Ok. I read most of the first page and most of the posts immediately prior to this one. What I saw first was all the non-Zealots lording it up over the fact that the MBA was hacked first; as though it were the easiest one to hack. Keep in mind that the first person that tried
wanted the MBA for himself.
However, in reading the balance of the article itself, I saw where the independent security group that sponsored this contest noted that only 6% of all 113 vulnerabilities found since 2003 (
only 113 in 5 years!?) remained unpatched... 6% of 113 is only 6.78 vulnerabilities!
Another commenter acknowledged that Apple's low market share may truly be part of the reason that there is
no effective exploit against the Apple in the wild. He had to wonder if the 8% market share was the only reason and found it hard to believe that it was possible. I agree.
It still seems to me that certain analysts go out of their way to try to make Apple look bad. Time and again I have seen reports of a very few new vulnerabilities in the latest tests of the different Windows iterations due to certain vulnerabilities being classified as all part of one vulnerability, yet they do not do the same for Apple vulnerabilities, insisting that
each and every one is a separate and unrelated problem!
Ok, I've been an Apple user for almost 30 years. During that time, I have never, ever had my Apple infected by a virus or intentional malware, though I admit that certain badly-crafted flash advertisements have caused my CPU usage to spike on an Intel Core2Duo chip. On the other hand, discounting tracking cookies that most spyware detectors tag on anyway, I have had my Windows boxes become infected by viruses
despite active and current AV software installed and my IE browser bar hijacked several times, the worst of which was Xupiter back around '99. You tell me which machine was the more secure over all that time.
I can't explain
why Apple is more secure any more than anyone else who isn't part of the industry. All I know is that I have never had a problem with my Apple from any form of intentional malware and that, for me, it is the most secure platform on the market today.
I have to admit, it sounded odd to me too. That's why I wanted to post the link, so you'd know I didn't make it up.
Do I have to?
OK.
95% of the computers in the world run Windows.
There are over 100,000 viruses for Windows, plus untold numbers of spyware.
Mac OS + Linux has 5% of the comps in the world.
There are 0 viruses for Mac OS. I'm not sure about Linux, but I don't remember hearing of any. ( Maybe someone more knowledgeable about Linux can chime in.)
So, where do you think the computer security industry gets most of its revenue from?
There is no evidence to even suggest the contest was rigged, just as there is no denying the Mac got hacked. But it's hard to imagine them achieving a result that was more desirable.
While I won't argue the gist of your statement I do have to offer a minor correction. By several recent studies, Windows now holds less than 89% of the installed base of world computers compared to the 95% back in 2001. This means that between Apple and Linux, they hold more than 11%. Those studies suggest that Linux now holds between 2.5% to 3.0% while Apple holds over 8%. This ratio of Windows to other OSs is dropping at an ever-increasing rate, the largest shift so far appearing between Dec. 06 and Dec. 07. While I don't ever expect perfect unity between the three, I do expect reasonable parity to develop over the next 5 to 10 years.
