"It took a hacker less than 30 minutes to gain root-level access to Mac OS X, according to a report from ZDNet. The hacker who penetrated the system called the Mac "easy pickings.
The security breach took place on February 22 after a Swedish devotee of the Mac set up a Mac Mini as a server and invited all takers to try to compromise the system's security to gain root-level control. Once a hacker has gained root access to a computer system, the attacker can install applications, delete files and folders, and use the computer for any nefarious purpose."
www .newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=41948
Macs aren't less vunlneralbe because of their inherent security, it's their small market share. Most people who write viruses are trying to make a name for themselves so they want their activities to be very visible. Attacking a computer with 1/95th the market share of PC's, while it may garner some attention within that community, isn't going to be nearly as 'cool' as say, bringing down all the PCs in the world.
www.Microsoft.com"Believe In the Future"
Radavan
BeginnerLink Clerk
Comments
The fact that even Linux has firewalls and virus scanners shows this, and without such things running, I wouldn't be surprised to see a Mac get hacked.
Would I be correct in assuming that you are a Windows user?
If so, it doesn't matter why or how a Mac has been hacked, the fact still remains that Unix isn't hacked half as much as Windows and Unix style OS's aren't bound by the needs and wants of some monopolistic and poorly managed company.
If you find a giant hole in Windows, Microsoft has to find out why it's there, figure out how to close it and then, if it's not the Patch Tuesday of the month, you're left at risk while us Linux or Unix users get patches quicker.
The last time there was a major hole in the Linux distro I'm using, it was fixed in less than a day and it was a Sunday that the fix was put in the repository (a big server of applications, files and bug fixes that's free to use and not available to Windows users who still have to go find the .exe file and run it... Even OS X has this via Fink).
Why do companies fork out money for Red Hat Enterprise based web servers when Windows Server is around?
Why is over 50% of the internet based on Unix like OS's rather than NT based OS's?
Why is OS X still the better choice for designers?
The fact that one story of OS X being hacked has been put on the internet is no real sign that Unix is less secure than Windows as Windows Vista wasn't exactly secure when it was released as Beta.
Being in Beta isn't much of an excuse as security should come before flashy desktop effects that kill your hardware.
Windows is still less secure as anyone can log in an install whatever they like.
Unix user controls let you set who can edit, read, run or even see files, folders or applications while Windows has Admin and normal users (and everyone uses unrestricted accounts so that they can install software).
Current project: CMS Object.
Most recent change: Theme support is up and running... So long as I use my theme resource loaders instead of that in the Rails plug-in.
Release date: NEVER!!!
Yes you are correct, my friends call me "Gates" because I believe in Microsoft: "In Windows We Trust"
Some Must Reading:
"Linux Lined Up as Virus Target"
"Of course we will see more and more attacks on Windows, but Linux will be a target because its use is becoming more widespread," said Raimond Genes, European president for antivirus at Trend Micro. "It is a stable OS, but it's not a secure OS."
Jack Clarke, European product manager at McAfee, said: "In fact it's probably easier to write a virus for Linux because it's open source and the code is available. So we will be seeing more Linux viruses as the OS becomes more common and popular."
Clarke added that it seems ridiculous that users have any doubt about Linux being be attacked. "It's not a target at the moment because the market isn't there, but Lion and Ramen have already proved that it's on the menu," he explained.
"Of course it's possible to write a virus for Linux," said Genes, dismissing the common opinion that Linux is a virus free OS."
Such worms leave holes in a network even after the worm itself has been killed. Nimda, for example, is capable of setting up open shares on a network.
"These aren't fixed by antivirus updates," said Genes. "You need to use clean up tools to restore such changes. But users don't download these. It's as if they don't care," he said."
Found here: ww w.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2116855/linux-lined-virus-target
Other good before bed reading:
ww w.linuxinsider.com/story/32240.html
ww w.linuxforums.org/forum/linux-security/67596-i-think-my-linux-server-has-been-hacked-now-what.html
ww w.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?t=196709
Try comparing the number of Window viruses to Linux viruses, then you will see why Linux is better.
