"Expert" gives view on why Macs aren't commonly adopted by Universities

[voicegy]

The Chronicle of Higher Education, the weekly newspaper of academe, had a "colloquy," a semi-live chat in which an expert answered questions, most of which are submitted in advance, about a particular topic. Last week the topic was "The High Cost of Computer Worms."

One of the questions asked in the forum was: (by Lisa Spangenberg)

"Given that there are no viruses or Trojan horses for the current Macintosh system, OS X 10.3, and given that it is essentially UNIX, and given that the most common applications (Microsoft Office Suite, Adobe applications) work very well on OS X, why don't more institutions adopt Macs and encourage faculty to use them?"

Click here and scroll down to Lisa's question for the ignorant and surprising response:

http://chronicle.com/colloquylive/2004/03/worm/

[Darwin]

Well i guess if the viruses did come to us the Mac OS would handle it a lot better then Windows, as for the cost i guess they prefer to get cheap boxes and then pay a lotta money when ever a virus or trojan comes out

Also i like this:

"it's becoming harder and harder (and hence more and more expensive) to find qualified Mac technicians and support staff"

I wonder why :D

[superfunkomatic]

these types of articles are interesting. people are obviously misinformed. i think mac users should get past the zeal of promotion, and sometimes just sit back and revel in the sheer simplicity and reliability of our machines.

each time a new virus, or security breach happens on windows i can keep cruising along working uninterrupted without updating software, without having patches break my server software, etc.

winning is knowing you're right. best of luck to windows users, there's always another patch just around the corner.

[jeremy.king]

This guy has M$ so far up his tail, he can't see through the "windows" :D

Read his response re: open source such as Red Hat and Open Office...F'in hilarious.

What really troubles me is the position this guy is in, and he has no idea what kind of network montoring is in place.

I wish the person who asked the Mac question would have asked "Name One" following his response. Or better ask him why most corporations us UNIX based systems (BSD, Solaris, AIX, etc...) for mission-critical applications. Stability comes to mind.

[bousozoku]

It's not unusual for the executives to have no clue as to what's really happening. They often read too much about the state of things and expound about them in meetings with no real understanding. I've been in meetings where there were buzzword contests, which served no useful purpose. :(

[7on]

I'm kinda wishing someone would release a virus for OS X. I think someone should put a reward for making an OSX virus.

[Krizoitz]

"it's becoming harder and harder (and hence more and more expensive) to find qualified Mac technicians and support staff"

Right here! Pick me! I'll do it!

[Counterfit]

Wow. Talk about uninformed. Those security releases were for potential security risks in specific applications and such. There are few, if any at all, recorded attempts at exploiting them, unless it was for testing it. And considering a successful attack on a broadly spread UNIX vulnerability would actually cause more problems than a similar one on Windows, you know, with UNIX being the backbone of the internet and all...

[Krizoitz]

I love how he uses the logic that if apple is releasing security patches there must be viruses, trojan horses, etc. Thats like saying if I change my locks it means I must have gotten robbed. Bad logic, and from an educator no less. So sad.

[coopdog]

Maybe virus makers don't make viruses for OS X becacause Apple isn't a greedy and doesn't have the ruthless bisness ethic Microsoft does. Most importantly why would virus makers make a virus to attack the OS that use, (OS X, UNIX, LINUX.) I doubt many major virus makers use PC's to make them, just for testing. :)

I wonder if Apple and UNIX programers ever try to make their own viruses? I have heard from a few people that a UNIX virus can't be made. How can this be true?

[7on]

My school has lots of Macs. Granted the dorm labs have iMacs from 99 and the "Multimedia Lab" is full of dual 450s. They all at least run 10.2 and the Adobe stuff before CS. They recently got a 12" for the presentation computer and back before Xmas break they got a G5 for the library. I haven't checked that out yet though... prolly because I'm an art major ;P no need for libraries man ;D

[Flowbee]

I'm kinda wishing someone would release a virus for OS X. I think someone should put a reward for making an OSX virus.

The world is full of Mac haters. Rabid, fanatical Mac haters. It's very hard for me to believe that nobody in the hacking community has tried to create and release a virus for OS X. Imaging the badge of honor that would go along with it, even if it just affected a handful of Macs.

If OS X is as vulnerable as Windows, where are they?

[question fear]

The world is full of Mac haters. Rabid, fanatical Mac haters. It's very hard for me to believe that nobody in the hacking community has tried to create and release a virus for OS X. Imaging the badge of honor that would go along with it, even if it just affected a handful of Macs.

