Firefox Myth

[Fve Crathva]

Originally posted by Sava
I have no desire or need to try Opera.

My FF is fast. Everything loads instantly. I don't see how Opera could be any faster. Those extra millaseconds, well, I don't care. It's not worth the bother of downloading and installing a new browser.

Firefox

Opera is actually significantly and noticeably faster than Firefox. The fact that nearly everything else about it is inferior offsets the speed advantage.

SP

[Sava]

Originally posted by Fve Crathva

Opera is actually significantly and noticeably faster than Firefox.

if I "benchmarked" Opera and FF and compared the results... i.e. going to my favorite sites and comparing load times, I doubt Opera would be "significantly" or "noticeably" faster than FF. If it is faster, it's probably by milliseconds.

The fact that nearly everything else about it is inferior offsets the speed advantage.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This list is kind of dumb. As for the speed comparisons, if you click on the link, it's a guy's personal tests (and he admits it). It's not supposed to be conclusive, but just what this guy has observed.

[Fve Crathva]

This is a nonscientific experiment comparing the speeds of different browsers on different OSes:

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html

In Windows, on old hardware, Opera wins in all tests. Personally, my observations mirror those results--sometimes, Opera feels like it's loading a page from cache instead of through the network. I only use Opera for pr0n though, in the end that's all it's good for (their find while you type equivalent is a smelly abortion of a function).

SP

[chequita guevara]

It's pretty much a matter of preference, but I like FF best because it adheres most closely to web standrads, at least for PCs.

[Hot Mustard]

IE isn't an option for well-informed internet users simply because the dumb masses use it, drawing the attention of viruses, spyware, etc.

I've honestly never looked at Opera, so I can't comment, but Firefox works plenty fast for me, and even faster with the Fasterfox extension.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
If you look at the vulnerability counts of MacOS X and Linux, they're also very high. They're just not being exploited.

Com'on, stop brandishing a known falsehood.

[Asher]

It's not a known falsehood, it's a widely known fact that the more obscure an OS is in practice, the less it is exploited.

It's something that should be rather intuitively obvious to intelligent people. Incidentally, the only people I know of who dismiss that argument are you and Agathon. And both of you have less of a reputation with being correct regarding computers than Fez or Wiglaf.

Since you have just said it's a known falsehood, I am welcoming your evidence to the contrary (otherwise it wouldn't be "known", would it).

[Asher]

I do find it odd that what you consider to be a "known falsehood" is widely considered to be factually true by experts in the field. Maybe you should send them a memo, what with your excellent debate skills and penchant for providing facts and substance to arguments.

Here's a recent article about how MacOS X is benefiting less from "security through obscurity" as the company reaches higher profiles:

http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11375

Apple's in the eye of flaw finders
Robert Lemos, SecurityFocus 2006-02-07

At the recent ShmooCon hacking conference, one security researcher found out the hard way that such venues can be hostile, when an unknown hacker took control of the researcher's computer, disabling the firewall and starting up a file server.

“ This is almost certainly the year of the OS X exploit. The OS X platform may be based on a Unix platform, but Apple seems to be making mistakes that Unix made, and corrected, long ago. ”

Jay Beale, senior security consultant, Intelguardians

While such compromises have become common in the Windows world, this time the computer was a Apple PowerBook running the latest version of Mac OS X. The victim, a security researcher who asked to remain anonymous, had locked down the system prior to the conference and believes that a previously unknown exploit caused the compromise. However, in the following weeks, forensics performed on the system did not reveal any clues as to how the PowerBook had been compromised.

"The machine was as hardened as best practices could suggest for anyone," the researcher said. The person who breached the PowerBook used information gathered from the computer to contact a friend of the researcher and bragged about the compromise. "This was not a subtle hack," the researcher stressed.

The compromise underscores a number of trends that has already caused a shift in focus among flaw finders and could result in more attacks on Mac OS X. Security researchers themselves have moved over to Apple computers in the past few years and have learned the ins and outs of the operating system. The company's move to Intel-based hardware for its next-generation of Macs also gives flaw finders familiar territory in which to look for bugs. Finally, as Apple continues to garner more market share, the lure of a larger set of targets will make attacks more likely, say security researchers.

"This is almost certainly the year of the OS X exploit," said Jay Beale, a senior security consultant for Intelguardians and an expert in hardening Linux and Mac OS X systems. "The OS X platform may be based on a Unix platform, but Apple seems to be making mistakes that Unix made, and corrected, long ago."

Apple also has been widely criticized for not talking about the details of its vulnerability-response process or how it manages security incidents. While Microsoft has the lion's share of security problems--and the Mac OS X hardly any--the Redmond, Wash., based software giant has received high marks from security researchers for its responsiveness, while Apple has often been the focus of complaints.

"On a good day, Apple doesn't even make it to Microsoft's level of security awareness," Beale said.

