General Discussion

[ArsenalMark]

Mac vs PC debate?

[PatC_PSN]

---

emw80 wrote:

Anyway, You just happen to be an individual who has not (yet) been hacked... good for you, or lucky you.

---

Yep, good for me. And all the other OS X users that have had no problems. Probably just the luck of us simpletons who don't understand the benefits that Microsoft has brought to the arena of technology. But feel free to continue believing that Windows and anti-virus software is your best bet, like living in a flimsy shed with a cheap burglar alarm.

[LittleBigDragonz]

---

James91 wrote:

---

anomolousblob wrote:

Either my Norton doesnt work or I have a good computer

---

It's because people haven't used it recently and have preconceived ideas about it.

---

xElfenLied_US wrote:

---

TalllPaul wrote:
I tried a Norton trial once and it slowed things down

---

See! Someone agrees with me and knows my pain

---

I agree that it was once bad, but since the 2009 version it's been perfectly good.

---

Agreed. I'm now using a old " Gateway PC " 4600+ to look at how Norton effects the PC. When i go onto " Windows Task Manager " it shows 45 processes " CPU Usage " not been over 58% while running Norton live update as well as live Norton scan, while using youtube, and this forum ( plus other bits n bobs ) lol

[LittleBigDragonz]

---

PatC_PSN wrote:

---

emw80 wrote:

---

PatC_PSN wrote:

---

emw80 wrote:

So really, you are getting what you pay for, and then the peace of mind that it really is working and you can just get on with it.

---

Likewise with Mac OS X and no anti-virus software.

---

So are they still pedaling that line "You don't need AV security on a Mac" thesedays?, are you Mac users still under the belief that Macs dont get hacked?

---

I'm under the impression that none of mine have been, yes. But feel free to peddle scaremongering BS like you usually do Windows boy.

---

Mac hacked in 2 minutes the quickest US $10,000 Charlie Miller ever earned.

[LittleBigDragonz]

---

PatC_PSN wrote:

---

James91 wrote:
Well it is true Pat, malware for OS X is growing and Apple has had to address some recent security flaws in their OS which were of reasonable size.

As their popularity grows so will the exploits.

---

Yes, I know. But I've still never been affected by them. And Mac OS X, built on open source Unix, is inherently more secure than anything Microsoft will ever deliver.

---

Apple's new operating system, OS X, is built around an open-source, Unix-based core " an operating system that many hackers are already very familiar with ".

From 2006. " It probably took about 20 or 30 minutes to get root on the Mac. Initially I tried looking around the box for certain mis-configurations and other obvious things but then I decided to use some unpublished exploits -- of which there are a lot for Mac OS X," gwerdna told ZDNet Australia.

Just pointing out that it's not secure like many people believed

[PatC_PSN]

---

LittleBigDragonz wrote:

Apple's new operating system, OS X, is built around an open-source, Unix-based core " an operating system that many hackers are already very familiar with ".

---

Loads of people know where the Bank of England is, but that doesn't mean they are able to break into it.

---

 Just pointing out that it's not secure like many people believed

---

And I was just pointing out that despite having used Macs for many years with no anti-virus software, I've never been subject to any form of attack or intrusion.

Of course I understand that no system can ever be completely secure, and I know that there have been vulnerabilities that have been identified and patched. But one of the key drivers in any approach to risk management is probability, and it is undoubtedly true that OS X is far less likely than Windows to be broken by some misguided teenage vandal with too much time on his hands.

[TheOrion]

To say one is better because it picks up something that something else doesn't can be largely irrelevant, for instance some pick up and blow out of proportion the seriousness of something it finds or it gives a false positive.

This is why they do regular virus definition updates to eliminate reported false positives and add new things to be scanned for.

Its been said before but the greatest prevention is educating the user and putting into place good practices to protect yourself from the likelihood that something could happen.

For instance the majority of time you use a Windows PC, for the average user you do not need administrator privileges all of the time. Good practice would be to only use an admin account when system specific changes need to be made, otherwise in an ideal world users should be using a user level account to prevent threats from spreading too far in that eventuality.

That said on either platform be it Mac/PC I would still say that taking steps with something as simple as a basic antivirus and firewall protection is still essential, why take the risk?

[zinep]

---

PatC_PSN wrote:

---

James91 wrote:
Well it is true Pat, malware for OS X is growing and Apple has had to address some recent security flaws in their OS which were of reasonable size.

As their popularity grows so will the exploits.

---

Yes, I know. But I've still never been affected by them. And Mac OS X, built on open source Unix, is inherently more secure than anything Microsoft will ever deliver.

---

Those arguments are fallacious on so many levels.

I agree; get Mac over Windows for security. But if you think you're safe just because one user has never been affected by any vulnerabilities, then you'd be crazy. Also, the origins of the system is completely irrelevant. (VMS, Dave Cutler, remember?).

But if you're careful, you can get by with a Windows system just as well.

[zinep]

I have a broader question for those using anti-virus: Has your anti-virus ever found something? And, more importantly, if it found something, where you truly surprised?

Are people using anti-virus because they know they will be handling files they shouldn't? For instance, if your friend sends you "greetings.exe" and personally tells you that you should run it because it's funny, do you feel "Well, my anti-virus will handle it if it's bad.", rather than "No way!"?

And as a final remark. A trick which has been used by us nerds since forever is to run unknown binaries in a virtual machine (sandboxing). Nowadays this is so easy that casual users can do it as well. Though there are certain VM-attacks one should be aware of, I would trust a virtual machine over any anti-virus product. At least today.

[PatC_PSN]

---

zinep wrote:

I agree; get Mac over Windows for security. But if you think you're safe just because one user has never been affected by any vulnerabilities, then you'd be crazy.

---

Not safe in absolute terms, but certainly safer in relative terms. And not crazy either, at least not excessively so. As far as I'm aware.

---

 But if you're careful, you can get by with a Windows system just as well.

---

I neither wish to use any flavour of Windows, or to have to be careful using any operating system. I use Macs quite simply because I prefer them, and the security is only a minor consideration in that preference.