4 ms·

How is windows 7 more secure? I can install a malicious app if I want to on any system. The only "problem" here is that safari automatically opens safe files.

by wesley 15y ago

How is windows 7 more secure? I can install a malicious app if I want to on any system. The only "problem" here is that safari automatically opens safe files. They should also get a smartscreen filter like IE9 has. Safari has something like this already (google safefilter) but it doesn't seem to be as effective. Mac OS X as a whole has xprotect, but that is a very simplistic defense to look for some known malware signatures.

wisty 15y ago
Security experts generally agree that there are more exploits on Mac. It's easier to run arbitrary code without permission. The only thing is, nobody has bothered to write that code yet.
- Spyro7 15y ago
  One question that is worth asking is how many of these exploits can be done remotely, and how many of these exploits require physical permission to a system? It is worth noting that there is a difference between exploits that require physical access and those that can be conducted remotely. Speaking just for myself, I am not certain which operating system is more or less secure, but I do not think that operating system security matters as much as user habits. I have ran Windows XP since 2001 and I have never once suffered from malware or a virus (except when I transferred a USB-stick virus onto one of my computers just to see what would happen). I know that the plural of anecdote is not data, but it is worth noting that it can and has been done.
  - kenjackson 15y ago
    Many of them can be done remotely, as has been done at Pwn20wn for several years on OSX. But to actually create a weaponized attack that can get on a lot of machines requires a fair bit of work. If you're going to do that, it's probably worth going the extra mile and attacking a much larger installed user base. But, what's even easier is just doing malware that the user installs. You can write it in a fraction of the time, and you probably get similar infection rates.
generalk 15y ago
I'm no security expert, but I do try to keep up. Someone please correct me if my facts are off. Ahem: Windows 7 does a lot more randomization of memory layout than Mac OS X does, making it more difficult to exploit executables and libraries shipped with the system. It's actually easier to exploit a Mac OS X machine than it is a Windows 7 machine -- see the results of pretty much every Pwn2Own [1] contest. That said, the vast majority of spyware is targeted at Windows and doesn't need low-level exploits to do its job. It's the difference between safety and security; you're probably more safe on a Mac, even though they're technically less secure. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwn2Own http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwn2Own
- wesley 15y ago
  True, but it is my understanding that the randomization will finally be addressed in Lion (Address Space Layout Randomization) http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/02/25/apple_exposing_mac_os_x_lion_to_security_experts_for_review.html http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/02/25/apple_exposing...

by wesley 15y ago

wisty 15y ago

Security experts generally agree that there are more exploits on Mac. It's easier to run arbitrary code without permission. The only thing is, nobody has bothered to write that code yet.

Spyro7 15y ago
One question that is worth asking is how many of these exploits can be done remotely, and how many of these exploits require physical permission to a system? It is worth noting that there is a difference between exploits that require physical access and those that can be conducted remotely. Speaking just for myself, I am not certain which operating system is more or less secure, but I do not think that operating system security matters as much as user habits. I have ran Windows XP since 2001 and I have never once suffered from malware or a virus (except when I transferred a USB-stick virus onto one of my computers just to see what would happen). I know that the plural of anecdote is not data, but it is worth noting that it can and has been done.
- kenjackson 15y ago
  Many of them can be done remotely, as has been done at Pwn20wn for several years on OSX. But to actually create a weaponized attack that can get on a lot of machines requires a fair bit of work. If you're going to do that, it's probably worth going the extra mile and attacking a much larger installed user base. But, what's even easier is just doing malware that the user installs. You can write it in a fraction of the time, and you probably get similar infection rates.

generalk 15y ago

I'm no security expert, but I do try to keep up. Someone please correct me if my facts are off. Ahem: Windows 7 does a lot more randomization of memory layout than Mac OS X does, making it more difficult to exploit executables and libraries shipped with the system. It's actually easier to exploit a Mac OS X machine than it is a Windows 7 machine -- see the results of pretty much every Pwn2Own [1] contest. That said, the vast majority of spyware is targeted at Windows and doesn't need low-level exploits to do its job. It's the difference between safety and security; you're probably more safe on a Mac, even though they're technically less secure. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwn2Own http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwn2Own

wesley 15y ago
True, but it is my understanding that the randomization will finally be addressed in Lion (Address Space Layout Randomization) http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/02/25/apple_exposing_mac_os_x_lion_to_security_experts_for_review.html http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/02/25/apple_exposing...