The Astroturfed articles are flying hot and heavy... this slide show has some howlers of mis-information in it.
Mac Security FUD Ping!
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Posted on 09/23/2009 10:59:20 PM PDT by Swordmaker
Myth 1: Macs Are Safer Than PCs
Thanks to aggressive marketing from Apple, Mac users often think they are impervious to the viruses, Trojans and numerous other assaults that have plagued Windows users for decades. Security experts say that if Mac users are less susceptible to attack, it's simply due to the fact that there are fewer viruses written for Macs than for Windows. That is rapidly changing, however, as Macs gain market share. Meanwhile, users who have the unfortunate experience of being attacked by information-stealing Trojans will likely have their systems compromised and their data stolen ... just like every other PC user out there.
Myth 2: Macs Have Fewer Vulnerabilities Than Windows
Not true. In fact, studies have shown that Macs actually have MORE vulnerabilities than their Windows counterparts, experts say. The reason? Constituting a "seek and ye shall find" phenomenon, it was simply a matter of attention, experts say. Some maintain that Apple's credibility in the security community increased as it gained traction in the marketplace. Others contend that a disproportionate amount of researchers in the field prefer Apple, and subsequently put their efforts into finding Windows' vulnerabilities instead. But once security experts began to seriously research Apple, the number of vulnerabilities increased exponentially, experts say. However, whether exploits target those vulnerabilities is another question.
"We can compare it to the situation with Internet Explorer and Firefox. Lots of people were saying that [Firefox] was so much more secure than IE," said Roel Schouwenberg, senior antivirus researcher for Moscow-based Kaspersky Lab. "It actually gained in popularity. Now all of a sudden a lot of vulnerabilities were being found in Firefox. I don't think you can underestimate the importance of market share."
Myth 3: Mac OS X Users Don't Need A Separate Antivirus Solution
Not so. Not even Apple says that anymore, even if it has downplayed the fact that users also should equip themselves with third-party antivirus software. There are just too many Mac Trojans and viruses out there that can evade Mac's built-in security systems -- and the numbers are growing.
"If you look at the Apple consumer base, and how they generally tend to think about security, the vast majority of Apple users will assume this is all they need," Schouwenberg said. "It's really nothing fancy and it can be easily bypassed."
Fortunately, there also are a number of antivirus offerings specifically designed for the Mac OS X platform.
Myth 4: The Antivirus Feature In Snow Leopard Is Enough To Protect Users
Or not. If anything, experts say, the antivirus feature lulls users into a false sense of security -- that is to say, even more than the one they already had. Apple turned heads earlier this month with the release of its Mac OS X version 10.6 Snow Leopard, which touted that it came equipped with antivirus and additional security features. However, upon closer inspection, security experts said that the built-in antivirus feature was designed to block a whopping total of two -- yes, two -- Mac Trojans, despite the fact that researchers have detected dozens of malicious threats that target the Mac OS X platform. According to researchers at Intego, the built-in antivirus only scans files on a handful of applications, including Safari, Mail, iChat, Firefox, Entourage and a few other browsers, but fails to scan from other sources, such as BitTorrent or FTP files.
Myth 5: Most Mac Exploits Target The Operating System
No. Actually, experts maintain that most of the attacks targeting Mac OS X will exploit the Web browser, and ultimately, the user's behavior. As in any PC, the biggest threat typically starts with the user and quite often via e-mail -- falling for phishing sites, clicking on malicious links, surfing infected Web sites, etc.
And as with their PC counterparts, Mac Trojans are becoming more sophisticated and stealthy, frequently designed to steal information and evade antivirus software. This means that as Mac's market share further grows well into the double digits, users can only expect to see more Trojans, worms and other Web-based threats taking over their favorite machines.
"The main danger for Mac comes not from the operating system but it comes from the behavior of the user," said David Perry, director of global education for Trend Micro. "Falling for bad phishing Web sites, responding to ads on Craigslist -- that is enough so that the end user requires additional protection."
Myth 6: Apple Is Just Like Microsoft And Has An Army Of Security Henchmen
Er, no. In fact, the company's historic lack of emphasis on security issues has left Apple vastly underprepared to deal with the barrage of anticipated Mac malware coming down the pike. Experts contend that Apple lacks the necessary manpower to create and test patches on a monthly basis and still needs the extensive specialized team needed to develop significant changes to Mac OS X internals that would make the platform more resilient to sophisticated malware attacks. And security experts also emphasize that Cupertino needs to stay on top of security issues in its open source projects and third-party components.
However, Apple appears to be trying. In light of a groundswell of Mac OS X malware, Apple recently hired its first security guru, the former head of security architecture at One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) Ivan Krstic, to oversee the security division at Apple.
Myth 7: Apple Needs To Implement A Monthly Update Cycle Like Microsoft
Not necessarily, security experts say. This is simply due to the fact that there still isn't the necessary volume of vulnerabilities to warrant a monthly update cycle. However, experts agree that Apple could definitely stand to address security bugs in a more timely manner. After all, there are more efficient ways to repair vulnerabilities than with a patch that averages 70 to 80 fixes every few months. Meanwhile, Apple scrambled to repair a six-month-old critical Java vulnerability this spring after -- but only after -- researcher Landon Fuller published a proof of concept exploit exposing the flaw six months after it was first detected. Yowza.
However, Apple will likely consider a more frequent patch cycle as malware authors more frequently find ways to launch attacks that exploit its vulnerabilities.
