funkyrot.blogg.se - Security ubuntu vs mac os

#Security ubuntu vs mac os Patch
#Security ubuntu vs mac os free
#Security ubuntu vs mac os windows

So how on earth can I defend my opinion that Linux edges out OS X here? Simple. Oh, and I should note that even inside of Debian, the patching varies between the three primary distributions: stable, testing, and unstable. I’m speaking here only for my experiences from running a Debian Linux desktop.

#Security ubuntu vs mac os Patch

Each Linux vendor does its own thing with regards to patch and configuration management. The two systems are nearly equal here in terms of capabilities, but I have to give a slight edge to Linux but with a big caveat.

Patch practicesNext we come to patch management.

Qualitative score:OS X gets an A- while Linux gets a D. Perhaps it’s due to the performance hit that you get when you encrypt all your data.Īdmittedly, there are a lot of data encryption options available to a desktop Linux user, but none seem to me to be as simple (or included by default) as FileVault. My only confusion here is why Apple chose to make this an optional feature rather than an opt-out one. This helps protect the confidentiality of the data and reduces the disclosure, for example, of the data on a lost or stolen laptop. It’s called FileVault, and it can be (optionally) enabled via the System Preferencesapp.īasically, what FileVaultdoes is it encrypts all of the user’s files using a symmetric encryption method.

User data confidentiality All of this UNIX obfuscation aside, OS X does have a nifty feature for protecting a user’s data files.

Qualitative score:OS X gets a C while Linux gets an A. (At least, as far as I’ve been able to tell.) You have to push aside the GUI to get to those things, though. Underneath that GUI exterior lies the normal security controls, including file access controls and such, of a normal UNIX system. Well, to be fair, the administrator can also control various parental controlsthat control which desktop applications a user can execute, but that’s about it. Essentially, an account can be designated as either a standard user or as an administrator. The Accounts settings in the OS X Systems Preferencesapplication allows the administrator to create, modify, or remove user accounts (which never show up in the /etc/passwd file, by the way), but the security controls are minimal. User account management is again an example here. Although this no doubt enhances its ease of use, it also degrades its ability to fine tune.

Obfuscation by “GUI-ization”In a similar vein, many of the security and connectivity details are obfuscated from the user’s view in OS X.

Qualitative score:OS X gets a B- while Linux gets an A. Thus, compartmenting files, users, data, etc., between the administrators and users is quite simple and entirely open to view, modify, and such.

None of this was necessary on Linux, on the other hand, as everything that it does (at least at a user level) adheres to the established practices in UNIX. In practice, I found myself configuring my OS X desktop environment to be more like a UNIX/Linux one, in that all my installed applications are owned by the real root user, for example, and that my desktop user identity has no “super powers” at all. To someone (like me) who is familiar with the UNIX security controls, this requires learning and adapting to the security extensions.

The default desktop user, as I pointed out last month, has “administrative privileges,” but is not root per se. The notion of root and even of the desktop user’s identity and security capabilities, for example, is completely different. OS X, on the other hand, started with the UNIX model, but then diverged rather substantially. True to UNIXThis may seem peculiar to many of you, but I find Linux’s security controls to be more true to the UNIX model they were patterned after.

#Security ubuntu vs mac os free

Is the Mac Really More Secure than Windows? FREE IT Management NewslettersīITa PlanetCIO UpdateIntranet Journal UpdateDatamation IT Management CareersDatamation IT Management UpdateGrid Computing Planet HTMLE-Security Planet NewsletterE-Security Planet HTMLDRM Watch HTML I’m saying that I’m marginally more secure on Linux than on a Mac. I can almost see my inbox filling with flames from you penguin lovers everywhere, but let me explain my opinion.įirst, though, I’ll again caveat these opinions by saying that I’m not saying Linux is or isn’t more secure than Apple’s OS X. To that, I’ll say I’m marginally more secure on Linux than on a Mac, but I prefer a Mac anyway.

#Security ubuntu vs mac os windows

In last month’s column, I said “I’m more secure on a Mac than I was on Windows XP.” Some of you asked how Linux fares in that comparison.