So, is not secure, if we remove the parts that make it secure. Nice. Let's remove it for windows and others too, please.
it is not part of the OS
can you understand it?
and it's not more secure, because it can be easily broken.
very easily.
it is a false sense of security, based on the assumption that users won't install anything not on the app store.
so can you explain me why I'm root on my phone?
If you change what are you measuring, then yes. Le'ts fix that and remove vbles.
who's changing what?
House Type A have a wood door, and type B, titanium with security locks (and let's assume the rest of the build fit the style). A is 10x more common than B.
except that this analogy does not apply to OSs
the post you're commenting is from 2007
TWOTHOUSANDANDSEVEN
windows changed a lot from then
And neither OSX or Linux?. So Windows is better designed?
I'm Italian, I'm not native english speaker, but even I understand that "not better" does not mean worse.
Do you?
Or is the point to say that are not significant differences between both? Because if that is the point, data disagree.
yeah, data from pleistocene probably did
data from the present, don't
http://thehackernews.com/2015/02/vulnerable-operating-system.html
(not defending windows here, just trying to prove you that there's no such thing as "secure consumer OS" yet)
But considering the Heartbleed bug and buffer-overflows exploits. What if the code is made with not possibility of buffer-overflows or unsafe-nulls?
all of the server that were affected were unixes of various forms, most of them are probably linux Windows was not affected
So why the more secure linux and OS X are vulnerable to buffer overflow in 2015?
Because they are designed better?
I'm sorry, I have nothing against you, but you cannot win an argument mistreating logic
If the Openssl sourcecode is made with more strick and/or safer programming techniques/tools, I think is not controversial to say that their security will increase.
then it won't be the most used in the world, because you move slower, you add less features in more time, meanwhile a less secure version of your library added the feature you are adding now 3 years ago and gained a larger user base
security is a trade off
The wrong assumptions is to say: Large numbers means Less security (or more successful attacks).
No
the wrong assumption is that security is free and will always win over unsecure but higly profitable