On mySimon: Top Gifts for Him, Her, Mom, Dad & More!
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 18 of 39:
Next »
« Previous
I am not sure that makes sense
I am not saying that it does not, but it does not seem.

A lot of discussion is going on about this. Is a software with security bugs more secure than other just because it does not get any (publicized) attack that takes advantage of those bugs? There are many examples of software/algorithms that can be labeled as ultra secure but that they are so complex that configuring them or using them in the right way is difficult, few people do it rightly and therefore ended up as very "insecure" (vulnerable?) things.

On the other hand, knowing that your product has flaws and taking extra measures (antivirus software, common sense, training in security problems, etc.) can arguably be taken as something more secure than a product whose "security" is taken for granted while in reality has security flaws that nobody (or very few people) exploit!

In the case of Apple, if there are indeed these security problems, and the company (or somebody else) does not take extra steps to fix them, then in my opinion their software is not more secure than other with equal/more flaws but with common and better known countermeasures put into effect. That they do not get attacked as often does not make them more secure. Knowing a flaw in their software, I can take advantage of it and cause damage or steal information (I do not know whether the revealed flaws allow to do this) without telling anybody (not even to the victim!). In that case, the victim was not secured at all by using an Apple product. To summarize (this long and boring text) I do not think that Apple software it's more secure (than ... whatever) just because it has flaws that nobody/few exploit.
Posted by: markbn   Posted on: 01/04/07 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Great quote  tic swayback | 01/04/07
Yes, I suppose that does make it all okay  NonZealot | 01/04/07
King of the trolls  tic swayback | 01/04/07
Hmm, when you have no defense...  NonZealot | 01/04/07
When you write something of substance...  tic swayback | 01/04/07
tic...  Rick_K | 01/04/07
Don't forget  tic swayback | 01/04/07
Response and responsibility  whisperycat | 01/04/07
can't wait for the linux month of bugs  galileon | 01/04/07
The bottom line  tomt64 | 01/04/07
The bottom line, yeah...  KØRC | 01/04/07
I would love to see what would happen if...  NonZealot | 01/04/07
Yet another reason to buy a Mac  tic swayback | 01/04/07
Nope, sorry tic sad  NonZealot | 01/04/07
It's still more secure  tic swayback | 01/04/07
You're still forgetting something  tomt64 | 01/04/07
Not according to Nonzealot  tic swayback | 01/04/07
I am not sure that makes sense  markbn | 01/04/07
A HUGE difference!  NonZealot | 01/04/07
Stop, you made me spill coke on my keyboard!  Rick_K | 01/04/07
Silly question  tic swayback | 01/04/07
Lack of attack does not mean more secure  tomt64 | 01/04/07
More secure than XP?  NonZealot | 01/04/07
Do you own the only copy of XP in existence?  tic swayback | 01/04/07
Not for me...  NonZealot | 01/04/07
Statistically insignificant  tic swayback | 01/04/07
It is extremely relevant  NonZealot | 01/04/07
Ahem  tic swayback | 01/04/07
?  markbn | 01/04/07
Nothing at all  NonZealot | 01/04/07
Wait, what OS do you use?  tic swayback | 01/04/07
How comical but sad at the same time  MacCanuck | 01/05/07
Read the whole thread  tic swayback | 01/04/07
OK  markbn | 01/04/07
Thank goodness MS doesn't force me to use the IE browser!  NonZealot | 01/04/07
One more, and that's just today  tic swayback | 01/04/07
Why pay more for a MacBook?  NonZealot | 01/04/07
Hog Wash  jtd3rd | 01/04/07
To Mac Users  wolf_z | 01/05/07

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement