digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Army buys Macs to stop Hacks

forbes.com — Apples for the Army? Wow, the old guard has finally moved on.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • JeffreyLloyd, on 12/22/2007, -39/+87They should have been doing this long ago.
    • Dantetheinferno, on 12/22/2007, -56/+21Having macs doesn't make it more secure, it's just noone cares enough to write the damn virus' for 1% of the population.

      Rest assured, if the army goes full blown with this, a nasty rash of mac virus' will pop up.
      • BryanJK, on 12/22/2007, -13/+55Actually wrong, the Unix/Linux/Mac operating systems are far more secure than windows. Such as it is harder too get directly too the core and other things like that.
        • reepax, on 12/22/2007, -37/+8really? Could you explain how this happens or do you just repeat stuff you read on blogs?
          • BossKey, on 12/22/2007, -6/+27Simple. The virus count of OS X is nowhere near proportional to its market share. Not when the number of viruses is at or near zero. Apple is not an invisible company. They have high visibility and really snobby marketing (I am a Mac user). Surely they are a big enough target that someone would be proud to bring down millions of Macs run by users complacent about security? Can't be that hard, can it, or so you say? Whoever did that would become a hacker hero of the universe.

            But no one has. So it isn't just market share or visibility.
            Hmmm....maybe it's the ARCHITECTURE?
          • ferrariman60, on 12/22/2007, -21/+6It's gonna happen, Bosskey. You make some valid points- they have high visibility and the snobbiest marketing I think I've ever seen. God, I hate that little bitch in his hoodie- he's so "hip" he causes me physical pain. Anyways, that's going to make for a tough fall when it happens. In addition, as much as people have to say about MS that's bad, they do have a lot of experience with fast response times to critical errors. I think something like 98% of windows vulnerabilities that are REALLY bad are responded to and fixed within 24 hours. This, plus weekly updates, are something Apple doesn't do much of. At the rate they are gaining market share though, they will have to do better in these areas. Things will happen, there's just no reason to make any effort to exploit the formerly (and still) small market share.
          • BossKey, on 12/22/2007, -2/+20@ferrariman60

            Apple has been visible for years now, ever since the iPod. And the Mac, though low in market share (which only represents a slice out of time), is not low in installed base (which represents machines in use). Millions upon millions of users over 20 years.
            Come on, hackers have had most of the decade to crack OS X, are they that lame?
            ...or maybe...is it the OS X architecture?
          • 2shae, on 12/22/2007, -1/+10Mac has 6-8% market share and even if that doesn't sound like much, it's still many millions (±30) of Macs, which is should still be a big score of you managed to make a virus for that group.
          • TunaFisu, on 12/22/2007, -0/+11Actually, to put it short, unix is a real multiuser system that had a real security scheme that is based on limiting user access when windows hadn't even been thought of. As far as security is concerned, Vista is just now catching up to what unix had in the early 80's.

            Jobs did probably one of the best decisions of his life when he based os X on a working system and just built a flashy interface for it.
          • GiggleStick, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3@Bosskey
            Did you know that every single relationship is linear. There's no such thing as logarithmic or exponential trends.
          • flickmaster, on 12/23/2007, -3/+1I can't believe people are still flouting the "whichever hacker cracks OS X will get so many internet points that it must be the security of the system!" argument. Yes, there are more viruses for Windows, yes OS X IS more secure. But people do not create mass viruses and bot nets to make their dick look better on the internet, they do it for MONETARY GAIN. And when you look at the market share you really don't gain much by going after the smaller number.
            Think of this as a terrorist would. If you were trying to kill the most people using a plane and a building, would you fly a small 2 man plane into a 7-11? Or would you fly a large commercial craft into 2 of the largest buildings in the word? No matter how cool you would seem in your terrorist circle for flying the small plane and killing a max of 15 people, you still don't gain much and you are overshadowed by your friends.
            Sorry for the poor taste in examples but maybe the shock value will make you quit using this argument.
            Also, there have been exploits written for OSX and some of its core software. Yes, some have been patched, but it is possible get over it.
          • DaffyDuck, on 12/23/2007, -2/+1"But people do not create mass viruses and bot nets to make their dick look better on the internet, they do it for MONETARY GAIN."

            If you knew anything about the history of viruses, you'd know monetary gain has had little to do with the motives in their creation. In general, it still applies for most viruses, take the Lisa virus as an example. Other types of malware like trojans and spamware are generally associated with monetary gains. Try running spybot search and destroy and see how many instances of spamware are in it's catalog. Those are the people trying to cash in on Windows insecurity. Viruses, which are usually more nefarious, often destroy data and self-replicate over the internet and were created as an ego boost for the hacker.

            "VBS.Lisa.A@mm may create up to 5,000 folders on the C drive and may delete critical system files. On Windows 95/98/Me computers, the worm may format the C drive."

            "W32.Traxg@mm is a mass-mailing worm that sends itself to email addresses in the Microsoft Outlook address book."

            If you want me to dig up lots more viruses that have no monetary intentions, please let me know.
        • sirbeta, on 12/22/2007, -4/+10"really? Could you explain how this happens or do you just repeat stuff you read on blogs?" -- Well, I'm not really a huge fan of that "mac am so secure!" hype either, but Unix based systems make it much harder to access things out of the boundaries of a normal program (ie, rootkits and the like aren't quite as easy to pull off), where as Windows offers little resistance. Windows' security model is more along the lines of "You've put this application on your computer, now I'm going to let it do what it wants and get out of your way". This has changed a lot since Vista (vista did make a good attempt at better security than its predecessors, but will go mostly unnoticed due to all the flak it's getting elsewhere). While the Mac and friends are more innately secure than Windows machines are, I've still yet to see a virus or other problem pop up on my Windows machine. Anyone with brains should know how to keep a windows machine safe from problems.
        • kamisama, on 12/22/2007, -3/+1It doesn't matter what os you talk about, they are all insecure in the wrong hands and can be secure in the right hands.
        • Charlotte_Web, on 12/22/2007, -1/+5Actually, the Army *did* do this a long time ago. In 1999, they were running a Windows NT/IIS web server. After getting hacked four times in three months, they decided it was time for a radical change. They switched over to a Mac running OS 9 and WebStar:

          http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/09/217 ...

          A quick check of NetCraft shows that they are still running WebStar on Macs:

          http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http:/ ...
        • Sidzilla, on 12/22/2007, -10/+3Actually, wrong and arrogant. You didn't read the latest score cards on Apple vs Windows PCs. 2007 had over 10 times as many vulnerabilities found in Apple OS systems than Windows. It's just a fact that no one writes viruses to take advantage of a small market share target like Apple even though they are 10 times more vulnerable than Windows computers. Live with it fan boys, your OS sucks, but no one cares enough to do anything about it. When the army starts using significant numbers of Macs the viruses will appear. The next time you want to sound smart, stop spouting ***** that isn't true.
          • Charlotte_Web, on 12/22/2007, -0/+4Dude, you can't drop a bomb like that and not provide a link to a source. Who are you quoting, Microsoft's marketing department?

            Your assertion is wrong simply by virtue of the fact that there are ten times more Windows users than Mac users, so statistically there is a far greater probability of security holes being found in Windows than in Mac OS.
      • GregR, on 12/22/2007, -5/+17The whole security through obscurity thing has been disproven many times for those that aren't too deaf to hear.
      • thedingman, on 12/22/2007, -0/+5I think that idea fails with the thought that if I were a virus writer, would I be happier with just another huge circulation windows virus, or the first one to actually crack OS X?
    • moxx, on 12/22/2007, -2/+23The Air Force buys macs actually, my bro is in airforce intel and they have mac's in some of their buildings.
    • reepax, on 12/22/2007, -22/+3Why? With vulnerabilities like: http://labs.idefense.com/intelligence/vulnerabilit ... who in their right mind can say Mac is secure?
      • mdeppi01, on 12/22/2007, -3/+24"Apple addressed this vulnerability within their Mac OS X 2007-009 security update."

