GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Nick, do me a favor and post your article source.
Cable wrote:Click on any of the examples.. you will find nearly all of them are for 10.4.x, and older OSes, and not only that most exploits are software exploits that effect multiple linux/unix distros.. that comes down to if you are running a server PATCH YOUR SOFTWARE OR RUN GOOD SH*T!Sounds JUST like Wind... oh.. Nm.
BTW, There's a reason older versions were included in there, it's because Apple hasn't upped their version #, Where 2000/XP/Vista and their server versions are basically separate versions from each other.
Quote:Server Hardening 101: Apple needs to do the same thing as Windows-based servers.
"Most Unix/Linux systems include multiple standard services in their default installation. Mac OS X often suffers from the same vulnerabilities as Unix systems, since it is based on Unix. Unnecessary services should be disabled, and all servers facing open networks should be protected by a firewall.
Quote:Same thing as Windows, however, windows overflows usually trip a GPF and lock the server.
For services which provide remote login and/or remote service, traffic cannot be simply blocked by firewalls. Buffer overflow vulnerabilities and flaws in authentication functions can often allow a vector for arbitrary code execution, sometimes with administrative privileges, so gathering vulnerability information and patching rapidly are very important. Every year, buffer overflow vulnerabilities in Unix/Linux services are found. "
Quote:Seems to me that OSX Leopard is still version 10 of the macOS... Even new patches (and major version revisions that you have to pay for, unlike Windows where you're paying for major code-rewrites for better or worse) bring along new vulnerabilities.
To look at the real world history stats, and stats from the PRESENT you will see that OSX is thousands of times safer as a server OR workstation.
Quote:First point: that's a disclaimer to protect itself from one of the historically most litigious companies in history.
"One problem with this, say observers, is that Secunia itself includes a warning on its website, advising people not to use its statistics to compare products against each other."
"Another claimed issue is that even flaws which are listed as critical are not necessarily more likely to occur. Mac OS X, for example, was at one point cited as having a tcpdump vulnerability, but many users may have never had to approach the application. Conversely, a DirectX opening in Windows Vista could have been exposed with a WAV or AVI file, something much more likely for the average user."
Second point, just because it isn't very commonly used doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If it's there, and the server/workstation is not hardened, it's vulnerable. How many people do you know that open up their macbook box and start turning off widgets?
BTW, you posted the same paragraph twice, I don't know what you were trying to show there, but I snipped it out.
Quote:
"Moreover, categories for the operating systems analyzed are said to have been biased. Only XP Pro and Vista were counted on the Windows side, whereas all versions of Mac OS X were factored in, including server editions. There are also said to be a number of warnings mislabeled by Ou, ones which either affected all operating systems, third-party software, or Apple programs running on Windows or the iPhone. It is suggested that if all factors were properly weighed, a user of Mac OS X Tiger or Leopard would likely encounter far fewer risks than someone using Windows XP, and possibly Vista."
Actually, if you look, Server/personal/professional editions of XP/Vista have the same kernel release and version #'s with minor kernel patches making up the rest of the number. It's the same OS. Apple uses the same types of plugins just written and compiled for their OS outside of the public domain.
Again, I'd like to see the article source please.