is OSx86 now the most secure OS?

[razerbug]

In another thread there is talk that Linux and OSx users could be venerable when hackers start targeting non PC users.

Coupled with the fact that Macs (now running on normal x86 PC hardware) are pricing themselves out of the market now that 'Hackintosh' and other ways to install OSx on a PC (from a genuine Leopard disk), is a Hackintosh now the most secure OS?

My reasoning is thus:

Hackintosh boots from a Linux boot loader, using an often different or modified kernal, and is in effect a hybrid of Linux and OSx but not identicle to either, running on hardware that is not Mac standard.

Would, in this way, a virus made for any one of the 3 OS's not recognise the hybrid nature of OSx86...

I could be miss-understanding how things work here, so I invite disscusion, but I would find it interesting if this niche OS (or OS mod at least) where the most secure.

[MaxIBoy]

Hackintosh uses the exact same underlying code as OS X, there's no linux code in it (I don't think.) Isn't it just a darwinBSD distro with stolen APIs?

[mips]

I think the biggest part of OSX86 is emulating the EFI bios or something like that on the macs. Most of the stuff is standard except for some added drivers.

[conundrumx]

The underlying system isn't what's important, it's the OS. That's why Windows has so many viruses. OSx86 is running OSX, so any vulnerability in OSX effects hackintoshes as well.

[ikt]

That's why Windows has so many viruses.

Why windows did have.

Windows vista is much more secure, and thus the number of viruses for it way down.

[billgoldberg]

Why windows did have.

Windows vista is much more secure, and thus the number of viruses for it way down.

Vista is more secure then previous versions, but stil has a multitude of viruses . I think BSD is the most secure atm for desktop users.

[Canis familiaris]

Vista is more secure then previous versions, but stil has a multitude of viruses . I think BSD is the most secure atm for desktop users.
OpenBSD to be exact...(The most secure OS that is)

[MaxIBoy]

Actually, how does Linux compare to Darwin for security?

[billgoldberg]

Actually, how does Linux compare to Darwin for security?

Since OSX is the only one using the Darwin kernel (according to wikipedia), you are asking how OSX compares to Gnu/linux.

I would say Gnu/linux is more secure, not just because of GNU/linux, but also because of the people using it.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Actually, how does Linux compare to Darwin for security?

Linux, as there are several known to work viruses for OSX.

[billgoldberg]

Linux, as there are several known to work viruses for OSX.

Yes, and also because of the repository model, patches to security threads are distributed a hell of a lot faster than updates for OSX.

Also, since most of the software running on linux machines is open source (not the case on OSX), those security bugs are found and patched faster.

So linux wins hands down.

[ikt]

Vista is more secure then previous versions, but stil has a multitude of viruses.

no, it doesn't.

Unless you're using a broad meaning of the word virus, in which everything from trojans to exploits to spyware are a "virus".

To be honest this thread is rife with mis-information and something I would expect on a windows forum.

[Demio]

Linux, as there are several known to work viruses for OSX.
Care to elaborate on the "several known to work viruses for OSX"?

[handy]

no, it doesn't.

Unless you're using a broad meaning of the word virus, in which everything from trojans to exploits to spyware are a "virus".

To be honest this thread is rife with mis-information and something I would expect on a windows forum.

So how many viruses, trojans are there available for Vista?

Does Symantic have a count?

[Ripfox]

no, it doesn't.

Unless you're using a broad meaning of the word virus, in which everything from trojans to exploits to spyware are a "virus".

To be honest this thread is rife with mis-information and something I would expect on a windows forum.

This is laughable in my opinion. I work on Vista boxes daily that have been infected. It is more secure, sure than older versions of Windows but what does that really say? It still can be EASILY jacked up by your average end-user, believe me.

[KiwiNZ]

There is about 6 known viruses for Mac

[handy]

There is about 6 known viruses for Mac

Were they created in the lab like I hear the few Linux ones were?

Wherever they were created they don't have the legs to get around too fast. We have had at least one Mac on the net since the beginning of 2001, & I've had two or more Linux boxes on the net since late 2005, & I don't use any anti-virus software on any of them.

I wonder how Vista would have faired over the same time line?

I know when I used to work on XP the word was your machine would be in deep trouble within 30 hours of being turned on & on the net, & that was without anyone operating it!

Imagine how long it would last with a 12 year old boy on the job? :lolflag:

[SunnyRabbiera]

I heard it was up to 60 known to work viruses for OSX now from some sources I have read.

[sethvath]

The most secure OS is the one no one has heard of. Not windows, linux or mac osx and I cannot mention it for the act of mentioning it on a public forum means there is a chance someone will develop a virus for it.