The company has generally refused to discuss the security of its Mac OS X operating system with the media and declined to comment for this article. The security researcher whose PowerBook was compromised has discussed the issue with Apple but without any conclusions being reached.

Apple has made good decisions regarding the Mac OS X architecture and has had far fewer security problems as a result, said Adam Shostack, chief technology officer for security firm Reflective.

"There are some things that make the Mac more secure," Shostack said. "There is a user model that does not rely on a user running programs in administrator mode. There is no ActiveX in Safari and there is no ActiveX equivalent. That makes it harder to go to a web page and have your Mac compromised."

Yet, the platform is garnering more attention from the experts who search for vulnerabilities. Driven by the cool look of the Mac OS X and the ability to run most Unix and Linux security tools on the system, Apple's operating system has become popular among security researchers.

That popularity could be the reason that the number of vulnerabilities logged in Apple's Mac OS X surpassed the number of vulnerabilities found in Microsoft's Windows XP in 2004 and 2005, according to data from the National Vulnerability Database (NVD). Apple had to contend with 88 vulnerabilities (29 high severity ones) in the Mac OS X in 2005, up from 54 in the prior year, while Microsoft patched 61 vulnerabilities (38 deemed of high severity) in Windows XP in 2005, up from 44 the prior year, according to the NVD. The data does show that fewer of the flaws in Mac OS X were considered severe.

Such numbers always have to be taken with a grain of salt. Differing ways of reporting flaws, different editorial policies on the part of the vulnerability database staff and differences between what software components are considered part of the operating system all combine to make vulnerability statistics less than authoritative.

However, some security researchers speculate that the number of flaws found in the future will increase. Apple's change to the Intel platform will put many security researchers in their comfort zone in dealing with the architecture. While the change will not mean much for application-level vulnerabilities, flaws in the memory architecture or in processor-specific functions could be found more easily, Reflective's Shostack said.

"OS X running on x86 means that the skills that people have developed and a lot of the tools people have created for finding problems, analyzing problems and writing the code to take advantage of them will work," he said. "They no longer need to learn a different assembler or a different memory architecture."

Finally, the old adage about market share still holds, said Dan Kaminsky, an independent consultant for Doxpara Research. As Macs become more popular, attackers will tend to target the platform more often, he said.

"There just aren't that many Mac users right now," Kaminsky said. "As it gets put on more and more desk tops, it becomes a pretty high-profile target in terms of what is your return on investment for committing an attack against the group."

Ironically, Apple's lack of experience with major attacks might also cause problems for the company and its users, Kaminsky said.

"The reality is that security work does comes from a trial by fire," he said. "And Apple really has not had that experience. It had not had the experience from some 20 years that Unix had and that Linux has absorbed. It has not had the experience that Microsoft had with its summer of worms."

Yet, it's almost certain the experience will come, he said.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The end of the article is also interesting:

Ironically, Apple's lack of experience with major attacks might also cause problems for the company and its users, Kaminsky said.

"The reality is that security work does comes from a trial by fire," he said. "And Apple really has not had that experience. It had not had the experience from some 20 years that Unix had and that Linux has absorbed. It has not had the experience that Microsoft had with its summer of worms."

I wonder what'll happen when the **** actually does hit the fan, cause that time is coming for Mac users.

[Last Conformist]

I'm with Sava; Opera might be faster, but it can't be significantly faster than FF (which I use at home) or IE (which I use at uni), because those are already as fast as I have any need for.

Like apparently alot of people, I dislike Opera's UI.

[Tattila the Hun]

Never heard any claims that FF is *faster*, only that it is *better*, which I agree with.

[Asher]

More on the end of an era for MacOS X.

http://news.com.com/Is+Mac+OS+as+safe+as+ever/2100-1002_3-6043353.html?tag=nefd.lede

Is Mac OS as safe as ever?
By Joris Evers
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: February 27, 2006, 4:00 AM PST

Apple Computer fans have long loved to point out the safety of using Mac OS X, which has mostly been left to its own devices by hackers. But the arrival of three threats has some asking: Is the software's charmed security life over?

In the past two weeks, a pair of worms that target Mac OS X have been discovered, along with an easily exploitable, severe security flaw. The vulnerability exposes Mac users to risks that are more familiar to Windows owners: the installation of malicious code through a bad Web site or e-mail.

While these threats represent a sea change, there is no need for Mac owners to worry, experts said, as the published attacks are still mainly theoretical and not widespread. But they caution that Apple fans should not be smug: Now that it's been done, other malicious code writers are likely to turn their attention to the operating system.

It's a "small step in malicious code development for OS X," said Kevin Long, an analyst at security specialist Cybertrust and a Mac user for 11 years. "The message we need to get out there is that Mac users should not be complacent."

