Mac's Immunity To Recent Virus Attacks 257
bluepinstripe writes "
An article over at MacCentral references two articles about the Mac's immunity to the recent virus attacks." This is nothing new, but worthy of note, from time to time, such as now.
Ack! (Score:4, Funny)
Common Sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, none of those naive users browse this site.
Re:Common Sense (Score:2, Funny)
-Bill Gates
MS Office Viruses (Re:Common Sense) (Score:4, Interesting)
Wrong. A virus that exploits a cross-platform program such as Mozilla can infect multiple platforms.
A well-known class of Win-Mac viruses are the Microsoft Office macro viruses. MS Office is available for both Windows and Macintosh, and the versions for both platforms accept the same documents and viruses. With so few Mac-specific viruses available, these macro viruses were once the biggest threats to Mac users, but only those who had certain Microsoft programs. Now these viruses are forgotten as newer Office versions protect against macro viruses.
Re:MS Office Viruses (Re:Common Sense) (Score:5, Funny)
You run MS Office? Sacrilege! (Score:2, Interesting)
With so few Mac-specific viruses available, these macro viruses were once the biggest threats to Mac users, but only those who had certain Microsoft programs.
What kind of Mac user are you, to imply that we would use MS Office?
Seriously though, you are correct. That was the primary reason why I shifted away from using MS products as soon as I was finished my university schooling. Abstinence is the best form of prevention.
MS Office Viruses Only Go So Far on Macs (Score:5, Informative)
The earliest macro virus, concept (1995), ran rampant on both Macs and PCs (despite the fact that MS Office 4 for Mac was a Piece of Sh*t) before Office had macro detectors.
Since then, almost all macro viruses in Word and Excel documents create havoc only on Windows operating systems because the viruses make procedural and path calls that work only on Windows, such as going to a directory path on C: drive, or activating a function that requires the full Visual Basic or ActiveX functionality found in Windows but stunted or non-existant in the Mac version of Office.
The Mac version of Office screams bloody murder when it detects macros and warns the user. If a modern macro virus is let to run on a Mac OS system, it fails to run or runs only to a point.
A point that should be made throughout all this virus hoopla is that while Macintosh users are generally immune from any direct attack from PC viruses, a Macintosh user can be a "typhoid Mary" style carrier by passing along a virus from an email or infected file. Also, due the SOBIG virus and BLASTER, everyone, including Macs, suffer from the Internet slowdowns that affect the servers that manage it, as well as intranet slowdowns in businesses.
Let me get this straight.... (Score:5, Funny)
So not only is my Mac immune to Windows viruses; it also helps those viruses destroy Windows machines?
So what's the downside?
Re:MS Office Viruses (Re:Common Sense) (Score:3, Informative)
However, even that was actually a potential threat rath
Re:Common Sense (Score:3, Insightful)
Almost all the newspapers report that these infections happen on windows - but they are doing the reading public a disservice by not stating who they don't affect.
Besides these two reports noted by maccentral, I haven't seen many reports stating that macs and linux systems are not affected.
Re: (Score:2)
but they still suffer.... (Score:5, Interesting)
my own company's mail server (which has an AV on it to check attachments) got the equivalent of a DDoS because of all the people who have us in their address books.
we ourselves did not get infected, but our mail server sure was (is still) sluggish.
Re:but they still suffer.... (Score:2, Interesting)
The security/computer folks here were able to block the wall jacks used by infected machines, but in some cases this affected others (i
Re:but they still suffer.... (Score:2)
Re:but they still suffer.... (Score:2)
The next biggest problem is ads for viagra. Trust me, viagra is the worst sexually oriented virus there is. I'm pretty secure about not having to worry about HIV, Herpes or all the others. But viagra spam...
How many for Linux? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How many for Linux? (Score:5, Informative)
Lots of software run on Linux/BSD/other unix-like systems, so if a worm uses a flaw in that software, can you really call it a Linux problem?
It's not as clear cut as it is in the proprietary software world. where programs generally run on one platform only, and MS/Apple bundles tons of stuff tightly with the OS.