        ...from the same link you provided.
        • reepax, on 12/22/2007, -16/+3Yes followed by a regression that reintroduced it. And you still do not seem to get how pitiful it is for that specific vulnerability to be there in the first place.
          • MonkeyFarts, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2Wasn't it Vista that had an issue where you could delete the entire contents of your C drive simply by saying a command into your mic? That's a lot more severe than this. But guess what? It's been fixed, and Vista has moved on. That's the same case here for OS X. No OS is without its flaws. That's why we all get security patches and software updates, no matter what OS we use.
    • Wazzuper1, on 12/22/2007, -4/+22Wrong. A "long time ago", the Mac OS was laughed at for its instability. Prior to OS X, it was really just a POS. It sure loved to crash on me when I was playing Jigsaw :P

      And I don't know why the article has come out now...military branches have been using Macs some time shortly after OS X came out.
      • gaucho4, on 12/22/2007, -1/+11Exactly. CTU Los Angeles uses Macs all the time.
      • thedingman, on 12/22/2007, -0/+4And Windows 98 was better? OS X has been around now for almost 8 years...
      • Charlotte_Web, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Nonsense.

        After their Windows NT/IIS server got hacked four times in three months, the Army switched over to a Mac running OS 9 and WebStar:

        http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/09/217 ...

        Simply, they wanted to stop remote logins. Microsoft told them that there was no way to disable remote logins in NT. Since Mac OS 9 never had a command line or a remote login feature to begin with, the problem was solved.
      • evenson, on 12/22/2007, -3/+1Mac OS X has been around for a lot longer than 8 years. Nextstep 0.8 was released in October of 1988, almost 20 years ago.
        • djbon2112, on 12/22/2007, -1/+2That's the MacOS in general. OSX (Mac Operating System version 10.0) was released in 2000, so 8 years ago.
        • evenson, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1No. Mac OS pre 2000 was Classic Mac OS and not what is today OS X. Nextstep and then Openstep are the foundation of OS X and date back to 1988. Classic Mac OS dates back to 1984.
    • reepax, on 12/22/2007, -4/+4http://secunia.com/product/96/?task=advisories
      • netdroid9, on 12/22/2007, -0/+8Here's XP's list: http://secunia.com/product/22/?task=advisories

        Macs have had 113 reported vulnerabilities, with 7 (6%) marked as unpatched. Windows XP, on the other hand, has had 199 reported vulnerabilities with 30 (15%) unpatched. You can't say that Macs are super-secure impenetrable fortresses of anti-hacked-ness like most people seem to assume (By that I mean the idiot consumer, not the average computer-literate Digg reader), but you can't deny that Macs get patched faster. I hate Macs, the advertising is snobbish and horrible and the machines are (at least up until recently) too proprietary and controlled for my liking (You can't get a Mac with non-Apple-approved hardware), but I'm not going to blame their better security on market share, nor am I going to be impressed by it (Look at Ubuntu: http://secunia.com/product/16251/?task=advisories. 27 vulnerabilities, 0 unpatched, and they don't even get paid for it).
      • selkie, on 12/22/2007, -0/+9As I mentioned somewhere lower down, the statistics here are terribly skewed... Secunia is counting Mac OS X, that's 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 and 10.5 ALL TOGETHER. Yes, that's the vulnerability statistics of 5 distinct operating systems - Cheetah, Puma, Jaguar, Panther, Tiger and Leopard. Counting vulnerability statistics do determine 'security' is a bad idea in any case. Working with completely inaccurate data for comparison is even worse.

        I for one am hoping that Apple's market share doesn't climb high enough to warrant serious security issues, but regardless, this comparison is bollocks.

        Disclaimer: Written in Leopard on my Macbook Pro.
        • djbon2112, on 12/22/2007, -4/+2I have to disagree that they're 5 distinct operating systems. The all use generally the same kernel (just updated) and the same general UI. It's just service packs with new programs basically, otherwise they'd be calling it Mac OS 11.

          (Still dugg you up though!)
          • Charlotte_Web, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3Windows NT, 2000, XP, and Vista are all based on the same NT source code/kernel as well, so selkie's point is valid.

            They either need to divide up all of the Mac OS X releases, or they need to combine all of the Windows NT releases for the comparison to be valid.
          • djbon2112, on 12/22/2007, -1/+2@Charlotte

            Yes, they were *based* off the same kernel, but there were major revisions in there, from 2000 to XP (though its version number doesn't reflect this) and again to Vista. NT 5, 5.1 and 6. But the kernel and subsystems of Mac OS X has hardly changed from 2000, it's been updated slightly yes, and ported to new hardware, but its by and large the same without any major revisions (like NT 5.1 to NT 6.0). Calling each Mac OS X release a different OS is like calling XP SP 2 a different OS from XP, or Ubuntu 7.10 a different OS from 7.4. I guess though then it's a matter of what it takes for you to define it as a "new OS", which like many things each person will have a different interpretation of.
    • slayerab, on 12/22/2007, -1/+12How else are we going to upload the virus that detroys the alien mothership? It is about damn time
      • gamelord12, on 12/23/2007, -3/+0We also know that a Mac is what caused Jurassic Park to go offline. I don't know about you, but I prefer my dinosaurs to not eat me. Thus, I use Windows/Linux.
        • viruz, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1I think it was solaris or some other flavour of UNIX
    • sporg, on 12/22/2007, -7/+4Would some programmer out there please write a really horrible virus for macs. Im tired of fan boys saying macs are virus proof.
      • Angostura, on 12/22/2007, -1/+6I've yet to see a single fan boy claim them as virus proof. The claim is that they are inherently more secure, however.
    • sjl127, on 12/22/2007, -3/+4Then, when mac's become mainstream, the hacking will continue.
  • lidlbishop, on 12/22/2007, -46/+21Thanks for the heads up Forbes.
    Sincerely,
    Mr. Hacker
  • Ossuary, on 12/22/2007, -8/+53Eeeegads at the flame wars this could cause... Either way, diversity is good.
  • epistemological, on 12/22/2007, -6/+151"Given Apple's marketing toward the young and the trendy, you wouldn't expect the U.S. Army to be much of a customer. Lieutenant Colonel C.J. Wallington is hoping hackers won't expect it either."

    So maybe publishing an article about it is not the best idea 0.o
    • clak, on 12/22/2007, -6/+22Yes, cause as we know, hackers have hacked OS X too many times to count.
      • actorboy, on 12/22/2007, -8/+17I'm an avid Mac user, but I don't delude myself into thinking low market share has nothing to do with my machines staying virus free for the past 12 years.
        • Wazzuper1, on 12/22/2007, -10/+2Actually, there have been several exploits, especially prior to OS X, and even in its early stages.

          There are viruses for Macs. Of the ones that my teacher ran into, they were usually user-based (as are most exploits), involving you to manually install or authorize. Another one was through Microsoft Office's vulnerabilities.
        • macattacks10, on 12/22/2007, -0/+13Wzzuper, just so you know, those are called trojans because they require the user to install, and even those are next to nonexistant. Viruses are not the same thing as trojans because a virus installs itself unknowingly and without permission. Those ones you granted permission.
          • Wazzuper1, on 12/22/2007, -8/+0I did not say that there were many, just that there were some.

