MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

The simple answer to Myth's 1 through 5 is "NO."

Good for the Beginner I suppose, but we all know this right?

I'd say that myth #4 is true, or at least virus writers will try to attack macintosh's more (I haven't read the article, so I don't know what the writer says). The rest of the myths are both ridiculous, and commonly asserted.



Shameful

The security through obscurity myth is false if for no other reason that PC users (the kind that would even write a virus) would love nothing better than to smackdown the smug Mac community and their no virus proclamations. It's an ego thisng, not a market thing. They don't make money from doing this destruction, its for bragging rights.

So, if thats true, which we all know it is, then why no viruses for the Macs?

just preaching to the choir. Until this gets published in the national media it is a waste. Its a good article, but it needs to be published translated and reported on all over the globe.

Didn't we just read a like article? A week or two ago?

Here's the sterling counterexample to the marketshare myth -- that Windows has so many viruses because it's popular.

The open source web server Apache has about 64% market share. Microsoft's IIS has about 25%. (Source: http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html) If the marketshare myth were true, we'd expect to see *at least* three times as many viruses for Apache as for IIS, and we'd expect it to be a much more popular target.

But the IIS platform suffered from the huge Code Red and Nimda worms, and Apache has had no vulnerability nearly as high-profile.

Security talks; bullshit walks.

Microsoft wrote the first virus for the Mac.

In order for Macs to be considered viable for enterprise by CTOs and IT staffs, we need to make sure that OS X is just as vulnerable to attack as the Windows platform. IT budgets and staffing requirements are dependent on this going forward. We will be implementing a new viral marketing program to achieve our goals.

Look, Unix/Linux has vunerabilities. There was a huge one 10+ years back involving lpd. To use lp go to you terminal window, find a text file and type: "lp <filename.txt>". There was an exploit where by carefully programming the contents of a file, a user could become root user of a system. That is a big deal. This is a as bad or worse than any exploit I have heard of for WIndows yet. Do I still trust and prefer a Unix/Linux based system, ABSOLUTELY!

But the difference between M$ and Unix/Linux systems is that ppl actually fix Unix/Linux problems. Unix/Linux is modular so by shutting down the lp daemon the system became safe, and all other activity on the system can safely continue. In Windows there is no way to protect yourself from most threats w/o turning off the machine and waiting until the patch comes out. Most ppl can't do that so, they keep working with the infected machine and just pass the bad news around to other machines.

Don't believe me? Okay look up the supposed Apache security problem in Mac OS X. What was the problem? How could it be solved and still securely use your system? See what I mean.

what comes first?

1. the first mac os X virus ever

or

2. a new vista virus/malware/spyware/etc for the current beta version

will be fun to watch... 'coz it will proof if obscurity has anything to do with it!

Bambi Hambi?

What the hell is that?

It is inaccurate in a way to call them myths. A myth is merely a story with certain distinguishing characteristics. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant, just as for a fictional novel.

Better to call them Falsehoods, which is what they really are. Or how about a vulgar, but accurate, acronym? FART -- Factious Attempts to Raze Truth.

petervrdk,

Hackers already targeting viruses for Microsoft's Windows Vista - August 04, 2005

Myth #2 _may_ have some truth behind it.

The x86 chip architecture is more vulnerable to processor level overflows than the PPC architecture. Now, I have not reasearched this _at all_ in the new Core line of chips but if they too are vulnerable to the same types of overflows then the move may alter the Mac's vulnerability.

May 26, 06 - 10:39 am Comment from: MacDailyNews Webmaster

MacDailyNews Take from the article, "eWeek: Intel transition a 'security non-issue' for Apple Mac" - January 30, 2006:

"Macs aren't secure due to obscurity... By design, Mac OS X is simply more secure than Windows. Period. There are over 20 million Mac OS X users in the world and there are still zero (0) viruses. If platforms' install bases dictated the numbers of viruses, the fact that Mac OS X has zero (0) viruses discounts "security via obscurity." There should be at least some Mac OS X viruses. There are none. The reason for this fact is not attributable to "obscurity," it's attributable to superior security design. According to CNET, the Windows Vista Beta was released "to about 10,000 testers" at the time the first Windows Vista virus arrived. So much for the security via obscurity myth."

Who wants to be the first person to write an OS X virus? Anyone smart enough to write it is probably smart enough not to write it. You are going to get caught.

Beryllium:

I prefer a much simpler word: lies.

"Bambi Hambi?

What the hell is that?"

Who cares - she's hot! She's the one on the right on the 360 website.

"just preaching to the choir. Until this gets published in the national media it is a waste. Its a good article, but it needs to be published translated and reported on all over the globe."

Not necessarily, I'm about to become a switcher and what made me certain I was making the right decision was by reading sites like this where I could see what actual Mac users were saying.

I'm now on a mission to convert everyone I meet.

the only way for virus' to proliferate on the Mac as they do in Windows, and keep the IT depts happy is for APPLE to write them in, then charge the enterprises for the additional coding.

headline: ....Apple to write in own viruses just so IT departments can feel they are getting their moneys worth and keep their jobs

CitizenX, Cubert,

She is one of the two (ex-) porn stars running Mac360. Originally it was just Tera's gig, now expanded.

(MDN magic word "behind")

zogby, you're confusing Mac360's Tera Patricks with porndom's Tera Patrick. And I seriously doubt that Mac360's Tera and Bambi were ever involved with porn. (aside from purchasing some...but that's really not the point is it?) Tera (the Mac360 Tera) is a serious Mac pro, currently taking a break while she copes with a recurrance of her cancer. Bambi is simply your friendly neighborhood Techie babe who could make you feel like a mindless twit compared to her knowledge. So much for reading books like assumed covers.

#4 May not be a myth.

As long as Apple sticks to the core chips #4 is a myth.

The ONLY possible truth about the "myth" of switching to Intel processors is that malware writers are more fluent in x86 code from hacking Windows for so long. The only thing this may result in are an increase in Trojans. STILL with the underpinnings of OS X being Unix based, it won't be as easy as they may think. With Trojans it's just a simple matter of safe computing practices. Still there are ALWAYS those who are going to open that "strange" attachment" - shame.......

Quote from article: We Mac users are supposed to be more educated, intelligent and financially secure, aren’t we?

This may be STATISTICALLY true (I'd like to see a source with HARD data), and I am a Mac user - I find it offensive, self-congratulatory, and arrogant.