MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

I think we've reached the quota for "mea culpa" uses for the month.

Good God. What exactly about his answer to the question was wrong? The questioner never stated that he uses OS X, only Macs. Obviously you know there were viruses for older versions of the Mac OS.

The author doesn't say Mac is more secure because they're the minority, he says people want to cause mass disruption so they choose the easy target, the hole-riddled Windows. Sayig that people prefer to attack the most popular OS, Windows, doesn't mean they don't attack Mac because of small numbers. It means the truth. Windows is dominant and is attacked more often that OS X. What is incorrect about that?

MDN is getting far too brazen in attempting to call out those who "wrong" Apple and OS X. Please be a little more objective when reading things in the future and don't overanalyze them for hidden Mac attacks that simply aren't there.

I don't think MDN is seeing an attack--that would be intentional, and you're right, it's not there. What MDN points out in some cases is the UNintentional--the more subtle perpetuation of myths that are still just as false. In this case, the myth isn't the writer's main point--but by omitting some key truths relevant to the question, the bias IS there to be corrected. A bias not based on lies, but on half-truths.

Yeah but Patrick is an MS Boy. I just wrote him not so long ago on an issue about Pop-Up Killers and that instead of telling people to bite the bullet and just deal with Pop-Ups (since Pop-Up Killer Utils don't always work) that he should recommend Netscape/Mozilla. The Pop-Up Killer's definitely work for them!

I haven't heard from him yet :-

I'm not familiar with the author, so i am unaware of his previous writings. My comments were more directed at the MDN take, which mentions OS X. that is something the questioner never mentioned himself. MDN is arguing against a point never actually stated by anyone.

Sure, the author could have said "If you are using OS X you have nothing to fear." But I don't equate not saying that to be perpetuating the STO myth.

When the first OS X virus comes out, every Wintel flunky will go out of their way to spread the news.

That is enough reason for hackers to salivate to write the first virus for OS X

There is NO KNOWN Mac OS X virus.

http://www.macobserver.com/editorial/2003/08/29.1.shtml

Not a SINGLE virus that attacks Mac OS X.

Bob: Could you point me to the part where the person asking about virus protection says he uses OS X? No? kthx.

What I meant was OS X is a target because the first virus/hacker will gain immediate fame.

That alone makes OS X a prime target. Everyone wants to be first.

FUD!

rageous, in response to your observation -

Who cares about OS 9? It's defunct, ancient crap at this point. It's past the point of not looking back. Mac OS X is practically fourth generation now! If you want to fuss over Mac OS 9 and Windows 95, fine. Have fun.

Also note the question asked prior to the one about viruses; "Popping off at irksome popups: actions to help defend yourself". Windows users are constantly barraged with ads interrupting their work. It not only comes from IE's inability to allow the user to block pop-ups via websites, but they also must contend with pop-ups entering via a server entrance initially designed for system admins to notify people of problems. Outside advertiser have exploited this. (The fact that an ad company can use such a system-based channel is rather chilling to me).

A friend at work says this is normal and he thought it was common with Mac users, too. I told him that I haven't seen a pop-up since using iCab and then Safari. He says it can get so bad you must restart/reboot your computer, or pay for a pop-up blocker application. I had no idea it was this bad.

They also must use separate spam blocking software for their email. This is why most ISPs provide spam blocking as a feature, because Microsoft doesn't produce give their users such features as Apple's Mail filters.

Yes, Windows and Macs do the same thing, but with Windows you must buy additional software from various vendors with varying interfaces (and not always compatible with each other or certain hardware configurations) to make it function like a Mac. Imagine all of those aps running, having to maintain and upgrade each one, (don't forget your most important one, a virus checker), and then trying to figure out what crashed your system and why.

Windows users deal with this on a daily basis, and they actually think (just as my friend does) that this is the way Macs are, too, in addition to "not being compatible with anything". This is why no one looks at Apple for computer solutions; myths and false assumptions.

