|
|
Sophos suggest home users switch to macs
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
Macbook Pro 15" Rev: Feb08
iPhone & iPod Touch
20" iMac G5, Mac Mini G4 and an iBook G4, all retired.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Partying down with the Ewoks, after I nuked the Death Star!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Duracell
No. You'd think buggy windows with all the Virus' and Spyware would do that on its own. The public is stupid in general and buy whatever is the cheapest or the sales guy says is the best (i.e what they makes the most commission on).
|
"Hello, what have we here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Landos Mustache
No. You'd think buggy windows with all the Virus' and Spyware would do that on its own. The public is stupid in general and buy whatever is the cheapest or the sales guy says is the best (i.e what they makes the most commission on).
That may have been the situation a few years ago (and in most part it still is) but I think the general public take into account this sort of thing more than they used to.
|
Macbook Pro 15" Rev: Feb08
iPhone & iPod Touch
20" iMac G5, Mac Mini G4 and an iBook G4, all retired.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Partying down with the Ewoks, after I nuked the Death Star!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Duracell
That may have been the situation a few years ago (and in most part it still is) but I think the general public take into account this sort of thing more than they used to.
A bit yes. But I still see a family walk into best buy with no clue and just get whatever is on sale. Serves them right for not doing research but overall this is the norm.
|
"Hello, what have we here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Detroit
Status:
Offline
|
|
Sophos doesn't sell to the home market; so they don't gain anything by this statement. I'm guessing they just must truely care about a users computer experience.
OR, they are soon to sell to the home market. Finally. My 10-User small business account was pricey!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status:
Offline
|
|
Do they suggest this because Macs are safer or do they suggest this because Microsoft is eating into their anti-virus market for Windows?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by TETENAL
Do they suggest this because Macs are safer or do they suggest this because Microsoft is eating into their anti-virus market for Windows?
Bit of both, I'd imagine. No business out there put the user first - they all want to make money and ultimately need to make money to stay afloat - Maybe this is a way to move into the home market on Macs, to be honest, it's a fairly clever way to go about it.
|
Macbook Pro 15" Rev: Feb08
iPhone & iPod Touch
20" iMac G5, Mac Mini G4 and an iBook G4, all retired.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ellicott City, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
That statement is kinda dumb if you ask me.... while the quality of the software has some to do with it, the market share is the main reason why MS is targeted so much. In other words, if 90% of the computer users suddendly switched to Macs, or Unix or whatever you want tomorrow; you can be sure that soon after, that OS will find itself with the most virus', attacks etc....
Just my .02.
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by macroy
That statement is kinda dumb if you ask me.... while the quality of the software has some to do with it, the market share is the main reason why MS is targeted so much. In other words, if 90% of the computer users suddendly switched to Macs, or Unix or whatever you want tomorrow; you can be sure that soon after, that OS will find itself with the most virus', attacks etc....
Just my .02.
UNIX and Linux make up roughly 50% of the marketshare for servers worldwide. The majority of exploits are still for Windows.
Even if Apple had 50% of the market, I'd bet that the majority of exploits would still be for Windows. I think you underestimate the "quality of software" factor.
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by olePigeon
UNIX and Linux make up roughly 50% of the marketshare for servers worldwide. The majority of exploits are still for Windows.
Even if Apple had 50% of the market, I'd bet that the majority of exploits would still be for Windows. I think you underestimate the "quality of software" factor.
While I'm not the most knowledgeable on the subject - To get a virus there has to be some sort of client interaction - Computers don't just get a virus from being connected to the Internet unless someone has a remote connection to the machine and does baaaaaaad things, right?
Thus, servers and home machines are a completely different kettle o' fish - Home users is what this article is all about.
|
Macbook Pro 15" Rev: Feb08
iPhone & iPod Touch
20" iMac G5, Mac Mini G4 and an iBook G4, all retired.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Landos Mustache
The public is stupid in general and buy whatever is the cheapest or the sales guy says is the best (i.e what they makes the most commission on).
That would probably usually be Macs then, at least if you're talking iMacs vs low end desktop PCs. Lots of people here claim that the margins for stores on Macs are higher in general.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cambridge, UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Duracell
While I'm not the most knowledgeable on the subject - To get a virus there has to be some sort of client interaction - Computers don't just get a virus from being connected to the Internet unless someone has a remote connection to the machine and does baaaaaaad things, right?
