Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Is Any One Platform/Browser Safer Than The Rest?


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 zombiewhacker

zombiewhacker

  • Members
  • 107 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:10:44 PM

Posted 02 August 2009 - 03:12 PM

We've heard it over and over again that Mac users don't face the same perils PC users because, according to the conventional wisdom anyway, more virus and malware programmers prefer to target the king of the mountain, namely Microsoft. But of course the ones who make this claim are usually Mac users, who due to their inimitable DiMaggio vs. Williams, Cowboys vs. Steelers, Joel vs. Mike mentality, always feel it necessary to talk up their operating systems of choice and knock the Wintel universe whenever possible.

I, however, have no animus for Apple, nor do I have any great love for Microsoft. (Who does?) I just would like to know flatout once and for all, if such an answer is possible, are Mac users really that much safer than PC users? Or is the rate of infection among the Apple crowd no less or greater or less than their PC counterparts?

Secondly, I've been browsing other threads in this forum and I'm wondering (especially with all the critical updates MS has had to ram down our throats recently) whether browsers like Firefox and Opera really are better than IE, or does their effectiveness vary depending on the type of task you're trying to perform.

Lastly, what are your opinions of running a "third party" operating platform if all you're interested in doing is surfing the Internet and nothing else? Is Linux relatively safe? In another forum, I read some user brag about something called Ubuntu. I have no idea what the heck Ubuntu is, but something about the name screams "command line parameter" to me. :thumbsup:

As always, thanks in advance for your input.

Edited by zombiewhacker, 02 August 2009 - 03:13 PM.


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 Romeo29

Romeo29

    Learning To Bleep


  • Members
  • 3,194 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:127.0.0.1
  • Local time:09:44 PM

Posted 02 August 2009 - 09:38 PM

Virus authors in 1980s used to write viruses for fun and as challenge of programming. But in modern times, virus., spyware, malware etc have become an underground business. They have a business mentality now - they want to target the largest number of people. The largest percentage of computer users worldwide have Windows as their operating system, besides its relatively easier to attack. This is why you get more attacks on Windows compared to Mac.

Ubuntu is a version of Linux based on Debian Linux. When it comes to Linux, it has such a structure which is very hard to attack or infect. Only a few days ago, I accidently opened an attack site on Ubuntu. This site tried to scripts, download two EXE file and tried to execute them. I smiled to see that EXE files dont work on Linux :thumbsup: Had I been on Windows, I would be formatting hard disk.

#3 zombiewhacker

zombiewhacker
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 107 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:10:44 PM

Posted 03 August 2009 - 01:47 PM

Then it sounds like if I wanted to do web browsing and nothing else, a Ubuntu-based PC would be my best bet.

Another question: is there any file extension today that's still safe to download, or are all they all fair game in today's wild wild west? Once upon a time you only had to worry about .doc macro-viruses and .exe files. Then my e-mail started blocking embedded images for my own web safety. Then .pdf files became suspect. Sheesh! It's getting to the point where I'm wary of even downloading the most innocuous .bmp wallpapers to my desktop anymore.

#4 Romeo29

Romeo29

    Learning To Bleep


  • Members
  • 3,194 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:127.0.0.1
  • Local time:09:44 PM

Posted 03 August 2009 - 09:31 PM

If you are using Windows, you should have a good antivirus and keep it updated, then you should not worry about file extensions or most of problems. But still should follow safe practice of not clicking just any link, opening spam, opening any web site etc etc.

If you are using Linux, all linux gurus say that you don't need antivirus. In Linux files need permission to execute, so even if you download some malware crap, it would not execute unless you explicitly give permissions. Besides malwares seldom target linux.

You should keep in mind that I am not promoting Linux or Ubuntu here.

An article on Linux.com is worth reading :
http://www.linux.com/news/software/applica...ntivirus-needed

#5 Stang777

Stang777

    Just Hoping To Help


  • Members
  • 1,821 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Local time:08:44 PM

Posted 04 August 2009 - 02:15 AM

Nevermind, my question to Romeo was just answered in the announcements section.

Congratulations again Romeo, I am very happy to see you have been promoted.

Edited by Stang777, 04 August 2009 - 02:19 AM.


