Slashdot Mirror


Mac users 'too smug' Over Security?

wild_berry writes "Bill Thompson, one of the BBC's technology commentators and presenter of Go Digital on the BBC World Service, expresses his concerns that Mac users assume their safety in the face of trojans, worms, keyloggers and other malware. As a Mac user he is most concerned about the lack of herd immunity that is needed to stop a few infections becoming an epidemic, fully explained in his column week for the BBC technology site. Is he right, and what actual products exist for OS X that would protect against infections?"

36 of 707 comments (clear)

  1. Dead On by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This article was dead on.

    My first ever encounter with this mentality was in high school when my music theory instructor told us that she loved her Mac and when I tried to argue with her about a number of things, she'd repeatedly reply with "No Mac has ever been hacked or had a virus on it."

    Now, at the time, I was a young nooblet and probably should have let it slide but instead I snuck into her office and opened up her Macintosh's word editing software with the intent of some lil' bastardry. I found the option to replace a mistyped word with another that the user entered. After that, whenever she typed the word "the", it was replaced with "WARNING! VIRUS DETECTED! PULL PLUG FROM OUTLET AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!" Unfortunately, her son knew enough about computer to fix it so my fun didn't last very long (only one or two lunges at the wall).

    Back to the issue--I think it is a grave mistake for anyone to ever feel 100% invulnerable when it comes to computers that are connected to the internet in anyway. I would diagnose this as a standard case of a false sense of security. This is something that has plagued many people throughout history and often led to their downfalls.

    What message am I trying to get across to Mac users? First, realize you're not invulnerable. Second, just browse around and look at what's out there for you to use as anti-virus and virus blocking tools. And if you don't want to, read some horror stories, perhaps that will motivate you to become aware of possible worms in your Apple.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Dead On by pwhysall · · Score: 5, Informative

      That link doesn't even mention OS X, and is dated 2000.

      --
      Peter
    2. Re:Dead On by ciroknight · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First of all, after my Googling, has there EVER been a virus for OS X? Seriously?

      Secondly, any kid who's seen an AOL commercial realizes how bad viruses are. n new viruses a day. 50k Windows viruses and counting. And Windows still has no way to stop these things, whereas OS X/Linux/*BSD are designed from the ground up to be immune to the kinds of attacks that Windows gets constantly pounded by.

      Next, look at the patch release time. Open Source developers get patches out almost the instant a volunerability is found that is considered to be serious enough to be patched. Mac OS X is an OS project (and thusly, all of the nasty bits that generally cause problems like network applications are OS), with a nice pretty closed GUI. Sure there have been security holes in their products, but they are extremly quick about getting patches out. Microsoft has proved time and again to be a beast of burden when it comes to patches, as seen just recently after it took them over a week to patch a ZERO DAY exploit.

      No, Mac users aren't invulnerable. We're simply more secure overall. And we're proud of that.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    3. Re:Dead On by ciroknight · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Better yet:

      There are around 40 Mac-specific viruses and related threats. ++Mac users with [Microsoft] Word 6 or versions of Word/Excel supporting Visual Basic for Applications, however, are vulnerable to infection by macro viruses which are specific to these applications. Indeed, these viruses can, potentially, infect other files on any hardware platform supporting these versions of these applications. I don't know of a macro virus with a Mac-specific payload that actually works at present, but such a payload is entirely possible. ++[Microsoft] Office 98 applications are in principle vulnerable to most of the threats to which Office 97 applications are vulnerable.

      Funny. 40 Mac viruses compared to how many PC viruses? 71989 and counting according to Symantec. And the most mentioned causes of problems in security on the Mac Platform? Microsoft products. I rest my case.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    4. Re:Dead On by bbernard · · Score: 5, Informative
      40 Mac viruses compared to how many PC viruses? 71989 and counting according to Symantec. And the most mentioned causes of problems in security on the Mac Platform? Microsoft products. I rest my case.

      That's beside the point of the article. The article wasn't blasting security on the Mac, it was pointing out that Mac's are susceptible to problems to. Doesn't the vulnerability of software running on a Mac constitute a security problem on the Mac? If I can get in does it matter if it's through the OS directly or through an application?

      The article was suggesting that Mac users need to be every bit as cautious as the "rest of us" on our Windows boxes. It was railing against the same type of thinking that causes parents to decide not to get their children vaccinated against things like measles because you never hear of measles cases anymore. Of course not! It's because we've been vaccinated! So Mac users: go get your booster shots.

