"You & I have almost identical anti-malware configurations. I use Windows Defender, Windows Firewall, Microsoft Update, and my regularly updated Norton Antivirus (via Google Pack) has never seen a virus. I consider this a completely workable security solution, at least until my free 6 months of antivirus runs out. Even this completely workable solution, however, is significantly more crap than an Apple user has to think about."
I don't see how this is more than Mac users has to think about.
Microsoft Update - built-in, turned on by default. Windows Firewall - built-in, turned on by default. Windows Defender - not built-in, but a free download that I have not changed any configuration on (default - scans nightly and automatically updates). The only 3rd party software is the Norton AV - of which I have installed on both the Macs and PCs I maintain at work. (About 75 PCs and about 10 Macs. I have the corporate version, so I don't have to worry about updates running out though.) The Mac firewall is built-in, and so is the automatic updates - identical to XP setup. For now Apple doesn't have the equivalent to Windows Defender, but I'm sure that is right around the corner, especially now that the Intel Macs are out. So really, Windows Defender is the only major difference between the security setups on the two platforms I maintain personally, but YMMV.
How about this: It is less likely for any Apple user to get malware than a Windows PC, unless there are dramatic changes in the malware universe. For now this statement holds some water, but for how long is the real question.
"But it doesn't change the fact that you are almost completely guaranteed that your OS X machine will not get pwnd, even if your practices are relatively lax."
This is exactly the kind of reputation I am talking about in my earlier post. The fact that is hasn't happened to you (yet) does not necessarily mean it is unlikely that it ever will. And it most certainly isn't a guarantee.
Market share up 50% over last 3 years, vulnerabilities up 228%. What do you think is going to happen if the marketshare gets bigger?
If that is your attitude about security then it is only a matter of time before someone "pwns" your Mac.
On a side note, my work PC (Windows XP) has never been "pnwd", nor had any serious Malware. The only things I use security wise are the Automatic Windows Updates, MS AntiSpyware, and the built-in firewall. (I also have Symantec Anti-Virus, but haven't actaully seen a virus in years, and see maybe 1-2 trojan/worms a year). I think the fact you or I have never been "pwnd" has very little to do with what OS we are using; often times it is third-party software that causes the biggest holes.
To break it down... Sony had no problem committing felonies to stop their consumers from infinging on their copyrights. Sony does not even recieve a superficial "slap on the wrist" - but instead gets a get out of jail free card from the DHS. Classic!
You mean you aren't happy with the $5 off coupon for any Sony artist CD? (Which has thier "New and Improved" rootkit?)
Anyone remember the Iomega Zip drive "click of death" class action lawsuit?? If you bought any of Iomega's totatly craptacular products you were entitled to (*drum roll please*) a voucher for $X off of another of thier craptastic products. Ummm, I'll take the cash value please...
"In contrast, I've never seen a Windows program ask me to authenticate myself as an admin when I attempt to run it (although I have seen this during installs, so I know it's possible)."
Yeah, I've had a "Run with different credentials" box pop up on XP sometimes when trying to do an install logged in on a non-admin account. Sometimes it will install if you give it admin creds, sometimes it won't. And then the really fun situation where it appears to install, and will run if you are an admin, but will still give you problems running as joe user.
Probably hardware costs and software base, just shooting from the hip. Corporation decisions are made by bean counters, not technology folks.
Besides, if all the corporations started using OS X and their marketshare went up significantly, so would their vulnerabilities. Apple really enjoys a reputation as a "more secure" base OS - apparently everyone seems to conveniently forget a couple facts -
"According to McAfee Avert Labs, Mac platform vulnerability discovery rates have increased by 228 percent in the past three years alone, from 45 in 2003 to 143 last year.
"Most logical people (in my estimation) do not make this connection and consider those who do 'kooky' thereby giving them a reason to ignore the issue completely."
