digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Symantec admits its Mac OS X spyware prediction was wrong

zdnet.com.au — 18 months ago Symantec said: "Mac OS is increasingly becoming a target for the malicious activity that is more commonly associated with Microsoft" but on Wednesday it quietly admitted the prediction was wrong.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • 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.
    • cmiller1, on 10/12/2007, -19/+37Unfortunately, wether Symantec is full of lying scumbags or not, Windows Vista will still be horribly insecure.
    • bitterg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24But you can pay $60 for non-security from Symantec! It's a great business cycle.
    • skyshock21, on 10/12/2007, -15/+5I'd prefer if everyone out there in the tube-racing-dumptrucks stood up and screamed....


      PWNT!!!!!!!!!
  • gagravaar, on 10/12/2007, -38/+5And the truth will set you free...

    ...but it won't make the front page of dig...
    • thewebguy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13or will it?
    • 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.
    • mrFREEZE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3As the young kids say these days: that, my friend, is pure "ownage."
  • 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?
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • donte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree with pathy. Users are the number 1 problem. Most of the issues come from people clicking on things they shouldn't; things that regardless of the OS you run, will do harm if you get the user to willingly run the program.

      I'm a Windows user. I don't have a spyware or antivirus program installed. I occasionally install/run/uninstall them every few months for sanity, but after my last check a few weeks ago I had to remove 3 files -- all cookies (from my FF cookies directory, not IE).

      I'm not claiming to be a bad-ass super cool user. But if you believed all of the rants you see on these forums, by all standards a sly virus-laden cougar with a black cape should have jumped out at me, stolen my credit card number and joined the jelly of the month club under my name. It just isn't the case.

      A not completely brainless user is relatively secure on ANY of the OSes... unless you're running sendmail :) -- end of story.
    • grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1pathy is correct about blaming the users for mindlessly clicking download on whatever. Malware writers will always target the platform most likely to give them critical mass. Macs have four distinct advantages in this regard (in no particular order).

      1) They have a smaller install base, and so are less likely to be targeted.
      2) Their security is well designed (no default everyone to admin/root) and so it is harder to design malware that is capable of exploiting the system.
      3) Windows is forced to maintain dumb design frameworks for compatibility reasons.
      4) There is a hostility towards Microsoft and other companies that by their own fanboys can't do anything wrong.

      However the majority install base = majority of focussed attack argument put by others is nonesense, simply consider Apache vs IIS.
  • punch, on 10/12/2007, -22/+8So this means we can confirm that at lest one of the apple comercials "kind of" tells the truth.

    Jury is still out on the rest.
    • 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?
    • LaughingMan11, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20MagSafe one is accurate. The Camera one is accurate...
    • Hickeroar, on 10/12/2007, -31/+8miller-

      PC fanbois? What's this? I don't believe such a thing exists... There are no PC fanbois... Only anti-mac fanboi "fanbois." I have no problem with OSX or the apple platform whatsoever. The ONLY reason I refuse to own a mac is because of the ridiculous and zealot-filled community. Well, that and Apple charging twice as much for the same hardware you can get in any "PC." Even if they dropped the prices, the apply zealotry and idiotic community will forever convince me to stay away...
    • 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)
    • 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.
    • 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
    • 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.
    • apotropaic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Well put... thats the real problem... its the price of entry. They are usually only about 20-25% higher when compared specs to specs. The problem I have with macs is that you you have to buy the latest greatest. At least with dells they keep around the $400 laptops for a long time AND sell the mid and high range laptops. Apple really only JUST started selling upper mid range ($1100) as opposed to dell $800 with dell. But it gets even worse with desktops. Dell has desktops start sub $300! Now thats an entry point mac will never have. I get the feeling from all my mac buddies that they feel the pressure to upgrade every 2 years to a whole new computer... I just upgrade my 3 year old computer with more ram, new video card and better CPU for less then $300 and I plan on keeping it for another 2 years. And I got a worthless G4 (3 years old) that I can't upgrade anything but the ram and that really isn't going to do much for me.

      I own a 3 year old PC and 3 year old mac... the PC will get me more life for less. My mac can't really be upgraded for nothin. My PC just got revived for nothin.


      Why oh why can't I have a personalized digg rss feed so I don't have to see all these Apple fanboy stories?!
    • f00xx0riz3r, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2You guys all realise you just proved hickorys point about a zealotry community, right?
    • CharlesDarwin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Macs cost more because they use higher quality batteries.
    • tsunamisteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ weareglass

      Have you ever checked the "Looking For a Great Deal?" section of the Apple online store? You can always buy out of date models for fairly cheap, which is essentially what Dell does with their $400 stuff.
  • GiJoeBob, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30Yay for Mac OS X!

