Slashdot Mirror
"Experts" Say Macs Are Not Safer Than PCs
MoneyT writes "As reported at vnunet, experts are claiming that Macs are no safer than PCs in terms of protection from a virus. Seems more to me like they're just saying that we Mac users aren't invulnerable, but until I see things like nimda taking out my Mac, I'll stick with the iBook." The article doesn't mention that the "7,000 macro viruses" attack Microsoft products (leaving uses of a Mac only as a web server completely protected from them), nor does it quote any statistics about how many Mac vs. Windows viruses exist, and it doesn't address the real-
world fact that Macs are hit with viruses far less often than Windows machines.
"and it doesn't address the real- world fact that Macs are hit with viruses far less often than Windows machines."
Well the real world fact is that viruses work based off the ability to infect other machines. Odds are pretty good of finding another Windows box in a random scan compaired to a Mac box. Plus you now have two seperate operating systems on a Mac to write for, not just one like many common Windows viruses. (OS 9 and X). If Apple had say 45% OS market share, I'm sure there would be many more Mac viruses rampaging across the net.
It doesn't matter if you own an amiga, you can still get anthrax or the flu etc from either computer if somebody else has been touching it with icky hands and you use the same keyboard!
Was this commentary done with OS/X, or earlier versions? I would expect OS/X to be considerably more resistant, given a true multi-user base, where the default userid is not 'admin'.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Antivirus firm Symantec said that over three quarters of Mac users are under the illusion that they are not a target for virus writers and hackers. Well, in that case I should rush out and buy some Antivirus soft...hey...waitaminit.. Jeff
The larger the user base the more prone your system is to viruses. That is not the real problem when dealing with them, it is how the respective platform handles the situation when it does happen that matters, and I think MS has a bad track record on that.
Just Symantec trying to boost sales of their Macintosh product. I use a Mac without MSOffice, and I almost never use IE (I use OmniWeb, Chimera, or full Mozilla instead), and only use OS X (don't use Virtual PC). None of the viruses they're talking about (except maybe Sub7, though all but one of the SubSeven viruses listed in Symantec's only encyclopedia are said to affect .exe files - not a Mac problem). Sure, there are probably a few Unix vulnerability that could hurt me, but compared to the 1 copy I get of Klez.H per day, I feel much safer on my Mac.
according to experts who have just shattered a long standing myth.
This is total biased crap. I don't mean to troll, but think about the statement. Who where the experts? A company who sells virus software, who wants to break into the mac market. What was their evidence? "Because we said so".
Unless I get cold hard facts, I refuse to beleive that apple has code that is so flawed it would be a threat to national security. The same things about MacOS that makes it more stable are the things that make it more secure, namely properly written code, and quality assurance testing before release. None of this security by obscurity that you see way too often.
Sigs are out of style, so I'm not going to use one...oh wait..
I think the perception that Macs are more secure derives from their relative lack of use in the server world. There are more Windows machines out there and therefore, Windows machines have more problems. I didn't see anything about relative failure rates between MacOS and Windows but I wouldn't be suprised if they were about the same. (Linux might be a little better if for no other reason than your average Linux user actually cares about security).
The reality is 99% of security is up to the user. A properly configured Windows machine is pretty much as secure as a properly configured Mac, or Linux machine, or [insert your OS here].
I think Mac users feel attacked enough by the rest of the world, to bother with attacking each other. :)
As I am fond of saying, I believe it's possible, I just don't think it's a coincidence that I've never seen it.
- H
You compare Mac Virii to Windows Virii..fine.
You compare Word Virii to Mac Virii...fine.
How about you get those numbers out then work out a ratio to the number of Windows OS's to Mac OS's.
I think then you will understand the reason the numbers are the way they are. More targets, get more Virii. If Macs had the market share there would be more Virii for Macs than windows. Supply and demand in a strange sort of way. Not a better or worse OS, the OS have very little to do with which system gets more Virii writen for them. It has to do with infection ratios and impact.
