digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Why there aren't viruses for Macs — it's not because of low market share.

macobserver.com — Apple haters love to claim that there are no viruses for Macs because there are so few compared to Windows machines. Virus creators are in the business because of ego. And what would be a bigger ego boost than being the first to create a widespread OS X virus?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • dgblackout, on 10/12/2007, -33/+221it helps that mac has a proper unix base and protected memory.
    microsoft dug themselves a hole and can't get out of it now
    it'll get a bit better when the 64 bit versions of vista start gaining popularity, but it'll still be years behind anything apple has to offer because they can move quicker due to the smaller user base.
    • DevastatorIIC, on 10/12/2007, -35/+139Well duh; BSD is hella secure, so any OS built on top of it would also be secure.

      I don't fully understand why the BSD license exists - It's open-source, but why would you want someone else to make money off of your code?
    • nipuL, on 10/12/2007, -138/+52Because code should be free. Not shackled by fairy communist ideals.
    • miles01110, on 10/12/2007, -132/+377The unsinkable Titanic sank overnight. The thousand year Reich lasted a dozen.

      Just because nobody has found a fatal flaw doesn't mean there isn't one. Ridiculous claims that OSX "can't be hacked" don't hold any water.
    • ihate2regist, on 10/12/2007, -187/+93Who would want to ***** a mac up more than it already is?
    • cloakeddagger, on 10/12/2007, -20/+181obviously this article could be applied to linux/bsd/solaris etc too...
    • Feeedbaack, on 10/12/2007, -148/+51So how does that explain the lack of viruses on all the crappy Mac OS's before X? A lower install base is exactly why.

      It's like saying Honda Civics are stolen more often than Geo Metro's because Civics are easier to break into. NO, it's because you can't walk 100 feet without seeing a civic. Thieves make a point of learning to break into the most common cars.


    • tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -20/+310miles01110: Not many people claim OSX 'can't be hacked', and anyone that does is foolish. What people DO say is hacking OSX is hell of a lot harder than Windows due to inherently more secure architecture and better default settings, and that there's better security to prevent viruses and so on from a) getting on your machine in the first place, b) doing any damage if they do get on.

      OSX isn't, however, immune to user stupidity. If you write a program that deletes important files and ask a stupid user to run it, it'll do the same damage on OSX as it would on Windows. It's the stuff that bypasses users completely that OSX is better protected against, compared to Windows.

      Some fatal flaw may well exist, no-one knows yet. But at this point in time OSX is more secure by default than Windows, and that's what matters to me. If there's suddenly a torrent of dangerous virii for Mac, I'll reconsider my choice at that time.
    • joeshlub, on 10/12/2007, -59/+48Anyone else remember the month of apple bugs? Not all of them were anything significant, but I think it's a funny site to think about when considering this article.
      http://projects.info-pull.com/moab/
    • threemagic, on 10/12/2007, -21/+118@Feeeedback: Then why aren't there widespread virus that attack Linux? Since most of the world's web servers are Linux running Apache then it would make sense that because of it's popularity it would be attacked... you know, your asinine thinking... a lot of install base = better chance to find a knucklehead who would write one.

      Enough with your insane justifications for hating what you don't understand.
    • egarc, on 10/12/2007, -44/+35@miles: "Ridiculous claims that OSX "can't be hacked" don't hold any water."

      Nobody's claiming OS X can't be hacked, just more secure than Windows.

      I don't care why it's more secure. I'd switch to Windows in a heartbeat if it were more secure than OS X.
    • tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -19/+142I also want to add this:

      I couldn't give two hoots why there's fewer virii for Mac. Tiny market share? More secure? Steve Jobs is a god? Doesn't matter to me. All I care is that there ARE fewer. The reasons for it being so mean nothing. If my Mac is attacked less because it's part of a small market, that's great.
    • DDoSAttack, on 10/12/2007, -83/+11@tizz66

      Actually, there is a fatal flaw...
      http://digg.com/apple/Man_deletes_usr_blames_Apple_for_his_mistake

      How is it possible that you can delete a critical directory without Admin permissions? It's only a matter of time before this gets exploited.
    • DDoSAttack, on 10/12/2007, -44/+7@threemagic

      That is a very poor argument. When was the last time someone used a web server located in a server housing facility to surf the web and therefore expose the OS to possible threats?
    • tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -7/+66DDoSAttack: That's partly user-stupidity, which as I said is unpreventable. You can't delete critical folders without admin permission - but if you go ahead and type in your admin password when it asks you, it'll merrily try and delete it anyway. When he installed the application that broke it, it WOULD have asked him to put in his password for it. It CANNOT edit system folders on its own.

      User stupidity will be the downfall of computers ;)
    • Philluminati, on 10/12/2007, -31/+3
      You would think that more windows users means more people trying to write viruses for mac / linux.
    • MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -7/+57DDoSAttack:
      You're claiming that because of a third party utility program that had to be installed by the user (stupidity by user), that had to have a checkbox ticked to reveal hidden folders (gross stupidity by the user), and then had to manually delete a folder (UBER-stupidity by the user) that OS X's security by default is no better than a virus/ malware/ adware that can load automatically (granted, most of these will not load unless the Windows user is stupid enough NOT to lock down their machine with constantly updated anti-viris software) with Windows in default mode?

      Are you really saying that? Really?

      I keep hearing about these Mac users that claim that OS X is perfect and completely safe as is. Haven't seen them myself nor have I heard those same claims here on digg except from Windows users who claim to have heard them.

      I don't claim that OS X is perfect or unable to be compromised, but it is safer by default than Windows. For whatever reason.
    • Achilles, on 10/12/2007, -10/+20Ah, so let's egg them on!
    • KDX200rider, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21@nipuL

      Whether code is considered free or licensed should be up to the developer.
    • Feeedbaack, on 10/12/2007, -33/+30@threemagic Why aren't linux web servers hacked? are you kidding me? Web servers are hacked all the time. There are also admins whose responsibility it is to patch security holes as soon as they come up. How many home PC's running windows are there compared to linux web servers? Use your head.

      Also, I work in the printing industry and I've used MacOS since 8, right up to the G5 I have at work right now running panther. I also admin'd an osx network with a server. That's how I've learned to hate it. What experience do you have with macs? Other than surfing the internet and loading music from itunes into your shuffle.

    • iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -26/+12"Then why aren't there widespread virus that attack Linux? Since most of the world's web servers are Linux running Apache then it would make sense that because of it's popularity it would be attacked..."

      Because users don't sit and read email/surf the web from servers moron. I've never heard of a production windows server getting a virus.
    • ZergyPoo, on 10/12/2007, -24/+8The "inherently more secure" argument does not hold any water either, as far as I'm concerned.

      Until OSX has the user-population, until OSX has withstood the type of scrutiny that Windows has, there is not evidence to support this.

      Sure, in theory it is more secure, anyone can argue that an OS is more secure "in theory."

      There thousands and thousands of hackers/virus coders staring at windows waiting and looking for security flaws, and this has been going on for years. Until OSX has attained that market share that windows has, and withstood the attacks that windows has, then there is not actual evidence to support the claim that it is "inherently more secure."
    • bradleyland, on 10/12/2007, -22/+20"it helps that mac has a proper unix base and protected memory.
      microsoft dug themselves a hole and can't get out of it now
      it'll get a bit better when the 64 bit versions of vista start gaining popularity, but it'll still be years behind anything apple has to offer because they can move quicker due to the smaller user base."

      Are you just spewing terms you overheard in the IT department?

      Protected memory is a stability feature, not neccessarily a security feature. It is intended to "protect" the operating system from system wide crashes when a single application crashes. It does not necessarily preclude the ability for one application to write over another program's memory space. I don't know if you can do this in OS X, but I know that in Windows, you can make direct calls to almost the entire memory space. This is the way game trainers work. Maybe you're thinking of managed code, which runs inside a virtual machine and can be sandboxed.

      And what the hell does 64-bit have to do with security? It's a change in a processor architecture. It has NOTHING to do with security.

      Vista is not "years behind" as you suggest. True, OS X has a better base security model. True, Microsoft is living with a lot of bad decisions, but OS X has no equivalent to managed code that I know of. Managed code is probably the biggest security feature that Vista brings to the table.

      I'm not a security expert, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
    • cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -29/+6What is Apple OSX based on? Oh yeah, that OS where viruses first appeared. Thanks for clearing that up.
    • EdLesMann, on 10/12/2007, -28/+96"I've never heard of a production windows server getting a virus."

      Oh I have. Everyone at work knows I am the Linux admin and that I won't touch the Windows servers. That is the reason why I get to go home on time every day and the Windows Admins all get called into work @ 8pm on the Saturday before Easter (I was told to be glad I was not in the building that day).