For ALL of these easy to make viruses and a complete lack of the most fundamental security or pop-up blocking, Microsoft must be getting some serious cash from 3rd party software vendors and advertisers.

I think Marshall is right: hackers "write viruses for the most popular operating system". If any of you know a hacker or two, ask them what it is about Windows that attracts them. I know the holes are part of it, but the possibility of reaching critical mass is extremely attractive to a real hacker. A virus that infected every Mac on the planet would not be as satisfying as one that infected 1 out of 10 PCs.

MDN definitely has a point to make (and should keep on making it), but that doesn't make Marshall's statement incorrect. There comes a point when you are no longer fighting for truth, but are trying to force your valid point into every article. Must every article about Security make the same point? How boring! I'd like to see you back off a bit in the interest of reader interest.

I have to totally agree that it is foolish for MDN to continue to blast news articles that mention that hackers usually write more viruses for Windows because they are more popular. I am sure it is completely true. There is no incentive to attack Apple computers as they are much less widespead, and thus do not have as much appeal to a hacker community.

I agree that Mac OS X is way more secure than Windows, but I don't think that's the only reason. It is definitely true that there is much more of a reason for virus-writers to target Windows PC's. Thus, I think MDN is looking very slanted at only one side of the issue. There are two reasons that Windows PCs are more virus-prone. Just because one of them isn't true doesn't mean the other one isn't true automatically as well.

Apparently any bored kid with a free weekend can make a virus for Windows. Where's the challenge? His virus will simply die a quick death and be just one of the 100 that Symantec smashes each month.

I find it odd that Windows supporters take pride with their system being vulnerable to attack, and then use that as an indicator of popularity. It's kinda of like Ford being happy with the increasing number of traffic accidents caused by their cars as proof that more people drive their cars.
"99 out of every 100 accidents involve Fords, therefore 99% of the population must enjoy driving Fords, and it has nothing to do with Ford's vulnerability to causing accidents." Yea, right!

With Microsoft's ceaseless parade of flaws making Macs look increasingly better by comparison, it would benefit Microsoft to make at least ONE Mac virus (under the guise of a security research project) and prove it vulnerable. But, NOT ONE. There must be thousands of Microsoft lovers that are angered by Apple's "arrogance of perfection" and are trying to crack into OS X, and be labeled the BEST hacker!! But, NOT ONE! Macs have about (any number you want)% of the computer market but have less than .001% of the viruses. It all can't be explained away with "popularity" or lack thereof. The "popularity" theory has NO basis of any fact, and is just a perpetuated myth for those too lazy to do any research.

So far all the folks who are saying that they agree with the writer of this article that windohs is the target "because it's the most popular" are missing the point. Windohs is popular to target because it's EASY to target, full of holes and lots of "come get me" lapses in security, not just because it's the biggest target.

And please, the term "popular" in the story is used incorrectly here, anyway. The words the author should have used is "most prevalent." Just because it's the most used doesn't mean it is "popular."

Finally, while I don't believe that OS X is completely and totally immune, it's a far sight closer to immunity than anything else out there right now.

What Ary said.

And, I might add that I've been saying the same thing for several years to the folks I know.

Has had more that 24 months to happen on OSX. Hasn't. Why not?

Those that 'prove' that MacOSX is more secure that WinXp by claiming STO may as well prove that Fort Knox doesn't get robbed as often as 7-11, because it's not as popular as 7-11.

Yea, sure, 'IT'boy.

No one has been able to demonstrate that Mac OS X is anything but virus immune. It's hillarious to hear the Windows people downplay that fact. They say that Mac has "fewer" viruses, but they fail to realize that the Mac has "zero" viruses. BIG difference.

OS X is BSD Unix. BSD Unix has a stellar record over decades concenring security.

Windows is NOT the largest target: ever counted the number of *nix servers and platform around the world? A virus THERE would actually do a MAJOR doamage. Windows is mostly home users and corporates terminal PCs.

Crackers (not hackers please) LOVE Windows because it guarantees an avalanche effect. The exploits on Windows are 100% existing and exploitable on ALL unpatched Wintel PCs out there. Crack into one crack into hundred thousands in a mere 24 hrs span.

