All the latest UK technology news, reviews and analysis
|
|
|
21 Mar 2007
Apple's Mac OS X remains almost completely free of any sort of malware threat despite several years of availability, a significant market share, and even an entire month dedicated to pointing out its flaws.
And security experts are not exactly sure why. In an article for the McAfee Avert Labs blog, security researcher Marius van Oers pointed out that Mac malware is "pretty much non-existent at the moment".
The researcher said that out of 236,000 known pieces of malicious software, only seven affect Mac OS X.
"With an estimated OS X market share of about five per cent on desktop systems we would expect to see more malware for OS X," said van Oers.
The Mac OS X system is not inherently more secure than other operating systems, according to the researcher.
The Unix/BSD code on which OS X is based is fairly well known, and van Oers noted that there are more than 700 pieces of malware targeting various Unix and Linux platforms.
Vulnerabilities in OS X are also plentiful. Apple's most recent update patched more than 30 security flaws.
But van Oers pointed out that many malware authors simply prefer to target the low-hanging fruit of a poorly maintained Windows system.
"Microsoft's Windows is dominant in the desktop market and it is clear why most malware is written for it," said van Oers.
"Also, prior to Vista, the various Windows versions were pretty much wide open, full access, making it relatively easy for malware to abuse."
The researcher warned, however, that the days of widespread attacks seeking to infect as many PCs as possible are over.
Old virus-style malware has been replaced by newer programs that aim to covertly infect specific groups of machines and build money-making botnets.
"Nowadays malware writers do not go for massive attacks but tend to focus on targeted attacks," explained van Oers.
"This is more worrisome then the poor malicious demonstrators that the OS X threats of Leap and Macarena really represent. Nevertheless it is clear that OS X malware is not taking off yet."
Latest stories from Security
Related articles
Related jobs
Poll
What is the most important IT priority for your company this year?
Connect with V3.co.uk
This paper focuses on a series of best practices and techniques for development teams looking to improve their software development processes
Why good data management at all levels is essential in the modern business (video, 6mins)
Principal Development Engineer Lead- London - Smart TV...
Development Engineer - London - Smart TV, Gaming, Tablets...
Principal Development Engineer - London - Smart TV, Gaming...
Test Engineer -London - Smart TV, Gaming, Tablets, PC...
Keep up to date with the latest products, services and technologies from the world's leading IT companies. IThound.com brings you over 2,000 white papers, case studies and analyst reports.
Do you agree?
It's only a matter of time and now it has arrived
In our company, we are receiving Mac malware issues. It's a straight forward cleanup but only time will tell before these attacks escalates. The whole issue here is not actually the type of operating system - it's the popularity. As more people use Mac, virus makers will target this "untapped market" more.
Posted by: Jed 01 Jun 2011
Growing potential
I agree there are more microsoft systems so that would be a easy pick for the malware makers. But I think with the Apple Iphone comming mac systems will be a bigger part so in matter of time there will be more malwares for the macs
Posted by: uselessbrain.com 18 Aug 2008
Nothing to gain
Why would anyone want to devellop an exploit for a Mac? There is nothing on them of financial value to extract. Face it, has anyone heard of a business running a Mac based network to operate their business? All large companies run PC based networks. All you need to do is follow the money.
Posted by: DL 23 Mar 2007
Access Control Lists: ???
"Access Control Lists: ??? Windows has got them BUT I've Never Seen any Windows admin ever create one. " I do ;) and have been doing for the past 8 years. Those that don't usually haven't been trained properly. btw, i'm typing this on a Mac. hehe
Posted by: dweeb 23 Mar 2007
Mac
Mac users are just trying to point out the perceived invincibility of that OS. Macs are the best, blah, blah blah? No OS is secure, get over it all you Mac losers. What would any hacker want that is on a Mac, pictures??
Posted by: Unix boy 23 Mar 2007
Bragging Rights !
