It was a tradeoff against you clearly not understanding the statement "iOS doesn't have any less functionality than any other operating system" where I made clear and concise points as to precisely why iOS is *NOT* like other operating systems.
Now go wipe the spittle off your fashion accessory Apple screen.
It's certainly better than the Vista adoption but today still most PCs run XP. I know of absolutely nobody who has purchased a boxed upgrade of Windows 7 but lots of people who have bought new PCs where Windows 7 was pre-installed and they've now accepted it.
Corporations are also slow at rolling out Windows 7 up to this point, but I do accept that will accelerate as more and more people have Windows 7 at home, get used to it themselves and companies therefore don't have the additional costs of training their staff in it when they roll it out.
If I'm honest, I think Microsoft made a faux pas & put too much dependency on games phasing out Windows XP because they deliberately made DirectX 10 and 11 incompatible with Windows XP at a time when PC game releases were slowing down dramatically. Those PC games that were just DirectX 10 or higher seemed to hit the bargain bins very quickly (Shadowrun is one that comes to mind).
You also need to bear in mind that by today's standards, you do not need a particularly fast PC to run Windows XP and have it happily do all the other stuff that people want to do (play MP3s, surf the web, write emails and documents, mess about with photos, etc.) apart from the latest games. Yet everyone was talking about the additional overheads for Vista and Windows 7 when they came out, and I guess a lot of people just kept their old PCs and went to consoles for their gaming.
I don't think it got any better for Microsoft's forced-phasing out of XP when they decided not to release IE9 for XP at a time when IE's usage is dropping significantly as well.
Actually, sitting in a coffee shop with a Linux PC makes you look like an old hippie whereas walking in with a fashion accessory MacBook Air with lots of shiny things happening on the screen will probably earmark you as cool and theoretically get you laid - provided you have enough money left after subsidising Lord Fanboi's pension to take the girl out for a nice meal first.
And it's not that as if I care about looking like an old hippie anyway...
That's exactly the reason why I have one XP machine left amongst a horde of Linux ones.
A lot of games do run in WINE and I personally play very few modern games, preferring to play older stuff in emulators. But sometimes I just want to sit down and play a game, rather than spend an hour or two tweaking it - even though most of the time I'm happier than a pig in shit messing around in Linux.
Sorry, why would someone who cannot get accustomed to using a mouse and keyboard interface suddenly be a wizard on a touchscreen?
Many old people suffer from poorer eyesight and possible some handshake which, in my view, would make a smaller tablet screen interface more difficult for them to use.
But with Microsoft's ever more forceful attempts to make XP obsolete, Steve Ballmer has probably made a phone call to Steve Jobs and called in the favour of the $150M bailout package than Microsoft gave to Apple in the late 90s by requesting Lord Fanboi doesn't support XP.
UNIX is a 30 year old operating system but lots of people still use it.
I don't deny for one minute that Windows 7 is probably more secure and and a better architecture than Windows XP - but as a mostly Linux guy who uses and likes XP (warts and all), I played with Windows 7 when setting up new PCs for my wife and various friends and I hated it.
Everything that I saw in Windows 7 seemed to be "changes for change's sake" where stuff had been moved about and/or renamed in order to make it deliberately look different. Thrown on top of it is the Aero interface which, in my view, is sloppy looking and adds nothing to productivity. (For the same reason, I only upgraded to XP from Windows 2000 when I discovered that you could use the "Windows Classic" theme because the default interface on XP is awful also.)
This is precisely why I would never touch a Mac with a bargepole either - my PCs are for my use only, they are not fashion accessories to impress my peers with - therefore, wasting precious CPU cycles on unnecessary eye-candy that does nothing to make what I do any faster or better is pointless. Again, in Windows 7's case, Aero seems to be about making it look different deliberately.
To counter my criticisms, the missus went from XP to Windows 7 and has now stopped moaning about not being able to find anything, some of my friends have also done a similar upgrade and seem to be pleased with it.
But in my particular case, Linux is doing more and more of what I used to do in Windows as time goes on, and whilst I've no problem with the prospect of continuing to use Windows in the future, I'm not prepared invest time in re-learning it all again as everyone else who has gone the XP to 7 upgrade path has had to do.
Besides which, whilst XP has it's security failings, I understand what those are and take appropriate precautions to the point where I haven't seen a virus or piece of malware in years on it - for Joe Sixpack who still hasn't a clue about how his computer works or how to secure it, Windows 7 is probably a reasonably justifiaible upgrade because Microsoft has taken more control of security away from the user.
Unfotunately, a lot of security is simply about not being the "slowest gazelle".
