Slashdot Mirror
Apple Yanks Mac Virus Immunity Claims From Website
redletterdave writes "Apple quietly switched out a statement that claimed its Mac computers were completely immune to viruses with a less-forward statement: 'It's built to be safe.' The PR shift comes in the aftermath of the Flashback Trojan, which affected hundreds of thousands of Macs back in early April. From the article: 'Apple strives for perfection, but stating something is perfect when it isn't is ultimately bad for PR and company morale. Jobs used his reality distortion field to "rally the troops," so to speak, but "Mountain Lion" will ensure Apple can tout its closed, highly-secure operating system for the foreseeable future in a much more realistic sense. Just because a product isn't impervious to sickness doesn't mean it isn't "insanely great."'"
I mean, that type of statement COULD be construed as false advertising? Or am I completely wrong?
Restore the madness of youth's lechery
What is a Reality Distortion Field? Is that like a full-scale resurrection? Or does it just re-animate the dead with 1 HP?
Apple viruses have been around for awhile. Linux viruses exist. Viruses exist even for obscure, closed computer systems (look at STUXNET). Statistically, were they less likely to get viruses because Apple's OS is on a lower percentage of the computers out there? Yes. Immune to all viruses? Laughable.
IIRC, the claim was that Macs were immune to "Windows viruses".
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
How many viruses are there for Windows? "Apple quietly switched out a statement "? What are they supposed to do have a press release? Would any company on the planet do that? Just because they got nailed by a virus doesn't make them worse than a PC. So many people are desperate for a chink in Apple's armor that they overreact to things like this. Put it into perspective. They are still very resistant to viruses. I have more legitimate issues like searching for files on a Mac is a joke and they aren't as stable as they used to be, especially since Lion came out.
And it's a lie.
I love how people talk about this flashback incident like it's a major event, a few hundred thousand macs is nothing compared to the millions of windows machines that get infected with all kinds of malware all the time, in the long run they still have a better track record for security. sure they botched the response this time but every time something like this happens they take it as feedback on what to do to prepare for next time.
Here are before and after images of the marketing text.
Also, contrary to the summary, it never claimed complete immunity to viruses, merely immunity to Windows viruses, which is, admittedly, a trivial and silly distinction to make, but I like playing the pedant.
And everyone that ever used Linux will eventually die.
That kind of ads was aimed toward the masses that know next to nothing about computers. Mac have had viruses for a long time now if not as long as Windows PC and the only reason why "mac doesn't have viruses" stuck for so long, is due to uneducated people that believe every propaganda their overlords at Apple says and the low user base compared to Windows PC users. Worst thing is, there are still people in denial even after this massive trojan fail.
...its closed, highly-secure operating system...
Apple's OS is a lot of things, but it's still Unix based. If I want to do something, a terminal window is a click away. They've made the low level settings harder to get to via a settings window, to be sure; but at the end of the day, I can always issue the appropriate command. Closed might describe their mobile OS well, but that doesn't apply to their desktop OS (yet).
What fool thinks that any computer system is immune to one sort of malware or another?
Nothing is inherently more secure about Mac OS X than Windows. All software can have software vulnerabilities, including Mac OS X.
The old (but still true) fact is that Mac OS X has less malware because it is a smaller target (about 10% market share) than Windows for the bad guys to be cost effective.
And everyone that has used one SAP's systems, but it will be a death by confusion.
Because they are rich, and that in itself makes them evil sorcerers. Damn evil profiteers!
The false duality; the logical fallacy of choice for the discriminating moneygrubber!
Apple marketshare = 5% approximately. Windows marketshare = 94% approximately.
Given that, malware makers pay attention to it as well: Thus, it makes FAR MORE SENSE to attack the most used, because that's where the MOST POSSIBLE VICTIMS TO EXPLOIT ARE - because malware makers/hacker-crackers are JUST LIKE PICKPOCKETS (who also frequent crowded areas unsuspecting & usually un-security conscious users are), & thus - They go to those crowded city streets, shopping malls, bus + train stations, for the SAME reasons (more "easy meat" to steal from)...
* So - what else illustrates that concept perfectly as well, validating it more? Heck even despite Linux underpinnings??
Android on the smartphone...
APK
P.S.=> That's the TRUE reality of it... period!
... apk
I think one of the reasons for the re-wording was to remove the word "viruses" since it so obviously confuses people who don't know the difference between viruses and trojans and think the handful of Mac malware in 12 years is equivalent to over 17,000,000 for Windows. Sorry, but market-share doesn't account for that discrepancy.
I consider this to significant progress on the part of Apple and they deserve to get credit. Much as Microsoft has their head buried in the sand for years before they started making changes, we should applaud Apple for taking the first step. I welcome Apple to world of reality, a world in which operating system have security flaws, require patches and get viruses.
Now that Apple is in at least some small way acknowledging the real world, let's see if they can clean up their act the way Microsoft did years ago. Admitting you have a problem is always the first step, now we can always hope that they will start to embrace industry standards for dealing with security issues. Perhaps someday their users will no longer also have their heads in the clouds about security issues?
