Ads
Ads
All about Software
 Latest Software articles
Benchmarking Windows 7: Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger?

Benchmarking Windows 7: Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger?
Often hailed as the solution to Windows Vista performance problems, we wanted to know just how much better Windows 7 really is. We put one of our most recent test platforms through its paces to find out, benchmarking raw performance and responsiveness. Read More

  • How To: Windows XP Mode In...Ubuntu Linux?
    Windows 7's XP Mode has already convinced many users who sat out for Vista to go out and upgrade. But will they buy the right version of Windows 7 to get XPM? You do know you can get the same XP functionality from a Linux distribution for free, right? Read More
All Software articles

Newsletters


  • Ask your question about IT issues
  • Post

Partners

The Games selection

violent : Interactive Buddy Unwind on your interactive buddy: Do anything you want to him, it will earn you money, and you can buy other stuff to torture him with.
crazy : PC Breakdown What is worst than a Fatal Error occuring during a game you did not save? Unleash your rage at your PC in this game. Blow it to pieces, it feels so...
Ads

Sponsored links

Hacker: Windows More Secure Than Mac OS X

Next news
8:21 PM - September 21, 2009 by Marcus Yam

Hackers just like the PC more.

Regardless of which side you're on (though as a true computing enthusiast, you shouldn't be taking sides), you've heard the arguments back and forth on the which operating system is truly safer – Mac OS X or Windows.

It is of the opinion of Charlie Miller, a well known Mac security guru, that even Snow Leopard, the latest version of Mac OS X, isn't as safe as Windows.

One key point is that Snow Leopard still doesn't have ASLR, or address space layout randomization, which randomly arranges the position of key data making it harder for hackers to target for exploits.

Miller said to TechWorld that Apple didn't change the ASLR from 10.5 to 10.6: "Apple didn't change anything. It's the exact same ASLR as in Leopard, which means it's not very good."

Apple didn’t completely missed the chance to tighten up security in Snow Leopard though, as the new QuickTime solves a lot of the issues that Mac OS X had before.

"Apple rewrote a bunch of QuickTime," said Miller, "which was really smart, since it's been the source of lots of bugs in the past."

One thing that Snow Leopard did adapt, which Windows has had since XP SP2, is DEP (data execution prevention). With DEP, buffer overflow attacks are much harder to execute.

Despite Miller's opinion that Windows is the more secure OS, the large install based of Microsoft-based systems make them a much more attractive target for hackers. Still, Miller would like to see security on all platforms.

"Snow Leopard's more secure than Leopard, but it's not as secure as Vista or Windows 7," he said. "When Apple has both [in place], that's when I'll stop complaining about Apple's security."

Source : Tom's Hardware US

Talkback
Add your comment
nukemaster 09/22/2009 2:39 AM
Hide
-20+

Ahhh, so true.

xaira 09/22/2009 2:40 AM
Hide
-20+

score 1 for windows

superblahman123 09/22/2009 2:42 AM
Hide
-20+

Keep in mind it was an apple developer saying this himself, sounds like this guy could be the anti-christ for those PC vs. Mac commercials.

doomtomb 09/22/2009 2:44 AM
Hide
-20+

So I bet this isn't going to make it amongst the bias PC vs. Mac ads

sicundercover 09/22/2009 3:01 AM
Hide
-20+

Note: this is the same guy that won at Own2Pwn last year. So Im pretty sure he knows what hes talking about.

But Mac users live in a little false reality bubble with twirling rainbows and lies about being impervious to maleware.

njkid3 09/22/2009 3:02 AM
Hide
-20+

and this is new to the world how. i think this should already be common knowledge.

Anonymous 09/22/2009 3:22 AM
Show
eklipz330 09/22/2009 3:27 AM
Hide
-20+

dont worry, when apple gets more shares, they will feel the wrath of the hackers

sicundercover 09/22/2009 3:30 AM
Hide
-20+

Plus by the time Apple is done spinning this the Fanboys will be claiming that this is all a scheme devised by MS.

ElectroGoofy 09/22/2009 3:30 AM
Hide
-12+

sicundercover :
But Mac users live in a little false reality bubble with twirling rainbows and lies about being impervious to maleware.