      Every place I have worked as the Linux admin, I have seen the Windows Admins get called in at weird times to fight with virii. Hence another reason why I don't touch the Windows servers. I don't want the responsibility at 3am. :-D

      Even though I speak the truth, proceed to buy me down :-)
    • shark615, on 10/12/2007, -30/+16@EdLesMann:

      I call bollocks. You are making ***** up because the pro windows people are being dugg down by fan boys and you think you can sneek a retarded, non-sensical post in about how you are a big shot.
    • geoken, on 10/12/2007, -5/+31"Virus creators are in the business because of ego."

      I think the author is confusing harmless script kiddies with true malware writers (who are most definately in the buisness for the tens of thousands of dollars and not ego).
    • Kamill85, on 10/12/2007, -11/+22Widespread viruses are not made for Mac's because the key feature required for them (good spreading technique) is simply not possible. There has to be a large number of possible-hosts for the virus. Mac's do not give that opportunity, there's not enough of them to create a global outbreak. It all goes down to a simple analogy from a real life:
      When a virus infects only a rare animal, with very little population (with many subspecies) which is spread all around the world, there's no way that virus will become widespread. Now the other, "windows" case, a virus infects 1% of 6 billion people, does it get wide spread after a while?

      So that's your answer to a question, why there's so little interest in Mac (or other, less popular system) exploitation.

      PS: there's also knowledge-factor, due to the popularity of the Windows systems (OSX/other systems are less popular in households, don't you agree?), there are thousands of security related papers/publications/sites and reverse-engineering tools - all of that makes the Windows family the best target.
    • rickcarson, on 10/12/2007, -6/+49You guys are all missing something.

      To say that OS X is perfect and cannot be hacked is _quite different_ to saying that there are over 100000 viruses for the PC, and less than (say for the sake of argument) 2 for the Mac.

      As a Mac user who keeps in touch with the latest news I'm not worried about catching a virus. I'll likely read about it long before being hit by it.

      Saying that your system cannot be hacked is arrogance and bravado and asking for trouble. Saying that there are 6 or 7 orders of magnitude more viruses for the PC than the Mac is simply stating 'the facts'.

      People who can't handle that Mac are a much lower risk than PCs need to seriously consider that they might be part of the problem.

      It never ceases to amaze me to see large corporations buy vast numbers of PCs... and then as soon as they get them they are terrified that users might get viruses, so they have to lock them down so tightly that the only things left to do are to use Office and Outlook.... Which are two of the biggest factors in the prevalence of Windows viruses.

      The mind boggles.
    • TomPlansMedia, on 10/12/2007, -3/+77for *****'s sake, virii is not a word! unless you're talking about more than one "virius," which is a word that doesnt exist.

      viruses, kids. viruses.
    • cjvino, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19@iceperson

      Ever hear of MSBlaster or Sasser? No email or surfing required to get those and LOTS of "production" Windows servers were brought down because of them.
    • iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -25/+10"Oh I have. Everyone at work knows I am the Linux admin and that I won't touch the Windows servers. That is the reason why I get to go home on time every day and the Windows Admins all get called into work @ 8pm on the Saturday before Easter (I was told to be glad I was not in the building that day).

      Every place I have worked as the Linux admin, I have seen the Windows Admins get called in at weird times to fight with virii. Hence another reason why I don't touch the Windows servers. I don't want the responsibility at 3am. :-D"

      You do know where liars go don't you?

      Lastly, virii isn't even a word.
    • Greyarea, on 10/12/2007, -8/+38"I've never heard of a production windows server getting a virus."

      Whereas I encounter roughly three a week, on average.
    • ipodsweatshop, on 10/12/2007, -17/+8Yes, it is market share and no it's not about ego.

      It's about money and publicity. You don't want publicity, but you do want money. You target Windows because of the huge install base. It's easier and very low profile. If someone started hitting Macs, it would be so much easier to find the few people that start targeting Macs than the many hitting PCs.
    • Duston, on 10/12/2007, -12/+17@EdLesMann (#6121447)

      You then have lousy admins on the Windows Servers. Feel free to email me and offer me a job. I will see to that once your servers are properly administrated they will be virus free and I will go home at night.
    • Emanji, on 10/12/2007, -14/+12The notion that Windows are virus attracting machines is just bull. Its all on the user. My friend Shayne and I are both admins at our respected company and we have conversation about this every week. There are truly no patches for human stupidity. We just don't get how people can get their pc infected with all kind of viruses and spyware, when we do just as much surfing if not more and never get any. I don't even have a spyware or virus program running on my laptop (running xp) anymore. I visited about 50 different sites a day, i surf for porn just like anybody else, but yet my computer is as clean as they come. Some of these people out there are just so ignorant about computer that they would install every program they see on the net. My sister would install 10000 different types of spyware and pop up blocker on her PC not knowing that those programs are spyware themselves. You'd be surprise how many people WILL click on that advertise pop up and install programs from lord know who. LoL i'm not suggesting that Mac users are more intelligent than Windows users so dont go there. I'm just saying that there are another explanation to why there seems to be a lot of stories about Windows being unsafe.
    • Kazbaeden, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5Whenever I hear the argument that market share doesn't matter, I always stop and think "So does that mean if OS X was the only operating system on the planet we would never see a virus again?"

      Now doesn't that sound silly?
    • theheadguy, on 10/12/2007, -13/+16Consider this: I don't give a ***** why I don't get viruses. Windows users do, and I don't. Period.
    • pgiessel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10@DevastatorIIC
      "It's open-source, but why would you want someone else to make money off of your code?"

      If I say that you can't use my code in some way, is that more or less restrictive than allowing you to use my code in some way? BSD is TRULY open source, whereas GPL is much more limited. That is what draws many people to BSD. We don't have to worry about being sued because we made money by reselling something that includes BSD code. Its truly open.
    • KMartSheriff, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Yeah I've had several Windows boxes that never had a single virus. I laugh at people when they tell me their computer "has a virus". 95% of the time it's the user who deselected some box in some email client or ***** like that. Because apparently when their email doesn't go into some folder, it's CLEARLY a virus (sarcasm).

      You kinda have to go out of your way (not too far though) to actually get a bugged system.
    • cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7The second anybody says an OS can't be hacked, or a virus can't be written for an OS I say:

      B U L L S H I T

      ANY OS can be hacked, any OS that can be hacked can have a virus written for it.

      This author is hiding behind OS X's obscurity, but claiming its isn't an issue. That's a grand and easy suggestion to make, as dozens of Russian hackers aren't going to pool their efforts to create viruses for an OS with so little market share. It sure is easy to claim that the fact your OS isn't popular has nothing to do with the fact it isn't being targeted with virus attacks, when nobody wants to write a virus for your OS becuase there are so little of them to hit.

      Nice...
    • Ford_Prefect2nd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6 nipuL
      "Because code should be free. Not shackled by fairy communist ideals." The idea that everyone should have access to something for the benefit of society, without cost, is very Marxist... you know the father of Communism. You win the "I have no idea what I'm talking about, but figured I could use some semi-big words to sound smart" award for this thread. Unfortunately for you -and the rest of us- the prize for this award is not a "clue".
    • newyawker, on 10/12/2007, -14/+10Remember a few weeks ago when Symantec released a report saying Windows is the most secure OS, followed by Linux, and then Mac? And Symantec is no friend to Windows, the two companies have had legal battles involving large lawsuits in the past...

      I think I'll trust Symantec over this website...

      http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3667201
    • eitheehstsergei, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4dumbest article ever, even the premise is retarded. virus makers do it for ego? oh please. they do it for money you dumb *****. whoever wrote this article is clearly a mac fanboy. there have been plenty of viruses for mac, and my windows has been virus free for almost a decade now. also the new windows has the password protection that both unix and osx has, which is the ONLY reason they are so much safer because it stoops noobs like you from getting owned. you mac fanboys need to get off your little clouds. at least windows has the ability to turn off that piece of crap password prompt, if you are aware of what youre doing, you dont need it, as i havnt for the past decade.
    • MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14"Whereas I encounter roughly three a week, on average."

      Then the admins are incompetant on a level that makes me wonder how they able to simultaneously hit ctrl, alt, and delete to bring up the login screen.

      There is no reason that a production Windows server should ever get a virus.
    • aiten, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5You've never heard of a production windows server getting a virus? Really? Or are you just making that up to back up your argument? I think you are.

