BBC Writer Responds To Mac Security Critiques

minimunchkin writes "BBC Correspondent Bill Thompson responds to the flaming he received for an article on the vulnerabilities in Mac security. He knows that there are no Mac OS X viruses in the wild, and he doesn't believe there ever will be." From the article: "However the wider point, that there are exploitable vulnerabilities and sometimes Apple puts them there, remains. Even if I'm careful to apply updates when they are made available, some people might not and their systems could be compromised. And there is always a gap between the discovery of an issue and an available fix, a gap which could be exploited. "

Comments

The Rules

[gbulmash]

To the old rule that one should never argue politics or religion, because there is no way to win, I believe we must add operating systems as a third thing one should never argue.

Add to that the following statement (my own): "Being a Microsoft proponent in an argument about operating systems is like being a white male in a discussion on discrimination."

- Greg

Re:The Rules

[spitek]

Agree here. Even trying to cover this subject in "vendor neutral" manner, pointing out the pros and cons based of what the need or usage of the system would be, still be like the white guy.

Re:The Rules

[Krach42]

Add to that the following statement (my own): "Being a Microsoft proponent in an argument about operating systems is like being a white male in a discussion on discrimination."

You should pick that up as a sig, it's good :)

Re:The Rules

[MrNougat]

And yet, being a white male in a discussion about discrimination does not necessarily make your position incorrect.

But those Microsoft advocates - GOD.

Re:The Rules

[Bazzalisk]

As a white male from a poor background I can discuss discrimination a bit at least ;)

Re:The Rules

[Savage-Rabbit]

"Being a Microsoft proponent in an argument about operating systems is like being a white male in a discussion on discrimination."

Hmmmm... nice analogy but why choose such a complicated topic??? I have found that in order to trigger the unwinnable argument effect it is usually enough (assuming you are a human male) to get into a discussion with a human female as to whether the toilet seat should be left up or down. This argument is actually much more venomous than the one you cited since it tends to go on forever and can furthermore result in a permanent damage to your sex life unless you resort to subterfuge and allow the female to believe she won.

Re:The Rules

[EggyToast]

I'm a male, and that argument's a non-starter. Of course it should all stay down. That's the "closed" state. Similar to many other household objects, the natural rest state is closed. Doors, windows, etc. They're opened when used; otherwise they wouldn't exist.

Most males encounter toilet seats that are "down," and have to lift them. Even ones without a proper lid. Why they should assume that leaving them in a state unlike they were found, well, that's just slobbish.

Re:The Rules

[carlislematthew]

"To the old rule that one should never argue politics or religion, because there is no way to win, I believe we must add operating systems as a third thing one should never argue."

Being a Mac user is both religion *and* politics! It's religion because you believe in a supreme being (Steve Jobs), have a bunch of people that agree on a set of beliefs (e.g. one button is best) and think that other religions (Linux, Windows) are stupid and false. It's politics because you can only be on one side!

(Before you respond, please understand that I was joking) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke

Re:The Rules

[hobbit]

"Being a Microsoft proponent in an argument about operating systems is like being a white male in a discussion on discrimination."

I used to be a white male.

My name is Jamelia Uwimana, and I'm a "switcher".

Re:The Rules

[Scudsucker]

is like being a white male in a discussion on discrimination

It's fairly easy, actually. For example, prostate cancer kills about as many men as breast cancer kills women, and yet breast cancer gets 3x the funding. Or how men make up at least 35% of the victums of domestic violence, and yet receive virtually no funding, no outreach, and no respect.

Re:The Rules

[mike77]

to get into a discussion with a human female as to whether the toilet seat should be left up or down.
I'm a male, and let me tell you, it goes DOWN!
Your argument is too simplistic, it does not take other factors into account

For instance, let us hypothesize you have a playful young cat who thinks the toilet is interesting and should be played in.

Unless you like waking up to a toilet bowl soaked cat at 2 AM when they jump on your head, the argument is already decided.

Re:The Rules

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

"Being a Microsoft proponent in an argument about operating systems is like being a white male in a discussion on discrimination."

You are incorrect. Being a Microsoft proponent in an argument about operating systems is like being a Nazi, KKK member in a discussion on discrimination. White males are born that way and in no way predisposed to being racist. People who argue the superiority of Windows have made a choice to use and extoll that OS.

People who argue Windows is superior are like KKK members, generally misguided and misinformed. I'd also like to say that as a white male, I've had plenty of discussions about racism and I've noticed as many black people who are racist as white people.

