 StaticMan
join:2006-06-21
23534
1 edit | ummmmmm here is an idea..see past that pride in front of your face to realize that no software is perfect...try to deny it and you will crash and burn.(literally) | |
|  | chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA
| MAC asked for it... # 1 reason PCs are more vulnerable is because they are the most used, thus if you are writing a malicious code, you will want to maximize your damages.
Now, MAC has been stepping up their "untouchable" speech lately. I'm quite sure that there are many people wanting to prove them wrong. | |
| | | StaticMan
join:2006-06-21
23534
1 edit | Re: MAC asked for it... EXACTLY, if they would have just kept their big mouths shut they would not have the mobs of hackers out there saying to themselves,"untouchable huh? we will see about that!" | |
| | | | 
LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Arlington, VA
1 edit | Re: MAC asked for it... ROTFL, dumbasses. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Shark_615
join:2006-01-17
Pickering, ON
| Re: MAC asked for it... Tired maybe but Flawed no.
The "hackers" that exploit Windows that cause spyware, virii problems do so to make money. They DO NOT do it for publicity. The last thing they want is to sit on David Letterman and explain how they did it.
They want cold hard cash and such will ignore Mac's until it becomes profitable. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Mac Is Nothing... This whole thread was nothing but "troll lure" from the get go.
And of course, the tired old "My cheapo computer can outperform the Mac at 1/4 of the price" has to come up.
Just about every post in this thread is nothing but trolling.
Fine, you like Windows, have fun with it, enjoy it. No one is telling you what OS to use. Come to think of it, I don't think I saw one Mac person post in this forum yet.
Both OS's have advantages over the other. Let's just leave it at that... | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | BhuddaBlessU
join:2006-09-24
Internet | Another Mac user that can NOT accept the reality...  | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 
PhoenixAZ
Joshua
Premium
join:2004-01-04
Phoenix, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
2 edits | Being a Windows user myself, Windows is more expensive. Try pricing a Dell up to Apple's specs, it will be in the near $4,000s...then you will see that Apple is actually CHEAPER than most comparibly priced PCs. And since new Apple computers can run Windows, I do not see what is stopping them from going that direction. Though for me on the other hand, I do not plan to go Mac anytime soon, as tempted I was in the past.
--
»www.myspace.com/iamreallycoolandyouarenot | |
| | | | | | | | | BhuddaBlessU
join:2006-09-24
Internet
| Re: Mac Is Nothing... I Guess this guy never BUILD himself his own PC tho... That $4,000 dell? Lol I Can get it with the SAME SPECS for like $2500 to $3,000 bucks or less... In the end Self Built Custom PC + Windows + Not-A-Noob in computer hardware and security user = the most stable and secure computer you can have...  | |
| | | | | | | 
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA | Re: MAC asked for it... Since its Symantec spreading FUD about both PC's and now Mac's, just ignore the rhetoric. | |
| | | | | | | | 
tcp1
Premium
join:2000-04-17
Herndon, VA | Re: MAC asked for it... Right, what a great idea. Just close your eyes and pretend your mac is impervious.
Good luck with that one. | |
| | | | | | | | |
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
·epix
| Re: MAC asked for it... I don't have a Mac, nor will I bash a Mac. I have Linux on one PC and XP on the other PC.
Just taking into account consideration who is delivering the FUD mail, in an attempt to drum up support of their, IMO, crappy bloated software product
--
Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA | Re: MAC asked for it... Thanks for that clip, its pretty cool  | |
| | | | | | | | | 
blueOne
Super Mega Xtreme Adrenaline Manwich
join:2002-12-23
Alameda, CA
| said by chemaupr  :# 1 reason PCs are more vulnerable is because they are the most used, So, it could also be said that the reason IE has so many holes compared to Firefox is because it is more widely used.
--
Windows: n. 32-bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit operating system originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor, written by a 2-bit company that can't stand for 1 bit of competition. | |
| | | | 
zipwired
Premium
join:2005-04-06
Hampton, VA
| Re: MAC asked for it... said by blueOne :said by chemaupr :# 1 reason PCs are more vulnerable is because they are the most used, So, it could also be said that the reason IE has so many holes compared to Firefox is because it is more widely used. I disagree, Firefox has more known holes compared to Microsoft Internet Explorer »www.webuser.co.uk/news/news.php?id=95859 | |
| | | | | 
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
| Re: MAC asked for it... 47 to 38 over a small period reported by symantec which is trying to sell software is very incomplete information.