Kind of funny thinking about it, a decade ago I never would have imagined citing Microsoft as a company that can be cited as cleaning up their act for security. /responsible for securing an environment that is %50 mac, so I'm not trolling.....
Yes, Unix, properly configured, is, indeed, highly secure. The underpinnings of the operating system that you bought are insanely great. That is what made and continues to make *nix operating systems so widely used and accepted in enterprise and government infrastructure. Sticking an Apple logo on it does /not/ improve the system's security. At all.
All Apple needs to do is to flat out say, "If you run Windows you will be infected", it's not false, it's not a lie and it's bashing Microsoft. Apple is insanely more secure then Windows and only slightly less secure then Linux, I think they should use what they have and just call it like it is.
Never having put the statement up in the first place would be ideal, but I think this story is worse PR than the trojan attacks themselves. It just draws attention and is basically a hefty bag of troll food.
I think one of the reasons for the re-wording was to remove the word "viruses" since it so obviously confuses people who don't know the difference between viruses and trojans and think the handful of Mac malware in 12 years is equivalent to over 17,000,000 for Windows. Sorry, but market-share doesn't account for that discrepancy.
And why not? When you can design a virus (Trojan, whatever, no one outside the tech community gives a crap what term you use) that hits 20 times as many targets, many used in industrial or commercial settings (such as what Stuxnet targeted), why would you bother trying for a Mac virus? The point of most malware isn't to hit a specific target (there are exceptions of course, but as I said before, many of them run Windows, and are usually targeted in more precise attacks anyways), but to hit as many targets as possible. In that light, it's almost stupid to bother making a Mac virus at all.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Because Mac OS X has an actual security model, whereas the default on Windows (pre-Vista) has always been the same as MS-DOS security.
Here is a link showing the before and after of the Apple web page in question.
http://sophosnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/mac-osx-before-after.jpg
I don't think they could be sued, there is no false advertising on their part. It blatantly states "A Mac isn't susceptible to the thousands of of viruses plaguing Windows-based computers."
That is a completely accurate statement. Mac OS X cannot be infected with a Windows virus.
Because Mac OS X has an actual security model...
Of course, the security model of "No, you can't install that because technically we're only renting this box to you" is probably a large part of why their market share has been practically non-existent until recently...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
To ask Apple why the wording was changed? Or to consider the fact a trojan is not a virus? I know of Nobody from Apple having claimed the computers were "perfect" or "immune to all malware" as suggested by comments elsewhere on this page. Nor to I know of any actual successful Mac virus "in the wild", so to speak. Malware? Sure. Virus? No. At this point in time, there is just no 'there' there.
You mean the world isn't black and white? (or red and blue if you ask a politician)
I think you're confusing OS X with iOS.
Signed, an Apple-hating Linux fanboy
You joke... but this is actually the kind of thing that was lost with Steve Jobs. Not that OSX is impevious, but the almost religious belief in whatever Apple says.
Jobs would have kept saying it. Mac user would parrot it. You won't believe how often I hear Mac users (although I am one) delude themselves into thinking how great their platform is. The marketing speak of "Macs are immune to viruses" doesn't have to be true, the consumers just have to believe it is.
It's sort of like how Howard Camping said the world was going to end in May last year and then it didn't, and then people STILL believed him when he said it was going to end in October.
Maybe I'm oversimplifying this but since Apples now use "PC" hardware (ie. x86 architecture) it seems to reason that a boot sector virus could possibly effect any type of system or does that not count as a "PC" virus?
Disclaimer: I'm definitely not a security expert.
I don't have time to make a sig
I thought it was some brit talking the piss out of Americans then I was like oh.
Ethanol-fuel's Slashdot account needs to be reinstated immediately.
Thank you.
Google can still claim that ChromeOS is virus free!
* Carthago Delenda Est *
Apple is awesome, Linux and Windows are lame. Just in case you were wondering.
windows 2000 had security, but when people defaulting use an admin account for everything stuff happens, osx didn't allow that for accounts so most can be pointed at end users. But truth is with windows on 20x more machine then osx it would get targeted. Osx would be a prime target if it was reverse. Least with MS they didn't Deny the exsistent of virus's and flaw's in their OS, Apple on other hand up til now made the claim OSX was 100% secure and never got virus's. MS least takes a proactive approach to updates to windows where as Apple took 2 months to fix the flaw that Flashback trojan targeted. Windows side had update to fix it the day after it was announced to be a flawed code. 1day vs 8 weeks. Overall Avg windows user is more proactive at taking steps to protect their computer then osx users since Apple has built the false image of virus free OS which everyone that seen that mac vs pc add where mac claimed he don't get virus's, Apple fans said its true, but people like me that didn't have our heads up our ass's knew OSX probably had as many flaws as windows did just no one was looking for them. Well over next few years flaw's will be found that been missed in OSX probably dating back to earliest versions.
"It's built to be safe" - IT ABSOLUTELY IS NOT! It's built to fly under the radar and is designed for toddler-caliber computer users. There's absolutely nothing safe or secure about its design whatsoever. Windows is designed to be secure because it has to. It fails but still. I don't think having a crappy market share counts as "design" although the prices are designed to cause that. So, cue the false advertising lawsuits.
