PDA

View Full Version : An interesting article -- Windows more secure than OS X


Recursion
23-09-2009, 04:19 PM
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/hack-windows-security-snow-leopard,8704.html

Interesting.
Barmi
23-09-2009, 04:31 PM
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/hack-windows-security-snow-leopard,8704.html

Interesting.
The article (on that site you have provided) is wrong. I'm not contesting Mr Miller's opinion on ASLR (because it is valid), but the editor (Mr Yam) has misinterpreted.

In the second paragraph, Mr Yam writes "It is of the opinion of Charlie Miller, a well known Mac security guru, that even Snow Leopard, the latest version of Mac OS X, isn't as safe as Windows." But (having read an article on the matter days ago), that is not what was said.

In reality, what was said is that while ASLR hasn't been incorporated, it is his opinion that Mac OS X is not as secure as Windows – but he believed that it is safer than Windows, and would acknowledge it as more secure right away if Apple incorporated ASLR.

Ultimately, Mr Yam forgot the importance of semantics in a biased (and late) article, after ironically reminding readers that they should remain impartial anyway.
Recursion
23-09-2009, 04:34 PM
How is safer different to secure? It's not like it's gunna bite your dong off if you treat it badly.
Barmi
23-09-2009, 04:39 PM
How is safer different to secure? It's not like it's gunna bite your dong off if you treat it badly.
It is less secure because it has not yet incorporated ASLR, but it is safer because of the "security-through-obscurity" model. Mr Miller doesn't even recommend running an anti-virus application on a Mac.

Semantics and meaning are important.
StefanWolves
23-09-2009, 05:28 PM
This will probably cause an argument.
Recursion
23-09-2009, 05:32 PM
This will probably cause an argument.

It really shouldn't, but as you say, it probably will.
Agnostic Bear
23-09-2009, 05:35 PM
It is less secure because it has not yet incorporated ASLR, but it is safer because of the "security-through-obscurity" model. Mr Miller doesn't even recommend running an anti-virus application on a Mac.

Semantics and meaning are important.

The article isn't wrong, you are. Windows is more secure and will be for the foreseeable future. Safety is not security.
Barmi
23-09-2009, 07:10 PM
The article isn't wrong, you are. Windows is more secure and will be for the foreseeable future. Safety is not security.
It's second-hand reporting. If you had read the relevant articles last week, you would agree that Mr Yam misinterpreted.

Your comment in bold is exactly what I have been saying, and it's what Charlie Miller was saying. Yes, Windows is more technically more secure. It is Miller's opinion that if Mac OS X added his one suggestion, it would be more secure – whether you agree or not, it's your opinion against his. But he then draws a semantic distinction between "secure" and "safe". He believes Mac OS X is less secure, but more safe.

An analogy:
An individual may steal money from a shop (or bank), even though such places would have more security than £500,000 safely in a plant pot outside my front door.
Agnostic Bear
24-09-2009, 12:31 PM
It's second-hand reporting. If you had read the relevant articles last week, you would agree that Mr Yam misinterpreted.

Your comment in bold is exactly what I have been saying, and it's what Charlie Miller was saying. Yes, Windows is more technically more secure. It is Miller's opinion that if Mac OS X added his one suggestion, it would be more secure – whether you agree or not, it's your opinion against his. But he then draws a semantic distinction between "secure" and "safe". He believes Mac OS X is less secure, but more safe.

Nothing wrong there, OS X is less secure but safer. And he is again right when he says it would be more secure if they added the suggestion, it would, but it still wouldn't be more secure than windows.
Chippiewill
24-09-2009, 04:27 PM
If people don't use it then it's secure, simple as.

*Waits for HotelUser to kick up a fuss*
Chippiewill
24-09-2009, 05:22 PM
If people don't use it then it's secure, simple as.

*Waits for HotelUser to kick up a fuss*

Just realised I used secure instead of safe, sorry guys.

Edit by Laurensh1 (Forum Moderator): Please do not double post in future, thanks :)
GommeInc
24-09-2009, 06:03 PM
Meh, both are insecure and unsafe, that's something to draw up from the article(s) :P

Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!