OS X virus misconception.

[tevion5]

Try to read up about mac viruses on the internet. You will find a billion articles smugly proclaiming OSX not to be free of viruses.

While Trojans like MacKeeper do exists and I've experienced them first hand, there must be something like 5 ever made for OSX. That's being generous. In 13 years that's the entire scope of OSX "viruses".

All these articles mention these cases in passing and then proudly declare OSX to be in the same league as windows XP for viruses vulnerability. Not one article mentions, even slightly, the sparsity of such Trojans and that recent versions of OSX even have features to repel them.

The minority argument is touted around constantly as well, but makes no sense when there were far more viruses for OS9. Come on. The logic just does not support the argument here.

Now, I use both macs and pc's daily, and I obviously like Apple products. The good ones, not the hockey puck mice, MobileMe and similar trash. I actually enjoy using windows 7, and with proper use it's actually mostly a solid OS in general.

OSX is definitely not flawless, (I mean, did you use Lion?) and of course it could never be 100% immune, but the misinformation here is that OSX and Windows are on par for virus vulnerability. That's is an enormous lie. The proof just isn't there.

It just bugs me that tons of bloggers and journalists think they are so clever for proving apple wrong, without understanding the foundations of the argument they themselves support.

I mean, Linux, Android, iOS and OSX are all unix based and are therefore inherently more secure than windows could ever be. None are impervious, but windows has thousands of real world viruses that really do harm.

Am I right to be bugged by this? I'm not trying to be an apple evangelist here, but when something so obviously false it touted as fact, it really gets to me. If someone said macs are just as good as pc's for gaming I'd be similarly annoyed because that's a massive lie. Ignorance is one thing, but these are supposedly tech journalists.

 

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

While Trojans like MacKeeper do exists and I've experienced them first hand, there must be something like 5 ever made for OSX. That's being generous. In 13 years that's the entire scope of OSX "viruses".

The current scope is 0 viruses in the wild.

 

[tevion5]

The current scope is 0 viruses in the wild.

Exactly, I said 5 was generous.

 

[waynep]

While you all talk about zero viruses, there is still OSX malware out there that people need to be aware of and know how to avoid. This constant "There are no viruses" mantra is misleading. While technically correct due to different classifications of bad things, viruses, adware, malware yada yada . . most people don't understand the differences nor the classification terms. Regardless of what it's called, there are bad things out there that will screw up people OSX systems.

 

[tmanok]

I must agree it is a lie. Although many Apple supporters believe there aren't any viruses at all, I know first hand that they are. I have had from a G5 to the new 27" iMac with many many many OSX systems and only the ones that are considered old as of today I find are virus susceptible, E.G. OSX 10.6 .... I also agree that nearly every virus a Macintosh can receive is a Trojan. E.G. Genio, MacKeeper, CoinThief etc... I must admit that I'm an open OS guy, I.E. I accept windows mac and linux, and I've never encountered any of the problems that I've faced with windows on a Mac or a Linux. Speaking of Windows, Windows 8 and 8.1 are the most complete Garbage in comparison to any other computer I have ever faced. I understand how to navigate, instal software and maintain the computer and yet still not virus proof or at all fast. Back to the topic, I believe jealousy, stubbornness and uncertainty causes criticism and fake accusations. - Tmanok.

 

[tevion5]

While you all talk about zero viruses, there is still OSX malware out there that people need to be aware of and know how to avoid. This constant "There are no viruses" mantra is misleading. While technically correct due to different classifications of bad things, viruses, adware, malware yada yada . . most people don't understand the differences nor the classification terms. Regardless of what it's called, there are bad things out there that will screw up people OSX systems.

Absolutely agree there is malware for OSX and there are problems with the OS's security. But comparing it to the scale of Windows vulnerabilities is massively disingenuous.

 

[Tyler23]

Absolutely agree there is malware for OSX and there are problems with the OS's security. But comparing it to the scale of Windows vulnerabilities is massively disingenuous.

To me, I the misconception I see here is calling Malware a "Virus." There are no viruses currently for OS X, there ARE Malware/trojan risks, but those are avoided by smart practices of not installing programs you are not familiar with.

 

[MacDawg]

I also agree that nearly every virus a Macintosh can receive is a Trojan.

I stopped reading here...

 

[Alrescha]

While technically correct due to different classifications of bad things, viruses, adware, malware yada yada . . most people don't understand the differences nor the classification terms.

It is no more useful to call all bad software 'viruses' than it is to call all things that live in the ocean 'fish' (1). Viruses are not trojans, or adware, or whatever. The fact that there are no viruses for OS X is significant, and deserves to be talked about.

Yes, there exists bad software for OS X. Unlike viruses, you generally have to *install* it.

A.

(1) People who care about the details are why we have nice things.

 

[tevion5]

I think the major issue is that the security of OSX in terms of the lack of real "viruses" is not talked about enough.

It's unix and BSD in the tightest package available. (Excluding iOS)

The Windows architecture (Is it .NET?) is just not that secure and never can be until Microsoft switch like Apple did with OSX. I believe windows 8.1 is still I direct descendant of Windows 3.1 and that heritage.

OSX 10.0 and OS9 9.2.2 are light years apart by comparison.

 

[oldhifi]

This is like the oil question on auto forums..

 

[deluxeshredder]

I think the major issue is that the security of OSX in terms of the lack of real "viruses" is not talked about enough.

It's unix and BSD in the tightest package available. (Excluding iOS)

iOS is just very well locked down, and OS X is not that popular (it is explicitly marketed as a "high-end" alternative to Wintel).

The Windows architecture (Is it .NET?)

It is NT.

is just not that secure and never can be until Microsoft switch like Apple did with OSX.

It is pretty secure since Vista, and it it also a very attractive target - not locked down and still very widespread.

The NT foundation was designed as a competitor to Unix-like stuff and it is solid enough.

I believe windows 8.1 is still I direct descendant of Windows 3.1 and that heritage.

OSX 10.0 and OS 9.2.2 are light years apart by comparison.

It would be something of a strectch to call 8.1 a "direct" descendant of 3.1. There was never a full 9-to-X-style reboot and 9x and NT series had a pretty high degree of binary compatibitity despite being very architecturally distinct.

 

[tevion5]

iOS is just very well locked down, and OS X is not that popular (it is explicitly marketed as a "high-end" alternative to Wintel).


It is NT.


It is pretty secure since Vista, and it it also a very attractive target - not locked down and still very widespread.

The NT foundation was designed as a competitor to Unix-like stuff and it is solid enough.


It would be something of a strectch to call 8.1 a "direct" descendant of 3.1. There was never a full 9-to-X-style reboot and 9x and NT series had a pretty high degree of binary compatibitity despite being very architecturally distinct.

Thanks for sharing, I was not fully informed on the differences

I think the fact that there were more OS9 viruses than OSX viruses does denounces the low market share argument though.