And the NSA thanks you in advance for giving them the impunity to operate any way they wish. I've said it before and now I'll say it again - I don't know which is scarier - the conspiracy kooks who come up with those wild ideas, or the fact that some people refuse to believe that things like that do and are happening. I myself think the latter, but that is just my opinion.
"The only damage AT&T can expect to receive from the publication of these documents is even more of their customers convinced that they have been letting the NSA take all their information."
And to me, that kind of falls under the category of "Maybe we should think of the impact this may have on our customers before we just hand over all of our phone records to the NSA."
Using the judicial branch to protect a private business from harm due to an illegal arrangement with the NSA seems a little fishy. If a business doesn't want to have their reputation damaged, they should be open about things like this from the beginning. And no, there are no "trade secrets" or any other info that may "compromise the security of the nation" in the documents either.
"I want to know the truth," the president continued. "Leaks of classified information are bad things." He added that he did not know of "anybody in my administration who leaked classified information." George W. Bush, September 30th, 2003
"Hey, it's not like I got a blow job, and then lied about it. I only lied about the leaking of classified information!" George W. Bush, May 10th, 2006
Slashdot Mirror
*cough*Martha Stewart*cough*
"By god, can't someone just have opinions anymore without being f#cking biased one way or another?"
Not if they are human.
Didn't you read the /. FAQ?? Never let facts get in the way of bashing Microsoft...
Original series..Only it was Kirk, not Spock "analizing" the local female population every episode.
In an unrelated story, television psychic Miss Cleo has died and come back reincarnated in robotic form. Film at 11.
"You & I have almost identical anti-malware configurations. I use Windows Defender, Windows Firewall, Microsoft Update, and my regularly updated Norton Antivirus (via Google Pack) has never seen a virus. I consider this a completely workable security solution, at least until my free 6 months of antivirus runs out. Even this completely workable solution, however, is significantly more crap than an Apple user has to think about."
I don't see how this is more than Mac users has to think about.
Microsoft Update - built-in, turned on by default. Windows Firewall - built-in, turned on by default. Windows Defender - not built-in, but a free download that I have not changed any configuration on (default - scans nightly and automatically updates). The only 3rd party software is the Norton AV - of which I have installed on both the Macs and PCs I maintain at work. (About 75 PCs and about 10 Macs. I have the corporate version, so I don't have to worry about updates running out though.) The Mac firewall is built-in, and so is the automatic updates - identical to XP setup. For now Apple doesn't have the equivalent to Windows Defender, but I'm sure that is right around the corner, especially now that the Intel Macs are out. So really, Windows Defender is the only major difference between the security setups on the two platforms I maintain personally, but YMMV.
How about this: It is less likely for any Apple user to get malware than a Windows PC, unless there are dramatic changes in the malware universe. For now this statement holds some water, but for how long is the real question.
"But it doesn't change the fact that you are almost completely guaranteed that your OS X machine will not get pwnd, even if your practices are relatively lax."
This is exactly the kind of reputation I am talking about in my earlier post. The fact that is hasn't happened to you (yet) does not necessarily mean it is unlikely that it ever will. And it most certainly isn't a guarantee.
Market share up 50% over last 3 years, vulnerabilities up 228%. What do you think is going to happen if the marketshare gets bigger?
If that is your attitude about security then it is only a matter of time before someone "pwns" your Mac.
On a side note, my work PC (Windows XP) has never been "pnwd", nor had any serious Malware. The only things I use security wise are the Automatic Windows Updates, MS AntiSpyware, and the built-in firewall. (I also have Symantec Anti-Virus, but haven't actaully seen a virus in years, and see maybe 1-2 trojan/worms a year). I think the fact you or I have never been "pwnd" has very little to do with what OS we are using; often times it is third-party software that causes the biggest holes.
To break it down... Sony had no problem committing felonies to stop their consumers from infinging on their copyrights. Sony does not even recieve a superficial "slap on the wrist" - but instead gets a get out of jail free card from the DHS. Classic!