But I Only Meant All Of You

[American AC in Paris]

From Thompson's original article:

Mac users demonstrate an indefensible smugness when it comes to the dangers of having their systems compromised by malicious software and opened up to exploitation by others. It's time they started behaving a bit more responsibly.

Dear Mr. Thompson:

When you accuse several million people of demonstrating "indefensible smugness" based solely on the type of computer they're sitting in front of, you must certainly expect something of a backlash from those of us who do, in fact, take security seriously. When you tell the likes of systems administrators and security experts they should behave "a bit more responsibly", they're rightly going to tell you to go piss up a rope.

On the Internet, we refer to people who make statements such as the one quoted above as "trolls". Engaging in this type of behavior is generally frowned upon. For example, if I were to say "this is the sort of idioctic drivel the world has come to expect from those effete Brits," I, too would be guilty of trolling and would receive untold amounts of well-deserved invective from the readers of this post.

Fortunately for me, I know better than to make such outrageous statements.

Re:But I Only Meant All Of You

[sepluv]

Isn't that flamebait rather than trolling?

Re:But I Only Meant All Of You

[iangoldby]

When you accuse several million people of demonstrating "indefensible smugness"...

Smugness is highly subjective, and says much more about the person making the judgement than the person being judged.

I doubt that many Mac users think to themselves "I'm very pleased with myself because my Mac is immune from viruses." They just don't really think about the problem at all.

That isn't smugness in any objective sense.

The Mac user may appear 'smug' to the embattled Windows user who has just had to do a clean install for the 3rd time due to virus damage. But that's purely subjective.

I think Bill writes a great deal of excellent stuff in his columns. Let's not get hung up on one sentence and then miss the entire point of the essay.

Re:But I Only Meant All Of You

[vague disclaimer]

Also from TFA: I believe that security through obscurity is no security at all,

So it's probably just as well that OSX doesn't rely on it then.

Re:But I Only Meant All Of You

[jskiff]

And the response is: "under-paid, under-sexed, and under Ike."

Fourth Rule

[Harmonious Botch]

Emacs vs Vi

All is forgiven

[Anonymous Coward]

We forgive you on one condition: you admit publicly that emacs is the one true editor. Then you won't have to worry about anyone flaming you ever again.

Re:All is forgiven

[Heembo]

You macro-writing emacs-installing COWARD! Behold the simplicity and power of the only true text editor for UNIX, VI. No matter what UNIX machine I log on, in the entire world, I have the power to edit text without installing software, and that matters when I am developing code and fixing code on many dozen machines that I do not even own! That makes me infinitely more powerful that you EMACS users, lower than DIRT ON A WORM.

...seem to form a paradox

[sm284614]

So you're discriminating against white males by not allowing them to discuss discrimination because they're not discriminated against? But then, because you've discriminate against them, they can discuss it, but then you haven't discriminated against them because you've....

Re:...seem to form a paradox

[Orion Blastar]

Discrimination against white people is still discrimination even if they are the majority. Please read the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it says it is against the law to discriminate against race, religion, creed, color, national origin, and gender. It does not say that only minorities are covered and majorities are not.

Martin Luther King Jr. talked about everyone being equal and everyone being friendly with each other, not just minorities. He said not to judge someone by the color of their skin but as individuals. Discriminating against white people goes against MLK Jr's philosophy, and against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Re:...seem to form a paradox

[EggyToast]

I agree, although I think it's a much finer line to walk. Ensuring equal rights is one thing; demanding priviledge based on past inequality is another.

As I'm sure most people have encountered in their lives, it's very easy for a very vocal minority to overwhelm a majority. Look at how many non-Americans believe that the United States is full of evangelical, "fire and brimstone" Christians. They're obviously a majority, but vocal and active enough as to appear to be a majority. They're not the only group in history who as acted as such, either.

But anyway, majorities are historically awarded rights before minorities, and, due to their majority status, are often reluctant to give up any priviledges which they perceive as rights. It can be rude and backwards, such as the perceived right of not having to hear other languages or introduced to other cultures, or it can be the idea that a company always run by black people should continue to be run by black people. True equality is exceedingly difficult to attain, as that majority you mention is usually the most reluctant to give up their priviledge.

Re:...seem to form a paradox

[LegendLength]

Oddly geeks and nerds are not protected classes in discrimination laws. Perhaps they should be, but no law that I know of has been passed to protect them.