If OS X is as vulnerable as Windows, where are they?

secretly they all have g5s at home they dont want to risk :p

[bousozoku]

Maybe virus makers don't make viruses for OS X becacause Apple isn't a greedy and doesn't have the ruthless bisness ethic Microsoft does. Most importantly why would virus makers make a virus to attack the OS that use, (OS X, UNIX, LINUX.) I doubt many major virus makers use PC's to make them, just for testing. :)

I wonder if Apple and UNIX programers ever try to make their own viruses? I have heard from a few people that a UNIX virus can't be made. How can this be true?

I'm not sure why anyone would say that a virus can't be made, on any platform. That is utter nonsense. I could do it. Why would I want to do that? There's no good reason. I've been the security person at most places where I've worked. I don't care to cause problems.

[Macmaniac]

"it's becoming harder and harder (and hence more and more expensive) to find qualified Mac technicians and support staff"
That is a lot of BS, in any major town or city you can find a Mac technician, usually one who is reasonably priced. Yes you can find hundreds of PC techs who work on hundreds of different brands, but most of the time if they are cheap they are usually not that good, and the advantage with a Mac tech is that they only have one brand to deal with. A Mac tech will probably be able to recognize the problem quickly and fix it the first time, unlike a mass store like CompUSA(no offense) which charges you $50 just to look at the machine and that is before they charge you another $200 for actually doing work.

[mklos]

"it's becoming harder and harder (and hence more and more expensive) to find qualified Mac technicians and support staff"

I guess he's not looking very hard then! I've been looking for a technician position for about a year now while I work this little part time job and I can't seem to find anything without needed to have 4 to 5 years of experience.

As to him saying Macs are more expensive, well they are but they will pay for them selves in the long run. You don't need as many technicians like you do with PCs. That being said you save at least $30,000 to $40,000 per technician per year. So him saying Macs are more expensive is a bunch of BS. Obviously he doesn't know ***** about them. I see his is the VP of a University well then shame on him for not keeping up to date on technology. Maybe its not his job to keep up with the technology but he should keep his damn mouth shut if he doesn't know what he's talking about.

[bousozoku]

...A Mac tech will probably be able to recognize the problem quickly and fix it the first time, unlike a mass store like CompUSA(no offense) which charges you $50 just to look at the machine and that is before they charge you another $200 for actually doing work.

CompUSA in this area uses certified Apple technicians to do their work.

[dylanwoo]

gjackson@uchicago.edu*

:mad:

[blue&whiteman]

usually people that hate macs are people that hate creativity and style also. geeks with pocket protectors that like to use dos prompts and edit the windoze registry. to me windows computing is like using a mac os with all the parts that are worth anything taken out since microsoft try so hard to copy it.

[voicegy]

gjackson@uchicago.edu*

:mad:

Well done. :p

Now, now folks...no "flaming" the mad professor...just mention a little thing like "TCO" (Total Cost of Ownership) which people often miss when pricing out a computer. Pay a few bucks more for a Mac, save that much and more over the life of the machine, as in not having to update it every month with a dozen patches, for one thing.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...those in the IT profession adore Windows machines overall simply because it translates into job security.

[Les Kern]

The statement regarding "Mac tech are hard to find" is a blantant lie. I hire them myself, and in my little town there are DOZENS that applied for a recent position. Guess what? I hired a PC-centric person NOT becasue I'll ever get serious about replacing anything. Rather I wanted a new set of talents. And guess what? She learned all about Macs in a month, and is almost Apple certified. I am also good friends with tech directors all around this country, and let me tell you, there is no shortage. So I have to ask myself the question "Why did he say that?". I'll tell you why: He's full of himself, and has bought into the idea of a "meme", or a "mind virus".
As for the Mac Trojan or Worm actually existing, another lie. He says that they are not a target becasue there arent as many users (true) THEN says there are indeed worms and such. So why are there worms and trojans when you just said there's no interest in the target? Were they developed and shelved, waiting for the right time? Again, he's full of ****.
They are indded more expensive at first glance, until you compare features. And NO mention of TOC. I have one tech taking care of almost 700 Macs. Do that in the WinWorld!
He also assumes Apple will make you pay for security updates. How stupid. Yes, paying for 10.3.3 is kind of dumb, but minor, in-cycle updates will always be free.
Oh, and it has been surmised that the ACTUAL Mac installed base is anywhere from 15 to 23% of the US of A. No kidding.
Bottom line? He loves the sound of his voice, sounds smart, and folks fall in behind him. Much like Bill O'Reilly and other assorted ClearChannel mouthpieces.
The real fact is he's just another idiot in a complicated world. Put me in the same room with this guy and I'll rip him another butt-hole.

[themadchemist]

I love how he uses the logic that if apple is releasing security patches there must be viruses, trojan horses, etc. Thats like saying if I change my locks it means I must have gotten robbed. Bad logic, and from an educator no less. So sad.

From an educator no less? I'd say, from an educator and no more...This person's profession precedes his incompetence and it is in the field of education that I am least surprised to find logical fallacies, misinformation, and simple foolishness.