    All operating systems suck. Mac OS X just sucks less.
  • jonathan4465, on 10/12/2007, -40/+15If 90% of the working world used MACs then the focus of malicious activity would be on them, and not Microsoft.
    • cmiller1, on 10/12/2007, -11/+23FUD FUD FUD
    • ArmedJimmy, on 10/12/2007, -17/+9Exactly, some people don't seem to appreciate that the more popular something is the more credibility and the more money there is to be made in breaking/exploiting it.

      If you were trying to do what spy ware and malicousware does you want it to reach as many people as possible...so do you not then pick the OS with the biggest distribution?

      I'm not saying that's the only reason Windows has more attacks but until the distribution is equal its not fair to compare. Would be interesting to see if the market share matches the attack ratio.
    • 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.
    • Hickeroar, on 10/12/2007, -18/+5Call it FUD all you want, but it's true. As secure as OSX (darwin) is, it's still full of holes... Same with linux. They are forever finding security holes and plugging them. While it's GREAT that they're actually taking the time to plug the holes and such, the fact that they're there in the first place shows that the OS *IS* insecure...

      If OSX had the market share of windows, it WOULD be exploited. Denying such a fact is just kidding yourselves...
    • 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).
    • Hickeroar, on 10/12/2007, -20/+4different-

      Not true. If you're a spyware developer and you're choosing an OS to have your software installed on...who are you going to choose? The OS with the HUGE marketshare, not the small fry. This will be true 100% of the time.

      And for the record, OSX doesn't have 10% market share. It's more like 3....
    • 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."

    • 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.
    • knupso, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Wow the Mac Fanatics are out in force today. Modding down any reasonable argument that doesn't make Macs look good. Why are you Mac fanatics so obsessed with them? I have used a Mac and it's a really nice user experience, but it's nothing that is going to make me such an extreme fanatic. You Mac fanatics come off looking like a bunch of jackasses by modding down any reasonable argument against them.
      Why lock yourself in to one company and use what is best for your particular situation?
      Like myself?
      Mac for the wife.
      PC for work and gaming.
      Linux to tinker around and browsing the web.

      Guess what?
      I'm going to buy a zune.
      Why not an iPod? It's not because I'm a MS or PC fanboy(I'm sure I will get accused of it.) It's because I think there needs to be healthy competition in the market.
    • 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
    • knupso, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3
      How can you assume that the Zune is going to be a crappy product?
      Just as much I can't assume it's going to be a great product. Just like the the first xbox was to the PS2 it was barely adequate competition. Now look at how the 360 is an improvement and is actual competition. I'm sure the first zune won't blow away the iPod or even meet it, but it's the best shot of having real competition to iTunes and the iPod.
      Also I urge people to buy Macs, as it will make MS have to step up and do a better job. I recomend them to friends and family all the time. I'm sick of removing spyware and other crap from their machines.


    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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?


  • thespace, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20BOOOOOOO SYMANTEC!!
    HOOOORAY BEER!!!
    • NinjaBoy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8I dont care if i seem like a troll. Cant help my self.
      HOOOORAY BEER!!!
  • 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.
    • 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*
    • rotomd, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4...And then the EU claims thats monopolistic behavior
    • gleem, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9iTunes 7 works perfect for me. Does not crash, does not cause a kernel panic, works the way it should.... plus, apple had an update release in a matter of days.

      You know its funny, while i am waiting to import my archieve mail back into outlook. it just crashed.. lol.... gooooo microsoft... laugh...

    • Raian, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3You haven't used Puma, or Jaguar have you?
    • brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4"iTunes 7 works perfect for me."

      Ahhh I see. You didn't experience it, therefore everyone else is lying and/or just stupid, and it is not a problem. That's why Apple hasn't acknowledged the problem and released an update to fix it.


      Oh wait...
    • 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.
    • halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1@brstilson

      Yeah, iTunes 7 is a disaster. I know a number of people who are VERY upset at getting a release that's about as stable and reliable as the average Windows Service Pack.

      I mean come ON, if I wanted a frustrating user experience loaded with random crashes, data corruption and poor performance, I would have stayed on Windows!

      Still, it's sad to see Apple has reached a quality low point on par with the average Windows release.

      Oh well, at least my Linux laptop is still rock solid. (Well, except for those pesky Windows drivers I'm using to run the wireless card, but what do you expect when using drivers for a completely different operating system.)

      And by the way, my Windows cracks are part tongue in cheek, but mostly based on personal experience.
    • brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5"I 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."

      iTunes is tied in to my 30 GB iPod that I paid $300 for. I also have bought $100 worth of music from the iTunes music store.

      So how much did I pay for iTunes 7? $400 worth of products that rely on it. It had better damn work.
    • 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.
    • obeseotron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3iTunes7, and the new iPod firmware that came with it are pretty terrible actually, and considering the very limited number of configurations they need to be tested against, it's pretty inexcusable.

      Microsoft is a slave to backwards compatibility and support for every possible hardware configuration. I would imagine a great percentage of their problems come directly or indirectly from the need to not break old programs that rely on old, bad windows code.

      Symmantec is a virus of a company. Their software is far worse than what is available free, they issue self serving PR and call it security research. They even try to sue MS for making it's operating system more secure.
    • brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"@bristilson
      Perhaps its your malware filled pc that is causing your program crashes."

      You mean my clean XP install that worked fine with iTunes 6? I love how you Apple folks holler and scream when Microsoft blames users on a software flaw, but then you turn around and do the SAME DAMN THING.

      Add the fact that iTunes 7 is now working fine after the update, and it's pretty clear that Apple shipped iTunes 7 waaayyy too soon. I've used beta software that was more stable.

      But you'll probably stay in your gumdrop candy-cane world of all Apple software never having any bugs or stability problems. Well us here in reality have to deal with the mess.

      I'm not a Windows fanboy, far from it, but I still have to laugh when Apple fans throw stones in glass houses.
  • 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.
  • batv0r, on 10/12/2007, -17/+3Jonathan hit the nail on the head. Putting aside Mac's Unix-based kernel and what that means in terms of security, we need to look at market share of the OS. When viruses, worms, malware, etc are written by people, I'm sure the author sits and thinks, "Do I want to infect 5% of the users on the internet or 95%?"
    • 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."
    • 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.
    • 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?
    • Hickeroar, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3drlha-

      You're wrong. Virus writers aren't after the "first virus for OSX" title. That was done a LONG time ago. OSX DOES has viruses and malware, it's just rare. If a virus writer wants their virus spread, they're absolutely not going to use a platform that holds only 3% of the marketshare. Common sense tells any idiot to use the one holding over 90%...
    • 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?
    • Hickeroar, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1I think it's obvious that you don't have a flipping clue how that community works...
    • spectre_25gt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@Hickeroar:

      Care to back that one up with a link?
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • Slovenian6474, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@drlha
      "Like 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."

      SOME virus writers would go for kudos, but i think it drastically depends on their intentions. If it's for profit (ie, getting personal data), a virus writer would be stupid to aim at OSX users.

      Personally, i don't think you can pick 1 main reason for windows having much more viruses. I think it's becuase of a number of issues. First, being that it's easier to make a virus for, followed by amount of user base and then intelligence of user base. I don't think anyone on either side of the issue can argue that OSX is more secure, that's rather obvious. But people saying that marketshare doesn't apply are dead wrong. I agree that it's not the ONLY factor though. If there was an OS that had 0.5% marketshare but was as easy to hack as turning on the TV, i'm sure there would be a ton of viruses for it. In the virus writer's shoes, would you want to write something for a system that would take much more time and innovation to only hit 5% of that market or would you choose a to write something that's easier and hits 95%? It's a no brainer. Granded there are viruses for OSX so that title is already gone. But there isn't much viruses for OSX and it's rare for new ones to come along. I don't see that changing when Windows is easier and more effective to penetrate.
    • chimaera2005, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@spectre_25gt
      He doesn't need to back it up with a link...
      "OSX DOES has viruses..."

      Do you need any more proof?
  • kiantech, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2I mean duh if I was going to write spyware why would I write it for Mac OSX, it would be an insult on how perfect it is, not the fact that it would be a waste of time because taking over 90% of the world 's computers rather than 5% is just smarter.
    • 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.
  • RegalBegal, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1OH MY GAWWD. Someone made a wrong prediction!!!111 Call the fact police!!!!1111eleven RRRRRRrrrrrrrRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrr.
  • jonathan4465, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1@batv0r

    Thanks! But notice the negative diggs on my comment. haha!
  • f0dder, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1No spyware dare touch the Mac they are the bestest!!
    • hurfydurfur, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Anyone can speak Troll. All you have to do is point and grunt.." -- Fred Weasley.
  • 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)
    • 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.
    • noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9If XP becomes a benchmark for Security god help us all.
    • 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
    • weareglass, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Why will Vista be more secure? Because Microsoft says it will be? Steve Gibson said in Security Now the only way we'll know if Vista is more secure is to wait until it's released. So instead of making pie in the sky predictions, let's go with the facts. The fact is, no one knows if Vista is going to be better. MS says it will be but they also said that about XP and well...I think you know how that one went. It might be, it might not, no one will know until 2007(-ish).
    • thinkdifferent, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Absolutely correct. Microsoft with the current & previous generations of Windows was stuck with an OS not built with the network or security in mind. It's no wonder it has problems. Apple had the same issue with OS 9. There were security issues & virues for that. When they switched to OS X, they basically ripped out the old stuff, had it run in a little protected memory space, while all new apps were sheltered along with the OS.