            And as for the definition--I guess I got that bit mixed up: http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/20 ... (towards the end)
          • elipabst, on 12/22/2007, -0/+4I think you're confused on your malware definitions. The primary difference between a trojan and a virus is that a virus is a file infecter. It infects other files on the system once executed by the user and those files are now potential vectors for transmitting the virus. Trojans are exactly what they sound like, a program pretending to be something it's not. Both generally require user interaction and neither need to take advantage of a security vulnerability.
      • clak, on 12/22/2007, -2/+7Damn, I forgot to slap on my /sarcasm tag.
        • colto, on 12/22/2007, -0/+6You shouldn't have to. Some people just don't do well with discerning when someone is joking.
    • isunktheship, on 12/22/2007, -5/+5"So maybe publishing an article about it is not the best idea "
      Same reason why we can't get out of Iraq safely, the news sabotages everything.
    • hyperfocal, on 12/22/2007, -1/+9"So maybe publishing an article about it is not the best idea 0.o"

      They should have stuck with "don't ask, don't tell."
    • BossKey, on 12/22/2007, -0/+7"So maybe publishing an article about it is not the best idea 0.o"

      Doesn't matter. Any hacker would already have found out, or try exploits for all operating systems anyway. You're basing your comment on the failed principle of "security through obscurity," and every security professional knows that security through obscurity doesn't work. You don't secure by trying to hide a discoverable secret, you secure by using an architecture that is secure.
  • godisdead, on 12/22/2007, -27/+4Need to digg this up
  • reepax, on 12/22/2007, -26/+5o man this thread should be great ... we will get the mix of Digg script kiddies talking about 'hacking' and the onslaught of fanboys who bash the army/military in every other thread but bond over their unwavering love of anything Apple.
  • reepax, on 12/22/2007, -35/+15http://labs.idefense.com/intelligence/vulnerabilit ... .. it seems Mac OS X still has 1997 style vulnerabilities... stack based overflows from the command line in setuid root binaries in 2007? Is this a joke?
    • reepax, on 12/22/2007, -27/+7HA! already getting dugg down when revealing how horrible mac security is. Man apple fanboys are such hypocrites.
      • KloroFormd, on 12/22/2007, -6/+13No, you got dugg down for failing to read this in the link you posted. And the OSX command line in use now wasn't THERE in 1997.
        ______________________
        VI. VENDOR RESPONSE

        Apple addressed this vulnerability within their Mac OS X 2007-009 security update. More information is available at the following URL.

        http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=307 ...
        • reepax, on 12/22/2007, -16/+1lol you are really an idiot at 'command line was not in use' ... you do not understand the first thing of security as affirmed by your comment. Also thanks for linking me to some docs on apple audio
      • EruLabs, on 12/22/2007, -5/+1Im not even getting in to this one, but what the hell does "the OSX command line in use now wasn't THERE in 1997." mean?

        Im _guessing_ you mean that osX uses Bash now rather than tcsh... If thats what you mean, you're still stupid. What do you mean? (IMHO: hardened gentoo ftw)
        • reepax, on 12/22/2007, -8/+0Erulabs ftw :D ( as I type this from my hardened gentoo system )

          also why do you expect an inteligent response from kloro? He is a mac user by choice so he obviously knows nothing of security
    • reepax, on 12/22/2007, -8/+4Responses from anyone who dugg me down? Was it just blind fanboyism?
      • ArchangelZLT, on 12/22/2007, -1/+4No, it's just sense of anti-trolling.
      • thedingman, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3No, you're getting dugg down for making three 'OMG MACS ARE TEH SUX' comments in a row.
    • andnever, on 12/22/2007, -4/+4iDefense has confirmed the existence of this vulnerability in Mac OS X version 10.4.10, on both the Server and Desktop versions

      good to know that some random link you pulled out of the internet says that an out of date version of the os has a flaw. keep up the good work.
      • reepax, on 12/22/2007, -6/+0random link? right you show your security awareness by not knowing who idefense is
  • reepax, on 12/22/2007, -68/+15Macs are made for stupid people to use... would fit perfectly with our army's personnel
    • Kwipper, on 12/22/2007, -6/+32Feel free to bash the Macintosh all you want, but for god sakes man. Have some respect for the soldiers that are serving our country, and dying on the front lines overseas, thanks to our president who is a war mongering ***** with a speech impediment.
    • gquaglia, on 12/22/2007, -1/+13Yeah, and isn't that big blue "E" the internet?
      • ArchangelZLT, on 12/22/2007, -0/+6No, don't blame IE. At least it's useful downloading Firefox, Opera, etc.
    • BossKey, on 12/22/2007, -1/+13Here are some people who run a project from Mac laptops.
      Are you calling them stupid?
      http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/people/20040103_Sp_EDL_ ...
    • ArchangelZLT, on 12/22/2007, -1/+6"Macs are made for stupid people to use"

      That's not true because you are here, not using Macs.
    • wibambau, on 12/22/2007, -1/+4http://www.youareanidiot.org/
    • hellotyler, on 12/22/2007, -1/+2Those folks over at NASA are just plain STUPID. Using a Mac... What idiots they must be....
    • HimThatSpeaks, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2You quite possibly are the dumbest person on Digg. I am guessing you wipe butts with your bare hand and clean toilets with your tounge for a living.
    • davidrossiii, on 12/22/2007, -0/+4Can't you show some respect for our soldiers who are dying so you can can live in America and have the freedom to make stupid comments on Digg?
  • Yarkz, on 12/22/2007, -9/+68*grabs popcorn for flame wars and pushes this too front page*
    • stalefries, on 12/22/2007, -1/+24*to
      • Yarkz, on 12/22/2007, -3/+16Thank you :)
        • isunktheship, on 12/22/2007, -3/+15oh wow you really are sitting here watching flame wars. hows the popcorn?
          • masterc, on 12/22/2007, -1/+16*how's
          • isunktheship, on 12/22/2007, -1/+10Lol, at least correct everything: "Oh wow, you really are sitting there watching flame wars. How's the popcorn?"
          • Yarkz, on 12/22/2007, -1/+5Actually I am working on a map for a game but am finding any way too have an excuse; I've had a long day.
          • jsaya, on 12/22/2007, -1/+2What game?
          • soupdawg30, on 12/22/2007, -1/+2This should be good.
  • andreeee, on 12/22/2007, -12/+3"Those are some of the most attacked computers there are. But the attacks used against them are designed for Windows-based machines, so they shrug them off,"
    ....
    But the guy at future shop told me Macs get virus' for sure!
    • isunktheship, on 12/22/2007, -5/+4a guy in a store from the future told you this? jesus christ, we're doomed. I need some people to travel to the future with me to help stop this madness. Bring your own weapons.
      Safety Not Guaranteed.
    • ArchangelZLT, on 12/22/2007, -2/+2Both metal gate and glass door will be broken eventually. Does that mean metal gate is equal to glass door?
  • Scheissen, on 12/22/2007, -8/+25So ignoring the fanboys, does the Mac gets viruses or not? I think OS X has a 5-10% market share so there is still a large amount of people to infect if there are viruses. If so, then why is Windows so vulnerable like are they using 1990s technology in Vista?
    • mllawso, on 12/22/2007, -17/+541. Everyone uses windows. Virus coders want to target the largest demographic to increase their virus' chance of propagation.
      2. Windows has the largest amount of 3rd party software written for it, and people don't think twice about what they install More software = more exploits (Think Flash, Java, etc)
      3. Windows doesn't support real user distiction via file permisions. It's realativly easy to write code in windows that modifies "protected" files.
      4. Everyone and their pet dog can create a program in windows. There is a huge selection of free (or pirated) and easy to use SDKs floating arount the web.
      • aznhomig, on 12/22/2007, -3/+11Good post.
      • gquaglia, on 12/22/2007, -16/+3Everyone uses Windows??? How about Windows has the largest market share or something to that effect. Not EVERYONE uses Windows. I happen to use both Mac OS and Ubuntu, but I don't use Windows.
        • ha1f, on 12/22/2007, -1/+15You lack comprehensive reading skills.
          • gquaglia, on 12/22/2007, -12/+2Oh really? His first line reads "Everyone uses Windows", which clearly they do not.
          • ha1f, on 12/22/2007, -0/+13It's a generalization through exaggeration. Anyone one with 1/4 a brain can see that he doesn't mean everyone, because "clearly" not everyone uses Windows. Stop trying to pick fights, fanboy.
        • Weebs43, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1Go back to 8th grade and learn what a hyperbole is...
      • friday04, on 12/22/2007, -2/+1I would like to point out that your point number 1 is just a theory. It is not fact. The term virus gives some idea to the idea that the code can self-propagate throughout an ecosystem. Even though there are a couple people who claim a proof-of-concept, there are no self-propagating programs for the Mac OS. It's not to say that Macs don't have vulnerabilities, but it's inherently more difficult to exploit that Windows. And that's a fact.
      • rappermas, on 12/22/2007, -1/+4I agree with everything except #1. Take a look at Apache, which is way more popular than Microsoft's IIS, yet IIS gets exploited so much more.
    • antitab, on 12/22/2007, -1/+20"are they using 1990s technology in Vista"
      Well, yes...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT
      Then again, Apple is using 1980s technology:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEXTSTEP
      • Weebs43, on 12/22/2007, -0/+5Windows NT was the base of windows, but Mac OS X was only based off of NEXTSTEP. Meaning? The last release of NEXSTEP was in 1995, so we're still looking at stuff from the 90s for OS X.
        • jsuther, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2and Nextstep is Unix which is 70's technology, of course that new Telsa roasters is based of of 10,000 BC technology since it has like, wheels and stuff.
      • tian2992, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2Well technically is 60's...
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX

        Still only the best remains of the original UNIX, while windows. Well they trashed the only really good thing they had... Direct X
    • t3rmv3locity, on 12/22/2007, -5/+4The mac dosen't get viruses as mllawso said, but there are known security vulnerabilities. Apple dosen't tend to patch them right away because nobody exploits them. Hackers just prefer to get into windows computers because it is easier and because of the large market share.
      • Me1000, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1"There are no viruses for the mac"

        Fixed that for you, Just because there are no viruses yet, doesn't mean there will never be one!
    • DrunkPrimate, on 12/22/2007, -2/+9You can develop a virus for any operating system. Windows though is far easier since the base code has pretty much stayed the same since windows 95. OS X though gets a large rewrite with each major cat version. Since the release of OS X in 1999 with the beta release called puma there have been only a total of 3 PROOF OF CONCEPT virii made for Mac OS X. There has never been an actual virus released in the wild.
    • mwalker05, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1saying one OS is safer than another is kind of like comparing cars. sure, maybe one car will do better in a crash test than another, and sure maybe one type of car is in more accidents than another, but ultimately the safety of the vehicle is determined by the driver (or user of the OS)
  • rockets, on 12/22/2007, -11/+6I believe everything... except that I know for a fact that the Army is going Linux.
    • HimThatSpeaks, on 12/22/2007, -0/+0What? I have been a contractor and they use many different things for different purposes. You must have some kind of small limited knowledge from an opinionated friend in one part of the Army. No organization should run just one platform and I know the people in IT at the top levels of decision making disagree with you.
  • richardPM, on 12/22/2007, -19/+10ahh macs, the unhackable!
    • reepax, on 12/22/2007, -9/+4http://labs.idefense.com/intelligence/vulnerabilit ...
      • Me1000, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3OMFG WILL YOU SHUT UP!
        Your link has been proven inaccurate and inapplicable many times already, posting it over and over again wont change that!


    • aznhomig, on 12/22/2007, -2/+6Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, young lad....
    • thurows, on 12/22/2007, -7/+2Macs are not unhackable, there just wasn't a large enough user base. But now, with a huge target like the army to go after Macs are screwed. Thanks assholes for publishing this information.
      • vram1980, on 12/22/2007, -3/+0We get it macs are not hackable. 4 people said what you already said a ***** of posts ago, you stupid faggotron.
      • hellotyler, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2Hackers are not all about user-base. For many it is the CHALLENGE. The only people simply going for large user base are criminal (wrong word, can't think of a better one...) hackers using their exploits for profit and not simply to gain knowledge. I just have some questions for you all, how many Macs have you personally seen infected ? How many have been successfully attacked 'in the wild' ? Any ? How many PCs ?
        • Sidzilla, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1I think that you are living in the 1990s. Hacking is all about criminal enterprise now. It used to be a pursuit of knowledge, but sadly it is now a pursuit of money.
  • MarkusGarvey, on 12/22/2007, -7/+23I'm sure the virus writers are burning up their keyboards as we speak.....
    • reepax, on 12/22/2007, -20/+1sorry script kiddie fan boy they still do not care
    • BlueStarr, on 12/22/2007, -1/+2It's been five years since OS X debut.....STILL WAITING. lol
  • KanosWRX, on 12/22/2007, -13/+30They will just learn new ways to hack the Mac seriously people, don't you know no system is immune from being hacked. There is always a way, the Mac OS isn't some god send like people may want to think just because its based off Unix.
    • jaxcs, on 12/22/2007, -4/+14I don't want to get into a pissing contest cause that's just a waste of time. While some Mac fanboys will say that the Mac is better because it's OS is just superior, what the Army is saying is that the Mac is better because there are fewer viruses written to hack Mac servers. The former is an unqualified statement of superiority, while the second is a factual statement. It isn't that a month from now that Mac specific viruses won't pop up by the hundreds, it's that as of right now, there are fewer viruses that can affect the Mac.
    • reepax, on 12/22/2007, -4/+0they already learned... http://secunia.com/product/96/?task=advisories
    • andnever, on 12/22/2007, -2/+9no one said theyre prefect. just more secure.
      • reepax, on 12/22/2007, -9/+1http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=758 but they aren't...
        • vade79, on 12/22/2007, -4/+1You can digg this guy down(maybe just cause of that source), but it's true... I don't know how they got the "secure" label, but I've personally audited many osx programs/apps, and they have some of the kind of bugs that you would see on linux/etc 10 years ago.
        • ArchangelZLT, on 12/22/2007, -3/+1Mac = Security (7) + User-friendliness (10) = 17
          Linux = Security (10) + User-friendliness (5) = 15
          Windows = Security (0) + User-friendliness (7) = 7

          Which will you choose, mate?
          • BryanJK, on 12/22/2007, -1/+2I don't choose off random numbers you pulled out of your ass.
    • antitab, on 12/22/2007, -2/+1Good. Hacks = bug reports.
  • NeoNightmareX, on 12/22/2007, -8/+53Dugg for rhyming title
    • likeyehokwhatev, on 12/22/2007, -1/+3Now all we need is someone to bust a flow and post it to youtube

      Yo yo!
      We uze Maks
      2 stop hackz
      gonna bomb yo' house
      wit' our 1-click mouse

      ehh, or somthing like that
    • BlueStarr, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1eww....gah! likeyeh...you rock....like....my-gah!
  • darkhero, on 12/22/2007, -18/+59Why don't they just use Linux and save a trillion dollars.
    • isunktheship, on 12/22/2007, -6/+4apparently our mac cost jokes aren't funny :( I dugg you at least
    • Virgule, on 12/22/2007, -0/+16because they would save a trillion dollars!

    • elipabst, on 12/22/2007, -1/+22Same reason they buy $90 hammers and $300 toilet seats.
      • Sidzilla, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1C'mon, everyone knows the excess money goes to fund Area51.
    • robodan, on 12/22/2007, -2/+19I don't understand why people are burying this Linux comment. It seems like an excellent point. Linux is FREE, and just like OSX, it is a *nix based system.
    • Weebs43, on 12/22/2007, -1/+4Because in the article they said one of the major reasons they used Windows was the availability of software, they claimed is now becoming less of a problem so they are now able to get by with using Mac's.
    • sirdaz, on 12/22/2007, -2/+51. Because then they have a long established company to sue and blame if anything goes wrong.
      2. To the majority of people Linux is still a terminal driven, geek-knowledge-required type of OS.
      3. The people that made the decision might use macs so are biased.
      4. Mac has a deeper established OS, at least in usability respects.
      5. Apple may have marketed the OS more/better.