The likes of you and I who run servers and aren't renowned for anything are unlikely to be directly targetted by human hackers - instead, we have bot scripts knocking at our door on a regular basis by people who just want to own machines to launch DDOS attacks from. So anything you do to not make it obvious to a bot script that you're not an easy target means that the bot goes and looks elsewhere for an easier target. So most of it is about being a bit more secure than the next guy in the same way that you'll live for another day if you're only the second slowest gazelle.
Yes, you need to stay on top of exploit reports and do something about them when they appear - but a lot of it is also about layered security like firewalling, TCP wrappers, NAT-ing, etc.
You forgot the most important thing to secure a Windows XP machine: Pull the network cable.
You know something? I actually pity you fanbois.
You latch on to a piece of FUD about Windows because you are so afraid about revealing the actual truth - that for most Apple users, it's actually about spending a bit more money to join an exclusive little club where you can wear Apple logos all around your bodies like gliniting jewelry, and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with better products.
You look down your noses at Windows users quoting the same old garbage "I use Apple products because Windows is insecure" and cannot handle it when someone with some technical knowledge and experience actually proves that statement isn't necessarily correct. At which point, having little technical knowledge yourselves, you resort to smart comments or abuse because that's the only way you can respond.
The difference is, I am smart enough to know the difference between the desire to work with my computer, versus on my computer. Life's too short to mess around with a bunch of cat and mouse "Spy vs. Spy" malware/anti-malware games. I personally have shit to do with my computer. And running around keeping it secured against the threat du jour and worrying about which websites I can and can't visit and which software I can and can't trust, ain't it!
Hang on a second... you just said you've worked with computers since 1976 - yet in the statement above you haven't made ONE technical statement about why an Apple product is, in your view, superior to anything else.
All you have said is you do not have the time/cannot be bothered to administer your computer properly and have therefore placed that responsibility into the hands of Apple. That's absolutely fine and I'm actually pleased to see some honesty emerge from a fanboi's mouth for once.
But placing your responsibilities into Apple's hands does not automatically mean their stuff is more secure...
Running a Windows machine reminds me of my very short stint on IRC: Logon to channel. Get Kicked. Log back onto channel. Get channel "admin" rights. Kick former opponent. Log back into channel. Nuke! Repeat... And all I wanted to do was chat with some friends about $whatever...
Why would being kicked from an IRC channel have anything to do with what OS you run? Or are you saying that you were kicked because you were a complete asshole on IRC and that you were also an asshole when you ran Windows.
Or are you going to turn around and say you've never run Windows - in which case you have no justification to comment on it, now do you?
And if you are going to quote from Wikipedia articles, please take the time to understand a bit about those statistics.
OS X is exactly like Windows in as much as it presents, to a malware author, a single OS platform where you can pretty much guarantee that anything that runs on one OS X system will automatically run on another.
Linux does not offer the same kind of unified platform because there are that many different distros out there that the chances of finding an application that you can exploit that is running on most of those systems is much smaller. For example, let's take an SSH worm designed to attack a Linux system - that worm will only work if the system has an SSH server running that it can get to, is at a version which it can exploit and not at a later version where the exploit has been fixed, and it might also depend on the SSH server having been configured a certain way.
So, yes, it might gain entry into some systems but that's precisely why anyone with any intelligence on any OS updates it regularly, double checks how everything is configured and logs important activities on the system.
Quoting the number of instances of malware is irrelevant because any program that can do something not controlled by the user can be defined as malware - what's more important is how dangerous it is and how successful it's propagation has been in the wild - to my knowledge, no Linux malware has been a particularly great threat so far.
The chances of you getting root access are minimal to my server.
1. The only service I run out to the Internet is SSH. That has got password authentication disabled, you only get in a 256-bit key on any of the accounts on my server(s).
2. Not only do I have a NAT router in place but I also run an iptables firewall on the Linux server which restricts what IP address ranges can connect to it.
3. My SSH runs on a non-standard port so you won't find it on port 22 - you'll have to do a complete port scan to find it.
4. I log all access attempts which get emailed and SMSed to me.
No, I'm not immune by any means but I've used a good security policy to be reasonably confident that you're not going to get into my systems - and I'm constantly watching for new potential threats - that's all I can do.
I'm actually a security consultant (mainly on UNIX/Linux systems) but my "hobbies" include messing about on my home systems (XP and Linux) with all manner of security tools, malware detection software, etc. because it's good to know that stuff as part of my job. My systems get pounded with that stuff all of the time and, yes, I've found security holes on all of them at one point or another but no malware.
Ever wondered why your Internet connection is so slow? Ever wondered how spammers manage to send such volumes of mail? How do you know your computer isn't lurking on irc://evil.net/DDoSonDemand, waiting for a signal to take down an anti-NATO blog?
1. My Internet connect is fast enough.
2. Spam is not malware.
3. Because I'm a small target with little interest to hackers in the first place. Yep, I run SSH out to the Internet and have applications running that if they see a bot trying to brute force my SSH server, then they lock it out for a period of time and alert me in syslog. At which point I can take some other action.