There have been a couple honest to goodness Linux viruses, but none that I know of have ever spread widely. If you count worms that exploit only Linux, that have made it very far in the wild, you could probably count them on one hand.
Re:How many for Linux? (Score:5, Interesting)
> very far in the wild, you could probably count them on one hand.
OTOH, if you count worms that exploit unix-like systems in general,
you'll get a somewhat larger number. There have been quite a few
worms over the years that spread through unix-based software such
as sendmail. Naturally, most of them won't work on current versions.
Then again, that 50 number for Mac systems is low if you count
historical viruses that would no longer work on modern Mac systems.
Back in the day when all Macs still sported floppy drives and ran
a single-user out of the box, there were quite a large number of
Mac file viruses.
So if you only count malcode that's in the wild and will work
on current versions... there aren't many, except for Windows.
Re:How many for Linux? (Score:2)
Just one. [caldera.com]
Re:How many for Linux? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How many for Linux? (Score:4, Informative)
Altough most are worms, there are about 50-60 virus existing.
Symantec [symantec.com]: 1592 results found (includes articles)
Mcafee [mcafee.com]: found 58 record(s) matching
In other news (Score:4, Informative)
People vaccinated against polio are immune to polio attacks. Duh!
The other thing that seems to slip people's attention, is that most of these Windows email viruses spread because of Outlook and Outlook Express. People running other mail clients like Eudora, Mozilla, etc. are not affected by these attacks either.
bad analogy (Score:5, Interesting)
Saying Macs are "immune" in this case is about like saying my car is immune to Polio. It just doesn't apply in this case. Macs won't be "immune" to Mac-based viruses, when they come along.
Anyone dumb enough to launch an executable e-mail attachment without first virus-scanning it is dumb enough to do it on any platform they run. Bragging about Macs not being susceptible to this round of viruses is merely bragging about how few Macs there are, and how it isn't worth the time of the virus-writers to make Mac-based viruses. Whoopee.
I'm still saving up money for a G5, though it has nothing to do with how susceptible to viruses it is or isn't.
Re:bad analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. It just seems like people brag about something that is painfully obvious (Macs don't get affected by Outlook viruses; people who are vaccinated against polio don't get polio)
Again, agreed.
And this leads to another point. Why do we call them "Windows" viruses. It isn't a function of Windows, per se, that allows this to happen. It's a function of Outlook and OE that causes the problem. If mail.App ran binary attachments without a scan, Macs would be just as vulnerable as Windows machines.
We should start calling them Outlook viruses. Put the blame where it belongs, on the bad email applications.
Re:bad analogy (Score:2)
Well, I use Outlook, and *I* don't get these viruses. If we put the blame where it belongs, we should called them User viruses.
Re:bad analogy (Score:2)
Agreed completely. In the end, these are user problems, not technical problems. LART the lusers who run things they get in their email.
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Or protect you from stuff on the web (popups, pop-unders, RPC worms) People want convenience, and that runs against security.
Re:I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
I wasn't shooting for making a point about complexity and security. My point was, security, in general, is not convenient. And, that things that are highly convenient, aren't necessarily that secure. Complexity comes into play a little, only bec
Re:I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but... (Score:2)
Re:bad analogy (Score:2)
True. But they don't. And that's the point
Re:bad analogy (Score:2)
The more popular Macs become (because of the advent of OS X the G5 hardware), the more likely they WILL come. That's the price for popularity - people always wanting to take you down a peg or two.
Granted, a superior security model to that of MS products will help limit the damage done by such a virus, but when you have people willing to click on any attachment someone sends to them in an e-mail, you can never totally eliminate the possibility of damage.
Re:bad analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: bad analogy (Score:2)
Re:bad analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
The term "immune" does not imply vaccination. There is such a thing a natural immunity. And Wintel systems and Mac systems do pretty much the same thing, they are not so different as you and your car.
The
marzipan (Score:2)
> What the hell does "putting marzipan in your pie plate bingo!" mean?
It means you don't watch enough Buffy the Vampire Slayer, that's what it means.