Hmm. Without a proper hosts file, this seems pointless.
My favorite part about Apple's virus/malware policy is how, when someone would publicly point out a security flaw, Apple would proceed to demonize and harangue them in an attempt to ruin that person's reputation... then quietly include a fix for the aforementioned flaw in their next OS update, never once admitting that there was a legitimate issue.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The platform is great (or not) irrespective of what idiot fan boys think. This is what I hate most about any conversation about Apple ever. I too am a Mac user (think they are great) and accept that malware is not impossible to get. I, however, am not the stereotypical hyper-logical binary slashdotter who doesn't realize that marketing is marketing and exists to try to get people to buy your stuff.
Whether a bunch of fanboi hipsters buy Macs or not, I'm still going to like my Mac, regardless what others think. People who hate Macs, for whatever reason, think I am trying to tell them how awesome my Mac is (really don't care what you think), or even worse, that I'm trying to IMPRESS you by purchasing something anyone else can also buy. Again, I don't really care what you think about my computer. I'm using it a public space, because, a) I have it with me, and b) there's free wi-fi. Not c) to try and impress all the chicks with my Macbook...but this is slashdot, so maybe that's the logical conclusion.
That Apple computers are not immune to malware. I personally can attest to getting Mac viruses in the '80s. No system is foolproof or immune - period. I still use Mac OS X because Windows just plain sucks and Linux, while improving for desktop use, is not there yet for me. But anyone who believes the hype is a fool.
I went and said hi to my old boss from when I was doing PC repair recently. They're by far the largest PC repair shop in the area, and he was telling me about how they had gotten Apple certified (amusingly, they are now the only Apple certified shop in a 90 mile radius, including four towns of 20-40k population and *three* universities. Previously, Apple owners had to either ship it off or drive it to the next largest city, an hour and a half away.)
Anyway, he loves it. They get paid more by Apple to do the same repairs as they charge for PCs. And on top of that, he sees just as many Apple machines in for repair as any other manufacturer -- except when Apple owners drop off their hardware for repairs, most of the time they're still *glowing* about how much better their machines are than some HP or Dell. They clean up plenty of Mac malware infections (doesn't matter if there are 17 million more infections for Windows -- all it takes is one to hose your machine), and the customers are still glad that they don't have all those Windows viruses. It's a level of compartmentalization or rationalization or whatever phenomenon you want to call it that is nearly unbelievable.
But hey, he's laughing all the way to the bank, along with Apple. If you can make a decent product, but convince your customer base that it's *flawless* -- that it's some sort of unparalleled special experience -- they'll lap it up. You don't want to sell facts -- like a larger screen or a faster processor. Apple can't compete there. They can put out a solid piece of hardware, but there's too much competition -- they'll rarely be the best at anything. You want to sell emotions. Emotions can't be quantified. Feelings can't be disputed. Sell feelings and you're golden. Sell facts that require your customers to think analytically? That's suicide.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
What always sickens me about the anti-Apple Fanboy is that there's this sweeping generalization that they make as a strawman argument, "All you Apple fan boys claim that Macs couldn't possibly ever get a virus". I see that time and time again, but don't recall anyone actually saying Macs couldn't get a virus. The reality here is that there has not been a single Mac OS X virus spread in the wild. If you think there was, or "heard" there was, get the name. Look it up. It's a trojan or other malware. People may speak in broad terms such that viruses=malware=trojans=worms, and there's some practical truth to that as opposed to technical truth. That's fine, but still, the overall level of OS X malware is significantly lower than not just Windows, but also lower than OS 9, OS 8, System 7, and especially System 6. This is an important counter-point to "security through obscurity" since previous Mac Systems had much lower numbers of users and lower market share, as well as fewer vectors for infection (less networked). In practical terms, I know many users who had infected PC at one point or another. Face it, it's been a huge issue over the years, and a huge selling point for the Mac (even if it was through obscurity). Sure, many of you IT guys here have never been infected, and that's great, but what about your clients, moms, friends, etc? How many of you can say you've simply never come across a PC or anyone with a PC that was infected? I know countless people who have "lost everything" due to a virus (or maybe a trojan or other malware on a PC). I simply don't know anyone, not even my mom, who's had any malware problem on a Mac. So when Apple advertised, "There's no *PC* viruses on a Mac", ya, it's technically misleading, but in practical terms, the reality is that for many people, malware is an issue they've had to directly deal with and be frustrated by on a PC, while it's not been an issue (to date) on a Mac.
I have yet to see proof that even 1 mac was infected with the trojan. where's the proof that hundreds of thousands were infected? out of how many million macs?
also, trojans are not viruses. generally speaking, a trojan must be kick-started by an unsuspecting user, while a virus can run on it's own in the background, without requiring user action. i haven't seen a virus on a Mac since MacOS 9.21, many many years ago.
I see pc infections on a fairly regular basis, although more spyware and fake AV programs than outright viruses like in the early 2000's.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
To make any practical use of a Windows 2000 system you needed to be admin, because practically any software available required admin to install and run correctly. Including much of MS's own non-OS software.