4. Other than that, I keep a low profile. I don't go out on the Internet bragging about what I do and don't do and don't piss people off. So I am well aware about security and how to lock down my systems but not totally paranoid about it as a big organisation would have to be.
Except that there are ZERO self-propagating "viruses" for OS X. ZE-RO. ZIP. NADA. FIND ME ONE IN THE WILD.
Because there's not enough OS X machines in the wild for any malware authors to care that much about writing any for it - that's why you'd better get on your knees and pray OS X doesn't get too popular and that you maintain your elitist little club.
ANY OS can potentially brute-forced; so that isn't even on the table. As far as buffer overflows: I think not. Ever hear of Stack Canaries? Howabout the No-Execute bit? OS X has employed both for years now.
It doesn't matter. Until you can guarantee that all the code running is 100% bug free (which you can never do), it can be potentially exploited. Now you're worrying me because you are precisely the type of person I am talking about - one who thinks his systems are impenetrable.
Newsflash: The USER isn't SUPPOSED to HAVE to "understand the core operation of a UNIX OS". That's the OS Engineer's job. Do you have to understand the core operation of your Microwave Oven to heat some soup in it? Would you care to? Or would you rather just. Eat? Would you enjoy it if an RF engineer called you an idiot because you couldn't correctly determine the optimum drive current for the Magnatron? n00b! How DARE you operate that Microwave without understanding even in the slightest how its cooking cavity got to be the dimensions that it is?
I'm actually a pretty good cook in my spare time, cooke everything from fresh ingredients and don't really use a microwave oven - well, if you can be pedantic then so can I!
And your analogy doesn't work anyway. Your microwave is protected by the locks on the doors and windows from outside tampering, therefore you can be reasonably confident that it will work okay for a relatively long time period. If, on the other hand, there was a maniac in my area breaking into houses and rewiring the electrical systems to cause shocks or fires, then I would be concerned about using it.
But fortunately, the engineers that design, build and maintain OS X were not as arrogant as you, and so they already baked-in a whole raft of security features into OS X Snow Leopard (with even more coming right around the corner in Lion), just so you wouldn't have to worry your pretty little head about it, just like the designers of your Microwave oven put a whole series of interlocking safety switches that keep you from cooking your forearm when you stupidly open up the Microwave before it's finished its cooking cycle.
Why's this any different to Windows engineers putting in security features in Windows, or Linux programmers putting in security features in the applications that it runs?
And why do fanbois always end postings with insults? You may want to get yourself a damp cloth to wipe the spittle off your designer Apple monitor before you reply incidentally, I wouldn't want you to have difficulty reading it before you respond.
Big whoop! None of what you cited matters to 90% of the population. That's why the success of iOS will continue to mystify the majority of posters on/.
I wasn't aware 90% of the population was running iOS. Aren't Android device sales currently outselling iOS devices just about everywhere?
Linux or other general purpose OS's can do all of what you cite. And iOS won't.
Which is PRECISELY the point I was making originally - that iOS is NOT like other OSes. Thanks for strengthening my argument.
And iOS won't. And for that trade off you will get a simpler and more secure environment that appeals to non-technical people.
No, the trade-off is you get a locked-down device that you don't actually own and cannot tweak it how you want to.
Yes, I have to be aware of those things - I actually work in server security so know a lot more about them than you seem to realise.
But the difference here is that I prefer to not to hand-off my personal responsibility for securing my own personal data to some corporation to use and mess about with as they see fit.
In actuality, there are some very simple guiding principles as a computing device owner that, if you follow them, pretty much guarantee malware will never get to you - I've never had any malware on Android in 3 years of using it, and whilst I'm mostly a Linux guy, I've also used XP for years and don't remember the last time I had any viruses or malware on it either.
Don't assume we're all mindless idiots with deep pockets who will sell our personal responsibility to the highest bidder.
I'm pretty good with knocking up shell, Perl and Python scripts but that doesn't make me a "developer" - it's just a title anyone who programs can give themself if they want to, I guess it comes down to how much money you make dong from it. So stop with the "I know more than you because I have a name for the job I do" tactics.
Yep, use my own circuit simulators and I've been working on an ATmega simulator for shits and giggles. No they'd never be sold on the appstore, but I can run them just fine without doing anything against Apples rules.
A great attempt at avoiding my original point but it won't work because you know, as a "developer", EXACTLY what I am talking about - software emulators of other OSes or platforms that cannot be sold on the App Store because of Apple taking the high ground & forbidding their users to run them.
Yes, thats exactly what ALL iOS developers do, thats what gets distributed to your phone, a.ipa file which is a... a software package, so when I compile my projects and select 'make archive' in XCode, it does exactly that, makes a package which can be dragged and dropped onto iTunes and installed. The package manager is called iTunes instead of apt, functionality on the other hand is more less the same.
