This kind of nonsense is just maddening: "Does Windows have some serious security holes that makes it a less secure operating system? Of course." If you say something often enough, I guess it's true, right???
I'd suggest the author look at this article instead: http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/mac-security-part-ii-its-a-numbers-game/
Among the gems in there, finally someone enumerated exactly (instead of a bunch of hand-waving) what is the alleged advantage of the "Unix foundation":
A few years ago, OS X had an edge in security, thanks to a Unix foundation that meant some serious sorts of malware (but not all) could be blocked by a request to enter a password before installation.
A request to enter a password... that's it. That's the advantage right there at the "foundation." Nevermind that this same "foundation" was in NT right from day one. There is NO foundational advantage... the only advantage was that some group within Microsoft decided to cripple the security mechanisms inherent in the core OS (thanks to Dave Cutler, et al) with the boneheaded, ridiculous *default implementation* of first-run on the OS under the admin account.
This part of the article is just plain false: "It's not that hackers haven't tried to target Mac users, but they simply can't get the job done, thanks to Mac OS X's security features." Check Pwn2Own. Hackers are *easily* getting around OS X's security features.
|