an econo PC. But the majority of computers I've built myself over the years have been worth well north of that value.


RE: $1000+ Computers
By Pirks on 3/19/2010 12:54:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd build a sub-$1000 machine for a HTPC or if a friend asked me to build them an econo PC. But the majority of computers I've built myself over the years have been worth well north of that value.
I'm observing exact opposite on my side, all the builds I've done for friends and family were different variations of the same concept - cheapo mATX AMD 7xxG mobo, cheapo low power silent Sempron, some slim/tiny case with 1 HDD and 1 DVD-RW inside and that's it. Cheap, small, fast, light and quiet. All five builds I've done in past two years are well under $500. Go figure. People don't need expensive machines anymore for BASIC tasks. $500 or even $400 is enough, if not less.

It's hard to say who's right here tho, there's no statistics to prove that DIY is done mostly for low price combined with high quality, or is it done for pure high performance combined with somewhat low price. I tend to think high performance is not needed anymore, based on the observations how people among my family and friends use computers these days. I'm not gonna argue with you tho 'cause this is my personal experience and I don't have any solid statistical/scientific proof supporting my point.


RE: $1000+ Computers
By Luticus on 3/22/2010 8:53:43 AM , Rating: 2
Just want to say that I completely agree with you here. Just to contribute my numbers to the statistics we seem to be gathering, all 10 (including 2 servers) of my machines are DIY and they are all 1000+ systems; however, I did just order an HTPC with BluRay that costs $350 grated I already had a HDD and bluetooth keyboard for it. So I think from my experience and what I've seen of my friends/family/colleagues that the equation plays out on both the high and low ends of the spectrum.

Actually the only numbers I'd say we could probably rely on are, for the most part, laptops as I don't think many of those are DIY yet. In fact all 3 of my laptops are HP, and ones on Linux. :-)


RE: $1000+ Computers
By Solandri on 3/19/2010 1:07:31 PM , Rating: 3
Cost of the computer is the wrong number to look at, I think. Over time, enthusiasts on average spend more money on computers per year. I buy cheap $600 computers, but I get a new computer every 1.5 years. Some of my luddite friends will buy a $1200 computer, but they'll still be using it 5 years later.


RE: $1000+ Computers
By omnicronx on 3/19/2010 11:37:38 AM , Rating: 4
God dammnit, why do I waste my time reading your book of a post.

Your point summed up: 'Retail sales only, DIY boxes do not apply in any market'.

At any rate, computer prices have fallen dramatically since the inception of netbooks. The average user does not need a 1000+ dollar machine these days, as much as Mr Jobs would like you to believe. That being said, you have to give kudos to Apple for continuing to sell so well in the 1000+ market , especially when you consider that these products have far higher margins than their sub 1000 dollar counterparts.


RE: $1000+ Computers
By Pirks on 3/19/2010 12:47:28 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The average user does not need a 1000+ dollar machine these days
True, if you think in terms of BASIC needs than noone NEEDS luxury goods, all these nice slick expensive cars, good looking apartments/houses with lotsa nice electornics inside and stuff like that. People do NOT need it to survive but if they have extra money why not blow some? Why not blow on a luxury car or a luxury computer like Mac or something else? This has always been the case, it's called market segmentation, a lot of cheap mass consumption goods at the bottom of the pyramid and a few expensive luxury things at the top, either expensive brands like Apple or Lexus or some excuisite DIY things like gaming computers or LN cooled overclocked machines, stuff like that.

So yeah, average Joe mostly does not buy Macs, I agree with you. Not his market segment.

However, an average Joe with extra money to blow - that's a different story.


RE: $1000+ Computers
By omnicronx on 3/19/2010 1:50:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
True, if you think in terms of BASIC needs than noone NEEDS luxury goods, all these nice slick expensive cars, good looking apartments/houses with lotsa nice electornics inside and stuff like that.
You are taking things out of context. I'm not talking in terms of the need of a luxury product (in which by definition, cannot possibly be a need). The fact that sub 1000 dollar sales dwarf 1000+ dollar sales seems to indicate what the average user is willing to pay to perform their daily computer tasks.


