On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Jasper Streit wrote:
> I would take this article with a really BIG grain of salt, considering
> the fact that it is written by an apple employee. Talk about biased
> journalism!
I don't think it's biased. It's based on fact. I admit there's a little
bit of marketing spin in it, but having used OSX for nearly a year
now full time it tallys with my experience.
>
> I see no reason why the os wouldn't be subject to a unix type virus.
But how many of those are there? As the man said (and as anyone with
a bit UNIX experience can tell you), it's just too hard. Virus
writers just don't have the in depth knowledge to break
the security models imposed by UNIX based OS platforms. Of course,
as I said yesterday, it doesn't rule out the typical exploits on code
such as Sendmail, SSL/SSH, Samba (none of which are actually "part" of
OSX anyway, but come bundled in the installation) or any number of port based
attacks, but OSX comes "with all ports closed". Any networked system is
vulnerable,
eventually exploits will be found, attacks will be attempted and eventually
succeed, but not at the same extent or rate of occurance as with
Windows, where the security model is exceptionally weak, the data links
between the OS and applications are extensive and permit abuse by default.
There's just no comparison. When Billy Gates fixes his Windows,
maybe the argument will be stronger. Until then, "Windows security"
is an oxymoron.
--
Rachel Polanskis Systems Admin, University of Western Sydney
V1-37, Kingswood Campus (+61 2) 47 360 291 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security,
deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