Which of these bugs allowed software to be installed? which were exploited and how easy was it? which were fixed immediately, and which took a week+ to be fixed? who found and reported each bug?
all of these things need consideration before you can declare anything about the two browsers and their relative security. | |
| | | | | |
zipwired
Premium
join:2005-04-06
Hampton, VA
| Re: MAC asked for it... said by justin :47 to 38 over a small period reported by symantec which is trying to sell software is very incomplete information. Which of these bugs allowed software to be installed? which were exploited and how easy was it? which were fixed immediately, and which took a week+ to be fixed? who found and reported each bug? all of these things need consideration before you can declare anything about the two browsers and their relative security. I didn't declare that any Browser mentioned is more secure.
The blanket statement of IE has more holes than Firefox is what I replied to and in general terms, and I'm correct. Don't put words in my mouth or in this case don't put text in my mouth. | |
| | | 
GilbertMark
Premium
join:2001-05-02
Gilbert, AZ
·Cox HSI
| said by chemaupr :# 1 reason PCs are more vulnerable is because they are the most used, thus if you are writing a malicious code, you will want to maximize your damages. Now, MAC has been stepping up their "untouchable" speech lately. I'm quite sure that there are many people wanting to prove them wrong. The #1 reason they are most vulnerable is because of the sheer volume of PCs in the world. Maybe the tie for #1 reason is Windows is a piece of Swiss cheese of an OS full of exploitable code. The next reason they are the most vulnerable is because of the sheer number of dopes that use a PC and know nothing about a computer or security.
My 5 Macs at home have NEVER had any issues with any of this net garbage that gives Windows users headaches.
Symantec go away with your snake oil, this Mac user isn't interested.
--
Got a V3 or a V3i? Want to get the most out of them? Check out my sites »hacktheV3.com and »hacktheV3i.com
| |
| | | |
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
2 edits | Re: MAC asked for it... said by GilbertMark :The #1 reason they are most vulnerable is because of the sheer volume of PCs in the world. Maybe the tie for #1 reason is Windows is a piece of Swiss cheese of an OS full of exploitable code. I don't buy the myth that Macs have no viruses (have no real need for a commercial anti-virus product) because there are not enough of them (implying that as they become more popular, they will be infested). Hackers work very hard to assemble a botnet of just 1000 to 10000 computers, their botnet gets found, shutdown, stolen by other hackers. It is hard work being a russian botnet extortionist.
If these extortionists and spam generators could so easily pick and choose a security hole in OSX to exploit, they could then easily find green fields among mac users who do, after all, share files, send messages to each other, download software, stay online all day and night and browse web pages just like windows users.
But they do not. There are no, none, nada Mac botnets, spam and click-fraud generators!
It cannot be explained by market share anymore. It is too easy to find as many Mac (or linux or BSD) machines in that vast sea of IP addresses as anyone could possibly want.
The answer is something more important: Macs are by default more secure, holes are fixed faster, and the OS is just far less vulnerable to neophytes unconsciously installing malware.
I purchased a Mac for my parents and they have to type the root password to do anything important to it. They have to take several actions in order to install a new application. I fully expect to come back in a year and see that hardware issues aside, it is working exactly as it did the first day they opened the box! It is available for any hacker to overtake - the owners do not read or understand security bulletins (although it is set to silently download and install updates weekly). They will also not become Symantec or any other AV company customers, if the AV packages look and work like windows AV packages then either they are not necessary, or the Mac OSX design has failed.
I also am totally against a world where AV company products are necessary for my smartphone, my car system etc etc. If a device needs a 3rd party, or built-in, AV product like Symantec then it has failed at the design phase. They are dying to find reasons to expand into those markets but, sorry, outside windows, I think they invent their own business justifications. | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
LiamJunket
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Ocean City, NJ
·Comcast
2 edits | said by justin :There are no, none, nada Mac botnets, spam and click-fraud generators! Macs are part of botnets. They got that way thru 3rd party software running on the Mac. Does it matter that the vector of control wasn't thru the operating system?
»www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···279.html
»blog.washingtonpost.com/security···ack.html
Taylor became obsessed with tracking a rather unusual botnet consisting of computers running Mac OS X and Linux operating systems. Working a week straight, Taylor located nearly all of the infected machines and had some success notifying the owners of those systems, but the Taiwanese ISP the hackers used to host their control center repeatedly ignored his requests to shutter the site."
The botnet Taylor had tracked was created using a known security hole not in Linux or OS X, but in something that runs on top of the operating system. This is PHP, a development programming language built specifically for Web sites. By leveraging this PHP flaw, the attackers were able to seed the Mac systems with several tools designed to turn them into drones for use in waging destructive "distributed denial of service" attacks,
But the fact is that there are dozens of pieces of malicious code circulating online that will happily infect OS X systems if their users are running vulnerable third-party applications. In some cases, the impact on the user may be little more than public embarassment. A large number of Web sites running vulnerable PHP applications on OS X systems are regularly defaced by hacker groups who replace the sites' home pages with hacker screeds or even some political statements.
Shadowserver founder Nicholas Albright said he and his crew have found at least 20 variants of the same Perl script that can be used to open back doors on OS X systems running vulnerable Web applications.
"Why does everyone get all hot and bothered when someone mentions Mac OS X being in a botnet?" Taylor asked. "Maybe I should have said I was tracking several PHP-enabled computer systems. I think it is time to quit focusing on just the ... operating system and think about the applications that are installed on it and how the security of the system can be compromised by [them]." --
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
| | | | | |
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
| Re: MAC asked for it... now come on a sec.
PHP is a known problem, OSX can't do anything about people downloading and installing web servers. A third party developer on OSX can make mistakes just like they can on windows. The mistakes are more costly when the software runs as root on OSX (I'm sure php/apache is still easily setup as root - stupid design decision by the packages of php for OSX and linux).
We're (should be) talking about whether the mac OPERATING SYSTEM (and apple controlled sofware), is known to have exploited holes. I'm still waiting to hear about botnets assembled thanks to an apple OSX hole, hell, even a Safari or firefox hole. The list of microsoft holes is huge, and many have been and are still being used to create botnets. | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
| Re: MAC asked for it... that guy kinda looks like your avatar, now you come to post the two close together!
if it is kool aid, it is anutritional variety. My folks home PC problems shrank to basically nothing after i threw out their krufty windows machine and put in an imac. I can't remotely support them over 12000 miles. I'd bet the price of that imac that it doesn't get owned in 2007 and it doesn't break through accidently software reconfiguration either. For them the PC is now almost as usable as their TV or cellphone (and believe me, they are not power cellphone users here). Since a new PC hardly has a useful life of more than a couple of years, and explaining how to solve windows problems to family members takes days off my life, it was an absolute no brainer of a decision. There was no reasonabl;e alternative. | |
| | | | 
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| said by GilbertMark :said by chemaupr :# 1 reason PCs are more vulnerable is because they are the most used, thus if you are writing a malicious code, you will want to maximize your damages. Now, MAC has been stepping up their "untouchable" speech lately. I'm quite sure that there are many people wanting to prove them wrong. The #1 reason they are most vulnerable is because of the sheer volume of PCs in the world. Maybe the tie for #1 reason is Windows is a piece of Swiss cheese of an OS full of exploitable code. The next reason they are the most vulnerable is because of the sheer number of dopes that use a PC and know nothing about a computer or security. My 5 Macs at home have NEVER had any issues with any of this net garbage that gives Windows users headaches. Symantec go away with your snake oil, this Mac user isn't interested. My Windows machine doesn't get the stuff either  | |
| | 
trparky
Bite My Shiny Metal Ass
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
clubs:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: ummmmmm They're just trying to make them look useful again. In my eyes, Symantec hasn't been useful since NAV2003.
Ever since NAV2003, it has been nothing but bloat, bugs, bloat, bugs, and more bloat and bugs.