RE: $1000+ Computers
By retrospooty on 3/19/2010 2:05:57 PM , Rating: 5
"You are taking things out of context"


Welcome to Anandtech/Dailytech. You obviously have not met up with Pirks before LOL ;)


RE: $1000+ Computers
By omnicronx on 3/19/2010 3:11:19 PM , Rating: 2
Who is this Pirks you speak of?


RE: $1000+ Computers
By steven975 on 3/19/2010 5:07:52 PM , Rating: 5
look for the hidden comments in red.


RE: $1000+ Computers
By crystal clear on 3/20/2010 1:25:44 PM , Rating: 2
The guy who lites up D.T. with his comments,raises the blood pressure of the Apple bashers.

He is like electricity to a bulb...he lites up !

Its a love hate relationship...they cannot live a day without pirks.

Its Pirks vs the rest....No fun without him.

Who cares about ratings or marked in RED....people simply enjoy every bit of Pirks.


RE: $1000+ Computers
By Alexstarfire on 3/20/2010 10:58:21 PM , Rating: 4
While I'm usually with you guys on Pirks, his posts for this article haven't been like the posts for almost every other article he comments for. I didn't even realize I was read a post from him until I wanted to see who one of the other posts was responding to. A pleasant surprise.


RE: $1000+ Computers
By Luticus on 3/22/2010 9:00:22 AM , Rating: 2
I'm with you Alex, give the dude a chance!


RE: $1000+ Computers
By crystal clear on 3/20/2010 1:41:01 PM , Rating: 2
and Charlie Miller recommends- Go buy a MAC !


RE: $1000+ Computers
By crystal clear on 3/20/2010 1:51:08 PM , Rating: 2
Behind Pwn2Own: Exclusive Interview With Charlie Miller

Alan: So, if you had to make a recommendation, Mac, PC, or Linux? Or do you find them to be equally (in)secure?

Charlie: I'll leave Linux out of the equation since I know my grandma couldn't run it. Between Mac and PC, I'd say that Macs are less secure for the reasons we've discussed here (lack of anti-exploitation technologies) but are more safe because there simply isn't much malware out there. For now, I'd still recommend Macs for typical users as the odds of something targeting them are so low that they might go years without seeing any malware, even though if an attacker cared to target them it would be easier for them.



http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pwn2own-mac-ha...


RE: $1000+ Computers
By Alexstarfire on 3/20/2010 11:00:27 PM , Rating: 2
He pretty much said what most people on this forum have said. Security and safety aren't the same thing and that while Macs are safer (ATM) they aren't as secure.


RE: $1000+ Computers
By Parhel on 3/19/2010 1:09:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The average user does not need a 1000+ dollar machine these days


Well, nobody needs a $1,000+ television either. I spent considerably more than that on just my monitor. And I'm not one that can afford to throw money away . . . that was a major purchase for me. It just depends on what you like to spend your money on I guess.


RE: $1000+ Computers
By Parhel on 3/19/2010 11:49:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
People build them to save money, if you can go to newegg, make a few clicks, wait a few days and then quickly build machine faster than some generic Dell or Acer, also more reliable and more quiet, of a less size and weight too, and in addition a couple of hundred bucks cheaper, then why the heck not?


I spent over $3000 on my current build (including monitor) mostly from NewEgg.

It used to be the case, and somewhat still is, but it's getting harder and harder to build your own low-end machines for cheaper than what the big box stores offer. If you used a pirated OS, maybe you'll save a bit more, but that's just not worth it for me.

For quality, reliability and especially noise, though, I'll always prefer my own builds.


RE: $1000+ Computers
By Murst on 3/19/2010 3:48:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It used to be the case, and somewhat still is, but it's getting harder and harder to build your own low-end machines for cheaper than what the big box stores offer. If you used a pirated OS, maybe you'll save a bit more, but that's just not worth it for me.