So maybe it is because Windows is more popular, but who cares if the reason if it is still true?
In that same article that you cited it says:
"If you write a virus for Windows, your peers clap their hands; write one for Linux and they'll stone you."
Radavan, that tells me that there is actual peer pressure on Hackers NOT to write viruses for Linux because that is not "cool" in the Hacker community. I'll bet you The Hackers themselves use Linux and they don't want their own systems broken in to.
What I'm saying is that the Linux community is much better at handling viruses and hacking as they aren't bound by idiotic rules on when patches can go out, and since they aren't bound by when or where they work, open source developers can work on a bug for longer periods of time.
I'm far from a Microsoft hater (I have 2 Windows XP PC's and both Xbox consoles as well as a LIVE Silver account... Oh, and a Microsoft wireless mouse as well...), but only releasing patches on one day of every month no matter how critical is utterly unacceptable to me as I don't want to be putting my data at risk every time I boot up (being a web developer, I don't want to have to sit and completely rewrite an entire application because my system died).
Linux can be hacked, but the fact remains that there's things that can be done to combat such threats (like firewalls and virus scanners) and security isn't the only factor.
People who have experienced the complete failure that was Windows ME or who have had XP mysteriously die on them (this happens, I have had it happen many times and I'm rather good with computers and other technology) will undoubtedly be angry when they have to start over because their OS isn't stable.
At least I know now that I'm not at risk of my system crippling itself because I put a flash card into my reader (all OS's crash, but not all of them do it as much or to the same extent).
Security is only a minor issue that is used by Apple to promote their OS and there's many other reasons to use something other than Windows such as stability, useful bundled apps as standard (Calculator, Notepad and Wordpad don't really match up to iLife), freedom of choice (Linux beats OS X and Windows to death here as it's easily more customisable) and often a better desktop interface (Windows' interface becomes unusable if you have a good number of windows open).
Current project: CMS Object.
Most recent change: Theme support is up and running... So long as I use my theme resource loaders instead of that in the Rails plug-in.
Release date: NEVER!!!
1. Radavan, you're about 6 months late, mate.
The story has been well and truly covered by everyone - except you, evidently.
2. You don't even have the full story. Maybe you should do a little more reading..? Can you read?
3. You seem proud...? roflmao.
This is far from over CannonBall. I will convince you of Microsoft's superiority yet. Microsoft will beat Linux into the ground and then deal the death blow to Apple.
You can't fight the power.
Microsoft are the worst company on the planet, for so many reasons, and Windows is the worse Operating System, for yet more reasons.
I can understand people who are obsessed with their OS, I'm in that category, but not when their OS is Windows. CAN YOU NOT SEE WHAT IS WRONG WITH IT!?
Linux beaten into the ground?
Apple recieves death blow?
HAHAHAHAHA! Ok, not funny anymore.
Microsoft tried dealing a death blow to Apple not long after they split and started getting Windows out there.
That didn't work and Windows' only real advantage was that it was running on el cheapo hardware from Japan while Apple OS was running on Apple's own hardware.
For the longest time, Windows was for average users and Apple systems were for graphics designers and pro's who needed to get the most out of their hardware.
More recently, this started to wane as Intel's x86 CPU architecture began to evolve more while Motorola CPU's were still pretty lame and IBM's PowerPC CPU architecture (based on their earlier POWER architecture) proved to be a pain in it's own way (not to mention the whole Jobs leaving and forming NeXT, which is what the first web server ran on, not Windows
Because of the limitations placed on Apple systems by using CPU's from the Big Blue, Apple started having some serious problems with their future.
How could they compete when, due to PowerPC G5 CPU's running hot enough to cause sterility, them being costly and using too much damned power, they were forced to stick with older CPU models?
The desktop systems didn't have the problems to the same extent, but heat is an issue with quiet systems and if IBM was reluctant to even scratch 3Ghz, they had to go.
