By Joris Evers, 8 June 2005 09:15
NEWS Apple's switch to Intel chips does not spell the start of Windows PC-style security problems for Macs, experts say.
Macs will have the same hardware at their core as Windows PCs but it is the operating system, not the hardware, that has made those Microsoft-based computers vulnerable to attacks, analysts and security researchers said.
Dana Gardner, a senior analyst at research firm the Yankee Group, said: "Mac OS has generally a better track record and reputation than Windows for security. I don't think taking Mac OS to Intel silicon would change the robustness of the operating system."
The Mac OS enjoys a reputation as a secure operating system, with far fewer flaws than Windows. So far, it has largely been immune to the worms and viruses that have hit Microsoft-based systems. That is unlikely to change with the shift announced on Monday from niche Power PC processors to mainstream Intel hardware.
Theoretically, though, it is possible that security flaws in lower-level system software could be used to attack both Windows and Mac computers, several security experts said. However, such attacks, for example on the system BIOS, are rare. Furthermore, it is not known if Apple will use the same low-level software common in Windows PCs, the experts said.
Another unknown is to what level Intel will customise its chip products for Apple.
Russ Cooper, a senior scientist at security provider Cybertrust of Herndon, said: "The fact that Macs are running the same processors as Windows PCs may mean that some code can be executed on both platforms. But I don't think that virus writers are writing at that level, so it is probably not going to have any security implications."
While the hardware shift itself may not lead to major security issues, its side effects raise some concerns. Apple's products on Intel may become cheaper and more popular, which would make the Mac OS a bigger target, experts said.
Also, Mac applications have to be rewritten to run on the new hardware. Software makers will have to watch out for sloppy coding, said Charles Kolodgy, an analyst at IDC.
"With many developers making changes to their programs en masse, there is much more opportunity for vulnerabilities to be created - not intentionally but accidentally," he said.
On the other hand, the switch to Intel could also enhance Mac security, if Apple decides to support hardware security features typically found in Windows PCs, Kolodgy said. Intel hardware offers security such as no-execute protection to prevent buffer overflow attacks.
In addition, a secondary, security-oriented chip, known as a trusted platform module, is becoming common in Windows PCs as a means for securing encryption keys. Apple has yet to incorporate such a chip into the Mac.
"It could improve Apple security," Kolodgy said. "Previously, Apple hasn't been interested in hardware security."
Joris Evers writes for CNET News.com
Comments
There are 4 comments. Join the discussion
1. booja rumpduster
not macrosoft--micrapple
2. Graham Coles
The main reason intel has problems with buffer overflows is that their processors have an archaic 8 bit architecture dating back to the 8088 that has to process everything in a handful of registers and 8-bit instruction code, forcing all parameters to be passed on the stack.
By contrast the PPC is a slick, modern 64 bit risc design that has ample registers to hold parameters. It doesn't stop overflows, but it does make it harder to write as parameters are initially passed by register. It also uses 32-bit instruction codes, making it more difficult to embed overflow code because of the null bytes that this often produces.
Trust apple, they got processors right from the beginning and are now undoing all that--ironically, just as microsoft, sony, nintendo are switching to using the Powerpc for games consoles. There always was something wrong with apple's management, it seems they haven't fixed it.
I certainly would never buy an apple with an obsolete intel inside.
3. anonymous
As a rabid hater of Intel, Apple etc, i feel the need to jump to the defense of both with a simple statement. UNIX/LINUX both run on Intel and they do not have quite as many security issues as the much loved Microsoft, so why should Mac have security issues just because of the processor choice.
Apple should have gone the AMD route.
Might have thought about buying one then, could have fitted a second HDD and had duel or multi OS, best of all worlds.
4. anonymous
PowerPC processors have ALWAYS had a protected memory architecture, so data memory can never be executed. While this is new in the PC world, it's standard everywhere else.