      I've heard of (and been called into repair) many production windows servers which have had viruses, ones which were previously said to be 'utterly secure' by windows faithfuls like yourself. There is a reason people use Linux despite it being difficult to use in the past.
    • ihate2regist, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20060513
    • bias, on 10/12/2007, -11/+9It's amazing how these people lie about how there can't be any virus on OSX, and then calling anyone who disagree with them spreading FUD. This post clearly show how ***** up Digg is right now, all the diggs on comments are based on whether you agree with one of the fanboy camps, Linux, Open Source, Apple, instead of the quality or truth of the comment.
    • bsolidgold, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4It has nothing to do with the fact that it's 'OSX' and everything to do with the fact that it's based on Unix. It's secure for the same reason any *nix based PC is secure. Get off your high-horse Mac fanboys, the fact that MacOS is more secure has nothing to do with anything a developer did at Apple, they just choose a good base model for its foundation. Get a f-ing clue and stop puting your precious Mac on a pedestal. You wouldn't be so defensive if there was nothing to defend.

      I hate MacOS because it's like the Fisher Price interface for people who are too scared to use a real computer. If you wanted real functionality and security you would use a Linux distro... hell, Ubuntu is more user friendly than ever right now!
    • Niten, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"it helps that mac has a proper unix base and protected memory."

      Wait, are you implying that Windows *doesn't* have protected memory? Microsoft Windows has had a full-fledged protected memory manager since NT.
    • Niten, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9"Remember a few weeks ago when Symantec released a report saying Windows is the most secure OS, followed by Linux, and then Mac? And Symantec is no friend to Windows, the two companies have had legal battles involving large lawsuits in the past..."

      The fact that Symantec isn't buddy-buddy with Microsoft doesn't mean they don't have an incentive to show that Windows is a "better" operating system than the alternatives. "Hey everyone, listen up. I know some of you were thinking of switching to Linux or the Mac for improved security, but really, you're better off sticking with Windows. And by the way, did I mention that our products run exclusively on Windows?"
    • dmsean, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1RE: threemagic

      A patchy server.

      You know why they call it that? Because it is hella bug ridden. It's good system admins that stop protect and patch their servers, as well as watch and monitor.

      It takes more understanding to run, and stupid people would rather just install.
    • dmsean, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2RE: Niten

      no he's implying Windows 32bit has poor protect memory management with an old code base.
    • ConceptJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4>to offer because they can move quicker due to the smaller user base.

      No, they can move more quickly because it doesn't take them a year with a team of 20 to design the shutdown menu.

      Every disadvantage MS has in fixing their problems are entirely of their own making and exacerbation. Apple has simply proved that they can design, implement and deliver more quickly. I'm no Apple fanboy, and actually use Windows (and Linux), but I haven't upgraded a MS OS in over 5 years and probably never will again. They simply have nothing useful to offer me.


    • rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3If there is a fatal flaw, and someone has created a virus, they would reak more havoc by WAITING for OS X to mature (i.e. Leopard), and WAITING for Apple to sell more boxes as Apple declines. Then they would get the maximum affect.

      The next two years will be very interesting in the tech world, with Microsoft declining and Apple and Google rising.
    • Mindris, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4no one buys macs so no one cares about making viruses for them
    • merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13"I've never heard of a production windows server getting a virus."

      Then you've never heard of Nimda, Code Red, and Slammer.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Red_%28computer_worm%29
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimda
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL_slammer_%28computer_worm%29

      All three hit major production servers all over the net.
    • jmaynardg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@miles01110:

      Ah, yes. Argument by analogy and the strawman; two popular linguistic tools in the sophists' toolbox. Your point?
    • incubusnb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5@nipuL

      actually, Open Source would be the communist ideal, closed source is closer to dictatorship

      Communism, means Community, Open Source is community driven, where as Closed Source is driven only by those who control it.

      not wanting to get into a political debate here, let me state that no true Communism has ever existed in the history of modern civilization
    • mhill110, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Can somebody please put all of this into english for my dumb ass?
    • mrtron, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Well, as someone who has worked on operating systems, I am getting a real laugh out of this thread.

      Congratulations on a large number of people making comments which are nowhere near accurate.

      Simply put, despite what the general consensus seems to be here, OS X is much more secure than Windows (even Vista). Also, BSD, *nix, etc servers are far more secure than Windows servers. Do you think that every large company, banks, anyone with the expertise and desire for security, all use Linux servers because it is the "cool" thing to do?
      To make an easy and simple point:
      Windows - Does not have a true/good user and file permissions structure. This causes problems with security.
      *nix/OS X - Has a unix based user and permission structure. So, files are only accessable by specific users. This is why your friend on your guest account on your macbook cannot find your pron, and can't mess up your computer. This also not surprisingly protects important files against viruses.
    • sleze, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I guess no one steals cars like mine (2005 Passat TDI wagon) that often because of VWs superior security system...not the fact that only 5000 were made.
    • iridescence, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Month Of Apple Bugs anyone?
      http://projects.info-pull.com/moab/
    • iridescence, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@sleze If a reasonable thief wanted your car they'd have it mate. If it was more expensive with an even better security system then it'd be even more likely to be nicked, it's just about in the range of decent security but not likely to be on lists of cars stolen to order.
    • tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You can't use cars as an analogy, because you car is accessible only to your local area. Your computer is connected to the internet, and if it isn't secured anyone anywhere can get to it. If every car in the world was parked in the same car park surrounded by car thieves, you'd have a slightly better analogy - assuming all cars had an equal security system, which cars would be stolen?
    • Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@iridescence;

      The Month of Apple bugs did not result in virus code. Period. The fact that a bunch of bugs were uncovered for MacOS X *applications* along with some for the MacOS itself still did nothing to change the fact that there are no viruses for the Mac in the wild. Apple swiftly patched the bugs they could, making the bugs obsolete, and have dropped one of the "features" of the current MacOS in Leopard because its architecture was a security vulnerability. Yes, this breaks a bunch of nifty hacks and third-party software add ons; the fact that Apple can damn backwards compatibility for the sake of security consistently shows one of the biggest differences between Apple and Microsoft.
    • Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"for *****'s sake, virii is not a word! unless you're talking about more than one "virius," which is a word that doesnt exist.
      viruses, kids. viruses."

      Bear with them. The geeklings want to test out using Latin grammar on English. (octopus -> octopi, fetus -> feti, etc.)
    • EztliNahua, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://www.milw0rm.com

      search for "mac"...
    • eam52guy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1er... virus is based on the latin word virus. Nothing to do with greek. But i do enjoy it when rectums (recta, even) talk. Octopus is greek which is why it doesn't take the -i plural. Not true with latin. Learn.
    • CrazyChair, on 07/21/2008, -0/+0Ummm he said geeklings. Who mentioned anything about Greeks?

      He is right though, virii isn't acknowledged as a word in the English language. Virus in latin had no plural form. Even if it did, it would not have been virii unless virus was spelled "virius".
    • chingy1788, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Viruses Conspiricy

      Person receives email saying they won a HDTV
      email states they download and run this attachment, also forward the email to a dozen friends
      person runs program and virus is infected
      virus spreads to all files in computer
      virus spreads into external storage devices and across network, virus infects messenger programs sending random links
      virus activates and corrupts all files on Hard Drive
      User takes infected computer to computer shop
      complains that comp isn't loading
      computer shop runs anti-virus through boot disk, charges $100 for it
      computer shop sell anti-virus software to user $100, firewall $100, anti-spyware $100
      computer shop tells user to check computers on home network and tell friends to scan, scan external media as well
      user tells friends to buy anti-virus, firewall, anti-spyware $300 per friend
      user buys software for other computers on home network $300 per computer
      computer shop Makes $100 + profit on AV, FW, AS software
      AV, FW, AS company makes money on software sold
      so
      in conclusion all computer shop repairs people and AV, FW, AS companies create viruses and spyware as well as hacking into peoples computers...

      except the free ones...
    • sathias, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The security of an OS is slightly overblown in terms of importance IMHO. People seem to accentuate the particular fields that their OS excels at in order to validate their own choices, and deem as irrelevant the parts that don't. "Oh my machine won't be able to play Crysis? I didn't want to play it anyway..."

      So what if XP has enough vulnerabilities and userbase that I need to install a free virus checker to protect it? And is it a bad thing that I have to be aware of what I am downloading in order to keep my computer safe? At least I can run all my apps and games without buggering around with emulators.

      See I've just done the same thing :-P
    • television, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If you have a mac don't click this link http://www.devastatingmacintoshvirus.com/dmv.exe
    • zdiggler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Don't click on attachments!!

      Most of windows virus spyware etc come from email which user click or some sort of plugin or tool bar that they say yes to and install it.

      I just teach people to not to click on email unless its a movie, how to identify one before you double click to open etc. Switch them to Thunderbird/Firefox and it works great!

