Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 26th Jun 2012 09:34 UTC, submitted by tomcat
Mac OS X "In the wake of the Flashback botnet which targeted Mac computers, Apple has removed a statement from its messages on its website that Mac operating system X (OS X) isn't susceptible to viruses." It was an untenable statement anyway. Security is an illusion.
Thread beginning with comment 523849
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: How to Get My Money Back/
by reez on Tue 26th Jun 2012 11:59 UTC in reply to "RE: How to Get My Money Back/"
reez
Member since:
2006-06-28

Even if they get a proper configured OS, there are many stupid users that will just "Press this to..." when asked, regardless how good the OS is in regards to security.

Fun fact: This isn't true for Windows and other updates. ;)

Edited 2012-06-26 11:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

"Even if they get a proper configured OS, there are many stupid users that will just "Press this to..." when asked, regardless how good the OS is in regards to security.

Fun fact: This isn't true for Windows and other updates. ;)
"

In what sense?

Since the NT early days, if you have a proper configured Windows NT system, it is as secure as UNIX (discounting possible not patched exploits).

If the user is running as administrator, or knows the administrator password, then it is as secure as his/her can make use of the respective brain.

Edited 2012-06-26 12:26 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

It depends on your definition of "properly configured" and disregards the frequency of zero day exploits for the system. Prior to Vista, many programs required the user to be an admin and did not prompt for serious modifications to the system configuration. All of the above, contributed terrible security for the end user until Vista.

Reply Parent Score: 3

REM2000 Member since:
2006-07-25

I totally agree, Windows NT was really well designed, i agree that if it's used correctly however i would also say the problem with NT Security can also be blamed on application creators and i put Microsoft at the top of the list.

I say this as it was quite evident that the OS team didn't work at all with the applications team, that Office and pretty much all Microsoft software requires administrator rights to install and in some cases run, the escalation part of windows administration was completely forgotten about until it became standard practice to setup standard user accounts with administrative privileges, something we are paying for and trying to unwork in the present.

No man made device is flawless, especially something as complex as an Operating System.

Reply Parent Score: 5

umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

"Even if they get a proper configured OS, there are many stupid users that will just "Press this to..." when asked, regardless how good the OS is in regards to security.

Fun fact: This isn't true for Windows and other updates. ;)
"

If you mean, they refuse to "click here to install updates", then you're probably correct. The worst part about windows updates is that they often require a reboot (even under windows 7!).

How is it that malware writers are able to build malware that can dig into the deepest parts of the OS immediately after a user clicks a button (or even without that), while Microsoft can't even live-update their own OS properly and requires a full reboot?

Reply Parent Score: 3

tanzam75 Member since:
2011-05-19

How is it that malware writers are able to build malware that can dig into the deepest parts of the OS immediately after a user clicks a button (or even without that), while Microsoft can't even live-update their own OS properly and requires a full reboot?


A live update that succeeds on 99% of systems is an enormous success for a malware author.

In contrast, a live update that hoses 1% of systems unbootable is a disaster for Microsoft.

Reply Parent Score: 3