      Hopefully Vista takes a similar approach. Microsoft has many talented developers, but their hands have been tied to a wooden ship with an overweighted anchor and way too many holes, plus a termite infestation . As good as they are, they can't plug the holes quickly enough in that old ship. I truly hope Vista is a new ship which relegates that old dinghy of Windows into a museum area where newer apps can point & laugh at it, much like Carbon & Cocoa apps did over OS 9 apps 6 years ago.
    • Slovenian6474, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'd have to agree with that. I so hope that Vista puts Symantec out of business. Their software is horribly needy (for resources). They seem to prey on anyone they can. Claiming things like this, i even saw a Norton Antivirus for Mac at CompUSA. I was wondering why they even stocked it! The first thing those salespeople do is "....it's pretty and doesn't get viruses!" I wouldn't expect anyone to even show Norton for mac to customers. It doesn't get viruses, but you should buy this Antivirus...um....just in case.

      Hell, Symantec would probably try to convince you that you can get a virus on your tv and sell you Norton for TVs if they could.

      My only hope is that aVista be at least secure enough (Thank God for them finally learning to not run as admin by default) to do away with Symantec.
  • davidod87, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Symantec is the George W of computer security.
  • TritonX, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Symantec, a bunch of puppets
    • TritonX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Sorry they aren't the puppets, they are the puppeteers, and those who buy their products are the puppets.
  • 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.
  • akinder, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1They realized they were wrong when Mac's userbase stayed at 0.8% for the past 18 months
    • 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!
    • LaughingMan11, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@thinkdifferent

      Wow... 20% of all software sold is for the Mac? This is an interesting idea... perhaps there really are more Mac users out there than are being counted... after all, the turnover rate year over year for Macs to be replaced are fewer since Macs are usually kept longer than PCs.

      It could also mean that Mac users are more likely to buy software and less likely to pirate software like a lot of PC folk.
    • Slovenian6474, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Thinkdifferent

      Going by software sales is very inaccurate. That counts Linux out almost completely, and that fact that many Windows users don't pass the WGA.

      On the other hand, from personal observation, 5% does seem low. If i were to guess, i would think Macs would be around anywhere from 13%-20%.
    • smeager, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I do beleive the US market share for OS X is 4.6% while the worldwide market share is somewhere around 2.7%. Apple is the 4th largest computer manufacturer in the US, behind Dell, HP and Gateway respectively. Their laptop division has gained earned them somewhere around 12% of the market, on par with Lenovo.

      Year-over-year sales (how market share is calculated) is going to be a little off becuase the average purchasing cycle of a Mac is 3-5 years and that of a PC is 1.5-3 years.
    • MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Arguing about Apple's market share is like drinking generic beer. You still get a buzz, but you feel cheap while doing so. From this statement we learn three things:

      1. Macs probably have a market share higher than statistics bear out
      2. There are still many more Windows machines than Macs
      3. I suck at analogies

      Thank you
    • thinkdifferent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@smeager

      This is why market share should only be used for what it's intention is, comparing sales of a product in a given time period. It's great for comparing one manufacturer over another (assuming the revenue & profit per sale was the same), but doesn't affect platforms as directly since it doesn't consider product lifespan.
  • wired4u, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Apple products have bugs, just look at iTunes 7
    • 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.
  • mochaman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Instead of publishing religious fanboy rants, maybe their time would be better spent reading about how Norton Anti-virus makes OS X less secure or why Bootcamp is an expensive downgrade for the Mac."

    Ouch!
    That is vicious.
    • althe3rduww, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2downgrade.... not really, its users choice.

      Expensive?... only if you have to buy windows ;) Otherwise its free.
  • Lamity, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1All Symantec products are viruses. I have yet to see any other product that can so totally and utterly ***** your machine and reduce its performance to that of a Z80 in one foul swoop. I think users of Symantec products really need their heads examined. But seriously ... who needs antivirus on Windows? If you avoid IE and Outlook ... stick a nice little router/firewall in front of your box and be extremely judicious about what your download and install or sandbox your downloads inside a virtual machine then your are reasonably safe (and this is after 11 years on Windows with no A/V and no infestations).

    I also think Symantec made that prediction on the basis that the Mac user base would grow substantially. Since it hasn't and probably never will then you OS-X fanboi's can rest easy out there ... the blackhat's aren't after you OS ... actually no one is ... why? Because no one really cares about it.
    • Slovenian6474, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well i agree with you one the first paragraph (i'm not commenting on the 2nd). I was sick of Norton sucking my resources away on my gaming machine. So just took it off. I've been running it for about 3 yrs now with no viruses (i periodically put it back on just to see if i have gotten a virus and didn't notice it, then uninstalling again). Of course, like you said, behind a nice router/firewall and careful about what i download and where i go. Much better performance, and still rash-free.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • glev2005, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Now if symantec would just come out and say their home version is a piece of crap no better than most viri, we'd actually have something!!
  • liquilife, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I don't hate OS X. Honestly it seems like a fine piece of OS candy and functionality if you ask me. The problem is if I want the OS X I have to buy an entire computer. If I could wipe my hard drive and install OS X I'd be all over it as well as probably millions of others. This is the big reason why Macs will never truly compete with windows regarding number of users from home and corporations. This is also why spyware is not prevelant. Not only do OS X users consist of a small number of users but a larger percentage of them users are also likely NOT to open that executable program attached to their email.
    • randall814, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"Not only do OS X users consist of a small number of users but a larger percentage of them users are also likely NOT to open that executable program attached to their email."

      And even if they do, that *.exe can do OS X no harm since it will not run.
    • liquilife, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@randall814, you are talking lame technicalities here. A program could be created to harm even the OS X if someone willingly allowed this program to run. Lame responce.
  • pagluy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4If marketshare was really the big reason Mac's don't have virii, don't you think some little twerps would be writing Mac virii just to get there first? Face it, if "the big one" (as in virus) ever hits OS X, the creator will be infamous. I'm sure many anti-Apple'ers have tried, and they've all failed (obviously).
    • cmiz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3First, Windows having a 90% marketshare doesn't mean that Apple has 10% and therefore should have a proportional amount of spyware. If we had 2 tables on the street, one giving out $10 bills and another giving out $100 bills, would we get a proportion of interest based on the amount of money? Probably not. Everyone would go to the table where they could get more, why waste your time with a small slice of the pie? Most competent virus writers aren't 'fanboys' of an operating system, they're fans of whatever is going to get their virus the most victims.

      That being said, OS X is more secure than windows because it is based on the principles that unix was built on. The operating system that it was based on was intended for multiple users and internet. Windows was originally written for a single user non-networked computer. It has checks to keep viruses from spreading outside of a user's space or self replicating.

      Saying that OS X is invulnerable is a fallacy though. There are vulnerabilities in a lot of the software they use (Apache, OpenSSH etc as well as Apple written software) and therefore if somebody wanted to break in, they probably could. The fact that a lot of these projects are opensource and tend to get patched up more quickly than closed source software certainly helps out Apple a lot (you thought Apple wrote all of those updates?)

      I think that as Apple gains more popularity, we're going to see a lot more vulnerabilities popping up in OS X as well as BSD and Linux when the software is shared. This is going to pit a lot of opensource developers up against a huge challenge, and it will be interesting to see how the opensource model holds against a trial by fire (I think they'll come out on top, but only time will tell).

      Now as to whether Apple can keep up the quality of their products and services as they grow in marketshare, that's a whole new story.
    • uownedge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They're handling it pretty well so far.

      I agree about half way with you both on the market share issue. The thing is, it's only a small piece of the puzzle. Too many people are saying "Oh, well, there are no viruses for OS X because only a few people use it."...that's just as wrong as saying that it's perfectly flawless.

      I also agree that if it were just as easy to infect an OS X box as a Windows box, it would have already been done, if nothing else for the fame of doing so.

      So far, all we really have are controlled tests, using only exploits found in non-critical parts of OS X (sorry, SSHD isnt a critical part of the OS, it's a tool that can be disabled, and is disabled by default).

      Granted, there are definitely a ton of Windows boxes out there, I think a lot of folks hear that Apple has "2% of the market share" and picture a grand total of five Mac users in the world, when in reality there are Millions. Again, millions of people are an audience worth targeting for advertising, and with Apple now running on the Intel platform, it would be all the more easier to port malware over, *IF* it were as easy to infect the system.
  • pevensen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The title is inaccurate. I see no place where they "admit they were wrong." They simply stated that there were no new attacks targeting Mac OS X.
  • isosceles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4After setting up Norton Internet Security & Anti Virus for several XP users, I can't get over the annoyance factor of these applications.
  • monkeyrun, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Please bore somebody else with your "predictions"

    Thanks.
  • stasis88, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Oh what do you know, the mac fagboys are back...

    If anyone actually used a MAC there would be plenty of spyware...
    • porkstacker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It is quite apparent you are an ignorant cornhole.
    • stasis88, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0It is quite apparent you are a MAC fan boy that creams all over anything with a little apple on it...
    • uownedge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You're the type of ignorant user that does nothing to help with the solution, and only adds to the problem and wages flame wars instead of presenting facts, helpful information, or contributing to putting a stop to the problems at hand. Go do some research before you make statements like that.
  • humann, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Mr. Hickeroar said this way back there:

    "PC fanbois? What's this? I don't believe such a thing exists... There are no PC fanbois... Only anti-mac fanboi "fanbois." I have no problem with OSX or the apple platform whatsoever."

