MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

 MacDailyNews Poll

5 Day Most Commented

Opinion Archive

Current Headlines

Latest Joy of Tech

  • Latest Joy of Tech!

MacNN

AppleInsider

Macworld UK

TUAW

MacRumors

Yahoo! Finance AAPL

iTunes Top 10 Albums

Mac OS X Downloads

Fri, Nov 21, 2008 - 05:20 AM EST  —  AAPL: 80.49 (-5.80, -6.72%)  |  NASDAQ: 1316.12 (-70.30, -5.07%)

Cyber-security adviser uses Apple Macintosh to avoid Windows’ security woes
Monday, September 27, 2004 - 04:50 AM EST

"For the first half of the year, anti-virus research company Symantec reported 1237 new online security vulnerabilities - an average of 48 a week. Nearly all those vulnerabilities, about 97 per cent, were considered moderate or highly severe, and 70 per cent were considered easy to exploit," Paul Brislen reports for The New Zealand Herald. "There is a growing online threat to businesses, their intellectual property and their good name if they don't take the appropriate security measures."

Brislen then goes on to describe the problems of running a Windows PC and writes, "Users are spending more time taking care of their PCs instead of taking care of business... Firewalls and anti-virus protection are no longer enough to keep confidential information out of the hands of competitors or fraudsters."

Brislen concludes, "Perhaps the final word should go to Richard Clarke, the cyber-security adviser appointed by former US President Bill Clinton. Clarke, who toured New Zealand recently, said he has managed to protect his computer from more than 99 per cent of all known viruses, worms, network attacks and spyware. He runs an Apple [Macintosh], not a Microsoft PC, and says that does the job nicely."

Full article here.

Related MacDailyNews articles:
Information Security Investigator says switch from Windows to Mac OS X for security - September 24, 2004
USA Today: people are switching from Windows to Mac because of security issues - September 21, 2004
The Motley Fool: Windows viruses, Apple iPod's 'Halo Effect' may drive switch from Windows to Mac OS X - September 21, 2004
Gartner VP: Windows is the biggest beta test the world has ever known - September 20, 2004
Windows besieged by hackers; number of Windows viruses soars by more than 400% - September 20, 2004
Review: Windows XP SP2 'remains leaky, profoundly unsafe on the internet' - September 17, 2004
Wall Street Journal's Mossberg: 'The single most effective way to avoid viruses and spyware is to simply chuck Windows altogether and buy an Apple Macintosh' - September 16, 2004

  • Social Web
  • E-mail






Always -- Free ground shipping with orders over $50 at the Apple Store.

Reader Feedback: ( = registered)

Sep 27, 04 - 05:53 am Comment from: Ref

This is now beyond a joke really. The computer industry as a whole is in a state of war and it really is time either Windows was fixed or people made use of their consumer choice.

People who have just bought a computer or bought one in the last 6-9 months are NOT going to switch to a Mac. And people that have bought PC's for years and upgrade are not going to buy a Mac either.

It's time Apple started advertising the "Virus Free" state of it's computers.

WARNING though. As soon as too many people buy Mac's the virus creaters WILL find a way through - it is just a matter of time!

Sep 27, 04 - 06:08 am Comment from: meat of moose

Ref:

If, as you say, there is safety in obscurity then may you always be in the happy minority. That is, you have no faith in Apple's OS X.

However, if OS X is inherently more secure than Windows then I hope that you like crowds.

Sep 27, 04 - 06:14 am Comment from: Ref

dude - i want as many ppl as possible to buy Macs - i've been mac since the good ole SE30 days.
Mac's in any shape or form are better than Windows based equivalents.

I have quite a bit of faith in the Mac OS. It is however naive to think it is sooooooooo completely secure that once 90% of the worlds computer virus programmers have turned their attention to the Mac OS that it would stay impregnable.