[blue&whiteman]

where would one go within canada to become apple certified? I have a friend who I helped switch almost 2 years ago and they are into the idea.

[Panopticon]

where would one go within canada to become apple certified? I have a friend who I helped switch almost 2 years ago and they are into the idea.

They hold courses in Markham, Ontario and Vancouver, BC. You can go to http://www.apple.com/ca/training/ to find out more.

There's where your friend would go. Check out the prices for some of those courses! I wish I could take all of them however. Need to win the Super 7.

:-)

Hope that helps.

[jsw]

The world is full of Mac haters. Rabid, fanatical Mac haters. It's very hard for me to believe that nobody in the hacking community has tried to create and release a virus for OS X. Imaging the badge of honor that would go along with it, even if it just affected a handful of Macs.

If OS X is as vulnerable as Windows, where are they?

Good point. You'd think at least one of the little script kiddies would get the urge to bring down the Mac.

The problem is, without VB, they're screwed. Theyd have to learn something else, like the <sarcasm>incredibly complex</sarcasm> AppleScript. And there isn't a good chance they Mac they land on will be using an MS mail program, so again they're screwed - and if it does use one, it's likely Entourage, which works a bit differently than Outlook. So they'd need to think a bit differently. Not a script kiddie trait, that.

So, yeah, it's easy to write an app that, if run, could crash a Mac. Real easy (I mean, just execute a Terminal script). But it's a lot harder to write one that'll go crash other Macs. It requires at least some thought. And Mac users don't normally click on executables anyway - we're used to them being for PCs.

[caveman_uk]

Whilst quite a lot of what this guy said is either wrong or misinformed, I do think he has a point about if macs were more common there'd be more mac viruses.

If you think about it. You create an email virus and release it. Now approximately 95% of people who receive the virus will be running windows. Despite what they've been told time and time again most of them will open any attachment they get. In their address books they will have friends, 95% of whom will run windows...see a pattern. It's easier to spread a windows virus. There's more of them.

Try the same thing with mac users. You email a virus to a mac user. (Being optimistic) 10% of his friends (more like 3%) also own a mac so they get the virus. Every mac user may infect another 2 or 3 macs if you're lucky. With a windows virus each user can infect tens of other windows machines. There just isn't the density of macs to make it worth writing a virus.

Personally I don't believe macs are vastly more secure than windows machines. We're just lucky there aren't many of us. Most of the Apple security patches seem to be for buffer overflows in unix services. Most windows virus also target buffer overflows. At the moment most unix exploits happen to be local exploits. To try and pretend that OS X has no vulnerabilities that could be exploited remotely is probably misguided.

[FuzzyBallz]

"Given that there are no viruses or Trojan horses for the current Macintosh system..."

LOL, this one gets me every time. If there're no viruses for the Mac OS, why do Mac fanatics buy antivirus software? Hmmm....

[Krizoitz]

LOL, this one gets me every time. If there're no viruses for the Mac OS, why do Mac fanatics buy antivirus software? Hmmm....

To be good net citizens, most anti-virus software is pro-active meaning you want it there in case a virus does get written. In addition it can strip virii from e-mails so they don't get sent on to hapless windows users.

[loubapache]

Hey guys:

No one has commented on his other point:

"Macs themselves, with a couple of exceptions (such as iMacs and low-end iBooks), remain stubbornly more expensive than their Windows or Linux competitors."

This is, IMHO, one of the big reasons why Macs are only popular in a small fraction of the computing community.

I am waiting for the next powerbook update so I can get a 12" model. I decided also to get a 17" LCD flat so I have been looking around. Most 17" flat panels cost about $400 and above.

About four days ago, I got a promotional e-mail from Dell. For $608, here is what I got:

17" flat panel LCD (E172fpb, Dell retail $440 and it is a Samsung OEM)
Pentium 4 2.8 GHz processor
512 MB DDR @ 333MHz (two more slots open, max is 4 GB)
40 GB 7200rpm HD
DVD-ROM drive
CDRW drive (separate drive)
Free shipping

LOL, can Apple do that? Can anyone else do that?

Yes, it does come with integrated graphics (Intel Extreme graphics 2). I could have gotten the 128MB DDR ATI RADEON 9800 PRO Graphics Card with TV-Out and DVI for $140 (retails over $200) but this is my work machine and I do not need the graphics capability. Reviews have it that the new Intel Extreme graphics 2 actually performs very well due to the fast processor and fast memory.

I already hava a Maxtor 120 GB (8 MB cache) on hand for $60 after rebate (Staples) so I only ordered the 40 GB HD.

So for about $200 more than the price of a 17" LCD panel, I also get a very fast system. I wildly estimate it will run at 30 - 40x ripping mp3 in iTunes.