--
WedgeAntilles250
Tom's Rant | |
| | | 
alg
Premium
join:2001-04-10
Houston, TX
clubs: | Re: ummmmmm SAV is still a good product imo. | |
| | | | | | | | |
trparky
Bite My Shiny Metal Ass
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
clubs: | Re: ummmmmm Ooooh... burn. | |
| | |
PhoenixAZ
Joshua
Premium
join:2004-01-04
Phoenix, AZ
·Cox HSI
| said by trparky :They're just trying to make them look useful again. In my eyes, Symantec hasn't been useful since NAV2003. Ever since NAV2003, it has been nothing but bloat, bugs, bloat, bugs, and more bloat and bugs. Symantec isn't useful for any OS. Even their Enterprise edition software is becoming bloatware like NAV.
--
»www.myspace.com/iamreallycoolandyouarenot | |
| | | | | 
mech1164
I'Ll Be Back
join:2001-11-19
Lodi, NJ
1 edit | Re: ummmmmm said by Nerdtalker :Nothing is perfectly safe. If Mac users still think they're immune, the inevitable fall will simply be that much proportionally greater. Ok one more time from the top. It is and has not been that OSX is immune so much as it doesn't allow it to happen in the first place. First OSX does not by default allow you to run as admin. That and the fact that when a shown fault might occur, Apple will be out in a few hrs or days with a fix for that. Now take XP, admin by default any vulnerability able to execute at will. IE tied directly to os. Nuff on that one. Known exploits and vulnerabilities not fixed or admitted to for months. This is why there are soo much viri and malware its just soo easy. | |
| | | | 
Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: ummmmmm said by mech1164 :said by Nerdtalker :Nothing is perfectly safe. If Mac users still think they're immune, the inevitable fall will simply be that much proportionally greater.
Ok one more time from the top. It is and has not been that OSX is immune so much as it doesn't allow it to happen in the first place. First OSX does not by default allow you to run as admin. That and the fact that when a shown fault might occur, Apple will be out in a few hrs or days with a fix for that. Now take XP, admin by default any vulnerability able to execute at will. IE tied directly to os. Nuff on that one. Known exploits and vulnerabilities not fixed or admitted to for months. This is why there are soo much viri and malware its just soo easy. You just spouted more typical apple-immunity lines.
Again, keep thinking you're inherently immune. I suggest you read the actual article in mention, as well, since patches/bugfixes/vulnerability patches are taking longer and longer to get released, certainly not hours like you assert. I find that blatant mischaracterization of facts laughable.
IE? Who uses that and knows a thing about security online? The rest of us are using Firefox. And months for the most critical of Windows patches?
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that facts don't have to get in the way of Mac vs. PC arguments. 
--
"Some people never see the light till it shines thru bullet holes." -Bruce Cockburn
I'm testing Gmail's spam filters: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam: 12900+ messages currently using 406 MB. | |
| | | | |
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
| Re: ummmmmm he just said it isn't about IMMUNITY, it is about some basic design decisions.
It is a very good argument for why neophyte Mac users are beset with far fewer headaches than neophyte windows users.
Whether the gap will open wider, shrink or stay the same is impossible to say.
Nobody is talking immunity here, you're building a straw man by using the word, then knocking it down.
Instead you should be trying to defend why running admin by default (most windows PCs run admin) is not a problem, and why the complexity of activeX is not a problem, and why releasing fixes at monthly intervals is not a problem (for the average user (users that make up the audience of AV vendors). | |
| | | | | |
Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: ummmmmm said by justin :Instead you should be trying to defend why running admin by default (most windows PCs run admin) is not a problem, and why the complexity of activeX is not a problem, and why releasing fixes at monthly intervals is not a problem (for the average user (users that make up the audience of AV vendors). There really isn't any refuting that administrator privileges aren't an inherent problem (which is fixed in the latest Vista builds), but that alone doesn't guarantee security. Simply requesting login credentials to make changes isn't going to somehow fix the problem, we've seen time and time over how users will blindly click ok, fill out forms, and hit "next" over and over until boxes go away. (remember ActiveX warnings, SSL certificate authenticity warnings, execute files after downloading warnings, e.t.c.?)
While it does prevent processes running as the user from arbitrarily executing code with administrator privileges, malicious software can still run.
