I agree with everything in your post except this. There is nothing in Mac OS X that prevents viruses. Mac OS X, like every other OS, is not immune to viruses. There simply aren't any in the wild.The Mac OS is built in a way that prevents this sort of thing from happening.
I agree with everything in your post except this. There is nothing in Mac OS X that prevents viruses. Mac OS X, like every other OS, is not immune to viruses. There simply aren't any in the wild.
I agree that it's more difficult, but I know you'd agree that it doesn't "prevent" viruses, since it is possible... however unlikely... that a Mac OS X virus could be released in the wild sometime in the future.Specifically, the low incidence rate of privilege escalation vulnerabilities compared to other OSs makes developing successful malware for OS X more difficult.
You can't use a combine two sets of facts to bootstrap a logical fallacy. The reason that Windows is the victim of so many exploits is that it is a softer target, period. The fact that it has a larger installed base is true, but does not correlate to its vulnerability. Even within the universe of different versions of Windows, the worst exploits do not correlate to the largest marketshare or installed base....
The relative ease to exploit Windows XP in conjunction with it's large market share are the reason that so much malware exists for Windows. The disproportionally large volume of Windows malware is a function of both being the easier target and having a greater market share.
You can't use a combine two sets of facts to bootstrap a logical fallacy. The reason that Windows is the victim of so many exploits is that it is a softer target, period. The fact that it has a larger installed base is true, but does not correlate to its vulnerability. Even within the universe of different versions of Windows, the worst exploits do not correlate to the largest marketshare or installed base.
I agree that it's more difficult, but I know you'd agree that it doesn't "prevent" viruses, since it is possible... however unlikely... that a Mac OS X virus could be released in the wild sometime in the future.
There is nothing logical about this statement. It is simply an assertion based on fallacious thinking.Logically, the amount of malware (including examples such as rogue AV software like MACDefender) for each OS should be proportional to the market share of each OS if the ease of each target is not a factor determining the development of malware.
You start with a false premise; you reach a false conclusion. Obviously, malware needs a threshold number of targets in the installed base in order to propagate. I would contend that the MacOS X installed base has been over that threshold since the 1980s. Having exceeded the threshold, the number of exploits is a function of the softness of the target....
So, how is this a logical fallacy?
There is nothing logical about this statement. It is simply an assertion based on fallacious thinking.
There is ample counter examples including the IIS and Apache examples that you posted.
If you feel the need, Sophos (there's a free home version) is as good as any.
See below.You haven't defined why that statement is illogical.
Do you have a link or some authority more substantial than this assertion?Game theory shows a certain threshold needs to be crossed before malware will begin to be produced.
That's just it. You have no evidence that MacOS X is exploitable. Therefore, you cannot make a valid statement about the importance of market share.Beyond that, the volume of malware should be proportional to the OSs market share if a)that threshold has been crossed and b) the OSs being compared are equally exploitable.
You may make any claim that you want. However, you have presented nothing to tease-out the importance of market share and exploitability of IIS and Apache.The Apache example I provided explicitly supports my statements.
...
Do you have a link or some authority more substantial than this assertion?
That's just it. You have no evidence that MacOS X is exploitable. Therefore, you cannot make a valid statement about the importance of market share.
You may make any claim that you want. However, you have presented nothing to tease-out the importance of market share and exploitability of IIS and Apache.
Takeaway message: Until you can present some verified numbers to support your assertions, you are talking through your hat.
There is nothing logical about this statement. It is simply an assertion based on fallacious thinking.
You start with a false premise; you reach a false conclusion. Obviously, malware needs a threshold number of targets in the installed base in order to propagate. I would contend that the MacOS X installed base has been over that threshold since the 1980s. Having exceeded the threshold, the number of exploits is a function of the softness of the target.
The thing that gets my goat about the marketshare argument is that it is relatively new in the history of personal computing. It was proffered in 2001-2002 during the early days of Windows XP. XP had come under a withering attack of viruses that threatened to destroy Microsoft. To a growing chorus of critics, Bill Gates claimed that Windows had more viruses because it ran on most computers on Earth.
The popular press, Windows fanboys, and the elements of the IT community accepted the Gates assertion with asking questions. Windows was not the culture medium for computer viruses, it was popular. Gates had converted a damning flaw into a badge of honor.
Gates's statement was an assertion made with absolutely no data to support it. What is more, the majority of the installed based still ran Windows 95/98 which was not vulnerable to the viruses that were bringing Windows XP to its knees. Put under a microscope, the market share argument is based on false premises and outright lies.
Not in the decade since Gates first made the statement has anyone presented a scientific case to support the contention that market share has anything at all to do with the number of viruses or other malware on a platform. "It stands to reason that ..." and "It is only logical that ..." are preambles to statements pulled out of your rear. There is ample counter examples including the IIS and Apache examples that you posted.
Do I need to be using an antivirus on my mac?
And if so, what is the best one for general use?
If a thief is given an option to either enter a room where he can potentially steal 100 wallets or enter a room where he can only steal 10; it's a no brainer that he's going to pick the 100 wallet room.
I agree with everything in your post except this. There is nothing in Mac OS X that prevents viruses. Mac OS X, like every other OS, is not immune to viruses. There simply aren't any in the wild.
Best anti-virus for the Mac is none.
While this is partially true - OS X handles processes in more secure manner than Windows - if OS X and Windows have had reversed market share, the hackers would try, and have kept trying, giving it their best, to find more ways to exploit OS X while generally ignoring Windows (even if it had fundamentally weaker "security") because Mac OS X would be "where the money is."This argument fails to include the fact that there is also a difference between the rooms in relation to the ease with which the wallets can be stolen.
No one is arguing about that. The argument centers around the primary reason why there are more malware being developed for the Windows platform. It is its marketshare and not these relatively small differences in "security."Malware developers do create malware for OS X. The recent reports concerning MACDefender, Weyland-Yutani Bot, and BlackHole RAT show that Mac malware is being developed.
I'm sorry, but I cannot disagree with you more on these last six words. We're talking about individuals who are willing to break the law to get what they want. Do you really think they would stop short at this relatively small challenge of Mac OS X being slightly "more secure" than Windows, if Mac OS X was the money pit? Fine, viruses wouldn't work well against OS X, so the hackers would simply use other ways to get what they want. Viruses are only notorious because they've been used to great effect by hackers. Remember Stuxnet a few months ago? It was a worm that caused actual physical damage - something never seen before. I think you either grossly underestimate the ability of hackers, or dramatically overestimate the thing we call "security."But, Mac malware is not as successful as Windows malware due to achieving system level access to install more covert and malicious malware, such as viruses, being more difficult in OS X. Mac OS X has not yet had a virus in the wild. Users are more safe using OS X given that the likelihood of being exploited is much lower despite any measurement of market share.
While this is partially true - OS X handles processes in more secure manner than Windows - if OS X and Windows have had reversed market share, the hackers would try, and have kept trying, giving it their best, to find more ways to exploit OS X while generally ignoring Windows (even if it had fundamentally weaker "security") because Mac OS X would be "where the money is."
Do you really ...
Takeaway message: Until you can present some verified numbers to support your assertions, you are talking through your hat.
Read post #13 for an explanation of why you shouldn't use or recommend Sophos.There's also Sophos Anti-Virus.
Even the 33 figure is misleading, as many are simply slight variations of the same threat. It looks like there's less than a dozen unique threats to OS X.
Even the 33 figure is misleading, as many are simply slight variations of the same threat. It looks like there's less than a dozen unique threats to OS X.