“Malware writers faster in developing code than security industry, claims expert,” Rene Millman reports for ITPro.
Millman reports, “Malware writers appear to be much further along in developing malware for Vista than the security industry is in making products to protect the new operating system.”
Millman reports, “Speaking exclusively to IT PRO, Tim Eades, senior vice-president of sales at security company Sana Security said that 38 percent of malware is already Vista-compatible. ‘Malware writers have gone through the WHQL (Windows Hardware Quality Labs) list to make sure that their code works on new machines,’ he said. ‘They have managed to port code to Vista quicker than the security industry.’ The WHQL list defines hardware that is compatible with the Windows operating system.”
Full article here.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Windows ‘Storm Worm’ rages across globe; Apple Macintosh unaffected – January 19, 2007
Apple touts virus-free Macs – August 25, 2006
Microsoft’s Windows is inherently more vulnerable to severe malware than Apple’s Mac OS X – August 23, 2006
Chicago Tribune falls for the ‘Security Via Obscurity’ myth – August 14, 2006
Symantec researcher: At this time, there are no file-infecting viruses that can infect Mac OS X – July 13, 2006
Gartner analyst tries to propagate discounted Mac OS X ‘security via obscurity’ myth via BBC – July 06, 2006
Apple: ‘Get a Mac. Say ‘Buh-Bye’ to viruses’ – June 01, 2006
Apple Macs are inherently safer and more secure than Microsoft Windows – November 22, 2005
BusinessWeek columnist propagates discounted ‘Apple Mac security via obscurity myth’ – September 06, 2005
16-percent of computer users are unaffected by viruses, malware because they use Apple Macs – June 15, 2005
USA Today calls iMac G5 ‘exquisite’ but implies Mac OS X more secure than Windows due to obscurity – September 30, 2004
Another columnist trots out Mac OS X ‘Security through Obscurity’ myth – April 03, 2004
Gates: Windows ‘by far the most secure’ system; tries to use ‘Mac OS X secure through obscurity’ myth – January 27, 2004
Q&A Columnist uses ‘security through obscurity’ myth to defend Windows vs. Mac on virus issue – October 04, 2003
Columnist tries the ‘security through obscurity’ myth to defend Windows vs. Macs on virus front – October 01, 2003
New York Times: Mac OS X ‘much more secure than Windows XP’ – September 18, 2003
Shattering the Mac OS X ‘security through obscurity’ myth – August 28, 2003
Is Mac OS X really inherently more secure than Windows? – August 26, 2003
Virus and worm problems not just due to market share; Windows inherently insecure vs. Mac OS X – August 24, 2003
ROFLMFAO!!!!
1st?
Bwwaaahhahahahaha!!!
That makes sense.
Backward compatibility is on top of MS’s development priorities list.
bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
I really need to get into simply charging everyone I know with Windows $10 per person per session to clean their machine. I’d be so f’in rich. Too bad my actual time is valuable.
With technologies like User Account Control and Protected Mode IE, malware won’t infect a Windows Vista system unless the user ALLOWS it to be installed. Vista is going to be a lot more secure than XP by default, and we’ll see malware rates drop because of it.
Once Macs become popular, we’ll see more social engineering attempts at them, because who wants to try and infect a small portion? No one.
We’ve seen this in Firefox. When it wasn’t popular, people were saying it was so much better than IE. Now that it’s popular, we’ve seen more holes in it than IE. Just check Mozilla for proof:
http://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/known-vulnerabilities.html
Deal with it Macheads. There will be severe attacks on Macs when they get popular. Stop kidding yourselves.
“I really need to get into simply charging everyone I know with Windows $10 per person per session to clean their machine.”
10$ ???
Are you serious.? Make em throw down a 50 spot for you to do that. I bet there would still be plenty of takers.
MW fear. how appropriate.
I fear the kiddy-winks are taking over this site.
You used to be able to read intelligent posts here!
Charko,
when was that?
I’m not surprised in the least. That is what happens when you have a spaghetti code OS. M$ should delay their poor attempt at OS X. That would give more people reason to switch
Thank god they are on schedule. Was really gonna hurt MS if their 3rd party developers weren’t ready by the 3rd quarter.
If owning a Mac is cool, then I’m cool with not having a virus, malware or whatever it is that infects Windoze types!
Developers! Developers! Developers!
Developers! Developers! Developers!
Developers! Developers! Developers!
Developers! Developers! Developers!
“Once Macs become popular, we’ll see more social engineering attempts at them, because who wants to try and infect a small portion? No one.”