      Most of the virus came form people clicking stuff that come in email and installing toolbar or control when they vist a website. Most of them don't even want to take over the system or mess the kernal up. They just want to sit in start up.
      When Mellisa virus was going around I didn't get it. Mine was only on the coporate building which I uninstalled Mcafee which I got in trouble for. I hated outlook so I was using some free ware exchange mail viewer to read my emails. I wasn't important enough to have calender or don't really care too much about those features. I did get attachment so I saved and used notepad to see what was in there.

  • Trebert, on 10/12/2007, -10/+36its just so hard for Microsoft to make a change to their operating system without breaking something plus it would destroy their backwards compatability
    • EdLesMann, on 10/12/2007, -5/+29I have a friend who works at Microsoft ( with me being a Linux guy, we have some interesting conversations :-p ) who is activily trying to remove a bunch of the backwards compatibility. He told me the other day that he found out that Vista still has all of the API's in place for 16bit DOS and that it has been causing problems because of a new bug that has recently surfaced. Why have that at all? How big is the demand to run 16bit dos applications on their Vista system?

      I personally think it is a great idea to remove all of the old API's that are causing so much trouble.
    • ostracize, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Microsoft should drop those aspects of the API and offer the ability to run such outdated apps through a freely downloadable emulator.
    • JorgeGT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16"How big is the demand to run 16bit dos applications on their Vista system?"

      What about Maniac Mansion? 0_o
    • saska, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21This really is a big issue. It's an issue because consumers have come to expect that "a Windows computer" will run all their "Windows applications" without much regard for the actual version of Windows. Look at the system requirements on just about any mainstream software package sometime -- "Must have Windows 98, Windows 98SE, Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows XP, or Windows Vista."

      Mac users, by contrast, are constantly telling me that they can't run some new Mac app I point out to them because it requires 10.4 and their Powerbook is still running 10.3.9.

      Now, you can say, "That Mac user should just upgrade the OS!" and you'd be technically correct, but most of you who'd say that are the same people who claim DirectX 10 is nothing more than a scam to get gamers to buy Vista when they don't need it for anything else.
    • msgyrd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14It's a trade-off either way. Apple sacrafices backwards compatability in order to be at the leading edge of consumer desktops. Microsoft chooses backwards compatability to maintain it's dominant position in the business market.
    • Cerebral, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I will say that some nerds are nerds till the end. Believe it or not when I worked at CompUSA back when XP came out there were people pissed that they could not run some of their old legacy (Word Perfect 1 type stuff) in XP.

      All of this stuff comes back to the user.
    • kris33, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Maybe destroying the backwards compability would have been a good thing? And Windows does not only have backwards compability with old apps. It also makes new apps run on older versions of Windows.

      The quality of the applications raised significantly with OS X, probably because Apple forced the developers to develop their apps in a better way. The quality of the apps have also raised with every new sub-version of OS X, because Apple has provided developers with new frameworks and updated tools. With Windows the quality of the apps have been the same for a really long time, and isn't going to change with Vista because of the backward compatibility

      Almost all bad things with Windows could have been fixed with breaking backwards compability and rewriting/rethinking Windows completely. Most of the problem with Windows is not Windows itself's fault, but the apps that run on it. It is not Windows fault if an app doesn't remove everything it has installed when it is uninstalled, but Windows could help significantly. If they made it like on OS X, where the apps is only one file for example.

      cerebraI: Security should not have to depend on the user, since many simply are stupid.
    • kris33, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Forgot to say:
      I have never wished to run a OS 9 app on OS X. I always find fabulous apps for everything I want to do on OS X, and the quality is insanely much better than OS 9 apps.

      The case would probably have been the same with the next version of Windows. Missing programs may be a problem for the first few months with the OS, but if MS gave the developers time to develop new versions of their apps(during the beta period) most of the actual apps would have been upgraded.
    • avihappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2MS should include an Virtual Machine type of program for BC.
    • dmsean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3RE: saska

      If I could digg you up twice I would.

      Well said.
    • blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"I think I'll trust Symantec over this website..."

      I'd trust Dick Cheney before I trust Symantec. Which would be the same as "sooner than never".
    • mastercheif, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3RE Sasaka

      The reason why some apps only work in 10.4 is that with every new release, Apple provides new framworks to utilize. That is why you see with every new Apple OS release, the applications that are built with it keep on getting better and better. Soon, there will be a lot of apps that are built only for leopard because Leopard has Core Animation. I'm sure if it was a important program that has been on OSX for a few years, they have a older version that works on 10.3.9.
  • benmode, on 10/12/2007, -20/+2Nyeha ha ha ha ha ...XD
  • sorahl, on 10/12/2007, -22/+37why bother making a virus that WOULDN'T be widespread due to the small footprint?
    • Shizlanski, on 10/12/2007, -19/+31I was thinking the same. The whole ego argument is a load of crap, who are they going to show their impressive skills too? Some mac users and the only news exposure itll get is on digg and a few tech sites.
    • LowRentDiggs, on 10/12/2007, -18/+13"Some mac users and the only news exposure itll get is on digg and a few tech sites."

      That's BS, it'll be on every newscast that someone has finally written a Mac virus. Apple hasn't been in the news at all lately (sarcasm) but a virus would.
    • Aknot, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14"The proof of concept Mac OS X virus, which was discovered late last week and dubbed Macarena, includes comments in the code that indicate the author had a difficult time creating the malware." from 6 Nov, 2006

      http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Mac-virus-author-admits-coding-difficulties/0,130061744,339272051,00.htm

      This must have missed a few Newscast.
    • EdLesMann, on 10/12/2007, -14/+16"who are they going to show their impressive skills too? Some mac users and the only news exposure itll get is on digg and a few tech sites."

      Trust me, if the *nix world got a virus that was 1/2 the destructive power of most Windows virii, it would be all over the place. As for the ego thing, more severs run on Linux, BSD, Unix then any other platform. The smallest percentage of OS family in the Top500 supercomputers are Windows based (and its been almost a year since Windows even graced the list). The person who writes the virus that takes done the majority of the Internet and supercomputing power in today's day and age (or hell, just a company like Google) will go down in history bigger then Mitnick.

      Its easy to hack grandma's Windows machine. It's not so easy to take down the OS's that companies and home user alike depend on for the Internet.
    • shark615, on 10/12/2007, -21/+7@EdLesMann

      For ***** sake this is the third post of ***** from you. You say you are a linux admin but everything you post reads like it comes from a 12 year old fan boy. Servers do not get exposed to viruses they sit in a room and process crap thats it. The day an admin exposes a server to uneeded programs, email and surfing is the day he gets canned.

      Forget super computers they are just technological masturbation and they don't run the internet or others things that count; namely companies.

      Here is a FACT, Microsoft's Internet Information Server (IIS) is the most common Web server in the Fortune 500, powering 208 sites or 41 percent of the list. Those are real numbers for real companies that make real big money.

    • TheUngod, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4The other issue is, even if a great virus were released for a Mac, how would it propogate with such a small user base? A virus that doesn't propogate is totally useless as a virus, which is another reason nobody bothers. People don't go after a large user base purely for fame and noteriety, they do it because it's the only way to transfer a virus.
    • wonderchemist, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@theungod:

      Mac users know mac users. 50% of my IM list is comprised of OS X systems, far higher then the Mac market share. I suspect this is true of other Mac users also. This means a IM worm would quickly find more victims, if it could successfully propagate, via iChat.
    • squeaker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3For the same reason that people put Linux on something ten minutes after it's released.

      It's not about being useful or popular. It's about proving that it can be done.
    • chetanw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@shark615,

      IIS is the most common Web Server around? Where did you get that from?

      Check out http://survey.netcraft.com/Reports/0704/bydomain/com/ to see what the majority of .com domains use for their web server. And for overall statistics, look here: http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html

      It proves beyond doubt that Apache has been the most popular web server to date ever since web servers became popular.
    • panique, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Why bother? This is not the right question to be asking.

      The installed base of Mac OS prior to OS X (meaning MacOS 7, 8, 9) was a whole hell of a lot smaller than Mac OS X, and we DID have viruses for those versions. This little fact seems to be ignored by all the people towing the "insignificant market share" line.

      The correct question: Why were there viruses for version of Mac OS prior to Mac OS X, and none for OS X?
    • shark615, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1"IIS is the most common Web Server around? Where did you get that from?"

      I did not say that I said that it was run on 41% of Fortune 500 companies. Please read before you post dumb *****.
    • dnissley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3shark615 >> "they don't run the internet"

      LOL
  • poet, on 10/12/2007, -28/+20It is because of low market share.*
    • ChumpChief, on 10/12/2007, -26/+19Microsoft haters love to claim that there are no viruses for Macs even though there are more security flaws compared to Windows Vista machines. Mac users are Mac users because of ego. And what would be a bigger ego boost than being the first to find a new flaw in Windows?