I hope and pray that it is - it's just our smugness would seem a bit misplaced if one appeared tomorrow lol

Sep 27, 04 - 06:54 am Comment from: Seahawk

Ref: way to create viruses for OS X are well known. This is not the issue: not technically difficult. What has not been found yet (and since OS X is rooted on FreeBSD Unix) it is likely that it is NOT around the corner. After all BSDUnix is around since way longer than OS X and an effective spreading method there has not been found either for inherent characteristic of Unix.

If it does not spread it is not a virus, it is a joke. That is why you do not see any around. Not worth to let them out in the wild.

Unix is not 100% safe but you do not get the avalanche effect you have with Windows. On Windows once you find a way to crack one incarnation you are pretty confident that ANY Windows out there will be infected as well.

When you write a virus for Unix you do not have that: you cannot even be sure it is going to infect the Unix platform of your colleague sharing the office with you. The combination of configuration parameter varies wildly.

Crackers do love Windows because not only is an easy target but - most important - does not present the problem of inventing a way to spread. It does it all by itself: Mission accomplished.

Sep 27, 04 - 07:03 am Comment from: Seahawk

And the myth of security via obscurity might have been worth to discuss about before OS X.
Now we are talking about Unix: of which obscurity are pundits talking about? IT IS UNIX, nothing obscure nor not widely present on the net.

What might be obscure is the amount of knowledge that crackers might be lacking but even not willing to acquire for the lack of spreading: one of the most effective Linux virus infected some 6000 (six thousands) PC worldwide. Are you joking? What interest in doing that? Windows gets infected by the thousands by the hour.

And nope, it is not for lacking of machines on the net: after all Apple counts some 15 millions OS X connected (data of some time ago: they might be 20 Mil now). The count of Unix platforms out there is way higher than that.

Microsoft would be in similar situation if a virus written for Windows 95 had no chance to infect a W98 machine or a W2k, or Windows ME, or Windows XP. Unfortunately, in the wise move of canning fundamentally the same product with different name, a virus written for Windows ANY flavor infects Windows of ALL flavors because the exploitable code is present on them all.

Sep 27, 04 - 07:10 am Comment from: Aryugaetu

An interesting and very detailed, point-by-point, comparison of Windows and UNIX security....
http://www.commercialventvac.com/~jeffs/WindowsVsLinuxSecurity.html
...his conclusion, "The best computer system for non-computer experts to buy is.... the Apple Macintosh."

Sep 27, 04 - 07:11 am Comment from: Seahawk

In addition to that, OS X shields against known Unix backdoors in that by default it comes with all daemons and ports closed. Hence it is even more *closed* than the corresponding average FreeBSD platform.

Last, to write a virus for Windows you do not need technical and programming capabilities. Even the most recent JPEG security flaw is covered by applications - freely downloadable off the net - that allow the user to select options, have the virus written, and release it on the net, without having wrote a single line of code. It is that easy: just google for "Virus Windows kit": plenty of pages to turn the most ignorant Windows user out there into the most dangerous virus writer of the planet.

Only fear or repercussions - after all you go to jail if caught - prevents a new virus every hour. Still, there has been a 400% increase of new virus variants for Windows since last year. Are you so naive to think that it is due to more knowledgeable software professional turned into criminal?
Nope, there are simply more bot and kits out there daily.

Amazing right? so much so that I - everytime - show the casual Windows user the proof (in google) because - so far - no one ever believed me by my own words. But the word of mouth has started.

Sep 27, 04 - 07:24 am Comment from: Aryugaetu

A sample list of Virus Constructors with screenshots...
http://vx.netlux.org/lib/static/vdat/creatrs1.htm

[Note: This is just A thru M!]

This site was found on Teoma.com using the search term "windows virus constructor".

[I use Teoma rather than Google because it returns RELEVANT sites not popular/paid sites.]

Sep 27, 04 - 07:32 am Comment from: Ref

see i agree with all that but i still think Mac users need to be careful.

Microsoft took no care to make sure their systems were as "Safe" as possible because until the "first" virus or trogan or whatever Windows or DOS had been safe.

