Conventional wisdom — and the ranting of the “my OS is better than yours” crowd on blogsites — holds that Mac OS X is a much more secure platform than any version of Windows. I have no dog in this hunt. I mostly run Vista at home, occasionally run RedHat Linux, and I wish that I owned a Mac. I do know from my job, however, that there are frequent patches issued by Microsoft, Apple, and the various flavors of Unix and Linux and that most of the patches have to do with security. Though I have Mac envy, all I can do is laugh at the internet posts claiming that Macs have no security flaws. Every OS has security flaws. Period.
George Ou at ZDNet.com recently wrote an article that counted and categorized all of the security patches released in 2007 for Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Mac OS X. The results were surprising — Macs had more than 5 times the security flaws per month than Windows XP and Vista combined.
I’m not posting this because I’m a Microsoft shill. I see strengths and weaknesses in all operating systems. All systems are vulnerable but those who practice safe computing are at little risk, no matter what operating system you use.
UPDATE — 12/27/2007 5:30 PM: The article at ZDNet.com that I linked to has a number of flaws. For a different point of view, please read Vista vs Mac OS X Security: Why George Ou’s ZDNet Vulnerability Numerology is Absurd at Roughly Drafted. Note that Roughly Drafted is hyper pro-Apple and vehemently anti-Windows. Chill out, dudes — it’s an operating system, not a religion.
Would you morons please start posting EXPLOIT STATS instead of vulnerability stats? Crikey…. you guys are the biggest dweebs on the planet. I get sick and tired of hearing about POTENTIAL exploits… let’s stick to real exploit numbers.
Would you morons please start posting EXPLOIT STATS instead of vulnerability stats? Crikey…. you guys are the biggest dweebs on the planet. I get sick and tired of hearing about POTENTIAL exploits… let’s stick to real exploit numbers.
Here’s a parallel for you. Microsoft is to Soviet Union as Apple is to Free World.
Microsoft does not allow their source code to be available to the public and they are not as up-front about issues they find in their own software as Apple is. As a result Apple looks worse when you count the issues, but that does not mean that they are a worse offender.
Try this: every time you get a spam message say to yourself, “Another PC got its virus.” That puts things more into perspective. That is the only vulnerability stat that has any bearing on reality.
BTW, pay no attention to George Ou, and for that matter pretty much all of ZDNet. They wouldn’t know an Apple if it fell out of a tree and bonked ‘em on the head.
Remember this fact all vulnerability’s are not equal! I think you would be much better off reading a reply by Ed Burnette of ZDnet “Mac versus Windows vulnerability stats questioned” http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=496
hmmm, that’s odd… in 15 years of international cross-platform network support I cant remember a single time when a virus or vulnerability brought a Mac-based (OS 7, 8, 9, X) network down and incapacitated individual workstations. I can, however recall that being the case multiple times from Windows 95 on… But let me guess, whichever issue that killed a day’s work for a multinational corporation and probably cost millions globally on that day probably counts as 1 vulnerability right? No OS is problem free but the only “surprising” thing about these stats is that anyone may potentially apply them to the real world. People should work to make technology better, not argue about what was best in the past.. That just obscures the goal everyone wants on any platform - trouble free and productive computing.
Remember this fact all vulnerability’s are not equal! I think you would be much better off reading a reply by Ed Burnette of ZDnet “Mac versus Windows vulnerability stats questioned” http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=496
Wrong. Do your homework.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/12/21/vista-vs-mac-os-x-security-why-george-ous-zdnet-vulnerability-numerology-is-absurd/
The only problem I see with the article is that it assumes that issuing security patches equates with having security problems. The fact that Apple issues 5 times as many security patches just means to me that they are staying more on top of the issues. And as someone else mentioned, without comparing the issues addressed, you are missing a major point. Apple might be issuing patches to fix 5 small things where MS issues a single large patch less often to fix a bunch of things at once. I personally would rather have someone do smaller patches more often.
Please, read here for real facts, and why G.O. is incompetent:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/12/21/vista-vs-mac-os-x-security-why-george-ous-zdnet-vulnerability-numerology-is-absurd/
Thanks for the link. I updated my post and gave a link to it.
-Mike
What I really object to is your feeling the need to say “Note that Roughly Drafted is hyper pro-Apple and vehemently anti-Windows. Chill out, dudes — it’s an operating system, not a religion.” When you neglect to say the same of George Ou who is a consummate Apple basher and one of the most vehemently anti-Mac columnists around. Of course at escapes all of you that no one, not Apple, not the Mac press, etc., has EVER said that the Mac OS has no vulnerabilities, nor that it will never have an exploit, only that for a combination of reasons, thus far, it has ZERO in the wild exploits, with the POC ones able to be counted on a single hand. The person that writes the first in the wild, non-social or user required action, virus for the Mac will be famous so don’t even try the obscurity line. Write a Windows virus you are one of thousands, write one for the Mac and you’re on the front page of CNN. Now, if you’ll excuse me I need to forward that Happy New Year trojan alert to George Ou so he doesn’t get it on his PC.