As a dumb old guy, with all the time this discussion has gone on and the market share, economic benefits and all the other detractor comments ... You would have thought that in the world some body would have done something that got out into the wild for no other purpose than "bragging rights" Heck, we do it for cars,fastest or highest MPG's, sports teams, "my kid's an 'A' student at such-n-such school" bumper stickers. So if malware were so darn easy to do on OS X, why hasn't it ?
Posted by: Kalama Jim 23 Mar 2007
another "expert" without actual knowledge
"baffling" in your article title doesn't empower the "expert" reference... He needs to use macs and linux and windows for some time, and explore their operation, then write a review.
Posted by: B. Coyle 22 Mar 2007
Good God...
Obviously, this thread is a Mac trolls heaven. I think these have to be some of the most retarded statements about OS X I have ever seen. I personally like OS X more than Windows, but most of the people posting here give people like me a bad name. The truth is NOT that OS X is more secure, or that the Mac community won't stand for it (like you have a choice...please), or that having root disabled means you are secure, or a popup asking you to OK a change saves you.......no no no. The truth is Mac OS X holds such a minute marketshare that it's not worth a hackers time to target the system. These guys do this stuff for the fame and recognition...maybe if they bot enough they can make money off the distributed computing. What are we targeting here, 5% tops? And that's only RECENTLY because of the new dual Intel switch. Not just a year or so ago it was less than 2%. Linux has a larger desktop share. And this is as good as it gets people. So revel in the fact you will have a mostly clean OS from now till Apple closes up shop. It's not because you're better...it's because you're not worth the effort.
Posted by: Kyle Kennedy 22 Mar 2007
Windows Sucks
I'm definately switching to a mac. Not because of this article but I'm sick of dealing with all of the windows problems. The mac is so much smoother and safer. I don't care what the reason for malware, I just care that it's true a mac is safer. Face the truth mac haters. Windows Vista is going to be the last stand for Microsoft if they don't straighten things up. Vista is just a OSX wanna be.
Posted by: Brandon Buttars 22 Mar 2007
That's fantastic!
[QUOTE]It turns out the real reason is because Malware authors don't feel like buying overpriced Macs to develop on. :P[/QUOTE] Thats great news! I'll spend extra for that safety and security. It's why we spend more to live in good neighborhoods, get safer cars, send our kids to good schools. If this doesn't seem logical, then continue to live in the slums of the technology world. But, remember... You get what you pay for.
Posted by: Amherst 14051 22 Mar 2007
Geeks and Hacker *Like* Apple, That's Why
Mac OS X (along with Linux) is viewed as a David to the Microsoft Goliath. While Mac OS X is not as beloved in the geek world as Linux, it is still UNIX at the end of the day. Geeks and hackers have no reason to attack something they like or love (Mac OS X) when they can just as easily attack something they hate (Windows). Marc :-)
Posted by: Marc LaFountain 22 Mar 2007
Double standards
Double standards applied to OS X as usual: "The Mac OS X system is not inherently more secure than other operating systems, according to the researcher." So according to the "security researcher" OS X cannot have security by design. But Windows apparently can: "Also, prior to Vista, the various Windows versions were pretty much wide open, full access, making it relatively easy for malware to abuse." We see Windows gets security by design in Vista. Double standards. Blaster, SoBig, Slammer, Code Red, Nimda, ILoveYou, Anna Kournikova, etc, etc exist to stick it to MS, which they did very successfully. Unitl OSXBlaster arrives people need to shut up or put up. Finally, it's than (not then), as in: "This is more worrisome then (than!) the poor....."
Posted by: JC 22 Mar 2007
Malware
OS X is malware. lol
Posted by: Windows Vista 22 Mar 2007
Double standards
Double standards applied to OS X as usual: "The Mac OS X system is not inherently more secure than other operating systems, according to the researcher." So according to the "security researcher" OS X cannot have security by design. But Windows apparently can: "Also, prior to Vista, the various Windows versions were pretty much wide open, full access, making it relatively easy for malware to abuse." We see Windows gets security by design in Vista. Double standards. Blaster, SoBig, Slammer, Code Red, Nimda, ILoveYou, Anna Kournikova, etc, etc exist to stick it to MS, which they did very successfully. Unitl OSXBlaster arrives people need to shut up or put up. Finally, it's than (not then), as in: "This is more worrisome then (than!) the poor....."