It didn't matter how good the OS was if MS couldn't keep its dev community in line (or even its own in-house devs in line) and code/test for use with non-admin accounts.
It was really only with Windows 7 that the culture had been shifted enough to realistically use a Windows machine without local admin rights. And there's still a crap ton of software in regular use that still pretends it's 1997.
--
On the flip side MS has now gone bonkers with security...far beyond the point of practicality in many cases and end up with less secure systems as people disable/workaround the layers of muck they've added. I'm dealing with TFS currently...just the simple act of adding a user to a project (or god forbid, creating a new project) is an absolute nightmare requiring permission changes in at least 4 different systems managed by at least 9 different administrative interfaces, many of which require RDP (no remote admin)....and that's not even including the AD side. It's pretty much forcing us to circumvent it (just as Win 2000 did a decade ago) to legitimately use it.
In the end, while MUCH better then years past, MS still fundamentally doesn't grok security.
My
What they mean is that as Mac users they more or less don't worry about virus and they more or less don't have to. And that is true. The chance of infection and seriousness of infections are still so much lower that mac users don't experience virus, trojans, malware... as everyday events that are a universal threat but extremely infrequent anecdotal events.
That's not a small thing
Statistically, were they less likely to get viruses because Apple's OS is on a lower percentage of the computers out there? Yes.
No, there is no evidence for that. Were that the case then the number of viruses for OSX would be about the same as it was for OS9, since their market shares are roughly equal. And that's not what the data shows. Nor do we see a major increase in virus for iOS as it has an even larger market share.
like a larger screen or a faster processor. Apple can't compete there.
Huh? Apple comes with an HDMI port. Short of the absolutely gigantic screens that require completely custom hardware, what can't it run? As for processors:
2x Xeon 5675's with 12 cores ain't the best. But I don't know many people who get more than that.
"claimed its Mac computers were completely immune to viruses"
No, that's not what it said. It said, and I quote, "A Mac isn't susceptible to the thousands of viruses plaguing Windows-based computers."
That is still true today.
Right, and I'm not saying this to be snide at all but I consider Apple to be kinda like Linux in that regard. "Viruses" aren't what people think they are, even on Windows it seems. People always think if something gets onto your system and makes it do something you don't want it to, it's a virus. I hate that, since that's just a trojan, and isn't really a problem with spreading to others... unless the user just randomly runs apps as administrator.
For those that can't seem to fathom the concept, a virus is a piece of data that finds a way to spread itself to other machines by it's own volition. (without asking for admin password)
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
You joke... but this is actually the kind of thing that was lost with Steve Jobs. Not that OSX is impevious, but the almost religious belief in whatever Apple says.
Jobs would have kept saying it.
Really? Because Jobs's Apple did eventually take down their bullshit about how 100PPI was the perfect, and higher resolutions would cause eyestrain.
There certainly are a lot of people that don't understand that these days not everyone buys Apple products in an effort to satisfy a superiority complex (in fact i'd say most of apple's customers these days don't given the ubiquity of iDevices).
I like how people still have OS arguments. Have you people not transcended the OS yet? Learn to do what you have to do with whatever you've got. Stop complaining that the other OS exists and just use it, you might wind up liking it. People have the silliest reasons to hate the other OS. I have to /sigh every time I see a post like this. Have we not moved past this?
My favorite part about Apple's virus/malware policy is how, when someone would publicly point out a security flaw, Apple would proceed to demonize and harangue them in an attempt to ruin that person's reputation... then quietly include a fix for the aforementioned flaw in their next OS update, never once admitting that there was a legitimate issue.
In reality, Apple credits everybody (first) reporting an issue to them in the documentation of the security updates. Well, maybe not if they acted like complete asshats - is that what happened to you?
Apple marketshare = 5% approximately. Windows marketshare = 94% approximately.
Given that, malware makers pay attention to it as well: Thus, it makes FAR MORE SENSE to attack the most used, because that's where the MOST POSSIBLE VICTIMS TO EXPLOIT ARE - because malware makers/hacker-crackers are JUST LIKE PICKPOCKETS (who also frequent crowded areas unsuspecting & usually un-security conscious users are), & thus - They go to those crowded city streets, shopping malls, bus + train stations, for the SAME reasons (more "easy meat" to steal from)...
* So - what else illustrates that concept perfectly as well, validating it more? Heck even despite Linux underpinnings??
Android on the smartphone...
(HOWEVER - By the same token though? ANY of them can be FAR better secured than the default oem-stock/outta the box defaults...)
APK
P.S.=> That's the TRUE reality of it - period!
