Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 1st Jun 2010 09:42 UTC
Google Google employees have always had a remarkable amount of freedom when it comes to what operating system they wanted to run on company computers - Linux, Windows, Mac OS X, it was all fine. Since the China attacks, however, this has changed: Windows is no longer welcome on Google computers.
Thread beginning with comment 427414
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Secure alternative
by Tony Swash on Tue 1st Jun 2010 10:35 UTC in reply to "Secure alternative"
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

Many people see MacOS X as a secure OS, while in fact it ain't that more secure than Windows.


Those technical dimwits at Google have been fooled by Apple marketing again ;)

Why - in your opinion - would Google say it prefers MacOSX to Windows on security grounds if they are both equally insecure?

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[2]: Secure alternative
by woegjiub on Tue 1st Jun 2010 10:38 in reply to "RE: Secure alternative"
woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

Whilst they may be equally insecure, there are far less instances of developed malware for the Apple operating system.

There is a large botnet of macs though - pirated versions of adobe software with trojans built-in caused a huge number of them.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Secure alternative
by Lennie on Tue 1st Jun 2010 11:53 in reply to "RE[2]: Secure alternative"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

1. Microsoft is really slow a lot of the times with creating fixes when problems are reported. Some say they are getting better with writing software. I'm not so sure. Every new release of windows they say, we've rewritten large parts and checked large parts of the code base. And every single time some bug is found in DCOM or whatever and it turns out they were vulnerable for that bug ever since the NT4-era all the way up to the lastest version. The only difference is, in newer versions they added a firewall or similair general purpose layer. Sometimes it's even on by default.

2. Apple on the other hand is slow with pushing security updates for things which they did not create themselfs, like Java and open source libraries. We don't know much about the rest, but it doesn't seem to be much better.

3. Their is a lot more malware out their for Windows.

4. Many malware writers were so annoyed by Vista as their primary desktop they switched to using a Mac and started writing malware for the Mac as well.

To be honest, I don't know what is better.

These companies don't seem to be interrested in pushing out updates. It's work they don't want to do, they just do enough to not get a bad image.

But if you look at what Google is doing, you have to remember, they are doing this because it fits their way of working. I wouldn't be surprised that in their environment a Unix-based Mac is much easier to secure because it's similair to Linux (I heared Ubuntu).

So it means less work for them.

Edited 2010-06-01 11:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Secure alternative
by Tony Swash on Tue 1st Jun 2010 14:49 in reply to "RE[2]: Secure alternative"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

There is a large botnet of macs though - pirated versions of adobe software with trojans built-in caused a huge number of them.


.... and your evidence to support this claim is?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Secure alternative
by Shkaba on Tue 1st Jun 2010 17:31 in reply to "RE: Secure alternative"
Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22

Security through obscurity is what comes to mind when talking about Mac OS. Mac was the first victim in Vancouver's PWN2OWN, no?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Secure alternative
by google_ninja on Tue 1st Jun 2010 18:32 in reply to "RE: Secure alternative"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

after RTFA..

Windows is known for being more vulnerable to attacks by hackers and more susceptible to computer viruses than other operating systems. The greater number of attacks on Windows has much to do with its prevalence, which has made it a bigger target for attackers.


The reasoning is based on the number of exploits and the targetting of the platform by the bad guys, not really on security.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Secure alternative
by polaris20 on Tue 1st Jun 2010 21:07 in reply to "RE: Secure alternative"
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

OS X, for now, is safer than Windows 7. It is NOT more secure.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Secure alternative
by Morgan on Thu 3rd Jun 2010 00:39 in reply to "RE[2]: Secure alternative"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

OS X, for now, is safer than Windows 7. It is NOT more secure.



Pardon me for being blunt, but: Prove it. Don't just blindly spout something like that without backing it up. And before you call me a fanboy, I'm posting this from Windows 7 and I'd call you out just the same if you swapped the OS names in your statement.

Sorry, but I just like a little fact with my supposition, thank you.

Reply Parent Score: 2