security through obscurity. What a crock of shit! You idiot OSX is basicly BSD, wich is widely used by ISPs, search engines, and thousands of other internet services. You think nobody has tried to write a viable virus for OSX? If it was that easy to do, don't you think somebody would have done it just to prove a point.
As far as your claims that Vista is better at handling memory than OSX, or unix you've got to be out of your mind. Even basic installs of Vista are using 500mb or more of ram, granted some of that is set aside for system operatation, but it's not superior to OSX, not even close.
Finaly, one of the biggest reasons why Vista is not as secure is because it still uses the same basic build as XP. This does not give even the admin full controll over the system, and operations can still exicute automaticly and transparently to the user without authorisation, a problem that has long plagued windows. If you think the unix file system is inferior to windows, than it's pretty obvious you don't know shit about it.
Finaly, all of Vista's "key top 3 new security features" are things OSX has had from the beginning. Their form of file encryption, is basicly the same as File Vault on OSX. Simply inplementing a UAC system may not be enough. Thee protection that is offered with *nix operating systems is default by design, preventing system changes based on simple, but effective file handling technics.
Now about those "security features: you listed.
1. OSX has always had memory protection features. applications are automaticly prevented from altering or corrupting the memory partition of any other program.
2. You are wrong, OSX does incorperate some stack randomization features to a degree that is needed for OSX. The reason why some sites list is as "not supported" , is because those features deal with file formats that are not native, or cannot be exicuted by OSX, or in many cases are already protected for other meens. It's not there because it doesn't need it.
3. Not needed for OSX. Section reordering would almost be redundant, and OSX does not grant automatic permission.
4. why would OSX need dll randomization, or for that matter need to do anything with .dll's other than using 3rd party programs to modify them? Do you even know what dll's do? How they work? For that matter why it doesn't matter in OSX?
5. Actualy again this is misleading. If you secure your system, nothing can be changed in OSX without the permission of the user.
finaly, with just minor changes from the default setup, OSX can prevent any operation, user, or application from being exicuted without the authorisation of the owner. This is one of the biggest reasons why it's so hard to make a viable virus for OSX. You have to give permission to the bug in order for it to take hold. While this might wipe out your home directory, in most cases however the rest of the file system is protected, and it is unable to spread to another computer. Additionaly, given a user with authorisation, everything in OSX can be handled and edited like a text file, at quickly though the command line, if one should choose, there is no reason to use the GUI, just like any other *nix system. The damage is severely limited. MS has only now started to incorperate some of these features, with Vista.
Finaly on the subject of the 2 latest and most "dangerous" exploits for anything OSX related. 1. the buffer overrun exploit for QT has already been patched. It was not something that could be triggered from outside QT, and again the user must give permission to the file to begin exicution. It also only works with x86 code, PPC machines seem to be immune.2. Local user memory corruption bug. Again this is not a remotely exicutable exploit, only effects x86 code not PPC, and can be prevented by limiting the local user ability to alter files. Apple is due to release a boundry patch to correct this problem in the next security update, and is not considered critical.
so again you are talking out of your ass, and trying to apply windows vulnerabilities to OSX, though these are either neglagible, non-existant, or are already covered through other security measures. You need to stop reading bullshit hype from companies like Symantec, who's goal is to scare ignorant people into buying a product they don't need, and you need to stop reading MS fanboy forums, where people really do not understand the Unix file system, or OSX.
As far as your claims that Vista is better at handling memory than OSX, or unix you've got to be out of your mind. Even basic installs of Vista are using 500mb or more of ram, granted some of that is set aside for system operatation, but it's not superior to OSX, not even close.
Finaly, one of the biggest reasons why Vista is not as secure is because it still uses the same basic build as XP. This does not give even the admin full controll over the system, and operations can still exicute automaticly and transparently to the user without authorisation, a problem that has long plagued windows. If you think the unix file system is inferior to windows, than it's pretty obvious you don't know shit about it.
Finaly, all of Vista's "key top 3 new security features" are things OSX has had from the beginning. Their form of file encryption, is basicly the same as File Vault on OSX. Simply inplementing a UAC system may not be enough. Thee protection that is offered with *nix operating systems is default by design, preventing system changes based on simple, but effective file handling technics.
Now about those "security features: you listed.
1. OSX has always had memory protection features. applications are automaticly prevented from altering or corrupting the memory partition of any other program.
2. You are wrong, OSX does incorperate some stack randomization features to a degree that is needed for OSX. The reason why some sites list is as "not supported" , is because those features deal with file formats that are not native, or cannot be exicuted by OSX, or in many cases are already protected for other meens. It's not there because it doesn't need it.
3. Not needed for OSX. Section reordering would almost be redundant, and OSX does not grant automatic permission.
4. why would OSX need dll randomization, or for that matter need to do anything with .dll's other than using 3rd party programs to modify them? Do you even know what dll's do? How they work? For that matter why it doesn't matter in OSX?
5. Actualy again this is misleading. If you secure your system, nothing can be changed in OSX without the permission of the user.
finaly, with just minor changes from the default setup, OSX can prevent any operation, user, or application from being exicuted without the authorisation of the owner. This is one of the biggest reasons why it's so hard to make a viable virus for OSX. You have to give permission to the bug in order for it to take hold. While this might wipe out your home directory, in most cases however the rest of the file system is protected, and it is unable to spread to another computer. Additionaly, given a user with authorisation, everything in OSX can be handled and edited like a text file, at quickly though the command line, if one should choose, there is no reason to use the GUI, just like any other *nix system. The damage is severely limited. MS has only now started to incorperate some of these features, with Vista.
Finaly on the subject of the 2 latest and most "dangerous" exploits for anything OSX related. 1. the buffer overrun exploit for QT has already been patched. It was not something that could be triggered from outside QT, and again the user must give permission to the file to begin exicution. It also only works with x86 code, PPC machines seem to be immune.2. Local user memory corruption bug. Again this is not a remotely exicutable exploit, only effects x86 code not PPC, and can be prevented by limiting the local user ability to alter files. Apple is due to release a boundry patch to correct this problem in the next security update, and is not considered critical.
so again you are talking out of your ass, and trying to apply windows vulnerabilities to OSX, though these are either neglagible, non-existant, or are already covered through other security measures. You need to stop reading bullshit hype from companies like Symantec, who's goal is to scare ignorant people into buying a product they don't need, and you need to stop reading MS fanboy forums, where people really do not understand the Unix file system, or OSX.