Most secure OS?

[Glade]

"But if you look closely at the actual report (PDF), you'll see that this claim that Windows is "Most Secure" is based merely on Microsoft's relative speediness in patching security holes."

Quoted from:

http://www.tuaw.com/2007/03/22/fud-windows...most-secure-os/

I read that article and I'm not convinced that Windows is the most secure. Besides, how many people have Vista? The MacOSX system on the other hand, has updates that bring any Mac built in the last 8 years up to date with the lastest version as long as the user has purchased the major system upgrades such as Jaguar, Panther and Tiger, and they still run better than they ever did. (Limited of course, by processor speed and lack of newer features such as built-in cameras, remotes, updated optical drives, etc.)

[Tarun]

Now let's rule out the article by pointing out that it's more than likely biased:

-------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[ Moved to Security forum ]

[Glade]

Now let's rule out the article by pointing out that it's more than likely biased:

-------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[ Moved to Security forum ]

It could be considered biased, just because it is an Apple-related weblog, but the idea put forth in the article seems sound to me and is based on what the original study results showed. Besides, aren't PC sites just as biased?

Macs are still prettier n-n

[Tarun]

Hard to say if Symantec is biased, considering they make numerous Mac based products too. :cake:

[greenknight]

I read about another study (on ZDNet) that looked at actual exploits rather than vulnerabilities, by that standard Mac OSX was the most secure. The experts were actually quite puzzled by the lack of exploits for it - while it's not as widely used as Windows, there are still a lot of systems out there using it. It has vulnerabilities, too - even though most of them are minor, you'd think somebody would be trying to take advantage of them. But apparently they're not, or they haven't been successful.

[Tarun]

Greenknight, the biggest reason for that is that people want attention from viruses and other exploits. So how would you get the most attention, from writing a virus or exploit for an OS that is on an average of 95% of computers around the world (Windows) or one that is on about 5% or less (Macs). Obviously you'd go where it will be getting more attention.

[greenknight]

Exploits tend to be more profit-driven these days. No doubt if Mac's market share was bigger, someone would develop exploits for it, but that doesn't entirely explain the present total lack of exploits. Maybe the malware writers have bought into the Mac propaganda, and they just think it's too secure...