Re:In other news (Score:2)
Re:In other news (Score:2)
Great, that's Outlook 2002. What about any previous versions? Were/are they secure by default? (not trolling. I've never had occasion to install other versions, so I honestly don't know.)
Outlook Express is still a culprit. And, IIRC, Mozilla mail doesn't enable Javascript by default, so no scripted spreading from the preview pane. As for running executables, Mozilla prompts me as to if I want to open the executable, or save it, so no auto-running executable files there. True, I can still run the exe, but i
some reasons to have a Mac handy (Score:3, Informative)
2) easy to program
3) No open ports by default!
That being said, I'm personally not willing to say with 100% certainty that OS X is "immune" to viruses and worms like this. What if OS X was on thousands of desktops in each big company, like windows is? Imagine all those dumb, untrained users sending each other arbitrary executables... combine with ease of programming from #1 above... yeesh...
my mom (Score:5, Insightful)
So join the crusade. Give your mom a mac!
Re:my mom (Score:4, Insightful)
I am still pushing for them to get an iBook. I endlessly tell them how much nicer most of their tasks would be. How much less risk they will have of viruses, etc. At least I don't let them use Outlook.
So, the way I see it... as a 20-something (can still barely claim that) year old guy it's a wise choice to promote OS X with family members. It will seriously cut down on your overall cost of support time and generally annoying phone calls. I've almost got my dad convinced that a Mac will be his next computer. His friend concurs it's the right choice for him. Wish me luck! I need to cut down on this support overhead!
-Alex
Re:my mom (Score:2)
"Sorry, I only know how to fix up macs. If you had one I could help you..."
Re:my mom (Score:2)
My point though, is that my parents don't (yet!). And THEY'RE the ones I need to support. It has nothing to do with what I run, just what THEY run. But I'm working on it!
-Alex
Re:my mom (Score:2)
perl -e '$;=sub{$/};@;=map{my($a,$b)=($_,$;);$; =sub{$a.$b->()}}split//,join(" ",@ARGV)||".rekcah lreP rehtona tsuJ";$\=$;->();print$/;'
Just putting it into action and providing a more usable interface.
-Alex
Re:my mom (Score:3, Insightful)
> there are far more email and internet clients available.
> everytime I go to mine with a complaint that something isn't
> working right (ie my cable modem has stopped working and there
> is an external network problem), they go what software are you
> using? and when I reply Linux, they go "sorry we don't support
> that". So I go into ms-windows just for them and they can only
> talk me through IE and Outlook/Outlook Express,
Mac: False Sense of Security (Score:4, Insightful)
(1) They have excellent remote user capabilities. This not only aids in compromising the system but it's Unix nature makes it an excellent place to run various hacking tools from. An excellent proxy.
(2) They have very poor administration. Few Mac users, hell few Linux box owners for that matter, are capable administrators. There machines are as vulnerable their last Software Update as last weeks update shows: "Today, Apple released Security Update 2003-08-14, which 'addresses a potential vulnerability in the fb_realpath() function which could allow a local or remote user to gain unauthorized root privileges to a system.'"
These two facts will draw much more attention to Macs by virus and worm authors.
Re:Mac: False Sense of Security (Score:5, Informative)
For both points, you are referring to problems that have to be opened up explicitly. By default, all those excellent remote user capabilities are turned off, and the one place that uses fb_realpath() (the FTP server) is off by default.
The situation on X is not as good as it was with, for example, 7.0, where getting anything remotely exploitable up demanded a multi-digit number of clues, but it is still many steps back from the default Windows situation. After all, who outside of Redmond is conscious of the fact that every Windows machine is running a DCOM RPC endpoint mapper?
Wrong: Off by default makes a Mac safe (Score:2)
You misunderstand. The specific problem cited in the recent update is irrelevant. The point is that Mac OS X boxes can get root'ed and Apple releases updates to prevent this periodically. The next exploit could be in something as common as Safari (default web browser). Fu
Re:Wrong: Off by default makes a Mac safe (Score:3, Interesting)
You miss the point in reply. Mac OS X out of the box CAN'T get root'ed because the root account is disabled.