[OutThere]

I love how he uses the logic that if apple is releasing security patches there must be viruses, trojan horses, etc. Thats like saying if I change my locks it means I must have gotten robbed. Bad logic, and from an educator no less. So sad.

Analogies!
Here are some more:
When he says that Apple releasing security patches means that there are viruses and trojans is like saying that if I lock my window, then somebody must have come into my house though it.

Mac security holes are like an open window that leads to a pitch dark locked room, so far all the security holes for Mac OS X have been incredibly hard to exploit via an app, someone would have tried...Mac users aren't all angels...

Windows security holes are like open windows leading to a room containing a master key to the house, a blueprint of the house, safe combinations and a bag of crisps for the road...

[loubapache]

<<
To be good net citizens, most anti-virus software is pro-active meaning you want it there in case a virus does get written.
>>

Actually, no anti-virus software can protect future virus. How can a software predict what someone will write in the future? That is the reason why people update their anti-virus software on a periodic basis or when a major virus is released and anti-virus software company has written an update for it.

Mac does have virus. .mac get you a anti-virus software. If Mac does not have a virus, then Apple is making $ out of thin air by offering the anti-virus software on .mac subscription.

[FattyMembrane]

to those of you holding out: there are no (http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2003Sep/bma20030908021650.htm) viruses (http://aroundcny.com/technofile/texts/mac032603.html) for osx (http://www.masternewmedia.org/2003/10/23/100_percent_virusfree_mac_os_x_adds_more_privacy_and_security.htm).

will there be someday? it's very likely, but apple has gone to extreme measures to make osx the most secure operating system in existence (http://mi2g.com/cgi/mi2g/frameset.php?pageid=http%3A//mi2g.com/cgi/mi2g/press/311002.php). it's a tough nut to crack, and even if you can get inside, the multi-user/admin system makes it even tougher to do damage. about the worst a virus could do to your computer is delete everything from your user directory. as long as you don't go around running wAreZ as root, your system will stay intact.

as for anti-virus software; it's kind of a scam, just like disk defragmenters.

[Sparky's]

Wow, I gotta say this guy is a piece of work!!
Question from Damien Dinh, U. Kansas Med center:
****There have been quite a buzz in the intrusion detection community about network and host-based IPS solution which is intended to mitigate zero day exploits. Have you seen any implementation of such tech. in the academia community and if so, how successful (cost/benefit analysis) are they? Thanks

Gregory A. Jackson:
****Awright, you've won "stump the speaker". zero day exploits? Maybe I know this by another name...

I srolled all the way down and read several more of his"Expert" answers. I'm supprised this guy gets air time for his stupidity.


by the way what are "zero day exploits"?

[crenz]

by the way what are "zero day exploits"?

It's a term that every security expert should be familiar with. (Meaning that I don't think he is much of an expert.)

It refers to viruses/worms that exploit bugs in the operating system for which there are no patches yet. The worms on the net so far make use of security holes that have been discovered months or years ago, and for which users haven't installed patches. (Not those viruses that send themselves via e-mail, those that attack computers directly.)

[mangoduck]

i wrote. now waiting.

Mr. Jackson,

I'm commenting on an article that was posted by The Chronicle on March 17th, "The High Cost of Computer Worms" (http://chronicle.com/colloquylive/2004/03/worm/). The question and answer session contains one query that I feel was not answered well at all.

***

The question, from Lisa L. Spangenberg, UCLA:

"Given that there are no viruses or Trojan horses for the current Macintosh system, OS X 10.3, and given that it is essentially UNIX, and given that the most common applications (Microsoft Office Suite, Adobe applications) work very well on OS X, why don't more institutions adopt Macs and encourage faculty to use them?"

Your response, with my notations:

"Well, first of all, there are viruses and Trojans that afflict MacOS, witness Apple's periodic release of security fixes to counteract them."

This is simply untrue. Not to say that no malicious programs exist, in fact one must concede that someone may be writing one in a dark basement this very moment, but the fact is there have been none publicly recorded that I am aware of that afflict Mac OS X since its introduction many years ago. It's basically unheard of, which in relation to the ongoing crusades on the Windows platform, is as good as no viruses at all.

Apple's security releases are most commonly comprised of updates to underlying UNIX apps and services, such as FTP, Samba, Apache, and such, that in their previous version may have allowed unauthorized privileges to hackers or peers, or contained similar security holes. Frequently a new version is released due to general improvement and not bugs or vulnerability. Also, many of these packages are not even produced by Apple, and in some cases can be freely downloaded and installed individually. Delivering them in these updaters is really a convenience.

Changes to the core OS or critical components are typically reserved for point-point system updates (10.3.x). Some security-related bugs may be addressed with these, but I've not seen any patches to combat specific and well known worms or viruses or what have you in the change-logs.