You wait - there will be a virus or trogan or something similar that will appear for the Mac/Unix. once this happens it will become easier - by degrees - to hack and attack the Mac's.

To think so is to stick your head in the sand. Apple can put as many guards and protections in place and i applaud them for it.

There is still the issue of the number of systems out there. Why spend the time and effort creating a virus for an OS that hasn't been cracked and is way hard - when there is a simple system to attack which will affect the majority. This argument can still be used as the Mac/Unix community is in the minority.

Sep 27, 04 - 07:41 am Comment from: drhufufur

Interesting, isn't it, that even though Mr Brislen's 'final word' pretty much hands a solution to the virus scourge on a silver plate, he can't quite bring himself to add it to the bullet points in the summary.

ie. Operatiing system flaws - change yours to one that isn't riddled with them

It's almost like Mac is the love that dare not speak its name.

Sep 27, 04 - 07:43 am Comment from: Aryugaetu

Wow, talking about easy-to-make viruses, on...
http://vx.netlux.org/lib/static/vdat/creatrs2.htm
...scroll down just a bit to "Random Anarchy HTML Constructor". This is an HTML-based virus creator. In theory, you can have your own website where people visit to custom make their own viruses!!

It doesn't get much easier than this.
Well, perhaps you can use this to auto-generate random viruses. In theory, you could flood the internet with 100 NEW VIRUSES PER SECOND! Imagine a computer set up to do this non-stop 24/7?

Just a theory.

Sep 27, 04 - 07:53 am Comment from: Seahawk

Ref: "You wait - there will be a virus or trogan or something similar that will appear for the Mac/Unix. once this happens it will become easier - by degrees - to hack and attack the Mac's"

Sorry Ref, makes no sense. You are still in the mindframe of "it is as easy to create viral infection on Unix as it is on Windows. Windows sees more because there are more platforms running it"

Ref: it is not the presence on the net that allows for viruses. It is the flaws of the OS.

Unix in general has all the open source developers in the world whose main interest is to make it more secure and more efficient.

You seems to forget that Unix and Linux have seen already the *first viruses or trojan or similar" appearing and with time it has been MORE difficult to get another one, not easier.

OS X is not the last kid in the block: it enjoys decades of fine tuning BSDUnix and make it more secure. Your scenario is unlikely to happen because it happened before and the sw community little by little made Unices more secure.

BEFORE Windows there were viruses for Unix and the community (Unix was born and developed in research labs and Universities) was already working to make it more difficult to spread infections. Then Windows came and crackers - within months - started to flock on Windows.

Viruses for Windows were aplenty even when Windows was run by a very small percentage of market share. The very story of computer viruses pertaining to Windows shows that market share has little to nothing to do with it.

Sep 27, 04 - 07:54 am Comment from: Aryugaetu

"It's almost like Mac is the love that dare not speak its name."
[Lord Alfred Douglas coined the phrase "The love that dare not speak its name" in his poem 'Two Loves', which was printed in the Chameleon in 1894. Lord Douglas, "Alfie", was Oscar Wilde's much younger lover.]

Interesting analogy, drhufufur.

Both loves are seen about 3% in the corporate world but are more like 10% visible in the home.

Sep 27, 04 - 07:56 am Comment from: Seahawk

To paraphrase you: Why crackers then wasted time with Windows when it was a small percentage on the net and abandoned the vastly greater market of Unix at the time?

Because of effort and result:

Unix: lots of effort for minimal spread
Windows: minimal effort for lots of spread

Market share has been the icing and the cherry on an already made pie.

Sep 27, 04 - 07:59 am Comment from: Seahawk

Having said that, Mac users should not think OS X is 100% secure. It is *only* a bit more secure than the average BSDUnix platform out there.

Sep 27, 04 - 08:13 am Comment from: Ref

Seahawk

Your obviously right mate and i'm obviously wrong - there will never be a virus for the Mac because it is perfectly designed.

hang on - tell u what - bet the builders and designers of the Titanic thought the same damn thing.

