Mac OS X and Linux are no Magic Security Bullet for Google

[jayfish]

http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2010/06/mac-os-x-and-linux-are-no-magic-security-bullet-for-google.ars

Where things get a bit weird, however, is Google's alleged decision that Mac OS X is a good alternative. Though Apple likes to trumpet the security of its platform, the reality is quite different. Mac OS X is easy, even fun to exploit. Safari, too, is "easy pickings" for hackers.

Even when Mac OS X does implement exploit mitigation techniques, these implementations are often weak or flawed. Apple also lacks an equivalent to Microsoft's secure development methodologies, an omission criticized by security researchers. Apple is beginning to take security more seriously, but it still lags behind other vendors.

The result of all this is that any hacker wanting to attack a company that uses Mac OS X is going to have an easier job than if they were attacking a company that uses Windows 7. Depending on the distribution and configuration, Linux too may represent a softer target than Redmond's offerings. Mac OS X and Linux would certainly leave the company less exposed to the bulk, non-specific attacks (though keeping systems patched and filtering e-mail already handles that problem pretty effectively), but as a defense against the next Aurora-like attack, the decision is a very strange one indeed.

FSH

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

1. Well, I agree that Mac OS X isn't. -nt

[meegbear]

2. Lies! Lies!! LIES!!!

APPLE IS THE BESTEST COMPANY EVER AND IF YOU DON'T AGREE YOUR A RIGHT-WING, KUCINICH HATING, FREEPER TROLL WHO HATES AMERICA AND OBAMA!!!

[keopeli]

3. I couldn't have said it better myself. n/t

[onehandle]

4. I've been virus, trojan, spyware and attack free for decades. Even before OS X.

Still waiting.

[cliffordu]

6. Mee, too...

[mike_c]

5. no computer operating system is completely secure, but the OP ignores...

...the reality that Windows systems are ubiquitously targeted and exploited, and that alone makes maintaining security on Windows a constant struggle. Further, BSD and *nix derivatives are built for multiuser security from the ground up-- not a guarantee by any means, but not the low hanging fruit, either.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

7. That is a correct assessment.

What, you study computer bugs too? Sorry.

[jayfish]

9. Did You Read The Entire Article?

They are talking about targeting an organization rather than an OS. This, the author argues, makes the OS share irrelevant.

The decision to specifically target particular companies also makes it easier for the attackers to encourage a victim to visit a malicious webpage (or read a malicious PDF, open a malicious e-mail, etc.). It's easy to dismiss e-mails that are obviously fraudulent—e-mails telling you about the iTunes purchases you haven't made, the Fedex deliveries that you haven't ordered—but when an e-mail arrives with your name, or address, or other personal information, it's a lot harder to ignore.

It's these properties that make the Google attack unusual, and it's these properties that make switching platforms ineffective. Worse than ineffective: if this is the kind of threat that Google is concerned with, Windows 7 is one of the safer operating systems to use.

FSH

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

10. Good luck creating a malicious PDF whose maliciousness works in Linux. -nt

[jayfish]

12. Linux Is Just As Vulnerable As The Rest.

http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/38195/info

FSH

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

13. Why would I install Acrobat's reader when the built-in GUI reads PDFs just fine? -nt

[DJ13]

8. I dont think Apple fans realize that Google just painted a bullseye

on their operating system by touting OSX as one of their choices.

Hackers that want to target Google will now develop some nasty viruses for Apple's operating system.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

11. ...unless they're actually NOT deploying Macs.

Would be a beautiful red herring if true.