I switched to a Mac four blissful years ago. Is there some reason that I would need to know why I haven’t had ANY security/malware issues? I didn’t think so.
Welcome to the Social.
Of course a security firm is going to say something like this, just like they say how insecure Mac OS X is. You can’t denounce security firms in one instance and then use them as evidence against Windows the very next moment.
Microsoft
Your security. Our incompetence.
Firefox has more holes than IE? What has “newsflash” been smoking?
Once Macs become popular, we’ll see more social engineering attempts at them, because who wants to try and infect a small portion? No one.
LOL, still with the same crap. Once Mac becomes popular? HEEEELLOOOO? Where have you been recently? Planet Mars?
Who wants to try? They are trying hard as they can at least since a full year, everytime making (hoping to) the news and then debunked in few days.
Hell, there is even the Mac Month of Bugs initiative where they were supposed to *reveal* serious threat to Mac OS X and they only ruined their reputation as crackers and security hackers. The list of *serious threats” is so risible the silence around the initiative is deafening. And to tell their motivation was again to *show* smug Mac users they had nothing to be smug. Well, they achieved exactly the opposite.
Pretty much like the one who wanted to stick a cigarette to the eyes of – again!? – smug Mac users to show them: again, big flop and the laugh of the entire online community.
Deal with it Windows sucker. Macs are already popular and there has been already serious attempts for severe attacks on Macs: they all had to eat shit. Stop letting Balmer drive, straighten up, stop being at 90 degrees and liking it.
To newsflash:
Please, please, please let up on the tired old fallacy of maket share determining malware. It’s just baloney. And regurgitated baloney, at that.
To FUD:
Good point. But I’ve already seen attacks and weaknesses in Vista displayed, so it really isn’t that great at security. Just at screwing the security vendors with lockouts.
MW:: “price” and have you looked at the cost of Vista yet? There’s the ‘wow’ factor and stickershock will be the new feeling spreading…
Windows is so ridden with holes and attacked so easily because there are so many installation around… and
Mac OS X has no attacks because it is so small it is not on radar of crackers.
Can’t believe it, there are still lobsters believing this crap from Microsoft “We are attacked because we are the biggest target” and “We are the most secure OS because we are the most attacked, hence we know about security”.
And idiots-of-the-world-united believe the guy.
Here, educate yourself:
ciac.org/ciac/bulletinsByType/bul_vendor_list.html
Once Apple enters the Real World of Enterprise Information Technology,
malaware, virus, worm, spyware, & trojan writers,
will start writing nasty things that will run on that toy os that Apple still sells;
Real Enterprise malaware will bring Mac OS X to its kness;
Windows knows how to cope; Windos has be vaccinated;
Windows is on its way to developing an immunity to viruses and malaware;
But Apple is like those naive and isolated native America indians;
when the Real World traders and immigrants arrived;
they died and disappeared from North America.
The same will happen to Apple.
It fits with Darwin theory of survival of the fittest.
Windows has been made stronger by all the malaware that infects it daily:
While Apple has not yet been tested by a good Real IT malaware code writer.
The first virus that hits Apple will probably kill the mac.
Any used blankets, Mr. OS X?
Haiawata.
newsflash: 21 million copies of OSX in 5 years. How many copies of Vista out there? I don’t know but I doubt that many, and the first Vista viruses hit the first 8500 copies less than 8 hours after Vista was released.
We are waiting.
For your answer and for the first self-executing virus for OSX.
Are you smart enough to do it? Windows viruses can be done by 12 year old kids who download a virus writing kit from the web, so why not you unless you are just trolling. Hmm? And don’t tell me about how smart kids are on computers. I teach junior high and know better.
The M$ fudboys argument is that IF there were MORE Mac operating systems in use the attacks would significantly go up on OS X. Well, Vista’s circulation is tiny as compared with Mac OS X, yet they’ve been attacked. So the real issue is not how many but how easy an operating system is to crack. Vista must be easy.
It boggles the mind that business around the world lose billions of dollars in productivity becasue of Microsoft software and these companies do nothing about it. Let alone Microsoft. Billions! With a B folks.
And they buy or sign up for more of it with Microsoft. And it’s the only part of their business they don’t change. It’s like Hertz sending people out in the Fords and each time the car breaks and it costs hertz $2000 for each rental. Ford just tell them that’s the way it is. And they just pay the money to fix the car. You know that wouldn’t happen. They would be on the phone to Toyota or any other car manufacturer ordering up a fleet of non-defective cars.
Why do these people pay Microsoft so their compnay can lose money is the queston?