As for ActiveX, alternative browsers (namely firefox) mitigate the problem this poses. Honestly, I use firefox exclusively to avoid ActiveX-related exploits, and SP2's IE does do a better job of alerting users to the inherent danger that comes with allowing ActiveX plugins.
Monthly updates are ok, but Microsoft has previously released some critical updates outside their prescribed schedule. At least the updates are rolling out.
I guess the thing is that I subscribe to the notion that security inherently lies with the user, and that no software is perfect. If Mac users continue thinking they're never going to be afflicted by security problems or have to deal with it eventually, they're adopting a foolhardy mindset that comes with implicit dangers. Shipping a product under the premise that it's "more secure", and less vulnerable to "malware" is simply astounding.
Ironically, some of the same things Mac users criticize Microsoft users about aren't implemented properly in their own OS. OS X's firewall ships "off" by default. That's pretty ironic, since SP2 at least ships with the windows firewall enabled, even if SP1 shipped with it buried. It's true that OS X does ship with more out-of-box security than Windows XP, but neither are fully secure.
In both circumstances, users' behaviors and actions dictate the security of the information systems they use. Outsourcing security to faceless developers has failed in the past, and will likely always fail.
--
"Some people never see the light till it shines thru bullet holes." -Bruce Cockburn
I'm testing Gmail's spam filters: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam: 12900+ messages currently using 406 MB. | |
| | | | | | |
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
| Re: ummmmmm said by Nerdtalker :(which is fixed in the latest Vista builds), I've been hearing "fixed in the next release" now for so many years from microsoft. Along with "we're making secure software a culture from the ground up" and many other platitudes. I just don't buy it, I think the weight of dragging around so many variants of the same OS and so much legacy code is beyond their capabilities - which are not particular startling anyway - when does microsoft ever really take a risk? ever open up a given field without buying the pioneers? I think top management spends too much time watching what everyone else is doing (see their latest effort at trying to compete with myspace), and trying to freeze the current favorable market position, to really innovate. Good security design needs at least some innovations, some ground up work, not copy and tweak.
There are as many if not more pitfalls pratfalls and problems as there ever were, more than when the first disks started infecting over sneaker net except now we have Byzantine security issues with overlapping and often incompatible 3rd party programs. I don't see that changing with vista. If that is how home general-use computing MUST be, then I'm not the least bit interested in it and dont recommend it to anyone. You should not have to "think nerd" in order to safely own a home PC.
So far, Macs have avoided most of these problems and continue to avoid them and the details of how they got to this position are not that important. the day i find out that ipods, with an 80 whatever percent market share, need an AV scanner and microsoft zune, or whatever it is, does not, I might see if Vista 2 doesnt need Symantec. Until then... | |
| 
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ | Newsflash! Symantec wants to sell Product! Symantec thanks you for the free advertisement.
Please, sell me a product that I don't need. | |
| | StaticMan
join:2006-06-21
23534
1 edit | Symantec Products I will agree that the internet security and systemworks versions of the symantec software are entirely too bulky, and bugged to run efficiantly on most machines. however, just the antivirus is what i use, no norton firewall or norton pop-up blocker(even though i do have these things, just from other makers) or the other 50 programs included in internet security. it keeps my butt out of trouble when i click a link i really shouldnt(i cant help it sometimes, lol) and if it does mess up i can use symNRT to remove and reinstall in 5 minutes... | |
| 
firephoto
KDE
Premium
join:2003-03-18
·Verizon west (ex G..
| AAPL is up and someone doesn't have any. So apple suggests something that is correct, and someone else states something different that is correct. Oh and the time to fix new vulnerabilities is longer than the time was to fix older vulnerabilities that there were less of.
Maybe teh slow video card makes them safer?