It's actually strange to me when people are banned from discriminating by religion but not by other beliefs. For instance, I can refuse to hire someone in a stock market job because they believe that analog cameras are worth investing in, but I can't refuse them because they believe in the bible (in my mind showing that they have no interest in scientific method, perhaps essential for stock trading).

I would rather the laws stop discrimination against phyiscal attributes only, rather than beliefs or other vague things that are hard to define.

And in another bit of pure wisdom.....

[achesterase]

But spyware and keyloggers are written for Mac OS as for other Unixes, and could be installed on a compromised system by a worm or even by a Trojan that is installed with user permission.

Gee, who would think? This statement gives the impression that Unix is especially vulnerable to this issue and that there is some solution to this problem. The fact that Unix's user segregation is one of the cleanest and most secure out there obviously doesn't factor into his security assessment and what I really wonder is what his suggestion for changing this "vulnerability" is. If he's looking for a technical one, I think he'll be looking for a while, since there is none. The human is always a security risk on the system. The question is only to what degree. Technology can help minimize the damage but in the end, it's always the same problem.

Not a "troll" at all.

[CyricZ]

Please don't misuse the word "troll". Like it or not, he is pointing out a very serious issue that affects all operating systems, be it Windows, Mac OS X, OpenBSD, UnixWare, OS/2, MS-DOS, VMS, or basically any other operating system.

Frequent updates are necessary, especially when it comes to networked systems. Concurrently, many users (even experienced administrators) fail to keep their systems patched and up to date, be it for a lack of time or due to financial constraints.

Remember, Mac OS X is often targetted towards more inexperienced users, or those who just want a system that works. For the most part, that is true of Mac OS X. It does often just work. But likewise, it is necessary to keep it updated.

Now, he isn't a "troll" for pointing out that very real, very serious fact. Sure, it might have angered some people, but that's not his fault in any way.

If your doctor were to diagnose you with AIDS, and you did indeed have the syndrome, he would not be a "troll", regardless of how much you were angered by his diagnosis. In much the same way, this BBC author is not a "troll".

Re:Not a "troll" at all.

[Morky]

Please mod parent down "-1 Troll".

Re:Not a "troll" at all.

[Moofie]

"Remember, Mac OS X is often targetted towards more inexperienced users"

Uh, says you. I know exactly what I'm doing, and I think MacOS X is pretty rockin'.

Re:Not a "troll" at all.

[American AC in Paris]

Now, he isn't a "troll" for pointing out that very real, very serious fact. Sure, it might have angered some people, but that's not his fault in any way.

Wait, it's a fact that "Mac users demonstrate an indefensible smugness when it comes to the dangers of having their systems compromised"? You'll note that I don't take issue with his assertions that there are very real dangers that all computer users need to be aware of; I take issue with his saying, in essence, "If you use a Mac, you're irresponsible and smug when it comes to security".

That is indeed trolling--at least, it's either trolling or flaming, depending on how you judge his motives. Had he said, "for many casual computer users, there is a common misconception that the Mac is perfectly secure," I would have absolutely no beef with his statement. As it is, though, you'll generate a lot more attention and traffic if you simply say that Mac users on the whole are smug and irresponsible. If making inflammatory statements for the apparent purpose of drumming up attention and agitating readers doesn't count as trolling, I don't know what does.

If your doctor were to diagnose you with AIDS, and you did indeed have the syndrome, he would not be a "troll", regardless of how much you were angered by his diagnosis. In much the same way, this BBC author is not a "troll".

Absolutely true. However, if your doctor were to then go on and say, "so, are you homosexual, or are you a junkie?", would his actions still be defensible, or would you smack him upside the head for making an innacurate and crass assumption about you based on a sweeping generalization?

Re:Not a "troll" at all.

[blakestah]

Remember, Mac OS X is often targetted towards more inexperienced users, or those who just want a system that works. For the most part, that is true of Mac OS X. It does often just work. But likewise, it is necessary to keep it updated.

Now, he isn't a "troll" for pointing out that very real, very serious fact. Sure, it might have angered some people, but that's not his fault in any way.

He is either an ingorant fool or a troll, take your pick.

Last time I checked, nearly every UNIX vulnerability was the result of attacks through open ports, including http ports via php attacks, sendmail, BIND, and so on.

Mac OS X is a Unix that ships with no open ports, because it is principally a CLIENT operating system, not a SERVER operating system.

Windows has made an entire industry out of making a CLIENT OS insecure by default. However, it is not so tough to make a CLIENT OS incredibly secure by default, in the way that Apple has done. And it is not because the software has no bugs. It is not because the programming is perfect. It is because the users operate with limited permissions, AND THERE ARE NO OPEN PORTS!

