Eric Schmidt: get a Mac if you want to be secure

[Resurrection]

Eric Schmidt: get a Mac if you want to be secure - Telegraph

---------------

Asked for his advice on internet security, Mr Schmidt said: “You could use a Mac instead of a PC.”

Mr Schmidt also told the D9 conference in California that computer users would be safer using Google Chrome as their web browser and should activate two-factor identification on Gmail.

While some will wonder why Mr Schmidt did not recommend Google’s forthcoming Chromebook, the former CEO of Google did acknowledge that he had once been an Apple board member.

Mr Schmidt also included Apple as one of his ‘Gang of Four’ major technology platforms. He said that Google dominates information, Facebook in identity and social networking, Amazon in shopping and Apple in making “beautiful products”.

The Mac’s reputation as a platform free of security threats has been knocked recently by the creation of MacDefender, a form of malware that tricks users into installing it by telling them that their computer contains viruses.

Last night, Apple issued an update to the Mac OS that checks the computer for MacDefender, shuts it down and deletes the program, effectively eliminating the threat.

Mr Schmidt said that Google had a “very, very good search partnership” with Apple and had recently renewed its deal to supply maps for Apple’s devices.

---------------

Should we not get chromeOS netbooks then,Mr. Schmidt?

[Instab]

the key here is the os, not the machine. until now the threads for all other operatings systems except windows are more or less zero in comparison so the title would better be: "just don't get windows if you want to be secure"

[fuzzy]

People should filter internet articles better. Really!

Yes, a Linux or Mac box is less prone to attacks and are defined to be more secure, but not because they are so bulletproof but because there aren't so many threats out there. The Windows market share is currently around 85%, and Mac is averaging about 8-9%. Why should hackers care about those boxes?
From a technical stand point the Windows OS is a lot more evolved when we are talking about security as it has been fighting for a long time in the trenches.
Yes, a *nix box can have better security if configured correctly but when will we ever see such a secure box enabling internet connectivity for dozens of apps while maintaining it's integrity.
There is also user education we should be considering here but who do you think is more likely to do a mistake? the one that knows it might be targeted or the one that actually thinks he's sitting on the safe.

But these are just words. Check, for example, Pwn2Own contest for yourself and tell me than that I'm mistaken. I think this year, or the last year some team got into a Mac using only it's web browser (Safari) in 5 minutes or so. There are other examples out there but I'm trying not to get carried away.

sidenote: I do not work for M$, and they aren't paying me a dime to praise their software. for the record: i don't fancy their os out of the box but it's the only os that fits my user needs. with a little bit of grease it can become quite likable. there really is not much variety when it comes to these things. linux for networking and development, mac only for light work and graphic design and windows for everything except networking.

[Instab]

Yes, a Linux or Mac box is less prone to attacks and are defined to be more secure, but not because they are so bulletproof but because there aren't so many threats out there.

yes and there's one more thing to add. windows is not very transparent and even as admin you can't really do everything which is a big plus for all sorts of evil actions. dü to its "design" it's better suited for numerous evil things.
hacking a single program like safari is an other thing but you have to see the whole picture.

[fuzzy]

The big picture is not about having one single product vulnerable in the system. This would be great!
The point I was trying to make is that despite not being in the eye of the attackers due to the few numbers adopting the use of the system, hackers could always get in without a fuss. Thus in the latest organized white-hat hack competitions Mac products have been the first to fall against attacks.
Windows is not very transparent? yes it's not. But that's the difference between open source and proprietary. Is it a good or a bad thing. It depends! One thing's for sure as it currently stands if users would just let software update itself from time to time they would easily be more secure than learning to correctly configure a *nix box.

[Instab]

Windows is not very transparent? yes it's not. But that's the difference between open source and proprietary.

that's not what i meant.
transparent for the user. dü to things like the registry, odd places (the hosts file for example) and microsoft's ongoing try to keep the user out it's much better suited for hiding something, harder to find and remove evil stuff. for example try to delete a file on windows that's in use but you identified it as malware. not working? too bad

if users would just let software update itself from time to time they would easily be more secure than learning to correctly configure a *nix box.

you don't need to know unix to run a mac. same gös for things like ubuntu and the huge difference to windows is that OSX or linux let you do stuff if you know what you're doing (see example above).

anyhow the one big issü is that the number of malwares for windows is like beyond 1,300,000 and for the others it's almost 0.
so no matter if the actual OS is safer or not fact is you don't have to worry about all the virii and trojans and whatever except on windows.

[SBfreak]

Windows should ship with Security Essentials and their own Software Center.This way noobs will be more protected and they won't have to download software from omgfreesoftzor.com .