6 ms·
Well the fact they're easily refuted shows how much i use windows in daily bases (almost 0%) my guess (based on rumors) is that even though ms implements those
by hs 18y ago
Well the fact they're easily refuted shows how much i use windows in daily bases (almost 0%)
my guess (based on rumors) is that even though ms implements those security measures, she leaves some weaknesses open intentionally (sony rootkit came to mind)
actually i was thinking more about OpenBSD instead of OSX and clump them together as unix
but you haven't refuted my main point: if popularity plays a role THAT much, then why unix servers (more popular, more secure, more powerful, more damaging) are less compromised?
- tptacek 18y agoThanks for being candid. Well, let's turn that around. In the years from 1995 through 1998, Windows security was black magic both to defenders and attackers --- Win32 attacks didn't really mainstream until Solar Designer and Matt Conover broke the story on how to exploit overflows in the heap. During the same time period, Unix systems --- and particularly SunOS/Solaris --- were positively riddled with trivially exploitable stack overflows. Number of Solaris worms and viruses during that time period? Zero. I'm sort of digressing, but, can you come up with a logic that explains why OS X virus scarcity is about the intrinsic security of OS X and still describes the '90s? I don't think malware prevalance has much to do with intrinsic OS security at all. Also: smart not to lump OS X in with other Unixes. OS X has a very different, much more difficult challenge to deal with than server Linux.