None of this is to say there can never be a virus. Of course there can. But just as a virus spreads much faster in the 2 year old daycare class than in the adult office, Macs will remain relatively immune and slow to spread viruses compared to Windows.

Re:Not a "troll" at all.

[laird]

"Now, he isn't a "troll" for pointing out that very real, very serious fact. Sure, it might have angered some people, but that's not his fault in any way."

So what was the very real, very serious fact that he pointed out? That there's a hypothetical risk of future security issues? It's true that some day a real Mac OS X virus will emerge, and at that point it'll make sense to do something about it, but until then, as he admits in his follow-up article, there's no point in installing current anti-virus software.

And what are Mac users supposed to do about this hypothetical future risk? Since there are no Mac viruses, and no Mac anti-virus software worth installing, the only concrete recommendation he made was to install the latest patches (i.e. run Software Update, or turn automatic updates on), which is good advice, of course. But Mac users already run Software Update (at least as much as Windows users do the equivalent on their systems), and everyone in the industry makes the same recommendation, his doing so is hardly news.

Pretty much all that's "news" about this article is that he called Mac users "smug". Given that, as he confirms, Mac OS X really is more securely designed, has no viruses, and is unlikely to have viruses in the future, perhaps there's a factual basis for Mac users to feel more secure than Windows users?

It's not "flamebait".

[CyricZ]

Just because a legitimate, completely truthful opinion angers some, it does not make the opinion "flamebait".

Words like "flamebait" and "troll" are most often used seriously by those who are trying to incite trouble amongst people who are pointing out real, solid facts.

We see this today in the media, where various governments label their opponents as "terrorists". Of course, in many cases those governments are partking in the very same actions that may be construed as "terrorism".

These sorts of labels are useless just because they are misapplied so often, by so many different people and groups.

The simple fact of the matter...

[thewiz]

is that nothing is perfect. We flawed humans created flawed machines and flawed software. No matter what OS you run there will always be flaws that someone could exploit. I use Macs but I certainly don't count on OS X being secure enough for me to connect to the internet without using a correctly configured firewall.

Re:The simple fact of the matter...

[eturro]

"I use Macs but I certainly don't count on OS X being secure enough for me to connect to the internet without using a correctly configured firewall."

oh yeah? first of all, macosx has a built-in firewall you can enable at your leisure, and therefore talking of OS X not being secure enough for you to go online without the use of a firewall as if these two were exclusive different things is nonsense.

but even if you don't use a firewall, try plugging your up to date mac directly into your internet connected modem and wait for its security to be compromised.i don't advise you to hold your breath.

i've done plugged straight in without the use of a firewall many times and haven't had a single problem.

Re:The simple fact of the matter...

[node 3]

nothing is perfect

Agreed, and for the discussion at hand, this also includes OS X.

I use Macs but I certainly don't count on OS X being secure enough for me to connect to the internet without using a correctly configured firewall.

While I don't mean to discourage the use of a firewall, it is wholly unnecessary, at present, with Mac OS X, and is likely to remain that way for quite some time.

Since I have a LAN, I have a hardware firewall by default (WiFi+10/100 Ethernet router), but I've run with Macs connected directly to the cable modem, and would do so again without fear. I most certainly would not do that with Windows. I would do it with Linux as well, although I'd run a portscan first and make any necessary configuration settings.

Really, Mac OS X does not need a firewall. But it's still a good habit, it makes it easier to add other computers (especially Windows machines) to your network, and "some day" may even be necessary on OS X (although that mythical "some day" is more theoretical than imminent).

Is that the "smugness" people are always talking about? It's not that I feel smug, so much as I am unconcerned (based on a rational assessment of the facts). Are Windows users "smug" because they can run the most games? Or are they just taking advantage of the fact that there are more Windows games than Mac games? Sure, one can be smug about these things, but they are true, and acting on those truths does not equate to smugness.

Re:This guy is full of it

[slashname3]

The whole matter of computer security comes down to make sure your system is just a little bit harder to exploit than the one down the street. Apple has done this. Microsoft systems are much easier to gain control of than just about any other system out there. Mind you that there are Microsoft Windows systems that are very secure. The admins on those systems have take the time to patch the holes and take measures to secure those systems. Is this true of all Windows systems? No. Are all Apple systems secure? No. It comes down to how much does the end user of that system care about security and how much time, effort, and money do they want to expend securing the system. This is true of all systems.

