Highly possible switcher? Many Questions?

[Tiranis]

Eh, I meant supporting the facts while I was away.. sorry if someone missunderstood me. I didn't mean it's some kind of fight or whatever. Cheer up.

 

[falltime]

The very concept of worm/virus as they now attack Windows is a non issue in Mac OS or other Unix based systems because they rely on the indefensible Windows registry which is the very core of the system. Worms edit, add and delete registry keys at will and the loop of new ones and new protections is infinite. This will not happen to Mac OS X because there is no registry core, there is instead the kernel, (Darwin) and the root and administrator user. Such editing to the file system core would only be doable with the admin password or logged in as root. Obviously never be on line as root!

What??????

First of all the OS X Kernel is not called "Darwin." Darwin is the FreeBSD OS that OS X runs on top of. Darwin is notoriously weaker than other types of UNIX OS's and its stability and robustness is often overrated (As was confirmed by ImmunitySec - an open-source auditor) especially by Apple.

The registry is not the "core" of Windows. It is simply a database used by Windows to store configuration information. It has nothing to do with the Windows Kernel. The Windows kernel does basically the same thing as OS X's Mach 3 Kernel as it is the module loaded first, containing all essential services needed for the OS to run at its primary level. The kernel is generally responsible for process management, memory management and disk management. It is completely independent of the Windows Registry, and cannot be directly altered.

I don't know what you mean by the Windows Registry being "open 24/7." It's just a database... of course its "open." OS X doesn't store configuration information in a central database; instead it stores information in separate XML files, which aren't any less "open" than the Windows registry. Neither system is considered better than the other - some Windows users would say the Windows registry is easier to navigate, whereas OS X users would argue that separate files make things more simple - its just a matter of opinion.

And what is heck is a "File System Core"?

I'm surprised no one has corrected you in the past, because it is quite obvious you are operating under serious misconceptions.

OS X is not impenetrable.... in fact it is far from it - at the Call Center the Techs are frequently informed of severe OS X security vulnerabilities and directed not to discuss the issue with the customers until Apple acknowledges and broadcasts a standardized solution. These vulnerabilites are never really newsworthy because so very few people use the OS for them to A. Be Exploited and B. Really Matter even if they were exploited.

But for those who think Darwin is god's gift to computing, heres a few news stories that DID get out:
http://news.com.com/Darwin+flaws+survive+in+Apples+Mac+OS+X/2100-1002_3-5540955.html?tag=nefd.top
http://news.com.com/Apple+fixes+flaw+with+iTunes+update/2100-1002_3-5533750.html?tag=st.rn
http://index-site.com/firewirebug2.html
(The Firewire bug is the worst issue OS X has ever had in the Video Editing industry - thousands of editors in LA have already gone to PC's simply out of absolute disgust.)

The simple fact of the matter is that OS X alone holds an insignificant 1.5% of the entire OS market. Windows XP and 2k on the other hand command a substantial 90% of the OS market. It's just simple numbers, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out who would have more threats to deal with.

It's like if Nowhereville (Pop. 24) constantly gloated about their negligible crime rate and offered LA (Pop. Approx. 1 Million) as contrast. How stupid would that be? Who would care?

 

[kingcrowing2]

I have had expirience with both platforms, and i have to say that under regular use, you are much less likely to get a virus/worm/trojan in OS X than in XP, i think it is that simple and you can argue about it. But is right, XP commands 90% of the personal computing market, why spend time making a virus that will affect only 2% of the population, when you could spend the same amount of time making one to affect 90% (well, why make one in the first place???) but if you do get a mac, security shouldn't be an issue for you

 

[myjay610]

I went to a presentation on OS/X at my school from a couple apple engineers; they made the point that there are about 64,000 viruses developed for Mac OS/X!

However, there were reports of less than 10 or something spreading and affecting systems. None which reported major damage.

Basically, one can trust that the robustness of the OS/X operating system will ensure user's safety to be impermeable; at least relative to an XP system. This is also because percentage of the market that uses apple is significantly less that microsoft, so why would apple be a popular target anyway.