#6 Andrew

Andrew

    Bleepin' Night Watchman


  • Moderator
  • 8,260 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Right behind you
  • Local time:07:44 PM

Posted 04 August 2009 - 03:34 AM

Rarely will any other quest evoke such heated debate as "which platform is best?" This is true in other geekery-related fields, not just PC operating systems.

In the universe that is modern personal computers their are three main camps: Windows fanboys, Apple fanboys, Linux fanboys, BSD fanboys, and my grandma who likes to knit cozy's for my mouse (and pie!). None of these groups can be relied upon to give an accurate account of the state of the Computer-Security World.

(Disclosure: I am grouped in with the Linux fanboys, but Grandma is a close second...)

The relative strengths and weaknesses of the various platforms depends largely on the job at hand and the user him- or herself.

For example, if you are an avid gamer, then chances are that you're going to be stuck with Windows for the time being as mast games produced for PC (Macs are PCs too, ya know) are written exclusively for the Windows platform. This isn't due to any intrinsic superiority with Windows or inferiority with Macs or "others". It's simple economics: Windows has the vast, vast majority of the potential customer base for any computer program; if you want to make any kind of money, you need to write to that audience.

However, I've heard tell that Macs excel at the areas of artistic expression like photo, movie, and sound editing. Not being a Mac user, or in any way artistically talented, I can only take the word of several Mac users whom I know and trust.

It is very much considered an axiom amongst geeks that Unix-based and Unix-like operating systems are inherently more secure than their Windows counterparts. This comes as a result of the divergent development goals and intended audiences of the original Windows and the orignal Unixes.

Gather 'round children and you shall hear
of the gruesome details of yesteryear...


Unix was the name given to the new computer operating system designed by some eggheads over at AT&T's Bell Labs in 1969. Unix was designed from the get-go to be a multi-user computer system. That is, more than one user could, and would be, using the same computer at the same time. In most, if not all, installations of Unix through the early 1990's the systems would be supporting hundreds of simultaneous users.

For obvious reasons, then, Unix has rigid and strict access controls baked right into its very DNA. Users had to be prevented from wreaking havoc on the files of other users and especially on areas of the system that were critical to Unix's continued health. Thus, two levels of users were created: regular, lowly and powerless users... and ROOT. Root was the master of the system. This account could do ANYTHING whatsoever to the system, even tell it to commit suicide. Root was the only one who could install programs and could impose as severe or lax restrictions upon the users/peons under his dominion as he (or she) liked. This lead, of course, to everyone hating the root user. Tough cookies.

Windows, on the other hand, was developed initially as a front end for MS-DOS. MS-DOS was an operating system written soley for microcomputers with one, and only one, user. Ever.

Obviously, with only one user the rigid security of a multi-user system would be useless and annoying. Therefore, MS-DOS, and Windows along with it, was written, designed, and implemented with the express purpose of allowing the user to do anything, without requiring special root access or anything.

This setup, of course, made using a PC much simpler and simplicity is something people like when it comes to computers. This became the single biggest driving force behind the development of all of Microsoft's programs, and it's been a huge success from the standpoint of popularity and overall sales.

Then the internet took off and ruined the whole PC ecosystem.

Now, the internet has its roots in the ARPAnet which is even older than Unix, but it wasn't until the early 1990's that common folk took notice of it and it exploded, along with the entire PC market.

Millions of people were now buying computers and signing up for AOL, accessing the depths of cyberspace previously reserved for computer science students and über-geeks in the government: people who knew what they were doing. This invasion of the great unwashed into the internet was a boon for everyone involved. Merchants set up shop "online", schools could post educational materials which anyone could access, people with weird hobbies could finally find others with their particular interests, and people with programming skill and a mean streak had an endless supply of credulous and inexperienced victims waiting to be plucked.

At around the same time there was an über-geek by the name of Linus Torvalds living and going to school in Helsinki, Finland. Mr. Torvalds was studying computers, which he liked very much. He happened to be studying operating system design and implementation under a Prof. Andrew Tanenbaum who, aside from having a cool first name, had written his own version of Unix as a teaching tool called Minix.

Now Linus was a student, of course, and being a student came with it the requirement that he be perpetually broke. Prof. Tanenbaum's Minix teaching tool/OS was not free. So, Linus decided to write his own version of Unix which would be free. Long story short, he did and other über-geek's around the world were much impressed and named it Linux after its creator.