Granted, the average install of OS X runs on lesser hardware than Windows XP, despite allowing for all those visual effects (because Unix isn't a resource hog), but if they had better hardware to put into their systems, lord only knows what they could do.
Because IBM sucks at CPU's (stupid Microsoft, use a CPU which won't cripple my console with heat after 30 mins next time... like an Intel or AMD CPU!), Apple decided to move to the more common and now more evolved x86 architecture with the help of it's creator, Intel.
Oh look, no 3Ghz home user desktop systems, but then again, Unix and similar OS's do not need so much power to do things right, so a 2.5Ghz dual core CPU is still going to give a fair bit of punch.
Now they are using Intel, they have access to the Core Duo, meaning that their laptop systems can run as well as their desktops as they have the same CPU, OS and memory (the Core Duo is supposed to be for use in laptops and small form factor systems, which is why Apple uses it as their Mac Pro towers use duan core Xeon's which usually show up in servers or high end research PC's).
Now, lets have a look at Windows Vista shall we...
Requirements: At least a T1000, but the Matrix would allow for more visual effects.
Security improvements:
Holes were found in the public Beta in no time... Probably no change for the actual release.
Patches still only released on Patch Tuesday, which is once per month.
More Unix like regulation of who does what, but probably as easy to get around as clicking "Turn off super secure privilages system".
Usability improvements:
Virtual directories which take you to somewhere else (oh wait, where did this come from?).
Ability to use USB flash drives to boost system performance (mirroring data to them as it saves reading from the HDD... But flash drives to burn out if written and read too many times).
Searching in the start menu (OMFG! New feature in OS's that's never been done unless you use OS X of some other Unix like OS with Gnome or KDE).
Other features:
New visual abilities such as alpha transparency, proper drop shadows and transformations (because OS X hasn't already done this and it can't already be done easily with Linux... I'm doing it now with Enlightenment and I can do even more with Compiz, including Vista and OS X effects... Also, IE7 better support .PNG alpha transparency as IE has been holding the web back for far too long).
New look (no longer looks like "My First Operating System", but will probably still lock you into using only 3 themes that are just colour changes, but someone will hack theme support for 3rd party stuff into it).
Also, what kind of moron (Steve Balmer) puts every version of a commercial OS (Vista) onto one DVD and expects people to pay more for the pricier versions when they could just wait for info on how to unlock higher versions to come out on the net?
Basically, I can (as in right now) do a hell of a lot that Vista can on hardware that Vista will not run on, and it doesn't cause me lag.
On top of that, I can make it look and fell how I want, not how some misc designer thinks it should.
I also get features that make my life easier, which Vista will not have such as multiple desktops as standard (OS X Leopard will have this functionality, so expect to see it in Windows GR8 in 2010 or around then).
Don't even get me started on the whole anti-trust side of things.
Current project: CMS Object.
Most recent change: Theme support is up and running... So long as I use my theme resource loaders instead of that in the Rails plug-in.
Release date: NEVER!!!
Yes it is over CannonBall. It is over with just one question:
"Who is the richest man in the world?"
Now ask yourself why.
-
ModGirl Design
My ArtWanted Portfolio
Renderosity Gallery
my theory is that more people dislike windows and so concetrate on hacking that, if as many people tried to hack the mac (like the rhyme?) as hack windows you would see more macs with viruses
-
ModGirl Design
My ArtWanted Portfolio
Renderosity Gallery
It's a fact that *nix is more secure than windows, in a number of ways.
As for the comment about Bill Gates' wealth.. You think that just because he made lots of money that his stuff is superior? Hahahahahaha! You are SO naive.
It's ignorant idiots like you that made him rich. And for what? Because you know no better. Damnit, do some actual RESEARCH before mouthing off about something you know nothing abou.
Who is the most hated American in the computer industry?
Bill Gates tied with Steve Balmer.
Who's had more anti-trust lawsuits than any other OS developer?
Microsoft.
Who made most of their money by providing an OS which could be installed on 3rd party hardware, meaning loads of half assed companies like Q-Tec and Iquon could flog crap systems?
