3 ms·
> I think the chance for remote execution would be far less if they used unix based systems. OSX is a *nix based system and has had far worse security than Win
by some1else 11y ago
> I think the chance for remote execution would be far less if they used unix based systems.
OSX is a *nix based system and has had far worse security than Windows for ages (lagging with basic things like address space randomization). Just because Unix is not considered a primary attack surface area for viruses and alike, it does not make it inherently more secure. That kind of attitude is indeed even more dangerous than having a well secured Windows computer.
(Disclaimer, Mac user myself)
- xorcist 11y agoSecurity isn't necessarily better or worse, but different. Remember that Windows (used to?) run code on every attached USB Mass Storage. The bundled web browser executed native code embeded on web pages (but don't worry as it's all signed, right?) and great efforts were made to build enterprise software on top of it. That has nothing to do with unix-ness or lack thereof. It's also nothing you can fix by layering more technology over it. Both systems have unpatched root exploits if you have access to the display subsystem. Both were initially developed for trusted local environments, then adapted for public network use some ten or fifteen years later and whatever security issues that brought was patched as they were found. I'm just not sure how to argue more or less security in that environment. Users still get owned by running Flash (so no ASLR for you) and Outlook.
- westoque 11y agoI agree, but using software based on open source rather than closed, I think it would would be far more secure. And if they do find bugs, I believe it will be fixed faster than it's counterparts.