You mean you aren't happy with the $5 off coupon for any Sony artist CD? (Which has thier "New and Improved" rootkit?)
Anyone remember the Iomega Zip drive "click of death" class action lawsuit?? If you bought any of Iomega's totatly craptacular products you were entitled to (*drum roll please*) a voucher for $X off of another of thier craptastic products. Ummm, I'll take the cash value please...
CHMOD on you crazy diamond...
"In contrast, I've never seen a Windows program ask me to authenticate myself as an admin when I attempt to run it (although I have seen this during installs, so I know it's possible)."
Yeah, I've had a "Run with different credentials" box pop up on XP sometimes when trying to do an install logged in on a non-admin account. Sometimes it will install if you give it admin creds, sometimes it won't. And then the really fun situation where it appears to install, and will run if you are an admin, but will still give you problems running as joe user.
Probably hardware costs and software base, just shooting from the hip.
m ac+os+x+vulnerabilities+jump+228+percent+three+yea rs/
Corporation decisions are made by bean counters, not technology folks.
Besides, if all the corporations started using OS X and their marketshare went up significantly, so would their vulnerabilities. Apple really enjoys a reputation as a "more secure" base OS - apparently everyone seems to conveniently forget a couple facts -
"According to McAfee Avert Labs, Mac platform vulnerability discovery rates have increased by 228 percent in the past three years alone, from 45 in 2003 to 143 last year.
By comparison, Microsoft's products saw a 73-percent increase in vulnerabilities over the same time period."
http://www.scmagazine.com/uk/news/article/557590/
"Honestly, why is Google & Apple always owning or claiming to own the rights to the word "innovate"? For what reason? Anyone?"
Because they are the most brilliant thieves.
"Good artists copy, great artists steal." - Picasso
"Some of these things _really_ sound like a bad acid trip to me."
Note to self...never buy any acid from orangesquid
Yep, I was wondering who old Bobby Dylan was calling, and why he needed encryption...
"Most logical people (in my estimation) do not make this connection and consider those who do 'kooky' thereby giving them a reason to ignore the issue completely."
And the NSA thanks you in advance for giving them the impunity to operate any way they wish.
I've said it before and now I'll say it again - I don't know which is scarier - the conspiracy kooks who come up with those wild ideas, or the fact that some people refuse to believe that things like that do and are happening. I myself think the latter, but that is just my opinion.
"Or do we really want to live in a paranoid society run by a paternalistic Government?"
Wait, you mean as opposed to the current paranoid society run by a paternalistic government?
"Maybe I just don't get it. In my mind I simply cannot equate tapping a phone line to incarcerating *people*."
All you need is the barest bit of imagination to connect the dots between point A and point B on this one...
"The only damage AT&T can expect to receive from the publication of these documents is even more of their customers convinced that they have been letting the NSA take all their information."
And to me, that kind of falls under the category of "Maybe we should think of the impact this may have on our customers before we just hand over all of our phone records to the NSA."
Using the judicial branch to protect a private business from harm due to an illegal arrangement with the NSA seems a little fishy. If a business doesn't want to have their reputation damaged, they should be open about things like this from the beginning. And no, there are no "trade secrets" or any other info that may "compromise the security of the nation" in the documents either.
damn my eyes... compile a list..
Nah, they'll just complie a list of everyone who views/downloads it for the NSA.
29% is less than the population of people in the US that think we found WMDs in Iraq or that Saddam had a direct link to the 9/11 attacks.
Judge Gonzales -
"When our guys do it - good.
When you guys do it - bad."
"I want to know the truth," the president continued. "Leaks of classified information are bad things." He added that he did not know of "anybody in my administration who leaked classified information." George W. Bush, September 30th, 2003
"Hey, it's not like I got a blow job, and then lied about it. I only lied about the leaking of classified information!" George W. Bush, May 10th, 2006
Wait, you mean the French people aren't already protesting this?