Posted by: John C 22 Mar 2007
Secure?
"Apple continued to claim that there were no vulnerabilities in Mac OS X, but came a month later and patched its wireless drivers (presumably for vulnerabilities that didn't actually exist). Apple patched these "nonexistent vulnerabilities" but then refused to give any credit to David Maynor and Jon Ellch. Since Apple was going to take research, not give proper attribution, and smear security researchers, the security research community responded to Apple's behavior with the MoAB (Month of Apple Bugs) and released a flood of zero-day exploits without giving Apple any notification. The result was that Apple was forced to patch 62 vulnerabilities in just the first three months of 2007, including last week's megapatch of 45 vulnerabilities." This is what being an underhanded, pompus company gets you. Tease the community and claim you are secure all you want. It's just that no one has targeted you yet because they don't care about your little 5% market share. Nice try though...
Posted by: Kyle Kennedy 22 Mar 2007
Last time I swear...
"Suicide bombers don't blow themselves up in the middle of Siberia." How true... "Apple continued to claim that there were no vulnerabilities in Mac OS X, but came a month later and patched its wireless drivers (presumably for vulnerabilities that didn't actually exist). Apple patched these "nonexistent vulnerabilities" but then refused to give any credit to David Maynor and Jon Ellch. Since Apple was going to take research, not give proper attribution, and smear security researchers, the security research community responded to Apple's behavior with the MoAB (Month of Apple Bugs) and released a flood of zero-day exploits without giving Apple any notification. The result was that Apple was forced to patch 62 vulnerabilities in just the first three months of 2007, including last week's megapatch of 45 vulnerabilities." Bottom line is that no one actually cares about the Mac's 5% market share. When someone actually turns their attention to the platform and tries to exploit it, oh look, it's no more secure than any other OS. "Metafacts? contention that 46 percent of Apple customers are at least 55 years old would run contrary to the company?s image as a hip purveyor of cutting edge products. The figure would also stand in stark contrast to the perceived popularity of products like the iPod among younger generations." Independed research firm data. So half of your 5% market share is people over the age of 55. Most if not all of which don't even have internet connectivity. This would explain A LOT. As for market share: "U.S. Mac Market Share 1Q 2005: 3.8% 4Q 2005 (AI): 3.5% 1Q 2006 (ZDNet): 3.5% 1Q 2006 (AI): 3.6% Worldwide Mac Market Share 1Q 2005: 2.2% 1Q 2006 (ZDNet): 2.3% 1Q 2006 (AI): 2.0%" That's a far cry from the already low 5% they claim... 2007 WinXP W2000 Win98 Vista W2003 Linux Mac February 76.1% 7.4% 0.7% 1.2% 1.9% 3.5% 3.8% January 76.1% 7.7% 0.8% 0.6% 1.9% 3.6% 3.8% 2006 WinXP W2000 Win98 WinNT W2003 Linux Mac December 75.7% 7.9% 0.9% 0.2% 1.9% 3.6% 3.8% November 74.9% 8.0% 1.0% 0.3% 1.9% 3.5% 3.6% October 74.6% 8.9% 1.2% 0.3% 2.0% 3.5% 3.6% September 74.6% 9.2% 1.4% 0.3% 2.0% 3.5% 3.6% August 74.4% 10.1% 1.4% 0.3% 2.1% 3.5% 3.6% July 74.3% 10.1% 1.5% 0.3% 2.0% 3.4% 3.6% June 74.1% 10.6% 1.6% 0.3% 2.0% 3.4% 3.6% May 74.2% 10.7% 1.6% 0.2% 2.0% 3.4% 3.6% April 74.0% 11.2% 1.8% 0.3% 1.9% 3.3% 3.6% March 72.9% 11.9% 2.0% 0.3% 1.8% 3.4% 3.5% February 73.3% 12.3% 2.1% 0.3% 1.8% 3.4% 3.6% January 72.3% 13.1% 2.4% 0.3% 1.7% 3.3% 3.5% Linux has as much of the desktop market as Apple does, and Vista has half of what Apple has after only being out a month or so. And what about server installs? Servers that SHIPPED with Linux account for over 18%, Windows with over 70%, and Mac with almost nothing. This doesn't even count the servers and desktops that people install Linux on after the fact. Linux is free to download and install at will and is hard to track. If the Mac platform is so rock solid, why is it not being used for web/file servers? Apple