OS X :: how secure art thou?
- Thread starter gerbick
- Start date
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
Krevinek said:
Well, considering that Microsoft patches are known to break systems, there are many times where the fix is as bad (or worse) than the problem. And keeping up with Microsoft patches and updates makes the work load for supporting Windows two-to-three times that of any other platform.
And if you've read any of the license agreements with the latest patches, you would be questioning if it was a good idea to be installing them. Less we forget, the ports left open were done for a reason... Microsoft wanting a way into everyone's system that people didn't know about.
Microsoft... flawed by design.
soulseek
It's set to groove
RacerX said:And that protects you from a hammer how?
racer x think reasonably.
if u have things that are that important to u on ur computer than u obviously make at least one copy !!! store them on .mac. or in a safe etc...
if ur computer is THat important 2 u . than u keep a zapper with u at all times..
Krevinek
Evil PPC Tweaker
RacerX said:
While the work-load is more, it doesn't make it impossible. While I have had my share of issues with Windows Update and the like, the fact that the fix was available for months (and in a couple of cases, over a year), is just silly.
RacerX said:
Hmm, I can think of plenty of apps/etc that help prevent access to those ports... and ironically, the major exploits that reach news sources are in the IIS server suite and other servers, not MS' spyware 'feature'.
soulseek said:
Please, if you are going to quote me and tell me I am wrong, don't snip out parts of my argument. The statement I made was:
Krevnik said:
Notice the if, and the 2 conditions I listed that you snipped out. I am also ignoring marketshare as well as the number of attacks actually made against vulnerabilities on each platform (which is partially related to marketshare, and partially related to the fact that most script kiddies and hackers have Windows machines to experiment with, not Macs). If I enable every service I have available on MacOS X and don't keep up with the security patches... I am eventually asking for trouble if I have data someone wants. I would argue that the MAJORITY (not all, but most) of virus writers on Windows watch the security lists and the like. The moment a new exploit that looks particularly interesting shows up, they start experimenting. X months later, a virus hits all the servers that never bothered to patch within that time. One can properly secure down a Windows server *IF* they know what they are doing and aren't lazy. One can properly make a MacOS X system vulnerable *IF* they don't know what they are doing and enable things like crazy... it is just that out of the box, MacOS X has Windows beat big-time.
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
Krevinek said:
Impossible... no.
But back in 2001/2002 I was supporting 15 Windows systems along with 35 Macs. Those 15 Windows systems required more time and energy to support than the Macs. In fact, today I support no Windows systems and 71 Macs and have to do web design to make ends meet. I'm only one person.
Impossible... no. Unreasonable... yes.
historical note: if you check this board for post by me back in the summer of 2002 you'll find me talking about having to deal directly with Microsoft's legal department on behalf of one of my clients, that was another reason why I won't touch anything to do with Microsoft.
I never said that IIS wasn't a complete joke (it is of course). I was talking about the Server/Enterprise space (servers and workstations) when talking about the hole left by Microsoft. I don't remember hearing about those ports until early 2003... they were there since at least 1996 (the release of NT 4.0) if not before.
Something tells me that the ports being open wasn't widely known as it took about 7 years before they were exploited. And I also don't think they were known about until 2003 as Microsoft issued a patch to close those ports only a month before the exploit was actively used.
Hmmm, I seem to remember that reaching at least a few news sources... don't you?
Krevinek
Evil PPC Tweaker
RacerX said:
Actually, I remember MS touting those ports as a feature of Windows XP before it was released... a method that they could help you when you had problems. The backlash from the tech community that heard about it was enough to make them quiet down and not tout it as a feature, but they never blocked the ports until the security regime came in.
The mistake that led to their exploit was the fact that MS came out to the public with exactly what the ports controlled... and had little to no security measures installed when it came to something that gave UI-level access.
(The _other_ thing that comes to my mind... Somehow for big corporations the security of an individual system just isn't that important, because they _have_ to have a hardware firewall, anyway. Once you can control the traffic for your whole network (and fix Windows' flaws _there_ instead of each machine), things are certainly a bit different. Sure, there are still exploits that'll work even _though_ you have a good firewall setup, but those are also available for old versions of BIND, sendmail etc. on the UN*X side of things.)
I'm also currently trying Windows XP SP2 (RC1) on one of my machines without any security software besides what's in the package. And I must say that Microsoft _is_ paying attention here. I'm not sure how soon we'll see exploits for old/new vulnerabilities that'll work on SP2, but at least they're now doing something actively (i.e. close everything by default and urge the user to pay attention to security issues). My machine's behind a NAT-only firewall (i.e. a router), so it's a bit safer than the average Joe's direct broadband connection, but still: It seems quite okay.
I'm also currently trying Windows XP SP2 (RC1) on one of my machines without any security software besides what's in the package. And I must say that Microsoft _is_ paying attention here. I'm not sure how soon we'll see exploits for old/new vulnerabilities that'll work on SP2, but at least they're now doing something actively (i.e. close everything by default and urge the user to pay attention to security issues). My machine's behind a NAT-only firewall (i.e. a router), so it's a bit safer than the average Joe's direct broadband connection, but still: It seems quite okay.
Ripcord
Senior Lurker
fryke said:
LOL. So basically, you're saying that you've been testing SP2 RC1 for one or two days, you're sitting behind a NAT firewall (which, I presume, is doing port blocking to ALL ports on your machine in addition to the NAT, so there really shouldn't be any way for hackers to get to you), and because you haven't been hacked or exploited yet, so far things seem okay?