Linked by Hadrien Grasland on Sat 25th Jun 2011 08:55 UTC, submitted by John
Mac OS X "Using a Mac may certainly be a safer choice for a lot of people as despite being vulnerable they are not targeted. However this is not the same as Macs being secure, something Eric Schmidt erroneously advised recently. I may be able to browse impervious to malware on a Mac at the moment, however I personally would not be comfortable using a platform so easily compromised if someone had the motivation to do so. In this article I address just why OS X is so insecure including the technical shortcomings of OS X as well as Apples policies as a company that contribute to the situation."
Thread beginning with comment 478561
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Half right
by some1 on Sat 25th Jun 2011 15:30 UTC in reply to "Half right"
some1
Member since:
2010-10-05

> It was designed less secure than he thinks and ultimately implemented even less securely.
Citation needed.

Reply Parent Score: 2

implemented like this
by kaelodest on Sat 25th Jun 2011 19:45 in reply to "RE: Half right"
kaelodest Member since:
2006-02-12

First user is "owner\sudoer\wheel" browser allows arbitrary code, pdfs run at an exec level, Broswer unstuffs and mounts .dmg\.iso files - I guess that would be bad, firewall is off, guest accounts are on iLife services sharing on a bunch of porst and just a bunch of other stuff. I am a big Apple head, and the Non-Admin accounts is with Limited and Parental Controls on is nice but the Admin account is a nightmare.
BUT that is again hard to patch against the stupid user. Unity as an interface took a beating but it makes it harder for a curious newbie to assassinate his configuration. And it seems plenty secure with user defaults.

Reply Parent Score: 1