      --
      ----- Connection reset by beer
    5. Re:Dead On by MasonMcD · · Score: 4, Funny

      when I tried to argue with her about a number of things, she'd repeatedly reply with "No Mac has ever been hacked or had a virus on it."

      Now, at the time, I was a young nooblet and probably should have let it slide but instead I snuck into her office and opened up her Macintosh's word editing software with the intent of some lil' bastardry.


      So in the face of her computer never having been hacked, you physically sat down at her computer and hacked it?

      Good thing she didn't say she's never had her house broken into, or her virtue compromised.

    6. Re:Dead On by earthbound+kid · · Score: 5, Informative

      According to Wil Shipley, there has been maybe one real virus for Mac OS X, maybe. Even then, it didn't spread much and no one's sure if it really existed in the wild and it may have just been a trojan.

    7. Re:Dead On by NardofDoom · · Score: 4, Informative
      The site you linked to covered a wide variety of the 30 or so viruses available for the Mac. None of which run in OS X. A few of which are spread using Hypercard, which has been discontinued.

      1995 called. They want their FUD email back.

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
    8. Re:Dead On by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am a Mac user, albeit one that also spends equal time on Unix and MS-Windows, and realise there is an equal proportion of Mac and Linux users who reckon just because you aren't logged in as root you suddenly become invunerable to viruses and worms. In fact there have been viruses that targeted the pre-MacOS X systems and even a few worms that targeted BSD in the past.

      True security is an active mechanism: The three points on security:

      1. No castle wall in the past ever kept the invaders out indefinetly
      2. Never understimate a determined person.
      3. In view of points of 1. and 2. you are truely a fool if you think you have found the perfect method of security.

      I suppose I could add 4: You are also truely a fool if you a salesman convinces you that their product is 100% secure to all security issues. It may be safe today, but we don't know what tomorrow holds.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    9. Re:Dead On by arivanov · · Score: 4, Informative

      You need to read non-Apple security material more. When MacOS X came out a whole list of setuid apps used by the "pretty shell" to tell the OS to do simple things like load a CD or eject it had security wholes all over the place. http://www.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/securityfoc us/bugtraq/2001-10/0117.html is a prime example. I admit Apple learned from its mistakes pretty fast, but the initial release of MacOS X was one big local security hole. You are correct - networkwise it was more or less OK, but once someone managed to connect it was ripe for picking.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    10. Re:Dead On by Fordiman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The point of TFA is that Macs don't get the kind of scrutiny that Windows machines do.

      This is, by the way, not even mentioning the following: Now that OS-X, Windows, and Linux all run on the same hardware, spreading a fully cross-platform virus is easy. The virus first attempts to identify the target machine. Upon doing so and diagnosing apprent weaknesses, the virus then packages the relevant position-independant code in an appropriate executable container (ELF for linux, PE for Windows, a.out or unibin for OS-X) and set the entry point.

      The virus then executes a found exploit, causing the offending computer to download the converted virus from the attacking computer (uploading a virus via buffer overrun is tricky; it's better to simply send up a stub that grabs the virus from the attacker than to try for a full infection via exploit). This can be done by either piggybacking the download through a program that's been cleared by the firewall (wget, internet explorer, etc), or by creating a servlet whos only purpose is to wait for connections from the attacker and let it upload.

      Hell, on OS-X, you could even have it download and compile the virus SOURCE behind the user's back.

      I've said it here before: I'm a pretty good programmer, and I've been fighting viruses for years. Be glad I don't write the damned things; I could probably cripple the world. The same is true for any half-competant programmer with an interest in security.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    11. Re:Dead On by XMilkProject · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "4% of 71989 would be 2879 virus for the Mac. So at 40 OSX IS REMARKABLE."

      Yes, and first let me say I'm not sure of either of those virus counts, i'm just taking the parents numbers for granted. I imagine the symantec count is hugely artifically inflated, given that they count every minor change to a virus as a new virus, often times having hundreds of derivations for a given virus.