Almost simultaneously, at another University (UC Berkley in sunny California) yet another version of Unix was being created, called BSD (Berkley Software Distribution.) Aside from having a much more boring name, BSD was a thing of beauty. It was also, unfortunately, and thing of lawsuits, patents, and acrimony. Long story short, BSD stalled for several years before getting going again. By that time, Linux had taken hold.

But what of Apple during this tumultuous time? They were minding their own business and churning out computers with their own OS which was unrelated to anything else available: Mac OS. Oh, and they fired Steve Jobs along the way. He dusted himself off and founded a new computer company called NeXT. NeXT's computers ran a modified version of BSD and were, I hear, very nice. Infact, the very first World Wide Web server was a NeXT machine!

Eventually Apple rehired Steve and he turned around and bought out NeXT. All future versions of Mac OS would be based on NeXT's OS, which was based on BSD, which is a version of Unix, just like Linux is.

So here we are in the present day and those four camps I mentioned turned out to be only two: Windows and Unix-related. And my grandma, she's in there too, but not counted since she's baking right now.

The two camps use systems with extremely different system paradigms at their base: Windows attempts to make the computer as easy to use as possible for the user even at the expense of security (and sanity, sometimes.) This is popular because studies show that 90% of everyone in the entire world is pretty dumb to begin with and the other 10% lied on the test. This idea of sacrificing security for functionality is good from the standpoint of users, but bad from the standpoint of good computing practice.

Unix-like systems attempt to secure the system first, and make the system friendly second. Mac OSX tries, and in some ways succeeds, in accomplishing this feat. They do this by taking a secure system, Unix, and hiding all the knobs and switches behind pretty user interfaces that actively try to prevent the user from prying into the depths of the system and tinkering with it.

Linux, with its roots in Unix, maintains the concept that "the user cannot be trusted." Thus, no program can be executed unless it is explicitly and unequivically granted permission to. If someone send you a virus in an e-mail and you open it in Windows, then the virus' executable runs immediately and without warning. In Linux, you'll just get a message saying something like, "Yeah, right buddy."

Then there is the notion of "security through obscurity." That is to say that if you run a platform with only 1% of the market that malware writers won't target you because it's not worth it. This may be true for malware written with the intent of making money, which is becoming more and more common, but not so with malware written merely to be malicious. Indeed, if a malware writer were to wrtie a successful Linux virus then they would instantly become a legend among their own kind. These "hobbiest" malware writers write maleware for the purpose of gaining notoriety. And there would be no greater claim to fame for one of them than successfully infecting Linux.

Linux and BSD, however, have always been the realm of the über-geek, not the user/peon types. how can the peons benfit from the security benfits of Linux if they can't even install it?

Enter Ubuntu, which you mentioned. Ubuntu is an attempt, one I consider to be successful for the most part, at taking the Mac OSX concept of concealing the knobs and switches behind prettiness while not sealing the prettiness and granting full access to the innards to any and all who want to look and tinker. Ubuntu calls itself "Linux for Human Beings," a description which grows more and more accurate with every release (excluding 8.04 which sucked.)

It is possible to run Ubuntu and never have to worry about command line parameters at all, unless you want to, while still reaping the benefits of a secure system. Of course, running a secure system doesn't give you license to not think about what you're doing, it just adds another net to catch you should you fall.

I'm tired now, and I'm going to bed.

#7 Romeo29

Romeo29

    Learning To Bleep


  • Members
  • 3,194 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:127.0.0.1
  • Local time:09:44 PM

Posted 04 August 2009 - 07:05 AM

Nevermind, my question to Romeo was just answered in the announcements section.

Congratulations again Romeo, I am very happy to see you have been promoted.

I didnt even got to read your question but I am glad you found answer and Thank you :thumbsup:

Thanks Amazing Andrew for giving a detailed history of operating systems.

#8 Andrew

Andrew

    Bleepin' Night Watchman


  • Moderator
  • 8,260 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Right behind you
  • Local time:07:44 PM

Posted 04 August 2009 - 11:51 AM

Thanks Amazing Andrew for giving a detailed history of operating systems.

:thumbsup:
My fingers and brain still hurt, though...