--
Location: +48° 5' 23.40", -119° 48' 30.00" | |
| 
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | ! Hmmm funny I was talking about Safari vulnerabilities a few days ago. Now I know where Symantec probably comes with this info. Nothing better than free PR. You keep your disgusting Norton Securities off my Mac thank you. | |
| Liquid Lion
Liquid Lion
join:2001-08-19 | Duhhh The utter ignorance are astounding as I read posts bashing the Mac. I have a decked out, overclocked FX-60 gaming rig with custom water cooling, and I still prefer the Mac. | |
| | VikingStorm
join:2002-06-25
Omaha, NE
| Re: Duhhh Do you prefer the Mac hardware+software combination, or do you prefer OSX? Since you are a gamer that would basically require that you install XP on your Mac. Since they all use the same parts now, it would mean either you prefer "Style" or you prefer using OSX as the productivity OS over XP or Linux. | |
| 
Rogue Wolf
Drank Your Milkshake- He Drank It Up
join:2003-08-12
Troy, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| "Youse wouldn't wanna have an ACCIDENT, now...." This is like a garage builder passing out flyers saying that vehicle vandalism in the area is going up. It might be true, but is the source impartial? Not in the least.
--
Let not the Demon in your thoughts.
Let not the Demon in your dreams.
Lest you should awake one morn,
And find the Demon within thee. | |
| | 
TigerNutz
Laissez les bons temps rouler
Premium
join:2000-12-23
Little Rock, AR | Re: "Youse wouldn't wanna have an ACCIDENT, now...." amen brother!
"Our studies show that the chances of you getting a virus are rising so you better get protection! Oh! Wait a minute, we happen to sell just what you need! You're in luck!" | |
| 
BuriedCaesar
It's Not Polite To Stare.
join:2004-03-27
Richardson, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Yahoo
| MacDailyNews fires back... They actually fired back before this popped up here - their original post from earlier today, for your consideration, derision, etc...:
»www.macdailynews.com/index.php/w···ows_pcs/
In case you're not feeling adventurous enough to enter a bastion of MacHeads, here's what they said in response to this story:
"Ooh, we're shaking with fear. Let us know when Macs are hit with spyware or viruses in the wild, okay? Until then, we're not buying what Symantec et al are peddling. While smaller market share is no doubt yet another advantage for Mac security, Mac OS X is inherently more secure than Windows. With 20+ million Macs in the world, why has there been no single successful Mac OS X virus in 5+ years? Shouldn't there be a few or at least one?
Remember, do not download, authorize, and install things on your Mac from untrusted websites.
By design, Mac OS X is simply more secure than Windows. Period. For reference and reasons why Mac OS X is more secure than Windows, read The New York Times' David Pogue's mea culpa on the subject of the "Mac Security Via Obscurity" myth here - »www.macdailynews.com/index.php/w···dows_xp/
Macs account for roughly 10% of the world's personal computer users (some say as much as 16% (»www.macdailynews.com/index.php/w···malware/) so the first half of the myth doesn't even stand up to scrutiny. Macs aren't "obscure" at all. Therefore, the Apple Mac platform's ironclad security simply cannot logically be attributed to obscurity.
There are zero-percent (0%) of viruses for the Mac OS X platform that should, logically, have some 10-16% of the world's viruses if platforms' install bases dictate the numbers of viruses. The fact that Mac OS X has zero (0) viruses totally 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 solely to "obscurity," it's attributable to superior security design.
Still not convinced? Try this one on for size: according to Apple CEO Steve Jobs at WWDC, there are "19 million Mac OS X users" in the world and there are still zero (0) viruses (»www.macdailynews.com/wwdc_2006_keynote.html). According to CNET, the Windows Vista Beta was released "to about 10,000 testers" (»news.com.com/Testers+lock+horns+···696.html) at the time the first Windows Vista virus arrived (»www.macdailynews.com/index.php/w···s_vista/). So much for the security via obscurity myth (»www.macdailynews.com/index.php/w···myth/)." --
That was preposterous! Utter Nonsense! Totally unsupportable drivel! You can't be serious!....Um, what did you say? | |
| |
See 8 replies to this post | |
JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA
| Shoot yourself in the Foot I use both Mac and PC computers, G5 and a Dell (atwork), both are great, my Dell is a little faster. But in all Fairness, the most user friendly OS is by far the Mac and just how its programed runs (VERY SMOOTH). I was not a big Mac fan in the past mostly because they dont offer many game options. Which really brings me to my point, Mac threw out history has shot them selves in the Foot more than once. If they would just get over themselves they might actually win some market share. Its really a joke how we all have PC's today, when Apple had it in the bag. But they wanted to keep everything proprietary. I feel bad for the Mac users because they have a great product and people at the Top that drive the Company into the shitter. Thats all changed with the Intel Chip and like the thread suggests, Mac users will be more vulnerable because of more users and etc. The PC forces me to use it because it is accepted by more third party programs.