      That being said, there are of course many fewer virus threats for OSX. There are a couple obvious reasons for this.... First, if only 4% of computer users are on OSX, there aren't going to be many "hackers" who have had access to the OS to learn to make virii, and it's also fair to say that most of the 4% of OSX users are in very non-technical fields, and far less likely to be capable of the technical mischief. Yet another point would be that there is little motivation to write a OSX virus as you would be targetting a minority, and there are very few large networks of OSX systems, such as large corporations using Windows, which are breeding grounds for virii

      I suppose the point I'm making, is that it seems there is a bit of 'security by obscurity' in place, that is falsly assumed to be actual security. It's not a bad thing, as it is very true that you are likely safe from this sort of harm if you are using OSX, regardless of the reasons for the safety. But People should also be aware that IF someone wanted to target their OSX machine, it would probably be possible... Just a bit harder than targetting a Windows machine i'm sure.

      --
      Big ones, small ones, some as big as yer 'ead!
      Give 'em a twist, a flick o' the wrist...
    12. Re:Dead On by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's beside the point of the article. The article wasn't blasting security on the Mac, it was pointing out that Mac's are susceptible to problems to. Doesn't the vulnerability of software running on a Mac constitute a security problem on the Mac? If I can get in does it matter if it's through the OS directly or through an application?

      Yes, it does matter. A remote exploit available in the default install of an OS is what allows for a worm to propagate and is what makes plugging an unpatched Windows machine into a network suicide. Local vulnerabilities that don't even include a privilege escalation are a completely different severity. When those vulnerabilities further do not even have any payload that will affect OS X, well that is less of a threat as well.

      The article was suggesting that Mac users need to be every bit as cautious as the "rest of us" on our Windows boxes. It was railing against the same type of thinking that causes parents to decide not to get their children vaccinated against things like measles because you never hear of measles cases anymore. Of course not! It's because we've been vaccinated! So Mac users: go get your booster shots.

      Your analogy is flawed. How about if parents on the remote island of Wabbachucha don't go to the bother of flying to the mainland to get their kids vaccinated when their has never been a single reported case of measles on the island, while there have been a number of plane crashes flying to the mainland. Right now the mac neighborhood is in pretty good shape. By default the machines are relatively secure, and the architecture lends itself to containing and preventing security issues. It makes sense to be cautious and it makes sense to take precautions, but you have to have a reasonable threat assessment. If you have an 18 year old daughter living in Detroit, it might make sense for her to get a concealed pistol permit, especially if she goes out at night. On Wabbachucha, crime is so low the risk is greater that she will injure or kill herself than prevent harm to herself.

      So far there have been no worms or viruses that have affected the mac. All vulnerabilities have been fixed before that becomes a problem. So far there have been two instances of virus scanning software for the mac that have had adverse affects and damaged files. Personally, I run ClamAV and LittleSnitch as well as some other useful precautions, but for the average user, they really are better off without these days. Mac users, don't get your booster shots until there is something in the syringe. Until there actually are viruses for the Mac propagating in the wild, don't risk installing possibly buggy virus scanners and certainly don't pay money for them.

    13. Re:Dead On by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, as a Mac user you're supposed to rush out and buy Symantec or McAfee's virus scanner. It doesn't actually do anything, since it doesn't have any virus signatures, but it will wear out your hard disk and suck processor time pretending to keep you safe.

      After all, you'd vaccinate your kids right? Funny... I didn't ever get hepatitis or rabies vaccinations until I travelled to places where I could actually GET those diseases.

      Everybody should be conscious of security concerns if their computers are hooked up to the Internet. But that doesn't mean you have to live in fear. I'll install a virus scanner on my Mac when there's an actual need for it. In the meantime I'm quite happy that there IS no need for it. I chuckle a little bit too when all the PCs go down to a virus and my Mac's only problem is that the network is slow because of all the infection traffic. I expect Linux users do the same.

  2. he's nearly right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Mac users are too smug about... everything ;]

    1. Re:he's nearly right... by FidelCatsro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's because we are better than you , Better lovers , Smarter , better built and more charisma ..

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    2. Re:he's nearly right... by just_another_sean · · Score: 4, Funny

      You forgot modest.

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
  3. One product stops mac PCs from getting infected. by MMC+Monster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's Mac OS X.

    There's no substituting an OS that doesn't let the average user have administrator rights all the time.

    The windows users state that they don't need to run as administrator, but then ask them what hurdles they have to go through to make their software "just work".

    --
    Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
  4. well, here's the problem... by nuckin+futs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    there are numerous anti virus programs out there for the Mac, but what virus are they scanning for? There are no known viruses for OS X, so how can they update the virus definitions if they have nothing to base it on? They've seen a vulnerability here and there, but nothing has been exploited yet. So it's like the chicken and the egg. you need an AV program to protect yourself from viruses, but you need a virus for the program to detect.