... apk
Apple has falsely claimed for years that PC's were disease prone because of the architecture. Just look at their "Mac versus PC" ads, that further perpetuate the myth that all PC's (descendants of the IBM-PC Compatible or "PC-Clone" system architecture) run Microsoft Windows; the myth is that all PC's run Windows and that's ALL they can run, which selectively ignores the possibility of running a Unix OS or variant, which has been possible pretty much from the earliest days of the Intel 80386 chip being used to make "PC" systems. They used to claim architectural superiority... of course when they started making Macs basically into IBM-PC Compatible machines themselves, (using mostly the same Intel "i386" or x86 or x64 processor-based architecture and chipsets) I think they had to tone-down that part. The reason for switching I think was something to do with chip manufacturing capabilities of Intel versus Motorola, and the cost of doing business as they'd been, and the fact that they wanted to steal some more ideas from others, in the form of making Mac OS-X, which is mostly just borrowed code from Unix (via one of the descendants of 386/BSD). This gave them cheaper to manufacture more flexible hardware, and better software than they could come up with on their own, without having to spend a lot more money reinventing a perfectly good wheel. Like Microsoft, Apple only pretends to innovate, mostly they just steal ideas, like the mouse, the graphical user interface, etc.
They can't bash Intel processor/chipset based computing anymore because their systems are now built the same way, which means the hardiness against malware of their OS is purely based on the software. What is malware again? Code designed to be executed on a system without the owner/users desire or knowledge, or despite them, generally to do some kind of harm to the system's integrity, stored data, etc. The notion of a universal programmable computer being somehow immune presupposes that the software they issue is perfect and impenetrable, which is silly for adult computer scientists or information technology professionals to assume. The fact that they did it themselves, at Apple, or convinced their customer base to believe it, is shocking and sad, an embarrassment all the way around. Hope someone sues the shit out of Apple, and wins.
Remember kids, the truth is not flame-bait, it's the truth, even when it hurts. Macs have never been "immune," they've just been a little more hardy against it than other computers, and that's mostly due to Apple's Security through Obscurity philosophy, which they could afford to do as they controlled both the software and hardware domains of their business. They don't have to use Microsoft's strategy of making software that is deliberately buggy and prone to attacks and exploits by malware because unlike Microsoft, (their chief software competitor) they don't have to force you to purchase and register the software to keep it up to date and keep patching all the vulnerabilities they built into it as a means to prevent piracy, because Apple's product is much harder to copy... it's not software, it's hardware. Notice how they dealt with the one company that managed to copy their hardware, (sort-of)? They got them shut down. This is telling, I think. If Microsoft was the sole maker of hardware running their OS, they would actually have a stake in making it robust and resistant to malware attack.
Maybe they're trying to move in that direction with their new tablet, but I don't think we'll see it until PC's become virtually extinct, and Microsoft ends up being one of a few dominant players in hardware manufacture. Besides, they'd have to actually manufacture the tablet themselves, otherwise they're still at the mercy of their vendors. (Asus, was it?)
In any case, Mac's have never been "immune" to malware, and the systems today are not substantially different from PC's, and the software is largely UNIX based, so when you buy a 500 dollar computer from Apple, and you pay 1200 dollars for it, the extra 700 dollars is your membership/entry fee to join or remain in a self-deluding cult. Enjoy, and don't forget to drink the Kool Aid.
Per my subject-line - It's obvious you did that to my post here http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2937419&cid=40441449
"Hmm. Without a proper hosts file, this seems pointless." - by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 25, @03:38PM (#40442927)
Hmmm - you also obviously don't READ VERY WELL, do you? My security guides for Windows list that as a MAINSTAY POINT...
E.G.-> My personal hosts file has 1,791,965 KNOWN BAD SITES/SERVERS/HOSTS-DOMAINS BLOCKED OFF IN IT, currently...
(Such as botnet C&C servers, rogue DNS servers, infected adbanners & adbanners in general, spam/phish linked servers-sites, & malware serving sites + malscripted ones are blocked off in it - specifically).
APK
P.S.=> Above all else though - your following my posts around and downmoderating them? Didn't stop my security guide from reaching this status worldwide:
The most viewed, highly rated guide online for Windows security there really is which came from the fact I also created the 1st guide for securing Windows, highly rated @ NEOWIN (as far back as 1998-2001) here:
http://www.neowin.net/news/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text
& from as far back as 1997 -> http://web.archive.org/web/20020205091023/www.ntcompatible.com/article1.shtml which Neowin above picked up on & rated very highly.
That has evolved more currently, into the MOST viewed & highly rated one there is for years now since 2008 online in the 1st URL link above...
Which has well over 500,000++ views online (actually MORE, but 1 site with 75,000 views of it went offline/out-of-business) & it's been made either:
---
1.) An Essential Guide
2.) 5-5 star rated
3.) A "sticky-pinned" thread
4.) Most viewed in the category it's in (usually security)
5.) Got me PAID by winning a contest @ PCPitStop (quite unexpectedly - I was only posting it for the good of all, & yes, "the Lord works in mysterious ways", it even got me PAID -> http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2007/09/04/pc-pitstop-winners/ (see January 2008))
---
Across 15-20 or so sites I posted it on back in 2008... & here is the IMPORTANT part, in some sample testimonials to the "layered security" methodology efficacy:
---
That achieved results like the ones I requoted in my original post you quite obviously down-moderated for NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON... apkbfor years now since 2008 online in the 1st URL link above...