As another poster wrote the orginal article is at best flamebait.

Too much generalization.

[CyricZ]

It's not appropriate to generalize about UNIX these days, considering how many different UNIX-style systems there are.

Linux might be vulnerable in one case, while Mac OS X, UnixWare, FreeBSD, Solaris, AiX and other such systems are perfectly safe. Likewise, Solaris might be affected, while the other systems are not. And so on, and so forth.

Now, various UNIX-like systems have run into problems in the past with regards to security. Thanks to the relative degree of fragmentation, such incidents are usually isolated to a particular brand or product, and thus do not appear overly severe. But they still do exist, and we shouldn't forget that.

As users of UNIX-like systems, the best thing we can do for ourselves is always remember that our systems are vulnerable, even if they are often of a higher quality than other systems.

Re:Too much generalization.

[CyricZ]

The general theory and concepts behind UNIX are often quite sound. That's well known, and does help lead to more secure, more stable systems.

But it's only half the battle. The other half is in the implementation itself. This is where OpenBSD, for instance, really shines. They take solid, secure theory, and apply it via a well-developed implementation. That's not to say other UNICES are poor; of course they often are not! Nevertheless, it may even be said that a poor implementation of a solid/secure theory is worse than a great implementation of a poor theory.

defensibility

[abes]

Firstly, saying that vunerabilities exist is akin to saying that there are bugs in someone's software. You're just about guaranteed to be right.

Smugness, I'm not sure about (I'm a linuxite). Certainly there is something that most Windows users don't experience, and that is actual *enjoyment* from their OS. Microsoft has never tried especially hard to make their OS enjoyable, only usable.

Would things be different if OS X were the predominant OS? Without doubt. However, OS X, both the kernel (Darwin), and user interface, have been precisely engineered. Windows, one might argue, more evolved. They claim complete rewrites of the OS occured, but I'm willing to bet tons of code was copied-and-pasted in the process.

This does not guarantee it is fool-proof. Only time can tell that. But I would be willing to hedge a bet that less exploits exist for OS X than for Windows.

Re:defensibility

[Freaky Spook]

Certainly there is something that most Windows users don't experience, and that is actual *enjoyment* from their OS

I get plenty of enjoyment from my Windows Experience thank you very much!

Windows has given me so much porn over the last few years i wouldn't know what to do with myself. I could be working on a stressful Powerpoint presentation for work & then all of a sudden pops up some porn, it always comes in at the right time, it makes the windows experience truley worth it.

And don't forget clippy, that helpful son of a gun, always answering all the questions I have when I get stuck.

Re:defensibility

[NorbrookC]

They claim complete rewrites of the OS occured, but I'm willing to bet tons of code was copied-and-pasted in the process.

The WMF vulnerability is proof of that. Supposedly Win2K was a "from scratch" OS, which is why they were about 3 years late with it - according to MS at the time.

Now it seems that (gasp!) they lied! Who would have thought it? (The line starts to the right).

It does matter

[sterno]

Invariably the security of your data is dependent on the security of your OS. If you have some wonderfully encrypted data files you have to interact with them via the OS. So somebody exploits a vulnerability, you end up with a key logger on your machine, and now your intricate password to protect your encrypted files is forfeit.

As for the article's conclusion that viruses are unlikely, I think he's wrong. What makes Unix safer from viruses, etc, is the isolation between user level activity and administrator activity. Thus while one account may be compromised a whole system isn't. So this makes it harder for viruses, but not impossible by any stretch.

For example, a virus can be destructive without becoming root. It can, as you allude to, attack only your data, instead of a whole system's data, but in the end, it's still your data getting corrupted. Furthermore, most of the exploits I've seen of Linux systems involve taking a non-root exploit and then using another vulnerability to make it a root exploit.

Something else to consider on OSX is the sudo. As I understand it, any user on an OSX system can use sudo. So, if an exploit can gain user level privleges, it can then use social engineering, keylogging, etc, to gain the users password and then, in effect, gain root priveleges through sudo.

What protects OSX for now is that it has a smaller share of the market so there are less people trying to exploit it. Eventually if OSX gains market share, then there will be far more incentive to write malware for it. Certainly it will take greater skill to exploit OSX and it will be easier to defend against those exploits, but it only takes one clever hacker to completely ruin your day.

Re:It does matter

[zcat_NZ]

To some extent this is true. But on the whole it's utter bullshit. If I get a user-level virus that mails itself to all my friends and deletes all my documents, it doesn't make the slightest different if it needs or wants root access. The mail goes out. My files get deleted. Root access isn't required.