    The day i see a virus on OS X is the day I buy an AV program.

  5. Re:What's worse? by guet · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A platform which doesn't have Active-X, doesn't have services running out of the box, doesnt' have autorun for CDs with Sony Malware, and doesn't have an unfortunate legacy meaning almost all apps require continual admin access, is more secure in my book. There's a couple of operating systems that fit the bill, one of which you seem to hate : )

    Having no known viruses at this point is an extra bonus.

    Not immune of course, but then I don't hear many people claim that, in fact, I've never heard anyone say that, just heard it repeated as a truism (Mac users think this) on websites.

    It's just a shame that for them to be proven wrong, a lot of people and their PC's have to get hurt

    A lot of people and their PCs get hurt continually at present, but they come back for more and keep running the same broken system.

  6. Re:Through the glass darkly by dal20402 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Actually, it's both. (Lower marketshare and a safer OS, that is.)

    Just to name some of the obvious... OS X can't use ActiveX, it's actually useful when you run a non-administrator account, it doesn't come with Swiss-cheese services enabled by default, it doesn't automatically trust machines on its own subnet, and there's no real equivalent on it to VB scripting.

    With that in mind, I absolutely agree that Mac users are too smug and that a dedicated malware author could bring many of us to our knees. (Hell, I run as administrator just to save time, despite knowing the risks. It's a gamble, although I keep good backups.) But an OS X (or Linux) malware author would have to be much more skilled than most Windows-targeting skript kiddies to do a lot of damage.

    In today's real world, if you run a Mac (or Linux), you're going to suffer far less than your average Windows user. If you use an out-of-the-box Mac to do typical home-user tasks, which probably include visiting shady corners of the Internet, you won't have the spyware infestations you would with an out-of-the-box Windows box. And most of the routine worms out there have no effect on a Mac.

  7. Re:Mac resistance to malware by ioErr · · Score: 5, Funny

    So, is there a profile of a Mac virus writer???

    Judging by the amount of viruses out for Mac OS X he's one lazy fucker.

  8. Submitters place annoying questions at the end... by NitsujTPU · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is he right, and what actual products exist for OS X that would protect against infections?

    Today, wild_berry was the billionth story submitter to place an annoying question at the end of his submission. Despite the pleas of nearly a million Slashdot users, wild_berry took part in the timeless tradition of Kindergarten Teachers and Coffee Talkers everywhere, and gave us a topic to discuss amongst ourselves.

    What about YOU, what is your opinion of annoying questions at the end of postings? What do YOU think about them? Do YOU have any solutions to the problem?

  9. Completeley useless article, no facts at all by mstroeck · · Score: 4, Informative

    I don't know who the guy is, but the article is completely useless. There are absolutely no hard facts in there. Please point us to ONE SINGLE virus, keylogger, adware, or any type of malware at all before making ridiculous claims like the old and completely bogus "it's just because of low market share". It's just not true. I haven't come across anything dodgy so far and I've _actively_ looked for it. Nothing except some shell-script with a highly hypothetical threat. Also, keep in mind that OS X users tend to get a large percentage of their software from centralized sources like apple.com and VersionTracker, which wouldn't post or quickly pull any infected software. IF there was any kind of outbreak, it would be all over the Mac-web within an hour at the maximum.

  10. Re:How do you protect against the unknown? by redragon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I will be adding some extra security to the system. But the average user cannot do what I will be doing.

    Why don't you enlighten us oh gifted one?

    --
    - Sighuh?
  11. Re:What's worse? by Jason+Earl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can keep waiting for the Mac folks to be proven wrong, but chances are good that you'll be waiting a long time. You see, just like biological viruses computer viruses need two things before they will take off. The first thing that they need is an exploitable weakness. The Mac has enough of those that a worm is certainly possible. The second thing that you need is a large enough body of susceptible hosts that the worm can spread. Macs *don't* have that. Without a large body of susceptible hosts the entire population is safe. That's why it doesn't matter that my neighbors don't immunize their children. The fact that their children are susceptible to immunizable diseases doesn't really matter because there aren't enough luddites to create a viable population of carriers.

    Interestingly enough, most of the same effects can be had simply by not using Outlook and IE on Windows as these two programs are the main vectors for infection.

