2007: Microsoft More Secure Than Mac?
First off, I'd just like to say that the inspiration behind this post is my desire to see Den Den Boy and Jesse James climb into the Homodome (two men enter, two men leave sweaty) and duke it out for their respective cult masters.
But on the heels of that Homotronic throwdown, there's some real news: ZDNet's put together a list of Secunia notices, which report a much lower number of security holes for Windows Vista and XP, only 44, than for Mac OS X, which earned a whopping 243 flaws, 241 of which are "highly critical" and, if successfully exploited, could compromise a system.
While the report distinguishes between versions of Windows, there's no segregation of Tiger and Leopard security data - but the report does come down harshly on using a UNIX-based system as an OS foundation, as flaws in Linux and other interconnected operating systems tend to propagate.
Is this for real? In 2007, did Apple really have 5 times the number of flaws per month than Microsoft, or is there a way to interpret this report that doesn't blow my mind?
And Den Den, Jesse - spin the wheel, Raggedyman!
[via Electronista]
tiny dancer
Posted to Hot Stuff, In the News on 18 December 2007
· Comments (2)
Other stuff like this: apple, microsoft, secunia, security flaws, zdnet
3D iPhone glasses. Why?
the difference may be this: how many people write viruses for the mac os? very very few. one, maybe. if the apple's less secure, it's because it hasn't had to be. those 44 security holes in vista and xp get exploited a lot more often than not.
now, is this asking for trouble? possibly.
but the mac os is just a superior os anyway, and i for one am not about to change.
hear, hear. arkadin.