      Couldn't resist :-P
    • PunkRockRalph, on 10/12/2007, -24/+6seriously, who is dumb enough to download sketchy email attachments from strangers anymore anyway.

      my mom can barely save a word document, and she doesnt even need to be told that. viruses are outdated, you have to practically install them yourselves now. grow up you mactards. theres a reason why everyone, and i mean that devout, satisfied 90% of the planet, uses windows.
    • ozydingo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@punkrockralph

      It may seem utterly bizarre (and it is), but what you said it completely false. Plenty of people are still dumb enough to download "sketchy email attachments from strangers." Additionally they don't always come from strangers, they also come from your friends' whose computer have been infected (I'm thinking AIM viruses in particular since email viruses generally have spoofed from: addresses; though I dont' know of one specifically that did anything more than just propogate itself)

      "satisfied" 90%? I think not... (not saying none of us are satisfied, but it's certainly not all of us)
    • meatmcguffin, on 10/12/2007, -12/+17"grow up you mactards. theres a reason why everyone, and i mean that devout, satisfied 90% of the planet, uses windows."

      Grow up yourself. There's a reason why more and more people are buying Macs and switching to Linux than ever before.

      Also, satisfied? All the Mac users/Linux users/Unix users/FreeBSD users are laughing at you for being locked into a poor, buggy, insecure, delayed, archaic operating system just because everyone else uses it.
  • PunkRockRalph, on 10/12/2007, -29/+26you have to be a retard to contract a virus on a computer. ive been using windows my entire life, never with virus protection, but then again, im not an idiot.

    no viruses yet mac, windows, i appreciate the backwards compatibility.
    • Ogedei, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30Do you run virus protection? Or is it a case of what you don't know doesn't hurt you.

      You don't have to be a moron to get a virus, but I will admit it does help.
    • MikeSD34, on 10/12/2007, -6/+36How can you tell you have no viruses, if you don't run the virus software, even if it's only every now and then...
    • catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7It depends on what files you open. If you download a file from a public torrent tracker for instance, you need to scan it for viruses.
    • tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18Most viruses don't say 'Hey, I'm a virus and you just caught me!'. Most of the time you could be loaded with botnets and trojans and never know about it. I'd do a scan if I were you.
    • ostracize, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I assume you are sitting behind a router with a built in firewall.

      If you had an XP machine, say, on a straight cable connection that is always on, you will get hit by a worm and there's nothing you could have done to prevent it because Microsoft hadn't provided a patch for you yet.

      Most people are just getting lucky because they have a firewall without even knowing it.
    • elipabst, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It's really a misconception that you have to be an idiot to get infected with a viruses/trojans. Because Microsoft generally releases patches on a monthly cycle, it means that you are often using a system with known vulnerabilities in it and no patch available. If you look at the recent animated cursor overflow , in many cases it required *no* user interaction and all you had to do was visit a malicious website where the code was injected using the iframe tag . No clicking or downloading anything required. Some people think that only visiting trusted websites keeps them safe from that kind of attack, but even trusted sites can be compromised and have malicious code on them (like asus.com did with the animated cursor overflow or the Miami dolphins website during the superbowl). IIRC, most of the windows browsers were vulnerable (IE, Firefox), so unless you switched to a non-vulnerable browser like Opera or didn't access the internet, you basically just got lucky.
    • dvddesign, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I never run virus software either. I've only been once hit with a virus on an older rebuild of this machine. My mom sent me something in an SCR file.

      I practice an education standpoint. I tell users I train to go buy a decent hardware firewall and to use Firefox and Thunderbird. 75% of their potential vulnerabilities are solved right there. The rest I get on their case over to stop downloading freeware apps for ***** they can find through google's search tools.

      http://www.google.com/search?q=weather+90210
      http://www.google.com/search?q=half+a+cup+in+teaspoons

      Learning is fun, and this is way more fun to get old people to FIND cool tricks in google than to just make them use Weatherbug and calc.exe
    • dmsean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I know I don't get virii because my Torrents are still fast.

      screw virus protection. it's all a scam. just don't ***** install files you don't know about.
    • panique, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Every computer user is an idiot at least .05% of the time.
  • stephenwq, on 10/12/2007, -22/+5"A quote from Henry Spencer was noted, "Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.""

    Right. Yes, linux is poorly reinvented isn't it? No wonder its so widespread.
    • osirisothedead, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26Linus Torvalds understood *NIX just fine, he wanted a kernel that improved upon it and was free.
    • wattz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16umm, you are wrong, Linux != Unix

      Torvalds wrote his kernel from scratch to prove that a monolithic kernel (Linux) was just as good as/better than a modular kernel (minix). He only used some of the design architecture from the other kernel.

      Before you bash any OS, make sure you have your facts straight.

      ``The design principles Tanenbaum applied to MINIX famously influenced the design decisions Linus Torvalds applied in the creation of the Linux kernel. Torvalds used and appreciated MINIX, but his design deviated from the MINIX architecture in significant ways, most notably by employing a monolithic kernel instead of a microkernel. This was famously disapproved by Tanenbaum in the Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate. Recently, Tanenbaum explained again his rationale for using a microkernel in May 2006.''
    • nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6>umm, you are wrong, Linux != Unix

      umm, your are wrong, the correct formula is Linux ~= Unix.





    • RealityCheque, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9NERDS.
  • Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -17/+40No, ego isn't involved in virus writing; the number of computers and the amount of information you can heist is.

    Ego, however, seems to often be involved in Mac ownership. I can see how the author of the article might project that on others...
    • Feeedbaack, on 10/12/2007, -14/+18Thank you. I use whatever works. AMD, Intel, Cyrix, Windows, Linux. I have no use for OSX as an operating system and quite frankly I just don't like it. ( I use it every day at work FYI).

      Brand commitment is a ridiculous marketing notion that a large majority of Apple nuts seem to have latched onto. 'Think Different', even if it doesn't work very well and costs you more money.
    • MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+205 years ago, ego was very much involved in writing viruses. Today, not so much. Having control of other people's systems are where the money is in malware and the bigger number of zombies you bring to the table, the more money you can ask for. Some of the bigger scumbags that do this are too busy fighting each other and trying to steal machines from each other than to bother with OS X and Linux.

      It isn't that they couldn't, there's just no real money in it for them and if Windows users would for once be honest with themselves, it IS easier to hack a Windows machine than it would be to hack a Mac or *nix box. I understand this and accept it.

      However for WHATEVER reason, OS X and *nix boxes are more secure. Do I care why? Not really.
    • zybch, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7All viruses, spyware and malware are now created specifically to generate profit. The best way to make such profit is going after the vast majority of people and whatever platform they happen to be using, and guess what, it sure as hell ain't mac!
      Its quite ironic actually, because the sophistication of the majority of mac owners is so low that they'd be a very easy target, and will enter their admin passwords and stuff without a 2nd thought as soon as something prompts them to.
  • PLUMCRAZY, on 10/12/2007, -27/+9Could it be most virus creators are Apple Fan-boys looking to attack Microsoft?
    • willdiggforfood, on 10/12/2007, -38/+55Apple Fanboys don't have time to make viruses, they're too busy staring at the flashy sparkly zooming dock and masturbating at it.
    • xstephx, on 10/12/2007, -30/+18Apple fan-boys probably don't know anything about programming.
    • Terc, on 10/12/2007, -13/+32I think the third party development scene on OS X is very impressive... you should give it a look sometime instead of blindly making naive claims.
    • Agret, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11But I wrote an applescript that deletes your home directory!!11!!!
    • zybch, on 10/12/2007, -21/+11Apple Fanboys don't have time to make viruses, they're too busy making slideshows of their ***** photographs and masturbating over them.
    • MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -16/+22willdiggforfood and zybech,
      Maybe you should find girlfriends so you wouldn't think about masterbating so much. Since you both seem to have so little experience with girls, let me tell you, they're a lot of fun.
    • meatmcguffin, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23"Apple fanboys don't have the technical knowledge."

      Yeah because i'd rather use a proprietary OS than a FreeBSD/Unix based one. Quit trolling.

      There are those who use macs because they're simple, there are those who use macs because they can be geared up for power users and there are those who use macs because they have an incredible, well supported, development environment.
    • Duston, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@meatmcguffin (#6121560)
      You do realize that OS X is a proprietary OS right?
    • stepnw1f, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6"Apple fan-boys"

      Anyone taking the time to slam a user of any computer is not only a fan boy, but a sserious loser. Get over yourslef. We like Apple better than Microsoft... get over it already!
    • meatmcguffin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Duston

      Well aware, although on Microsoft's side, the entire OS is proprietry running relativly new code only MS has access to. The most important kernal bits of OS X are built upon open, standards compliant, multi-decade tested, tried and true code. It just so happens these important bits are responsible for things like speed, fuctionality and security.