The only way (I know of) to enable it is through the GUI. You must launch "NetInfo Manager", then authenticate as an administrator. You can then choose the option to enable the root account and enter a password.
Along with the root account being disabled, just about every server/service not
Re:Wrong: Off by default makes a Mac safe (Score:2)
Mac OS X out of the box CAN'T get root'ed because the root account is disabled
Apple Computer, a more reliable source of info regarding Mac OS X diagrees: "Today, Apple released Security Update 2003-08-14, which 'addresses a potential vulnerability in the fb_realpath() function which could allow a local or remote user to gain unauthorized root privileges to a system.'" {emphasis mine}
That would not be a virus, that would be a trojan
I am writing with respect
Re:Wrong: Off by default makes a Mac safe (Score:2)
I was too brief and the above could be misunderstood. I accidentally hit submit rather than preview. Doh!
I know the specific example above requires the user to enable a service. My point was the te
Re:Mac: False Sense of Security (Score:2)
Re:my mom (Score:4, Interesting)
When I had my mom running Win98 I was fielding on the average 6-5 computer related questions a week and a system crash every couple of days, and she wasn't even really on the internet that much to catch viruses. All this stressful phone tech support stuff was really me generally annoyed and pissed at my sweet little old mother, I was beginning to dread any phone calls from her at all.
Getting her that 15" iMac for Xmas was the best thing for my nerves. She is set up as a regular user and there is a separate Admin account that she doesn't know the password for, so I KNOW the system will not get accidentally corrupted. That and any damage will be confined to her Home directory. Last time I updated the OS, the uptime was like 3+ months (last reboot before that was for another OS Update). She has not had a problem with figuring out the OS or using the applications that she didn't eventually figure out herself, thanks to the very intuitive interface. I don't have to worry about her contracting a weird/inconvenient Windows social disease/virus, when I put her on a cable modem later this month, I can count on the built in IPFW to keep some bad stuff from happening and thank god Sophos has a full time background virus scanner for OS X available now just in case.
My mom is actually doing REALLY well considering she just started using computers a couple of years ago (and late in life at that). But she is in the same position I'd guess 80-90% of Windows users are in: They know just enough to get some work done and more than enough to really get in some deep trouble and screw up their systems without being aware that they are doing it.
DaveC
Re:my mom (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe so, but there's a difference between there being lots of viruses on a platform and those viruses causing havoc. Windows is a very inviting environment for a virus. You're allowed to do all sorts of stuff. That is why viruses cause so much damage to windows infrastructure.
For example, the SoBig worm wasn't bad because it existed, it was bad because it was able to do what it did. In more secure environments this would not have been possible.
Re:my mom (Score:3, Insightful)
1. The Win32 API is fundamentally flawed and insecure.
2. Windows users tend to be the most naive of computer users. They'll click on anything with tits or a smiley face.
3. Microsoft builds-in security holes, and labels them as features.
And Linux, FreeBSD et al??? (Score:3, Interesting)
And if you can't stomach the thought of ditching ms and switching to Linux/FreeBSD, then you could at least ditch those ridiculously compromised default email and internet clients and switch to something like Opera and Forte Agent if you want proper support or else go with the multitude of OSS solutions and rely on support via newsgroups and mailing lists
The biggest problem these days is not the actual MS Windows OS, but what gets bundled with it...
Re:And Linux, FreeBSD et al??? (Score:2)
Re:And Linux, FreeBSD et al??? (Score:2, Informative)
Hear, hear. My buddy's windows got fucked up, and he had to reinstall. He did, and the next day I went over to his house. 24 hours after the reinstall (a Compaq), and not having touched the net or anything, I ran Ad-aware. He had 199 malware objects installed. BY THE FUCKING MANUFACTURER!!!!!! I was livid.
Re:And Linux, FreeBSD et al??? (Score:2)
*sigh* You're posting as an AC, lunkhead. You are new here, aren't you?
