• Hosted by Branzone
  • PayPal Donate

Apple's Mac had more security flaws than Windows in 2007

Submitted by: KnightMare @ 09:53 AM | Wednesday, December 19, 2007 | (url: http://blogs.zdne...)

So this shows that Apple had more than 5 times the number of flaws per month than Windows XP and Vista in 2007, and most of these flaws are serious. Clearly this goes against conventional wisdom because the numbers show just the opposite and it isnt even close.

Also noteworthy is that while Windows Vista shows fewer flaws than Windows XP and has more mitigating factors against exploitation, the addition of Windows Defender and Sidebar added 4 highly critical flaws to Vista that werent present in Windows XP. Sidebar accounted for three of those additional vulnerabilities and its something I am glad I dont use. The lone Defender critical vulnerability that was supposed to defend Windows Vista was ironically the first critical vulnerability for Windows Vista.

12-19-07 - 09:54 AM
personally how quickly exploits are fix is more important than the number exploits, interesting none the less.
12-19-07 - 12:13 PM
Bigger question still, why do MS and Apple leave their crap unpatched? Taking from the article's links, I see a bigger story here than the MS vs. Apple flaws.

Windows XP Professional. Currently, 7% (2 out of 30) are marked as Unpatched
Microsoft Windows Vista. Currently, 6% (1 out of 17) are marked as Unpatched
Apple Macintosh OS X. Currently, 23% (6 out of 26) are marked as Unpatched
RedHat Enterprise Linux WS 4. Currently, 0% (0 out of 118) are marked as Unpatched.
Ubuntu Linux 7.04. Currently, 0% (0 out of 89) are marked as Unpatched.
Debian GNU/Linux 4.0. Currently, 0% (0 out of 141) are marked as Unpatched.
Slackware Linux 11.0. Currently, 0% (0 out of 45) are marked as Unpatched.
FreeBSD 5.x. Currently, 0% (0 out of 10) are marked as Unpatched.
12-20-07 - 12:26 AM
Holy nerd-fight Batman! :o
12-20-07 - 01:41 AM

12-20-07 - 11:06 PM
Slashdot has several posts pointing out how stupid this is as a way of figuring out which OS is more secure. Mainly, they centre around the fact that many of the OS X flaws are for bundled apps and services (ie. Perl, tcpdump, etc.) that are disabled by default and Windows doesn't even come with. Some vulnerabilities are just placeholders, others are far less critical than Windows flaws at the same 'risk level' (ie. one OS X critical flaw is a DOS that requires someone have local access, wheras the critical ones for Windows are restricted to remote code execution).
12-24-07 - 08:25 AM
I don't really care about who is the least secure. I think what I took from this interesting article is the fact that the Mac OSX has many security issues just like Windows.

One of the things people faithfully list on a Mac is security. As if it doesn't mess up.
12-24-07 - 02:39 PM
I don't understand the comparison. A MAC has a much smaller user-base compared to Vista, or more-so, XP. The smaller user-base, the less people willing, or able, to target the system. Why target something that isn't used by anyone?

As macs slowly gain popularity, the more vulnerabilities we'll see.
12-28-07 - 05:22 PM
When did an Apple or a Mac become an operating system?
You fanboys are fucking pathetic, on both sides.
12-28-07 - 05:26 PM
Originally posted by Limbo  
When did an Apple or a Mac become an operating system?
You fanboys are fucking pathetic, on both sides.

since its been marketed as an appliance that "just works".
Login to comment.