      ... and what Weebs43 above said
    • Angostura, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Presumably they want to run MS Office.
    • Brendan371, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1uhm... they do, that's sort of common knowledge
  • roberto_deneero, on 12/22/2007, -19/+2Don't taze me bro!!!
    • gquaglia, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1Give it up. Your comment is as fresh as the "pictures or it didn't happen" comment.
    • Almightymole, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1OK, I will use a Tesla coil instead.
  • isunktheship, on 12/22/2007, -16/+125So THATS why this war is so expensive!
    • jake6730, on 12/22/2007, -0/+5Really, all when they could have switched to Linux even easier using their old Windows computers, and for free... shame shame...
    • HimThatSpeaks, on 12/22/2007, -1/+2The Apple OS is not expensive and the systems after a two years and tech support is cheaper.
    • BlueStarr, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1Linux? Please.....no one has time, can't you see there's a war going on!?!

      lol
  • SuperMoses, on 12/22/2007, -12/+60Digg BREAKING: Hackers create hacks for Macs now that Army has switched.
    • sevenalive, on 12/22/2007, -10/+2In other news: Steve Jobs cries and says he thought there were no viruses for macs, because his own dedicated team of dick suckers, oh sorry, mac fanboys, keep spreading this propaganda.
    • bluepass, on 12/22/2007, -2/+8Stop listening to the Mac ads for once and do a little bit of research. I for one know of 2 different vulnerabilities that would allow virii on OS X and I'm sure that there are many others out there. They may not be common yet, but that doesn't mean that OS X is virus-proof. Give hackers a good reason and they'll create virii for anything. Until now Macs were known as personal computers; now that the government starts using them, things may change.
      I can see this comment being dugg down by all the Apple fanboys, but it's about time you wake up and stop being such fanatics. Operating systems are very complex pieces of code. It is impossible to create a flawless operating system.
      • GunDownCCL, on 12/22/2007, -1/+3Here's a good reason: hacking OS X with a real virus that could bring down the system would make you the first person to ever do that. You would be a hacking legend. Thats good motivation. So, by your logic, why haven't there been any REAL bring-down-your-system type viruses for OS X?
        • bluepass, on 12/23/2007, -1/+1Because hackers don't think like you do.
          Because a virus is not as easy to build as you think or you see portrayed in the movies.
          Because not many (if any) big businesses or banks use OS X.
          Because there's nothing to gain from infecting a kid's Mac.
          Because the majority of computers world-wide are still using Windows.
          That should be enough reasons. Maybe if you understood what it takes to write a virus, you'd realize why it's simply not worth doing it.
      • SuperMoses, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1"They may not be common yet, but that doesn't mean that OS X is virus-proof" .. I didn't say that. That was the point of my comment. Now that the army has switched, it gives more incentive for hackers to work on the Mac. It's not a fanboy comment. Fanboys don't acknowledge the fact that macs are not a high priority for hackers.
        • bluepass, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Sorry SuperMoses, you may not have understood where I'm coming from, so here it is. Although you'd expect a reply to be an argument because you've been conditioned to believe so by the Digg community, I was actually supporting your point and brought a few extra points to the table. I did not deny what you said.
          • SuperMoses, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Ahh, thanks for the clarification. It's not because of the Digg community it's because the first sentence of your reply to my comment was "Stop listening to the Mac ads for once and do a little bit of research". I wasn't sure who that was directed at.
  • FyberOptic, on 12/22/2007, -30/+25The joke's on them. Apple's security practices are worse than Microsoft's. Anyone who says otherwise has no clue what they're talking about.
    • clak, on 12/22/2007, -7/+19Why don't you give us some actual evidence to that assertion? Can you even name any actual viruses that have affected Macs in the last three years?
      • reepax, on 12/22/2007, -15/+6Viruses are not the only thing but we understand that mac users do not actually know anything about security they just repeat blog posts. Try: http://www.milw0rm.com/platforms/osX
      • reepax, on 12/22/2007, -12/+5Why digg down my evidence! It is sad when you get dug down without replies from people without a clue.
      • reepax, on 12/22/2007, -9/+3http://secunia.com/product/96/?task=advisories
      • H0tKarl, on 12/22/2007, -12/+8The Iphone? I think that's a virus that turns a normal person into a complete douchebag.
      • CLShortFuse, on 12/22/2007, -7/+7Read the article, the guy who hacked the iPhone remotely last month says it's more vulnerable. I'm sure he knows what he's talking about
        "I love my Macs, but in terms of security, they're behind the curve, compared to Windows."
        Also, the guy who's pushing macs for the military is a former Apple employee. That's not exactly clear of bias.
      • HimThatSpeaks, on 12/22/2007, -2/+0Walk into any college with IT courses and offer 100 to anybody with a crack for Windows VIsta and you will probably have a dozen people taking your money. Make that same offer with a Mac and you will probably keep all your money. I am not saying Mac is better, I am saying with all the conditions in the world, Mac is more secure at this time. Sure you can add 15 "what ifs" and Windows comes out on top. Why not add 15 more "what ifs" and Apple is back on top?
        • Sidzilla, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1That's because you won't find anyone using a Mac to take advantage of your offer.
          • HimThatSpeaks, on 12/22/2007, -1/+0LIke I was saying, I am not saying Mac is better, it is just the conditions of the world right now, make Mac more stable. Sure you can remove those conditions, but then... that eliminates the whole point.
    • reepax, on 12/22/2007, -13/+5wow fyberoptic you are my new hero and we share beliefs. I guess diggers dont understand http://labs.idefense.com/intelligence/vulnerabilit ... enough to realize how truly sad it is. Or the numerous other 1990s era bugs that mac still carries. Don't worry though ignorance is bliss for the fanboys.
      • BlueStarr, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1this is like the third time you posted this reepax(maxipad) *****....loser!
    • Brendan371, on 12/22/2007, -3/+3funny how i've never run antivirus on my mac and i have never had a problem
      • HimThatSpeaks, on 12/22/2007, -2/+1Same here and I have run sites with over 300 computers and more than 800 users. One school I was working at decided to save some money and buy a Dell laptop lab and it gets hit with viruses twice a year, and it has virus protection.
  • PricklySponge, on 12/22/2007, -6/+5Don't ask don't tell, anyone?
  • GoKings, on 12/22/2007, -11/+4This clearly wasn't for security purposes. After all the video coming with the war, the PC video and photo editing software just couldn't keep up with their needs. Now with these Macs, look for videos and photos of soldiers shooting teddy bears at insurgents, and soldiers to be bleeding rose pedals.
    • robodan, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1The software is mostly developed to be the same these days on both platforms. Buried.
      • jabberwolf, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Really? thats why OSX doesnt support SLI or crossfire or 64 bit graphics and physics programs but they ARE made for MS 64 bit OSes.
        Check out Autodesk and even Maya if you think I'm kidding.
  • Kwipper, on 12/22/2007, -22/+12I'm sorry, but this might be a good thing. See, I have always wanted to shut the pie hole of those snobby mac users and their o-so perfect operating system. Now that their OS is becoming more mainstream, this means that more people are going to use it. In return, this means that the hackers and crackers are going to want to exploit the ***** out of it and prove to the world that Mac's are as Vunerable as PC's are.

    I bet that'll shut the apple fanboi's up.
    • agaudet, on 12/22/2007, -4/+2Well Macs are more vulnerable than a PC running Linux or BSD or Solaris or yea you get the point
      • gaucho4, on 12/22/2007, -2/+2Macs do run BSD. Where do you think the Unix core comes from? OS X is based on FreeBSD.
        • vade79, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2Yeah, since all the remote vulnerabilities are kernel releated....psst, I think we're talking about the 5 billion programs that run on top of the kernel.
    • clak, on 12/22/2007, -2/+11That's the same crap you guys have been saying for the six years that OS X has been out. You mean not one hacker wanted to hack OS X just to shut up the oh so snobby Mac users? Not even one? I find that hard to believe.
    • antitab, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2That would be great. Fixing vulnerabilities isn't the hard part of security, it's finding them. These so-called hackers would be helping Apple out.
    • ArchangelZLT, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1I'm eager to see you repeat your oh so brilliant comment five years later.
    • HimThatSpeaks, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1I think anybody that says "fanboy" should eat their own refuse. I am done with the whole 'fanboy" this and fanboy that. Just by the mere mention of fanboy in a serious uninformative context you commit yourself to being a fanboy. Wipe your nose little one.
    • jabberwolf, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Already done.

      Whenever Apple actually offers money to hack their system, it happens within a day!! And that is with the condition of not using "already discovered exploits" !!
  • cr138654, on 12/22/2007, -15/+17So many mac fanboys, it's just a change to an OS that has fewer viruses, not none.

    Seriously why do rabid mac people flood together? I mean it seems they're more coordinated than the insurgence, they even have Steve Jobs impersonators.

