The myth that software popularity doesn't affect number of vulnerabilities is a myth

[Mr. Harley]

Windows isn't inherently insecure, it's just that much of what's used today was designed well before the internet proliferated. Apple got lucky in that they had a major overhaul of their OS at the same time of the dot-com boom, while MS' major overhaul is still in the future. They could do a lot of smart changes that would force users to learn new habits, etc...such as running in a restricted userlevel by default. These changes for MS are coming in Longhorn, MS' major overhaul.

Fallacy. Asher, if that is important, then the date of design makes no difference. That is why some of the old banking systems are so f**king secure - they were written with that as a primary goal, in conjunction with handling the actual transactions. You own statement implicitly acknowedges that the currest MS kernals were NOT written that way.

Whether Apple got "lucky", or whether they were using a more secure basis, i.e. Unix for their code, your statment again implicitly admits that, in the current internet environment and the various "services" expected on it, then MS products are less secure. If that were not the case , then the timing of Apples creation of OS X would be moot.

Now if you are saying MS next product line will be more secure? Absolutely. Redmond realzes that the inherent insecurity of their product line could easily cause them to lose substantial amounts of market share, especially among businesses. However - in the here and now your state that premise that MS products, because their core code was written prior to the dot-com boom, is at a disadvantage to the Apple. I.E. the code, as currently applied, is less secure - let alone the systemics we have been discussing.

[Asher]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Fallacy. Asher, if that is important, then the date of design makes no difference. That is why some of the old banking systems are so f**king secure - they were written with that as a primary goal, in conjunction with handling the actual transactions. You own statement implicitly acknowedges that the currest MS kernals were NOT written that way.

There's nothing wrong with the MS kernels, there are some changes that need to be made to the default desktop environment configuration.

Whether Apple got "lucky", or whether they were using a more secure basis, i.e. Unix for their code, your statment again implicitly admits that, in the current internet environment and the various "services" expected on it, then MS products are less secure. If that were not the case , then the timing of Apples creation of OS X would be moot.

My point was the basis of "Unix" makes no difference, because MacOS X is based on the Mach kernel, which hasn't had a security vulnerability in many years IIRC, and Windows XP is based on the NT kernel, which hasn't had a security vulnerability in many years. On the "basis" standpoint, both are on even ground from an established security standpoint.

The problem is mostly in the default configuration. Win32 has some design quirks, as did MS' RPC implementation, because they were designed before the internet exploded. They were not designed to be used in the way they are now, and there are some security implications to that.

MacOS 9 was the same way, and in MacOS X, Apple had an opportunity to design the environment more securely, with the internet in mind. The same will happen wholesale with Windows Longhorn, and in the meantime MS is implementing some changes to XP (like SP2) to make it more secure.

The original point is this: MacOS X will get viruses less, will get less malware...but that's the same reason it gets games less, and gets less software in general. It all plays down to marketshare.

Both MacOS X and Windows XP have had remotely exploitable vulnerabilities, but the crackers write the viruses and worms for Windows, not Mac.

[DrSpike]

Interesting debate. I'm not going to opine on the relative security of various systems as I have no idea, but it seems highly likely that (regardless of inherent vulnerability) the market share of Windows based systems yields the incentive for the vulnerabilities it has to be exploited, whereas the same vulnerability (if that were possible) in other systems would not be so exploited.

That's just common sense, and seems a perfectly reasonable theory. Yeah you can't be sure that the observed lack of problems with the Mac OS isn't due to super-security, but even if the OS were more secure then Windows (as I say, no idea) if it has but one hole then when the incentive is there to abuse it, it will be so abused.

Doesn't really seem fair to call for further 'proof'. Just wait and see what happens if the Mac market share increases.