7 ms·

The main reason a Mac user (in practical terms) is more secure then a Windows user is because Mac users typically are using the latest version of the OS, wherea

by gmlk 16y ago

The main reason a Mac user (in practical terms) is more secure then a Windows user is because Mac users typically are using the latest version of the OS, whereas an typical Windows user is at least one SP behind, maybe more?. Especially if said Windows sits in an office environment where there is a very slow adaption rate. Also, any unauthorized copy of Windows is most likely never updated.

lelele 16y ago
The main reason a Mac user is more secure than a Windows one is because a Mac system is running on a sounder security architecture (not administrator by default, etc.). You can only go that far in retrofitting an OS which made the wrong decisions on the start.
- WalterGR 16y ago
  > The main reason a Mac user is more secure than a Windows one is because a Mac system is running on a sounder security architecture (not administrator by default, etc.) In specific ways, how is OS X's security architecture more sound than Vista or Windows 7?
  - lelele 16y ago
    To us - IT guys - they look alike, and we can stay away from dangers quite easily. To an average user - and I know what I'm talking about, since I've taught IT security to those average users - Windows' security architecture - UAC, applications (badly) designed to run as Administrator, ecc.- is full of pitfalls. I guess not everybody at Google is an hacker.
    - WalterGR 16y ago
      Badly designed applications have nothing to do with Vista or greater's "security architecture", so that leaves UAC. Do you feel UAC has a worse security design than the privilege escalation mechanism on OS X? Or - since you mention teaching end users - are you talking about a user education issue?
      - lelele 16y ago
        > Badly designed applications have nothing to do with Vista or greater's "security architecture", so that leaves UAC. We agree, from a technical point of view. OTOH, applications are the system, from a user's point of view, and Windows has "taught" programmers to write applications which run under high privileges. A Windows program requiring administrative privileges to run is not seen as defective: just disable UAC and it works flawlessly ;-) I guess a similar behaving OS X or Linux program would not have it that easy. > Do you feel UAC has a worse security design than the privilege escalation mechanism on OS X? I don't know about OS X. Linux user here. If we look at it as techies, UAC is sound. If we look at it as average users, it is not. It's an usability issue. > Or - since you mention teaching end users - are you talking about a user education issue? Exactly. I think that a safe usage of a Windows system requires too much education. That's it.
        lelele 16y ago
        However, my guess is that Google's move is more of a business decision.

by gmlk 16y ago

lelele 16y ago

The main reason a Mac user is more secure than a Windows one is because a Mac system is running on a sounder security architecture (not administrator by default, etc.). You can only go that far in retrofitting an OS which made the wrong decisions on the start.

WalterGR 16y ago
> The main reason a Mac user is more secure than a Windows one is because a Mac system is running on a sounder security architecture (not administrator by default, etc.) In specific ways, how is OS X's security architecture more sound than Vista or Windows 7?
- lelele 16y ago
  To us - IT guys - they look alike, and we can stay away from dangers quite easily. To an average user - and I know what I'm talking about, since I've taught IT security to those average users - Windows' security architecture - UAC, applications (badly) designed to run as Administrator, ecc.- is full of pitfalls. I guess not everybody at Google is an hacker.
  - WalterGR 16y ago
    Badly designed applications have nothing to do with Vista or greater's "security architecture", so that leaves UAC. Do you feel UAC has a worse security design than the privilege escalation mechanism on OS X? Or - since you mention teaching end users - are you talking about a user education issue?
    - lelele 16y ago
      > Badly designed applications have nothing to do with Vista or greater's "security architecture", so that leaves UAC. We agree, from a technical point of view. OTOH, applications are the system, from a user's point of view, and Windows has "taught" programmers to write applications which run under high privileges. A Windows program requiring administrative privileges to run is not seen as defective: just disable UAC and it works flawlessly ;-) I guess a similar behaving OS X or Linux program would not have it that easy. > Do you feel UAC has a worse security design than the privilege escalation mechanism on OS X? I don't know about OS X. Linux user here. If we look at it as techies, UAC is sound. If we look at it as average users, it is not. It's an usability issue. > Or - since you mention teaching end users - are you talking about a user education issue? Exactly. I think that a safe usage of a Windows system requires too much education. That's it.
      - lelele 16y ago
        However, my guess is that Google's move is more of a business decision.