Is he right?

>>62108464
>use American antivirus for cia backdoor instead :^)

>>62108464
The reason why FBI is pissed off about Kaspersky AV is because Kaspersky refused to cooperate with them.

American AV companies cannot be trusted. At all. Symantec, for example, is known to have removed NSA and FBI malware from their database. Even F-Secure removed QWERTY from their database when USG requested it.

Leaked Valult7 CIA docs say that Kaspersky's the hardest to disable and bypass and they said they have no easy way to do it. After CIA leaks were revealed, Kaspersky went ballistic and started hardening their shit even further so the methods that the CIA used to disable other AVs would never work in Kaspersky.

Only Kaspersky is refusing to play ball with USG and now they're paying the price for it. FBI and neocon media is spreading FUD about them and morons fall for it.

Personally, I trust Kaspersky more than any other AV because they expose all nation state malware... even the Russian ones!

>>62108619
>>62108662
I'm not really asking about the Kaspersky AV.

It was more about Linux and Unix.

File: 1482455200563.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>62108464
You have to go back Pajit.

File: 1502021318117.png (52KB, 1190x857px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1190x857px

>>62108464
>fagOS frankestein hackjob on top of hackjob on top of hackjob on top of hackjob pile of shit
>pure unix

Loving
Every
Laugh

>>62108745
Not really interested in Apple. I was more looking at the security differences between Unix and Linux.

I would use Solaris or BSD before using Mac. I'm simply wondering about the merits of his argument in Unix vs Linux security.

File: 1501767534550.gif (263KB, 500x545px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 500x545px

>everyone talks about everything besides what OP wants to talk about

>>62108723
фaггoт, then use one of RHEL, OEL, SUSE, OpenSuse, Ubuntu, CentOS, Fedora, Debian.

>>62108821
I use Ubuntu. I was just wanting to talk about whether a centralized push for security is really better than a decentralized one.

MacOS is less secure retard. So many shit show security bugs and questionable software decisions.

Also macOS is less Unix than fucking Linux. MacOS is an anemic SUS/Posix implementation.

>>62108879
I'm not talking about MacOS. I'm talking about Unix vs Linux.

>>62108932
Linux is more secured.

>>62108945
Can you give your logic behind that?

Windows is unironically the most secure.

Really funny how it works out being the biggest target with the most to lose vs being the tiniest target that no one cares about, causing developers to get lazy.

On the server side, it's a wash with Windows Server Core.

>apple
>pure unix
lol what a joke

Biggest problem with using MacOS is that it uses x86, and it lack the ability to fully interdependent platform . X86 has hardware backdoor from AMD/Intel that will compromise MacOS. Linux/BSD can run on anything, and be completely interdependent from the government or tech industry standards. You don't have to worry about hardware backdoor, or complying with international laws.


FOSS like BSD or GNU/Linux are not all going to be made by volunteer. They can be developed by Government Agencies, or Companies. Most Foreign Government who seek to autonomous from the US use Linux because you can control ever aspect of the OS. Companies who want 100% control over their OS use BSD so they don't comply with Apple/Windows licensing fees.

>>62108464
>Linux community members have no driving force behind them to actually make sure that their systems actually work because its software is written by volunteers who only contribute effort when their personal needs require them to create or correct a piece of software. The problem with that approach is that no one is responsible nor committed to create or update software so it only happens randomly, if at all.
False

>>62108964
Redhat, oracle, timesys to name a few major backers with large financial interest in Linux security

You can even include the NSA who made SELinux which is proven to be very good security when used and used correctly.

>>62108995
Windows is ironically the least secure, and has been since 1993. The Windows NT kernel released July 27, 1993. The first internet browser, Mosaic, became available to the public roughly 1 month later. Ever since then, Microsoft has been using a kernel that acts highly monolithic, despite this being the absolute worst way for it to act regarding security.

One wrong click on the UAC, and you leave yourself completely at the mercy of whatever piece of shit you installed. They can hijack the system, install other shit without your explicit permission (thanks to no password being required on the UAC), and just flood you with shit. Furthermore, because of the lack of password verification, literally anybody that can get physical access to your computer could do it, as well.

tl;dr, the windows kernel was outdated a month after it released on 3.1, and everything they've done since then is to try and mitigate a security disaster. Because fuck actually trashing it and starting from scratch.

>>62109096
Thank you. I also know that both Unix and Linux tend to borrow from each other (not a bad thing).

Like I said, it just rang false to me, but some actual explanation is greatly appreciated.

The main driving force behind Linux development and security are tech giants including IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, Google, Intel, Samsung, Qualcomm, Amazon, Red Hat, and a ton of other corporate faggots along agencies like the NSA and FBI, check the Linux Foundation
There's entire companies whose business model is solely improving Linux security, like Grsec
Truly volunteer work has been relegated to mostly niche stuff, like the BFS and MuQSS scheduler made by Kon Colivas along other stuff
Pure corporate UNIX hasn't existed outside of niche legacy stuff for at least a decade, like HP-UX, OpenIndiana and a few others
On the FOSS UNIX side there's still stuff like FreeBSD (from which Apple takes a lot of code for Darwin) and OpenBSD along with others
macOS despite the valueless UNIX certification lacks a lot of UNIX applications and design principles, also their security track record it's ridiculously awful, they usually take months to patch critical security vulnerabilities despite the fact that the patch already exists and has been tested in FreeBSD
Finally, UNIX has never meant good security

>>62109109
I never realized how close Windows 3.1's release and Eternal September were.

Don't know why, as I was aware when both occurred.

>>62109129
Thanks. Again, all this info is greatly appreciated.

I got that the article was sucking Apple's dick, but I admit that outside of Apple, I didn't know all that much about Unix, and how security development compared to Linux, so I appreciate the lesson.

>>62108464
He's flat-out lying. Apple has goddamn TERRIBLE track record with security and the only reason it doesn't come up often is because everyone targets Windows(because why target 8% of people when you can target 90% instead).

>>62108848
Nsa had a huge hand in developing Ubuntu. You're fucked

>>62108464
The whole argument is based on "people are stupid, just give control to daddy cook because he knows best", yet as we have seen from the constant leaks of celebs personal data apple has not managed to make foolproof security yet.

>>62109206
I'm not interested in defending Apple Security, but every last celeb that had their shit leak is an idiot. You can only do so much to protect people from themselves.

Now yeah, letting a brute force attack go on for 8 god damned months is pretty fucking stupid on Apple's part, but the best security in the world won't mean shit if celebrities set their password to "pa$$word."

>>62109248
Even "pa$$word" would take years to brute force with any kind of sane login attempt policy. Applel are just beyond retarded.

>>62108464
> current year
> using antiviruses