PDA

View Full Version : Reduce OS X security threats - ignore security software


MacBytes
May 5, 2006, 11:04 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: Reduce OS X security threats - ignore security software (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20060506000416)
Description:: It may be true, as McAfee says, that from 2003 to 2005 the number of discovered Mac vulnerabilities increased by 228 percent while Windows only saw a 73 percent increase. But that's like saying that in the last decade, deaths caused by choking on ice cream were up by 200 percent while deaths from smoking only went up by ten.

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

grapes911
May 5, 2006, 11:07 PM
Another deserving article.

http://grapes911.com/pics/antifud.jpg

DMann
May 5, 2006, 11:08 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: Reduce OS X security threats - ignore security software (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20060506000416)
Description:: It may be true, as McAfee says, that from 2003 to 2005 the number of discovered Mac vulnerabilities increased by 228 percent while Windows only saw a 73 percent increase. But that's like saying that in the last decade, deaths caused by choking on ice cream were up by 200 percent while deaths from smoking only went up by ten.

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

The micro kernel and unix-permissions make it really hard for
viruses to thrive.

daneosaur
May 5, 2006, 11:27 PM
I can't believe that they would make up total b.s. about intel macs being more vulnerable. How is it even slightly possible that processor architecture has any difference in this situation!?

greatdevourer
May 6, 2006, 12:58 AM
I can't believe that they would make up total b.s. about intel macs being more vulnerable. How is it even slightly possible that processor architecture has any difference in this situation!? A lot. x86/x64 only recently got a security technology that the 68k had! (the ability to determine whether something in RAM is data or code). The arch matters a lot, especially when moving to something that's been lagging securitywise for a long time

bousozoku
May 6, 2006, 02:03 AM
It's interesting to me that the Australian authors for ZDNet publish what seem to be anti-Mac security articles and the UK authors seem a bit more even in their sentiment.

Either way, there are exploits and we must be careful but buying software to combat something that almost doesn't exist or doesn't actually exist makes no sense.

Where was McAfee when there were customers who wanted to upgrade from Virex version 6 to Virex version 7? They didn't want to sell anything. Now, they go to the opposite end by trying to scare people into buying from them.

Heb1228
May 6, 2006, 02:10 AM
Someone makes security software for OS X? :eek:

auyongtc
May 6, 2006, 02:25 AM
Someone makes security software for OS X? :eek:

Yeah, they'll go bankrupt before they even get near 10% of ROI :p

Lollypop
May 6, 2006, 03:08 AM
I think this is actually a nice little acticle, but very old news. So the mac is 100% perfect security wise, we all know that, all we need is for apple to get of their butts and fix the errors and make the mac comunity aware of how to decently secure OS X.

LxMx
May 6, 2006, 03:52 AM
The micro kernel and unix-permissions make it really hard for
viruses to thrive.

I really don't see how the micro kernel would help anything. If anything, OS X is the least secure of all the *nix OSes. Ahead of Windows, no doubt, but you have to remember that OS X main weaknesses are in all the things that Apple adds on top of the kernel. The Safari "Image of doom"? A WebKit vulnerability which, even months after being revealed, still hasnt been completely fixed.

Microsoft learnt about security the hard way when it made choices that neglected security. It seems that Apple may be falling into that trap too. I have faith though...

Analog Kid
May 6, 2006, 04:22 AM
Good article. Nice to see someone finally point out the trash.

tk421
May 6, 2006, 11:15 AM
I think this is actually a nice little acticle, but very old news.

It is NOT old news. This is a rebuttal to a very recent claim by McAfee about OS X security. Look at the article's date - May 5th.

This is one of the best articles I've read on Macbytes recently. It's very intelligently put.

galstaph
May 6, 2006, 11:24 AM
McAfee just wants your money.... maybe they'll "hire" a virus designer to custom make the first osx virus... so they can conveniently provide the solution... or maybe I'm just too much of a conspiracy theorist;)

mkrishnan
May 6, 2006, 11:26 AM
This is one of the best articles I've read on Macbytes recently. It's very intelligently put.

I enjoyed it too... what I'd like to actually see (and about which I'm not completely convinced either way) is if there is any evidence at all that, even on Windows, the solutions that the anti-virus majors peddle have ever been demonstrated to be effective in primary prevention -- that is, actually stop new viruses before they become a problem. I have this suspicion that they're only really good at selling band-aids.... But I'm not totally sold on that idea.

EDIT: I'm actually rather surprised that what galstaph mentioned hasn't happened yet. At least in some legal or quasi-legal variant. I mean, if Sony got into the business of writing and distributing malware (http://www.techweb.com/wire/security/173402272).... :rolleyes:

nagromme
May 6, 2006, 04:29 PM
Great article.

"In fact, if you look down the CERT list of alerts for 2005, the only one that mentions an Apple product by name is one caused by a bug in Symantec's AntiVirus software for the Mac."

Ouch!


I have this suspicion that they're only really good at selling band-aids....
Maybe, but if I were a Windows user and got a "cut" despite my other precautions, I'd still find value in a band-aid. Prevention is best, but containment and damage control are also useful.