    Macs - The Machines of War
    • clak, on 12/22/2007, -3/+10Please name one virus that has hit Macs in the last six years.
      • elipabst, on 12/22/2007, -5/+4Feb 2006: Mac.OSX.Leap.A

        Do I get some kind of cookie or something for that?
        • BlackStrain, on 12/22/2007, -1/+3That's a Trojan, not a virus. You had to install it yourself. So it didn't exploit anything but the user's gullibility.
          • elipabst, on 12/22/2007, -2/+1No it is a virus. One of its subroutines is to look for the 4 most recently used executable binaries which it then infects. It then automatically sends itself anytime iChat is used. So it meets the criteria for a virus because it replicates on it's own and it infects executable files. Whether a virus requires user interaction is irrelevant, for example plenty of Windows viruses mail themselves and require a user to click on the attachment.
          • BlackStrain, on 12/22/2007, -1/+2elipabst: To be a virus, it must install itself without your permission or awareness. The trojan you listed you had to install. The fact you didn't know you were installing a trojan doesn't make it a virus. Terminology aside though, no matter what OS you're running, a trojan will work without having to exploit anything if the user installing it has administrative powers.
          • elipabst, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1"To be a virus, it must install itself without your permission or awareness."

            Find me a legitimate security website that uses that in its definition of a virus. All the major AV vendors categorize it as a virus or worm (which is actually more dangerous). And you do not need to "install" it. It uses social engineering to trick the user into trying to open it (it packages itself as a file called latestpics which masquerades as a jpeg file). If you are going to move the goal posts and define a virus that way, then you are going to need to reduce the number of known windows viruses by several orders of magnitude as well...you can't have it both ways. It's no different than an .zip file attached to an email that requires the user to click on it as well.
          • elipabst, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1This was on the Sophos page:

            "Is Leap-A a virus or a Trojan?

            Some members of the Apple Macintosh community have claimed that OSX/Leap-A is a Trojan horse, and not a virus or worm, because it requires user interaction (the user has to receive a file via iChat, and manually choose to open and run the file contained inside).

            However, this is not the definition of a Trojan horse.

            A Trojan horse is a seemingly legitimate computer program that has been intentionally designed to disrupt and damage computer activity. Importantly, Trojan horses do not replicate or have any mechanism of spreading themselves. They have to be deliberately planted on a website, or accidentally shared with another user, or spammed out to email addresses. There is nothing inside a Trojan's code to distribute themselves further to other victims.

            Trojan horses do not contain any code to distribute or spread themselves, viruses and worms do.

            OSX/Leap-A is programmed to use the iChat instant messaging system to spread itself to other users. As such, it is comparable to an email or instant messaging worm on the Windows platform. Worms are a sub category of the group of malware known as viruses.

            Therefore, it is correct to call OSX/Leap-A a virus or a worm. It is not correct to call OSX/Leap-A a Trojan horse. "
    • andnever, on 12/22/2007, -4/+5this is the 123345 anti mac comment i have read on this article alone...why do anti mac fanboys flood together.
    • HimThatSpeaks, on 12/22/2007, -0/+0Flame on flamer! In both contexts of the word flame.
  • SirBotchness, on 12/22/2007, -10/+76Next week we'll have an article stating that new army apparel includes black turtle necks and smug attitudes.
    • aznhomig, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1Well, actually...
    • BlueStarr, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1***** yeah don't you even think of touching my ***** grey poupon.....
  • ZephyrNinety, on 12/22/2007, -9/+82Wouldn't Linux be cheap AND more secure? Not that I got a problem with Macs, but Linux is so cheap/free.
    • BillyC333, on 12/22/2007, -3/+4I agree.. If they want security Linux all the way.
    • garbanzo, on 12/22/2007, -2/+5Maybe the Army would run into issues with the GNU license if they wanted to make sensitive additions to the code. I don't claim to be an expert on this, I'm just throwing out a possible reason against Linux.
      • diggrim, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2so long as they don't re-distribute the code changes they're fine. The GNU Public License allows for internal changes.
        • Angostura, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1A bit difficult to define "internal" with so many contractors running around.
    • TruthKid, on 12/22/2007, -1/+14We do have linux on some of our systems. A lot of the actual tactical systems we use are based off Unix. Our vehicle systems were based off of Solaris, and they just switched to Red Hat. They teach us Army computer guys Unix/Solaris/Linux so the stuff is out there. Unfortunately you have a bunch of people stuck in their ways, and instead of saving tax payers millions of dollars by not renewing our corporate XP and Office licenses and switching to Open Office and (insert linux distro here). This would also solve the problem of idiots circumventing security to install their own personal software (huge problem).

      As far as Uncle Sam replacing its millions of windows boxes with macs, not gonna happen in our lifetimes.
    • linuxeventually, on 12/22/2007, -0/+5Not to knock Linux but don't forget about BSD.
    • Ethion, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Doesn't the Navy use Linux? I believe there was a digg about like a year ago, that the Navy made a special order from Apple, ordering X number of xserves with pre-installed Linux which they were going to use on their subs for e-mail and stuff.
  • TheBSG, on 12/22/2007, -3/+9iED is not part of iLife
    • davidrools, on 12/22/2007, -1/+6correct. it's in the iDeath suite.
  • clak, on 12/22/2007, -13/+26Before you Microsoft fanboys scream that OS X is insecure, please provide us with all these Mac users who have been hit by viruses designed for the Mac. Links would be nice. I personally know of the Ultracodec phishing malware, but malware doesn't count as a virus.

    Before you reply please note: The first criteria for a virus is that it copies itself and infects a computer without permission or knowledge of the user. The second criteria of a virus, is that it copies itself.
    • aznhomig, on 12/22/2007, -9/+2Just because it isn't widespread doesn't mean it's never going to become widespread.

      I'm sure there's isolated cases here and there, nothing nowhere near what Windows faces, but possible nonetheless.
    • reepax, on 12/22/2007, -11/+4http://www.milw0rm.com/platforms/osX
      http://labs.idefense.com/intelligence/vulnerabilit ...
      http://secunia.com/product/96/?task=advisories

      "viruses" are not the only thing related to security
    • clak, on 12/22/2007, -5/+10A vulnerability report does not a virus make. Show me instances where people have actually been hit by a virus, like I originally asked. Nothing theoretical, actual viruses in the wild. If you can't do that, you're just blowing hot air.
      • reepax, on 12/22/2007, -10/+2LOL ... remote exploits and local roots are 'hot air'?
      • elipabst, on 12/22/2007, -2/+3So if you have all of the elements necessary to create a virus/worm, maybe you could explain what it is about Macs that makes them somehow magically immune? Sure it's based off Unix, but using that to explain how it's secure is a non-sequitor because there are plenty of Unix worms/viruses.
    • davidrools, on 12/22/2007, -8/+2http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/20 ...
    • clak, on 12/22/2007, -4/+6Davidrools, you guys are still linking to stuff discovered in a lab setting. Can you provide a link that has viruses affected users in the wild, like I originally asked? The reason that lab finds aren't relevant is that many security firms and labs have monetary reasons for finding vulnerabilities, so that they can sell AV software.
      • DamnMan, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1I know this is a relatively old thread but are you really that retarded? Putting a gas tank in the grill of a car doesn't guarantee the car will explode in a crash. But would you drive it even if Steve Jobs graced it with corporate logo? With all the exploits he just linked and the smug sense of superiority of the average Mac user an exploding gas tank is exactly what you have. Ask yourself this, If you were a cracker/script kiddie with even marginal skill and access to Google and you wanted a botnet would you infect windows PCs that will eventually be wiped or scanned. or would you rather go after that 8% market share that is convinced of their own immunity to all the evils of the internet with no virus or malware scanners blissfully ignorant of the 2 thousand Viagra spam their ultra secure OSX system just sent out. Or why port 1080 is open or what an open proxy means. The prize for attacking OSX keeps getting fatter. Security though obscurity is no security at all. But then i wouldn't expect you use computers from day to day for anything other than facebook and email. Documents and spread sheets. Photoshop or other graphics design maybe? If your college degree has the word "Art" in it, how about I don't talk about important impressionist artists and you don't assume anything about computers.
    • sevenalive, on 12/22/2007, -6/+2All you damn wanna be computer know it alls. For one thing, what is a virus? Its a well written program designed for malicous intent. If you are a good programmer, you can write a virus. I have written a few good ones, but i don't distribute them. As far as mac viruses, there a quite a few of them, some "concept" - just means they made it, and did not release it. Mac users are not targets, because they don't offer information hackers want, businesses don't use them.
      • clak, on 12/22/2007, -1/+5So now you're claiming that hackers just want to steal. Not one hacker wanted to hit those snobby Mac users where it hurts. I find that hard to believe.
      • tian2992, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3whoa, let me try...

        sudo rm -fR /
    • slickto, on 12/22/2007, -2/+4Your logic is failed. Just because few viruses exist doesn't mean it's not possible. The latest Secunia data shows OSX to have 5 times more security vulnerabilities than its nearest competitor. Any one of those flaws could be used to exploit a system. It wouldn't need to be a virus. If one can get access, and escalate privileges, due to a security flaw, someone could "push the button" on any program.
      • rimantas, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3and virus date shows that OS X neares competitor has "division by zero" (or is that infinity?) times more viruses in the wild. Weird, huh?
    • carl25, on 12/22/2007, -2/+4"Please provide us with all these Mac users who have been hit by viruses designed for the Mac."