      Strange, huh?
  • willdiggforfood, on 10/12/2007, -36/+10OMG MACOSX DOESN'T GET VIRIISES!!!
    AND IT COMES WITH PONIES!!!

    /fanboi orgasm
  • TheShagler, on 10/12/2007, -15/+12People need to stop submitting story's like this... shhhh no one talk about virus's on a mac. Your just going to give people ideas...

    Nothing to see here move along...
  • Kaleb25, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1IB4 BlinkCowz
  • danwarne, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29This article is based on the assumption that virus writing is still driven by ego. That couldn't be further from the truth. Nowadays it's almost wholly about taking over machines for fraudulent purposes -- gathering credit card numbers, using your computer as a spam relay, and so on. Virus writers DO NOT want to be discovered these days and go to extraordinary lengths to attempt to disguise what they're doing. So it actually probably does come back to marketshare -- the fattest target for fraud are the 95% of computer users running Windows. More power to Mac users in the minority :->
    • tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9That's true in most cases (given that virii are mostly created by gangs/scammers these days), but I still think there's groups of skript-kiddies who'd bring down Macs to stroke their ego if they could. When a site gets hacked, often it's not done subtly, but with a whopping great "H4Ck3D bY L4m3rs!!!" all over it. Those same people would no doubt love to write the first Mac virus and make sure people know about it.
    • thinkdifferent, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10When you consider that PC market share numbers count machines used as dumb terminals (for instance airline schedule displays) which have zero chance of any personal data to steal, the percentage market share of actionable machines (used as personal computers) brings the Mac's share up significantly. Further when you look at install base rather than market share (macs tend to have 2x longer lifespan), Macs aren't insignificant. Software Publishers Association says that 20% of all software sold is for the Mac, which seems like a rather significant share to ignore.

      This is why that argument of market share is so bogus when it comes to virii. Apache runs 70% of all webservers, yet 80% of all hacks to servers occur on IIS (
    • WATYF, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@tizz66

      If you really look at what you said, I think you'll see the reason why no one's going after Macs. When you talked about those who hack for publicity, you called them "script kiddies". And you're absolutely right... they're nothing but script kiddies. They don't *really* know how to hack, they just download some software that someone else wrote or use a technique that someone else told them about to take advantage of an exploit that someone else informed them of. They don't actually know how to do it on their own, therefore they're not going to be able to go after any "new" turf (i.e. Macs).

      But the *real* hackers... the ones that make up the software that script kiddies use, and who find the exploits that script kiddies take advantage of... they're the ones who are in it for the money... they're the ones who are looking for the holes and finding a way in... and since they're in it for the money... they're always going to go where the money is (market share), and the script kiddies do nothing but follow suit.

      WATYF
    • Darcy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2By thinkdifferent,
      "This is why that argument of market share is so bogus when it comes to virii. Apache runs 70% of all webservers, yet 80% of all hacks to servers occur on IIS ("


      I think you're still living in 2002 if you believe that crap. The latest market-share numbers I've seen had IIS at 35% and apache at 58%, and what makes you think that 80% of all attacks occur on IIS? Do you have any evidence to back up this claim, or are you just making it up (Like most fanboys do)? Feel free to continue making up your own facts & stats, but remember no amount of wishful thinking will make them reality.
    • tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2That's true, but I think it'd be wrong to assume everyone capable of writing a virus is either not bothering, or working for a criminal gang. There's some in the middle who are capable of writing exploits but who aren't in a Russian gang. I just used script kiddies as a generic term. I accept your point that most 'hackers' are just using prewritten tools, but I don't think that covers every hacker.

      Don't forget, also, that there are security companies who could write exploits but not for malicious purposes. Once a proof of concept has been written, the script kiddies can latch on to it and abuse it too. It's not like they'd have to do ALL the work to write a Mac virus.
    • Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Okay, the server argument leaves out one fatal flaw:

      No idiots are using servers to surf the net, look at websites they shouldn't be looking at, and clicking a "YOU WIN" box that infects their comps with trojans, malware, and other things that bypass every level of security because the user clicks "yes" to everything.

      Get back to me when that starts happening.
  • bl4h, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5Its because its hard to spread a virus when theres not many macs to spread it to. I dont own a mac, but from what ive read they just patched up a whole bunch of holes and bugs. SO that pretty much tells you that someone could have made quite a few mac viruses
  • xstephx, on 10/12/2007, -10/+8Why are they so many noobs who are stating the obvious, and the well known since years, when they discover what OS X is build on?
    Of course it's secure, because of it's unix kernel, duh! It's like, we didn't have to wait for some "mac observer" thing to know that...
  • dblatti, on 10/12/2007, -17/+5Come on people. We all have accepted Steve Jobs as god. Now since god is the creator of all, why would he create viruses for his own OS? Get with the program.
    • MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Wow, aren't you clever.
      That's really the best you can do? Pathetic
  • crtjer, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9These points are true but also its because of a low population. If I'm a virus writer and I want to do a lot of damage, why would I pick a Mac. I have work around all these points described and then I hit very few people. Easier just to write it attacking Windows and release it.
    • headhunterMDK, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19Has anyone thought that maybe it isn't because the mac is so secure, but that windows is so INSECURE? So anything but windows is inherently more secure? Back up off the mac and get on the windows team on why their OS is so broken...
    • EdLesMann, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10"Easier just to write it attacking Windows and release it"
      Exactly! Windows is easier to hack. Glad you got the point of the article :-D
    • zybch, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3"Back up off the mac and get on the windows team on why their OS is so broken..."

      Its a little thing called backwards compatibility! Now being a mac user I think I'm probably correct in assuming that its not something you've ever heard about. You are more than happy to go buy whatever new version of your existing software Jobs tells you to, so the need for apple to have any sort of backwards compatibility is unnecessary!
    • headhunterMDK, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2"Its a little thing called backwards compatibility! Now being a mac user I think I'm probably correct in assuming that its not something you've ever heard about. You are more than happy to go buy whatever new version of your existing software Jobs tells you to, so the need for apple to have any sort of backwards compatibility is unnecessary!"

      Of course I've heard of backwards compatibility! How far do you take it? 5 years? 10 years? or maybe even 20? We ( as programmers ) are always learning new ways of doing things. So you know what? if you want your application that ran on windows 95 to run on Vista, you should just stick with windows 95. Or I have an idea!! Have the developer actaully update the software for Vista! What a concept!. As a user however, I just want my software that I have paid good money for to just work. That being said, I don't expect software written for MacOS9 to work on MacOSX without some update or rewrite. Put that up your pipe and smoke it.
    • bobpaul, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@headhungerMDK
      "Has anyone thought that maybe it isn't because the mac is so secure, but that windows is so INSECURE?"

      Have you ever thought about why windows is so "INSECURE"? Maybe if people stopped buying it, improving security would actually be seen as financially rewarding for MS.
  • rooskie, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Has anyone mentioned that this article is a complete rip off of the linked article?
  • Dolomite, on 10/12/2007, -25/+6Windows sucks because it is insecure and microsoft doesnt care about security, they just want to make more money. A friend of mine once told me Microsoft could make Windows more secure, but it would cost a lot of money, and Bill Gates killed they idea so he could keep more of the profits himself. This is why windows will never be as good as linux or mac os x.
    • Feeedbaack, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Put your helmet back on and step away from the computer.
    • zybch, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Don't forget that everyone at MS (sorry, that should have been M$ right?) eats babies for breakfast and pushes elderly people under swiftly moving buses and trucks!
    • Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4So Bill Gates rips off the working class so he has extra money to anonymously donate to important medical causes?
      Vista tried really, really hard to up the security
  • mason.parker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"Apple haters love to claim that there are no viruses for Macs because there are so few compared to Windows machines."

    You can see where the submitter is going. Did he wring his hangs in frustration as he wrote that? I hate when a fairly good story gets buried because of some simpering clown dares people to knock the Apple chip off his shoulder when people really don't give a ***** that it's there.

    What's wrong with a non-fanboy intro to the subject? It's pretty easy to prove that OS X is more secure without bringing up the "Apple haters".
    • zybch, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5Seems like its some sort of little switch thats built into the minds of pretty much all apple fans and mac owners.
      As soon as they are in the vicinity of a mac the switch is triggered and they start to behave like spoilt, ignorant, annoying, insecure ***** little brats with the need to constantly piss off everyone who isn't part of their sad little club!!
      For christs sake, its a damn computer.
      Whoop de ***** do!
      Get a life you stupid fools, or at least tone down your rabid fanboy level a bit!
    • MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7@zybech
      The only ones ranting here seem to be you and other Windows fanboys. OH! I forgot, only Mac *nix users can be fanboys, what was I thinking?
  • masterofNone, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3karma in action.
  • dtechnology, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7I believe this is inaccurate. It is true that the UNIX foundation helps, but there are viruses/trojans/root-kits for all of the OS'ses, including Mac OS (X), Linux, FreeBSD etc. The reason why they aren't widespread is really security through obscurity. If you make a virus that automatically infects a windows system (Blaster for example). There is about a 97% chance that the system it is trying to infect is a windows machine, which can try to infect more machines etc. Also there is the "problem" (for virus writers) that Linux, Unix and Mac users are generally more technical advanced (Yes, even the average Mac user is more advanced than the average windows user), so it is harder to lure the users into doing something that infects them. They are generally also more protected, for example by a firewall (which would block a blaster-like virus)
    • zybch, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Sorry, but I have to disagree with the 'more technically advanced' bit.
      Unless you actually like issuing console commands, the UI seperates the user from the inner workings of the OS to a huge degree. Most mac users never stray away from their shiny interface and get to the scary world of white text in a black box, so don't pull that "mac users are smarter' *****, mac users are more impressed by shiny graphics and ***** their pants if they ever go away!!
    • akzidenzgrotesk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ zybch

      no, he's not saying that mac users are smarter, he's just saying that the AVERAGE mac user is a little more computer savvy than the AVERAGE windows user. the average windows user is probably a stay at home mom in her 40s who doesn't know a thing about computers or the internet and only uses it to forward funny emails to her kids or an ignorant teenager who just wants to check his myspace page 800 times a day, while the average mac user is most likely a college student who grew up using the internet or a designer of some sort who has a basic grasp of how to use complex software and hardware. average doesn't include you or probably half of the population of digg. you aren't an average windows user, you know your ***** and you can make your computer do things the average user has no idea it's even capable of doing.

      that being said, i personally don't see the appeal of working outside the OS interface, but then again, i'm just an average mac user. i know my way around my computer well enough not to screw things up and to get my work done well, and that's really all i need. personally, i prefer macs because i'd rather spend my time working (or, conversly, goofing off and not doing my work) than running maintenance and learning obscure ways to do simple tasks. more power to you for knowing all of that, but not everyone is as devoted as you are.
    • eam52guy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1OS X lets me

      a) Have a proper terminal, which I'm used to as a, I guess, power-user.

      b) Run photoshop natively.

      If another solution lets me do the above, i guess I'll have to switch! Untill then, I have no complaints. Except for the green '+' button.
  • slor90210, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11The virus-related problems with Windows aren't in the kernel. The kernel is fine! The problem is in the Programs (IIS, Internet Explorer, Outlook). Why do we need kernel-level encryption (ala vista?) and security if the programs are *****? Today's viruses don't take over other processes or their files, they don't need to escalate privileges. They have their own process, their own files, and their own agenda (spambot, keylogger, etc).

    Is OS X kernel superior? Probably, but does it really matter when IE & Office is full of holes? Doubtful.
    • Enuriel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4i urge everyone to read slor90210's comment ^^, then re-read it! it explains it all
  • Vtorch, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7The article posted on the Mac Observer is the same old theory rehashed on another website.

    The fact is hackers, exploiters, whatever.... have claimed that they hacking Windows is much more profitable for them because of it dominance in the PC market.
  • ericesque, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1Well, the article really had nothing of value to offer. Oh, Mac OSX is built on BSD. Wow! Hadn't heard...

    No, the real reason that Mac OSX has fewer viruses written for it is because virus writers USE MACS. It makes sense. They're not going to use the system they're writing the virus for.

    Nix them running Windows.

    Linux, Unix, BSD are all more a pain to set up and config than worth the effort.

    Nix them running *nix

    Hence, they use OSX-- a stable environment that runs on BSD and needs relatively little configuration and setup.

    KISS

    • Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Linux is as easy to install as Windows, BSD, or OSX...they're all about equal right about now...

      and yes, you can get computers preinstalled with linux, so un-nix them using linux.

      The virus-writers also have a good grasp of how WINDOWS viruses work, and tend to have access to good antivirus tools (for testing). They probably know how to set up security preferences in WINDOWS and know to test their viruses in vmware. Often, they know the footprints that their viruses include, allowing them absolute immunity. Therefore, not only un-nix windows, but raise the "they most likely USE windows to know that particular OS so well"

      so um...nix OSX because if they knew OSX well enough, they'd make a mac port and try to spread both.
  • prammy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5There used to be a time when writing viruses was more due to the challenge it offered so people of that era would be more apt to writing malware just for props.

    However these days, its for commercial reasons, like running botnets for spamming, ddosing etc. And windows has a much larger usebase to exploit for that.

    Still getting infected with a virus is pretty difficult if you use some common sense. You would not take candy offered by a stranger so why open up pics from random people emailing you? Macs, Linux etc are all vulnerable to malware which requires user input. That is if you give it the permission to run under a privileged account. Give a mac or linux machine to the user who blindly opens up all attachments from any email he/she gets, and they can get os x or linux infected pretty easily. It all depends on the weakest link, in this case, the user.
  • DeepFreezed, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6what proof does he offer? nothing....

    • xutopia, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5I hate to bring religion into this but you sound like those creatinists refuting the theory of evolution by saying there is no proof.

      Google "Mac OS X challenge" and read up. The hackers are trying but they're failing miserably.
    • speedyrev, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ xutopia

      Creatinist?
    • MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@speedy,
      I believe that's the creation of cretins?

      Just guessing
  • bouche, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"apple haters love to claim..."

    There are apple haters?
    • clackerd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1i hate apples. pears, however, kick ass.
  • cleverhanz, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12Windows users are just dumber than Mac users, and therefore easier targets for exploitation. They are the kind of people who would enter their ccn on a website that an e-mail sent them to, or install a package from someone they don't don't know just because it has fun fonts, or a puppy screen saver. Mac users are made of sterner stuff.
    • xstephx, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8But obviously, some mac users still post stupid comments on digg ;-)
    • tkstock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I can't say that's true in some cases. My sister is case point - she bought a Mac because she got tired of Windows problems and just like how the computer 'looked'. She isn't computer-savvy at all!
    • cleverhanz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2tkstock: Your sister proved herself smarter than the average bear (windows user) by making the switch.

      xstephx: So do windows users, obviously.
    • soopafly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"But obviously, some mac users still post stupid comments on digg ;-)"

      Have you seen the Windows user comments?
  • kitsimons, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16I've never figured out why people talk about ~4% desktops as if it's a number not worth bothering with.

    Millions of Macs connected to the Internet, with next to 0% of those running virus software. That is one big juicy target. It is ignored because of the reasons mentioned in the article - the inherently secure nature of OS X.

    But, I should know better than to post a rational argument. Digg down.
  • Markus123, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6It's probably because the virus writers can't afford a mac to test it on, viruses need to be tested/debugged too.
    • PhillyMJS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That's no longer a valid excuse, since OS X has been hacked to run on ordinary PCs (as long as they meet certain hardware requirements) and nobody whose intent to write malware is going to have any qualms about illegally downloading and using it.

      For the last year, OS X has been more available than ever to malware authors, but still no viruses have appeared in the wild.
  • jae1227, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5Why is mac so concerned about Windows? Who cares if they are more secure than Windows, still 95% of the population will use it because it run on ANY X86 PROCESSOR not just the over priced Chinese mass-produced Apple garbage. And the West cost guys made a mistake. Over in California they have this BSD license witch is too liberal. You have evil companies, Apple, that won't even give the BSD team a thanks. They have brainwashed the population into thinking that Macs are more secure when really FreeBSD is secure Apple stole it. Now on the East coast in Boston we go the Free Software Foundation and the GPL. The GPL and LGPA was made so evil companies can't take code, change it and then lock it up like it is their very own. If you think Windows is insecure then Linux is the way to go.
  • xTRUMANx, on 10/12/2007, -12/+10wiki says: "A program called "Elk Cloner" is credited with being the first computer virus to appear "in the wild" — that is, outside the single computer or lab where it was created. Written in 1982 by Rich Skrenta, it attached itself to the Apple DOS 3.3 operating system and spread by floppy disk."

    So how about that? An Apple got the first virus. Is that worth anything in the scoreboard?
    .
    .
    .
    Oops, forgot was on digg. Only allowed to diss M$ (the corp not their consoles), Sony and religion of any kind or be prepared to be buried to hell. I don't even see buries as negative anymore. I got so many buries I feel bad when I'm dugg up.
    • Szandor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"...attached itself to the Apple DOS 3.3 operating system..."