While Microsoft Windows users have grown accustomed to a seemingly incessant stream of computer worms, viruses and security vulnerabilities, the same is not true for Mac owners. Going by forum postings, many Apple customers believe their systems are much better protected against cyberattacks than the average Windows PC.

"Mac malware is not a myth. It is very real," said Kevin Finisterre, a security researcher at Digital Munition. Finisterre created the Inqtana worm, which targets Mac OS X and spreads using an 8-month-old vulnerability in Apple's Bluetooth software. "My point with Inqtana was to say, 'Hey! Wake up!'" he said.

Finisterre did not release his worm into the wild. He created Inqtana only to prove a point and to encourage antivirus makers to update their products against malicious software using the same method of attack, he said. Furthermore, Inqtana was programmed so that it could never spread far.

"Go buy yourself some antivirus software, keep your Apple updates current and stop pretending that you are invincible, because you are not," Finisterre advised Mac users.

The risk for Apple system users grows slightly every day, Long said. The number of people using Macs is growing, which makes attacks more likely, he said. Some have suggested that Mac OS X's previous immunity to threats is due partly to malicious coders focusing on Microsoft products, which have a much larger user base and so bring a much bigger scope for impact.

"Many think that the Macintosh operating system is impervious to viruses or these kind of security threats. It is not that they are impervious; they are targeted less," said Craig Schmugar, virus research manager at McAfee.

'Don't freak out'
The events of the last two weeks could change that. Hackers have had their interest in Apple piqued, Finisterre said. "It is a semi-new frontier, so to speak," he said.

Even so, the incidents likely won't have any significant fallout, Long said. "Hopefully, the end result is that people are a little more careful. They don't need to freak out about this," he said.

Many Mac users seem unfazed.

"I don't see myself changing any habits or panicking and running out to grab antivirus," CNET News.com reader Shane Walker wrote in an e-mail. "I am concerned, but not overly so. You just need to take the right precautions, watch your e-mail attachments and what you download like a hawk, and try to avoid known or seemingly questionable sites."

Another CNET News.com reader, using the initials J.G., said the three incidents don't bother him. "They are 'proof of concept,' not actual malware loose in the wild," the reader wrote in an e-mail. "I think much of the attention now being focused on Macs and OS X will dissipate in a few months."

So far, there have been no reports of any Mac systems infected with the Inqtana worm. The other OS X security incidents have had little impact on people either, experts said. Leap.A, considered to be the first first Mac operating system worm, was publicly posted on an online Mac message board, but did not make it onto many computers.

The most serious incident was perhaps the public disclosure of a serious and easily exploitable flaw in the Apple operating system, which could be a conduit for intruders to install malicious code on computers running the software. Attack code that takes advantage of the security hole was quickly posted on the Internet.

The problem lies in the way Mac OS X associates files with applications, and it could be exploited to hit a Mac via the Safari Web browser or Apple Mail, experts said. Apple has said it is working on a fix for the flaw. So far, no attacks based on the bug have been spotted on the Web.

Easier to hit?
Overall, only a few currently known worms, viruses and Trojans target the Mac, McAfee's Schmugar said. Nevertheless, people should not ignore the danger. "There does not have to be more than 150,000 threats for Macs before it's a security concern," he said, referring to the number of known Windows pests.

A machine running Apple's operating system might actually be easier to hit than a Windows PC, Schmugar said. "There are fewer and less evolved defenses around a Mac, because there have been fewer threats against it," he said. "The success rate for getting malicious code to run is probably greater."

The Mac maker is taking measures to sew up the latest hole in its operating system. "Apple takes security very seriously," a company representative said. "We're working on a fix so that this doesn't become something that could affect customers." The representative could not say when the patch would be ready.

Long recommends two tweaks to the OS X settings to make it more secure: enabling the firewall and disabling the "open safe files after downloading" option in the Safari preferences. That last option, if not locked up, could be exploited to trick people into downloading malicious code onto their Macs, he said.

All in all, this is not significant enough to dent user confidence in Mac OS X as a secure operating system, said Ray Wagner, an analyst at Gartner. "Given that the most recent vulnerability does not spawn an attack before being patched--an unknown--there is not enough impact on the average user to cause a significant change in behavior," he said.

Apple is advising its customers to consult its online safety guide and to be cautious when surfing the Web. "Apple always advises Mac users to only accept files from vendors and Web sites that they know and trust," the company representative said.

Asked if the Mac, compared with Windows, is still the obvious safer choice for people on the Internet, Gartner's Wagner simply replied: "Yes."

[Asher]

I really hope this puts the nail in the coffin for UR an Aggie and their ridiculous claims about why Linux/MacOS X have less viruses/malware/worms.

[Tattila the Hun]

Most people, who are good enough to code viruses for Linux/Mac, like the system/culture too much to do so. That's how I've interpreted it, atleast.