I find it pretty much impossible to build a cheaper computer than what I could get at Dell or HP. But I can build one for about the same price, and it will have the parts I want in it, not some PoS motherboard that I can't do anything with.

From a time perspective, I think it's a wash... It takes probably 1 hour to build a computer from parts (OS install time included). It also takes about an hour to remove all the crap that was installed on a pre-built PC.


RE: $1000+ Computers
By rudy on 3/19/2010 12:20:53 PM , Rating: 2
Also what he is saying is a sad state of the US computer industry. The big OEMs just want more profit out of higher end computers rather then trying to give people good value. So not as many people buy them. If you try to configure a better video card on dell it will cost you MORE than the price of buying that video card off the shelf at best buy often. So why in the world would you even bother if you can build the machine yourself. Not that apple is any different but their customers don't build their own machines EVER.


RE: $1000+ Computers
By Veerappan on 3/19/2010 3:52:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
TextNot that apple is any different but their customers don't build their own machines EVER.


*raises hand* I have a 13" macbook pro sitting next to me, and DIY tri-core Phenom II at home for a desktop (4GB DDR2, 640GB HD, Radeon 4770, dual-booting Win7 and Ubuntu), and my HTPC is also a home-built machine running Mythbuntu. Not everyone who buys a Mac is clueless about computers.

I bought my macbook because it was a reasonably nicely specced laptop for the price, and I wanted the BSD under-pinnings of the OS (my day job is spent in Solaris).

Let's try not to over-generalize solely for the sake of Mac-bashing. They're decent machines, they can run Windows, and the OS they come with is quite capable (even if Apple likes to simplify the GUI for the beginners among their customers).


RE: $1000+ Computers
By KoolAidMan1 on 3/19/2010 8:27:07 PM , Rating: 2
Same here. I have a 27" iMac (amazing display) with an i7 860 CPU as well as a 2008 Macbook Pro. Sitting next to it is my home-built PC with an i7-860, 285 GTX video card, a 256GB SSD, inside a Corsair Obsidian 800D case and outputting to an NEC 2490WUXi LCD.

The idea that Apple customers don't ever build their own machines is ludicrous. I've been building my own high power gaming PCs since 1997 but I've also been a very happy Apple customer since 2002. I'm pretty happy using both.


RE: $1000+ Computers
By Alexstarfire on 3/20/2010 11:06:53 PM , Rating: 3
I think he's saying that you can't really make a DIY Mac computer. Which is true.


RE: $1000+ Computers
By Penti on 3/21/2010 7:19:04 PM , Rating: 2
I think your forgetting that people don't build their own laptops. Companies, governments and schools are also the big buyers of computers.


Reader1!!!
By amanojaku on 3/19/2010 10:41:37 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The approximately 20 zero-day holes are contained in closed source Apple products, said Miller.
'Nuff said.




RE: Reader1!!!
By theplaidfad on 3/19/2010 11:07:27 AM , Rating: 3
Don't feed the troll... or in this case, call him out.

K, thx.


RE: Reader1!!!
By omnicronx on 3/19/2010 11:13:40 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
That's because if [the hacker] can hit 90% of the machines out there, that's all he's gonna do. It's not worth him nearly doubling his work just to get that last 10%."
Not really 'nuff said'.. It is still kind of irrelevent until Apple gets more share. The thing is, they are artificially keeping it low by remaining a 'high end' niche product.

Apple does not want a large share, they have proven they can make a large amount of money without it, and they continue to expand into other markets. It also means they can spend a lot less time with security measures, you would have to assume MS has to use countless more resources in that department.


RE: Reader1!!!
By retrospooty on 3/19/2010 2:09:09 PM , Rating: 2
"Apple does not want a large share, they have proven they can make a large amount of money without it"

Not really. Apple is making money hand over fist, but its mostly ipod/iphone. Thier PC business isn't terribly profitable. Sure it makes money, becasue of its high profit margins but not like thier handheld products. You also have to factor in the money they spend to develop, support and maintain OSX. It cant be cheap.


