Another QuickTime flaw found

TalkBack 6 of 15:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

With your permission, an ooolllddd post, but still true!

Too many Windows = glass houses
I find it so very interesting whenever ZD tries desparately to point to a flaw in Mac OS X or Linux -- suddenly all of the Microsoft apologists seem to come out of the woodwork to shout the usual tripe about how "every OS is vulnerable" and "Windows gets the majority of assaults on its security only because it is the most popular desktop OS," usually followed by the even-more assinine (would-be) corallary, "If __(non-Windows OS)__ were as popular as Windows, it too would see the same level of attacks."

What so many forget (or conveniently try to gloss over) is that the level of security in an OS is measured by more than just the number of people who use it. There is more than one factor involved in determining the relative safety of any given operating system.

First, there is the level of vulnerability due to design flaws at various points in the operating system's design. In other words, how many different points of weakness does it have? And how easy are these to exploit?

Second is the impact a breach would have on the overall system. How severe are the repercussions should a given weakness be exploited? Light or severe? Is the OS architected to minimize the impact, or will it allow so much as the entire system to be destroyed?

Third is the likelihood that the weakness can be exploited. Does it require authorities that a normal user would not likely have? Or does the OS allow practically any user to step into the proverbial mine field?

Fourth is the transmissability of the problem to other systems. To what degree of difficulty is the exploit transmitted to other systems? How easily can the breach be transmitted to others?

And fifth is the population of systems that have that degree of vulnerability. How many systems with this weakness could be impacted, whether that impact is light or severe?

A possible sixth criteria is the promptness by which an OS vendor tends to (truly) fix such vulnerabilities.

In light of these criteria, I'd say the given Mac OS X trojan being discussed is certainly something to keep an eye on, although the likelihood of it being a major problem is quite overblown. But by contrast, given the magnitude, the severity, the ubiquity, the transmissability and the impact of even a fraction of all the more recent Windows virii, it does not take too much logic to realize that Microsoft's operating systems fail on all accounts.

In fact, I think the NBM'ers should be very careful of another contagion they seem to carry, foot-in-mouth disease. As they say, people who live in glass houses...

Posted by: An_Axe_to_Grind   Posted on: 11/08/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Virtualization: Architectural Considerations And Other Evaluation Criteria VMware Of the many approaches to x86 systems virtualization available in the ... Download Now
• Reducing Server Total Cost of Ownership with VMware Virtualization Software VMware VMware virtualization enables customers to reduce their server TCO and ... Download Now
• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now