      Do the same for the xp and vista users, i have all ports open and no virus scanner on vista. And no problems whatsoever
      • selkie, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1All ports? You mean all 65535? :)

        You, Sir, are truly 31337.
      • carl25, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1unno, dmz is enabled
  • Shootfast, on 12/22/2007, -6/+20See guys? THAT's where the extra 10 billion dollars is going, not on war machines at all!
    • aznhomig, on 12/22/2007, -3/+8$10 billion For 5 Macs? That's a deal!
  • fasda, on 12/22/2007, -2/+5I wonder if Apples going to come out with a camo stlye case for their new customer
  • reepax, on 12/22/2007, -9/+6http://www.milw0rm.com/platforms/osX
    • EruLabs, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1dugg for the link. Can you see in the daylight?
    • BlueStarr, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1jagoff! go get some pussy or maybe in your case dick and disconnect from the net.
  • agaudet, on 12/22/2007, -4/+12Why would they use macs? They funded alot of the Unix development, why would they not just use the fruits of that and use Linux/BSD for an even more secure enviroment?
    • clak, on 12/22/2007, -9/+3There is no Linux/BSD, moron. BSD is a derivative of Unix that was developed at University of California, Berkeley. (Berkeley Software Distribution).
      • agaudet, on 12/22/2007, -3/+7Hey Moron, I was meaning a combination of Linux/BSD depending on what license they want to use :P
    • antitab, on 12/22/2007, -3/+10OS X is BSD.
      • agaudet, on 12/22/2007, -3/+4Actually its a severely gimped version of BSD
        teehee
        not as secure either and it runs proprietary apple code which can not be modified by the armies software engineers
    • mvisa, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2lol linux is different to bsd dude.
  • likwidfuzion, on 12/22/2007, -9/+3stupid ass u cant hack or nuthin
    i got norton

    just in case... http://www.markeedragon.com/screenshots/data/3019/ ...
    • agaudet, on 12/22/2007, -1/+3i hope u were being sarcastic when you said you are protected by norton and feel safe
      • likwidfuzion, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Did you not see the image? I never implied that was me to begin with. Idiot.
    • sevenalive, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1lol norton has to be the biggest piece of ***** AV ever. My neighbor had it, lol throw on ZASS, AVG and a few others, picked up a lot.
  • .Steven, on 12/22/2007, -20/+14Windows XP, Vista, and Mac OS X vulnerability stats for 2007
    XP Vista XP + Vista Mac OS X
    Total extremely critical 3 1 4 0
    Total highly critical 19 12 23 234
    Total moderately critical 2 1 3 2
    Total less critical 3 1 4 7
    Total flaws 34 20 44 243
    Average flaws per month 2.83 1.67 3.67 20.25

    That is: Mac OS X had 500% more.(Source: Secunia)
    http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=758
    • reepax, on 12/22/2007, -10/+2dont confuse the fanboys!! They have already spent 1000s of dollars on the 'mac is secure' lie.
    • Aeaus, on 12/22/2007, -4/+4All good, but how many "critical" problems in XP/VISTA are even recognized and what percentage of those are fixed when discovered?
    • clak, on 12/22/2007, -1/+10That Secunia report has already been debunked.

      Some vulnerabilities where actual faults within Apple’s proprietary code:

      a Leopard Mail attachment could launch an attachment with a malicious script in its resource fork
      an Apple Java implementation flaw could allow a bypass of Keychain controls to add or delete keychain items
      a vpnd flaw could allow a hacker to crash the VPN server.

      The rest were related to external software:

      14 flaws in Sun’s Java SDK or JRE
      two tcpdump flaws in open source code could result in a crash
      6 Perl library flaws that could result in a crash
      a GNU tar flaw could play into a user assisted file deletion
      CUPS could crash
      two Samba flaws had unknown consequences
      a Python flaw could cause a crash
      four flaws in different versions of Rails could result in remote reading of xml files or man in the middle attacks.
      an OpenSSL flaw could result in certificate spoofing
      • truspect0r, on 12/22/2007, -5/+1Vulnerabilities on external software on the _Mac platform_ are still vulnerability.
      • Sidzilla, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Clak, you seem to be quite the fan boy for Apple. Just saying it has been debunked doesn't debunk it. Secunia is an independent source with good credentials and no horse in this race. If a Windows machine gets a vulnerability the Mac users unite to declare Windows a mess, whether or not it was an Adobe Acrobat exploit or some other third party software that was exploited. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and you can't admit that Apple has problems. Cry all you want, claim it isn't so, wail and rant. That doesn't change the facts, and that doesn't make them go away.
    • sevenalive, on 12/22/2007, -7/+1waiting for the ***** reply, "you cannot rely on those reports because....", of course if it was opposite and pc boys said that, we would be ridiculed.
      • clak, on 12/22/2007, -1/+3You would be ridiculed because Windows has a history of being hacked, getting viruses, malware, and adware. When I was a PC user, I personally have had a virus in Microsoft Word, and lots of Malware and Adware. And I know several other users that had them too. I don't know one Mac user who has had any of those things.
        • reepax, on 12/22/2007, -2/+2So it is Windows fault you do not know how to use a computer? I see...
          • supermanred, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1I have a Mac and to me using a computer doesnt involve hunting down viruses, installing anti-viruses, having my computer slowed down by an extra layer of anti-virus and anti-spyware, etc.
    • clak, on 12/22/2007, -1/+4Many of the vulnerabilites found in security reports, such as this Securia report, are written AFTER Apple releases fixes and information indicating vulnerabilities in OS X. The problem is, security firms are taking that data and exaggerating the finds. They lump third party software vulnerabilities with OS X vulnerabilities, which are small in number.
      • supermanred, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1LOL at least Apple fixes the vulnerabilities. How long can your windows box run on the internet without anti-virus? My Macbook has been running 13 months without anti-virus or anti-spyware. Record up-time on my macbook is 5 weeks straight without a reboot.

        At least the army commanders in the field wouldnt have their spy satellite feeds go down because the windows machines wouldn't boot.
  • aznhomig, on 12/22/2007, -13/+7Our military budget will continue to be well spent with this decision. 1 Mac for the price of 10 PCs! What a deal!
    • Papajohn56, on 12/22/2007, -2/+3yeah forget the whole buying in bulk thing and government discounting, that doesn't exist. man i've been living in the dark all this time!
    • HimThatSpeaks, on 12/22/2007, -1/+0Ah yes, those ten computers,but please add on the price of virus protection software, one full time IT person for every 10 PCs, which comes out to about an extra 70000. So Initially you are dead on, but after two years 100 PCs cost over 200,000 whereas that same amount in Macs might cost 30000. Linux is a whole different story but still you are looking at a devloper and IT for the hardware. Macs are cheaper in the long run.
  • reepax, on 12/22/2007, -6/+2http://secunia.com/product/96/?task=advisories
  • gquaglia, on 12/22/2007, -1/+5If they really want a secure server, then they should use the IBM iseries (AS/400). Probably one of the most secure server platform out there.
  • Spoomeister, on 12/22/2007, -3/+4In related news, sales soared this week of all 150 versions of "Taps" on iTunes.
  • davidrools, on 12/22/2007, -4/+4So when more viruses start rolling in for Macs, how well will they respond to fix them in the increased volume that they will? In the meantime, all the mac users who feel immune to viruses won't even bother to scan files or be wary and might unintentionally make themselves more vulnerable. That, of course, is user error and not the fault of the OS, since there are as many (percentage wise) boneheaded windows users. Prudent users will always be minimally affected by viruses.
    • antitab, on 12/22/2007, -0/+5Leopard already warns about launching apps that have been downloaded from the internet, and the sudo prompt has existed since the beginning, so OS X is pretty well equipped to warn users about dangerous stuff.
    • BlueStarr, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1It's not viruses that are the potential problem, it's trojans that plague *nix boxes.
  • EruLabs, on 12/22/2007, -1/+3Part of me says: "Cant be hacked?' set up routers and linux machines! What you really mean is "cracked"!
    The other part of me says: hell if I had a little nix machine and nothing else to do id hack it to pieces. ;-D