      The whole point of the article was OS X security, genius.

      And I dugg you up just to make you feel bad.
    • clackerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i'm digging you up out of spite. hope it hurts so good.
  • Beaver6813, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I personally think its because most hackers run windows... less run mac and so you can't create a virus for something where you cant test it :P
  • skunkworker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Anyone who thinks the /usr/ folder deletion thing is just plain stupid. The guy gave admin permissions to a maintenance utility and had it unhide all of the hidden folders, then deleted it. So I don't see an argument there at all.
  • Mortiferous, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2***** boat anchors.
  • DynamicAI, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3@nipuL and others who believe this.
    "Because code should be free. Not shackled by fairy communist ideals."

    Why should code be free? I am a software engineer, if software is free I lose my job and cant support myself or my family. I don't get where this whole software is free movement came from. How about we take your services and say they should be free. How would you like that? Is it because giants like MS, Adobe, etc charge a pretty penny for all the effort they put into developing their software? You don't want to pay for it so you yell about it being free and add in some communist blurb to give it some weak point.
  • Zammie, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11Note for future generations, when you steal an OS and write spaghetti code for it then create a user base of accountants and gamers of course you'll have more viruses' (thank the richest man in the world for that). OS X isn't perfect, but I travel all over the world and in my opinion, the Macs attract a much cooler crowd and that makes Window's user jealous.
    • xstephx, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Looks like someone has to stop watching the Apple ads over and over again...
    • tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3It's idiots like you worrying about what 'crowd' your computer is attracting that drags down us normal Mac users with you.
    • Szandor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Oh Jesus H. Christ. You are just *full* of the Kool-Aid, aren't you? I travel all over and meet a lot of "cool" people and really don't give two ***** what OS they're using. Yes, we might chat about different platforms but it's not like I look over at their Windows laptop and think "There's no way I'm hangin' out with this dude."

      Some of you Mac zealots just ask for some of the ***** you get.
  • fuckingusername, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3it's a good thing windows has good 3rd party software support that I don't really worry
    about it. I can't knock Apple cause I never tried their OS cause its over priced. As I see it, if someone gives a OS like Ubuntu for free I see them winning in the end.......
    • furude, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Overpriced? Last I checked, OS X is $130, while Vista Home Basic is $200.
    • Smills, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Last time I checked a decent Toyota was $18,000. Does that make it overpriced? Sometimes value for money comes into the equation as well.
    • MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Overpriced? Last I checked, OS X is $130, while Vista Home Basic is $200."

      Last I checked, Vista Ultimate was $180.....
    • aiten, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yeah, Ubuntu Linux is free, and _I personally_ find it better to use than Windows. I couldn't be happier. Forget anyone else.
    • erikerikerik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1herm... but the hardware also comes into play.
      what am I going to do?
      but the pretty box and just look at it?
      "look huny I bought OS10" (the fan boys are going to murder me for using 10 and not X)
      "umm, where's the computer?"
      "oh I couldn't afford the hardware...but look at all the nifty things I could do if I could!"
  • justice7, on 10/12/2007, -14/+5again, stupidity reigns on digg...

    just read the poster's comment -- "And what would be a bigger ego boost than being the first to create a widespread OS X virus?And what would be a bigger ego boost than being the first to create a widespread OS X virus?" >> This is impossible due to the fact it would need to be a cross-platform virus

    viruses spread from pc to pc .. or in a mac world , mac to mac

    not enough mac's to spread it.

    nuff said, it aint rocket science.
    • kitsimons, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Ha ha - that made me chuckle.

      Hate to break it to you but most virus are transmitted over email. A Mac can pass on a PC virus, it just won't be infected by it. The same goes for vice-versa.

      And as for your "not enough Macs to spread it" comment... well... that's ignorance personified.
    • justice7, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1@kitsimons,

      get a brain. In order for viruses to be transmitted over email, the email client must be compromised.. email just doesnt magically "transmit viruses"

      As i said in the post you seemed to chuckle at, the only way for a PC to pass a Mac a virus, is if the virus was cross-platform .. and that is nearly impossible.

      A virus can be written for ANY operating system...

      and you talk about ignorance..
    • kitsimons, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Botnet mass-mails Windows virus laden emails to thousands of addresses. Infected email is opened on a Mac with no impact. Infected mail is forwarded to Windows user by the Mac user.

      The mail client doesn't have to be compromised. The payload simply needs to remain intact, as say an attachment, for a gullible recipient to open.

      But we're drifting off-topic.
    • el_jefe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ Justice7
      Actually, it only takes two PCs or Two Macs to "spread a virus". One to send it, one to be infected. For your argument "not enough Macs" to be valid there could only be one Mac in the world. I am pretty sure there is at least 2.

      What in the hell does number of machines have to do with spreading a virus? If a virus compromised a Mac, it would not stop spreading because of not enough machines. It would infect every computer it could regardless or market share. But it has to infect the computer first and then be able to find another one to spread to.
    • justice7, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1are you trying to tell me that there are no mac viruses?

      you fanboys are twisting my words beyond repair

      It takes many infected machines to mass-spread a virus, in order for it to be considered 'effective'.

      I wasn't talking about the ability for viruses to spread between machines, if you want to try to tell me that Mac's cant get infected... you're truly dense.
  • ayeroxor, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3"Virus creators are in the business because of ego. And what would be a bigger ego boost than being the first to create a widespread OS X virus?"

    That would be about as awesomely ego-boosting as creating the first crochet-related virus or hamster-wheel virus.
  • nsummy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2FTA: While Microsoft was reaping the rewards of this compatibility, Apple took the time to move its entire customer base to a highly secure BSD Unix OS.


    Once again I think this goes back to how many people use the OS. In general Macs are a lot more expensive and the customers are a lot more loyal. Not to mention there are about 1/10 as many users of macOS than windows. This makes moving them frmo 9 to X a little bit easier. If you had a mac OS on as many computers as windows were on, I think Apple would be caring more about compatibility.
  • igdrasa, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7Apple fanboys are insecure
  • Yazilliclick, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The majority of virus/worm creators these days are not in it for the go. They're in it for profit, to zombify machines to help in their spamming or other endeavours. Thus windows machines make the best target since they are the most numerous and contain a great majority of mom & pop type users that don't have a clue about how to protect themselves, not to open attachments in unknown emails etc...

    Am I saying windows is the most secure OS? Nope. What I'm saying is that every single OS has the potential to be infected, hacked, exploited and abused regardless of how hard you try and convince yourself that you're superior for being in an OS minority.

    Security infact is 99% how the machine is administrated rather than what problems their might be with the OS itself. If you don't know how to keep your machine safe then it's just a matter of time that you run into problems. I've used Windows for years and have never had a problem other than during the early uncertain years of browser spyware infections. I've also worked as an administrator for Linux web servers (among others) and have seen just how many problems there can be when systems were not properly kept up to date and monitored.
  • nephilimx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4The fact so many students and young people start scripting in windows also allows them to learn about flaws, I mean seriously how many people would write their first "hello world" script on a mac baised language?
    Its mostly built in windows engines like VB
    • Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2A mac-based language...you mean like C++?
    • ilgaz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1He has a point. Applescript was always around and thanks to it being cleverly written, it was never an issue.

      On the other hand, VisualBasic Script which has nothing to do with VB created nothing but huge problems such as first mass mailing worm. If you see VBScript specs, you can almost assume it is a virus construction kit. They don't have a single clue about giving scripting that power without any "admin" mechanism on system.

      You can even code and sell System Maintenance utilities written purely in Applescript, it is powerful too but with ONE very important difference: Anything critical requested by script? System prompts user password. That simple. Scripts are text files without any meaning to core OS, the script editor pops up when user clicks and so on.
  • bIuebonics, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4all i have to say is month of apple bugs and month of kernel bugs... jackasses
    • bIuebonics, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5yea, digg me down... it's the truth. there is plenty of working exploits available... sorry if the truth hurts.
    • shmatt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2...of which none proved to be a threat. look it up.
  • drewlander, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Writing a virus for an OS that is not widely used, isn't really going to boost your ego much. Just another way to look at it.
    Virus writers do it for a lot of reasons, many for making money, not just ego.
  • zongamin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3You know who would love this?

    Flag.
    • cjvino, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Wouldn't know. Blocked him a long time ago and haven't looked back.
  • TheSwashbuckler, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3> Virus creators are in the business because of ego.

    Is this story from five years ago?

    Here's a hint: these days, virus and other malware writers are in it for THE MONEY.

    So, yes - market share has EVERYTHING to do with the Mac not being targeted by virus writers.
  • lukychmz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1yes it issssss
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 167 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.