'm using it a public space, because, a) I have it with me, and b) there's free wi-fi. Not c) to try and impress all the chicks with my Macbook...
So the fact that chicks ARE impressed with your Macbook is just a fortunate biproduct?
For the 10 years I've been hearing this (ditched my Linux desktop for a Mac 10 years ago and never looked back), I've never had to consider the possibility of getting a virus. And these same arguments have been raging in circles for at least those same 10 years. And you know what? Despite all the obnoxious fanboys saying their computers were IMMUNE to viruses, and it was technically impossible, only to be rebutted by the same tired tripe that "nobody would bother with writing a virus for 2%/5%/10% of the market"... nobody has EVER answered why that wouldn't make it a bigger technical challenge, something that would get HUGE bragging rights if you were the first to pull it off.
A trojan isn't a virus.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I'm sure that the cybercriminals gather at bi-annual conferences and calibrates their attacks to OS market shares: "Ok - OS X is now at 10% so we need 1 out of every 10 attack to target OS X"
Get real.
Nowadays attacks are created for financial gain - not for personal breast-thumping like in the MacOS and DOS/early Windows days.
Imagine the attacker at a shooting range. He can choose between two targets of equal size (equally hard to hit). Each time he hits target A he receives $10. Each time he hits target B he receives $90. He has 100 shots.
What does the attacker do?
1. Targets A with all 100 shots because that's the cool thing to do?
2. Targets B with all 100 shots because that'll maximize his ROI?
3. Take 10 shots at A and 90 shots at B because that's more fair to the targets?
Even if target B is moved further away he will *still* target B each time until it gets 9 times harder to hit than A. Because that's how he maximizes his ROI.
There is no secret sauce in neither OS X nor Linux which prevents attacks. Indeed, battle-hardened Windows sports many more and more efficient anti-exploit features than any of them.
The old "but Windows users still run as administrators" hasn't been true since Vista, and even before that it was really only true for home users. Nowadays even if you log in using your administrator account you are still not running as an administrator. Unlike Linux/OS X Windows actually has fine-grained user and process tokens and when you log in a special token is created for you which is stripped of admin privileges. All processes you start will by default run with such a stripped token. What happens when you "elevate" (the UAC prompt) is that your non-stripped token is associated with the process being elevated.
This is what most OS X and Linux users don't get about Windows: Even when you log in as an administrator you are still not running as an administrator.
Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
Your mom is a virus. ;-)
"So what else illustrates that this concept is idiotic, invalidating it more ? Linux on servers... That's the TRUE reality of it... period!" - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26, @03:45AM (#40449783)
Sure does, but it's FAR from idiotic... see recent proofs:
2012:
Medicaid hack update: 500,000 records and 280,000 SSNs stolen:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/medicaid-hack-update-500000-records-and-280000-ssns-stolen/11444
So, what's dts.utah.gov running everyone?
LINUX (and yes, it got HACKED) -> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=dts.utah.gov
What's health.utah.gov running too??
YOU GUESSED IT: LINUX AGAIN -> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=health.utah.gov
* Ah, yes - see the YEARS OF /. "BS" FUD is CRUMBLING AROUND THE PENGUINS EARS HERE & 2012's starting out just like 2011 did below!
===
2011:
KERNEL.ORG COMPROMISED - The Cracking of Kernel.org: (that's VERY bad - do you trust it now?)
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/08/31/2321232/Kernelorg-Compromised
---
Linux.com pwned in fresh round of cyber break-ins:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/12/more_linux_sites_down/
---
Mysql.com Hacked, Made To Serve Malware:
http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/09/26/2218238/mysqlcom-hacked-made-to-serve-malware
What's that site running? You guessed it - Linux -> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=mysql.com
---
London Stock Exchange serving malware:
http://slashdot.org/submission/1484548/London-Stock-Exchange-Web-Site-Serving-Malware
(I mean hey - NOT ONLY DID LINUX FALL FLAT ON ITS FACE less than a few minutes into the job http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/02/19/0147232/London-Stock-Exchange-Price-Errors-Emerged-At-Linux-Launch, & crash not only ONCE, but TWICE there? You see "Linux 'fine security'" in motion @ the LSE too!)
---
DUQU ROOTKIT/BOTNET BEING SERVED FROM LINUX SERVERS:
http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/11/30/1610228/duqu-attackers-managed-to-wipe-cc-servers
---
Linux Foundation, Linux.com Sites Down To Fix Security Breach:
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/09/11/1325212/linux-foundation-linuxcom-sites-down-to-fix-security-breach
---
Linux's showing in CA's breached recently too? Ok: (very, Very, VERY BAD for ecommerce, online shopping, banking, etc./et al)
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=StartCom.com
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=GlobalSign.com
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=Comodo.com
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=DigiCert
Don't disprove facts & testimonials here -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2937419&cid=40441449
* Now, did they? Nope... YOU FAIL, trolls!
(As per your usual!)...