  12. Macs are not Targets. by Barzoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You're not vulnerable if you're not a target. Macs are not targets. And I fix all computers, Windows, Linux, Macs. Mac people are no more or less smug than those other users. Most Windows people don't have a clue about firewalls, virii, trojans, or worms fyi. Computer users are all the same. They just want something that works. BTW I haven't had to remove a virus, trojan, or a worm from a Mac yet. I've done that for Windows machines all the time and make good money doing it. You do the math.

  13. Re:wait.... by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 4, Informative

    IIRC, Word macro viruses on a Mac tend not to be nearly as damaging as their Windows counterparts (less ties into the system and other Office apps, etc). However, the big problem is that Word for Mac acts as a vector of transmission. Word docs that contain macro viruses that don't affect the Mac in any way can wreak havoc as soon as they're opened on a Windows machine (assuming someone clicks the 'run macros' button on opening the file).

    --
    This guy's the limit!
  14. Re:MacOS X itself? by jrockway · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > So again how is it a safer OS if these exploits existed in the first place? Go stick you head in the sand until the great Mac worm hits that erases everyone's OSX drives. Then maybe people will realize that NO Operating System is completely safe. PERIOD.

    If you look at the OS X `exploits' (quotes because that's not what they are), most of them are holes in software that doesn't even run by default. Are you using Apache 2 (not 1.3) on your desktop? If so, the security update will prevent a malicious trusted (!) proxy server from crashing one thread of your Apache instance.

    If you're using Windows, you need the security update to prevent the web browser from downloading an image that puts a rootkit on your machine.

    It's all about severity, and OS X's "holes" just aren't that bad. However, MS consistently manages to provide a multitude of auto-infection routes to virus writers.

    --
    My other car is first.
  15. the camping tent allegory by jeffehobbs · · Score: 5, Insightful


    A couple of men went camping. They camped at a remote site, new to them, where they didn't really know everyone else who was camping there. After setting up, one of the men put a little, teeny tiny lock on their tent flap door. His friend looked at the flimsy lock and remarked, "That lock is nowhere near good enough to keep out anyone who might want to get into your tent! Why, I bet I could get through that lock in less than a minute.". The first man replied, "The lock doesn't need to be the best lock in the world; it just needs to be better than that guy's" -- and he pointed to the tent next door, without a lock at all.

    The point being, surely Mac OS X is not the end-all and be-all of security, but Apple has by all accounts gotten increasingly serious about security as Mac OS X has matured. It's not ever going to be possible to have a 100% perfect level of security, but as long as it's better than that guy's (points to Redmond, WA), in most people's minds it'll be the most secure commercial OS on the market. ~jeff

  16. Re:MacOS X itself? by Seanasy · · Score: 4, Interesting
    So again how is it a safer OS if these exploits existed in the first place?

    Because most weren't critical vulnerabilities and there are no exploits. Show me an exploit for a Mac OS X vulnerability. Now, show me one in the wild. Can't? The only thing you have to do to wipe the smug look of a Mac users face is to release an exploit in to the wild. Go ahead. What are you waiting for?

    If just one person who thinks Macs are just as vulnerable as PCs would just write a worm/trojan/virus, we could end these f*@&!#g trolls and all agree that security is hard. Really, please, someone write an OS X exploit and spread it. Make it benign if you're uncomfortable with writing viruses. Just get something out there.

    I'd like to see it just so people will stop using the lame "there are more Windows PCs" arguments. I'm sorry but this whole issue has gotten so blown out of proportion that the first person to show a really bad Mac vulnerability with an exploit would be on every geek blog and quite possible the NYT. You'd be f*@&!#g famous.

  17. Re:I'm a Mac user and... by theAtomicFireball · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I have spyware detection programs, snort, firewall, litte snitch (network traffic filter), virus scanner make regular back ups.... etc. It's foolish to even step on to a computer... any and assume that you are safe. My personal opinion is those who keep blindly procaiming that Mac OS X is a security haven should be held accountable for their words.
    Backing up and firewalls are a great idea. Little snitch isn't bad, either.

    The rest of your regime is foolish. Virus and anti-spyware software on the Mac is a case of the problem being worse than the cure. Several of the anti-virus software packages for the Mac actually make your machine less secure. You're not just wasting your time and processor cycles, you are actually making yourself more vulnerable.

    Use a firewall, backup regularly, and don't open executables from untrusted sources. That's my whole regime. Perhaps Mac users are a little smug, but hey... this article is six years old and we're STILL considerably safer than our Windows counterparts. Perhaps we deserve to be a little smug.

