Take the 2-minute tour ×
Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I just finished reading an article on Remote BSOD errors on Windows 7 and I had a question about the content. Specifically this line:

Apple's software [...] has gotten more secure with the latest release, whose 64-bit memory space prevents certain kinds of memory attacks from working properly.

To me this statement (although correct) seems absurd since a windows system running 64-bit memory would also prevent certain kinds of memory attacks from working as well.

Is there a gap in my knowledge of Mac/Windows 64-bit memory? Or did the article fail to mention this for Windows?

share|improve this question
3  
+2 for insight. -1 for a potential Mac vs Win fanbois war. –  caliban Sep 8 '09 at 18:03
3  
I doubt Mac OS is any more secure than Windows. It's just targeted less. –  alex Sep 8 '09 at 18:11
1  
@alex oh ho, now you must die for saying that!! :) –  caliban Sep 8 '09 at 18:18
    
@alex: You're pretty much right. I've commonly heard that Leopard was less secure than Vista, but due to being targeted less, was safer. Snow Leopard was supposed to come closer security-wise, but a large targeting base is what lets exploits get found, exploited, and fixed. –  Will Eddins Sep 8 '09 at 18:26

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

This would be correct, that 64-bit Windows also benefits from address randomization across a wider range to better prevent brute-force memory address attacks. Since the Windows bug in the article is network-related, I think it's irrelevant to 64-bitness.

Apple's statement is even more misleading, since only the newest Macs even boot into a 64-bit kernel in Snow Leopard, while most macs will still be using a 32-bit kernel and don't get this additional security benefit at all. See this article for a reference.

share|improve this answer
    
Ah, but applications recompiled in 64 bit such as Safari will gain better defense against such attacks. Kernel, no. Apps, yes. –  caliban Sep 8 '09 at 18:19
    
@scoopdreams: Do you have a reference for that? From what I understand, either 2 things are going on: 64-bit applications are translated to 32-bit on the fly by the OS where they might just use a 32-bit address space, or the universal binaries contain 32-bit and 64-bit versions (which many applications do now, universal binaries are not only for combining PPC/Intel) –  Will Eddins Sep 8 '09 at 18:24
    
Never mind, I suppose my own article addresses that and says the same thing, so I probably just don't really understand how they accomplish this. –  Will Eddins Sep 8 '09 at 18:28
    
Even if the kernel boots in 32-bit mode, most apps run in 64-bit mode with 64-bit address space (assuming you have a capable CPU, of course). –  Nate Sep 8 '09 at 19:43

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.