One of the real differences between Windows and more sensible OS's is that Windows actively seeks out and tries to run code from untrusted sources. Screensaver sent in email? LET'S RUN IT!! Code on a web page? RUN IT!! Autorun file on something that's supposed to be an audio CD? MIGHT AS WELL RUN IT!! Bits of code embedded in an image file? LET'S GET IT ON!!

Most of the time Windows practically goes out LOOKING for things it can run from untrustworthy sources.

Linux doesn't do this
FreeBSD doesn't do this
OSX Doesn't do this

It's a stupid thing that _only windows_ does. which is why _only windows_ gets hit so hard and so frequently by these stupid viruses. (there are other things that also contribute to the problem, but this is IMHO one of the major factors)

Re:It does matter

[cmdrbuzz]

As I understand it, any user on an OSX system can use sudo.

You have to be a member of the admins group in order to use sudo on OS X.
Ordinary users don't get to play.

The only good bug...

[jd]

...is a squished bug. (See xroach for details.)

Seriously, the argument that there are exploits is an important one to keep in mind. Nobody questions that Firefox is so far ahead of IE on security that the difference can be measured in red-shift. However, anybody who then concludes that Firefox users can afford to be complacent is completely outside the Universe entirely. The same is true of OS vulnerabilities. If a vulnerability is detected, it needs fixing. Ideally, you write the software correctly in the first place so that there are extremely few vulnerabilities that ever need to be fixed, but that doesn't generally happen.

Is Bill Thompson a troll? To a degree. He has absolutely zero diplomatic touch, which is presumably why the BBC put him on the technology desk and not in foreign affairs. If you're in a war-zone, tact is an important skill to have.

The part that concerns me most, which I'm not seeing enough commentary on, is the extremely serious allegation that Apple have deliberately installed backdoors into their systems. If this allegation has any foundation in fact, Apple should face intense questioning on their conduct. Cisco got burned when the backdoors they installed were discovered and although you can argue that an Apple is not quite as critical a part of the infrastructure, backdoors are certainly not ethical and possibly not legal.

I've heard people arguing that you can't prove a program bug-free (actually, the Halting Problem only proves you can't do so for the general case, it says nothing about specific cases), but the more I hear of people abusing trust (eg: Sony), wilfully releasing defective software with known and documented bugs on the grounds people will update eventually anyway (Microsoft) and incorporating deliberate backdoors (Cisco), the more I am convinced that there should be consumer protection legislation that forces software companies to maintain certain standards. These sorts of wilfull, knowledgable, abuse of consumers is simply not acceptable.

And, yes, I don't care if it takes a BBC hack journalist to point this out.

Slashdot story is misleading

[this great guy]

The Slashdot story is misleading by saying "[Bill Thompson] knows that there are no Mac OS X viruses in the wild, and he doesn't believe there ever will be.". Actually Bill Thompson thinks it is possible but unlikely, quoting TFA: "I don't believe that Mac viruses already exist, and I think it's very unlikely that they ever will."

There is a big difference between saying "I don't believe in <foobar>" and "<foobar> is very unlikely". Such subtle differences in phrasing totally explain why some people agree with Bill and some others disagree.

Re:OS Vulnerabilities

[prockcore]

Oddly enough I have yet to see a vulnerability in a major Apple implemented library.

That's because your rose colored mac-glasses filter them out.

There are a bunch of vulnerabilities listed there that are from Apple implemented libraries.

Some of the really bad ones ("arbitrary code execution"):

CoreFoundation: Resolving a maliciously-crafted URL may result in crashes or arbitrary code execution

Quicktime: A heap buffer overflow could allow attackers to execute arbitrary code

QuickDraw Manager: Viewing a maliciously-crafted PICT image may result in arbitrary code execution.

AppKit: Opening a malicious, rich text file could lead to arbitrary code execution.

AppKit: Opening a maliciously crafted Microsoft Word .doc file could result in arbitrary code execution.

The JavaScript engine in Safari uses a version of the PCRE library that is vulnerable to a potentially exploitable heap overflow.

WebKit contains a heap overflow that may lead to the execution of arbitrary code.

Clicking on a link in a maliciously-crafted PDF file in Safari could lead to arbitrary command execution.

And those are just from the past 4 months!

Re:That's a naive statement...

[Bazzalisk]

It would be a lot of work. UNIX style security settups are not very friendly for Worm writers.

The language is what upsets people.