RE: Reader1!!!
By omnicronx on 3/19/2010 2:44:55 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see how this invalidates my statements.. As of december 09, Mac revenue was pegged at around 10 billion, while iphone/ipod touch revenue was pegged at 16 billion. While you are correct in saying that margins are surely higher on the handheld products and as such iPhone OS device profits will most likely be in the double or more that of Mac profits, they are still making a pretty penny from Mac sales. More than ipod sales, more than itunes, more than the app store.

Retaining a small PC share does not hurt Apple, quite the contrary actually. They still have their 'elite status' as they are still a niche product, and as a result they retain security through obscurity while charging a premium for their 'superior' product.


RE: Reader1!!!
By retrospooty on 3/19/2010 3:36:36 PM , Rating: 2
I was not trying to invalidate you, just stating that Apple's PC's are not as profitable as you might think. When it was just PC's they nearly went out of business altogether.

Revenue is not profit. Revenue is simply money taken in. It doesn't count materials, labor , logistics, warranty, support, or R&D.


RE: Reader1!!!
By someguy123 on 3/19/2010 7:40:46 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't say they spend too large of an amount on R&D considering they basically just incrementally update their OS every so often with slight tweaks and their platform is closed. The low market share also allows them to get away with having vulnerabilities without having to put extra resources into fixing them quickly, if at all.

Their handhelds are clearly more profitable, but their PC profit is probably high especially considering their obscene premium in price. Apple nearly went out of business back then because their older designs didn't manage to attract the hipster crowd as well as they do now, and because they didn't have the ipod to spread brand recognition.


RE: Reader1!!!
By Focher on 3/20/2010 6:27:30 AM , Rating: 2
The margin on Macs is quite high. There are plenty of analysts that do cost breakdowns of every Apple product, and the Mac line holds its own in margin compared to Apple's other products.


RE: Reader1!!!
By SPOOFE on 3/20/2010 4:19:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When it was just PC's they nearly went out of business altogether.

Oh, come on. Your comment is technically true but not very descriptive of the situation; Apple managed their turnaround (the return of Jobs, his "$1 a year" token salary, etc.) just based on their computers and a hefty repolishing of the company image. The iPod/iTunes dominance came after their fortunes were already rebounding.


RE: Reader1!!!
By KoolAidMan1 on 3/19/2010 8:32:31 PM , Rating: 2
This is incorrect. Looks over their quarterly filings, even with the successful and highly profitable iPod and the iPhone, their biggest source of gross and net revenue is still the Mac.


RE: Reader1!!!
By retrospooty on 3/19/2010 10:45:15 PM , Rating: 2
revenue is NOT = to profit


RE: Reader1!!!
By KoolAidMan1 on 3/20/2010 1:27:50 AM , Rating: 2
I understand. Net profit from Mac sales makes up the bulk of their profits, believe it or not. iPod sales are actually down year-over-year, something that the Mac had always made more money than anyways. This surprise (OMG Apple isn't just an iPod company!) was a big reason for AAPL's insane run in 2006-2007. iPhone profit margins are the highest of any product that Apple sells, but for the time being the Mac's net profits are still higher. This can absolutely change when the iPhone starts selling more, maybe even this year, but for now that isn't the case. The iPad can also change things since they have only slightly smaller profit margins than the iPhone. Any cannibalization from low end Macbook sales will draw more net profit away from the Mac side of the fence.

In any case, to say that profit from the Mac doesn't matter is incorrect. Apple has three hugely profitable product lines at the moment, but their notebook business (and to a lesser extent their desktop business) still brings in the most money (net profit after gross revenue :) ).


RE: Reader1!!!
By Focher on 3/20/2010 6:24:26 AM , Rating: 2
By that logic, Apache's HTTP server would be the most attacked web server. It dominates the segment, but pales in comparison to security vulnerabilities exposed. It's flawed logic because market share is used to fully explain the situation instead of properly categorising it as just a contributing factor.