I hope that in 1, 10, 50 years time and the first snowball effect of virii hit the Mac you are still defending this opinion.

As for market share argument - you just confirmed the viability of it.

"Unix: lots of effort for minimal spread
Windows: minimal effort for lots of spread"

There are far smarter ppl than you and me around who could do what's required to create a virus for the Mac.

I'll continue my level of sceptisicm if thats ok by you!

Sep 27, 04 - 09:03 am Comment from: mac dood

either way this arguement pans out, in the future... I read somewhere that the WinCrap platform just recently celebrated its 100,000th known virus !!

Gee... doesnt that make Billy Gates..."The Barry Bonds" of operating systems ??

Still, at last count... as I recall... there were just 68 known viruses which affect the Mac... and all of those affected the Mac OS before OSX...

ie: Classic...

And even then... the last Mac virus was "SevenDust 666" which was last seen back in 1994, or thereabouts...

So... by the numbers.... even Mac OS 9.x (and earlier) are significantly more secure than ANY flavor of WinDoze !!

Sep 27, 04 - 09:19 am Comment from: MacKnowitAll

HARD DATA


a href ="http://g5support.com/group/viewtopic.php?t=1517">See this, plenty of links to see about viruses and Windows and Mac's</a>

Sep 27, 04 - 09:22 am Comment from: MacKnowitAll

Try try again


Sometimes I dislike how this site operates.

Sep 27, 04 - 09:35 am Comment from: mac dood

MacKnowitAll...

I stand corrected.... using your link, I found that the "AutoStart Worm"... was last seen in 1998...

Thanx..

But if memory serves.... that one caused little damage, and the "quick-fix" was to turn off the "Auto Start" feature in your QuickTime...

Sep 27, 04 - 10:31 am Comment from: Translater

Is Seahawk using Sherlock's English Translater? His comments are become hard to follow. Too many word drops.

Sep 27, 04 - 10:45 am Comment from: Perfusionista

"Lord Douglas, "Alfie", was Oscar Wilde's much younger lover"

Lord Alfred Douglas's nickname was "Bosie" (don't ask me why)

Sep 27, 04 - 10:47 am Comment from: Seahawk

Ref: am not saying there will never be a virus for OS X.

I am saying is not going to be any different than a virus for BSDUnix.

Sep 27, 04 - 10:49 am Comment from: Seahawk

or conversely: is it not going to be the avalanche effect as it happens on Windows where a virus makes the turn of the world 10 times in one day.

Just this: no more no less that what happens with viruses on Unices: hardly anyone notice because of limited spreading. So slow that sysadmins can repair before it becomes epidemic.

Sep 27, 04 - 10:51 am Comment from: Seahawk

Translater: I am multitasking, dashing a reply while doing other stuff and not re-reading my posts.

Sep 27, 04 - 10:55 am Comment from: Seahawk

Again: there are viruses for Unix. But hardly anyone notices. Not because there are not enough Unix platforms around. Because they do not spread as a wildfire as in Windows.

Sysadmins get a security warning and there is plenty of time to adopt countermeasures and most of the times they affect a small % of the Unix population because configuration parameters vary wildly.

Sep 27, 04 - 11:39 am Comment from: Seahawk

Ref et al. Maybe (at least) this should be common knowledge before continuing the thread on "If <put any other OS> had same market share as Windows, it would be the same"

http://www.infosyssec.org/infosyssec/unixsecurity.htm

Windows does little to none of the above nor plans to do it. As a result, virus-wide, Windows is a world apart.

Sep 27, 04 - 11:59 am Comment from: Seahawk

MacKnowitAll(NOT): that is old stuff. If you are serious about tracking security incidents and issues this is where to get you info:

http://ciac.org/ciac/bulletinsByType/bul_vendor_list.html

I urge you to do so.

Sep 27, 04 - 12:55 pm Comment from: IT_guy

Ref: "As for market share argument - you just confirmed the viability of it"

I do not think you understood Ref: crackers *moved* to Windows when Windows had NO market share and the market was dominated by Unix.