Amen! lol

I'm always tired of Mac users saying "Oh, but there is less malware for Macs out there!" My response to that is "Hackers just feel sorry for Mac users and decide not to make their lives even more miserable than they already are with using a Mac." ;) Now I can say that Windows is more secure! :D

(P.S. I am not one of those people that have never used a Mac and say that I don't like it, I have been using one extensively over the summer and have found out how much time I have saved by using a Windows computer all of my life ;))

warmon6 09/22/2009 3:47 AM
Hide
-8+

well looks like the score all tied up now :lol: well if this dont prove that macs are under that just as much as windows then i dont know what will.

XD_dued 09/22/2009 3:47 AM
Hide
-12+

Its all about the market share...

ChaosGS 09/22/2009 3:49 AM
Show
major7up 09/22/2009 3:51 AM
Hide
-19+

I work for a small creative agency where I am the sole Windows user out of simple preference. I do not nor have I ever had malice or negative thoughts about Apple products. I have owned both...and yet I am constantly attacked about having an inferior device because it isn't Apple. I don't like being forced into a corner and having to defend myself and it really pisses me off. Both have strengths and weaknesses and as the author of the article pointed out, the true computer enthusiast does not care...and I really don't.

z3r0_f4ct0r 09/22/2009 4:03 AM
Hide
-9+

Apple needs to add the FreeBSD Jails Subsystem:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/book [...] jails.html

along with OpenBSD PF:
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/

DEP is old news, has been in OpenBSD for a while W^X:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%5EX

As for ASLR, its not that big of an issue. The attacks that ASLR protects on Windows don't effect Mac OS X.

zelannii 09/22/2009 4:10 AM
Show
demonhorde665 09/22/2009 4:13 AM
Hide
--2+

"Apple didn’t completely missed the chance to tighten up security in Snow Leopard though"

oh wow , every one here knows how shitty my typos, but damn , when i catch a gramatical error , you know you need better editoral skills LOL that line should read:



"Apple didn’t completely miss the chance to tighten up security in Snow Leopard though"

demonhorde665 09/22/2009 4:14 AM
Show
otacon72 09/22/2009 4:22 AM
Hide
-9+

It's not that difficult to understand if you really think about it. What does every computer system that has anything important on it run? Some version of Windows. You don't see the CIA's servers running Mac OS. Just using that as a broad example. Do you see your local bank running Mac OS? Police department? and so on and so on. The reason why Mac OS is so "secure" is because it doesn't run on any computer system people want to see/steal data from. If the Pentagon switched to Mac OS...how lon do you think it would take before "hackers" had penetrated it? I use "" because there are very few true hackers left out there.

war2k9 09/22/2009 4:36 AM
Hide
--1+

There is nothing new in this article. Any smart computer user will know that there is no such thing is

nerdherd 09/22/2009 4:37 AM
Hide
-18+

ChaosGS :
Get an edit button on here, stupid toms. While your working on the edit button, get some non biased authors or some authors with a brain. Jane is the only decent author on here. Marcus has always been a biased retarded individual, serious stop writing topics, and just spell check its about all your good for.



Ummmm...take a look at that last sentence again and see if you can find anything in his article that is as poorly written... :P

08nwsula 09/22/2009 4:44 AM
Hide
-9+

xaira :
score 1 for windows



score one MORE for Windows

JonathanDeane 09/22/2009 5:16 AM
Hide
-6+

I wonder why people think ASLR is unimportant? To me it seems like just one more layer of security.... I like extra layers when it comes to security and if it does not impose any significant performance loss then why not? To argue against extra security is crazy on any platform.

tacoslave 09/22/2009 5:26 AM
Show
VioMeTriX 09/22/2009 5:34 AM
Show
VioMeTriX 09/22/2009 5:35 AM
Hide
-0+

"Apple didn’t completely missed the chance to tighten up security in Snow Leopard though"

oh wow , every one here knows how shitty my typos, but damn , when i catch a gramatical error , you know you need better editoral skills LOL that line should read:



"Apple didn’t completely miss the chance to tighten up security in Snow Leopard though"


oops i meant to quote this.... so much for proof reading....

matt87_50 09/22/2009 5:50 AM
Hide
-1+

hehe, they say "you don't get viruses on a mac, you get lots of viruses on a PC, because they are unsecure."