Again, a neat attempt at dodging the original comment that I saw through- incidentally, a true developer would know exactly what point I was making. The fact is, if I owned an iOS device, the only chance I would have of compiling my own, or Open Source source code on it would be to jailbreak it first - then I can presumably compile my own packages and install them. The only alternative is putting myself to the mercy of Apple's decision to allow me to stick it on the App Store.
Probably not, but I can not for the life of me come up with a reason why I'd want to turn off the only two services that start on startup... which are designed to manage the wireless network access. I guess I could turn off all networking services and come close, but I wouldn't have bought the device if I didn't want those services, I would have gotten a iPod touch or something without radios.
What processes do you want to 'turn off'? Push notifications, SMS, or working phone service? Nothing else worth mentioning is running.
The original comment stated that iOS is no different to other OSes. I am stating that in other OSes (Windows, Linux, etc.), I can configure how the OS boots and turn off services that I do not need. Whether or not I would need to it in iOS is neither here nor there, I am not given the flexibility to do it because of how locked down it is.
So uhm... you mean like how iOS works out of the box and has for years? I seem to remember a brief moment on the 1.x series where some things ran as root which was promptly fixed, but the only time anything has exploited that fact has been from jailbreakers without a clue porting apps to iOS without any thought what so ever about security... WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY APPLE HAS THE POLICIES IT HAS.
Rubbish, and again you are avoiding my original point. In other OSes, I can create myself any number of other user accounts that give me access levels into the OS based on my permissions - again, in Windows or Linux (don't know about OS X because I've never found a reason in 30 years of computing to buy an Apple device), I can create non-administrator or non-root accounts such that I can limit what can be done within the OS.
Because iOS does not do this, not does it let you tinker with startup service options, you are therefore stuck with one locked-down default policy.
I'm not saying you should buy an iPhone, you clearly shouldn't, its not for you, its for people that make educated choices about their purchases, not for geeks with a stick up their ass who try to pretend they have a clue about something they hate without an actual reason. You don't want a phone, its cool dude.
Yes, it's debatable - which is precisely why you cannot make sweeping statements about iOS not having any less functionality than other OSes. My point exactly.
Their God has recently spoken so they're still dancing and flagellating themselves with religious fervour, they'll calm down in a few days because they'll need to go and wash their sleeping bags - to my knowledge, Apple hasn't released any new products in at least a month so there must be something coming soon that they will have to sleep on pavements for the day before it's released.
I find it more amusing that at this very moment in time there are probably several hundred hackers laughing at his statements and thinking about whether or not they should put his iOS device security to the test.:-)
Oh, so you can run emulator software on it now, can you?
Or compile source code into packages that you can install onto it?
Or go into the boot up processes and turn off or configure any services that you don't want or want to run differently?
Or create a specific account to run the OS will much fewer permissions so that you're more secure due to the tighter restrictions you've placed yourself under?
Potentially OS X & IOS are huge security minefields anyway.
One reasons why viruses spread very quickly is that you have almost identical computer platforms for them to spread across - that's what Windows PC were and Apple OS X / iOS devices will be if and when they have enough of a user base for hackers to target them.
Additionally, OS X is UNIX-like so it is also susceptible to buffer overflow & brute force access attempts as in any other UNIX-like OS X if you don't have the knowledge to lock it down properly and take countermeasures.
That is what really scares me about the fanbois who crow about OS X being UNIX - because the majority of them wouldn't understand the core operation of a UNIX OS if it hit them in the face.
Believe me, OS X provides a very large number of potential security attack vectors to be exploited in the future.
Utter rubbish - and that's coming from a mainly Linux guy.
I haven't gone beyond Windows XP for when I need to run Windows because I've no reason to upgrade to Windows 7 - but I've been using XP since Service Pack 1 and I cannot recall the last time I had any malware on it.
It's precisely BECAUSE I know about security issues that I know what the weaknesses are in Windows (and Linux) that I can counteract those before they have a chance to hit any of my systems.
The fact is that if you keep XP updated, run a good, free virus checker and good, free anti-malware program, don't install warez, don't open email attachments you don't trust and as an extra precaution, run alternatives to Outlook and IE, you probably won't get viruses or malware.
It's the users who know nothing about computers, OSes and the Internet that are the problem - exactly the people whom Apple market their products at and who will be OS X's/iOS's greatest downfall if and when their products have enough penetration for malware authors & hackers to take an interest in them. (God forbid!)
Slashdot Mirror
It was a tradeoff against you clearly not understanding the statement "iOS doesn't have any less functionality than any other operating system" where I made clear and concise points as to precisely why iOS is *NOT* like other operating systems.
Now go wipe the spittle off your fashion accessory Apple screen.
