Xisiqomelir wrote:atg wrote:As for security through obscurity, the only way that will ever be fully put to rest either way is to have Mac/Linux becoming the dominant OS.
I think comparing IIS exploits to Apache ones does a good job of killing security through obscurity.
I'm not sure that's a valid comparison. The Internet of 20-odd years ago doesn't really compare to the Internet of today. For starters, far fewer people were online, the environment was far more controlled, if you will. Since then, things have expanded at quite the advanced pace. Claiming that a Ford is the best kind of car around because of the Model T and the Thunderbird being such great cars makes no sense when comparing it to modern automobiles.
We do more on the Internet today than we could twenty years ago. There are more people online, and perhaps more to the point, there are people who have no clue what they're doing. As much as I love my parents, they're clueless about the Internet, and computers, by and large. Yet still they use it. Their systems are almost certainly compromised on multiple levels, but good luck trying to get them to maintain good computer practices.
Now, might things be better if Apple were in control and Microsoft were the more secure system? Maybe. However, what you should remember in your wishing things had been different is that things may have turned out roughly the same anyway. Had Apple maintained dominance through the 80's and into today, it may well be as incompetant as Microsoft. One of the big reasons it's doing so well as an operating system is that they finally gave up on their normal OS and had a whole new one built from the ground up using an open source OS. Do you think that, had they been in Microsoft's position as the major suppliers of commercial operating systems, they would have done that?
Microsoft is pretty well fucked up, and a lot of the major security problems come from stupid mistakes that probably could have been avoided easily, but there's something else to consider. When a new technology is developed, it's almost always instantly compatable with Windows. *nix systems tend to lag several months (or years, in some cases). Part of this, no doubt, is that the hardware developers use Microsoft's special tools to make it more easily compatable with windows, but part of it also, I think, is Microsoft rushing out basic support for such things as quickly as possible, so early adapters can use it, because there are a large number of consumers (large enough, at least) who want that stuff RIGHT NOW and don't want to wait.
In any case, security through obscurity isn't the only defense Macs and *nix systems have, but it does help, even if just a little. I would like to point out that most people who do use *nix systems are already very proficient at computer usage, as most *nix systems are fairly complex and have a minimal amount (read none) of hand holding. It assumes that if you're doing something, you know exactly what you are doing, which of course means that only people who do know what they are doing tend to use the system. Competent end users create much less vulnerable systems, as you can imagine.
Come off it. If Mac was somehow the OS of choice, hackers and malware writers would just compromise it instead. Lack of interest on the part of attackers doesn't equal impregnability.