Dan Aris
Why so nasty about Macs? (Score:5, Insightful)
The one thing I find odd is the lie that is simplicity. Macs are a doddle to use and yet they are clearly also nice secure systems. Windows is less easy to use and yet easier to write viruses and trojans for. Chewbacca defense? It does not make sense! If Macs were as common as PCs they still wouldn't suffer the same level of viruses and worms as Windows does. Same is true for Linux. Besides which, what if we had 25% Windows, 25% Linux, 25% Macs and 25% others. I bet Windows would still have by far the greatest number of viruses etc.
Cool off guys. Macs are good. Its all UNIX and that is good. A little bit more of this and Windows will be the minority just as it should be.
Re:Why so nasty about Macs? (Score:2)
Oh, so you'd run SCO's UnixWare without reservations then? After all, it's THE Unix now. Technology isn't everything, the ideology of the vendor matters, too. In that respect Apple is no better than Microsoft, they just have better designers.
Huh? Hold on one minute bucko. SCO's actions do not make UnixWare bad. It is UNIX albeit old and crumbly (which does make it bad). Besides, the thing SCO can't get their head around is that UNIX is about the 'style' rather than the particular codebase. Hence Li
It's all about perception... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's all about perception... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well yes it is possible to exploit a UNIX/Mac-BSD/linux OS (now referred to as UMBL) based system, it is much more difficult to do on a generic basis. 1) They all include firewalls as part of the OS. While often they can be disabled or not turned on by default, It was not till 2000 (win2k) that Windows started including a firewall as part of the OS. Even Linux, the new kid on the block has had SOME built in firewalling for about 10 years or more. 2) There is less scripting integration of applications in UMBL than in windows. If I am using mozilla mail or pine then I have to setup these 'execute this with' options. Also I am more likely to get prompted for this. With Windows virii you just click on the mail with the preview pane open and your hozed. MS does not make it super intuitive to figure out how to shut this off either. There is NO "Preferences" in Outlook, just "Options". Options are not really preferences. MS really needs to rethink what the F*** they are doing. I'm suprised noone has decided to ask the question is it just as easy to attack UMBL machines as it is windows? Or is it that people who run UMBL (atleast UBL not sure about M) more likely to turn off services and put up firewalls?
Yes every OS has holes, but with windows these holes appear as big as the grand canyon, while on other OS'es they appear like small little volcanos. The real issue is that MS needs to start shipping their product with ALL services off and a tight firewall and VBScript OFF and make the users turn these things on instead. Add Preferences into the system. They need to make it so that you can update a system and not have to reboot it cause you installed some new updates, unless its the actual OS kernel itself.
Also they need to lighten up on the licencing, and allow for people at home to install on 4-5 machines like Mac does. Mac costs 129 for OSX and a home user license (4-5 users) Windows costs 300 for 2k / XP for a 1 users license. Linux / BSD are less than 100 or even FREE for unlimited license. I think that part of the problem of people not updating their OS is that many people cannot afford 5x300 for WIndows and don't upgrade and update their OS cause A - bandwidth, B - fear that MS will come after them for license violation.
Don't defend a company that has 40 billion dollars in excess money that allows this kind of thing to happen, and then decides to outsource to india to make its profits even greater and its userbase larger. It just isn't right!
Why macs may be better on the whole. (Score:3, Insightful)
thus its clear MS is cavelier.
On the other hand keeping unix secure is truly hard work. there are lots of dark alleys few sys admins really know about and the development is distributed so one has to tru
Re:Why macs may be better on the whole. (Score:2)
You see, C# is a language. One might rationally compare it to Java. There are similiarities. The essential point here is that the language is a medium for developers to express an executable program. There is also the CLR, which you might liken to the Java runtime environ
Re:Why macs may be better on the whole. (Score:2)
Your understanding is not correct. CLR applications, including those written in C#, have similiar sandbox restrictions as Java. here [microsoft.com] is the introductory documentation.
Re:thanks (Score:2)
Viruses are fun at work (slight OT) (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Viruses are fun at work (slight OT) (Score:4, Funny)
Spoken like a true Mac admin.
