Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since the recent malware attack on Mac, and the possibility of cross platform infection (Java on Linux, from my understanding), is Windows actually more secure than Unix based OS's?
I don't know much about computer security, but after reading some articles and comments, it seems that there is a possibility that Windows is more secure in some ways.
Since I use Linux, it seems that if the Linux kernel were to be infected at the root level, there would nothing stopping the malware from controlling the OS.
However, on windows 64 bit, you have Kernel Patch Protection (KPP) which prevents Kernel tampering.
Linux Security Modules (LSM) don't seem to perform this function, but rather protects only certain components of the Kernel.
Please correct me if I am wrong, and maybe I have no clue what I am talking about, but it seems that Windows is more easily infected, but the damage is more easily mitigated, but Linux, and possibly Mac, is much harder to infect, but once it is, the damage is more extravagant.
I wouldn't say Windows is more secure since it is more widely used and since MS has a lot more haters, they tend to get a lot more threats/attacks but this is not to say Mac systems have nothing to worry about:
I wouldn't say Windows is more secure since it is more widely used and since MS has a lot more haters, they tend to get a lot more threats/attacks but this is not to say Mac systems have nothing to worry about:
Yeah, that was the malware I was referring to....so do you think the damage to Mac and Linux could be more severe than on windows?
It all boils down to how Apple and Apple users decide to deal with the threat(s). I neither care nor use Apple since 98% of the time I use Windows and the rest of the time, play with Linux.
Windows is not inherently more secure in any way I can figure. But Windows does almost certainly have a much higher percentage of users with active anti-malware software running. Even on Windows not everyone does, so that's why exploits for Windows can still spread far and wide. On Macs, there have been effectively zero significant malware issues for so long that users have been lulled into complacency and even sometimes into claiming that malware protection is completely unnecessary.
I would suspect the Flashback exploit will make Macs more secure going forward as it wakes up some people who were sleeping through this....
Windows is not inherently more secure in any way I can figure. But Windows does almost certainly have a much higher percentage of users with active anti-malware software running. Even on Windows not everyone does, so that's why exploits for Windows can still spread far and wide. On Macs, there have been effectively zero significant malware issues for so long that users have been lulled into complacency and even sometimes into claiming that malware protection is completely unnecessary.
I would suspect the Flashback exploit will make Macs more secure going forward as it wakes up some people who were sleeping through this....
And neither is Linux although there's less practical incentive to create Linux malware due to the low # of users.
If a hacker really wanted, he could create a malicious Linux .deb or .rpm package, disguise it as something you'd want to install, and have it completely modify your system the instant you grant it Administrator access when you hit "install".
Security with regards to IT has to consider the environment the system is used in. In that sense, its really hard to just debate if product x is more "secure" than product y in a vacuum. In other words, a Mac running an application with "more flaws" is going to be less secure than a Windows system running a "less flawed" application (and vice versa). And in this case, the flaw wasn't the OS itself, but an application that runs on the OS (Java in this case).
And the key comes down to risk, which is the relationship between threat and vulnerability (measured in potential). So an unpatched system that isn't connected to the internet is in essence, more secure than a patched system connected to the internet (the latter still has a higher risk of exposure).
And neither is Linux although there's less practical incentive to create Linux malware due to the low # of users.
If a hacker really wanted, he could create a malicious Linux .deb or .rpm package, disguise it as something you'd want to install, and have it completely modify your system the instant you grant it Administrator access when you hit "install".
Linux is by far more secure than windows. I can almost guarantee you that if you do not do anything stupid (download unfamiliar e-mail attachments or install things that you have no clue what they are and are not listed in the software center) your Linux system will almost never get infected.
If you are paranoid about being hacked or infected... run a virus scanner and install "rkhunter" which checks for root kits, which is the only real threat that you even have to come close to worrying about infecting your Linux system.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