I'd argue the "strong adoption rate" comment.
It's certainly better than the Vista adoption but today still most PCs run XP. I know of absolutely nobody who has purchased a boxed upgrade of Windows 7 but lots of people who have bought new PCs where Windows 7 was pre-installed and they've now accepted it.
Corporations are also slow at rolling out Windows 7 up to this point, but I do accept that will accelerate as more and more people have Windows 7 at home, get used to it themselves and companies therefore don't have the additional costs of training their staff in it when they roll it out.
If I'm honest, I think Microsoft made a faux pas & put too much dependency on games phasing out Windows XP because they deliberately made DirectX 10 and 11 incompatible with Windows XP at a time when PC game releases were slowing down dramatically. Those PC games that were just DirectX 10 or higher seemed to hit the bargain bins very quickly (Shadowrun is one that comes to mind).
You also need to bear in mind that by today's standards, you do not need a particularly fast PC to run Windows XP and have it happily do all the other stuff that people want to do (play MP3s, surf the web, write emails and documents, mess about with photos, etc.) apart from the latest games. Yet everyone was talking about the additional overheads for Vista and Windows 7 when they came out, and I guess a lot of people just kept their old PCs and went to consoles for their gaming.
I don't think it got any better for Microsoft's forced-phasing out of XP when they decided not to release IE9 for XP at a time when IE's usage is dropping significantly as well.
Actually, sitting in a coffee shop with a Linux PC makes you look like an old hippie whereas walking in with a fashion accessory MacBook Air with lots of shiny things happening on the screen will probably earmark you as cool and theoretically get you laid - provided you have enough money left after subsidising Lord Fanboi's pension to take the girl out for a nice meal first.
And it's not that as if I care about looking like an old hippie anyway...
That's exactly the reason why I have one XP machine left amongst a horde of Linux ones.
A lot of games do run in WINE and I personally play very few modern games, preferring to play older stuff in emulators. But sometimes I just want to sit down and play a game, rather than spend an hour or two tweaking it - even though most of the time I'm happier than a pig in shit messing around in Linux.
Sorry, why would someone who cannot get accustomed to using a mouse and keyboard interface suddenly be a wizard on a touchscreen?
Many old people suffer from poorer eyesight and possible some handshake which, in my view, would make a smaller tablet screen interface more difficult for them to use.
Alternatively, they just use Google's cheaper (or free) cloud services which are pretty much platform and OS agnostic at this very moment in time.
It isn't.
But with Microsoft's ever more forceful attempts to make XP obsolete, Steve Ballmer has probably made a phone call to Steve Jobs and called in the favour of the $150M bailout package than Microsoft gave to Apple in the late 90s by requesting Lord Fanboi doesn't support XP.
UNIX is a 30 year old operating system but lots of people still use it.
I don't deny for one minute that Windows 7 is probably more secure and and a better architecture than Windows XP - but as a mostly Linux guy who uses and likes XP (warts and all), I played with Windows 7 when setting up new PCs for my wife and various friends and I hated it.
Everything that I saw in Windows 7 seemed to be "changes for change's sake" where stuff had been moved about and/or renamed in order to make it deliberately look different. Thrown on top of it is the Aero interface which, in my view, is sloppy looking and adds nothing to productivity. (For the same reason, I only upgraded to XP from Windows 2000 when I discovered that you could use the "Windows Classic" theme because the default interface on XP is awful also.)
This is precisely why I would never touch a Mac with a bargepole either - my PCs are for my use only, they are not fashion accessories to impress my peers with - therefore, wasting precious CPU cycles on unnecessary eye-candy that does nothing to make what I do any faster or better is pointless. Again, in Windows 7's case, Aero seems to be about making it look different deliberately.
To counter my criticisms, the missus went from XP to Windows 7 and has now stopped moaning about not being able to find anything, some of my friends have also done a similar upgrade and seem to be pleased with it.
But in my particular case, Linux is doing more and more of what I used to do in Windows as time goes on, and whilst I've no problem with the prospect of continuing to use Windows in the future, I'm not prepared invest time in re-learning it all again as everyone else who has gone the XP to 7 upgrade path has had to do.
Besides which, whilst XP has it's security failings, I understand what those are and take appropriate precautions to the point where I haven't seen a virus or piece of malware in years on it - for Joe Sixpack who still hasn't a clue about how his computer works or how to secure it, Windows 7 is probably a reasonably justifiaible upgrade because Microsoft has taken more control of security away from the user.
Unfotunately, a lot of security is simply about not being the "slowest gazelle".
The likes of you and I who run servers and aren't renowned for anything are unlikely to be directly targetted by human hackers - instead, we have bot scripts knocking at our door on a regular basis by people who just want to own machines to launch DDOS attacks from. So anything you do to not make it obvious to a bot script that you're not an easy target means that the bot goes and looks elsewhere for an easier target. So most of it is about being a bit more secure than the next guy in the same way that you'll live for another day if you're only the second slowest gazelle.
