MacOSX security holes

[kidlinux]

I don't own a Mac or use MacOSX but I hear lots of people talking about how it makes a better desktop than Linux or Windows. I just learned though that it is full of so many security holes which make Windows almost look secure ;)

Stuff like http://www.secunia.com/advisories/10295/ and if you look at the bottom of the page there's a whole bunch more. Looks like a pretty insecure OS to me

I haven't tried MacOSX yet but I don't seem a whole lot that makes it better than KDE or even Gnome. Plus Macs seem really expensive compared to PCs, especially the new G5. Plus I hear the G5 is still slower than Intel P4 and Xeon or AMD Optiron, and even more expensive, and that Apple lied on benchmarks so they could claim it's the world's most powerful computer when it really isn't

Can a Mac user please explain to me what makes Macs better than PCs if not OS security, usability, or hardwire costs. Thanks.

[jesse]

that "hole" you just posted requires that the attacker is on your local network.

and those other "holes" have been addressed in patches.

Mac OS X is an operating system, there is no such thing as a 100% secure OS. Your beloved linux has had a great deal security issues with default installs.

And that list is absolutely tiny compared to windows.

[bascule]

I don't own a Mac or use MacOSX but I hear lots of people talking about how it makes a better desktop than Linux or Windows. I just learned though that it is full of so many security holes which make Windows almost look secure ;)

(Forget to GNU/ a Linux? Why isn't your nickname "kidgnu/linux" for that matter?)

This is the second blatent troll you've posted. Would you mind phrasing your posts in a less inflamatory manner?

Stuff like http://www.secunia.com/advisories/10295/ and if you look at the bottom of the page there's a whole bunch more. Looks like a pretty insecure OS to me

Every OS will have security issues. Furthermore, many of these security vulnerabilities are in open source software such as OpenSSH and OpenSSL and are common to Linux as well.

OS X has accomplished the monumental work of constucting a desktop usable by the average person on top of a *IX operating system, and have done so with a decade old legacy codebase. Given the effort they've undertaken, I'd say the number of security vulnerabilities are relatively minimal.

I haven't tried MacOSX yet but I don't seem a whole lot that makes it better than KDE or even Gnome.

You have no qualms about attacking the usability of an operating system you've never used? Well, at least you admit to your ignorance...

Besides the technical advantages of Quartz/Quartz Extreme, its PDF rendering model, there also issues like application availability. Care to show me where you can get programs like Cubase, Reason, Logic, ProTools, Finale, Quark XPress, or Avid DV Xpress for Linux?

Plus Macs seem really expensive compared to PCs, especially the new G5. Plus I hear the G5 is still slower than Intel P4 and Xeon or AMD Optiron, and even more expensive, and that Apple lied on benchmarks so they could claim it's the world's most powerful computer when it really isn't

No Tier 1 vendor offers an x86 system comparable to the dual 2GHz G5. The Xeon is severly hampered by its bus architecture. Currently, no Tier 1 vendor offers an Opteron system, and it's unlikely that it will be offered in a workstation configuration when it is (by Sun). Furthermore, it's unlikely that Windows will be supported on it, which would bring us back to the application availability issue.

Yes, it's true that Apple posted some misleading benchmarks, however this does not diminish the excellence of the G5 architecture.

[jesse]

Besides the technical advantages of Quartz/Quartz Extreme, its PDF rendering model, there also issues like application availability. Care to show me where you can get programs like Cubase, Reason, Logic, ProTools, Finale, Quark XPress, or Avid DV Xpress for Linux?

Not too mention the entire Adobe, Macromedia and Procreate lines of products.

[Chris]

(Forget to GNU/ a Linux? Why isn't your nickname "kidgnu/linux" for that matter?)

Haha...quality.

[kidlinux]

It's not that I feel I always have to put GNU/Linux, but as you all probably know I do it out of respect for GNU and their contributions to the user space programs which make Linux into an operating system. There really wouldn't be a Linux if it weren't for GNU, and I think it is important to recognize their contributions which are equally if not more important than Linux kernel.

I did miss the DHCP vulnerability needs local network access, but could be used as a stepping stone into Macs in conjunction with another security hole. Don't just automatically underrate this problem just because you need to be on the local network, that is foolish.

Also the openssl and openssh holes don't affect GNU/Linux systems which don't use these by default, whereas the holes affect EVERY Mac system. This is what makes GNU/Linux such a hard target for worms, it has a great deal of diversity thanks to many distributions. Diversity means more choice for users and you get better security as an added bonus. MacOSX gives you no choice on everyting, you have to do it Apple's way or you're screwed.

I realize Macs are good for artists and have lots of good programs for artists. But lately everyone is talking about buying a Mac for the average user. Why? The average user doesn't need any of those programs you guys listed, and if they do and their running GNU/Linux they can download open source applications that do pretty much the same thing. Plus if they are running Windows most of those programs are for Windows too. So why buy a Mac?

