Famous Hacker Calls Windows More Secure than Mac

The Sorcerer said:
50 bucks says CNET and lifehacker got the name wrong when it was supposed to be a so-called "hacker" Ankit Fadia :p.
Click to expand...

LOL... But Ankit Fadia is an Apple Fanboi from what I read.:p

As for the news itself, its nothing new that Mac OS is less secure and its been said before. Every release of OS X had its share of security holes and even Apple seems to be only fixing the ones that get public attention in a major way. The only reason its relatively safe currently is because hackers would rather spend time exploiting security holes on an OS that's used by 90% of the population rather than on one which barely 10% of the population uses.
 
All members are always hunting for 'such' a olden opportunity to pwn Mr. Ankit Fadia (so called hacker :bleh:)
 
@ Lord Nemesis

The only reason its relatively safe currently is because hackers would rather spend time exploiting security holes on an OS that's used by 90% of the population rather than on one which barely 10% of the population uses.
Click to expand...

Very truly said, the hackers have no interest as such in exploiting the bigs in that, hence as such no security threats are actually being developed... Making it more secure at the end../

Ok........ This question I wanted to ask from ages, and now that I have got a chance, I will ask here.

Does the same applies to Linux as well, they say Linux is much secured than Windows,.. But again, it is being used by very few percent of population, and hackers dont work on to exploit it`s holes.

Actually speaking, Linux is open source an it must be more easy to create viruses, trojan for it,.... And to hack Linux??

Correct me if I am wrong here??
 
Open Source != less secure and closed source != more secure therefore security by obscurity is a failure. There are enough examples out there.

No software can be bug free, everyone who writes code will agree with me hopefully.

Open source means you can find the flaws and it can be fixed in short time. So it actually pays off in long run.

As far as Linux is concerned, it is safer than Windows or OSX but this does not mean it is unbreakable.

As long are your are running as non-root user you should be fine most of the time except when some suid bit is set to some privilige user. Yes it is messy and it should be corrected.

HTH
 
K... Thanks blufox for telling that

Lemme me make it clear cut,

Which one is more vulnerable :-

(In terms of a hacker and virus generator cracking through a system)

Mac OSX

Windows 7

Linux Fedora
 
blufox said:
Open Source != less secure and closed source != more secure therefore security by obscurity is a failure. There are enough examples out there.
Click to expand...

That's too naive a view. It all depends on the developers involved. A closed source is closed as in its not legally open to all. There's no unbreakable security over the code. Once the OS is out, any decent hacker should be able to read the code ...

Personal opinion, any software that is well supported will have less security issues. There is no perfect code. The key factor is the response of the developers in closing any new hole found. A fully updated Windows with an updated AV/ firewall alongwith a well informed user is as fool proof as any other OS. Security in a default installation of any OS is something else. I'll let the users of Linux/ Mac OS fight it out (though Linux seems to have the edge here over other OSes, due to their regular upgrades filling up newer holes found). Me, I'm stuck with Windows and their policy of downloading all updates after every re-install(for the games and my familiarity with it :) ). I'm of course assuming that all the Linux releases we see every other quarter is integrating patches for any holes encountered in the previous release since I don't use Linux. Wish I could get such installation media from MS...In my desktop usage environment though, Windows is secure enough.
 
blufox said:
Open source means you can find the flaws and it can be fixed in short time. So it actually pays off in long run.

As far as Linux is concerned, it is safer than Windows or OSX but this does not mean it is unbreakable.
As long are your are running as non-root user you should be fine most of the time except when some suid bit is set to some privilige user. Yes it is messy and it should be corrected.
HTH
Click to expand...
Not intended to start a debate, just putting what I found.(All have every right to be on another side)

>>Open source means you can find the flaws and it can be fixed in short time. So it actually pays off in long run.

True (in theory as community can contribute directly) :cool2: but not for Linux. Just try submitting a fix to the community and you'll come to know about that.

>>As far as Linux is concerned, it is safer than Windows or OSX but this does not mean it is unbreakable.

I am not sure on what basis you have developed this, if it is just working as non-root user than, you can also work as a non-admin in windows and results will be same.

I am not at all saying that windows is more secure but claiming otherwise is also not true, last when I was working on an anti-rootkit; there were almost no rootkit for windows 7(most of the XP rootkit were not working on windows 7), but that is most probably because it was a new OS, there will be rootkits sooner or later as the OS will gain popularity. (rootkit == malware capable of hiding itself) .

So in short, they can hack whatever they want(gr8 guys), but they'll prefer to hit a larger audience and hence ...

To avoid any war started I'll not reply again to this thread(though will watch it:hap2:)

Thanks

himanshuaieee said:
@ Lord Nemesis

Ok........ This question I wanted to ask from ages, and now that I have got a chance, I will ask here.

Does the same applies to Linux as well, they say Linux is much secured than Windows,.. But again, it is being used by very few percent of population, and hackers dont work on to exploit it`s holes.
Actually speaking, Linux is open source an it must be more easy to create viruses, trojan for it,.... And to hack Linux??
Correct me if I am wrong here??
Click to expand...

If my opinion counts than you are correct with your theory. though I believe linux being open source will not make a big difference(does help), in the end its all visible in assembly.
 
adi_vastava said:
Not intended to start a debate, just putting what I found.(All have every right to be on another side)

>>Open source means you can find the flaws and it can be fixed in short time. So it actually pays off in long run.

True (in theory as community can contribute directly) :cool2: but not for Linux. Just try submitting a fix to the community and you'll come to know about that.

>>As far as Linux is concerned, it is safer than Windows or OSX but this does not mean it is unbreakable.

I am not sure on what basis you have developed this, if it is just working as non-root user than, you can also work as a non-admin in windows and results will be same.

I am not at all saying that windows is more secure but claiming otherwise is also not true, last when I was working on an anti-rootkit; there were almost no rootkit for windows 7(most of the XP rootkit were not working on windows 7), but that is most probably because it was a new OS, there will be rootkits sooner or later as the OS will gain popularity. (rootkit == malware capable of hiding itself) .

So in short, they can hack whatever they want(gr8 guys), but they'll prefer to hit a larger audience and hence ...

To avoid any war started I'll not reply again to this thread(though will watch it:hap2:)

Thanks

If my opinion counts than you are correct with your theory. though I believe linux being open source will not make a big difference(does help), in the end its all visible in assembly.
Click to expand...

1 - I have submitted 3 odd patches in Linux kernel and one in linux heartbeat package. Getting them accepted was a nightmare but it is a part of process. It is there to avoid random guys to post something which they think it is true.

And I wonder, if you have submitted anything? Or did you give up easily? :)

2 - I claim Linux default installation is secure because I have been following OS vulnerability scorecards for quite a long time, and that shows me Linux is safer than OSX and Windows.

3 - Fancy words like rootkit or whatever does get you 2 secs of limelight, so enjoy it on forums. You can safely assume I am a naive idiot and ignore it.

No offence.

Thanks,
 
^^

Great..... so it landed up in such huge debate.../

I suppose, no answer to this atm, and besides while using OS being a smart user is no doubt very important, and it always help keeping good AV, Firewall and Adaware and updating it.../

You never know when new harmfull trojan, virus may immerge and harm you../

Said that, what is the solution to a live hacker, trying to infiltrate your system../
 
Sorry to interrupt you guys but ,I know that disassemblers can let Hackers see the code in assembly , but it is also said that huge chunk of code Like Windows XP source code 50 million lines, not sure is it for Vista .how one can see that much of code it is not disassembled by any software like IDA Pro, Can it be diasembled .

Thanks
 
Back
Top