MAKES servers. So why aren't they selling? Because no one cares enough to buy it. Why can't you find any stores that sell Macs? Because no one cares enough to sell them. Why can't you find software that works on a Mac, or hardware to upgrade your Mac with, etc...? Because no one cares enough to sell it. Adobe, long time supporter of the Mac platform (and quite possibly the only reason they still have a presence in the business world at all) is considering dropping the Mac platform altogether. Why? Because it's just smart business to NOT invest research and developement costs in a platform that can't possibly make your investment back. Marketing firms (typically Mac houses) are slowly shifting to Windows Macs are throw away computers. You can't find anyone to work on them, you can't find software for them, you can't just go buy whatever graphics card or memory or whatever you want for them. And the systems, while having more bang for buck with the new Intel chips, are still overpriced and underpowered. $200 extra....for a black version? Apple prays off the pompus user. Mac is a statement. "I have more money to throw away than you do." You have fun with that... And Steve Jobs is the ring leader. This is the same guy that told us for years that the PPC chip was VASTLY superior to every other chip in the world and that Intel and AMD sucked. Secretly, he had been running OS X on the Intel platform for 4 years prior to the switch over because he KNEW that was a lie. So the day they "switch" to Intel, the Mac zealots go crazy and applaud the move... WTF? What if Microsoft had complete control over all hardware that went out the door. They could test everything and they only sold what they had verified to work. And you couldn't buy anyone elses stuff. And they only had 3-5% of the marketshare. And it was a closed platform. Now what if Apple had 98% of the market. And you could buy hardware from anyone and install it yourself. And the platform was so open and easy to develope for that anyone could write software for it and you could find software in groves at any store you visited. Do you think it would be a little different? Who would be the more secure platform then? I would end this by saying that Macs will always play second fiddle to Windows...but that would be giving them too much share...
Posted by: Kyle Kennedy 22 Mar 2007
Van Oers didn't say what you're claiming
You wrote, "The Mac OS X system is not inherently more secure than other operating systems, according to the researcher." But Marius Van Oers never said anything remotely like this. In fact, as you point out yourself, he claims all Windows version prior to Vista (meaning 99% of the installed base) are "pretty much wide open", while on UNIX-based systems like OS X "adding/modifying system binaries should, in theory, not be that easy to achieve". He says he gives no guarantees, but doesn't this make all UNIX-based systems "inherently more secure"? You've basically made up a statement that was never written in the article linked to, and which completely contradicts most of that article ... because why? Because it says what you want it so say?
Posted by: DBL 22 Mar 2007
Rubbish
"It turns out the real reason is because Malware authors don't feel like buying overpriced Macs to develop on. :P" You have _absolutely_ no idea what you are talking about. Firstly, do your research. macs used to be relatively expensive compared to generic PCs, but not any more. Secondly, Intel builds of OS X have been hacked to run on anything, including a generic $200 Dell beige plastic box (and twice as fast as Windows on that same box, incidentally). Development cost is not an issue. The difficulty in turning any of these _potential_ exploits into anything that actually gives any control whatsoever over the OS X system is the issue. There is not one, single, solitary, exploitable piece of Mac OS X malware in the wild. Full stop. My above explanation is the reason. If the security firms had managed to write one in order to sell their products, we would have seen one.