"I have always been very confused by Macintosh Business Scheme" | |
| | 
originaltbone
@rr.com
| Re: Shoot yourself in the Foot James, first of all the companies name is Apple not Mac ("Mac threw out history has shot them selves in the Foot"). Second you said " I feel bad for the Mac users because they have a great product and people at the Top that drive the Company into the shitter.". Are you kidding me? into the shitter? Are you aware of the fact that it is 2006?, Apple is doing great?, and they have some wonderful people at the the "Top"? Man, and don't even get me started on your spelling, random capitalizations, and poor grammar.
I can't believe that we are still having the same Mac vs. PC war that we were having when I was in 7th Grade!!! (and I graduated from HS 15+ years ago!!!) | |
| bottled leaf
join:2004-05-06
King And Queen Court House, VA | Of course apple has viruses Of course apple has viruses! Look at the movie Office Space. they made a virus that ran off of a MAC. | |
| 
redxii
too big to fail
Premium,Mod
join:2001-02-26
Austin, TX
Host:
/dev/null
Broadband Tweaks
ISDN
Fiber Optic
AOL Broadband
| Smaller risk than Windows 2000+ users I look through most of the security patch bulletins and don't recall IE ever having an exploit that grants more privileges than the user already has. That is the exploit only runs with the privileges the current user, and that is also that IE including ActiveX doesn't run in the kernel. And most Windows users are? Administrators, the next best thing to getting to "SYSTEM". Vista will prompt even administrators to either enter a password or allow an administrative action to continue, but if they allow it then I guess that is and will always be Microsoft's fault then.
I run as a regular user in XP, so that automatically knocks ActiveX exploits out of the picture (don't work even without a patch as a regular user with default settings). But I don't use IE, and for the 1 year and 3 months of my current install never had to clean anything up (not that I had to before that, I had xp home previously and wanted to install pro).
But to say your OS is immune from viruses is to say your OS has no API that can be used maliciously; you don't want "viruses" doing file operations would you? If so, remove them but watch your whole OS fail as well.
--
Proof: LUA Makes You Safer | |
| | JRVS
join:2001-06-01
Houston, TX
·Comcast
| Re: Smaller risk than Windows 2000+ users Amen. The key is to be what Win XP calls a "Limited User".
I'm a computer consultant. I have NEVER had to remove malware from a computer run under a "Limited User" account. Ever.
Justin brags about expecting his parents' Mac to be malware-free after a year. My parents' Win XP SP2 PC is malware-free after 2 years...because they run as Limited Users. And a year from now, I suspect Justin's folks will still have a year to go to match their record.
In those two years, my parents' AV/AS has never been called upon to remove anything. So its been every bit of the waste of CPU cycles, disk space and RAM the Mac folks say it is. (Though I'd argue the impact on today's machines is quite trivial.)
Why does Windows make users admins by default? Because too many software vendors write their software to assume admin permissions, which makes it too difficult for most people to run their programs.
Why do software vendors fail to write their products run as Limited Users? Because Microsoft has, to date, failed to set up user accounts to run as Limited Users by default, and it's faster and cheaper to code assuming admin permissions.
A vicious cycle that, so far, neither Microsoft nor ISVs have had the courage to address.
If you want to bash Microsoft, Windows, (and, hopefully, Windows ISVs), this is the correct "attack vector" (so to speak) to use to do it.
But in the real world, the difference is all in the user account you use to run Windows. Just as it would be in *nix.