APK
P.S.=> Besides - IF all you have is unjustified downmods vs. actual facts & testimonials I posted? You're only showing that you can't DISPROVE what I put down, & you're "all outta aces" (except for the inevitable unjustified downmod - & that's EASILY OVERCOME by my reposting beneath it, dragging it into view again - pretty simple: SO KEEP BLOWING THOSE MOD POINTS TROLLS, you fail - you know it, I KNOW IT, & anyone reading, knows it!)...
... apk
While I agree that Microsoft has yet to create the extensive walled garden of Apple it has done so on a smaller scale in the past (see the browser wars). More topical is the fact that this is EXACTLY what they are planning with the new Metro App store.
367++ TOP FORTUNE 100/500 (or best 100 to work for per CNN Money) COMPANIES, EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, &/or GOVERNMENT AGENCIES USING WINDOWS (over other solutions like Linux) both in HIGH TPM ENVIRONS, & FROM "TOP 100 COMPANIES TO WORK FOR" (per CNN Money 2011)...
Heck - they won't ALL EVEN FIT HERE, but here goes in addition to the recent security FAILS I posted for Linux in 2011-2012 -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2937419&cid=40450669 to go with this too:
---
38 HIGH TPM & 99.999% "uptime" examples:
---
XEROX: Managing 7++ million transactions a day for office devices for its customers using Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 64-bit with 99.999% uptime!
NASDAQ: The U.S.' LARGEST STOCK EXCHANGE, Since 2005 has had Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 in failover clusters running the "official trade data dissemination system" for them in 24x7 fabled "5-9's" 99.999% uptime, doing 64,000 transactions PER SECOND (compare London Stock Exchange using Linux @ 3,000 per second)
FUJIFILM GROUP: Tracks data for its imaging, information, & documentation for its products & services using Windows Server 2003 w/ a custom SAP solution on SQLServer 2005, achieving 99.999% uptime.
HILTON HOTELS: Manages 1.4 Billion records a day for customers in 1000's of their hotels worldwide - for 370,000 rooms & catering services forecasts (switching from 6 *NIX systems to 1 Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 clustered failover system using a data warehouse with 7 million rows & 99.998% uptime).
MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY: Manages & Tracks 7 million containers out of 116 countries daily using Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 in failover clusters with 99.999% uptime.
SWISS INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES: Serves 70 airport destinations worldwide, with 6,500 employees + 110 branch offices via Windows Server 2003 & Active Directory with 99.95% uptime (all while growing their business 30% per year). THEIR PREVIOUS LINUX SYSTEM COULD ONLY HANDLE 250 concurrent users - the Windows one handles over 500++ users concurrently/simultaneously!
UNILEVER: Global consumer good leader, migrated to mySAP on SQLServer 2005 + Windows Server 2003 & scaled UP their operations by over 200% & yet saved money + have 99.999% uptime!
MOTOROLA: Using System Management Server, Windows Server 2003 & SQLServer 2005 to conduct inventory of 65,000 desktops from a single location (e.g. for system updates corporate & worldwide).
NISSAN: Uses Windows Server 2003 to manage 50,000 employees' email & calendaring (w/ out VPN, & using Exchange Server 2003) for local AND remote + mobile users.
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES: Reduced the # of techs needed per dealership (1,000's worldwide) from 7, to 1 using Windows Server 2003.
SIEMENS: 420,000++ people, 130 business units over 190 countries managed in Windows Active Directory
REUTERS: Managing 3,000 servers worldwide @ customer sites internationally (using only 4 managers to do so, remotely).
DELL COMPUTER: Managing 130,000 servers & 100,000 PC's worldside using Windows Server 2003 + 40 million customers' data worldwide.
LEXIS NEXIS: Searches BILLIONS of documents each second delivering news, legal, & business information.
HSBC: Deploys System Center solutions to 15,000 Servers worldwide & 300,000 desktops using Windows Server 2003.
RAYOVAC: Chose Windows Server 2003 over Linux to manage their infrastructure - saving 1 million dollars estimated in software, staffing, & support costs.
JETTAINER/LUFTHANSA/U.S. AIRWAYS: managing shipping to 3,000 flights to 400 airports every day.
CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Manages crew communication systems, log on/log off, schedules, & shifts using Windows Server 2008 worldwi
I was initially very impressed with my new iMac some years ago (10.5 had been out for about a year). The aesthetic design of Apple products is certainly very good, both at the software and hardware level. At the surface, it's a very nice platform well suited for general computing.
Then I had to start using it to do work. I have used window management software from OpenStep to fvvm, awesome, GNOME 1-3, KDE 2-4, Windows 3.1 and up, and a handful of others. MacOS Classic as well, but I tended to avoid it due to how it seemed to randomly arrange content windows in a fashion which usually made the window contents difficult to access. MacOSX was no better than OS Classic, except now I was using it on a big screen and there was even less reason for why it would make newly created windows smaller than the content or oddly splay the window off the edge of the display. And the damnest thing was that there was (is?) no way to not use the launch bar: if you want to manage your running apps in a different fashion, you're SOL. Good luck if you're one of those people who like running everything full screen or tile things, that's going to be even more difficult.
