Skip to content

Comment on Bruce Schneier: Chrome OS's Security Claims "Idiotic"

Comments

I think making a claim like users don't have to deal with viruses, malware, and security updates is potentially more dangerous than having an OS with a less robust security model.

Even linux and BSD systems are vulnerable if malicious programs are given the necessary permissions to run. If a casual user hears something like, "This OS is immune to viruses", they're likely to be a lot less cautious about running programs that might auto load from websites. By now most Windows users know better than to click OK when a website wants to install something on your PC.

You're right in spirit, but let's kill the "permissions" meme. There's no normally-used Unix permissions that make viruses difficult to implant on Unix systems, and there's nothing on most people's machines that a virus would want access to that intrinsically requires "root".

The leading causes of malware are single-user machines and point-and-click software installation from the web. To the extent that any OS allows these, it's susceptable.

By now most Windows users know better than to click OK when a website wants to install something on your PC.

Have any data to back that up? Because my impression is the opposite.

Perhaps "most" is an overstatement, but certainly a greater proportion know better today than did 10-12 years ago. As time goes on that segment of the Windows user population is only going to increase.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.