    No amount of software can replace common sense, and common sense never let a virus onto somebody's computer (unlike certain anti-virus software).
  18. Re:One product stops mac PCs from getting infected by Zathrus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's no substituting an OS that doesn't let the average user have administrator rights all the time

    Yes, because as we all know the really valuable data on the computer is the OS and installed programs. You know, the stuff that can be replaced in a few hours.

    All that user data that's completely and utterly irreplacable? Worthless. Who cares if a virus or trojan destroys it? And it obviously doesn't matter if a keylogger running in userspace sniffs out all your bank passwords and sends them to a 3rd party (what, you don't need admin privs to open a socket?!?!), because, hey, the OS itself is still secure!

    The amount of real damage that a virus, worm, or trojan can do is not substantially affected by whether or not it can get administrator privledges. It may be easier to remove, but that's about it. And, frankly, if your average user runs in a lower privledged account then they're likely to get used to typing in the admin password when prompted, without even thinking about it.

    And that's what it ultimately boils down to -- the user. Clueless users will get hit by crap all the time regardless of the platform. Clued users will not, again regardless of the platform. I've been using PCs for over 20 years now, most of that time on DOS or Windows (although I've also used OS/2, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, and several others) and I've been hit with a virus exactly once -- and that was about 18 years ago. It infected very little too, because I was running a virus scanner that caught it quickly (back in the days when McAfee was free(ish) for personal use). Nor have I ever had to remove spyware, malware, etc. on any of my personal or work systems.

    OS X has a rather high percentage of non-technical users, just as Windows does. Do you really think that they're immune to doing stupid things?

  19. Re:Mac resistance to malware by caddisfly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Insightful? who mod'ed this?

    one of the rules of security is "don't make it easy and obvious" -- OS X does that, Windows doesn't. Windows is the "honey pot" for the world. With all the unsecure machines any script kit can bust it. OS X would take some real work, so the hackers go elsewhere.

    another rule: layered defense -- OS X does it, Windows doesn't. With Windows, break into an app or file and you are at the OS core -- see WMF.

      It is not about market share, it is about market share of *unsecure* machines. The Windows "not secure" architecture and legacy will haunt it for years to come. If OS X gets 50% market share, those remaining Windows machines will still be just as unsecure and will still get just as hammered by malware, etc. It doesn't follow that overall malware will equally affect OS X.

    Try this analogy: there were more robberies of homes than banks....and it ain't because there are so many more homes. Banks are just more difficult to rob, risks are greater and penalties greater. OS X is the bank -- it can be robbed, but I don't spend my time worrying about it. My home, on the other hand, has "windows" -- and I worry about that a lot! ;-)

    Two observations:

    a) do a market share observation of security folks and technical folks at generic computer conferences: the market share of OS X is more like 30-40% for people in the know.
    b) as much "negative reaction" as folks have to Steve Jobs and Apple, if someone could write a virus, etc. for OS X, they would have done so by now, just to throw it in his face and make headlines across the tech world. I am still waiting.

  20. Re:How do you protect against the unknown? by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 4, Funny
    I will be adding some extra security to the system. But the average user cannot do what I will be doing.

    Why don't you enlighten us oh gifted one?

    I imagine he's using Mac user standard precautions; place router inside wall safe, wrapped in tinfoil, and smothered with secret sauce. Nothin' beats that. We've been discussing it on the official Apple Fanboy List and have deemed this to be the best approach.

    (Also we use characters like ü, ç, (TM) and © in our passwords which are nearly impossible to type in Windows.)

    --
    If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
  21. Name ONE by NtroP · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Name one.

    C'mon. You just spent a lot of time telling us that there are a lot of viruses out there for OS X and that we should just research it. Well, I'm sure you've researched it, so enlighten us, please. Name one.

    Oh, I know about the "opener" trojan. A shell script that never went anywhere. BTW here is a much more destructive "Mac OS X trojan" called "runme.sh" that also affects Linux and Unix! Oh my. Here it is, read with caution:

    sudo rm -fr /
    The only viruses I've seen on macs are word macro viruses - namely Claude.A

    So, oh wise one, educate me and the rest of use please. I am aware that there are security weaknesses which could be expoited. But so far, none have. I agree, that we have to be vigilant, but for now, you are just talking out of your ass.

    --
    "terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution