Reply to post: Re: systems that are no longer "secure" but "immune."

Apple's macOS is the safer choice – but not for the reason you think

theOtherJT

Re: systems that are no longer "secure" but "immune."

I don't disagree on any of those points. I just think it's important to remember that All. Software. Contains. Bugs.

Sure, you can have everything you suggest there, right up to the point someone discovers that it's possible to buffer-overflow something running entirely within the constraints that you suggest such that it pokes data into memory it doesn't own, and oh look, if I invoke the following totally legal processes in the correct order I can cycle memory usage until a target process is _using_ that block, and ooops, look who's got arbitrary code execution as the system/root user.

Obviously we should do everything we can to make sure that our platforms are as secure as possible, but to believe that they'll ever be "immune" is hubris.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019