Thank you, Mail.app! (Score:5, Funny)
What I wouldn't give for a shiny little app that identifies these and autoresponds to the postmaster and abuse addresses with "I'm on a Mac, you insufferable bint. You're a sysadmin, for god's sake. You should know that SoBig.F spoofs the FROM: line. I am not infected with this virus, you are dumb, and I have notified your superiors that you have absolutely no clue as to how to run a mail server and that you should be fired. I hear the U.S. Army is hiring."
They could call it iSmackYouUpsideTheHead.
Re:Thank you, Mail.app! (Score:2)
That's easy! Write a little applescript script that constructs and sends the email through mail.app... Then simply add a mail filter (rule) that launches the applescript.
Re:Thank you, Mail.app! (Score:2)
Re:Thank you, Mail.app! (Score:2)
-S
AutoLART ( was Re:Thank you, Mail.app!) (Score:2)
man maildrop
Not totally true (Score:4, Insightful)
The Unix/OSS security model in OSX (and lack of Outlook type automatic unsecure scripting) is not the only protection. This exists in Linux and BSD et al also. The use of x86 machine code in buffer overflow attacks will not work on PPC or Sparc machines.
Re:Not totally true (Score:2)
Good point about the architecture flaw. Does that mean the mythical OS X for x86 would also be vulnerable?
Re:Not totally true (Score:3, Informative)
Even though I run Windows 2000 (Score:3)
Re:Even though I run Windows 2000 (Score:2)
Phrased another way... (Score:5, Funny)
(Yes, I know -- mod me down because I won't drink the Kool Aid... but I -did- just order myself an iPod for use with Linux.) :-)
Nature of Macs (Score:5, Informative)
OS X however inherites from BSD, so it also inherited all the fixes to past problems in BSD, which is mainly used as an Enterprise Unix solution. And also keep in mind it is a new operating system, version 10.2 has only been around for just over a year. That said, it does come with a more secure default configuration, with most services disabled by default, which is the weakness of most Unix and Linux systems, since they're usually deployed as servers and have most of their services on by default.
Mac OS X uses micro kernel technology. This provides better memory protection between applications, and the ability to sperate the OS into different components and levels. This becomes key when updating the OS. Most updates, since it does not involve the micro kernel, a complete system restart isn't necessary. The micro kernel will continue to run while the rest of the OS is patched in restarted, reducing start up time for kernel updates.
OS X - no microkernel (Score:5, Informative)
Bob and Tom (Score:2)
Local news said it at my prompting. (Score:5, Interesting)
As part of the (short) interview, they asked how to avoid it, and I mentioned that Macintoshes and Linux machines were immune. That made it on the news. (Along with very little else of my interview.)
Re:Local news said it at my prompting. (Score:3, Interesting)
It made the front page. it does say in the very last paragraph that microsoft is the reason we have all these viruses, but i was very upset that the paper didn't say there were alternatives to Windows (Linux and Mac).
I'm glad someone got the word out that this is *just* a windows problem, and that there is choice in this world.
AppleScript, AddressBook, and Mail.app (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:AppleScript, AddressBook, and Mail.app (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:AppleScript, AddressBook, and Mail.app (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you want to open this?
Shall I send this mail to these 300 addresses
Where do you want to unzip this executable
Shall I start it?
Shall I make a copy and send to all entries in your address book?
Then yes, if you are so dumb as to answer "Yes" to all those questions everytime an app gets fired by the Applescript and opens windows on your face then yes, it would be possible.
On Windows the OS answers "YEEEEEEESSSSSS please do" without you ever noticing what is going on.
That's why the worm/virii spread so easily on WIndows: it is dumb.
Also, every Windows app run as 'system' that is even IM or IE is like GOD on Windows.
Mac applications do not have those rights and more, root user is disabled by default and the average user does not even have the tools to activate it or know how to.
A virus on Mac would need the active collaboration of the user to spread. On Windows it has the granted collaboration of Windows. Like giving the keys of you mansion to the thieves themselves while you are on vacation.
Keep trusting Windows, it is so clever
And oh yes: it is just visibility LOL
Re:AppleScript, AddressBook, and Mail.app (Score:2)
The laugh is that -- wait for it -- IT REQUIRES MICROSOFT PRODUCTS TO RUN!!!!!