On other OSes exploits rely on the existnce of particula/peculiar OS coonfigurations. Crack into one, and then? If you are lucky you'll get to a thousands infected platforms in a week time. Result? ZERO. ZILCH. NADA. Totally unworth the effort.

The latest major (and I stress MAJOR) virus breakout on Linux few years ago infected few thousand (less then 5000) platforms wolrdwide. MSBlaster got few thousand in the first hour of life.

Capisch?

In other words:

what counts for crackers is the speed of spreading. No other OS ensure such an amazing spread in short time as Windows. This is the ONLY factor for a virus writer in order to choose a OS from another.

Add to this that to write a Windows virus it take as little knowledge as English reading capability and you get to the results of having ~80,000 Windows viruses vs hundreds on Linux, few tens of Mac OS and ZERO on OS X (and BSD Unix).

It is all matter of effort/result:
On Windows is ZERO effort MAXIMUM result.
On Linux is Considerable effort/MEDIOCRE result
On OS X/BSD is OVERWHELMING effort / ZERO result

Look for "virus kit" on GOOGLE and you can spread Windows virii in the next half hour.

To write an effective (that is explot a security on Unix for ONE PARTICULAR configuration) requires years of expertise under your belt.
And more often then ever you have to reqrite it entirely for a configuration which is even slightly different than what the virus expects to find. Whatever!

Obviously popularity is a factor--nobody would say otherwise. But ONLY a factor. THAT's the point. Unless nobody in the years OS X has been out has ever desired to attack it. There are enough people that hate Macs to make that hard to buy. More to the point, look at other UNIXes used for high-profile, tempting targets. Other UNIXes still beat MS for security. That's been discussed to death. Let the myths die.

And OS X HAS been out for years. No Mac question should be answered now by assuming the question came from OS 9.

You can't see any one factor is the only factor in every hacker's mind. Speed of spreading can be one one. Effort required can be one one. Jealusy or hatred towards another platform can be one. Sheer challenge or self-education can be one. Targetting a specific company or server can be one. Getting more points in a contest is one. (Hacking Macs is worth the most in hacking contests.) MANY factors.

(typo of choice: see = say)

Okay...

So, if hatred or jealousy of a particular platform is a major factor, then I have a question...

Considering the festering hatred so many hard-core Wintellers have for Macintosh (don't deny it... it only looks foolish to do so.)... why have the Mac-hating hackers failed to come up with so much as *ONE* single Mac OS X virus? They have had more than two years now to come up with it.

Methinks there is far more to the answer than the pro-Wintel claque will admit.

I vaguely remember reading about a report a while back (within the last few months) done by the British Ministry of Intelligence (don't remember which section -- MIxx) which summarized their tracking of cracking/attacking attempts on various operating systems over the course of several years.

If I recall correctly their findings were
Of Linux/Open Source OS systems over 40% were successful
(though half of the successes were through applications not the OS itself)
Of Windows based systems over 20% were successful
(Most due to vulnerbilities in the OS and/or sofware which automatically installed with the OS)
Of BSD based UNIX systems less than 2% were successful

Anybody have access to the full report or at least remember an accurate/precise reference to it?

Thanks.

Those figures remind me the report from mi2g concerning overt digital attacks.

Concerning instead the number of exploited holes one should refer to:http://www.ciac.org/ciac/bulletinsByType/bul_vendor_list.html

PS
the above URL updated 2 days ago: it is a full time job to stay updated on Micros**t vulnerabilities.

Marshall is unlikely to change his tune. Even before writing this column, he was aware of David Pogue's mea culpa. I sent it to him in response to an earlier comment of his and his reply, STILL, was if the Macintosh OS was as popular as Windoz, there would be just as many viruses out their for it.

Thumper, my reply to that silly argument is that market share does not turn script-kiddies into Unix geeks. Believing into that is a tell-tale of ignorant Windows bootlickers.