[Warlock7]

The term "smug" carries a negative connotation. This is what upset most Mac users that I know. If he had used the term "proud" or "content" there would have been very little in the way of flaming.

It's all about the connotation that was carried by the headline.

A group that has been bashed for nearly the last twenty years are touchy about how you represent them?!?! What would you expect? The Windows crowd have tried every conceivable way in the world to put the Mac community down and get them to give up the OS and hardware selection that they chose and they're touchy? Again, what do you expect?

I hate to break this to you, but your lack of knowledge of the community is one of the key reasons that all the other "communities" have chosen to attack those in the Mac camp for all this time.

Re:Looks like he pissed off the Mac People

[mrsbrisby]

It seems easy enough to piss of Apple/MAC fans: just say something slightly negative, no matter how grounded in fact, about Apple or Mac.

Only if you say it without knowing what you're talking about.

It reminds me a bit of the Linux zealots.

Only if you say it without knowing what you're talking about.

This guy did that, so he got flamed.

This guy didn't know what he was talking about and now is backpeddling. That's what the higher profile trolls do, they say "If you think you're safer on a Mac, you're completely mistaken!", and then "Of course I don't mean in reality, nobody who read my article could think I was talking about reality! I was talking about my own little fantasy world where you're less safe on a Mac!"

Of course, if he had said it that way, he probably would've at least gotten a laugh. Instead his retort was to play the semantics game, and no wonder lots of people got upset.

Here's a person who either doesn't know what he's talking about (that is, merely repeats stuff people tell him, or is making conclusions that he isn't knowledgeable enough to make) or he's a mean old troll trying to piss people off. Either way, he's to be detested.

I personally didn't know much about the Mac crowd until recently -- but they are very touchy.

Good for you! Bridge that race gap!

Meanwhile, I know many Mac users and many Windows users, and I'd agree that most Mac users are most certainly touchier than Windows users, but that most Windows users don't even know they're running users and in fact, the defenders of Windows can't ever seem to do it with something even resembling a trace of logic. These people are far more touchy than Mac users, and worse still, are morally reprehensible because they defend it at the expense to themselves and others!

Here's a clue: In the last 5 years, not a single exploit that has been deployed for Linux has affected me, and yet all those dasturdly Blasters and Code-Reds are still affecting me - despite the fact I don't run Windows.

I don't care if you patch your system, I care that all these other people don't.

I contend- and others often more so that everyone would be much happier if there were no Microsoft and no Windows. I most certainly would be: You wouldn't be talking to me, and I wouldn't need to buy more bandwidth right now.

The key issue is that...

[kadathseeker]

OS X and Linux are currently less popular. This means they will be infected with less stuff. They are gaining popularity, though slowly. However, becuase of the nature of open-source software, patches can be applied every time there is a new vulnerability discovered or exploited, so that by the time it is a really big target most of the obvious problems will be fixed. At least that's the theory. I've heard that one current example of this is the fact that MS IIS is a fraction of its market compared to Apache, but that IIS gets a disproportionately large amount of attacks compared to Apache (which receives a very tiny number of attacks).

An analogy...

[Macdude]

On a planet far far away live two races of people; The Gatesians (who make up 90-95% of the poulation) and the Jobsians (who make up the rest).

The Gatesians have weak immune systems and frequently suffer from viral and bacterial infections, often necessitating a hospital stay. The problem is so bad that almost all Gatesians wear face masks and rubber gloves, use copious amounts of anti-bacterial soap, sterilize all items they come in contact with and get immunisation shots on a weekly basis. And despite all this they continue to get sick.

Jobsians, on the other hand, have very strong immune systems, so strong that no Jobsian has gotten so much as the sniffles in the last few years. Many Gatesians make the claim that the Jobsians don't get sick simply because there aren't enough of them for an infection to spread. The Jobsians point out that there are no known viruses or bacteria that affect Jobsians (the odd rumoured virus built in a secret government lab aside).

A few scare mongers (like Bill Thompson) like to argue that the Jobsians need to take the same precautions against disease that the Gatesians do and that if they don't if a virus or bacteria that can infect them ever shows up will wipe them all out. For the most part the Jobsians just ignore the ranting and get on with enjoying their carefree life and laugh at all the sneezing, coughing and hospitalized Gatesians.

Re:An analogy...

[Macdude]

Then, a single infection wipes out the Jobsians because they had made no significant preparations for a disease pandemic.

Who is more likely to suffer a pandemic? The Gatesians who have weak immune systems (and have suffered numerous pandemics in the past) or the Jobsians who have strong immune systems and don't ever get sick?