Posted by: Elf 22 Mar 2007
ACL? UAC? Not as good as OS X
Here's the reason windows is still under attack. Bill Gates Microsoft is just a PR firm when it comes to security. Unix comes with File Permissions, Users and Groups. Windows says they can duplicate that functionality BUT they never do. Even ORACLE's install on windows IGNORES good security practice and does not implement Hard File Permissions. ( I recommend NEVER running Oracle on Windows. ) Access Control Lists: ??? Windows has got them BUT I've Never Seen any Windows admin ever create one. UAC? OS X requests the Admin Password to SUDO as administrator. Windows? Dumbasses have to hit an ACCEPT button, which, by the way IS NOT Authenticating As ADMIN. Conclusion? Compared to other OS's Windows is vastly inferior.
Posted by: Mike 22 Mar 2007
lame article
few reasons: 1. people of all types (hacker and non-hacker types) hate MS 2. The issue of lacking mac malware is being pushed by "security" types since they will be out jobs 3. Mac OSX is just more secure 4. too early to tell because not enough hacker power has been applied to overcome point #3
Posted by: billgates 22 Mar 2007
Big Dopes
Mac OSX is very technologically sound. It would be extremely difficult to create malware that would ever self propogate across a network. If you can't make it self propogate what fun is releasing a bug in the first place. Bottom line_____ Mac OSX rocks... PC weenies get over it.. either move to vista or switch to Mac those are the choices. I have used linux and it just isn't there... To many hands in the thing to create a good user experience. Thank you Apple for putting customers first and creating a rock solid really cool OS!
Posted by: Brad 22 Mar 2007
When will they get it?
Mac OS X has been out for SIX years. Version 10.0.0 was released in March 2001. There have been no meaningful security exploits of any kind, other than a few laboratory "demonstrations". STILL the security "experts" spin their FUD. The virus software companies and their "expert" may be baffled and even try to stir up Mac OS X virus fear, but so far it's all been hot air. The National Security Agency actually gives Mac OS X and endorsement. Interesting reading. http://www.applelinks.com/index.php/more/national_security_agency_gives_os_x_104_tiger_thumbs_up_os_x_odyssey_862/
Posted by: jeffharris 22 Mar 2007
Maybe you should get a real expert next time.
Like David Pogue who said, "...the conclusion is clear: Linux and Mac OS X aren't just more secure because fewer people use them. They're also much harder to crack right out of the box." This so called expert is just trying to preach anti Mac FUD. I love it when he says "The Mac OS X system is not inherently more secure than other operating systems," followed by "Also, prior to Vista, the various Windows versions were pretty much wide open, full access, making it relatively easy for malware to abuse." Which is it? He aslo points out that there are something like 700 exploits for unix/linux in comparison to the over 200,000 for windows and he still thinks its not inherently less secure?
Posted by: Gary 22 Mar 2007
Hi everyone
Glad to see that this story is generating so much debate. I felt that I should clarify something, however. The article does not claim that OS X is less secure, or even as vulnerable as Windows. The sentence many of you are questioning states "other operating systems." Other *nix-based operating systems have proven to be vulnerable to malware attacks (over 700, as stated in the article.) A more detailed explanation, including the paragraphs from van Oers report that further support the line in the story can be found in a comment I posted in comment to an entry in our Silicon Valley Sleuth blog. -Thanks
Posted by: Shaun Nichols 22 Mar 2007
reality check
The days of the expensive Mac are over and have been for some time...I have a 4.5 year old eMac that flies. No PC without being upgraded can offer that lifetime. Secondly, Harry; you need a hug...you have suffered to long. I have 2 Macs and they run all the time. I use winslop at work and suffer because of it. Mac OS X is solid, I think it is you who are misinformed. Hope you enjoy vista...
Posted by: Scott 22 Mar 2007
Macs too expensive
It turns out the real reason is because Malware authors don't feel like buying overpriced Macs to develop on. :P
Posted by: Bob 21 Mar 2007
dont buy a mac?
I feel that its people how lie about osx and write rubish reveiws like this who fuel pc nerds with wong information as they say a lie can travel around the world twice before the truth has even got out of bed. The interent is full of peoples opinions and lies. Anyone who owns a mac knows that these are lies, that these people are like conmen who want to rob people of osx and convence them to buy a windows based computer when they are going to have a bad time but why would they care they have your money now. All my friends are getting macs and now have macs and me not anyone will ever buy a pc ever agian, that is why apple is growing because its simply better in every area.