I really doubt dual 2GHz G5 is faster than dual 3.2GHz Xeon from Dell. Even if the memory busses are slower there is vector stuff like SSE2 which means less memory speed is needed. And why is "tier 1" vendor important anyway? There are hundreds of companies selling dual 2.2GHz Opteron systems, and I bet you can find one near you if you look. Where I live there is a store that sells Opterons nearby, but no Apple Store for like 30 miles. Seems like it'd be easier to own an Opteron than Apple then.

And if Apple is so good and easy to use for the average person, why don't they have low cost systems that don't suck. Don't try to tell me the emac is a good computer, it's really lousy and all their laptops are really expensive. They don't even have them for < $900, which is about the average price of a PC laptop. Plus all the laptops are using the antequated G4 processor instead of the G5 the apple fanboys like to talk about so much. So why would I buy an Apple laptop instead of a nice Sony, especially if it's using an old processor but still costs more? And don't try to tell me Apple uses better parts than Sony, all of the parts are pretty much the same except for the slow, antequated G4 processor.

[jesse]

I realize Macs are good for artists and have lots of good programs for artists. But lately everyone is talking about buying a Mac for the average user. Why? The average user doesn't need any of those programs you guys listed, and if they do and their running GNU/Linux they can download open source applications that do pretty much the same thing. Plus if they are running Windows most of those programs are for Windows too. So why buy a Mac?

Because Mac OS is the easiest to use, most functionally elegant OS there is? I can see plenty of reasons why I'd reccomend Mac OS to an "average user", primarily being ease of use and good hardware.

Linux is certainly NOT something i'd reccomend to the average user due to its steep learning curve, lack of commercial software that a great deal of average customers want (stuff like Quicken and turbotax), spotty driver support, lack of a cohesive gui and other issues.

As for why mac over windows? to continue the vehicle analogy, windows is a biege minivan that most everyone seems to drive, while mac os x is the ferrari that everyone wants.

[bascule]

It's not that I feel I always have to put GNU/Linux, but as you all probably know I do it out of respect for GNU and their contributions to the user space programs which make Linux into an operating system. There really wouldn't be a Linux if it weren't for GNU, and I think it is important to recognize their contributions which are equally if not more important than Linux kernel.

I greatly dislike the GNU userspace and find it to be one of my big "turn-offs" in regards to Linux. The tools are all discontiguous from other *IX operating systems and consequently things that begin to depend on those tools, such as build scripts/Makefiles for certain packages, become Linux specific.

I did miss the DHCP vulnerability needs local network access, but could be used as a stepping stone into Macs in conjunction with another security hole. Don't just automatically underrate this problem just because you need to be on the local network, that is foolish.

Would you say the same thing about the brk() integer overflow recently discovered in Linux?

Also the openssl and openssh holes don't affect GNU/Linux systems which don't use these by default, whereas the holes affect EVERY Mac system. This is what makes GNU/Linux such a hard target for worms, it has a great deal of diversity thanks to many distributions. Diversity means more choice for users and you get better security as an added bonus. MacOSX gives you no choice on everyting, you have to do it Apple's way or you're screwed.

Discontiguous packaging systems and filesystem layouts are largely responsible for the lack of closed source commercial application availability on Linux and further compound the frustration of using applications when they are available. While you may be just fine using GNUcash instead of Quicken/QuickBooks, your average user, who will probably want access to Intuit's tax table web service, and who has an accountant who probably can't open GNUcash files, will most likely not see the "open source alternative" as a real option.

I realize Macs are good for artists and have lots of good programs for artists. But lately everyone is talking about buying a Mac for the average user. Why? The average user doesn't need any of those programs you guys listed, and if they do and their running GNU/Linux they can download open source applications that do pretty much the same thing. Plus if they are running Windows most of those programs are for Windows too. So why buy a Mac?

First off, just because an open source application with the same core functionality is available doesn't make it a viable alternative. You aren't seeing many ProTools users dumping it and switching to Ardour, nor are you seeing Quark XPress users abandoning it and switching to Scribus.

The arguments Linux users typically use against Windows systems, namely the large number of viruses/worms that plague Windows, the registry, etc all carry over to the Mac. The difference on the Mac is the availability of a large number of professional quality applications. Furthermore, many people like the Mac's shared menu interface better than the more cumbersome "gray background" MDI implementation seen on both Windows and Linux, especially for pro applications such as Photoshop, Cubase, Reason, and Logic.

I really doubt dual 2GHz G5 is faster than dual 3.2GHz Xeon from Dell. Even if the memory busses are slower there is vector stuff like SSE2 which means less memory speed is needed.