Plus it also requires user activation.
So it technically doesn't meet your criteria (AddressBook and Mail.app). But funny nonetheless.
...not a significant target (Score:3, Interesting)
Hence, while it is possible (and easy) to write a virus for the Mac, it's more difficult to spread it -- that's my impression, anyhow.
I've never, ever, ever got MacOS X virus...there has to be a reason, and I think this one is it.
obvious? (Score:4, Insightful)
We need to start a meme circulating... (Score:3, Funny)
Big red concentric circles - traditional target
At 10 'oclock - Mac OS X logo
At 2 'oclock - Tux
At 4 and 8 'oclock - Darts with a virus and a worm riding them
Dead center - the Windows logo
Across the bottom - Move out of the bullseye!
A simple, accurate description of the main reason you're safer Anywhere But Windows.
Default OSX user doesn't run as admin (Score:4, Insightful)
On Windows (at least W2K) if you need administrator privileges, then they're on all the time. Accidentally run a virus while in administrator mode, and it gets to use those administrator privileges, too.
General comment on Macs vs PCs re: security (Score:4, Interesting)
I may be the Last person in the world to defend M$, but is it not the fact that M$ OSes are the most prevalent, that causes the virus writers to exploit their
weaknesses?
NO.
I worked in Academic Computer Services at my college last century and when virii came out for macs with an exploit, Apple patched the system so that they were not able to leverage that exploit (where possible) in the next release.
Init 39, scores, nVir and MDEF and WDEF virii are the ones I encountered.
Nothing happened from Microsoft. It's like shipping a barn with the barn door locked open. These systems were exploitable BY DEFAULT and it was a SIMPLE MATTER to ship with many of the doors closed.
Now I am referring to exploits that do not really require deep code experience to perform. A much lower skill level was needed to take advantage of many MS open holes. Someone using VB could write an email virus.
It was not the case on the mac in those days, it was harder to write a virus.
It was literally sickening to watch. There were so many simple open areas that any bored teenager could take advantage of.
I performed the virus protection for the Mac and PC clusters (and sometimes VAX) so I know this firsthand.
There are about 70 THOUSAND pc viruses. There are about 50 mac viruses.
At my house, I ran my mac server for about 3 years without a firewall, someone probably hacked it once but I just rebooted it. There were many many attempts to access formmail.cgi and run many windows infection routines - but I chose to name my hard drive something I wanted. This alone made the pathname invalid - let alone I was running on a mac. SIMPLE THINGS like being able to call your hard drive whatever you want made it harder to assume a path to sensitive information that could be exploited.
The lameness of windows and lack of response from MS and their ignoring their obligation to provide simple security to their customers has disgusted me about MS for a long time.
Check the source! (Score:4, Interesting)
I did finally turn up some background on him here [gigaweb.com]. He has a background in marketing, and market research into Microsoft products and trends. He actually has the distinction of being the most widely quoted analyst one year!
Not someone I'd consider an expert on viruses, or the internals of operating systems.
Nonetheless... Virus alert! (Score:2)
Recent example: I've been getting, in the past 4 days, 30 mails a day sent from a friend's friend's PC (who happened to have my mail in its contacts... This worm
Automated software updates (Score:4, Insightful)
Can anyone comment on how effective the comparable process is for PC, Linux, Unix, and whether there is a differential between these and the Mac update process?
Uh, no.... (Score:4, Informative)
IDCs number not purely based on sales (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not perfect, but I'd bet that their numbers are within 20% of the actual usage.
Re:Naturally (Score:2)
PFJHead: Well tought titty for you, fish face. AAAAWW!
--------[A general fight breaks out between the two groups.]
Brian: Brothers, brothers. We should be struggling together.
PFJHead: We are!
Brian: We musn't fight each other. Surely we should be united against the common enemy.
All: The Judean People's front!!!
Brian: No. No. The Romans!
All: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yes.
Someone: Yeah. He's right.
--------[Two Roman guards approach slowly.]
Other1: Look out!
Re:"Mac" DoS'd themselves! (Score:2, Funny)
Even in Quebec?
Tk