WereKitten said:
I want to correct this: if OS-X ever gains a significant market share, it will surely become target of much more malware. The difference being that a good security infrastructure enables a piece of software to be robust against attacks, and not automatically a victim. Or when it comes to the worst, it ensures that the damage malware can cause is limited. Example: servers based on LAMP infrastructure and in particular the Apache webserver were victims of much less serious exploits than Microsoft's IIS server, though being much more widely employed worldwide. That is not to say that I have blind faith in OS-X security, mind you. Hackers meetings centered on security demonstrated that it is not at all that impervious. But on the other hand serious faults were pointed out by experts in Windows 7 at beta-time that were never corrected, and that might open a privilege escalation. Bottom line: I refuse to accept "marketshare brings vulnerability", I only accept that marketshare brings exposition. Software quality can de-couple the two, and we should push, as consumers, for higher quality. |
What a load of horseshit. I have worked in IT for just over 20 years, particularly around security, so let me just correct some of your horseshit.
the LAMP stack over the past 5 years has been the target of signifiantly more vulnerabilities than the equivalent windows stack with IIS, and combined with the garbage php apps is one of the most hacked server side platforms around at the moment. Not since IIS5 (windows 2000) has MS had any significant security issues in there web stack (check it for yourself on something like secunia).
secondly the biggest attack vector has NEVER been the OS and neither windows nor OSX or for that matter linux provides any protection from the vast majority of malware and trojans which are transmitted through user stupidity, downloading and running stuff they shouldn't.
