What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$45 & up: Huge Hotel Sale view!
travelzoo.com - Great discounts on rooms for the holidays and beyond!
135 Comments
- honds, on 10/12/2007, -1/+881 hour ago gagravaar said: "... but it won't make it to the front page of digg..." but on Thursday he quietly admitted his prediction was wrong.
- threepio, on 10/12/2007, -7/+54I'd prefer a hat in hand "We're sorry for the FUD" but I'll take what we got here. Cheers Symantec, good luck with that whole Vista thing.
- pathy, on 10/12/2007, -11/+57Mac OS X is inherently more secure than Windows, sure. No one can really argue that.
I do however think it's rather foolish to think that if Mac OS, or Linux, or BSD, or whatever, had such a high useage by people who aren't really that aware of such things, the risks would be way higher than they are now.
My computer was virus/spyware free last night when I ran my scanners, this is months since I last ran them.
The biggest problem with Windows security isn't the flaws which are found all the time in it - It's the users. A windows user will quite happily download and run a virus if it comes from an email they recognise, or atleast appears half genuine. The average Mac/Linux user, I'd imagine, is a little more savy in that regard.
Sadly I can't go look at OSes and understand everything about them, nor can I go about programming my own, but I hold the belief that nothing is 100% secure, and if Mac OS was ever given the same amount of idiots running it, and the same overall market share, it would sure as hell come under a lot of attacks. - thinkdifferent, on 10/12/2007, -3/+40By that logic, 10% of all spyware should be hitting the Mac.... yet strangely the number is zero. By that logic Apache, with it's 70%+ market share of webservers would be the most compromised.... yet it's actually IIS with it's 15% share.
Marketshare FEELS like it should be the reason a product is crappy, yet those pesky facts keep getting in the way. Now, that doesn't mean any system is perfect or inpenetrable, but systems designed with security from the ground up, or that have the benefit of communities consistently improving them (open source) tend not to suffer the same fate as systems still stuck in an era when a PC hoped one day to get a 300 baud modem. - cmiller1, on 10/12/2007, -15/+44Duh, I mean seriously, DUH. The only people that believe OS X won't continue to be one of the most secure operating systems out there and believe that the only reason windows has more viruses is because of marketshare are Windows fanbois that are terribly threatened by change, right?
- GiJoeBob, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30Yay for Mac OS X!
All operating systems suck. Mac OS X just sucks less. - halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24@Hickeroar
Twice as much?
That's just not true.
In some rare cases, the Mac is cheaper (There was a recent Dell / Mac comparison where the Mac laptop had more features at a lower price point) but most of the time the markup is rarely more than 15% to 20%. Some of that has to do with not buying the cheapest, bottom of the line components escaping understaffed QA departments *cough* Gateway *Cough* but I'm sure a fair percentage of the markup is because of the "Cool" factor.
Given how few problems I have from my Mac Mini, compared to the constant headaches from my work XP laptop, I'd say the markup is worth it. (Yes, I know a lot of that stability comes from not having to support every Tom, Dick and Harry motherboard with drivers written by an epileptic Bonobo with Mange) - althe3rduww, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27Viruses have been written for platforms with far less users. So your belief that the only reason their aren't more viruses is because of not enough users holds no water.
Go ahead...give me another one. - chewbaka, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24Hickeroar,
I 100% agree with you. This is also the ONLY reason why I refuse to own a Ferrari or date a supermodel - Greyarea, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24"What are you on? Why would anyone want to write a virus that isn't going to affect the most amount of people it can?"
To prove it can be done and shut up the supporters of the platform in question. - hurfydurfur, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23If Macs have 5% of the market, they should have 5% of the malware. But they don't. Because you can write to C:\ (as non-admin) but you can't write to / (as non-admin) and a zillion other reasons (IE marriage).
Nimda, Code Red, Melissa, I Love You, Sircam, Anna Kournikova, Pretty Park, Sub Seven to name a few.