Then again my windows 3.1 box sitting in the garage with no removable drive and no internet connection could be the world's most secure computer. No amount of human stupidity is able to infect it and propagate a virus.

Why is the point of arguing whether the OSX orange is juicier than the linux orange or windows orange? Pointless

[Demio]

I heard it was up to 60 known to work viruses for OSX now from some sources I have read.
Care to cite and reference those said sources?

[razerbug]

hmm interesting incites there, might have to keep an eye on my Hack' then if it's susceptible to viruses, because while we haven't had any PC virus issues at work (hella good IT department) we have had Mac's getting infected (because the mac users believe the hype that they are immune).

[Corelogik]

The only 'known' virii for OS X are a few 'proof of concept' types written by hackers to see what 'could' be done. There are none in the wild. Even the proof of concept ones, still required too much interaction at the user level to be effective beyond a single desktop.

The closest anyone has come has been a few malicious websites designed in way to take advantage of some browser code. The best known one is the auto-'open safe files after downloading' one, and that can be countered with a single check box,..

As always, with any system, the most secure is the one with a user who practices good habits,... or the one that is turned off.

[ikt]

virii

viruses.

I work on Vista boxes daily that have been infected.

Can you cite a specific example of a virus, as in one that can transfer specifically onto the computer, infect a process running as administrator and self replicate without user intervention and exploits?

Yes, vista is still susceptible to malware and meatware, as in if a user installs a binary that is full of nasty surprises and gives it the 'allow' then vista will be infected.

This does not mean vista is now a virus haven.

As always, with any system, the most secure is the one with a user who practices good habits,... or the one that is turned off.

QFT.


First the facts:
- The more people start using linux/Mac, the more it becomes interesting for blackhats to target them.
- Every peace of code contains some flaw or vulnerability. The fact that Open Source is open, allows for fast retrieval/fixes of these vulnerabilities, but also for fast exploits of them.
- A program initiated by the user might not be able to change anything beyond the boundary of his home folder, but it can still create havoc in there. For a lot of people, loosing documents/photos is worse than loosing an OS. An OS can be reinstalled within 30', if you don't have backup, you loose you're files. Not to mention years or months of setting up a system to your liking.


Those are not facts, and what little content there is to it is mostly wrong.

[handy]

hmm interesting incites there, might have to keep an eye on my Hack' then if it's susceptible to viruses, because while we haven't had any PC virus issues at work (hella good IT department) we have had Mac's getting infected (because the mac users believe the hype that they are immune).

Could you please find out which ones & pass on the names?

As it is very valuable information & Mac users here can educate themselves regarding these critters that may currently be in the wild.

I for one am very interested to see how these viruses transfer.

[3rdalbum]

Are we suddenly a bunch of Windows users? Security IS NOT the same as "we don't have any viruses".

Security is all about local and remote vulnerabilities that can be exploited by malicious users or programs to cause damage to the system.

Let me illustrate something to you:

I can't even recall hearing about any Mac viruses at the time of Mac OS 8, and there still aren't any (or many, at least). However, OS 8 is not a secure operating system - programs all run as the administrator, and can actually access and modify the memory of other running programs. It can even modify the kernel's memory! None of the programs that shipped with Mac OS 8, including Internet Explorer 4 which dates back to before malicious websites, was built to stop buffer overflow attacks, maliciously crafted files, or denial-of-service through ping-floods. Mac OS 8 had no firewall, and a default installation included a very basic web server and IIRC file-sharing turned on!

Mac OS 8, by today's standards, SUCKS for security. Yet there are as many OS 8-capable malware programs as there are OS X viruses. OS X still sucks for security, but in different ways; makes me think that the OS 8 developers are still writing code at Apple and haven't learnt much since.

Security does not equal the number of viruses, it equals the number and severity of ways the operating system can be misused, and whether the vulnerabilities can be properly fixed.

[handy]

Are we suddenly a bunch of Windows users? Security IS NOT the same as "we don't have any viruses".

Security is all about local and remote vulnerabilities that can be exploited by malicious users or programs to cause damage to the system.

I agree completely.

I am looking forward to an answer to my question with regard to the names of the alleged Mac virus attacks. ;-)


Mac OS 8, by today's standards, SUCKS for security. Yet there are as many OS 8-capable malware programs as there are OS X viruses. OS X still sucks for security, but in different ways; makes me think that the OS 8 developers are still writing code at Apple and haven't learnt much since.

:lolflag:

[bashveank]

OS X still sucks for security, but in different ways; makes me think that the OS 8 developers are still writing code at Apple and haven't learnt much since.

Care to elaborate on those?

[Soldierboy]

Uh oh....I'm smelling a fanboi flamewar....

If it matters, I did a quick google search for Mac OS X virus and couldn't find anything substantial.