Alan: So, if you had to make a recommendation, Mac, PC, or Linux? Or do you find them to be equally (in)secure?
Charlie: I'll leave Linux out of the equation since I know my grandma couldn't run it. Between Mac and PC, I'd say that Macs are less secure for the reasons we've discussed here (lack of anti-exploitation technologies) but are more safe because there simply isn't much malware out there. For now, I'd still recommend Macs for typical users as the odds of something targeting them are so low that they might go years without seeing any malware, even though if an attacker cared to target them it would be easier for them.
Alan: Sure, the risk = threat x vulnerability x consequence concept. Macs have low threats but high vulnerability while Vista is the other way around. I recently switched to a Mac myself and wrote about it for Tom's Hardware (and had a lot of angry readers). Like you mentioned earlier, we want to support vendors with the most secure software, but it’s not easy to always figure out which software is the most secure and sometimes the real-world risk is lower with a vulnerable platform with fewer threats.
(Emphasis mine). There, definitive. Macs are less secure than PCs, just no one cares about them. Can the vehement Apple-fanboi crowd be quiet now? For the record — the Charlie here is the winner of Pwn2Own, a hacking contest with real-world software and operating systems. He cracked Leopard in under 2 minutes.
Information and Links
Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.
freedom mentor | 27/02/2015 06:12
freedom mentor | 27/02/2015 06:10