By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
scottie on 24 April 2010
Edit Thread
zarx said:
scottie said:
r505Matt said:
scottie said:
Kenoid said:

 

Security is a state of being, not something situational. You can't just change up the variables just to suit your purpose, you have to keep consistencies or there's no point. So a well locked bankvault which people know to contain billions or a fairly poorly locked bankvault which people know to contain billions of dollars. There's a difference in 1 variable, not 2. 

A well built castle defending a vital point or a poorly built castle defending a vital point. Again, the only different there is a variable in security. Otherwise you an say whatever you want to suit any purpose, and has no bearing on validity, and doesn't contribute to a discussion.

The fact of the matter is that Windows suffers repeated continuous attacks at all times, whereas Mac OSX doesnt. However you interpret that is up to you. As someone put it, MS has gone through a trial by fire, and has come out stronger and better for it. If Apple were hit by the same force, I'd imagine their security could fall apart.

 

But in the Mac/Pc debate there are two variables - you make a lot more money from kacing PC's than you do macs, because more people use them. So thanks for admitting my comparison is perfect :)

 

And this is why I said that you would be better off reading my first post properly

 

"2) Whatever the reason, Mac is more secure. This guy, as a computer hacker, defines security purely in terms of the strength of the code. I would define security in terms of how much threat viruses pose to your system. A bad castle in the bronze age is more secure than a good castle in modern times. However, it's not a hugely important point, because neither definition is inherently right, and really it comes down to semantics."

which castle would you rather be in during an attack lol the highly secure one or the one with one old half bind sentry and an unlocked door. yes you are far less likely to be attacked but if you are you have less protection, I know mac users that use no security software at all because they think like you do but they are far more likely to have a keylogger steal their credit card info than someone that has a windows machine with a firewall and antivirus/antispyware software who checks to make sure that the sites they enter that data into is secure etc. My point is there are mac viruses and keyloggers etc for the mac infact they are on the rise but as people think they don't have to worry about it because they have a mac they are far less secure.

 

Well yes, I am willing to admit that in the particular situation of a smart windows user who is currently experiencing an attack is going to have less negative consequences than an equally intelligent Mac user who is currently experiencing a threat of equal magnitude. That is infact exactly what the hacker said in the OP and I did not disagree with this.

 

I have stated many times that my definition of secure includes the likelihood of experiencing an attack, while acknowledging that yours is purely based on a theoretical "Whose code is better" perspective - what I might refer to as inherent security I suppose, and that neither of these is objectively correct.

 

And yes, the 'security through obscurity' that Mac users enjoy is starting to wear off, mostly because the mac userbase is growing (both in terms of install base and market share), making Macking (Mac Hacking) a more profitable venture. However, I am also of the opinion that Apple is currently developing their antivirus protection at a rate more then able to offset the aforementioned decline. Apple has started officially spreading the word that antivirus software is still essential for a mac user, and the inherent security of their programs is improving