Mac has holes. It's just that Apple made everyone switch from OS9, we've already paid for the architecture design while Windows still has mfc42.dll (1998) and A:\ B:\ C:\ (floppy drive naming convention). - noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21You must be trying yor hardest to find the biggest idiots you can when you look at the Mac community. Both sides have idiots, but many of the Apple users I know are some of the most computer savvy people I've ever met.
- bitterg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24But you can pay $60 for non-security from Symantec! It's a great business cycle.
- drlha, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20Like all people who spread this baseless theory, you're ignoring the fact that people who write viruses often do so for kudos, not infection rates. Being the first person to take down those snooty Mac users would score some serious points. Given the high rate of PC viruses (140,000 last year) and the rate of Mac viruses in the wild (0 or maybe 2 if you're really pushing it), I don't think your marketshare theory holds any water.
- cmiller1, on 10/12/2007, -19/+37Unfortunately, wether Symantec is full of lying scumbags or not, Windows Vista will still be horribly insecure.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20BOOOOOOO SYMANTEC!!
HOOOORAY BEER!!! - brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17It seems every few months, Symnatec comes out with a new security evaluation that basically comes to the conclusion that Firefox, OS X, or any other software that is considered more "secure" than IE or Windows, is in fact not more secure.
Every time they do this, no one believes it, because they're an internet security company, and they're always going to claim that using free software x is no more secure than proprietary software y. Doing otherwise hurts their business model.
They've slammed Firefox, then retracted, then recently they slammed it again. It's amazing that they think people will see their "studies" at face value, when the clear and obvious message from them is "Firefox and OS X aren't any safer than IE and Windows, so you people that use Microsoft alternatives, you need to buy our product too!"
Their tactics are so transparent it's mind-blowing. - cmiller1, on 10/12/2007, -10/+25If by jury you mean fud spreading PC-fanbois, then yes, they're still looking for nonexistant fallacies in those commercials because, well, I dunno, maybe they're jealous?
- weareglass, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Macs are now price competitive if not cheaper when it comes to the bundles they use. You have less options to strip down a Mac so it is harder to get a cheaper Mac, but the value of what you buy is the same if not greater, just the pirce of entry is higher.
- LaughingMan11, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20MagSafe one is accurate. The Camera one is accurate...
- cmiller1, on 10/12/2007, -11/+23FUD FUD FUD
- brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12If you were to write spyware or malware for OSX (or even Linux/bsd/whatever), you'd have to circumvent the fact that in order to install ANYTHING or to change ANY system setting, the user has to enter their password.
In Windows, people logged on as administrator don't have to enter their password for anything, and processes can freely operate in the background with no feedback or notification to the user. Using Windows is like using Linux as root for daily use. It's a retarded security model that is hopefully being done away with in Vista.
Does this mean OS X, Unix and Linux are 100% secure? Of course not. And do people target Windows largely because of it's market share? You bet. But because of the authentication scheme of *nix operating systems, it takes a much smarter hacker (and much rarer) to break into it. - smeager, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@Hickeroar
Ok if you know so much about the "hacker" community why don't you enlighten us. Also, while your at it please tell me what this so-called virus for OS X is (and don't say Leap.A or Oompa Loompa becuase it wasn't a virus but a proof-of-concept trogan that only affected well nobody. By the way Leap.A and OompaLoompa where the same thing just had different names.). I also don't want to hear anything about macro-virus' becuase they only affected system with Office:Mac installed (a third-party app by Microsoft that introduces vulnerabilities into the system) and have since been fixed.
AFAIK to this day (5yrs) OS X by itself has been 100% virus free. Windows XP can't claim that. - noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10It pisses me off that this is being passed as a prediction. The quote shows that they announced it as 100% fact, not "we think, eventually,".
Corporate ***** at its finest. - gleem, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17Lets face it. Microsoft products are pushed out the door with bugs and all. Apple takes its time to perfect their products.
My stand has always been. Why do I need third party software to secure an OS? Their really should be no need for anti virus or anti-spy ware programs if the OS security is set correctly. - hurfydurfur, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Market share is not a technical metric of an OS. Look at the hype of the "wireless hack" on the Macbook Pro. Do you want to be famous or set up another bot-net?
- brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9However, the Unix-based kernel is inherently more secure than a Windows system. Viruses used to be "smarter" than they are now. 99% of viruses and malware are released by the user, whether it be by clicking on a strange e-mail attachment, or downloading a program from the "l33t h@x0r pr0n 3mp0rium."
- JGuest, on 10/12/2007, -0/+818 months ago Symantec said: "Mac OS is increasingly becoming a target for the malicious activity that is more commonly associated with Microsoft"
Not bugs you moron, worms and viruses. - brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -10/+18"Lets face it. Microsoft products are pushed out the door with bugs and all. Apple takes its time to perfect their products."
ahem
*coughs* iTunes 7 *coughs* - noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9If XP becomes a benchmark for Security god help us all.
- smeager, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@knupso
Well I'm not a fanatic, I can criticize Apple when they screw up, with that I have yet to read a reasonable argument on this subject and "Windows has more marketshare" is not a reasonable argument when it is false (when it comes to this situation).
As for locking yourself into one computer, I don't see it that way. I have to say though if I want to run Windows, OS X and Linux I'm going to buy an Intel based Mac being that it is the only computer on the market that can run all 3 OS's "legally".
As for your Zune comment, you are right healthy competition is a great thing. It keeps companies like Apple, Sony, Creative and Microsoft on their toes. That said, I will not be buying a Zune because it doesn't give me anything I want that my iPod can't already do and that fact that it will not work with my Mac is a big negative selling point. - brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Symnatec is the number one offender when it comes to being a Windows resource hog. That's how they make your computer safe, they make it so slow it's unusable and therefore virus-free
- thinkdifferent, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9No, the author simply thinks, what is the easiest to write? Your argument implies the author has an ego that needs to be fed. If that's the case, wouldn't they want to break into something that hasn't been done before?
The common problem is that most virii and worms are written by "script kiddies". They lack the finesse or expertise to truly do something very hard. What do you think sounds more impressive, someone who hacked Walmart's open WiFi network from a parking lot, or someone who broke into the NSA? Which one could be done by anyone with a laptop, and which requires some skill to achieve? - LaughingMan11, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8batv0r and Hickeroar are trying very hard to argue what they know in their gut instead of what the facts say...
"macs have 5% market share, so therefore, they will get 0% malware... if they had 95%, they'd get 100%" == Truthiness.
It is a fact that there are other factors at work here other than market share. - stangy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Contrary to popular believe, Microsoft is not totally incompetent. The fact is that Vista will be more secure then XP. It will also ship with security products that will make most of what Symantec does obsolete.
As much as I hate Microsoft's business practices I hate security company's like Symantec even more. This attack on the OSX is just a lame attempt to pick up another market of victims. I just hope Vista is good enough to put them out of business. (I'm not holding my breath on that one) - gothsquirrel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The problem is that
1. Windows viruses keep being built of older versions. Virus writers that write for windows have a lot more to go off of.
and
2. It is inherently simple to write a virus for windows. I could write an executable file in 5 seconds that would screw my windows system. Its a problem that windows has always had.
If your smart enough to protect your system tho it is no problem. Installing a Firewall and scanning your incoming files is no problem what ever the OS. - hurfydurfur, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Anyone can speak Troll. All you have to do is point and grunt.." -- Fred Weasley.
- cmiller1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7knupso: healthy competition=consumers voting for the product they feel is the best, not the more different crappy products the better
- uownedge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It's Symantec...I take anything they say with a very light grain of salt.
They are so often either blatantly wrong, or just stating the obvious...For example, they've recently stated that "no browser is secure". Really? No way! Maybe because any Joe Average can go out and download a file that could be dangerous to their computer? Really? Maybe because with as complex as software is these days that there could be bugs and holes in them? For real?
I mean seriously. I would expect a company that deals in security to stick to the facts, and stay away from blanket statements that really don't help anyone in anyway. Now if they were to, say, publish something that would inform their users of the benefits of using Firefox, or Opera, or even other non-IE based browsers, then they'd have something going.