Microsoft.
Who has a loyal user base made up of I.T. pro's, designers and developers?
Apple and Linux.
What runs more than 50% of the internet?
Linux and Unix.
What OS is used by the company that keeps Micosoft's website up and free from DDoS attacks?
Linux.
Which OS's run with better visual effects on lower hardware?
Linux and OS X.
What OS has been recorded to run websites for almost 5 years without rebooting or failing?
BSD Unix (which is what OS X is built on... Linux can't be clocked at that level as it has a limit on it's uptime counter and Windows just doesn't stay up long enough).
What OS is used by people who don't know what OS stands for, don't do much other than play games and chat on IM services and don't even know who Bill Gates is?
Windows.
Seriously, I mentioned Bill Gates in a conversation once with someone who uses a PC, the internet and IM services and they asked me who he was...
Myths:
Linux \ Unix isn't more secure, but it has less users:
Oh really?
Well, since more servers run Unix with Apache than anything else, I really don't believe that Windows is superior here.
Even if Windows was as secure and had the same user rights systems, there's still the fact that you can make an OS secure if you know how.
A decent firewall and virus scanner is usually a good start.
Open Source is obviously less secure as hackers can access the source code and find flaws in it:
Well, we better take down the internet then as most of it is running on Open Source technologies such as Apache, OpenSSL, BSD, Linux and so on and so forth.
Mocrosoft Server and IIS make up less than half of all non-specialist web servers.
The only thing Microsoft really does better is ASP support, and even that isn't impossible under other server setups.
Every OS crashes, but you hear about it more with Windows because it's more popular:
Um, yeah... Every OS can crash, and probably will somewhere down the line, but there's differences which make Windows crash harder.
Windows is built on a monolithic kernel and generally, everything that makes up a stock Windows installation is linked to something else.
For example, if Internet Explorer's renderer has a bug in it, then so will every app that uses it, and that's a lot of applications.
You can't just pull IE out, tinker with it and put it back in when it's fixed as the system wouldn't be overly pleased (it would be like me reaching inside you and pulling out a kidney, and expecting you to be fine with it).
If one thing crashes, there can be knock on effects which can cripple the entire system.
With OS's like Linux, which is a modular system, if one bit crashes, the system doesn't usually go down and you can get away without rebooting.
Lets say I'm using Gnome (which I am) and I have Firefox and Xara LX running, but due to some weirdness, Firefox bombs.
It's like under Windows and doesn't crash anything other than the browser as the browser isn't built from any part of the core OS.
Now, lets say Gnome mysteriously dies or I accidentally press CTRL+ALT+Backspace... Gnome goes down, but my OS is still running and it's still usable in console mode (handy if you're a sysadmin) and Gnome can be restarted (or, in the case of killing Gnome with key commands, it can restart itself).
Under Windows, it is possible for Explorer to die and reboot without killing the system, but that's only killing and restarting a few things which put the start menu and such on screen, not the entire desktop (which is when Windows needs to reboot as there's no terminal only interface, just console windows on the desktop).
Windows Server has a desktop for configuration, meaning it's better:
No, it isn't.
Any sysadmin who's managing multiple servers will probably handle them all from one workstation that's running apps designed to report the status of the servers hooked into it.
This basically makes desktops on servers redundant and means they use resources which would be better off used for serving data on useless garbage.
Most of the time, hosting companies use rack servers anyway, which makes the whole concept of hooking up the hardware for a desktop pretty dull.
Sure, you could use KVM's to switch from one system to another, and this is a pretty good sollution if you can't use remote acess, but it does mean that batch work becomes more boring as you have to shift from one server to another rather than shooting off a command or script to the servers you're trying to access.
Current project: CMS Object.
Most recent change: Theme support is up and running... So long as I use my theme resource loaders instead of that in the Rails plug-in.
Release date: NEVER!!!