RE: Reader1!!!
By crystal clear on 3/20/2010 1:29:42 PM , Rating: 2
Even after that Miller recommends you to buy a MAC....

hows that ....awesome !

Go buy a Mac...Apple simply loves you !


WTF Apple??
By Smilin on 3/19/2010 11:17:11 AM , Rating: 2
So 20 vulnerabilities while not good isn't the most horrific thing to happen in the computer world but the way they were discovered is frightening.

quote:
Miller discovered the new vulnerabilities by fuzzing

This is just a basic automated way of checking for obvious problems. Microsoft and many others do this as a routine part of normal development.

WTF is Apple doing over there?




RE: WTF Apple??
By amanojaku on 3/19/2010 12:31:59 PM , Rating: 2
Fleecing it's customers, what else?<sarcasm> Why spend money on QA when you all you need to do is release a new product? People will blindly buy the new device and its "security through obscurity" and hackers will have to work on the next set of exploits.</sarcasm>


RE: WTF Apple??
By alanore on 3/20/2010 9:12:50 AM , Rating: 2
I think windows 7 only had 1 which got patched. 20 Current zero day flaws is major.


By crystal clear on 3/20/2010 1:11:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Miller claims to have found no less than 20 zero-day exploits within OS X. Miller will present the exploits at CanSecWest next week in Vancouver, British Columbia.


Ofcourse even after that he still recommends the Mac.

Read this-

If pressed to recommend an OS between Windows, Linux, or Mac OS X to an average user, Miller would still choose Mac OS X.
"I'd say that Macs are less secure for the reasons we've discussed here—lack of anti-exploitation technologies—but are more safe because there simply isn't much malware out there," concluded Miller.

"For now, I'd still recommend Macs for typical users as the odds of something targeting them are so low that they might go years without seeing any malware, even though if an attacker cared to target them it would be easier for them."

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/03/pwn2own-...





By afkrotch on 3/23/2010 1:32:00 AM , Rating: 2
And most of us on this tech site are hardly your "typical" users, so none of it needs to apply to majority of us.


By crystal clear on 3/27/2010 3:52:27 AM , Rating: 2
The very fact 10% of microsoft employees are using Apple products (refer to previous article on this subject) shows that typical users indeed include the so called most of us on this tech site.

By the way Microsoft is NOT a small start up company,so you can imagine what 10% translates into, in actual numbers.

I will not be surprised if one day Steve Ballmer confesses after he retires, that he used a MAC !.

The gap between the typical user & the most of us on this tech site is very narrow.


Apple announcement
By pequin06 on 3/19/2010 11:20:57 AM , Rating: 5
Apple announces 20 new "features" to make OS X more magical and amazing.




Why worry?
By Chaca on 3/19/2010 10:38:49 AM , Rating: 2
I used to worry about what could happen in the future. But for now, I'm enjoying being productive on my inexpensive, rock solid hackintosh ;-)




RE: Why worry?
By Helbore on 3/20/2010 8:56:25 AM , Rating: 2
That's what Microsoft used to say, until they suddenly got machines covered in blasters and mydooms and the like.

Saying "it may never happen" is like walking around with your hands over your eyes in the middle of a battlefield. If you ignore security holes because no-one has bothered exploitng them yet, all you are doing is waiting for someone to finally do it.

The longer you leave holes unpatched, the more you are giving the finger to the laws of probability. Especially when Apple keeps banging on about their rising market share. Those laws will bite you in the butt in the end.


clown
By hiscross on 3/20/2010 10:00:27 AM , Rating: 2
That clown just tweeded saying he won't name the applications that have issues but only tell how he discovered the expliots. Sure is funny how people want to believe something without proof.




RE: clown
By mechBgon on 3/21/2010 1:22:59 AM , Rating: 2
Exploits are worth money. Why should he give them away for free?


Mick didn't write this...
By XZerg on 3/19/2010 10:33:21 AM , Rating: 2
So this can't be about Apple... LOL! Only the Jason Apple Mick is allowed to do so on DT. :p




RE: Mick didn't write this...
By XZerg on 3/19/2010 10:53:01 AM , Rating: 2
btw not picking on Jason, it is just a trend that most (can't say all now) articles relating to Apple are written by him.


