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."
Thread beginning with comment 180611
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Not the best - not the worst
by MacGod on Thu 9th Nov 2006 20:37 UTC
Member since:

OK - let's be honest - the Mac OS is a fairly robust platform and is very stable and secure. The only variable that would make the system more vulernable would be the unstable variable of human interaction.

By default, a Windows Server placed on the Internet with no Firewall/Anti-Virus is no comparison to a Mac OS X Server with the same non-protection. The Windows server will be owned in about 20-40 seconds, whereas the Mac OS server will take a bit more cracking to break into.

I have the luxury of being a contractor who manages clients with both types of systems (and I prefer Apple - anyday). The only APPLE issue I have ever had with a server be compromised is because the contractor/admin before me left a generic account on the system with a generic password and someone gained access to the FTP daemon and uploaded some crap to the website.

Human error caused this OWNAGE as did the installation of PHP Twiki in the above mentioned article.

I am sure there are tens of thousands more Windows servers out there than Macs - so it is difficult to make a true correlation between the ownage statistics between the two camps. But - pound for pound - the XServe is a better platform with it's UNIX roots and power (now especially with the Core Xeons).

I am not bashing MS - I like MS also - I just prefer the Apple platform right now... maybe tomorrow it will be LINUX or Solaris...


Reply Score: 2

PlatformAgnostic Member since:

I don't know since I'm not a server admin, but how does Win2k3 fare when put out on the web in a default web-server config? I got the impression that it has also been pretty robust thusfar.

Reply Parent Score: 1

MacGod 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