It's not like he's never done this before.

[McFadden]

Thompson has a track record of writing articles that are either ill-informed or technically incorrect and then defending himself with the lame excuse that his is an 'opinion piece'. I can never understand why Slashdot (or the BBC for that matter) give him the space he clearly doesn't deserve. He tries to present himself as something of a guru, but probably couldn't get a job as a junior IT helpdesk worker (apologies to all the highly competent helpdesk guys out there).

He's the poster-boy for the phrase "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". If you look at his resume it's clear that he tried to make it as a techie, but didn't have what it takes, and so became a "commentator". It's funny - there used to be a feedback section on his BBC column, but it mysteriously disappeared a few months ago, shortly after he posted some badly researched drivel about problems copying his archived email from Windows to OS X and got shot down in flames by almost everyone who responded.

What's "possible", versus what is observed.

[dr2chase]

I've never come across perfect software, but at this point (using a Mac) my time is better spent worrying about failing hardware than it is about Mac viruses and worms. I've had failed power supplies, memory gone bad, disks crashed, and three chips smoked into nonfunctioning lumps. I worry that the flight attendent will dump a drink into my laptop on the airplane, or that one of my kids will use my laptop for something Horribly Inappropriate; those are the more likely failures.

It is also worth noting that "if Macs were as popular as Windows" is one of those hypotheses contrary-to-fact; perhaps, if that were the case, OS X would contain further safeguards. Perhaps Apple would bundle their own antivirus software, and perhaps it would work, and perhaps it would not pester me for yet another year's subscription to continue my protection. Perhaps they would release that information on an RSS feed, and perhaps they would propagate it via a peer-to-peer network. If I can assume that pigs fly (that a false thing is true), there's no limit to the possibilities. We can argue endlessly about what might be; what is, is an OS that is more secure by design (never had ActiveX, root privileges require a password for each activation, ports kept shut by default), that has not been host to anything like all the vermin that infest and attack Windows boxes.

what he said...

[Old Fart]

...was that Mac users are smug and complacent, that they are ignoring their vulnerabilities. To wit, "I worry that we do not take security seriously enough as a community."

What, pray tell, are Mac users *not* doing (in their complacency) that they *should* be doing? Are they not updating their software as often as other users? Do they not run firewalls? Do they not backup data? Are they not spending millions of dollars for security software? Are they somehow *more* complacent than other users?

Where's the data? Whose *scientific* survey or research was quoted?

This is just another example of shoddy I-got-a-deadline tech journalism. The reference to the SANS trash should be enough to tip you off. If he really wanted to do the Mac community a service, he could expose the security software ripoff that's been sucking millions from Mac users for years to protect them from ghosts and goblins.

Thread highjack!

[Retardismo]

We also expose those who know little about computers but chose the Mac because of its ease of use and elegance a disservice by encouraging them to think that they don't need to think about security at all.

This is the original sin of mac users. I myself, a mac user, have told someone that it is okay to open an email because they are using a mac. Security needs to be an important consideration in all computer use. In the same way that the /. community has imposed upo the world that good passwords are important, we must impose that good security practices are important.

On the other hand. . .

[kimvette]

On the other hand some Mac users are setting themselves up for failure. I have one client who INSISTS on chmod 777 -R / because he finds security "inconvenient" -- and any viruses that DO hit the wild are 100% guaranteed to hit their network. They miss the old MacOS and its total lack of security. I'm sure they're not the only ones with that shortsighted and foolish outlook based on the false sense of security that "if it hasn't happened yet, it never will"

Not only that, but if you have any shares/dropboxes/etc. openly accessible in a heterogeneous network, windows viruses can plant viruses there or infect documents which other windows users can pick up from that share and infect their machines with the scumware. Heck, even Linux or Solaris servers running file shares will be running clamav and antivir, and be scanning the samba shares any time a file is accessed.

Additionally, like it or not, there are worms which coulc conceivably infect your mac and add it to script kiddie's DDoS attacks. If you're running a web server with OpenSSL (or a commercial variant thereof) chances are you're vulnerable to slapper. ClamAV detects slapper and can remove it.

Mr. Bill Thompson I KNOW you're reading this thread on /. so take my advice: download clamav (it's FREE - as in beer, as in speech, etc.), install it, and run it on occasion. I'd point you at the project page only I know that you know how to google. :) clamav is a very small project, taking up very little space, and again it's FREE and virus signatures are usually updated more than once per day.