Neck_of_the_Woods
#/usr/local/surf/glassy/overhead
The "revelation" that Macs aren't inherently more immune to viruese is like someone revealing that all multicellular organisms are vulnerable to viruses.
Not news. Ye gods. Of COURSE the Mac platform is suceptible to viruses. Anything that accepts any kind of instruction set and has the ability to create data in some way is suceptible to viruses. The more of something there is, the more viruses "survive" long enough to mutate into new forms, 'cause there's really no point in creating a virus unless it's going to be released somehow. The smaller a population, the easier it is to defend against a viral invasion, as there are both less things to immunize (install anti-virus software on) and less potential hosts for the virus (making it alot harder for the virus to get a grip). Macs are currently less suceptible to viruses because there are less out there created for it and there are less Macs to put them on, and I would imagine that the only reason a virus writer writes a virus is to release it and cause havoc for whatever reason they may have, and there's a finite amount of havinc that you can create through a Mac virus. The only reason there haven't been more Linux viruses is because it's in relatively low numbers in comparison to Windows (as far as total machines with the system loaded, not any particular subset) and because of those low numbers and other reasons, Linux users take far more care of their PCs than most people who run Windows. Very few Linux users that I know aren't update freaks. Mac users are also a relatively rabid update community (see versiontracker) and that means a majority of the holes that viruses use to sink their teeth into systems just aren't there like they are on Windows boxes, which half the time haven't been updated at all since they installed the OS.
I think I'm reasonably safe from being hit in the face with a big fish when I leave my house... not because it's not possible, but because it's not likely.
For now, Macs are safer because there are fewer viruses around. We'll see when/if virus writers start targeting Mac OS X as much as Windows.
I suspect even then, Mac users will be safer.
Looks like antivirus publishers run amok.
I've been using MacOS 9.x and OSX for the last 4 years quite extensively. Browsing the web, downloading binaries, etc, etc, etc. In all that time, I've not been hit once by a virus that I can tell. I've consistently run Norton Antivirus, and it's never reported a damaged, infected, or otherwise bogus file. However, I've seen pc's in my office drop like flies. (Fortunately, I rarely need to use the immunocompromised little beasties, and when I do, I'm meticulous about my virus checking. I also don't run Outlook, EVER.)
Given the stress by Apple to move people to OS X and it's BSD underpinnings, it's obviously scary to Symantec, MacAffee, etc. that they might lose their chunk of money. Think about it, who ever heard of a virus checker for any *nix?
Find me a non-corporate virus hunter that will make the same claim and I'll buy it. Otherwise FUD.
Of course it's a crock. You can buy virus protection software for your Palm OS handheld, too, even though the total number of viruses for Palm OS is, if I remember correctly, one. (Correct, please, if I am wrong.)
I doubt that you'd see many. Of course there are mac users that always log in as root and thus could execute a malitious (sp) program. Personally I think Macs are as vulnerable to virus as Linux, BSD and SUN boxes. More than likely they are susceptable to buffer overruns and bad cgi scripts gone wild. Of course a process that is run as nobody and owns nothing cannot do real damage (assuming it is not taken over by a hacker).
Only 'flamers' flame!
This news story has made the rounds at several Mac sites in the past two days. It amounts to nothing but free advertising for the 'experts' to help them sell their product.
It's like asking an insurance agent if you should buy more insurance. Of course they're going to try and paint a doom-and-gloom picture to line their pocketbooks.
Macs ARE at risk for viruses but the greatest risk for viruses right now are those viruses that exploit Microsoft's Outlook and Outlook Express for windows as well as those that exploit stupid users who run attachments (which almost always attack Windows). Until viruses are written in Java, the Mac is not going to be the danger zone that this article implies.
That was a bad article.
Macs do suffer from virus, and other malware, and the article does make the point that if a venerablity exists it will be exploited, regardless, however what it fails to point out are that there are fewer venerablities on a mac.
Also it fails to mention that macro virus's are MICROSOFT Viruses. dont use MS and you are fine.
The article should be Use Microsoft, Get viruses.