Yes, you need to stay on top of exploit reports and do something about them when they appear - but a lot of it is also about layered security like firewalling, TCP wrappers, NAT-ing, etc.
You forgot the most important thing to secure a Windows XP machine: Pull the network cable.
You know something? I actually pity you fanbois.
You latch on to a piece of FUD about Windows because you are so afraid about revealing the actual truth - that for most Apple users, it's actually about spending a bit more money to join an exclusive little club where you can wear Apple logos all around your bodies like gliniting jewelry, and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with better products.
You look down your noses at Windows users quoting the same old garbage "I use Apple products because Windows is insecure" and cannot handle it when someone with some technical knowledge and experience actually proves that statement isn't necessarily correct. At which point, having little technical knowledge yourselves, you resort to smart comments or abuse because that's the only way you can respond.
The difference is, I am smart enough to know the difference between the desire to work with my computer, versus on my computer. Life's too short to mess around with a bunch of cat and mouse "Spy vs. Spy" malware/anti-malware games. I personally have shit to do with my computer. And running around keeping it secured against the threat du jour and worrying about which websites I can and can't visit and which software I can and can't trust, ain't it!
Hang on a second... you just said you've worked with computers since 1976 - yet in the statement above you haven't made ONE technical statement about why an Apple product is, in your view, superior to anything else.
All you have said is you do not have the time/cannot be bothered to administer your computer properly and have therefore placed that responsibility into the hands of Apple. That's absolutely fine and I'm actually pleased to see some honesty emerge from a fanboi's mouth for once.
But placing your responsibilities into Apple's hands does not automatically mean their stuff is more secure...
Running a Windows machine reminds me of my very short stint on IRC: Logon to channel. Get Kicked. Log back onto channel. Get channel "admin" rights. Kick former opponent. Log back into channel. Nuke! Repeat... And all I wanted to do was chat with some friends about $whatever...
Why would being kicked from an IRC channel have anything to do with what OS you run? Or are you saying that you were kicked because you were a complete asshole on IRC and that you were also an asshole when you ran Windows.
Or are you going to turn around and say you've never run Windows - in which case you have no justification to comment on it, now do you?
Please stop drinking so much Kool-aid.
And if you are going to quote from Wikipedia articles, please take the time to understand a bit about those statistics.
OS X is exactly like Windows in as much as it presents, to a malware author, a single OS platform where you can pretty much guarantee that anything that runs on one OS X system will automatically run on another.
Linux does not offer the same kind of unified platform because there are that many different distros out there that the chances of finding an application that you can exploit that is running on most of those systems is much smaller. For example, let's take an SSH worm designed to attack a Linux system - that worm will only work if the system has an SSH server running that it can get to, is at a version which it can exploit and not at a later version where the exploit has been fixed, and it might also depend on the SSH server having been configured a certain way.
So, yes, it might gain entry into some systems but that's precisely why anyone with any intelligence on any OS updates it regularly, double checks how everything is configured and logs important activities on the system.
Quoting the number of instances of malware is irrelevant because any program that can do something not controlled by the user can be defined as malware - what's more important is how dangerous it is and how successful it's propagation has been in the wild - to my knowledge, no Linux malware has been a particularly great threat so far.
The chances of you getting root access are minimal to my server.
1. The only service I run out to the Internet is SSH. That has got password authentication disabled, you only get in a 256-bit key on any of the accounts on my server(s).
2. Not only do I have a NAT router in place but I also run an iptables firewall on the Linux server which restricts what IP address ranges can connect to it.
3. My SSH runs on a non-standard port so you won't find it on port 22 - you'll have to do a complete port scan to find it.
4. I log all access attempts which get emailed and SMSed to me.
No, I'm not immune by any means but I've used a good security policy to be reasonably confident that you're not going to get into my systems - and I'm constantly watching for new potential threats - that's all I can do.
Nope, not been hit by anything on XP in years.
I'm actually a security consultant (mainly on UNIX/Linux systems) but my "hobbies" include messing about on my home systems (XP and Linux) with all manner of security tools, malware detection software, etc. because it's good to know that stuff as part of my job. My systems get pounded with that stuff all of the time and, yes, I've found security holes on all of them at one point or another but no malware.
Ever wondered why your Internet connection is so slow? Ever wondered how spammers manage to send such volumes of mail? How do you know your computer isn't lurking on irc://evil.net/DDoSonDemand, waiting for a signal to take down an anti-NATO blog?
1. My Internet connect is fast enough.
2. Spam is not malware.
3. Because I'm a small target with little interest to hackers in the first place. Yep, I run SSH out to the Internet and have applications running that if they see a bot trying to brute force my SSH server, then they lock it out for a period of time and alert me in syslog. At which point I can take some other action.