To conclude, "update" and "security" are not synonymous with "antivirus".

"In the case of Unix, the vulnerabilities are greater -- even in the Mach kernel underlying MacOS -- [...]"

UNIX itself is not an easy blockade to overcome. It is one of the longest standing platforms - a "grandfather" of modern operating systems if you will - and has been well fortified over the years. Given the bare facts, I find it hard to believe that the majority would choose anything Microsoft over this robust character.

"But the small installed base of Macs makes them an unexciting, low-visibility target for the bad guys, and so the weaknesses don't get exploited much. [...] but once again the installed base makes for an uninteresting target. [...] If, as you suggest, suddenly Macs were much more widely used, they'd rapidly become an interesting target, and we'd see more bad-guy action."

Stating the obvious, repeatedly. Any dominating platform will be a bigger target for mischief. Joe Blow OS would get slammed if it boasted over ninety percent market-share. So, isn't this all the more reason to build networks with the underdog's technology? As hard as you may try, you cannot make the Mac platform look as unappealing as Windows in this respect.

"An interesting consequence of this would be a focus on Apple's policy for security updates, which is approximately that after a brief while you have to pay for them. But I digress."

I don't see the basis of this concern regarding security updates. After having paid good money for an operating system, it's only fair that the manufacturer deal with any and all public nuisances at their expense that may prohibit one from using said product to its full extent, within reason, or potentially in the case of virii, using it the product at all. Apple will charge for security updates not before Microsoft charges for service packs. And I too have been known to digress, but usually not in public.

"As to why we don't recommend more Macs anyway, which isn't really what you were asking but what the hey, [...]"

No, I think that has a great deal to do with it. Are you not a representative and chief information officer of the University of Chicago? It falls within this job description, I believe, to determine what information-related technologies are used or not used there. The question encompasses institutions not predominantly using the Mac platform, therefore the question encompasses you.

"[...] there are two vexing and continuing problems: it's becoming harder and harder (and hence more and more expensive) to find qualified Mac technicians and support staff, [...]"

It's becoming harder to find qualified and cheap Mac techies because they're simply not needed in quantity. Hiring a Mac support staff would likely be more cost effective in the long run because less employees would be needed. While interacting in online forums I've seen countless people say that they fix people's PCs at work, then come home to their Mac and relax. Many people welcome the plagues of the Windows world because to them it's job security. Another worm, another dollar.

"[...] and Macs themselves, with a couple of exceptions (such as iMacs and low-end iBooks), remain stubbornly more expensive than their Windows or Linux competitors."

While some models are seemingly expensive, Apple's low end pricing is increasingly competitive these days. Having purchased both PC and Mac hardware I can safely say that you get what you pay for. The age-old luxury car vs economy car analogy is a tried and true representation. Please consider also the total cost of ownership.

***

Far be it from me to tell you how to do your job, but judging by this and other responses from the session, you don't seem quite as in touch with the tech industry as you should be, particularly in the areas of Linux and open source software. This is revealed by lines like "one's kids don't want to install their cool stuff on Linux, since it won't run there...", which is worse than moot, for if it won't run on Linux how do you propose to install it to begin with. Your Apple related responses alone, whether biased or just uneducated, are not becoming of a man in such a position as yourself, Mac user or no.

With these points parried, the initial question remains: why don't more institutions adopt Macs and encourage faculty to use them?

With due respect,

[Counterfit]

Mac security holes are like an open window that leads to a pitch dark locked room, so far all the security holes for Mac OS X have been incredibly hard to exploit via an app, someone would have tried...Mac users aren't all angels...

Windows security holes are like open windows leading to a room containing a master key to the house, a blueprint of the house, safe combinations and a bag of crisps for the road... Good, but needs a slight bit of fixing. The holes in the UNIX stuff could lead to extrememely large problems if they were ever taken advantage of. Most of them ended up leaving the cracker with root access. So to clarify: UNIX/Mac holes are like an open window leading to a dark room in which the master key is hidden somewhere, but the room is on the second floor or higher. Windows holes are like an open window on the first floor, leading to a dark room and the master key is on top of a table or other piece of furniture. It's there, but you still have to look.

[Skeeball236]

del

[zamyatin]

"But the small installed base of Macs makes them an unexciting, low-visibility target for the bad guys, and so the weaknesses don't get exploited much. [...] but once again the installed base makes for an uninteresting target. [...] If, as you suggest, suddenly Macs were much more widely used, they'd rapidly become an interesting target, and we'd see more bad-guy action."

If this were true in general, then the Apache webserver would be getting hit with all the attacks among webservers, as it's got between 66% and 70% marketshare. However, every webserver attack that I have ever heard of (not DDoS attacks, of course) that has sought to exploit the vulnerability of the server software, has been launched agains Microsoft's IIS, holding only 20% of the market.