More FDU With this one folks
WTF? who are they surveying, almost all of the mac users i know are artists/designers that could give two less about security.
and viruses, why target 5% of the market when you can hit the other 95%? plus windows sucks and it diserves all of the viruses it gets.
ot have any of you seen the CDW ad where this guy is asking the IT guy why an email named I LOVE YOU is a virus, its got such a lovely name. LOL... ah poor windows users
I want 2D games back.
The article doesn't mention that the "7,000 macro viruses" attack Microsoft products (leaving uses of a Mac only as a web server completely protected from them)
Irrelevant: Ok, sure. If I run a web-server only (Windows) PC with Apache the daemon, I'm invulnerable, too. What does that have to do with Mac vs. PC. That's just a matter of software (which happens to be cross-platform). If you don't run Microsoft client software, you are protected.
nor does it quote any statistics about how many Mac vs. Windows viruses exist, and it doesn't address the real- world fact that Macs are hit with viruses far less often than Windows machines.
This one's a little more reasonable, but really, let's look at this article. It clearly is implying that the Mac, as a platform, is theorectically prone to virus attacks, like any system. Now, as long as it has only marginal market share it won't be a target, and won't have as many viruses, but that won't last long if everybody switches to it for that reason.
Mac vs. PC vs. Alpha vs. whatever is just not the place to be talking about security. Security, as of this moment, is not really a part of the hardware-layer of systems. If you want to talk about security, you need to talk about applications - like those made by microsoft - but those applications are becoming more and more cross-platform...
-Andrew
In fact, 62 per cent of Mac users said that increased security was the main reason for them moving to the platform, according to Symantec.
Sounds like a botched survey question to me -- the question was probably asked under circumstances like those Quiznos sandwiches commercials. I really find it hard to believe this statistic. What about ease of use? Things just working correctly? Lack of infestive software (like Bonzai Buddy)? Lack of P2P utils? Lickable UI elements? And who did they ask, the Army? *cough*
"Obviously there are more PC-only viruses out there, but there are still over 7,000 macro viruses which can hit either Mac or PC platforms."
Right. That's probably the reason that the Microsoft Office X suite has the "Macro virus protection" option enabled by default.
Chapman explained that, because of the Mac's age, some of the first viruses ever written were for a Mac and some writers still target the platform specifically.
"A Mac user can get a virus from a Windows machine that won't affect them but, if it's attached to a document or a file, then they can pass it on to another Windows machine."
I wouldn't exactly call them "incubators," as Chapman whines. The viruses don't even run. If the user replies, how many email clients include attachments in the replies?
I just loaded my virus definition list on my Windows machine. Took long enough for me to go get a cup of coffee quicker than it loaded....
The grand total is..... 24,295 detectable virii, probably higher if you count variants.
The total of MacOS X virii is.... 0
Holy Infection Rate Batman!
Anyone know how many MacOS 9 virii there are?
Nevermind that a large portion of MacOS X is OSS and personally I think OSS has a much better track record that MS's lard bucket that they think passes as an "OS".
Macs are not inherently safer than PCs, however, Apple has a MUCH better track record when it comes to writing secure code than Microsoft does...
I think the first Mac OS X virus we will see will be an Apache exploit [good luck, guys].
-braxton
The discussion about security vulnerability as a function of market share is not new but consider this: Think of the network as a whole and not just individual machines. Viruses are an example of common mode failure - a situation where all systems of a particular type fail in response to something. The way to combat this is through diversity.
We are vulnerable because of the lopsided distribution of operating systems. If we had better balance, not 95% Windows, it would be harder for any virus to spread.
The fact remains, however, that OS X ships with a lot of its ports closed. Windows XP has a lot of them wide open. OS X also has a better security model (it is Unix, after all).
Everyone knows that OS X is not immune from viruses. However, a virus run by an unprivileged user is limited in the amount of damage it can do. Also, the fact that the default firewall configuration is more secure limits the amount of remote exploits. OS X is still more secure than Windows XP, even if it is vulnerable to viruses.
from the and-i-say-that-the-middle-east-is-a-great-vacation -spot-this-year dept.