RE: Mick didn't write this...
By omnicronx on 3/19/10, Rating: -1
By perspicacity on 3/20/2010 2:23:22 AM , Rating: 2
It's interesting to see somebody actually talking about Mac vulnerabilities. Windows is the biggest target, so of course it's exploits get the biggest headlines.

Just have to remember, Apple is a hardware manufacturer. The Mac OS is a proprietary operating system created to sell proprietary hardware. In my opinion, it's not as worldly as Windows, or even Linux, which have to live in a sea of heterogeneous environments.




Apple vs. IBM PC
By icanhascpu on 3/21/2010 12:35:30 PM , Rating: 2
Looking back this has got to be the greatest battle between tech in terms of the fans on either side. Its been going on for over 30 years now.

As much as I dislike Apple or MS or like them, I wouldn't every get rid of one. They are like yin and yang by now. And articles like this are fuel on a fire that warms us all /tear




Bars on the windows?
By drycrust3 on 3/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Bars on the windows?
By Smilin on 3/19/2010 11:40:00 AM , Rating: 3
PC: Hi, I'm a PC
Mac: And I'm a Mac
Ubuntu: Hi, I'm Linux!

PC & Mac: Get lost dork!


RE: Bars on the windows?
By Nekrik on 3/19/2010 3:31:32 PM , Rating: 3
Most security seminars I've been to do note the built in security of most linux installs, but also mention that most Linux users don't even know when they are infected. No drop in resources or obvious activity when there should be none doesn't mean the system is clean. Here's a pretty basic breakdown of some security suggestions (I realize this may not be new news, but here it is anyways): http://www.itsecurity.com/features/ubuntu-secure-i...


RE: Bars on the windows?
By alanore on 3/20/2010 9:08:42 AM , Rating: 2
Sadly that is true of all operating systems. The only way to really stay on top of these threats, is to have a good and up to date anti virus.

Both linux and OS-X are way behind windows in terms of having a good anti-virus. It could easily be argued that there isn't enough security threats to them to make it worth while investing heavily in R+D.

OS-X will enjoy its 'farmhouse' security for sometime. It only have ~8% market share of the US and a tiny fraction world wide. If you removed 99.9% of people from world, viruses like the flu and the common cold would die out, there just isn't enough machines to propagate through.


RE: Bars on the windows?
By BikeDude on 3/21/2010 7:09:02 AM , Rating: 2
I disagree.

This year I needed AV for the first time in a long while. I manually scanned an executable using ESET, and ESET said "it's fine". So I trusted the executable a bit more and ran it... I then used ESET to scan the new trojan this resulted in. ESET said the trojan was just fine too... (I repeated the initial scan on a guaranteed clean computer, and again ESET failed to detect the threat)

ESET effectively provided me with a false sense of security. I did a very stupid thing because I was lazy. I should have had a VM to run that particular executable. That would have been worth a hundred antivirus products.

Why slow down the system ALL the time, just to avoid getting infected by the few malwares that AV products are able to protect against? And why pay hundreds of dollars annually for this "protection"? It feels like any minute now a bunch of thugs will knock on my door to demand their "protection" money.


RE: Bars on the windows?
By Luticus on 3/22/2010 9:33:21 AM , Rating: 2
I agree, VPC is my method as well. I do, however, use Microsoft Security Essentials (MSE) and find it to be pretty good, but the VPC is there (with MSE as well) to provide another layer of protection that's nearly foolproof. I don't place my systems life in the hands of any virus scanner, as I've seen them fail to do their job one to many times!


RE: Bars on the windows?
By mechBgon on 3/22/2010 10:18:44 PM , Rating: 2
A considerable amount of malware is VM-aware and will not do its stuff when run in a VM. If you want a real solution, stop running executables that you aren't sure about. Period.


“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki