I've been on this planet for 36 years, and have never been in a car accident. I guess I'm safe
Or I guess you are lucky! As someone who have been driving 36 years, you are well aware that car accidents are not always due to your careless driving.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Phil Schiller Tweets Link to Mobile Malware Report That Slams Android
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Or I guess you are lucky! As someone who have been driving 36 years, you are well aware that car accidents are not always due to your careless driving.
But it's common knowledge that Apple has way more market share than either.
----------
Android have almost no limitations to their apps in google play. There must be more loop holes hackers can use.
Because malware on iOS IS NOT much of a threat. Simple fact.
But neither is the malware on Android, so I understand your point i guess...
Android has a far less restrictive environment which is both a blessing for developers but a potential curse for users encountering malware; as freejazz-man points out iOS apps have a very restricted awareness of the file-system and even files in general, which makes it hard for an app to break out of its sandbox and start tampering with files it shouldn't. But at the same time it also limits an app's ability to provide enhancements to the OS itself, install plugins into other apps and so-on.
For your average game or productivity app this is unlikely to make a difference, but it's exactly the same kind of thing that had/has people worried about the Mac App Store's own restrictions, as there are a load of things that you simply cannot do under Apple's restrictions. Just look at some of the anti-virus programs on the Mac App Store; these are limited to on-demand scans only, since it's against the Mac App Store's policy for an app to install a kernel extension or other system component required to do things like real-time virus scanning, intercepting connections and so-on.
Like I say; this doesn't affect most common applications so for normal use it provides enhanced security, but at the same time in some ways it's too restrictive. Android meanwhile has the opposite problem; some sensitive features are perhaps too easily accessed, which is great for developers but also great for malware developers as well. I wouldn't to see access to these things gone entirely, but users need to be made aware when an app is asking for permission to do something that it probably shouldn't be allowed to do.
QFT - and just to put that into perspective...
AFAIK there are millions of people out there using an exploit of iOS to run unauthorized code. This is a procedure referred to as JAILBREAKING.
Every jailbreak method confirms another exploit in iOS. But people tend to forget that and tout the security as current jailbreak methods usually require user interaction.
That's because as per the link I've posted twice now Apple last year knowingly sold apps that stole your data without the user knowing about it or having a jail broken device. Not much incentive for underground malware developers when Apple has already provided a legit business model for it!!
I just did, like three times. Do you have trouble reading? 99% of the world uses windows. When you write exploits, they don't always work, especially on modern systems. You have to chose targets that are more likely to get hit. When 99% of the world uses windows, it's a pretty easy choice.
Tell me how it's related to the OS design, please.
That was sarcasm. In response to someone saying they had never gotten malware on their android malware magnet
Well, if it hasn't happened yet, and if android is infested with malware then, ya it isn't much of a threat for ios users.
Really...you haven't backed up anything you have said yourself.
Just making the point that your statement is comparing Apples to Oranges when you say android has more market share.
There are more Toyota cars on the streets than Ferraris, does that mean Toyotas are better cars?
Which brand is better, Fiat or Ferrari?
And yet, Fiat owns Ferrari.
(Edit: As pointed out before by others, Apple isn't really the Ferrari of phones. Far from it.)
Laughing so hard right now at the ignorant idiots who keep claiming "There isn't one OS X virus right now."
Do you people understand how systems work? There are tons upon tons of viruses in existence for basically any platform you could think of. I could go and write a small virus right now and gift it you right now if I wanted too.
Viruses can be created by anyway willing to learn, and for you to say OSX is virus free is the best joke I've heard all year.
Do you people understand how systems work? There are tons upon tons of viruses in existence for basically any platform you could think of. I could go and write a small virus right now and gift it you right now if I wanted too.
Viruses can be created by anyway willing to learn, and for you to say OSX is virus free is the best joke I've heard all year.
Yup. Apple doesn't do any ads, no commercials, nothing. Just tweets from the guy in the corner office.
You seem to think that twitter takes more mental effort than breathing for some reason. It takes 5 seconds to post something, somehow I doubt Schiller considered this anything but a fun link to send around to his followers.
But whether an OS is open or closed is a fundamental part of the design so your explanation is a bit of a non sequitur.
I won't go toe-to-toe with every point you make because I agree or already understood most of what you went over, but I would point out that most of the "time-tested command line tools" in Linux and OS X are open source so you're really arguing against yourself pointing that out.
Where I disagree with you is whether or not being open contributes to software security. I think it does. One of the things I've observed over the years is that open source security issues are usually noticed and patched before it becomes a widespread problem. That's a direct result of so many eyes looking at the code and so many programmers having access to it. Noticing the security issue and patching it becomes a proactive thing, i.e., action is taken before it becomes a problem for end users.
With Windows, it seems to be more of a reactive environment. The issue gets patched after countless machines have already been compromised and it has already become an issue for end users. Because fewer eyes are seeing the code and fewer programmers can contribute a fix, the process is a lot slower and more painful.
So, maybe we're both right but looking at it from different angles. Maybe OS X and Linux are no more secure than Windows, but because there's a larger degree of openness with them, the potential for viruses is minimized because of reaction time.
Who knows? But I think it's inaccurate to say open source software is no more secure than closed. It's pretty clear that it is in most cases.
And in the case of Android versus iOS, I'd point out that Android's jaw-droppingly poor support for OS updates probably makes security issues far worse than they should be.
----------
Not to defend anyone's delusions, but when most people say "virus" they are referring to Windows-like widespread outbreaks that affect numerous machines and cause problems. In that sense, there are no OS X viruses.
Not a joke, but a question of semantics. OS X is virus free by the actual defintion of the term. However, many people use "virus" as a synonym for "malware". If that is how you want to use it, then there is indeed malware for OS X.
However, that doesn't make people ignorant for using a more strict definition of the term.
He's as nervous as the other top execs at Apple. Damage control has trumped innovation at Apple these days.
Having wasted precious time with vindictive legal assaults on Samsung & others, it's catching up to them. As a result they're looking for any weakness in the competition to attack.
What a shame. He's got much better things to do.
desperate? apple is banging all of the profit in mobile. they cant make them fast enough. if thats desperate, sign my company up....
Yeah, nothing beats the convenience of being able to run your favorite virus while on the go.
----------
Yeah, Apple is so lame. At least they should have a "Build your Own" Kit for a lower price, and be able to supply the demand!
Oh, I forgot... Apple should have a program such as "Work at Home building iPhones": Ideal for students, the elderly and single parents.
----------
True, but this malware doesn't attack a vulnerability in OS X directly.
It attacks JAVA, Flash or the user itself.
----------
Here's an Android virus:
Viruses on Apple products may be present on the outside (case, display, keyboard, mouse, etc.) of some devices owned by people who don't wash their hands after going to the bathroom.
OSX isn't linux and it sure as hell isn't open source software. The potential for viruses is mitigated by the fact that people generally don't use OSX or Linux. What would be a more direct mitigating factor? I've asked numerous people here to explain what lengths OSX goes to to prevent exploits from being written that windows doesn't...
there are two types of people in this thread, those that know what a NOP-slide is and those that think osx and iOS are more secure due to their designs.
Who says OS X is open source? I said parts of OS X are open source which, in contrast to Windows, is significant.
1999 called....
Seriously? The argument that viruses aren't an issue for Macs because nobody uses them has been debunked so completely at this point I'm surprised anyone actually mentions it anymore. There are so many arguments against it. If market share is a factor, then why did OS 9 have so many viruses? Far fewer people were using OS 9 back then than OS X nowadays.
And more to the point of this thread, how come iOS isn't seeing more viruses than Android? Yeah, Android dominates on the smart phone, but overall, there are more iOS users (including iPad, iPod Touch, and iPhone) than Android. So where are all the iOS viruses if market share is the primary factor?
There may not be any other lengths OS X goes to to prevent it than Windows. Go back and re-read what I said. Open source software tends to allow people to catch and patch security issues before they become viruses running rampant through your machine. Closed source doesn't get that benefit. Proactive versus reactive.
And that's to say nothing of Microsoft's history of really bad software design decisions. ("Gee, let's have Outlook open attachments automatically. What could go wrong?")
Ah, so everyone else is just too dumb to discuss this, then?