Notice how it doesn't say macs are secure, it doesn't even say that macs are more secure than PCs. but that is exactly what people would would think its saying.

The only department of apple that is truly innovating and pushing boundaries is their marketing department.

climber 09/22/2009 6:24 AM
Hide
-4+

Quote :Apple didn’t completely missed the chance to tighten up security in Snow Leopard though, as the new QuickTime solves a lot of the issues that Mac OS X had before.

"Apple rewrote a bunch of QuickTime," said Miller, "which was really smart, since it's been the source of lots of bugs in the past."

One thing that Snow Leopard did adapt, which Windows has had since XP SP2, is DEP (data execution prevention). With DEP, buffer overflow attacks are much harder to execute.

Despite Miller's opinion that Windows is the more secure OS, the large install based of Microsoft-based systems make them a much more attractive target for hackers. Still, Miller would like to see security on all platforms.


missed should read miss

based should read base

Is grammar out the window at Tom's? The editorial staff is slacking off or something. I love Tom's I've been reading for eight years, but seriously folks.

climber 09/22/2009 6:27 AM
Show
climber 09/22/2009 6:27 AM
Show
megamanx00 09/22/2009 7:04 AM
Hide
-1+

I'm pretty sure that the programmers at Apple, just like their Mac user cronies, think their stuff is just invincible as it is. I'm sure once the Mac user base grows big enough to be a suitable target reality will enlighten them.


Sponsored links

Related articles

  • Alan: When the NX bit was first introduced, it was supposed to dramatically reduce the amount of malware. Suppose the Alan Dang Web browser had a bug in the code that parses the URL. If I had a Web address that was too long, it’ll end up copying that data into the memory that’s beyond the space allocated for data. The machine will execute that code and now it’s compromised. My understanding is that the NX bit prevents that from happening. But it seems as if the developers of malware simply transitioned to other methods of exploiting a system. Nowadays, the buzzwords are 64-bit ASLR, code signing for kernel extensions, or sandboxing? How much of this will help? Charlie: The NX bit is very powerful.When used properly, it ensures that user-supplied code cannot be executed in the process during exploitation. Researchers (and hackers) have struggled with ways around this protection. ASLR is also very tough to defeat. This is the way the process randomizes the location of code in a process. Between these two hurdles, no one knows how to execute arbitrary code in Firefox or IE 8 in Vista right now. For the record, Leopard has neither of these features, at least implemented effectively. In the exploit I won Pwn2Own with, I knew right where my shellcode was located and I knew it would execute on the heap for me. Alan: And just so that our readers know, ASLR is implemented in Windows Vista (but not XP) and Vista SP1 is required for the full ASLR. Leopard had some binaries placed randomly, but Snow Leopard is rumored to introduce full ASLR. On Linux, kernel 2.6.12 has a weak form of ASLR like Leopard does, but PaX and ExecShield will implement Windows Vista-like ASLR. I know you can't talk about this year's Mac exploit, but let's talk about last year's Safari flaw. To win, you were able to remotely execute code on the MacBook Air. I would imagine that a malicious hacker would have then directly installed malware without triggering the confirmation for root access, etc? Charlie: In neither case did I get root/admin access. That would have required additional vulnerabilities. However, just running as the user is still very bad. I could have still watched keystrokes as you went to an online bank, read your calendar and address book, sent emails, etc. In real life, one or all of these things would have occurred.  Alan: In hindsight, was there anything that could have been done on the user end? That is, if you had outgoing firewalls, anti-spyware/anti-malware software, weren't logged in as a root user, would that have done anything to limit the extent of the breach? Charlie: None of those protections would have probably worked, or at least there were potential workarounds. The best thing the user could have done is not click on the malicious link. Of course, in some cases such as a man-in-the-middle attack, even this wouldn't have helped. 