I do wish Windows detractors would make noise about the real issue--default admin permissions and the programming practices that are free to make that assumption--instead of FUD. Might make Microsoft and the ISVs pay attention and actually solve the problem. | |
| | |
tcp1
Premium
join:2000-04-17
Herndon, VA | Re: Smaller risk than Windows 2000+ users Awesome. An intelligent, well thought-out response in this thread. Good show. | |
| | |
tcp1
Premium
join:2000-04-17
Herndon, VA
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
 ·ViaTalk
·T-Mobile US
 ·Bandwidth.com
1 edit | Re: Use Firefox quote:
Looks like Firefox has dominated another platform
Windows..Firefox
MacOS..Firefox
Linux..Firefox
Wow hey what a unique answer and one-size-fits all instant solution to every web browser problem in the world that has never been posted before thanks for the tip!!
"Hey, I'm getting viruUSE FIREFOX!"
"Why can't I get RDP to acceUSE FIREFOX!"
"My mother in law is really botheUSE FIREFOX!"
"I've got this persistent itch that wonUSE FIREFOX!"
Ugh. Firefox is great, OK, but to imply it's perfect or THE SOLUTION TO EVERY PROBLEM ON THE WEB is so naive.
Does anyone here get the point?
Keep rallying and rallying for your pet browser to become dominant. See what happens then.
The apparently erotic open-source code within Firefox is not "magical" or military-hardened by futuristic aliens or something.
The most prominent, popular targets get attacked. It is completely irrelevent whether one piece of software, at any given time, has a couple more holes than the other -- or if one company is faster at patching than the other.
If you want to make a point, you kidnap a millionaire's kid, not a homeless bum.
..And for those of you who think that virus writers are somehow "paid" and "only in it for the money" and that ego has nothing to do with it - be glad you've never met any of these folks or been involved in their dealings. Ego is the ONLY thing that drives them, and the main motivator. The bigger the splash, the better. | |
| stridr69
join:2003-05-19
San Luis Obispo, CA
| WinMac's "Welcome. We are the Borg. You will be assimilated"
It's going to be interesting to see if the new IntelMac's ARE more vulnerable than with previous versions. Since the new Mac's CAN run XP(via bootcamp), this tells me that a "window" of vulnerability exists.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, this XP user will watch-with glee-as the WinMac users deal with.. well.. you'll find out...
| |
|
trucex
@comcast.net
| Its all the same... Norton sucks. Mcafee sucks.
As someone else said, AV is a product of flawed products. I don't use it. I use firefox on XP, IE7 and FF on Vista, FF on Mac OS X, and FF on FC3 (linux) and I never have any problems.
It's just a matter of not doing stupid shit, like downloading 12.5MB files to install a desktop you got from some ad-laden website, or downloading something from a porn site. Additionally, if you use a hardware firewall, and your operating system's default software firewall, you should be protected from port-scanning virii or hackers.
My point, knowledge is really the best form of security...I don't need a program to keep me from telling you my ssn and credit card number. | |
| Selenia
join:2006-09-22
Pittsfield, MA
·RoadRunner Cable
| The reality Wow! People can get into a flamefest over propoganda forwarded by the maker of some of the crappiest software on the planet can't they? Fact has been stated over and over again: knowledge is the key to safety and this report doesn't reveal anything we don't already know: any OS can be exploited. What OS it is and the method by which it happens matters not to this fact. Only way it matters is in the message which suggests to be aware of ANYTHING you install on your pc no matter the OS. Windows needs antivirus but Mac does not? To the more seasoned user-entirely untrue. Fact is when both are setup correctly, you don't need an active antivirus sapping your resources but you DO need a basic scanner with good definitions for peace of mind on those exes and such that you download. I am, of course, talking about a very tweaked Windows system and a mildly tweaked Mac. This comparison eliminates any stupidities presented in default settings. The rule for both was stated quite simply, if you don't need it, disable it. 98% of Windows services are not needed and even Mac has a few things you can kill. SP2 is a winner for Bill because it makes it easier to assign partial privelages to certain programs to run them when not logged in as Admin. If you want speed and security, Google nlite and adblock+noscript(Firefox). I only run an NAT router and those browser extensions under a secured XP. I do scan regularly and I have yet to see any malware on my pc. I hope this sorts out reality for some people. The only other security measure I suggest is common sense(eg not opening unknown mail .exe file, allowing scripts to run for warez sites, etc etc). | |
| | | |
|
|
Symantec: Apple Security Risk Rising
Re: MAC asked for it...
Mac Is Nothing...
