---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Anders Wallenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 08:32:45 +0200 > >P� n�got s�tt k�nns det som herr Pedrag Mitovic borde st�da utanf�r > egen d�rr innan han kritiserar oss anv�ndare f�r v�ra datorvanor. >Naturligtvis finns det inget f�rsvar mot "huliganerna" som trots allt >finner n�je i att skriva virus och �verlista ett uppenbarligen allt > f�r l�ttlurat operativsystem. Vid det h�r laget, snart tv� �r sedan > Bill Gates uppmanade sina konstrukt�rer till sk�rpning, s� borde det >vara v�l k�nt att problemet �r internt och inte kan skyllas p� >klottrande ton�ringar eller oss datoranv�ndare. > Precis. Det �r dags att avliva myten om att det finns flest virus till Windows d�rf�r att det har st�rst marknadsandel.
Som det st�r i senaste Circuits (David Pougue p� www.nytimes.com nyhetsbrev): I also wrote that Mac OS X and Linux are virus-free because they offer virus writers a much smaller "audience" than Windows � a notion that's been much repeated in the press, most recently last week's BusinessWeek cover story. That, as it turns out, is a myth, no matter who repeats it. There's a much bigger reason virus writers don't like Mac OS X and Linux. "Unix [which underlies Mac OS X] and Linux ARE more secure," wrote one reader. "They have been developed, open-source style, by people who know exactly what they are doing. Unix and Linux have had at least 10 years of battling hackers to better themselves. This leads to an extremely secure environment." Many of you also pointed out simple design decisions that make Mac OS X and Linux much more secure than Windows XP. For example: � Windows comes with five of its ports open; Mac OS X comes with all of them shut and locked. (Ports are back-door channels to the Internet: one for instant-messaging, one for Windows XP's remote-control feature, and so on.) These ports are precisely what permitted viruses like Blaster to infiltrate millions of PC's. Microsoft says that it won't have an opportunity to close these ports until the next version of Windows, which is a couple of years away. � When a program tries to install itself in Mac OS X or Linux, a dialog box interrupts your work and asks you permission for that installation � in fact, requires your account password. Windows XP goes ahead and installs it, potentially without your awareness. � Administrator accounts in Windows (and therefore viruses that exploit it) have access to all areas of the operating system. In Mac OS X, even an administrator can't touch the files that drive the operating system itself. A Mac OS X virus (if there were such a thing) could theoretically wipe out all of your files, but wouldn't be able to access anyone else's stuff � and couldn't touch the operating system itself. � No Macintosh e-mail program automatically runs scripts that come attached to incoming messages, as Microsoft Outlook does. Evidently, I'm not the only columnist to have fallen for this old myth; read another writer's more technical apology . But the conclusion is clear: Linux and Mac OS X aren't just more secure because fewer people use them. They're also much harder to crack right out of the box. /Johannes -- /Johannes Tel: 070-312 54 61 -- --- Avs�ndare: http://cv.rfa.se/index.php/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sponsor: RFA, n�tverket f�r kvalitetsmedvetna IT-konsulter http://www.rfa.se