  • Today’s Apple PCs work well with Windows PCs. Samba networking is built-in, allowing you to share files with Windows PCs. The aftermarket combo of MacFUSE and NTFS-3G also brings read and write access to NTFS drives (although there is no way to chkdsk an NTFS formatted drive in OS X). One of the strengths of Linux and Windows over OS X is the wide variety of software that’s available. What makes the Apple sandbox so viable is that the internal set of software is robust enough to stand on its own. A lot has been said about the iLife suite, but one great example of Apple software is Time Machine. Time Machine brings EMC/Dantz Retrospect-like functionality for single-user PCs. All you have to do is specify where you want your backups stored. With the current version of OS X, you can specify an external HFS+ formatted drive or an AFS shared store. If you’re using an AFS shared store, Time Machine will store the file in a single file (“sparsebundle”). If you’re using a local external drive, Time Machine will store the files individually. For the initial backup, Time Machine makes a complete duplicate of your computer ignoring caches and temporary files. After the initial backup, Time Machine makes incremental backups updating only the changed files. Time Machine saves the hourly backups for a 24 hour period, daily backups for the past month, and weekly backups for everything older than a month. This allows you to recover from a complete failure of your hard drive with, at worst, a one hour backup. More important, this protects users from user error. If I accidentally hit save instead of save as… and overwrite an important original file, it will be possible to skip back and restore a file from a specific point in time. What’s nice about Time Machine is that it works well and encourages regular users to regularly backup their data. The integration into the operating system is seamless and it feels like a built-in-feature as opposed to “bundled 3rd party software.” In the current version of OS X, no compression is used. Snow Leopard (OS X 10.6) will be adding HFS+ compression capabilities that will increase the number of files that can be stored. NTFS has had compression for ages.

  • Alan: That’s a great point. I recently submitted a request to Apple to allow selective file sharing policy on my notebook. Its fine to have file sharing enabled when I’m at home, but when I’m at a coffee shop or other public access point, I hate having to manually disable file sharing. Dino: I really like Apple’s Network Locations feature for network configuration and I would also like it if I could associate my network security settings with it also. Windows Vista actually has a good system for this by letting the user identify networks they connect to as “Public,” “Private,” or “Work.” Alan: Earlier this year, Steve Balmer talked about Microsoft's investigation of Webkit and ultimate decision to stick with Trident. Web developers would love to have more consistent rendering engines, but from a security standpoint, does it make sense to standardize around one set of code? That is, last year's MacOS exploit and the iPhone exploit were both breaches in the same underlying Javascript code. Since IE8, Firefox, Chrome, and Safari use different Javascript engines, a single exploit wouldn't be able to target all of them. Or, do you think standardization is better because you can collectively pool your resources to develop more secure code? Dino: While standardization helps create a more secure single standard, it means that any breach of it will be highly applicable to Internet systems. I believe that more diversity in computer systems helps strengthen the ecosystem against attack. Having many diverse targets decreases the profitability of malware and once it ceases being profitable, there will be much less of it. Alan: If you had to make a recommendation: Mac, PC, or Linux?  Or do you find them to be equally (in)secure? Dino: For most consumers and home users, I recommend a Mac because they are currently targeted less by Web malware. They also tend to be easier to use so I get less tech support calls. If a user is slightly more technical and/or adventurous, I recommend that they give Ubuntu Linux a try. I recommend Windows Vista for businesses because it is a more secure operating system and better suited towards management in the enterprise. Alan: Any reason for Ubuntu specifically (full disclosure: I run Fedora on my Linux workstations)? Dino: I have found Ubuntu to be more user-friendly and I personally prefer Debian-based Linux distributions to the others. But I don’t want to start any religious wars here. Alan: For our Windows-based PC users, what are some tips for running a "secure" PC? What about our Mac users? Linux users? Dino: PC users should move to Vista or Windows 7 as soon as possible to make use of their security features. Mac users should do the same with Snow Leopard. Linux users are already pretty well served by the leading desktop distributions, so they shouldn't need to take many additional precautions. For all of these operating systems, the National Security Agency (NSA) Systems and Network Attack Center (SNAC) freely publishes in-depth secure configuration guides that can be followed to further harden your operating system environment. (Ed.: the NSA’s guidelines can be found here)