Marketshare may play a role, but clearly it is not the most significant determinant of what gets attacked. Poor-quality security is the greatest factor!

[ingenious]

Wow. Talk about uninformed. Those security releases were for potential security risks in specific applications and such. There are few, if any at all, recorded attempts at exploiting them, unless it was for testing it. And considering a successful attack on a broadly spread UNIX vulnerability would actually cause more problems than a similar one on Windows, you know, with UNIX being the backbone of the internet and all...
(ok try this again.... sorry if its a double post... my windoze pc all of the sudden quit IE when i mistakenly pressed some strange key comb acc... i dont think it was alt+f4 either)

:D:D:D UNIX is the backbone. UNIX has to try and clean up after all the mess windows makes....... LOL esp Windows Server 2000. Im glad for Mac OS X Server. Its so fast. Of course, I'm only speaking from a PowerSchool perspective, but its so much faster than our schools Win2k webservers which are thankfully the only two PCs in the district. BTW, they were the ones who brought down the internet at every school when they got MS Blaster two years ago (i think it was MS Blaster). LOL. I LOVE MY MAC

[ingenious]

Whilst quite a lot of what this guy said is either wrong or misinformed, I do think he has a point about if macs were more common there'd be more mac viruses.

If you think about it. You create an email virus and release it. Now approximately 95% of people who receive the virus will be running windows. Despite what they've been told time and time again most of them will open any attachment they get. In their address books they will have friends, 95% of whom will run windows...see a pattern. It's easier to spread a windows virus. There's more of them.

Try the same thing with mac users. You email a virus to a mac user. (Being optimistic) 10% of his friends (more like 3%) also own a mac so they get the virus. Every mac user may infect another 2 or 3 macs if you're lucky. With a windows virus each user can infect tens of other windows machines. There just isn't the density of macs to make it worth writing a virus.

Personally I don't believe macs are vastly more secure than windows machines. We're just lucky there aren't many of us. Most of the Apple security patches seem to be for buffer overflows in unix services. Most windows virus also target buffer overflows. At the moment most unix exploits happen to be local exploits. To try and pretend that OS X has no vulnerabilities that could be exploited remotely is probably misguided.

i agree that Mac OS X has vulnerabilities- every OS does. But if you would do you homework, you would find that it is SO VERY DIFFICULT to write an OS X virus that most writers can't. thats y there really arent any to speak of. Thanks to apples coding, its next to impossible w/o lots of user input to send an email virus using Mail.app as well. think before you post!

[voicegy]

I'm heartened to see the interest that this post has generated.

I've also thought that there is yet another reason why Macs aren't the target of attacks, besides the oft' quoted "market share" explanation - I truly believe that there is some sort of unspoken "code of honor" amongst those who create destructive viruses to basically leave Mac operating systems alone out of some kind of respect for the platform.

Completely improvable, of course - and maybe it just has to do with simple hatred of all things Microsoft and the lure of notoriously achieved "fame." But I can't help somehow to entertain the idea....

[Frohickey]

Hmm...

Gregory A Jackson's answer to Lisa is the 'correct' answer. If he was being interviewed by a potential employer, or his boss was asking him what he is up to and why.

However, here is Gregory A Jackson's answer to Lisa's question if he was being questioned by Wonder Woman and she's got her magic lasso around him.

Gregory A Jackson
Well, first of all, I'm being paid at least 6 figures by the University. If you look at other executives being paid 6 figures in the UC system, you will notice that each has at least 150 to 350 subordinates reporting to him. If the University were to change to using Macintosh computers, I would not need as many people working under me, and that would make my job status less secure.
You see, I married this gorgeous 30 year old blonde bombshell, and I admit that she married me for my money. Its already getting harder and harder to keep up with her, and if I lose my job, or get a cut in pay, baby would have to do without her nice clothes and shoes. She might even leave me for some other executive.
As to why we don't recommend more Macs anyway, which isn't really what you were asking but what the hey, there are two vexing and continuing problems: I need to keep my job at the salary its at, and the best way to do that is to keep supporting a computing platform that requires a lot of technical support help, and since your parents are willing to pay up the wazzoo for your education, and there is no shortage of that money or else enrollments would be down, and they are not, we are going to keep recommending Windows computers.

:D :D :p

[beatle888]

The Chronicle of Higher Education, ...........etc.



Click here and scroll down to Lisa's question for the ignorant and surprising response:


i read the response but couldnt find anything that would be considered and ignorant and surprising response....what part wasnt accurate? let me just say that i am not a windows user but still...i thought (keep in mind im not a genius on mac security issues) it made sense.