    Sorry I dugg you down for that. As a reformed mac fanboy it was instinctive. I mean, of course you're completely wrong but people shouldn't have to click the 'show comment' link to see how wrong you are.

    I bought a mac because I'm an artist and some friends told me that artists used Macs. Also somebody had already given me an old IBM XT a few years prior and I wanted to get as far from that technology as possible. So the mac wasn't really my first computer but it was the first computer I really enjoyed or accomplished anything with. And it was the first computer that I got on the internet with. That's where I learned about the platform wars. I learned that there was a large and loud horde of people for whom my $2K computer was a sissy girly thing because they had the other kind. I had my abilities, my intelligence and my manhood constantly assaulted in this weird new public arena where the normal rules of physically-enforced civility, the rules of in-person public life where you-keep-talking-like-that-and-I'm-going-to-punch-you, those rules didn't apply. While enjoying the democratization of communication on some levels it was unpleasant to learn how much clueless hatred people were eager to express from the comfort and safety of their own homes. stasis88 above is a perfect example of that sort of lame. If he isn't actually 13 then he's probably had about as much sex as the average 13-year-old.

    When I got my first computer back in 1995 (a 7100 Powermac) for about $2K, I had no idea I was going to end up championing the manufacturer or its products to friends and strangers for years to come. I’d have laughed at you if you’d have suggested I was going to spend collective weeks of my life arguing for the purchase and use of computers made by some corporation in Cupertino. No way.

    So why did I end up doing it? Self-defense, pure and simple. I soon learned that this ongoing argument had actual measurable consequences. Apple was in deep financial trouble during those mid-late 90s. Not nearly as deep as the death-chant choir of ‘experts’ said they were, but pretty deep nonetheless. And every time some Apple-hater talked a first-time buyer out of going with Macintosh, I was one step closer to Apple’s bankruptcy and having to learn Linux or use Windows. I knew that not all of Apple’s problems were due to the work of haters, but the haters were something that I could personally do something about. It wasn’t about drinking Kool-Aid or thinking that Steve Jobs is Jesus (not a fan of CEOs in general, especially not one who’d use MLK and Gandhi to sell their made-cheap-on-the-Pacific-rim technology). It was about saving the platform I’d spent so many thousands of hours getting good on.

    At first I thought the Mac-PC-Linux thing might be kinda like the Mopar-Ford-GM thing that I was already familiar with but then I saw the big difference. We all spend a significant portion of our lives learning our platforms of choice and very little of that knowledge is transferable. Operating systems are damnably complex and many intelligent people are so worn out by the time they start moving around their first OS with any agility, they just don’t want to even hear about any other platforms’ potential benefits over their own. The devil you know is always better than the devil you don’t know. For example, it was awful for me, after the heady days of Photoshop on the 604e (multi-proc no less!) to watch wintel close the gap and finally even pull ahead of the G4 in real-world testing using the Adobe apps I used. I suspect that for a PC-user, having the Mac reborn as a virus-and-spyware-free unix must feel kinda similar. Well, maybe not—the few seconds a faster processor can save is really nothing compared to the grief of a real virus or even always having to protect against one.

    I’d never given a damn about professional team sports (sports are for playing not watching) so the only other thing I could compare this platform war with is politics. I suppose that I’d have as great a success convincing Mr. Munir Kotadia of his published anti-mac bias as I’d have of persuading Fox News that they’re more propaganda than news. And although Hickeroar has every right to hate me, he should know that my shilling for Apple was always tempered by the knowledge that for some poor people PCs are truly a better choice. I'd always tell them so too. Also, I retired several years ago once Apple had about a dozen good quarters.
    • uownedge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Amen man. I've been working closely with both Mac OS and Windows since my first introduction to computers when I was a wee lad, and I've been supporting both professionally since long before I was legally allowed to work. I've also worked with Linux for quite some time. Personally, I support Apple, not because I'm a Fanboi (I like to think I make fair comparisons, and I'm the type of person who will give these types of things a fair chances and use before shrugging it off as "the sucks"), but because I like what they make. When I sit down at my Mac and get ready to do work, I don't think "what if I got a virus over the network?" or "I should probably scan for malware", or "I need to reboot first because the system is running slow". I just sit down, and it works. The interface and key combinations are appealing and easy for me to use, I get more work done, and I enjoy my time spent on the computer.

      I've found that the vast vast majority of people who talk trash on OS X know next to nothing about it, and in a lot of cases, haven't even used it. People like to cling to the lie that Apple computers are more expensive (they aren't, you just have a smaller selection of models). You can't compare your $300 Dell desktop to my $1099 iMac. Sorry, there's just no comparison there, your Dell is cheap junk that will be long dead before I even need to upgrade.

      Sure, it's not a perfect system, but for what I use my computers for, it gets the job done better than Windows. I try to present the positives to people, and I get reactions across the spectrum. I've had a lot of people come back with the "You know, I never knew that about OS X, I think I'll give it a try", a few weeks later, I hear nothing but raves about their new Macs. I've also had people come back and tell me it wasn't for them, but at least they tried it, and made a fair assessment. The majority came back with an overwhelmingly positive response, which really says something for Apple's work.

      I think part of Apple's quality stems from the very fact that MS is the majority share holder. Competition is a very good thing. If Apple were on top, I'm sure our current products would be of much lower quality, and MS's may very well be higher.

      This isn't at all to say that MS makes a strictly bad product, or that PCs are never a good choice, but more so to say that just because Microsoft has the majority market share doesn't mean that OS X is less secure than many of it's supporters claim, or that the Microsoft way is always the best way. You should choose your computer based on your needs and likes, not what everyone else is doing, or what some idiot kid says on the internet. You know what they say; "Ignorance is bliss" and to the willfully ignorant, more power to you -- just don't bring your trash talk here. Nobody is interested.

      It's one thing to make a joke or wise crack here and there -- I love a good Windows joke as much as the next admin, and I love a good Mac joke too, but it's something completely different to out right lie and pretend like it's the truth when you know it's not.
  • DokWho, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The prediction is wrong due to the fact the OS sales are still not taking off.
    • Schelske, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Seriously? stasis88, your comment is exactly why it's getting so hard to use Digg and half the other sources of info on the web. Have an opinion. That's great! Express it! That's great. But do it articulately and thoughtfully. And maybe even support your ideas with some facts. (Like this one: The Us Army website is hosted exclusively on Apple Xserves. see:http://www.apple.com/itpro/profiles/army/ Huh! I guess no one is storing important data on Apples anywhere.) Then people will take you seriously and maybe even listen to the good things you have to say.

      Oh, by the way, I hit the wrong "reply" link. This is a reply to the post below this one.

    • DrDabbles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You are a true idiot. You know that, right? OS Sales are not taking off? Hmm, that's funny, because every PC they sell comes with a copy of Mac OS X. Not really sure what metrics you're using to come to your conclusion...but they're probably a decade out of date. Do some research before spreading your FUD.
  • stasis88, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I dont get how these mac biatches say market share doesnt mean anything, what the F are you on??? It means EVERYTHING. If the US goverment and just about every single corporation in the US (not to mention many other countries) used macs there would be plenty of virii. Viruses are written for a reason, usually to steal data, NOBODY CARES ABOUT ANY DATA YOU MAC FAGS HAVE, THEY CAN FIND THEIR OWN PORN AND MUSIC!!!

    SIMPLY PUT, IF THE TARGET DOESNT EXIST WHY WOULD YOU ATTACK IT.
    • MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1humann has your number stasis88. You really are a tool. Let us know sometime how that job you want playing half-life from your mom's basement works out. MMMMMmmmmkay?
    • uownedge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Once again, you're being ignorant. Market share hardly means everything. It's a much smaller piece of the pie than actual security in fact. There are millions of Mac users out there, and since it would seem that marketing is so important to you, I'm sure you'll agree that millions of people are plenty enough to pique an advertiser's interest, no?

      The fact is, it's much harder to infect a *nix based OS based on the security model. If you truly are interested (I suspect you aren't), go read up on how it works.

      It works something a bit more like this. [Windows = Majority audience + easy to break into] [Mac = Large but minority audience + difficult to break into]. NOW you're on the right track to how market share effects what systems are being broken into. Obviously, despite being the minority audience, Macs would still be attacked if it was so very easy to do. Furthermore, the market share argument is valid only, ONLY, when you're strictly talking about marketing, and not system security. When you're comparing the security and stability of two systems, market share plays no roll at all. You're then strictly discussing how the systems are built, and how they are protected (If you know what you're talking about -- if you're still talking about market share in that type of discussion, you have a lot of reading to do).

  • rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Apparently their international teams of thugs and crackers are having a hard time writing viruses that do not require user interaction.
  • DrDabbles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The argument here isn't Mac OS being more secure after a compromise or not...it's about inherent security. When running Windows XP as a power user or an administrator (which you typically need to be to install most Windows software), you can do severe damage by installing the wrong application- say, a virus.

