4 ms·

In recent versions of Windows you are right about the exec perm and run as admin prompt existing. "The downside is the user is prompted in a manner that allows

In recent versions of Windows you are right about the exec perm and run as admin prompt existing. "The downside is the user is prompted in a manner that allows them to override this." Exactly right. Since both of those prompts are "click OK to continue" types it makes the barrier they present is much lower than Linux where you have to change a file permission, then type your password again (and probably from a terminal to use sudo). I would say the barrier is so low they seldom work from what I have seen. My family members who run Linux don't even know how to use sudo... they just use the Ubuntu software center/synaptic. "in fact we've seen some for the bsd based OSX last year" I have not used OSX in 4 years so I can't comment meaningfully on this. My gut tells me Apple probably takes a lower barrier approach like MS, but I don't know.

TheAnimus 14y ago
Actually, being very un-scientific and subjective. I've not seen that. Most things I've seen spreading are already infected executables of pirate code. Or exploits. Now we can talk about the fact running as Admin is stupid, and UAC is just a way to allow bad habbits to continue. But, just look how complex (and sometimes elegant) the average entry in pwn2own web browsers are. Side stepping ASLR, breaking the sandbox, privlidge escalation. All of those things can and are possible on any operating system, this includes linux.
xymostech 14y ago
Commenting on the state of OS X right now: There's this 'Gatekeeper' feature (which can be disabled, but starts enabled) that makes it so a developer has to have a signed certificate from apple in order to run on OS X. If someone starts releasing malware with a previously obtained certificate, Apple will send an update that disables that certificate. I think that, once smaller developers start getting their apps signed (I'm not sure how hard it is to do this) then this will be a wonderful tool, and already probably is nice for non-power users. I currently leave it disabled because enough of the stuff I use isn't signed, but in the future it might be a nice step forwards for security.
- clauretano 14y ago
  In case you hadn't stumbled upon this, you can bypass gatekeeper on individual executables by ctrl clicking and selecting "open" from the context menu.

TheAnimus 14y ago

Actually, being very un-scientific and subjective. I've not seen that. Most things I've seen spreading are already infected executables of pirate code. Or exploits. Now we can talk about the fact running as Admin is stupid, and UAC is just a way to allow bad habbits to continue. But, just look how complex (and sometimes elegant) the average entry in pwn2own web browsers are. Side stepping ASLR, breaking the sandbox, privlidge escalation. All of those things can and are possible on any operating system, this includes linux.

xymostech 14y ago

Commenting on the state of OS X right now: There's this 'Gatekeeper' feature (which can be disabled, but starts enabled) that makes it so a developer has to have a signed certificate from apple in order to run on OS X. If someone starts releasing malware with a previously obtained certificate, Apple will send an update that disables that certificate. I think that, once smaller developers start getting their apps signed (I'm not sure how hard it is to do this) then this will be a wonderful tool, and already probably is nice for non-power users. I currently leave it disabled because enough of the stuff I use isn't signed, but in the future it might be a nice step forwards for security.

clauretano 14y ago
In case you hadn't stumbled upon this, you can bypass gatekeeper on individual executables by ctrl clicking and selecting "open" from the context menu.