4. Other than that, I keep a low profile. I don't go out on the Internet bragging about what I do and don't do and don't piss people off. So I am well aware about security and how to lock down my systems but not totally paranoid about it as a big organisation would have to be.
Except that there are ZERO self-propagating "viruses" for OS X. ZE-RO. ZIP. NADA. FIND ME ONE IN THE WILD.
Because there's not enough OS X machines in the wild for any malware authors to care that much about writing any for it - that's why you'd better get on your knees and pray OS X doesn't get too popular and that you maintain your elitist little club.
ANY OS can potentially brute-forced; so that isn't even on the table. As far as buffer overflows: I think not. Ever hear of Stack Canaries? Howabout the No-Execute bit? OS X has employed both for years now.
It doesn't matter. Until you can guarantee that all the code running is 100% bug free (which you can never do), it can be potentially exploited. Now you're worrying me because you are precisely the type of person I am talking about - one who thinks his systems are impenetrable.
Newsflash: The USER isn't SUPPOSED to HAVE to "understand the core operation of a UNIX OS". That's the OS Engineer's job. Do you have to understand the core operation of your Microwave Oven to heat some soup in it? Would you care to? Or would you rather just. Eat? Would you enjoy it if an RF engineer called you an idiot because you couldn't correctly determine the optimum drive current for the Magnatron? n00b! How DARE you operate that Microwave without understanding even in the slightest how its cooking cavity got to be the dimensions that it is?
I'm actually a pretty good cook in my spare time, cooke everything from fresh ingredients and don't really use a microwave oven - well, if you can be pedantic then so can I!
And your analogy doesn't work anyway. Your microwave is protected by the locks on the doors and windows from outside tampering, therefore you can be reasonably confident that it will work okay for a relatively long time period. If, on the other hand, there was a maniac in my area breaking into houses and rewiring the electrical systems to cause shocks or fires, then I would be concerned about using it.
But fortunately, the engineers that design, build and maintain OS X were not as arrogant as you, and so they already baked-in a whole raft of security features into OS X Snow Leopard (with even more coming right around the corner in Lion), just so you wouldn't have to worry your pretty little head about it, just like the designers of your Microwave oven put a whole series of interlocking safety switches that keep you from cooking your forearm when you stupidly open up the Microwave before it's finished its cooking cycle.
Why's this any different to Windows engineers putting in security features in Windows, or Linux programmers putting in security features in the applications that it runs?
And why do fanbois always end postings with insults? You may want to get yourself a damp cloth to wipe the spittle off your designer Apple monitor before you reply incidentally, I wouldn't want you to have difficulty reading it before you respond.
Big whoop! None of what you cited matters to 90% of the population. That's why the success of iOS will continue to mystify the majority of posters on /.
I wasn't aware 90% of the population was running iOS. Aren't Android device sales currently outselling iOS devices just about everywhere?
Linux or other general purpose OS's can do all of what you cite. And iOS won't.
Which is PRECISELY the point I was making originally - that iOS is NOT like other OSes. Thanks for strengthening my argument.
And iOS won't. And for that trade off you will get a simpler and more secure environment that appeals to non-technical people.
No, the trade-off is you get a locked-down device that you don't actually own and cannot tweak it how you want to.
Yes, I have to be aware of those things - I actually work in server security so know a lot more about them than you seem to realise.
But the difference here is that I prefer to not to hand-off my personal responsibility for securing my own personal data to some corporation to use and mess about with as they see fit.
In actuality, there are some very simple guiding principles as a computing device owner that, if you follow them, pretty much guarantee malware will never get to you - I've never had any malware on Android in 3 years of using it, and whilst I'm mostly a Linux guy, I've also used XP for years and don't remember the last time I had any viruses or malware on it either.
Don't assume we're all mindless idiots with deep pockets who will sell our personal responsibility to the highest bidder.
I'm pretty good with knocking up shell, Perl and Python scripts but that doesn't make me a "developer" - it's just a title anyone who programs can give themself if they want to, I guess it comes down to how much money you make dong from it. So stop with the "I know more than you because I have a name for the job I do" tactics.
Yep, use my own circuit simulators and I've been working on an ATmega simulator for shits and giggles. No they'd never be sold on the appstore, but I can run them just fine without doing anything against Apples rules.
A great attempt at avoiding my original point but it won't work because you know, as a "developer", EXACTLY what I am talking about - software emulators of other OSes or platforms that cannot be sold on the App Store because of Apple taking the high ground & forbidding their users to run them.
Yes, thats exactly what ALL iOS developers do, thats what gets distributed to your phone, a .ipa file which is a ... a software package, so when I compile my projects and select 'make archive' in XCode, it does exactly that, makes a package which can be dragged and dropped onto iTunes and installed. The package manager is called iTunes instead of apt, functionality on the other hand is more less the same.