Did your searches on google or whatever for the os/x viruses, do they any statistics on machines infected, etc.? I couldn't find any, cause I'm interested for some projects I work on at school.

John

 

[myjay610]

On my last one I didn't mean to imply that os/x is impermeable, b/c it obviously isn't, I meant to say that the perception is that it is impermeable because of the low records of infection, etc.

Basically, for new user's of macs, they will not encounter nearly as many problems as they do on windows with viruses, trojans, and worms. Statistics show that.

 

[Tiranis]

Ok the thing is that you can develop virus for any system, but only some percentage of them are the dangerous ones. For Windows this percentage seems to be muuuch higher than for Mac OS X. So basically, yes, there are 64,000 viruses but there is no virus running in the wild and infecting Macs. Even the Opener or whatever was his name didn't go wild.

 

[Tiranis]

The simple fact of the matter is that OS X alone holds an insignificant 1.5% of the entire OS market. Windows XP and 2k on the other hand command a substantial 90% of the OS market. It's just simple numbers, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out who would have more threats to deal with.

It's like if Nowhereville (Pop. 24) constantly gloated about their negligible crime rate and offered LA (Pop. Approx. 1 Million) as contrast. How stupid would that be? Who would care?

Stop comparing Apples and Oranges!!! If someone made a virus for Mac OS X which would go wild he would be famous and he would have a lot of respect amongst other people like himself. So targeting Mac OS X is not that bad of an idea, the problem is it is much harder to do. Also people who create viruses for Win usually hate Microsoft and that's why they do it.

And comparing crime scene with computers is completely stupid, there is no point in doing that. Even the philosophy of hacker/cracker is different than the philosophy of normal criminal.

 

[falltime]

Stop comparing Apples and Oranges!!! If someone made a virus for Mac OS X which would go wild he would be famous and he would have a lot of respect amongst other people like himself. So targeting Mac OS X is not that bad of an idea, the problem is it is much harder to do. Also people who create viruses for Win usually hate Microsoft and that's why they do it.

The only comparison I made was the difference in Market share which does not work with the equivocal metaphor "Apples and Oranges" because it just a simple contrast of numbers. Re-read my post because I think you may have gotten confused.

And such a comparison was not intended to put OS X up against Windows; it was simply there to shed light on one of the reasons why Windows has a higher occurrence of attacks than OS X (which was also the purpose of my analogy, which you clearly didn't pick up on)

It is not harder to code a Virus on a Mac. I dont know where you got that idea from. I honestly think people really don't understand what Darwin’s theoretical advantage is over Windows XP - open source. Being open-source means that the code is open to the public which inherently proposes a serious advantage, as well as a serious disadvantage. The obvious advantage is that anyone can look at it and flow their ideas, changes and opinions on how to make it better. The obvious disadvantage lies in the same exact issue in that anyone can look at it - so if someone who saw opportunism as a means to wreak mayhem found an exploit in the open-source modules, he could run rampant for months without being detected.

So unless you have definitive information that states Apple has implemented serious permission restrictions into Cocoa, don't just make wild claims and assertions. Anyway, I guarantee you found find anything, because if Apple did make the terrible decision to do something like that, Cocoa would be an extremely unpopular Objective-C programming environment (and I would know about it, seeing as I work for them.)

It would take me seconds to whip something up in Objective-C that when executed would effectually delete all of the Component Libraries within OS X. I guarantee you I would not get any sort of respect, except from maybe a few 11 year old kids. And if I took the initiative to make it self-spreading, at best, I'd find myself in jail.

And comparing crime scene with computers is completely stupid, there is no point in doing that. Even the philosophy of hacker/cracker is different than the philosophy of normal criminal.

First of all, it wasn't a comparison; it was an analogy, which you clearly didn't get. I was applying the metaphor to big and small, not criminals and hackers.

And just as a note, the word "criminal" has a very broad definition and just one particular "philosophy" cannot be attributed to the life of a criminal. A criminal is simply someone who commits a crime; coding and spreading a virus is a crime, hence by simple deductive logic - a practicing virus maker is a criminal.