[jade]

Personally I don't believe macs are vastly more secure than windows machines. We're just lucky there aren't many of us. Most of the Apple security patches seem to be for buffer overflows in unix services. Most windows virus also target buffer overflows. At the moment most unix exploits happen to be local exploits. To try and pretend that OS X has no vulnerabilities that could be exploited remotely is probably misguided.

1. Viruses: apple tells it sales people to push the .mac antivirus...to protect their windows using friends from viruses...because a mac user can be a carrier. But there are no viruses for OS X.

2. Security: there is one huge difference in security between macs and pcs. On os x you need an admin password to install software, on windows you don't. Therefore most mac users will not unwilling install a program....no admin no access. All that spyware and stuff in windows installs itsself without you knowing.

[Krizoitz]

i read the response but couldnt find anything that would be considered and ignorant and surprising response....what part wasnt accurate? let me just say that i am not a windows user but still...i thought (keep in mind im not a genius on mac security issues) it made sense.

In order to explain it I'll reference the comments the author made.

Well, first of all, there are viruses and Trojans that afflict MacOS, witness Apple's periodic release of security fixes to counteract them.

This (http://www.macobserver.com/editorial/2003/08/29.1.shtml) is a great source, but it boils down to this. The number of Mac OS X viruses is zero. Thats right ZERO. NONE. NIL. ZILCH. NADA. They don't exist.

The second part of his argument is even faultier. The existence of security patches means that Apple is patching security holes, not stopping existing viruses. Now its possible that those holes COULD be used to create viruses and that is exactly why Apple releases security updates. Basically he is lambasting Apple for doing the right thing, making sure that Mac OS X stays secure.

But the small installed base of Macs makes them an unexciting, low-visibility target for the bad guys, and so the weaknesses don't get exploited much.
This is an oft repeated argument that is blatently false. Virus writers, like hackers, love a challange. They also love notariety within their community. Its no secret that Mac OS X is viruses-less so far. Can you imagine the noteriety the first virus writer for OS X would gain after all that trumpeting of how safe Mac OS X is from viruses?


In the case of Unix, the vulnerabilities are greater -- even in the Mach kernel underlying MacOS -- but once again the installed base makes for an uninteresting target. If, as you suggest, suddenly Macs were much more widely used, they'd rapidly become an interesting target, and we'd see more bad-guy action. An interesting consequence of this would be a focus on Apple's policy for security updates, which is approximately that after a brief while you have to pay for them. But I digress.

wait UNIX is MORE vulnerable? UNIX is designed from the ground up to be a multi-user networked and secure system. Permisions were part of UNIX from the beggining. The idea of an administrator and limited abilities without a password were from UNIX in the first place. Microsoft on the other hand made multi-user capabilities of Windows as a taked on after though. It's like taking a car and trying to turn it into a plane. You are going to have to do a lot of changing to get it to fly and in the end its not going to be as good as a plane in the first place.

As to why we don't recommend more Macs anyway, which isn't really what you were asking but what the hey, there are two vexing and continuing problems: it's becoming harder and harder (and hence more and more expensive) to find qualified Mac technicians and support staff
Countless studies have shown that Macs require much less in terms of support staff. In addition the idea that mac techs are hard to find is laughable, especially with no evidence to back it up. He uses a comon technique among intellectuals. He states the answer so confidentally and people expect him to know computer information so they assume when he says something its true, even with NO evidence to back it up.

and Macs themselves, with a couple of exceptions (such as iMacs and low-end iBooks), remain stubbornly more expensive than their Windows or Linux competitors.
feature for feature a Mac is comparable or even cheaper than a PC. Admittedly you can find cheap PCs but that doens't mean they are worth it. You get what you pay for. Apple doesn't make super low end PCs, it makes quality computers at competive prices, as long as you compare features.

This guy is clueless and just wants to justify his own prejudice.

[MisterMe]

In order to explain it I'll reference the comments the author made.

....

This guy is clueless and just wants to justify his own prejudice.I agree with most of what you say, but these guys are neither clueless or prejudiced. They are looking out for No. 1. These IT people understand all too well that the Mac's ease of administration obsoletes most of their skills. I was once associated with a university that had standardized on the Mac. Although the school was primarily Mac, it deployed a goodly number of Wintel machines and a host of workstations--mostly Suns--and even a number of pieces of big iron including a Cray and a top-of-the-line IBM mainframe. I had this Windows-loving friend who loved to bash Macs. A student member of the IT staff informed my friend that his office received nine service calls for Wintel for every one call that it received for Macs. My friend promptly shut up.

[loubapache]

2. Security: there is one huge difference in security between macs and pcs. On os x you need an admin password to install software, on windows you don't. Therefore most mac users will not unwilling install a program....no admin no access. All that spyware and stuff in windows installs itsself without you knowing.

