Too much security and macs as a front

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by KingJack, Dec 12, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. KingJack

    KingJack Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5
    I have been reading this board for a while and some of you guys seem way to much conerned about security, if you are not using your computer for biz where your competitiors can get access to your info, why the big obsession?

    Instead of running all these type of anti-key loggers and and anti trojan software, wouldn't it just be easier to run a mac infront of your pc.You use your pc to do all the work and not have it connceted to the net and retreive files from your pc on your mac
     
  2. I wouldn't use a mac.

    Not too many good antiviruses, antitrojans and almost no good registry/process monitor (does regdefend work in mac?), no good HIPS etc etc

    Same thing for linux, but to a lesser degree.
     
  3. KingJack

    KingJack Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5
    But in reality if you use macs as a front do you really need any anti anything. Whatever work that needs to be done on a pc can still be done on a pc without any connection to the net, and you retrive those files on your mac over the network.
     
  4. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    8,695
    Hi,
    Some of the people love security, it's a hobby, just like bingo or chess or basketball.
    Mac is expensive - running a Mac is equal to a Win machine with best hardware plus all the security software you can afford. There are cheapter alternatives, like router or linux.
    Mrk
     
  5. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    So rather than running a couple/few security applications, you recommend someone getting a second PC, but a Mac this time, for internet access? Is that what you're saying?

    Blue
     
  6. I agree with Blue.

    A mac is far too expensive compared to good security software. And using a Mac just to surf doesn't mean you are 100% safe either on your windows PC,
     
  7. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,040
    I have to agree with what Blue is suggesting here. Running a couple of programs that doesn't have much overhead, but protects me works fine. I should get a mac to do this. I'd still have to check anything I downloaded anyway before transfering it. Sure can't buy a mac for the price. I am afraid I don't see any logic to this.

    Pete
     
  8. Rmus

    Rmus Exploit Analyst

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Posts:
    3,943
    Location:
    California
    I did something similar in Win98 days - not with a MAC but an old PC for the internet only. Nothing on it but the OS, browser, and email.

    No firewall, no AV, nothing. Only closing of ports and a few other tweaks.

    I ran for six months with no adverse affects.

    I was starting a home office at the time and the above became inconvenient, so I hooked my main computer back to the internet. But that experience influenced me forever.

    With Win2K I added a firewall and not much else.

    regards,

    -rich
    ________________
    ~~Be ALERT!!! ~~
     
  9. Tassie_Devils

    Tassie_Devils Global Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Posts:
    2,514
    Location:
    State Queensland, Australia
    I have used Macs for a number of years now for work alongside PC's.... People seem to think that Macs are the be all end all security wise, they are not.

    Macs, admittedly a lot less, still have trouble with viruses, etc. or else why have the security programs you buy for Mac platform.

    To have a Mac running alongside a PC to surf the net, then have to go to the trouble of say using 'Samba' to get the PC talking to the Mac to then retrieve the files, or whatnot, would be extreme double handling IMO, instead of having a couple of hundred dollars worth of security plus the easy direct access to the net, compared with spending well over $1000 on a "Mac Router" so to speak, does not justify the time and effort/cost.

    The funny thing is though, I would be the first to admit that using a Mac graphic wise wins **hands down** IMO, but that's where the differences lie.

    Then you have the trouble of gaming, plus other things which I am certain dedicated gamers would have the say on this, could be problematic. but i don't game, so cannot 100% say.

    I would much rather use a Mac doing graphic work, but to try having it as a 'barrier', well I must agree with most, does not make a lot of sense to me. :doubt:

    TAS :)
     
  10. KingJack

    KingJack Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5
    I don't game either, so for me it would be for striclty business reasons
     
  11. Comp01

    Comp01 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Posts:
    638
    Even then, In my opinion, the only good Macs available are the PowerMac G5's, which roughly start out at around, what? $2000? Mac still has security flaws, and the OS itself has probably just as many as Windows does, the only reason Mac doesn't have so many viruses or trojans or spyware or much anything else right now is because the lack of use, I guarantee that if Macs were to become as popular as x86/64 Windows machines, they would have just as many exploits, and malicious software on it, I don't honestly see the point of having to go through so much trouble to have to connect to the Mac, back and forth, to transfer files, especially when it costs so much, where as I can get a good router for $70 or less, get an old PC, load up Linux on it and use that as a seperate hardware firewall, and then run AntiVirus + AntiTrojan + AntiHook or ProcessGuard + software firewall, and use Firefox for most everything to prevent spyware, and you're set, and you can pretty much setup that system for less than $150 versus $1000's on a Mac plus the extra hassle of having to transfer files all the time.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.