Again, a neat attempt at dodging the original comment that I saw through- incidentally, a true developer would know exactly what point I was making. The fact is, if I owned an iOS device, the only chance I would have of compiling my own, or Open Source source code on it would be to jailbreak it first - then I can presumably compile my own packages and install them. The only alternative is putting myself to the mercy of Apple's decision to allow me to stick it on the App Store.
Probably not, but I can not for the life of me come up with a reason why I'd want to turn off the only two services that start on startup ... which are designed to manage the wireless network access. I guess I could turn off all networking services and come close, but I wouldn't have bought the device if I didn't want those services, I would have gotten a iPod touch or something without radios.
What processes do you want to 'turn off'? Push notifications, SMS, or working phone service? Nothing else worth mentioning is running.
The original comment stated that iOS is no different to other OSes. I am stating that in other OSes (Windows, Linux, etc.), I can configure how the OS boots and turn off services that I do not need. Whether or not I would need to it in iOS is neither here nor there, I am not given the flexibility to do it because of how locked down it is.
So uhm ... you mean like how iOS works out of the box and has for years? I seem to remember a brief moment on the 1.x series where some things ran as root which was promptly fixed, but the only time anything has exploited that fact has been from jailbreakers without a clue porting apps to iOS without any thought what so ever about security ... WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY APPLE HAS THE POLICIES IT HAS.
Rubbish, and again you are avoiding my original point. In other OSes, I can create myself any number of other user accounts that give me access levels into the OS based on my permissions - again, in Windows or Linux (don't know about OS X because I've never found a reason in 30 years of computing to buy an Apple device), I can create non-administrator or non-root accounts such that I can limit what can be done within the OS.
Because iOS does not do this, not does it let you tinker with startup service options, you are therefore stuck with one locked-down default policy.
I'm not saying you should buy an iPhone, you clearly shouldn't, its not for you, its for people that make educated choices about their purchases, not for geeks with a stick up their ass who try to pretend they have a clue about something they hate without an actual reason. You don't want a phone, its cool dude.
Yes, it's debatable - which is precisely why you cannot make sweeping statements about iOS not having any less functionality than other OSes. My point exactly.
Yes, you've stated more facts that prove iOS does have less functionality than other OSes, precisely the point I was arguing. Thanks.
AW! Leave em' alone!
Their God has recently spoken so they're still dancing and flagellating themselves with religious fervour, they'll calm down in a few days because they'll need to go and wash their sleeping bags - to my knowledge, Apple hasn't released any new products in at least a month so there must be something coming soon that they will have to sleep on pavements for the day before it's released.
I find it more amusing that at this very moment in time there are probably several hundred hackers laughing at his statements and thinking about whether or not they should put his iOS device security to the test. :-)
Oh, so you can run emulator software on it now, can you?
Or compile source code into packages that you can install onto it?
Or go into the boot up processes and turn off or configure any services that you don't want or want to run differently?
Or create a specific account to run the OS will much fewer permissions so that you're more secure due to the tighter restrictions you've placed yourself under?
Potentially OS X & IOS are huge security minefields anyway.
One reasons why viruses spread very quickly is that you have almost identical computer platforms for them to spread across - that's what Windows PC were and Apple OS X / iOS devices will be if and when they have enough of a user base for hackers to target them.
Additionally, OS X is UNIX-like so it is also susceptible to buffer overflow & brute force access attempts as in any other UNIX-like OS X if you don't have the knowledge to lock it down properly and take countermeasures.
That is what really scares me about the fanbois who crow about OS X being UNIX - because the majority of them wouldn't understand the core operation of a UNIX OS if it hit them in the face.
Believe me, OS X provides a very large number of potential security attack vectors to be exploited in the future.
Utter rubbish - and that's coming from a mainly Linux guy.
I haven't gone beyond Windows XP for when I need to run Windows because I've no reason to upgrade to Windows 7 - but I've been using XP since Service Pack 1 and I cannot recall the last time I had any malware on it.
It's precisely BECAUSE I know about security issues that I know what the weaknesses are in Windows (and Linux) that I can counteract those before they have a chance to hit any of my systems.
The fact is that if you keep XP updated, run a good, free virus checker and good, free anti-malware program, don't install warez, don't open email attachments you don't trust and as an extra precaution, run alternatives to Outlook and IE, you probably won't get viruses or malware.
It's the users who know nothing about computers, OSes and the Internet that are the problem - exactly the people whom Apple market their products at and who will be OS X's/iOS's greatest downfall if and when their products have enough penetration for malware authors & hackers to take an interest in them. (God forbid!)
Demonstrate to me that jailbroken iOS devices were included in the research to determine those results, then I will believe you.