Actually, on all the "professional" multi-user Wndows OS (W2K Prof, Win XP prof, etc.), you need an admin password to install software, or you need to have admin rights. There is really no difference on this issue between OS X and Windows Prof.

The problem is that many Windows users use their admin account for everyday work. What they really should do is to create a regular or power user account for everyday work.

[ingenious]

Actually, on all the "professional" multi-user Wndows OS (W2K Prof, Win XP prof, etc.), you need an admin password to install software, or you need to have admin rights. There is really no difference on this issue between OS X and Windows Prof.

The problem is that many Windows users use their admin account for everyday work. What they really should do is to create a regular or power user account for everyday work.


thats not completely true. you dont have to have a password for everything. it just depends on the program. OS X and Win XP Home/Pro are much diff in their security settings. OS X asks you for your pass if it thinks the action will make the computer less secure, but XP just goes along for the ride. And yes, I use XP Pro at home and OS X 10.3.3 at school and home, but i am trying desperately to ditch this horrid AMD Duron! (altho its better than intel, its slowly dying and ive only had it since Oct 2002)

[loubapache]

thats not completely true. you dont have to have a password for everything. it just depends on the program. OS X and Win XP Home/Pro are much diff in their security settings. OS X asks you for your pass if it thinks the action will make the computer less secure, but XP just goes along for the ride.

Well, the security in XP Pro is CONFIGURABLE. There are three options:

1) No password needed (that is probably what you got. This is the least secure).

2) Password only. The user ID is. by defailt, automatically entered by XP Pro.

3) Both User ID and password are needed.

[jade]

Actually, on all the "professional" multi-user Wndows OS (W2K Prof, Win XP prof, etc.), you need an admin password to install software, or you need to have admin rights. There is really no difference on this issue between OS X and Windows Prof.

The problem is that many Windows users use their admin account for everyday work. What they really should do is to create a regular or power user account for everyday work.

In OS X you need admin rights and the password. On my win xp pro box, we are all admins, same with my ibook. But if I install something on my ibook, even logged in as the admin I need to type my password in as well......this is not the case in windows. If you are logged in as an admin the program will be installed without a password. Big difference.

[loubapache]

On my win xp pro box, we are all admins.

That is the source of security problem. You go ask any UNIX admin to see if they logon as root all day. No they do not. They only logon as root to make system changes.

Windows users need the same discipline. As I said in an earlier post, one needs to create a regular user account for everyday tasks.

This is not the fault of the OS but the lack of safe guard of the user.

[ingenious]

Well, the security in XP Pro is CONFIGURABLE. There are three options:

1) No password needed (that is probably what you got. This is the least secure).

2) Password only. The user ID is. by defailt, automatically entered by XP Pro.

3) Both User ID and password are needed.
thanks for pointing that out. i had no idea.

[sonyrules]

1. Viruses: apple tells it sales people to push the .mac antivirus...to protect their windows using friends from viruses...because a mac user can be a carrier. But there are no viruses for OS X.

2. Security: there is one huge difference in security between macs and pcs. On os x you need an admin password to install software, on windows you don't. Therefore most mac users will not unwilling install a program....no admin no access. All that spyware and stuff in windows installs itsself without you knowing.

Your security quote is the key. We know what getting installed in our computer at any giving time. Spyware and adware has come to be a big problem in the windows world. And that stuff wouldnt exeist if microsoft took a look at there OS security. Another reason why OS X is more reliable, you KNOW at ANY GIVIN TIME, whats getting installed

[sonyrules]

Actually, on all the "professional" multi-user Wndows OS (W2K Prof, Win XP prof, etc.), you need an admin password to install software, or you need to have admin rights. There is really no difference on this issue between OS X and Windows Prof.

The problem is that many Windows users use their admin account for everyday work. What they really should do is to create a regular or power user account for everyday work.

That is incorrect. I work with over 500 Pc using Windows 2000, and all users authenticate on a USER level, not administration level. And yet, Programs still get installed with out permissions. Most of them ADWARE. And there is nothing in System Policys to go against it

[qpsk]

Cost? Conformity?

Just a couple shots in the dark...

[Zerotude]

Obviously this guy has no clue about what's going on in his own department, let alone what might be happening in the wonderful world of computing.
I work for a school district with an installed user base of nearly %80 apple computers and we have no "official" support for the software and only some support for the hardware. Yet the machines continute to operate well for their users, for the most part. If this isn't a shinning example of TCO and ROI, I don't know what is....
As for viri, all the above reasons for us Mac-Users not getting them are valid, and I'm glad the script-children don't know more about the Mac, or aren't malicious enough to come after us. Lets count our blessings here.
I know when we were having DNS problems here, my little iMac kept right on working when the Wintels were left in the dust. Make mine Macintosh.
Z