You are thinking of South Asia. Just remember to take lots of sunscreen. Oh, say, SPF 1,000,000,000.
Lies about crimes
Today, I'm a FreeBS-er, uh, OS X user, and it's like being the guy standing on the big clock in the happy part of those Prilosec commercials, hands outstretched to heaven in thanks as jubilant choral music pours forth in the background. Except one of my hands is waving bye-bye to Windows as the popular desktop OS of choice.
The story author, James Middleton, is a known troll and MS banner-waver, check out http://www.vnunet.com/News/1128907
Either that, or he is very susceptible to marketing hype from corporate interests, and taking it as news.
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
The article doesn't mention that the "7,000 macro viruses" attack Microsoft products (leaving uses of a Mac only as a web server completely protected from them), nor does it quote any statistics about how many Mac vs. Windows viruses exist, and it doesn't address the real- world fact that Macs are hit with viruses far less often than Windows machines.
Because none of those are relevant to the question at hand. Honda Accords are stolen way more often than VW Beetles, but I don't think anyone is going to argue that the canvas sunroofs are the reason why.
Once upon a time, I read some article saying that risk assessment was accomplished by examining the possible threats, the consequences of each threat and the likelihood of that threat actually happening. All of the threats discussed in the article are real, but the actual risk at this time is quite small. You also have to look at the malware tools available for Windows and Microsoft products that can automate virus creation, etc. giving the clueless the tools to cause a little havock. To my knowledge, there isn't anything analogous for the Macintosh, either OS 9 or OS X. Yes, the virus writers will go for the platform where they can do the most damage. But they'll also go for the platform that is easiest to write viruses for -- Windows!
While working as a field tech in '98 I had a lot of customers that were infected by the multiple varieties of autostart worms. It was the first Mac virus that I had seen with my own eyes. It spread itself around quickly in the graphic art community because of all the file sharing they do. MacAddict magazine also unintentionally helped spread the virus by including it on one of their monthly CDs. It was fairly easy to kill and helped sell a lot of Virus software.
considering the large number of obsessive mac-bashers in the world, i'm surprised that a malicious os x virus hasn't surfaced yet.
i'm not an expert, but i would imagine that at least one api in os x would be fertile ground for a virus; quartz executables, opengl scripts, postscript fonts, quicktime. all of these can be embedded in innocuous documents.
the level of risk is increased by the present sense of complacency. (and no, i'm not working for an anti-virus co).
For crying out loud, this person just completely made up the term "OS/X" and some idiot gave this an interesting? What's thie "true multi-user base" crap anyway?
"Obviously there are more PC-only viruses out there, but there are still over 7,000 macro viruses which can hit either Mac or PC platforms."
I run OS X. I do not have MS Office installed. I use Eudora for mail, and iCab for the web. What macro viruses can I get hit with? The statement above is based around the incorrect assuption that all Macs have MS Office installed on them.
Antivirus firm Symantec said that over three quarters of Mac users are under the illusion that they are not a target for virus writers and hackers.
As a Mac OS X user, I would agree with the statement "[I] am not a major target for virus writers and hackers."
I am definitely not under the impression that crackers could not go after my box. I take precautions as a result of that. However, I think that, as others on this story have pointed out, the sheer number os MS boxes out there make them a much more appealing target.
The article makes baseless assumptions and jumps in logic that no sane person would ever make.
i am just pointing out two flaws in it. There are more.
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
There were *about *(!) 30 significantly different viruses (including at least a couple of worms) for Mac OS Classic (though I'm not counting Macro viruses like the ones that can infect Word and Hypercard, etc).
For example, many of the Word Macro viruses are cross platform.
Many of the origional viruses came out of fun and games at MacHack, people just trying to see if they could do it, but a few were modified and released into the wild by Script Kiddies after they appeared on some of the MacHack CD's, IIRC...
I think the last virus of any sigificance for Mac OS classic was Autostart-9805 in 1998.
So the story basically had no valid data. Talk about a troll post.
Everytime you look at porn a devil gets their horns.
this is my favorite part:
In the past even the US Army has moved its web servers over to MacOS in the mistaken belief that they will be more secure.
