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 478582
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Just another article
by Alfman on Sat 25th Jun 2011 18:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Just another article"
Member since:

"Fair enough. How does any OS defend against such an attack?"

"By only letting applications access their own folder and files explicitly pointed out by the user."

A user should not have to trust an app in order to run it. Untrusted apps should be allowed to run, but remain individually sandboxed. This way a user could in fact download and run untrusted software without compromising anything else on the system. I don't know of any OS which does this effectively. Java Web Start gets very close, it's a shame Sun never got much traction with it.

Obviously it's extremely difficult to implement sandboxing mid-game. Once we have a huge base of legitimate software which sets the precedent of requiring full access in order to run at all, the user is trained to routinely give app's escalated privileges. This means the security provided by the sandboxing becomes ineffective - ms vista is a good example of this.

Reply Parent Score: 2