    Its a problem of definition you see.
  • xplayman, on 12/22/2007, -4/+4Wow, where's the option to triple digg this?
    • pyronik, on 12/22/2007, -1/+4right next to the strangle a fanboy button
    • sgoogle, on 12/22/2007, -2/+1Wow, where's the option to triple bury this?
  • twodayslate, on 12/22/2007, -5/+9They should be using linux instead of wasting our tax dollars on over-priced macs.
    • Papajohn56, on 12/22/2007, -1/+3RARRGH I USE LINUX *strokes neckbeard, eats pile of cheetos and chugs gallon of mountain dew*
  • Aeaus, on 12/22/2007, -6/+7According to Secunia statistics which everybody is throwing around...

    Secunia has issued a total of 113 Secunia advisories in 2003-2007 for Apple Macintosh OS X. Currently, 6% (7 out of 113) are marked as Unpatched with the most severe being rated Moderately critical

    Secunia has issued a total of 199 Secunia advisories in 2003-2007 for Microsoft Windows XP Professional. Currently, 15% (30 out of 199) are marked as Unpatched with the most severe being rated Highly critical

    Secunia has issued a total of 182 Secunia advisories in 2003-2007 for Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition. Currently, 15% (27 out of 182) are marked as Unpatched with the most severe being rated Highly critical

    Secunia has issued a total of 20 Secunia advisories in 2003-2007 for Microsoft Windows Vista. Currently, 5% (1 out of 20) are marked as Unpatched with the most severe being rated Not critical

    Now, accepting the fact that there is clearly plenty of overlap with the XP Versions and that being a new product Vista has had less vulnerabilities discovered that weren't fixed, it seems pretty clear to me that OSX is vastly ahead of XP, while Vista remains as a potential contender so only time will tell here.
    • selkie, on 12/22/2007, -0/+9Interestingly, when they count Mac OS X, they're actually counting 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 and 10.5... in other words, they're aggregating the statistics from Cheetah, Puma, Jaguar, Panther, Tiger and Leopard... that's 5 operating systems statistics aggregated together.
    • betasp, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3They also include 3rd party vulds. in OSX.
    • BlueStarr, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1So lets do that for all the Windows versions and its apps.....lets see...1..2..3....65461013103645313131513153131313134BOOOOM!!!!!!!!

      (corny, I know but I just can't help myself).
  • muniak, on 12/22/2007, -4/+5I think I have a better idea; hire people to make you an OS to do what you want it to do, that is as secure as you want it to be.
    • dayvideg, on 12/22/2007, -1/+3i guess there wasn't room in the budget....
  • ratherplayhalo, on 12/22/2007, -3/+10They should use Linux instead. 100X cheaper and even safer.
    • slayerab, on 12/22/2007, -0/+9Yeah, and no one would be distracted with games
    • BlueStarr, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1For the millionth time.....Linux sucks balls! That's why no one uses it or will use it...let it die already! Pathetic!
    • supermanred, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Mac is still the best UI on top of a Unix os. Mac OS X runs the white house.
  • CLShortFuse, on 12/22/2007, -8/+11Does no one read the article anymore?
    300 diggs, 150 comments.

    The guy who's pushing for Macs in the army is an ex-Apple employee. He claims the OS is fine and high list of vulnerabilities is a "good-sign" showing that it means Apple is working on finding them. He's obviously biased. He's out of touch with reality. He says "The Army's no different from any corporation." It IS different. One security slip and lives can be lost. A leaked deployment order, for instance, might reveal the path of a supply truck and the points where it could be sabotaged.

    Charlie Miller, the guy who hacked the iPhone REMOTELY last month claims the OS isn't secure enough. "I love my Macs, but in terms of security, they're behind the curve, compared to Windows."
    • clak, on 12/22/2007, -3/+5Nah, you're missing the point. Many of the vulnerabilites found in security reports, such as that Securia report that everyone wants to harp about, are written AFTER Apple releases fixes and information indicating vulnerabilities in OS X. Apple actively finds vulnerabilities and plugs them before they are serious threat, so that's a good sign. The problem is, security firms are taking that data and exaggerating the finds. They lump third party software vulnerabilities with OS X vulnerabilities, which are small in number.
      • CLShortFuse, on 12/22/2007, -1/+3"Many of the vulnerabilites found in security reports, such as that Securia report that everyone wants to harp about, are written AFTER Apple releases fixes and information indicating vulnerabilities in OS X"
        Vulnerabilities are still vulnerabilities, whether Apple finds them first or hackers do.

        "Security firms are taking that data and exaggerating the finds. They lump third party software vulnerabilities with OS X vulnerabilities, which are small in number" Proof? Miller was talking about Secunia. Where on Secunia do they list 3rd party? http://secunia.com/product/96/?task=statistics_200 ...
      • clak, on 12/22/2007, -1/+3You have to look at the entire report, not just the summary page.

        These are the vulnerabilities that are actually within Apple’s proprietary code:

        a Leopard Mail attachment could launch an attachment with a malicious script in its resource fork
        an Apple Java implementation flaw could allow a bypass of Keychain controls to add or delete keychain items
        a vpnd flaw could allow a hacker to crash the VPN server.

        The rest were related to external software:

        14 flaws in Sun’s Java SDK or JRE
        two tcpdump flaws in open source code could result in a crash
        6 Perl library flaws that could result in a crash
        a GNU tar flaw could play into a user assisted file deletion
        CUPS could crash
        two Samba flaws had unknown consequences
        a Python flaw could cause a crash
        four flaws in different versions of Rails could result in remote reading of xml files or man in the middle attacks.
        an OpenSSL flaw could result in certificate spoofing
      • elipabst, on 12/22/2007, -1/+3No, what they're doing is withholding the security advisories for God knows how long. So OSX users are potentially running vulnerable much longer. By releasing the advisory *after* they release the patch it makes their response time look much faster than it really is. In fact many security researcher gripe about how slow they are, which was part of the reason they did the Month of Apple bugs. In several cases it took them months to patch some of those bugs. A good way to compare their respnse time is by looking at critical vulnerabilities in 3rd party software, because all the vendors are on the same playing field. In most cases you'll see patches released for the Linux distros and *BSDs within a week, while Apple will often take months. Statistically they're actually one of the worst vendors when it comes patching and that is even including them sitting on the bug reports.
  • Resiroth, on 12/22/2007, -10/+10Yes, because the best hackers in the world couldn't possibly create a virus for a mac..right? ANYTHING is hackable. Macs have less because there are less people using them. Most viruses on PCs are the user's fault. ( Remember the warning message " Warning this site could not be authenticated..or please install active x plugin) and everyone immediately clicks yes. A simple Google search would reveal that the active x program is a worm and the warning about authentication is likely a phishing attempt.
    • reddcell, on 12/22/2007, -2/+3I commented below, then saw you go from +1 to 0 diggs. I dugg your post because it's a valid point.
    • supermanred, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1You oblivously don't know the difference between Unix and Windows. Stop trying to look smart and read a bit first.
  • xjonnyx134, on 12/22/2007, -2/+2This does not bode well for Macs...
    Whoever it is hacking military computers isn't going to let this stop them.
    Looks like the hardcore hacking base is coming to Macs... and then the domino effect starts..
  • rockon4life45, on 12/22/2007, -6/+1nobody wastes their time hacking mac's because why would you hack such a small percentage of the world's computers when you could hack 91% of them?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 83 of 83 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.