Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 9th Nov 2006 17:36 UTC, submitted by Matt Hartley
Mac OS X "Yesterday, I read what I consider to be a provoking piece at ZDNet. It pointed out that while there is no question that Macs are not the malware targets that Windows machines are, they're most certainly not immune to an attack of the right variety. It went on to backup its point with a real world scenario in which a University of New South Wales Mac server had been hit by malware. Disturbingly, the server had apparently been running the latest updates from Apple and still managed to get hit. It mentioned that, in the author's opinion, Apple was 'misleading people' into believing that their OS was more secure than it really is. Whether or not that is true is frankly immaterial to me. It should be noted that no OS is 100 percent bulletproof, and I believe this is what it was driving home at. Unfortunately, some people within the Mac community felt differently."
Permalink for comment 180739
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Not the best - not the worst
by MacGod on Fri 10th Nov 2006 00:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Not the best - not the worst"
Member since:

I would tend to believe that in most cases the W2K3 (especially the W2K3r2 Server OS) is much more secure out of the box.

I would also go so far as to say that the newer security enhancements that are built into VISTA will definately go a longer way into making the OS more secure for the average user.

Any OS that garners favor and market share is a target for maliciousness - if it wasn't Windows, it would be the Mac OS... if it wasn't Mac OS or Windows, it would be LINUX... I need to stress that NO OS IS BULLETPROOF (there are quite a few that come close - and no - I don't consider Mac OS X to be one of them).


Reply Parent Score: 1