Of course, that would actually lessen the threat and damage of viruses and malware, and that's just not good for business, now is it?
It's way too easy for people to just jump on the market share bandwagon when they don't know what they're talking about, but if you actually look deeper into the way systems like OS X and *nix work, you'll find that even if they did hold majority market share, it would still be much harder to infect those types of systems than it is to infect a Windows box. Sure, you can lock it down, install resource hogging AV and malware protection software (not to mention spending money on licenses, if you choose to not opt for one of the freebies), but quite honestly, for my own systems, I don't really think I should have to do that just to get my computer prepared to use. I should be able to open the box, plug it in, and start using it. - dBass, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8If "security by obscurity" is true, then Vista will be as insecure as Windows XP.
Time to switch to Linux, Mac OS X, etc.
If "security by design" is true,
time to switch to Linux, Mac OS X, etc. because they are obviously better designed for security.
Anything else, ***** head? - rompom7, on 10/12/2007, -18/+23What are you on? Why would anyone want to write a virus that isn't going to affect the most amount of people it can?
Secondly, since Windows is more popular in the office, there are going to be more computers with sensitive data that 'hackers' might be after.
Thirdly, if it has a CPU it can be hacked. No matter how much 'security' any software has, it is going to be vunerable in one way or another.
EDIT: pathy also raises good points. - fraggle35, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5viruses are how symantec and others make money, I wouldn't be surprised if they write most of them.
- hurfydurfur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Vista probably will be more secure than XP, that's a good prediction. Their dialog popups are a bit extreme at this point though (build 5728). However, software isn't a thing that grows easier and wiser with continued legacy support.
- thewebguy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13or will it?
- npflood, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I think you've forgotten how much you PAID for iTunes 7... and how many updates you have gotten to this free software over the years. I feel like I'm getting a LOT more than I paid for when using iTunes.
I won't hold my breath for Microsoft to figure out that you CAN build a self-sustaining business model on something other than parasitic abuse of your customers. - althe3rduww, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I think the most apparent thing people forget about itunes 7 is that it is infinitly more stable and less resource intensive on the mac. I will agree the pc version does have a few more bugs, but it hasn't crashed on my pc yet. All it has done is hog a bit more system resources.
@bristilson
Perhaps its your malware filled pc that is causing your program crashes. - thinkdifferent, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Marketshare for the Mac in the past 18 months has been between 3 & 12% depending on the type breakdown. 12% being the most recent marketshare for laptops. If you factor in that many of those PCs are actually kiosks or (really scary) ATMs rather than PCs, you see the market share numbers are even inflated.
However, the replace rate for Macs is longer than for Windows PCs, so their install base share is actually bigger than their marketshare. According to the Software Publishers Association, 20% of all software sold is for the Mac.... it's highly unlikely 0.8% of all computer users are buying that much software! - smeager, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@ArmedJimmy
I don't know why people still try to pass this logic off as fact. Look like -thinkdifferent- said, if that is the case then OS X should have a least 5% of all malware/virus' out there but the simple dosen't.
Look malware/virus writers are poeple of oppurtunity. They attack the easiest target (kinda like terrorists). It just happens to be that Windows IS the easiest, not becuase of its "marketshare" but becuase it is easily expliotable.
Windows was created with the idea that it would be a self-contained system that wouldn't talk to other systems while OS X, BSD, Linux and all the other flavors of Unix where created with the idea that these systems would be netwroked together. At their core they where designed to be "more" secure then Windows. Microsoft is attempting to ratify this situation with Vista but what is the old saying: "To little, to late." - knupso, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4smeager, You are absolutely correct about the market share argument. It's actually a combination of market share and the fact that it's a lot easier to write malware to target windows. Windows is inherently a lot more insecure.
- LaughingMan11, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@thinkdifferent
You've hit on the key point in the FUD machine for security... people FEEL that somehow bigger market share is the only reason why something like this would happen, while the facts speak otherwise...
To put it in other terms, it's Truthiness. Don't trust the facts... trust what FEELS right to you, and to guys like Hickeroar, that's all that matters. -
Show 51 - 100 of 135 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is