Former Hacker: Microsoft More Secure Than Apple, Adobe
pcworld.com
pcworld.com
A virus hasn't been built yet to take a Mac down. What you have is a bunch of hypothetical lab scenarios of how it could be done, and 0 real world data.
Companies are paying crackers with $2000 Macbook Pros while real money is being made ($millions) writing PC viruses. OSX doesn't need to be more secure than Windows 7 (it should be the goal though). It just needs to be more secure than 90% of the PCs out there running XP.
Am I misreading this, or is he saying these advantages Apple has don't count because they're playing on easy mode with their OS design?
I use Unix as well, on the server and on the desktop. But that doesn't automatically make all my code secure. What made Unix more secure than the original Windows was a particular attitude. An attitude that Apple doesn't have (or maybe didn't have until very recently).
Even though Macs may be less secure than Windows, there is significantly less malware targeted at Macs, so a Mac is relatively 'safe' for an average user.
On the other hand, if you're running the server for a bank - where you expect to get constantly hit by crackers looking for an exploit - Windows would probably stand up better than a Mac.
I took a quick look at the company's products, and I don't really see how he stands to benefit by convincing people Microsoft is more secure than its competitors.
Fill me in if you see something I missed.