Yes please, lets compare the security records of IIS vs. Apache. Or better yet lets compare the security records of WinNT/2K and FreeBSD (which Darwin was based on IIRC). Give me a fuxking break.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - BF
The fact that all Operating Systems are subject to virus attacks cannot be argued, but some are more secure than others. There are three requirements for a virus to damage a user's machine. First, the user must acquire the virus (download, email attachement, etc). Second, the user must execute the infected application (thinking it's something else). Three, the user must have permission to modify/edit/delete the resources that the virus intends to attack.
Seriously, we hear the argument time and time again that Mac and Linux are less succeptable to Viruses than Windows, but what they really mean is point three from above: OS X and Linux to a better job of protecting system resources than Windows. So yes, Windows is more succeptable to catastrophic damage than OS X and Linux.
What really goes without saying here is that viruses follow the same pattern as useful software: 90+ percent of the population uses Windows, so target that population and you will see the most damage (or revenue for real software).
No one should really think that they are not Vulnerable to viri simply because they run a more secure OS. While a OS X or Linux virus executed by a local user with limited privledges cannot necessarily damage the system, they could still delete all of that user's personal data because that user has full permission on their stuff. I don't know about any of you, but if a virus wiped out my entire home directory, I'd be pretty pissed, and the fact that my system still booted up would be no consolation. =)
My point here is just that anyone who runs foreign applications on their machine from a user account that has write permissions on their own files is succeptable to a virus attack.
As long as Windows enjoys the overwhelming majority share of desktop operating systems, it will be the target of the majority of virus attacks. If that balance shifts towards the Mac, don't doubt that the virus writers won't prey on Mac users as well.
Come on, people. Get with the English program.
'j
To spur "enterprise Linux," Big Bang, the distributed two-phase commit.
True, and if I remember correctly, 3 or 4 of those 30 viruses won't run on System 7 or higher, so are only a danger to those who bought their Macs in the 80's and didn't upgrade their OS.
This article was on Mac Central recently, and all the forum comments there labeled this as pure FUD. I ran NAV on my Performa 6400 for a few years, and it never found a virus. Never. Also, I don't own a copy of Office, so I'm not vulnerable that way. I suppose that someone could DOS my DSL connection, but even if I turn file sharing on, they'll need to figure out my IP address, my name, and my password to log in, and anyone who knows my name doesn't know my IP address(including me, I never memorized it)
"Common Sense Ain't" -Unknown
You took the words right out of my mouth. I've written legitimate Word and Excel macros (most of which wound up being incompatible the moment people upgraded to the next version), and there's no question Microsoft's implementation of macros makes it way too easy to write virii.
I wonder why nobody's done an Access virus yet? Access is unique in the Microsoft canon, since startup macros are often genuinely legitimate applications. Therefore, shutting macros down in Access would harm functionality.
Since most people with Office have Access lying around somewhere, I would think an Access virus would be a sure thing, and yet I haven't heard of one yet.
Just a matter of time?
D
Since Symantec can't seem to write a anti-virus program worth buying, their marketing team decided to switch tactics and try to pull one over on us *dumb* mac users. :-P
The Mac, either Classic OS9 or OSX is generically not safer than Windows. The fact that Microsoft products are virus traps is not only because they are written without any real security in mind. It is also because the platform is so widley used. I can't substantiate this of course, but the sheer volume of Windows, IE, MSSQL and Outlook Virii does point to the fact that *a lot* of people are almost constantly on the lookout for ways to crack the system.
The Classic Mac OS had the one built-in but not for that purpose security measure in that it didn't have a commandline. This prevented anyone from logging in via SSH or whatever and rooting the system. The only widespread server on the Classic OS was Webstar and by default it didn't have any way of getting in via a CGI or buffer overflow unless you installed plug-ins, and even then you could crack the serve but had no way of doing anything else on the computer.
Mac OSX has had the occaisional security hole, the last one I remember (Apart from an IE hole but we won't talk about that) was the HFS case hole. Apple has simply been wise and turned off most of the daemons that are notoriously prone to sniffing etc by default such as telnetd, ftpd etc. If you turn these on, you stand a good chance of getting hacked.