Posted by: harry 21 Mar 2007
baffling? you haven't figured it out by now?
when these type of "experts" sponsor a month of apple bugs, and can only come up with buffer over runs and local privilege escalations. (calling these things critical, even though there is no known way to exploit the buffer overruns except crash a machine) are you surprised that hackers can't actually spread malware on OSX? the first person to have a successful spreading virus on the mac would be famous, you don't think hackers are not trying? that would make their reputation in one swipe, yet nothing... jon.
Posted by: jon. 21 Mar 2007
Lack of Mac malware baffles experts?
Many, many people HATE... HATE Microsoft and want to do something to make Microsoft miserable.....malware. Few have the same dislike for Apple....little malware. Good PR keeps the software rapists at bay. "Experts" can't see that?
Posted by: Bob Forsberg 21 Mar 2007
Check Your Facts
OS X is in fact harder to target that Windows, because most attacks would have to be OKd by an administrative user.
Posted by: Nunuvyer Bizniz 21 Mar 2007
Here we go again.
I'm ok with the concept that there's no such thing as 100% secure. I get it. Can Windows people now understand (and admit) that their OS is simply more flawed and less secure than EVERY other OS in the world? If you continue to choose Windows, at least learn how to keep it protected (which means you will have to do MORE than people using another OS). That is a FACT. Linux, UNIX, Mac OSX will always be better than Windows.... PERIOD.... when in comes to security. Have a great day!
Posted by: Smurfy 21 Mar 2007
Security experts think malware writers are stupid
"And security experts are not exactly sure why. In an article for the McAfee Avert Labs blog, security researcher Marius van Oers pointed out that Mac malware is "pretty much non-existent at the moment". " and the answer... "But van Oers pointed out that many malware authors simply prefer to target the low-hanging fruit of a poorly maintained Windows system." So this story should have a more appropriate title like "So called security experts clueless as to why malware writers go after easy targets"
Posted by: Bobobobobobob 21 Mar 2007
Because we care!
One "BIG" reason that malware is not affecting OS X is that the Mac community will not put up with this crap just as we won't put up with crappy software. It's well know and understood that OS X user have a higher standard of expectations in terms of experience than Windows users. I'd love to see what will happen when a virus does come out and how that individual when caught will be treated. I say caught because the Mac community will track them down! I say they're scared :)
Posted by: Michael Harper 21 Mar 2007
Gotta love the contradictions
"The Mac OS X system is not inherently more secure than other operating systems," according to the researcher. ...and then... "Also, prior to Vista, the various Windows versions were pretty much wide open, full access, making it relatively easy for malware to abuse." Sounds like OS X is fundamentally more secure than the dominant OS, if not other less-dominant OSes.
Posted by: M. A. 21 Mar 2007
not inherently more secure
"The Mac OS X system is not inherently more secure than other operating systems, according to the researcher." Not much of a security researcher if he has not figured this out yet. Unix/Linux (and OS X) are more secure by design than Windows. Mac OS X comes with all internet port off by default and root disabled by default.
Posted by: maccam 21 Mar 2007
It'll be a long wait
Yet. yet yet yet. How many more years until the dimbulbs accept the situation and stop pining for some serious Mac Malware?
Posted by: Artisticulated 21 Mar 2007
No mystery
There's and easy explanation: it is simply much harder to hack OS X. To be sure, a number of vulnerabilities have been found, but I am unaware of even one serious exploit-- something that would give root access.
