This article is complete nonsense. NT was designed from the ground up as a "real" operating system by Dave Cutler, the man responsible for VMS, a which has a well-deserved reputation as a rock-solid OS. Unix having networking built in from the start (even tho', umm, it actually didn't) didn't stop many exploits against Sendmail for example. Windows has a registry doesn't mean anything either; so does AIX to all intents and purposes...<p>The vulnerability of Windows is more cultural than technological. The reason it's easy to attack Outlook is that MS <i>intended</i> it to be easily scriptable so you could build workflow applications on top of Exchange/Outlook (to compete with Lotus Notes). It didn't occur to them that anyone would abuse this.<p>Was that naive of them? Perhaps. But then again, no more naive than the Unix approach of root being the absolute superuser; in NT you can create files that the superuser can backup to tape but not read themselves, which is very necessary in many scenarios. It's interesting to note that many Unixen have adopted ACLs and privilege separation; NT certain didn't invent these, but it did bring them into the mainstream.
How about:<p>(osx market share) * (percentage of clueless osx users)<p>is much, much smaller than<p>(windows market share) * (percentage of clueless windows users)<p>Each of those factors individually might not make OSX sufficiently uninteresting, but in combination it's probably just not worth it.<p>Once that ratio drops below ~1:10 we might start seeing more OSX malware.<p>I don't know enough about OSX internals to judge on its technical security precautions, but beyond a certain point, the user becomes the weakest link. I think that even Windows has crossed that stage by now. Remote exploits are becoming rare, and even browser exploits increasingly require <i>some</i> user interaction.
It is complete nonsense indeed. There is not technical reason for virussen not to exist.<p>1. Most if not all Mac users are in the admin group. Meaning they (or a virus or trojan running under their account) can modify for example /Applications/Mail.app without <i>any</i> warnings.<p>2. Mac users, like Windows users, download and run both legal and illegal software. They also love to share software.<p>3. Infecting UNIX binaries is extremely simple. Proof of concept virus can probably be written in two pages of C.<p>This cocktail of user behaviour and a easily exploitable system makes it extremely easy to spread virusses or trojans.<p>Why it is not happening? No idea. It could very well be market share.
Wrong.<p>1. OS X is a single-user operating environment. More importantly, anything you or a virus cares about bears your UID.<p>2. The clock on software security started with 8LGM in 1994, not with the advent of networking.<p>3. IE bears approximately the same relationship to Win32 as WebKit bears to OS X.<p>4. Almost every OS X user runs in group "Admin". See reason 1.<p>5. Microsoft's "backwards compatibility mantra" bears the same relationship to Win32 security as the Carbon libraries do with Apple security, and many Apple developers came to Unix directly from OS9. Google "chargen ARDAgent".<p>6. What Windows calls a "registry" Apple calls "Library/Application Support" "Library/Preferences". Both are tree structured opaque configuration repositories. Google "chargen input managers".<p>7. Google "Vista UAC". People hate this feature, and it doesn't work.<p>The reason there are <i>fewer</i> viruses on OS X than there are on Windows is that you will make far more money targeting the large market than the big one. What rational malware author would ever target OS X?<p>Signed,<p>A Linux convert to OS X.
I seriously don't think market share has anything to do with security<p>if popularity is the main reason, then how come the more popular unix servers, are more secure than their windows-based counterparts?<p>why unix better? by obscurity? absolutely not (i reiterate unix are more popular, powering huge sites)
better knowledge/use strong passwords? nope don't think so
better admin? maybe
better product? absolutely ... ssh, encription, randomization (swap, memory, etc)<p>my conclusion: unix is more secure due to its bottom-up iterate-often development model yielding better product (more secure, more powerful, etc)
UNIX was designed for collaboration rather than security. The permissions, the (originally) open password file, sticky bits... it was full of security holes. Big ones. The engineers closed those holes after the fact when the internet started opening UNIX machines to the outside world.<p>NT actually has an enormous edge on security because of its roots in VMS rather than in UNIX, since as gaius pointed out, VMS places far more of an emphasis on security than UNIX did until the internet made it necessary.
Virus's require critical density in order to spread.<p>The same way the flu runs rampant through crowded urban areas today, viruses only spread quickly when there's enough computers for them to infect.<p>The lack of standard issue malware is probably due to better (although not perfect) security, and lack of economic incentives due to lower market share.