Apple also has a built in Scripting System on both the Classic and OSX systems: AppleScript. The only reason that there have not been more Virii coming in on this channel is because there is no automatic way to execute one of these as there is on windows. You could however easily use social engineering (i.e. trick someone into downloading a bad Applescript application) and wreak havoc on that persons machine.
Anyone who has used Macs in the early '90s will remember many Virii such as mdbf or the CD autoplay worm, some of which were even spread on MacWorld CD's. Apple's loss of marketshare in the mid '90s coincided with less virii being written for the Mac. You work that out.
With the rising marketshare of the *new* Apple under Jobs and Tevanian with the new OS I am willing to bet that the attempts to crack the system will incease.
How Apple will eact to this will determine Apple reputation in this espect. Up until now Apple has been very good and fairly candid at reacting to and releasing patches and hasn't gone on any whining campaigns as MS has done in order to try to draw attention away from buggy products.
So, the article is not entirely wrong but still misses the true issue.
This piece of FUD was already picked apart on Maccentral yesterday.
In short, this was a piece of FUD backed by Symantec to try to sell more copyies of Norton Antivirus for the Mac. I've been using Mac's since the 80's and I've not had a virus since 1993 when I got a floppy infected with Scores and NVIR from an infected High school computer lab.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
and it doesn't address the real- world fact that Macs are hit with viruses far less often than Windows machines
mac os (any version) runs on far less machines than windows (any version). therefore less people who can code are on macs. therefore less people who write virii (speaking in percentages of the population) are on macs as opposed to pcs. this means that less mac viruses will exist.
no one ever thought macs were less vulnerable than anything else. nothing is any more or less vulnerable really, everything probably has some exploitable bug if you look hard enough. there have just always been less people making virii and such for macs. percentage wise the amount of virii for macs is probably comparable to the market share of the os.
All circuits busy.
It's the users. I've worked for years on both PC's and Macs. We regularly bring in customer PCs that have viruses. Know how many virus's I've had? Zero. Why, because I'm not stupid. Properly set up security on shares, not opening every flipping 'look at me!' email that comes across my desk. Not using a root level account for everyday use. PC's don't spread viruses, people do.
and if memory serves me, the auto start worm (the ONLY virus i have ever been affected with in 10 years of mac computing) turned itself off on dec 31 1999. It did cause problems in ad agency i was in, as it took us forever to get it cleaned off. But it was alot less damaging than it could have been. one virus in ten years of heavy computer traffic is awesome by any standard.
Fuck Norton for spreading FUD.
Total crap. The mac does not ship with as many open doors as windows, and outlook does. As a former admin, I'd host a mac server on principle alone for mid to small organizations just because of all the nimda, sircam and code red worms out there.
Every day, I get windows virii attempting to infect the WinNT directory of my mac but never in the past 3 years have gotten a virus on my macs.
Actually, the last virus I got was the MS word glossary virus over 3 years ago.
total bullshit
- Zav
In fact, the US Army moved their web servers over to MacOS in 1999, long before OSX or OSX Server was released! This was WebSTAR running on MacOS Classic, and NetCraft shows that www.army.mil is STILL running WebSTAR 4.2 on Classic.
If the Army moved their web site to MacOS in the "mistaken belief" that it was more secure, where is the proof that they were mistaken? It's an extremely desirable target, yet in two and a half years has there been a single break-in?
There has never been, to my knowledge, a SINGLE hack against a MacOS-based web site, except for a contest that was run once, which had a hole in a 3rd party plug-in. Classic MacOS, prior to OSX, has an unblemished security record.
Also, that Sub7 rumour has been going around for many months, with nothing to substantiate it. How could a shill at Symantec know about a virus that has never been released? Have they been getting beta copies, or are they writing it themselves to sell more software?
What a load of crap that original article is.
Can any of you name...
Top three mac-viruses?
The deadliest mac-virus and the damage it did?
The virus that last affected your computer...
...and when?