    Out of the Box, Mac OS (and almost every *nix I have ever used) separates privileges at a very granular level. On these "alternative OSs", the typical user has basic usage rights. Again, to install many packages you need to escalate your rights. But that's where the magic happens. The system prompts you to confirm that you are sure you want to take a specific action. Windows (right or wrong) makes the assumption that you know what you're doing if you're an administrative user. This particular issue is being addressed in Windows Vista.

    With regard to hardening the operating system to attack, that's something that OS X and Linux have on Windows by far. Unix-based operating systems have been hardening and bug-fixing for decades. This is simply a factor of time. With Windows Vista having an entirely re-written network stack, you can bet there will be severe bugs found. Linux went through this pain as well with IPv6 support (and may still be). New software is bound to have bugs. But again, using a mature base to build upon is the smartest and safest approach.

    In the end, if you get an idiot user on any PC that runs a program with escalated rights you have the potential for a box being owned. That's just how it is. Social Engineering is still a huge part of getting a virus spread. But, being slapped in the face with a warning screen informing you that this picture of some naked celebrity is trying to access your system preferences or address book is a clear sign that something is wrong.
  • diggnationdevon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I don't care if Vista turns out to be insecure or not, I sure as hell am not installing any of Symantec's crappy software on it.
    • methodshop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i remember back in the OS 7 or 8 days I ran Norton Utilities on my PowerMac 8500 and it deleted all my files. i was so pissed. i think it was a bug when HFS+ formatted disks first came out. anyway Norton wiped my hard drive during finals week of my sophomore year in college. i will always have a very deep hate for Symantec. always.

      anyone need an anti-Symantec logo?
      http://www.flickr.com/photos/methodshop/255172139/
  • methodshop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Besides a couple Trojan Horses, I can't remember the last time I saw a Mac virus. When was the last Mac OS virus anyway? 1987?
  • thombone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0As long as Windows must remain backwards compatible with software written for previous versions of windows, it will ALWAYS be insecure. Vista will not change that.

    Remember what Microsoft said about XP when it was released? The most secure windows yet? History has shown it to be the most INSECURE version ever written--mainly due to it's complexity.

    Vista certainly isn't more simple, or any less complex.

    The more complex the code, the more source code lines, the more possibilities to find exploits.

    Microsoft can only solve their security problems by throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and writing a new OS from scratch (that fore-gos ANY backwards compatibility except in pure user space (by this I mean, perhaps, one way, is to only allow legacy windows apps to run in a virtual machine, similar to how OSX did OS9 compatibility)).

    As long as MS offers legacy compatibility at the OS level, they are screwed. History will be the judge. Mark my words, You thought XP was full of holes? You haven't seen anything yet.

    The problems with Vista are going to be nothing short of colossal, at many many levels.

    And no, I'm not a Linux fan-boy. I do run it though. I also have two Macs. I also have 9 (yes NINE) PCs running windows.

    I'm just a fan of whatever works and gets the job done. I call a spade a spade when I see it. That doesn't make me a fan-boy or an MS basher. It's just the simple truth from one who has been in the IT business a couple of decades and has seen it all.

    peace.
  • brewno2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'd love to see Bill Gates (or whoever is in charge of MS in a few years) imitate Steve's attitude and say "Vista was the last backwards-compatible system we had. It's time to evolve, our new system was built from scratch with revolutionary secury system", pretty much like OS9-OSX migration. Forcing people to migrate to the new system.
    I still don't understand how a multibillionaire company like MS (that has the power and money to get the best software developers in the world, best designers etc) is still making *****, insecure, poorly-imitated OSs. Take Ubuntu as an example: free software developed by a small community and now one of the best OS.
    Vista is nothing more than XP with transparencies covered with a mosquito net. Surely they'll block the big bugs but viruses are still going to pass through it.
  • aristotle0dude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Security flaws are caused by mistakes made by the OS developers. Stop blaming users especially when a windows box can be owned even before the installation process was completed (pre-Sp1).

    Where do people get the idea that critical mass somehow causes something to be more fragile? Is it from the old "an infinite amount of monkeys could write a Shakespeare play" meme?

    Indirectly, I suppose complacency from having locked everyone into windows technologies could cause the windows OS programmers to get sloppy and lazy but people. I however, just assume they were incompetent to start with and most of the flaws in windows stem from it's design philosophy.

    Mac OS X is more secure out of the box than XP.
  • arlene1985, on 12/01/2007, -0/+0This happens with every Operating System which becomes widespread and popular. Nobidy attacked Windows before Microsoft made it a default OS for millions of us, mere users. Same applies to Linux, which is going to be under sever attacks as long as its popularity increases together with usability and accessibility. Unfortunately, neither XoftSpy from ParetoLogic http://xoftspyantispyware.blogspot.com nor Webroot's Spy Sweeper http://spy-sweeper-download.blogspot.com work under Linux/Unix systems or MACs.
  •  

    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.