Apple Mac OS and SCO Unix least vulnerable to attack

sbp · 11-01-2002, 05:41 PM

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6006

A REPORT FROM mi2G has come to the what it says is the startling conclusion that other operating systems are less vulnerable to hacker and virus attack than Microsoft Windows.

That comes in its analysis for the month of October of digital attack.

It says that software vulnerabilities affected Windows most at 44 per cent, Linux at 19 per cent, BSD at nine per cent, and Sun Solaris at seven per cent.

The firm said: "Based on the number of vulnerabilities announced in 2002 that affect operating systems, the SCO Unix, Apple Macintosh and Compaq Tru64 Operating Systems appear to be the least prone to hacker attack and damage from viruses and worms. This is one of the startling conclusions of the end-of-October 2002 analysis of digital attacks to be released on 1st November."

The doomed Tru64 OS, Mac OS, and SCO Unix were the least affected, with 1.9 per cent of the first two and a mere .5 per cent of the last affecting systems.

The body claims that Tru64 systems only suffered 10 attacks, compared to Microsoft's 31,431 and Linux with 17,218 attacks.

Novell Netware only suffered two attacks, and IBM's AIX 199 attacks, while SGI's Irix OS suffered just 166 attacks – events which the firm referred to as "security by obscurity".

In other words, no-one could be bothered to attack Netware, Irix and AIX because they're too low key.

Economic damage from viral and other attacks amounts to $7.3 billion during 2002, and it projects 70,000 over attacks on systems compared to 31,222 attacks in 2001.

A record 309 new vulnerabilities were discovered in October alone, the firm estimates, a number which exceeds the total for 1998 at 245. µ

-------------
another link: http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn...le.xml?s=IDGNS

the report: http://mi2g.com/cgi/mi2g/press/311002.php

~~Cantacuzene~~ · 11-01-2002, 06:10 PM

What does that prove? Not much I think.

spigidygak · 11-01-2002, 08:00 PM

It proves hackers don't know crap about os x.

revil · 11-01-2002, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by spigidygak
It proves hackers don't know crap about os x.

or don't care? :cry2:

spigidygak · 11-01-2002, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by revil

or don't care? :cry2:

Yeah same difference. Not like there are os x servers everywhere to hack into . . .

Jeffbx · 11-04-2002, 06:09 AM

What's more satisfying to a hacker? Crippling Windows or Solaris? Making a big impact or a tiny one?

I don't think it's a question of vulnerability, but more of volume of attacks.

11-01-2002, 05:41 PM	#1
sbp Chief of Naval Operations Join Date: Dec 1999 Posts: 11,037	Apple Mac OS and SCO Unix least vulnerable to attack http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6006 A REPORT FROM mi2G has come to the what it says is the startling conclusion that other operating systems are less vulnerable to hacker and virus attack than Microsoft Windows. That comes in its analysis for the month of October of digital attack. It says that software vulnerabilities affected Windows most at 44 per cent, Linux at 19 per cent, BSD at nine per cent, and Sun Solaris at seven per cent. The firm said: "Based on the number of vulnerabilities announced in 2002 that affect operating systems, the SCO Unix, Apple Macintosh and Compaq Tru64 Operating Systems appear to be the least prone to hacker attack and damage from viruses and worms. This is one of the startling conclusions of the end-of-October 2002 analysis of digital attacks to be released on 1st November." The doomed Tru64 OS, Mac OS, and SCO Unix were the least affected, with 1.9 per cent of the first two and a mere .5 per cent of the last affecting systems. The body claims that Tru64 systems only suffered 10 attacks, compared to Microsoft's 31,431 and Linux with 17,218 attacks. Novell Netware only suffered two attacks, and IBM's AIX 199 attacks, while SGI's Irix OS suffered just 166 attacks – events which the firm referred to as "security by obscurity". In other words, no-one could be bothered to attack Netware, Irix and AIX because they're too low key. Economic damage from viral and other attacks amounts to $7.3 billion during 2002, and it projects 70,000 over attacks on systems compared to 31,222 attacks in 2001. A record 309 new vulnerabilities were discovered in October alone, the firm estimates, a number which exceeds the total for 1998 at 245. µ ------------- another link: http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn...le.xml?s=IDGNS the report: http://mi2g.com/cgi/mi2g/press/311002.php

11-01-2002, 08:00 PM	#3
spigidygak Admiral Join Date: May 2000 Location: Redlands & San Diego, CA. Posts: 5,882	It proves hackers don't know crap about os x. __________________

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-01-2002, 06:10 PM	#2
~~Cantacuzene~~ Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA Posts: 8,700	What does that prove? Not much I think.

11-04-2002, 06:09 AM	#6
Jeffbx Fleet Admiral Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Michigan Posts: 9,390	What's more satisfying to a hacker? Crippling Windows or Solaris? Making a big impact or a tiny one? I don't think it's a question of vulnerability, but more of volume of attacks.

User Name
Password
Remember Me?