Slashdot Mirror
Mac Users Blast Symantec ... Again
An anonymous reader writes "Once again Symantec has spouted FUD about Mac OS X ... perhaps in an attempt to make more money as Microsoft pushes its own security products? A commentary on the issue entitled "Symantec 'scare tactics' don't rattle Mac users" says Symantec's latest Internet Security Threat Report continues to voice concern for the security and stability of the Mac operating system, Mac OS X in particular. However, there isn't proper evidence to back this claim. Also from the story, readers are asked: Do Mac users think they are immune to security problems or is Symantec and others fishing for a new revenue stream? Do you think Apple should start following Microsoft's model by rating vulnerabilities and patches?"
Not to mention that rating a vulnerability as "high" will help hackers decide which hole to screw (that's what hackers do) with first, before everybody else had the time to apply the patch.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Symantec is trying to sell a product that doesn't really apply in the Linux/OS X environments.
I'm not saying Viri and Worms don't or couldn't exist on a *nix platform. What I am saying is that security patches are released within the same timeframes as virus updates, so why not just set your box to auto-update those patches and skip the Anti-virus software route all together?
On other vendor's platforms, there are both a greater frequency of attacks and longer delays between patches (probably due to the shear number) so Anti-virus software serves a market there.
So it isn't hubris that the Linux and OS X are imune, it is that the OSS community and Apple work quickly to patch any vulnerability ASAP.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
Anyway... the only real market I see for symantec for OSX users is system diagnostics and filesystem repair.
Too bad they gave up on that market by killing Norton Utilities for Mac a couple years ago. Of course, that product peaked at version 6 and started stinking up the place after that. IIRC, it was never updated for OS X, either-- the most they did with it was make it OS X aware, so it wouldn't screw something up while trying to "fix" something that OS X needed a certain way.
Pity, that. I used to swear by NUM back in the day. These days, I rely on Cocktail, DiskWarrior, and Data Rescue X. Not that I need them very often.
~Philly
No OS is immune from exploits.
Symantec shouldn't just be pointing out how many exploits have come to their attention, they should be providing evidence to support their position. Things like, how many exploits became full blown threats to the security of OS X. None.
They should be providing details about how their NAV(Norton Anti-Virus) software has changed over the past several iterations to deal with this pervasive threat. It hasn't.
Currently Symantec is using the same software, without any significant changes, since the release of OS X, that's no significant changes or enhancements, zero, zilch, nada, for over three years, but they're still happy to sell you a new version for $70+ and come out and make wild claims about how you too are unsafe. When what the consumers are really unsafe from is bad business practices and corporations that are willing to try and scare you out of your hard earned cash.
Why is this happening? Money, greed, avarice and lying.
Yes, Acrobat is more feature rich than the OS.
But please explain why it need to have the admin password to install it. Is there anything in Acrobat that is system wide, moreso than something like Office would provide? I really don't think so, but would love to be enlightened.
More likely, it's Adobe being lazy with programming and making things easier on themselves rather than proper and secure programming techniques. Remember, if there's a bug in their application at a system level, it could represent a real security hole because of the way the installer works.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Clearly something does stop Spyware authors, otherwise Mac users would be complaining about spyware.
However, why on earth would one think that Symantec is the solution to the problem? If there is a known problem, Apple will patch it. If it is an unknown problem, Symantec cannot fix it.
There's a big difference in the sources where people get their virus news. On the Windows side, you see it in trade journals, on news sites, even on TV when there's a big virus making Windows machines crap out left and right. Yet...you only hear about Mac viruses from companies (Symantec?) who are trying to make a buck. Maybe when I read about Mac viruses in InfoWorld or some other news source I'll be mildly concerned.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
I found a serious one when I was doing some testing prior to the implementation of Mac OS X 10.3. As far as I know, this issue still exists despite my reporting it to BOTH Symantec and Apple... (I believe Symantec did something about it in their latest version, though I haven't had a chance to test it yet... but I know OS X would still allow the problem in 10.4.)
The scenario goes like this: Create a cron task to update Norton AV for Mac from the command line. Log off the system. Unplug the network cable. Wait for the cron task to fire. Norton tosses up an error box indicating that it couldn't update itself. This error message appears OVER the login screen, along with an Apple menu that shows you logged in as the administrator user who setup that cron to update Norton. Even without logging in you have limited access to OS X as AN ADMINISTRATOR!
(I discovered this little "hiccup" when I'd configured Norton to auto-update and found that our network had experienced a problem overnight when the update was scheduled to take place. Imagine my surprise to come in and find a machine with an administrator's Apple menu accessible and no one logged into it!)
Personally, I think applications shouldn't be able to display GUI elements if the user initiating those applications isn't logged in at the moment, and certainly not if NO ONE is logged in.
For slightly more information on how to update Norton AV 8.0 and 9.0 from the command line and via cron, see: http://mikesalsbury.com/mambo/content/view/115/