Slashdot Mirror
Do Macs Have an Edge Against APTs?
itwbennett writes "Macs aren't being hit with advanced persistent threat (APT) attacks, but that doesn't mean they're invulnerable, say researchers at iSec Partners. Speaking at the Black Hat conference in Las Vegas Wednesday, iSec founder Alex Stamos and his team of researchers took a look at the typical stages of an APT attack — and compared how the Mac would do versus Windows 7. Their conclusion: Macs provide good protection against the initial phases of the attack, but once the bad guys are on the network, it's a whole different story. 'They're pretty good for [protecting from] remote exploitation,' Stamos said. '[But] once you install OS X server you're toast.'"
"For example, Mac's Keychain software is vulnerable to what's known as a brute-force attack, he said."
Idiot alert, article is crap.
Windows server looked after by a good sysadmin == secure.
Mac server looked after by bad sysadmin == insecure.
As always, it's up to the people running it. Is any OS inherently secure, no, definitely not when there is a complete idiot looking after it.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
While I agree with your conclusion (that Windows is a less safe OS than Linux), your first point is completely illogical. The number of viruses released in a given year can be a function of market share without being a 1:1 function of market share. Criminals will always target the OS with the largest numbers of technically unsavvy users. Why double your efforts to increase your pool of potential victims by only ~10%?
Until a non-Windows OS is installed on a plurality of machines, Windows will be the primary target and have the most hackers going after it. The Pwn2Own contests have shown that Macs are plenty vulnerable when people are willing to put in the effort to go after them.
I think russotto wasn't calling TFA Microsoft propaganda, but rather calling WrongSizeGlass' "Macs are only secure because they're less popular" comment Microsoft propaganda. Which it is, of course. Any argument that relies on security-through-obscurity is wrong, no matter how you try to dress it up. WrongSizeGlass and the zillion other posters who repeat this tired canard may not realize they're propagandizing for Microsoft, but that's what they're doing, sure enough. They should at least demand payment for their services.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Until a non-Windows OS is installed on a plurality of machines, Windows will be the primary target and have the most hackers going after it. The Pwn2Own contests have shown that Macs are plenty vulnerable when people are willing to put in the effort to go after them.
The guy who won all those Pwn2Own contest says that OSX Lion's security is now better than Windows 7.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
OSX is not a target because there are very few people running OSX who have access to the systems with information that dedicated, skilled attackers want to get to.
That's simply not true. For example, OS X is very popular among scientists and engineers at many of the national labs.