"I tend to think of OS X as Linux with QA and Taste", James Gosling, creator of Java
For those of you unfamiliar with virus naming conventions, here's some basics:
Most of the ones w/o a prefix are going to be DOS executeable or MBR/Bootsector infectors.
Prefixes:
JS/- Javascript VBS/ - Visual Basic Script
W32/ - Win32
W95/ - Windows 95
W97M/ - MS Word 97 Macro
WM/ - MS Word Macro
X97M/ - Excel 97 Macro
XM/ - Excel Macro
O97M/ - Office 97 Macro
Realize that Mac Classic OS's are just as vulnerable, and in fact there were viruses being written for them ~1990 or so and possibly before, but they just aren't widespread anymore (WDEF was pretty popular for a while though...). Obviously, with the file protections of *nix, OSX is a bit more resiliant to infection although still perfectly targettable.
If you don't make sure your system is locked down properly, and you run executeable code from untrusted sources, well, you're taking a risk. It's just not all that big right now (contrasted, of course, with the 5+ .scr/.html and .exe/.html combo's I get in my mail box per day aimed at infecting windows...).
I write code.
Kevin Chapman of Symantec said:... ...There's even a release of the infamous Sub7 Trojan in Alpha development at the moment, he added. "
Do virus writers run formal testing programs? Use change control? Does Kevin Chapman work in the mail room?
"Mr Virus Writer? I'd like to report a bug in the alpha of Sub7 - it consistently fails to infect my machine."
--- Yx3 = Delilah ---
"Another big problem Mac users don't think about is that they make perfect incubators for Windows viruses," said Chapman. What makes him so sure we don't think about it? Waa ha ha haaa!
--- Yx3 = Delilah ---
The antivirus companies will make sure of it. The truth is out there.
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
Try thinking about it this way...
...)
It's not only that OS X is less targetted, it's that the OS is inherently more secure. User and system level access are more distinct. Base system applications are less likely to 'autoexecute' damaging code.
How about two point to point comparisons?
1) How long has Outlook continued to leave programatic access to the user's address book and increased the spread of viruses? Can you demonstrate a similar bug in OS X's Mail.app?
2) How many holes/viruses/problems are caused by IIS web servers? What percentage of Apache webservers show the same problem?
I'm sure I could find other examples where a BSD based OS is more secure than a Microshaft machine. (Daemons run with non-root status,
And for the record, I still run virus protection and checking software, because I'm not stupid enough to believe I'm totally immune. That doesn't equate to my machine being AS VULNERABLE as a PC to being exploited, as the title of the article implies.
Lee
Mac OS X is to Windows as _______ is to swiss cheese.
Word nigga! Daaaaaaaayum!
I took a while to find, because it disappeared the day after the slashdot post, but here is the contact email for the author of this well written piece of journalism. (elminate the spam reduction 'stuff', and notice the sarcasm)
d . om
James Middleton: james_middleton@vnu.co.uk.Oh.So.He.Wont.Get.Abuse
Trust your instinct though - most people here know that Windows suffers from some symptoms no other platform has to contend with: lots of visibility and major security holes that many people never get around to fixing. _Every_ other currently viable desktop operating system is at _least_ less visible; in the case of Mac OS X (with an open-sourced FreeBSD-like core) it's even harder for a user-space application to attack critical system components.
Yes, Mac users should get some virus protection. Heck, EVERYONE needs virus protection these days. But to ascribe the Mac as "not really more secure than Windows" is just bunk.
We'll assume you _do_ know that OS X is inherently a multi-user system, and that this wasn't quite the case in OS 9, and that you were simply an idiot when you posted that.
Microsoft isn't keeping up with their web comics.
My L-A-S-T PC died over 5 years ago due to a virus. None of my five Macs have ever had a virus.
Not only are these guys blatant trolls, but they're also wrong. As anyone who has ever tried to crack a Mac will tell you, there are entire classes of buffer overflow attacks that can't be done on PowerPC that are instant root access on x86. And it's harder to write many other types of exploits on PowerPC.
120 character sigs suck. Make it 250.