If market share had any impact on their choice they would have waited for Windows to become #1. They did not: they left the large market share of Unix and flocked around the puny Windows.

It would be the same if todays' crackers were to abandon Windows and start to target OS X.
Their choice was a matter of convenience: why waste time on Unix where I do not spread (who cares how many are out there if you do not infect) when on Windows the problem does not exist: the OS does the spreading all by itself: who cares if they are few if I can infect them all?

The whole pack of 5% market share is a lot more than 1% of 95%.

Today crackers are on Windows because they get the whole pack of some 75% of the installed base.
If Windows was hard to infect it would be more effective to go after a less penetrated OS but more easy to attack.

Never forget that in ANY case, with ANY OS we are talking of tens of millions of platforms. ANY OS would be a good target.

Windows would still be fun for crackers even if it had 10% of the market.

Sep 27, 04 - 01:07 pm Comment from: YEAH

I agree with IT_guy. The "We are attacked because we are #1" is the excuse MS found to hide the real reason: They are attacked because they are number one in the list for weakness and lack of security.

Sep 27, 04 - 01:16 pm Comment from: worst

Let's say the whole market is between OS X and Windows. OS X has 10% of - say - total 300 millions PC on the net. Windows would have 270 mil and OS X 30 mil.

Say that - it is much worst - only 50% of Windows PCs were at risk with any virus and only 5% (usual infection rate on Unix) for OS X.

You send two viruses on the two platforms.
Windows infected machines: 135 millions
OS X infected machines: 1.5 millions.

Now reverse the market share: OS X 270 mil and Windows 30 mils.

Same virus on the new market share:
Windows infected machines: 15 millions
OS X infected machines: 13.5 millions

Result: stay on the lesser market share. Still infects more.

Sep 27, 04 - 01:22 pm Comment from: worst

More, the lesser market share - as it is today for Apple - would cause major damage anyway. Windows users say "Mac is good only for publishers and media". Well, imagine the disruption if the majority of Macs used on the media were knocked down by a virus. Newspapers, magazines, ads on TV, music producers, etc. MAJOR COLLAPSE.

Not a good market to cause chaos? Think again. If it does not happen it is not because due to not being a juicy target.

Sep 27, 04 - 01:23 pm Comment from: worst

err, a "because" too much. Unexpected surviving the final cut wink

Sep 27, 04 - 02:21 pm Comment from: Uncle Rat

A big Thank You from this reader goes out to Seahawk and Ref. for articulation of a real windows problem and a possible Mac problem. An intelligent and interesting thread. Again to all, Thank You.

Sep 27, 04 - 10:36 pm Comment from: yankees suck

whats new?

Sep 27, 04 - 11:45 pm Comment from: Aryugaetu

Perfusionista:

"Lord Alfred Douglas's nickname was "Bosie" (don't ask me why)"

I stand corrected. You are very right. A pic and some history about Wilde and Bosie is at http://www.gayhistory.com/rev2/events/wilde.htm

It states merely, "...a cute blond Oxford student named Lord Alfred Douglas, Bosie to his friends."


"The truth is a thing I get rid of as soon as possible." - O. Wilde -

Sep 28, 04 - 12:57 am Comment from: Mac Beth

so maybe there will be a mac virus, thats still better than zillions of em smile

Sep 28, 04 - 02:12 am Comment from: absolut_mac

Mac Beth

I think that the only time a Mac will be infected with a virus is when you get a cold!

Sep 28, 04 - 03:34 am Comment from: John Crawford

I echo Uncle Rats thanks to the contributors on this thread. Very informative.

Reader feedback page 1 of 1 pages:

Always -- Free ground shipping with orders over $50 at the Apple Store.

Add Your Feedback:

Register or Login

Name:

Email: (optional)

Emoticons | Allowed HTML Tags

Remember my personal information   Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the "MDN Magic Word" you see in the image below: