4 ms·
I think making a claim like users don't have to deal with viruses, malware, and security updates is potentially more dangerous than having an OS with a less rob
by imgabe 17y ago
I think making a claim like users don't have to deal with viruses, malware, and security updates is potentially more dangerous than having an OS with a less robust security model.
Even linux and BSD systems are vulnerable if malicious programs are given the necessary permissions to run. If a casual user hears something like, "This OS is immune to viruses", they're likely to be a lot less cautious about running programs that might auto load from websites. By now most Windows users know better than to click OK when a website wants to install something on your PC.
- moe 17y agoBy now most Windows users know better than to click OK when a website wants to install something on your PC. Have any data to back that up? Because my impression is the opposite.
- imgabe 17y agoPerhaps "most" is an overstatement, but certainly a greater proportion know better today than did 10-12 years ago. As time goes on that segment of the Windows user population is only going to increase.
- tptacek 17y agoYou're right in spirit, but let's kill the "permissions" meme. There's no normally-used Unix permissions that make viruses difficult to implant on Unix systems, and there's nothing on most people's machines that a virus would want access to that intrinsically requires "root". The leading causes of malware are single-user machines and point-and-click software installation from the web. To the extent that any OS allows these, it's susceptable.