What is Digg?400 Comments
- 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. - 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. - 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. - cloakeddagger, on 10/12/2007, -20/+181obviously this article could be applied to linux/bsd/solaris etc too...
- 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. - 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? - 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. - inactive, 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. - 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 :-) - 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 ;) - 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. - 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. - 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...
- 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. - 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
- 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). - 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. - 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 :->
- 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. - 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... - osirisothedead, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26Linus Torvalds understood *NIX just fine, he wanted a kernel that improved upon it and was free.
- KDX200rider, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21@nipuL
Whether code is considered free or licensed should be up to the developer. - 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.
- inactive, 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.
- 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. - 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. - Feeedbaack, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Put your helmet back on and step away from the computer.
- sorahl, on 10/12/2007, -22/+37why bother making a virus that WOULDN'T be widespread due to the small footprint?
- 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. - 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.
- 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.'' - 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. - inactive, 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!
- 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. - 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.
- 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.
- 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...
- 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. - 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. - 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.
- furude, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Overpriced? Last I checked, OS X is $130, while Vista Home Basic is $200.
- Achilles, on 10/12/2007, -10/+20Ah, so let's egg them on!
- 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. - 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". - 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. - 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) - tuartboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"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."
I am usually very kind on these comments, but my God, you are stupid.
Most servers provide some sort of internet service (email, proxy, CGI, database) and sit between the workgroup and the internet or exposed for external services.. They rarely just sit and "process crap" completely disconnected from the network.
The very nature of a server means it is *MORE* exposed to external attack then a workstation machine. First, it sits on a portion of the network that is not protected by a firewall (certain ports) and therefore has a significantly larger surface area to worms (potentially infinite) than a workstation sitting pretty behind a serious firewall or router. Second, most, if not all, traffic is filtered through these servers which have the task of cleaning it out for the little workstations (email filtering, web filtering, etc...).
Just the first point is significant: any computer sitting exposed to the internet is going to be seriously POUNDED on far more than a normal PC behind a router.
Oh, just in case you don't realize: many viruses don't require you to click on "HOTTT BA8EZ IN UR GArAGE!" to get infected...
Edit: Dammit, why does the comment reply system on Digg rarely ever work right?! - 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. - 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. -
Show 51 - 100 of 392 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is