Posted by: Tom B 21 Mar 2007
Fictional Malware On Mac
Every lying analyst and security or software writer always tells the public there are "less" malware threats on a Mac than Windows. If there is a number mentioned it's always made up just like this article. The TRUTH is there has never been a Mac OS-X piece of malware of any kind in the wild. There have ONLY been proof of concepts CREATED by these same software companies who are trying to sell protection to Mac users. They act exactly like the Mafia protection rackets. Offering protection against imaginary threats if the extortion money is paid. The culture of hate Microsoft has engendered towards itself from users IS the original reason they were focused on for all malware, that and the fact there was absolutely no protection of any kind against any threat. BSD variety UNIX has always been the most secure OS and Mac OS-X uses it as it's base. Real security experts know that the Mac is the most secure OS and that's why the NSA uses the Mac for everything they want kept secure for anything else like stuff they want the enemy to get they use Windows because even a mentally challenged twelve year old can stumble through one of the thousands of open doors it it. Macs have always been a friend to their users and have engendered not only good or great feels towards Apple but a loyalty unmatched by any product in any industry ever. You would think that Windows cheap imitation would create similar positive feelings. That's the difference between knowing what your doing and following a vision of helping the user and the Microsoft way of blindly trying to kludge an imitation together that does nothing but piss off the user. Anyone who has used the two for any length of time knows what I'm talking about. So there will always be intence hatred of the controlling misfit Windows while Apple will always work for you and get out of your way. The difference is like a faithful and loyal servant constantly anticipating your desires and fulfilling them the moment you realize what you desire and Windows like a two year old constantly throwing fits and smashing your favourite things to pieces and causing constant mayhem. Even a two digit IQ should allow one enough discernment to figure out which OS they would prefer. For the masochists who prefer Windows enjoy, you won't be happy being at peace and productive on the Mac.
Posted by: Carol D. 21 Mar 2007
Baffled Why They Can't Sell Anti Software?
No puzzle. Hard to mug a 23-year old Marine while PC's are old tourists napping with their backpack on the ground. While they like to say 5% because it sounds small, there are over 23 million OSX users and machines out there so they can't understand why their revenue from the Mac side is ZERO - no matter how much they try and name malware they grew in a lab, it doesn't count. After 6 years and 23 million users, OSX is proving EVERYDAY there are NO external threats - yes, it's hard to believe but not every personal computer is a PC. Macs are just different. Whether it's better or not is your call - but as far as viruses or malware - ZERO. popups? I get maybe 1 a month.
Posted by: jbelkin 21 Mar 2007
Not that 'baffling'...
Security 'experts' make their money by selling the service of protecting an otherwise easily exploitable operating system. Thus, it is not surprising that they don't promote the use of operating systems that need no such protection. When security experts are singing the praises of Apple's OS, we'll know that Apple has let significant vulnerabilities go un-patched long enough that these companies see a potential market for their protection racket.
Posted by: Bryan 21 Mar 2007
Articel Makes Little Sense
It seems to me it is a contradiction to say the Mac OS is not more inherently secure, but then point to the relatively low number of known Unix malware. Unix is the dominant server platform out there. The fact that there is only 900 known malware targeted at Unix compared to the over 23, 000 for Windows strongly suggests Unix is in fact more secure. Since, the Mac Os is based on Unix it would also strongly suggest the Mac Os is more secure. Furthermore, any software expert familiar with all three platforms would tell you Unix is in fact more inherently secure because of the way it was build. On Unix people have no access to critical system software, whereas in pre Vista windows users do.
Posted by: Thomas Paluchniak 21 Mar 2007
Factually Incorrect
After reading the Macafee article that you reference, I should point out that your review incorrectly states that the author of that article states the Mac Os is not more inherently secure then other OSes. Read the article again, he never says that. In fact, the article suggests that Unix, and by default the Mac OS, is in fact more secure then Windows because Windows prior to Vista is a more open OS.
Posted by: terrin 21 Mar 2007
Not baffling
Mac OS X doesn't have enough marketshare to create havoc with when you are around 5% or less, who cares? Malware creators want to reach a larger audience so they'll go with the OS with the bigger marketshare.
Posted by: Jeff 21 Mar 2007
easy
People can't afford macs in Russia and Asia. Problem solved.
Posted by: Alex N 21 Mar 2007
Low hanging or Super sweet!
it may be easier to pick the low hanging fruit of windows, but I bet the sweetness of bringing the first real malware to Mac OSX is a major motivator. Its all about the rep.
Posted by: focusboy 21 Mar 2007