Are Mac's inherently safer?

[MacBytes]

http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: Are Mac's inherently safer? (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20051122173046)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

[grapes911]

One big BS article.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Really stupid article. That guy is a waste of space... :rolleyes:

[Mord]

seeing as their are a fair few linux viruses and the mac is more popular than linux the whole "who would make a virus for that 4%" argument is moot. it has been proven time and time again the Free BSD is the most secure OS in the world, and mac os x is built on Free BSD, why is it two bit journalists think they can write an article like this that turns up about once a month and expect everyone to say "omg your right we are all stupid" he is not a security expert, he admits to not knowing much so why oh why does he write an article on a subject he obviously knows little about.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

seeing as their are a fair few linux viruses and the mac is more popular than linux the whole "who would make a virus for that 4%" argument is moot. <snip>That's also one of the main points in MacDailyNews answer (http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/apple_macs_are_inherently_safer_and_more_secure_than_microsoft_windows/)...

I specially like this: Try this one on for size: according to Apple, there are "close to 16 million Mac OS X users" in the world and there are still zero (0) viruses. For five years and counting. According to CNET, the Windows Vista Beta was released "to about 10,000 testers" at the time the first Windows Vista virus arrived. So much for the security via obscurity myth.

:D

[nagromme]

Yes. Inherently. By design. No OS is perfect, but OS X's security design is FAR better, and it's a great benefit of using Macs. We are, in reality, immune to viruses and spyware. (So far! Not completely immune forever.)

At the same time Macs are a "smaller target," which is ALSO a good thing. (I'm not sure most people even care WHY one computer is safer, as long as it is.)

Neither factor is going to change any time soon. Macs won't match the installed base of Windows for many years. So we can keep enjoying BOTH benefits for the foreseeable future.

The author wrote an article without researching it, and that's a shame. BUT he did edit his article when Mac users filled him in on other factors, and that I can respect. Especially given that many of the "correctiont" he received were surely childish insults that make Mac users look bad :o

Now, when I say Macs are a "smaller target" than Windows, that doesn't mean they're a "small" target art all!

Macs are BIG target, an ATTRACTIVE one, and a PROFITABLE one, and they have been for years.

OS X has been around for years, now--and it's partly based on technologies and OS's familiar to techies for even longer. Crackers (of a certain type) have sought challenges and prestige for years. Macs have been worth extra points in cracking contests for years. Users of other platforms have long felt jealousy toward Macs, and would love to take them down a peg. More so now than ever before, with Apple finally being seen as the success that it is. And some high-profile TARGETS, like universities, media companies, and the US Army, use Mac OS X. Then throw in the specific challenges and prizes that have been offered on and off for a real-world, succesful Mac OS X virus.

The incentives ARE there, in a big way.

And there are a LOT of unethical programmers in the world... some with a desire to do more than be a "script kiddie."

So I am CERTAIN that at least SOME people have been trying to make OS X viruses for quite some time. They've never managed it yet, but they WILL.

Then we'll have one virus instead of zero... I'll still feel safer :)

Then maybe we'll have two... then, someday, a dozen. Will we ever hit two dozen? Maybe. But for years to come, I can see Apple being able to stay on top of blocking those small numbers for all but the first victims. And of course there's already anti-virus software for Mac even before we need it. Meanwhile Windows will still have THOUSANDS.

Windows Vista ALREADY has viruses and you can't even buy it yet :o

[winmacguy]

According to SANS institute
"Top Windows vulnerabilities include Microsoft Corp.'s Internet Explorer Web browser and Windows Office and Outlook Express. The report also listed Apple Computer Inc.'s Macintosh operating system as a top vulnerability among Unix operating systems.

Apple's OS X operating system is based on Unix, a heavy-duty operating system used principally in corporate data centers and high-powered computers."

[winmacguy]

The author wrote an article without researching it, and that's a shame. BUT he did edit his article when Mac users filled him in on other factors, and that I can respect. Especially given that many of the "correctiont" he received were surely childish insults that make Mac users look bad :o
:o
He certainly has made some changes to the article since the link to it was posted online. ;)

[dubbz]

Windows Vista ALREADY has viruses and you can't even buy it yet :o

Not really. It was for the Monad shell which, AFAIK, won't be a apart of Vista.

Somone please correct me if I'm wrong.

[macnulty]

This article is proof the halo effect is real. Like Englishmen on tea (everyone uses flies on ****), through out some drivel about Mac and it will attract attention.

[bousozoku]

seeing as their are a fair few linux viruses and the mac is more popular than linux the whole "who would make a virus for that 4%" argument is moot. it has been proven time and time again the Free BSD is the most secure OS in the world, and mac os x is built on Free BSD, why is it two bit journalists think they can write an article like this that turns up about once a month and expect everyone to say "omg your right we are all stupid" he is not a security expert, he admits to not knowing much so why oh why does he write an article on a subject he obviously knows little about.

OpenBSD is the most secure, not FreeBSD.

Also, while NeXTStep was built on the original FreeBSD, Mac OS X retains compatbility with FreeBSD in the BSD layer but has its own modified kernel, which is neither fully BSD or Mach 3.0 anymore.