You have some good points. Your a lot better at arguing than CannonBall who can only seem to use namecalling. So let me see if I can explain better why I prefer Windows (and I don't hate Linux by the way):
Years ago I used to do my own auto stuff- tuneups, oil changes, even more. With the new computerized everything, and the tight engine compartments, and the specialized tools you need nowadays, I don't. My car is just something that gets me from point A to point B and I know not and care not how to fix it if it doesn't. Fortunately, cars today are pretty darn reliable.
Windows is a lot like that. Prepackaged, protective, mostly works. And honestly - it doesn't crash as much as it used to. The old blue screen of death is pretty infrequent now, so that's no reason to run Linux. Windows is a pretty good OS now, if you don't mind doing things their way.
You see, that's just what I want. I want to focus on my business and making money, not on my OS. Do you see how windows saves me time?
I have tired Linux, and here's what I've found:
1) Installing programs is easier with windows because there is a standard. Try installing VLC and you'll see what I mean.
2) With Linux, anytime you try to install or change something on your own computer you have to type a password. And god forbid you run the program in root, then you get every warning that exists.
3) Installing anything good in Linux requires an entire weekend ending up in learning how to reinvent the wheel.
4) To truly use any Linux distribution your going to have to either take classes in how Linux works or spend time reading a lot of books and forums.
5) The device driver issue is pretty important. Get a brand new Printer / Scanner / digital camera from the market and you will get a windows driver CD. But rarely a Linux driver CD. Also Linux drivers vary with kernel versions and sometimes distributions. So its difficult to write all versions of drivers.
Windows detects and loads all necessary drivers for you during installation.
6) And if your response to point #5 above is: "Most of the drivers you need are already in the kernel," my point is that a majority of people are on the wrong side of the migrate to linux barrier, "all the drivers you need" are not already in the kernel. And what's more they will never be. The idea that the kernel and then the distro at large for regular software should be the single source of software that you install is just wrong. It is the very opposite of freedom. Sure it's a passable solution up to a point, but only up to a point.
To sum it up: if you have lots of time to spend on your OS, run Linux and have fun. But if your like me with not enough time in your day, Windows frees me up to spend time on my business. Like my car, my operating system is just something that gets me from point A to point B and that's the way I like it.
It's the simplicity. Windows is vastly easier to use for most people.
Most of the reasons you like Windows, are also found in Mac's OS.
that could be don to the fact tat its cheaper
Most modern Linux distro's are targeted at both server and desktop users and have access to some kind of repository, making software installation much easier than under Windows.
For example, Ubuntu has repositories and comes with an app called Synaptic pre-installed.
Basically, you click on "install \ remove software" in the menu, and you get an interface that lists all the available apps.
With this, there's no downloading, no installers and no need to configure anything as it will download and set up applications for you so long as they are available in the repositories.
Ubuntu also has tools which make installing it's native .deb packages easier as well by providing a generic GUI for getting them installed, much like .exe installing under Windows.
This is part of the Unix security model, and one reason why it's better than Windows.
Root access isn't designed for the every day user as running in a normal user account is safer.
You can use commands like sudo to temporarily gain root level access, but you need to input a password to get it, for obvious reasons.
With Windows, pretty much anything can install with full privilages, which isn't good if the app that happens to be installing itself is some form of malware.
Granted, it is possible for such apps to break into Linux root mode, but at least you're not opening the door for them.
Again, not true.
I have Firefox, Opera, Jedit, Apache2, Ruby on Rails, XGL & Compiz, WiNE, PHP5, mySQL, Open Office and many other things installed without doing any work myself.
Granted, compiling these myself and installing them by hand would provide a speed boost, but this is also true of any OS as code compiled on your system is optimized for our system.
So, basically, it's the same as for Windows, only with more flexibility...
You can learn to use Windows at GUI level by yourself and the same applies to modern Linux distro's.
You only really need to learn about console commands and such if you intend on being a power user.
Current project: CMS Object.
Most recent change: Theme support is up and running... So long as I use my theme resource loaders instead of that in the Rails plug-in.
Release date: NEVER!!!