Then I had to manage a "Mac Server" running FileMaker. Sure, it's a shitty database, but it was also performing very poorly for the hardware it was on, per my previous understanding of what should be capable on older Macs running Linux. Turns out people, even Apple shops running Macs, had been jumping to FileMaker on Windows in droves due to OSX performance problems (moreso than the hardware costs). Any sort of threaded or multiprocess computing is doggedly laborious on a Mac due to the OSX context switching implementation: this is a long-running, long-known issue. It's been known and thoroughly documented since at least 2003. As far as I'm aware, the very poor context switching implementation still exists and has received no attention from Apple.
Then I had to manage support for both Apple laptops and desktops over the past year and a half, my view has been skewed even further. I'm now quite displeased with the hardware quality shipped from Apple, and there are even more glaring issues with the software (which, IMO, relegates the laptops from "nice mobile device" to "worse than a Windows XP laptop for wireless" in many regards). There is absolutely no excuse for such a poor wireless stack implementation, or for the many random lockups and "simply not working" wireless issues people encounter. Likewise, in the past year, I've seen an increasing number of MacOS systems need a full wipe and install due to self-inflicted (ie, the OS or a software update) breakages - for instance, signed libraries needed for system services weren't signed. (This, ironically, coincided with a decrease in Windows laptop support issues of similar kinds). All the while, Apple product physical design seems to be getting worse: lots of issues with the cases shorting out wireless adapters (see the above wireless issue, which may or may not be related). There are thermal issues I've not seen on anything in the PC domain except Toshiba in quite some time.
If you like them, great. I can see the appeal. Their power management functionality and hardware quality is pretty good compared to many Windows laptops have been in the past couple years, especially the $300-500 cheapie variants. I just don't see the appeal at this point outside the metal bodies. But at this point, pretty much everyone is using the same hardware (eg. I'm pretty sure Samsung has an Ultrabook which is identical to the current gen Macbook).
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Until I personally suffer from any of those issues I'll continue to hold Apple products in high regard. There isn't enough evidence to support your claims (outside of they run hot and their server performance, which isn't important to me). I'm not saying your claims aren't true, only that they might be anecdotal and/or biased. I think anytime you work with massive quantities of something, you are bound to encounter the negatives you otherwise wouldn't have. Like having 50 Ferraris in my garage and two of them have intake manifold problems...doesn't detract from the awesomeness of the other 48 Ferraris.
Personal dislike of the OS is perfectly fine and a legitimate complaint. I have a feeling that 15 years of Windows indoctrination is really hard for many people to kick. (Not you per se, but in general).
I work in an environment of roughly 5000 Macs after years of working with Dell Shitbox 9000s. I don't know a single IT person here, but I knew the entire IT staff at Dell Shitbox company by first name. I've never been locked out of my AD account and my roaming profile has never become busted because of shitty admins not knowing what they are doing on top of questionable Windows OSes on dubious Dell commodity hardware.
I switched to Mac almost 5 years ago because I was tired of fixing problems with Windows and still needed Photoshop. I still run Win 7 for work, and Parallels does a good job of that, but we gotta make money somehow.
I also consider myself not a fanboi. I think, overall, it's better than Windows. I have never thought it impervious to malware, the best defense is being cognizant of the threats out there and avoiding such behavior. And I've never tried to impress chicks as I've been happily married for 7 years now.
There's an additional practicality reason for me switching to Macs: my wife's job. She's an astronomer, and her observatory runs almost exclusively *nix and Macs, so it's a lot easier to support her if I'm running the same platform and it's easiest for her to run the same platform as what she does at work. I've never actively proselytized for Macs, but I've had a lot of people come up to me in public spaces and ask me about it. I always play down the 'immune to virus' plank because it's not true. It's not yet to the point that I have to install anti-malware, and I hope it doesn't get to that point, but we'll see.
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
> I see that time and time again, but don't recall anyone actually saying Macs
Funny, I had people telling me that all the time when I worked in a user-support role, to the degree that they regarded me as misinformed, deranged and/or stupid if I hinted that Macs were even theoretically vulnerable to malware.
To be fair, my personally experience *does* shadow yours, but with some changes:
'I don't recall anyone with an IQ higher than room temperature actually saying that Macs couldn't get a virus'
Haha, I'd be worried about the chance of success for anyone who uses their computer to "impress the chicks". That's right up there with "using my Magic the Gathering card collection to impress the chicks", or "using my Marvel comics collection to impress the chicks", or "using my sick calculus skills to impress the chicks".
But on a serious note, I've never felt the urgency to buy my personal computer based on my work/professional needs. The last thing I want to spend my own money on is something for work. That, in a nutshell, is why I've been a Mac user for a long time (even though my current company uses Macs exclusively...first time in 20 years of Mac using that I've had one at work, and it is great for all the reasons normally cited by users, multiplied 10-fold for all the additional quirks work requirements add). You know what I've NEVER had to do with my Mac at work? That's right, get up and walk over to the printer to see why my page didn't print. I've also never been locked out of my account because of a dumbass admin who can't manage Active Directory. The list is long.
My wife does not approve of your post. I, on the other hand, am open to further exploration of the topic.