#9 Stang777

Stang777

    Just Hoping To Help


  • Members
  • 1,821 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Local time:08:44 PM

Posted 04 August 2009 - 02:42 PM

You are welcome Romeo. I was just asking when you became an advisor but I then I figured out that if I went to the announcement section I could probably find out and did :thumbsup:

#10 ComputerNutjob

ComputerNutjob

  • Banned
  • 125 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:09:44 PM

Posted 04 August 2009 - 06:28 PM

If you're looking for a secure system, choose PC and Firefox. Mac has a weak file format, and IE has too many vulnerabilities. For anti-virus, I wouldn't know, I'm thinking about switching. As for anti-spyware, you can go wrong with Ad-Aware or SAS

#11 Andrew

Andrew

    Bleepin' Night Watchman


  • Moderator
  • 8,260 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Right behind you
  • Local time:07:44 PM

Posted 04 August 2009 - 11:11 PM

Mac has a weak file format

Eh? :thumbsup:

#12 zombiewhacker

zombiewhacker
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 107 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:10:44 PM

Posted 05 August 2009 - 01:40 PM

Thanks Andrew for that (well) amazing history lesson of computer operating systems. If we have time maybe I'll ask you what you thought of the relative merits of the Xerox Alto vs. the Apple Lisa. :thumbsup:

I do want to follow up on one point though: how safe is it to download wallpapers from the Internet? Can .bmp .jpg or .png files be manipulated to contain viruses the way other files can?

And can Ubuntu support these extension files?

#13 Romeo29

Romeo29

    Learning To Bleep


  • Members
  • 3,194 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:127.0.0.1
  • Local time:09:44 PM

Posted 05 August 2009 - 10:47 PM

I do want to follow up on one point though: how safe is it to download wallpapers from the Internet? Can .bmp .jpg or .png files be manipulated to contain viruses the way other files can?

And can Ubuntu support these extension files?


Ubuntu can handle all image files. Yes it has wallpapers too :flowers: It has 3D desktop feature as well :thumbsup:

This is how Ubuntu desktop looks like :
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&...sa=N&tab=wi

#14 Andrew

Andrew

    Bleepin' Night Watchman


  • Moderator
  • 8,260 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Right behind you
  • Local time:07:44 PM

Posted 06 August 2009 - 12:33 AM

Thanks Andrew for that (well) amazing history lesson of computer operating systems. If we have time maybe I'll ask you what you thought of the relative merits of the Xerox Alto vs. the Apple Lisa. :thumbsup:

They irritate me. Not that anything they ever did was wrong, it's just the common misconception that one or the other was the first ever with a GUI or mouse. WRONG The first such public demonstration of these concepts was in 1968 at a demonstration by Douglas Engelbart (appropriately named, after the fact, The Mother of all Demos [Wikipedia] [Video of the Demo (long)])

I do want to follow up on one point though: how safe is it to download wallpapers from the Internet? Can .bmp .jpg or .png files be manipulated to contain viruses the way other files can?

And can Ubuntu support these extension files?

Ubuntu, indeed Linux in general, has support for just about any filetype you can think of. Even Windows EXE files through WINE, and Microsoft Office files through OpenOffice.Org.

I am not a malware expert, however I do know that any and all filetypes can be infected with malicious code. However, you don't often see malicious code being actively distributed in images on the WWW. Such infections of images are usually given away by one of two things: either the image won't display (because the image file has been corrupted by the malware insertion) or the file size is way too large for the size of the image. However such files are common of peer-to-peer file sharing networks like gnutella.

#15 zombiewhacker

zombiewhacker
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 107 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:10:44 PM

Posted 08 August 2009 - 02:13 AM

Not that anything they ever did was wrong, it's just the common misconception that one or the other was the first ever with a GUI or mouse. WRONG The first such public demonstration of these concepts was in 1968 at a demonstration by Douglas Engelbart (appropriately named, after the fact, The Mother of all Demos


As Johnny Carson used to say, "I did not know that." :thumbsup:

Ubuntu, indeed Linux in general, has support for just about any filetype you can think of. Even Windows EXE files through WINE, and Microsoft Office files through OpenOffice.Org.

If you run Windows on a Mac, or (as I've just learned) Windows programs on Ubuntu through WINE, does leave you vulnerable to Windows viruses and malware, just as you would be in a native Windows environment?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users