Not so true, there's a BBC report and video* showing how Windows XP can become infected with spyware etc in the space of 8 seconds, just by being connected to the internet.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ne/4423733.stm
* I don't know where the video is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: "Working"
Status:
Offline
|
|
The 'security through obscurity' argument is quite false. If OS X was an vulnerable and insecure as Windows, you'd think there'd be at least ONE working virus (not one that requires you to authorize both downloading and installing it). Quality of software is a huge part of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Linux/UNIX and Apache have had a large majority of the server market for many years, and yet the vast majority of server-side exploits are still for Windows and IIS.
It's not just a matter of marketshare. Having smaller marketshare helps, but Windows really and truly is inferior when it comes to security. Vastly so, in fact, because they make use of more than a few fundamentally flawed technologies, and they still refuse to see that security and usability need not conflict (and even when they do, security needs to take precedence).
|
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: USA at the moment
Status:
Offline
|
|
Interestingly, this is the post popular e-mailed article on the BBC at the moment, according to their new story popularity meter.
Probably just all the Mac geeks saying 'told you so'!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Nah, Macs have tiny marketshare. Their saying "told you so" wouldn't be noticeable.
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
Or Steve Jobs hired someone to click "email this article" 1 million times.
Kinda like Trump buying up his own books to get himself on the NY Time Bestseller list.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Cooperstown '09
Status:
Offline
|
|
I think the title and story should be re-written...
Mac users should switch from Sophos at home
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: USA at the moment
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Chuckit
Nah, Macs have tiny marketshare. Their saying "told you so" wouldn't be noticeable.
Mac have tiny market share, yes, but Mac users do tend to be particularly militant... exhibit 1: MacNN Forums.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: "Working"
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by willed
Mac have tiny market share, yes, but Mac users do tend to be particularly militant... exhibit 1: MacNN Forums.
I think his statement was a bit tongue-in-cheek.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: USA at the moment
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Gossamer
I think his statement was a bit tongue-in-cheek.
Well spotted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ellicott City, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Millennium
Linux/UNIX and Apache have had a large majority of the server market for many years, and yet the vast majority of server-side exploits are still for Windows and IIS.
It's not just a matter of marketshare. Having smaller marketshare helps, but Windows really and truly is inferior when it comes to security. Vastly so, in fact, because they make use of more than a few fundamentally flawed technologies, and they still refuse to see that security and usability need not conflict (and even when they do, security needs to take precedence).
I'm not going to argue that Windows have less exploits - which they certainly have plenty of. But exploits are written to take advantage of vulnerabilites. Just because more are written for windows doesn't necessairly mean Windows is less secure (it just means their attacked more).
However, traditionally, Windows are used by smaller shops... meaning less experience and less man power to implement a strong overall security. Thus, if I was going to write an exploit, I'd have much more success with those smaller shops.... I think you find that today, as the Windows OS matures... it is making a large stride in being much more secure. Also keep in mind how old Windows is vs UNIX.... or just compare UNIX vulnerabilites vs Mainframe.... Age also has a lot to do with it.
Having been involved in many penetration tests and risk assessments, I can attest that the main reason for our success isn't based on the platform they use... but how effective their overall security is. Just as an example, the last two test we conducted we were able to gain access via an Oracle vulnerability running on Sun, and a badly configured Cisco router.
Having said all that.... I'm not a windows fan at all. But I do feel that they get scapegoated a lot.
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: "Working"
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by macroy
I'm not going to argue that Windows have less exploits - which they certainly have plenty of. But exploits are written to take advantage of vulnerabilites. Just because more are written for windows doesn't necessairly mean Windows is less secure (it just means their attacked more).
However, traditionally, Windows are used by smaller shops... meaning less experience and less man power to implement a strong overall security. Thus, if I was going to write an exploit, I'd have much more success with those smaller shops.... I think you find that today, as the Windows OS matures... it is making a large stride in being much more secure. Also keep in mind how old Windows is vs UNIX.... or just compare UNIX vulnerabilites vs Mainframe.... Age also has a lot to do with it.
Having been involved in many penetration tests and risk assessments, I can attest that the main reason for our success isn't based on the platform they use... but how effective their overall security is. Just as an example, the last two test we conducted we were able to gain access via an Oracle vulnerability running on Sun, and a badly configured Cisco router.
Having said all that.... I'm not a windows fan at all. But I do feel that they get scapegoated a lot.
Age is no excuse for an insecure system. If it's old code that's causing all of these security holes, any reputable company would rewrite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Isn't Sophos the company that keeps inventing "malware" for OS X so it can issue press releases?
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|