[capacity]

Do people know proper apostrophe usage? :mad:

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Do people know proper apostrophe usage? :mad:No... not at all...

But it is quite conserning when people that are writing for a living manages to write Mac's instead of Macs... but, as I said above, this particular writer is a waist of space... ;)

[kainjow]

No... not at all...

But it is quite conserning when people that are writing for a living manages to write Mac's instead of Macs... but, as I said above, this particular writer is a waist of space... ;)
Isn't "Macs" correct for plural? "Mac's" would mean possessive: "The Mac's interface" as opposed to "All the Macs in the world." :confused:

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Isn't "Macs" correct for plural? "Mac's" would mean possessive: "The Mac's interface" as opposed to "All the Macs in the world." :confused:I would think so, yes...

But what do I know, English is my second language, I've lived in Norway all my life and in Norwegian we, more or less, don't use the apostrophe, at all... :rolleyes:

[cwtnospam]

Not really. It was for the Monad shell which, AFAIK, won't be a apart of Vista.

Somone please correct me if I'm wrong.
And why do you think the Monad shell won't be in Vista? Don't you think it would have been left in if it hadn't turned out to be so vulnerable? Now it's just another feature that's been removed.

[nagromme]

Especially given that many of the "correctiont" he received were surely childish insults that make Mac users look bad :o
Hey NOGRAMME you dum-a$$ leming is "correctiont" a word? Uh let me see... NO!!!!!! Maybe Santa will give you a dictionery for chrismas. Looser :rolleyes:

[Photorun]

Hey NOGRAMME you dum-a$$ leming is "correctiont" a word? Uh let me see... NO!!!!!! Maybe Santa will give you a dictionery for chrismas. Looser :rolleyes:

Dude, did you just attack yourself by yourself? Man that was trippy!

[jefhatfield]

At the same time Macs are a "smaller target,"

major understatement there, wouldn't you say

compared to windows and including many of the users i see close to apple's hq (spitting distance), apple is a non target...even with all my attempts to convert ;)

there are tons of pc users who still think that there is one steve connected with apple, (comments like "steve jobs invented the computer") for instance, and that we are some sort of cult... well, actually, i have met some mac users who really reinforce that notion!!

[Analog Kid]

Runs an advice column on all things computers, claims he loves them so much he plays with them for fun, pulled a Microsoft salary and presumably options during the '80s and can't put down a few bucks for a Mini?

Anybody else notice how much shorter most of his articles would be if he didn't spend so much space talking about how much he knows?

[bousozoku]

Isn't "Macs" correct for plural? "Mac's" would mean possessive: "The Mac's interface" as opposed to "All the Macs in the world." :confused:

In general terms, both are considered correct but "Macs" would be considered to be more in favour right now. It's something similar to using handfulls or handsfull--it mostly depends on when you learnt English.

[PCMacUser]

I don't think there's much to complain about with this article. I actually agree with a lot of it...

[cwtnospam]

I don't think there's much to complain about with this article. I actually agree with a lot of it...
So you agree with repeating an unfounded myth? Even a cursory glance at the statistics show that it isn't possible for the Mac to have zero viruses based on security by obscurity. For security by obscurity to be even close to reality, the Mac OS would have to have between 2% and 16% of the number of Windoze viruses. That means that at least 2,000 viruses and as many as 32,000! Where are they?

This article is just another example of the "Big Lie" theory: tell a lie often enough, and people will begin to believe it.

[dubbz]

And why do you think the Monad shell won't be in Vista? Don't you think it would have been left in if it hadn't turned out to be so vulnerable? Now it's just another feature that's been removed.

Maybe, maybe not. It was never certain whether or not it whould be included in Vista, even before the virus appeared. They've said they want it to exceed the various UNIX and Linux shells, so it could be that they just need more time to make that true (virus or no virus).

And the point, kind of, is that the virus was targeted at Monad, not Vista. Monad is not Vista exclusive. It can be run in XP too and, likely, anything that you can install .NET 2.0 on.

[PCMacUser]

So you agree with repeating an unfounded myth? Even a cursory glance at the statistics show that it isn't possible for the Mac to have zero viruses based on security by obscurity. For security by obscurity to be even close to reality, the Mac OS would have to have between 2% and 16% of the number of Windoze viruses. That means that at least 2,000 viruses and as many as 32,000! Where are they?
Thanks for your thoughts. However, I think that over analysing statistics can be misleading. The truth is that if I were writing a virus, I wouldn't be interested in writing one that only 4%-5% of computer users might catch, and I'm sure that 99.99% of actual virus writers feel that way too. It leads one to ask the question "why do virus writers write viruses?"

[AlmostThere]

For security by obscurity to be even close to reality, the Mac OS would have to have between 2% and 16% of the number of Windoze viruses.

No it wouldn't.

Security by obscurity*, in the context you are using it, only means that that less popular platforms are less likely to be attacked. It says nothing about the nature of that relationship. You simply assume it is linear in relation to population size. It is quite possible that the relationship requires a certain platform to reach some critical level, either of population (e.g. total number of computers), population density (e.g. network of N computers), population location (e.g. significant corporate adoption) or any number of other factors before vulnerabilities become worth the energy to exploit.

*security by obscurity is normally used in terms disclosing known vulnerabilities.