SSE2 does not mitigate the memory bandwidth issue. And while the 3.2GHz Xeon may beat the G5 on raw CPU performance benchmarks such as SPEC CPU2000, you'll find that the G5 is beating dual Xeon systems in most real world benchmarks.

And why is "tier 1" vendor important anyway? There are hundreds of companies selling dual 2.2GHz Opteron systems, and I bet you can find one near you if you look. Where I live there is a store that sells Opterons nearby, but no Apple Store for like 30 miles. Seems like it'd be easier to own an Opteron than Apple then.

It's nice to think of local computer stores as being comparable to a tier 1 vendor, but having seen virtually every local computer store in my hometown go out of business only to be replaced by a slew of new ones, I'd say this isn't the case. The big point about a tier 1 vendor is that it's highly unlikely they'll be disappearing any time in the future. If you purchase an AppleCare support contract for your system, you can be fairly certain that Apple isn't going to go bankrupt in the meantime and break that contract. Can you say that thing about the support Joe's Discount Computer Outlet is going to offer you on your Opteron system?

And if Apple is so good and easy to use for the average person, why don't they have low cost systems that don't suck. Don't try to tell me the emac is a good computer, it's really lousy and all their laptops are really expensive. They don't even have them for < $900, which is about the average price of a PC laptop. Plus all the laptops are using the antequated G4 processor instead of the G5 the apple fanboys like to talk about so much. So why would I buy an Apple laptop instead of a nice Sony, especially if it's using an old processor but still costs more? And don't try to tell me Apple uses better parts than Sony, all of the parts are pretty much the same except for the slow, antequated G4 processor.

Apple makes mid to high-end systems, most likely because they don't feel they could effectively compete against x86 vendors in the low-end market. That said, the G4 is not an "antequated" processor, it's still quite competative, especially in the portables market where the P4's power hungry brute force approach to speed isn't effective due to the power requirements. And while yes, Sony does make good laptops, the same issues of viruses/worms and registry corruption will still plague the Windows side of things, and the application availability issue will still plague the Linux side. Simple as that.

[Xodia]

MacOSX gives you no choice on everyting, you have to do it Apple's way or you're screwed.

Actually, Apple gives you quite of bit of choice considering it is a mainstream OS. Darwin (The core of MacOS X) is open source, and has a following behind it that is releasing unofficial improvements (www.opendarwin.org). Not to mention that a good variety of Linux distrobutions are available for the PPC. Also, most BSD/Linux programs can compile, or be easily modified to compile under MacOS. That is versatility Windows can't argue with.

The average user doesn't need any of those programs you guys listed, and if they do and their running GNU/Linux they can download open source applications that do pretty much the same thing. Plus if they are running Windows most of those programs are for Windows too. So why buy a Mac?

The average user won't install "GNU/Linux", and definatly won't go through the process to compile open source software. Why would Average Joe and Jane comprimise compatibility with their partners, when they know that off-the-shelf programs work for sure? Also, the fact is that alot of Mac programs don't have good open source alternatives. I use Final Cut Pro to edit video, and I will give you a piece of candy if you can find an open source equivilent. Heck.. Just find a Linux equivilent, I dare you.

And if Apple is so good and easy to use for the average person, why don't they have low cost systems that don't suck. Don't try to tell me the emac is a good computer, it's really lousy and all their laptops are really expensive.

Apple's computers have always been expensive, save the short years when they allowed companies to make clones. Think about it, when all the expenses for manufacturing something are on one company, it will drive the price up. Bascule had a good point in the fact that Apple doesn't really concern themselves with the low cost market. The e-Mac was initionally aimed at the education market (e-mac), where Macs are often used.

You have gone from making valid points about the operating system, to resorting to ad hominem comments about the hardware involved, which is not even what you attacked in the first place. Sounds like your getting boxed into a corner to me.

[kree]

But lately everyone is talking about buying a Mac for the average user. Why?

Because it simply works! You will have to try it to understand.

[kidlinux]

Somebody agrees with me: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scite...ag_031211.html

[bascule]

Somebody agrees with me: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scite...ag_031211.html

Several people disagree with you and the moronic Microsoft apologist who wrote that article as well: http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.p...=5&mode=thread

[bascule]

Here's a further rebuttal of that terrible article: http://www.infowarrior.org/articles/2003-08.html

[kidlinux]

Okay thanks for the infoz

[skroo]

Somebody agrees with me:

No, really, they don't.

I had some sympathy for you when you first started posting here, figuring that you were simply green and a bit naive. Unfortunately, your actions over time have simply demonstrated to me (as well anyone else subjected to your ill-researched opinions presented as fact) that you are just another tool looking for a 'my OS/computer/scabies/whatever are better than yours' argument.

In short, I'm tired of you, your cornholed view of the universe, and your inability to do basic research.

HTH, HAND, FOAD.