Myth 8: Unlike Windows Viruses, Mac Malware Is A Recent Phenomenon
Actually, some of the first and most destructive viruses were initially written for Mac, experts say -- back in the 1980s when Mac still had sizable market share. Viruses for Macs dropped significantly in the mid 90s, along with Mac's market share and credibility in the marketplace. But the viruses have since experienced a resurgence as Mac gained popularity after 2001 with its Tiger, Leopard and now Snow Leopard operating systems.
Myth 9: There Is Only A Handful Of Mac Malware, And It's Pretty Benign
Granted, the number of Trojans and worms targeting the Mac platform does not even come close to the number for Windows platforms. That said, some of the current malware is pretty destructive. Last year a Mac Trojan swept from machine to machine, forcing users to download bogus antivirus software. Earlier this year, Mac users were pummeled with two variants of a Mac-only iServices Trojan distributed via pirated versions of Apple's productivity suite iWorks and cracked Adobe Photoshop CS4 applications. The Trojans later developed into a full-fledged global botnet that infected more than 40,000 Macs. And experts say that Mac users can expect to see more drive-by and browser attacks.
Myth 10: Mac Users Will Surely Complain When Security Issues Become A Problem
Here's the thing -- experience is always the best teacher. Unlike PC owners, Mac users are simply not used to dealing with rampant malware, experts say. As a result, Mac users are much more likely than their Windows counterparts to underprotect their machines, or not protect them at all. PC owners acknowledge, in fact expect, that their machines will be riddled with security flaws, which leaves them susceptible to all kinds of malicious code. If their PCs are a little slow or erratic, most will simply download that antivirus upgrade they had been meaning to install and go about their day. Not so Mac owners, who often assume that they're perfectly safe, even when they're not. So the upshot is, Mac owners don't know what they don't know. And that could likely be the biggest mistake of all.
The Astroturfed articles are flying hot and heavy... this slide show has some howlers of mis-information in it.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Myth one:. . . Security experts say that if Mac users are less susceptible to attack, it's simply due to the fact that there are fewer viruses written for Macs than for Windows. That is rapidly changing, however, as Macs gain market share.
This is true, since thd ZERO Mac OSX viruses in the wild is definitely fewer than the number of viruses written for Windows that are in the wild.
How, however, is this rapidly changing? The number of viable, working self-replicating, self-transmitting, self-installing, self-executing viruses was ZERO and is still ZERO.
There are under 10 proof-of-concept virus candidates that have been proposed by hackers... but all of them failed miserably to infect any Macs and have never been seen outside of a security lab.
In other malware, there are approximately a dozen or so known Trojan Horse applications and variants that have been seen in the wild. All of them require the participation of the targeted user to be downloaded, installed, and run for the first time. They are easy to avoid by downloading only from trusted sources.
BTTT
bookmark
The phrase “expert’s say”, or a close derivative, is used 15 times in the article.
Myth 2: . . . Others contend that a disproportionate amount of researchers in the field prefer Apple, and subsequently put their efforts into finding Windows' vulnerabilities instead. But once security experts began to seriously research Apple, the number of vulnerabilities increased exponentially, experts say.The first sentence asserts that hackers use Macs to find Windows vulnerabilities? That's funny, but could be. If you were a world class hackers wouldn't you want a safer computer to keep your secret hacking techniques secure?
First of all, no OS is perfect. They are, of course, made by fallible people and also technology changes, allowing someone to find that what was thought was secure, is not. So it is not a bad thing to find vulnerabilities, especially when you report and patch them regularly.
The actual facts are that Apple releases security updates that patch the vulnerabilities that were found since the last update. Apple, as a matter of policy, includes every update for every UNIX module and application that is included with Mac OSX distribution, whether it is an active part of OSX or not... or even included in the default install. Many of the updates affecting security are for third party applications, but, because of this policy of including everything including the kitchen sink in Apple security updates, are counted against Apple. Often, unless you know exactly what is being updated, many pundits think that it is an Apple vulnerability when it is actually a vulnerability that would impact UNIX, Linux, and other open-source OSes. Some of these pundits DO KNOW and only too happy to count the vulnerability as an Apple error.
Apple also, as a practice, includes security updates for its own applications in these security updates including Safari, Mail, iTunes (Mac only issues), iPhoto, iMovie, Quicktime (Mac only issues), Aperture, iWork, etc., while Microsoft releases separate security updates for most of their other applications. These application updates are also counted in the gross number of "vulnerabilities" only against Apple, with the security agencies keeping a separate count of security vulnerabilities against Microsoft's Internet Explorer, etc., as though it were independent.
In addition, Windows vulnerabilities are counted against the currently shipping specific version of Windows... for example, the number of vulnerabilities found in Windows Vista... yet, because Apple tends to release patches that are inclusive of vulnerabilities for previous versions of OSX, the total number is counted against OSX, although it may include vulnerabilities for Panther, Tiger, Leopard, and Snow Leopard—four different versions—where the reported vulnerabilities may not be applicable against all.
The other thing to be aware of is the degree of severity the vulnerabilities found on each platform represent. In the last half of 2006, for example, it was widely reported that OSX had 45 reported vulnerabilities (although after discounting third party updates, it was only 32) while Windows XP had only 39. What goes ignored is that almost 1/3rd of the Windows vulnerabilities were rated as "severe" but only one of the Mac OSX vulnerabilities got the "severe" rating. Very seldom can anyone point to any of the patched vulnerabilities in the Mac OSX list as actually having an exploit attached to them. That is not the case in the Windows lists.
Translate "experts" to mean a person who has a "nifty piece of Mac anti-malware to sell that I want to scare you into buying."
As a long-time Unix, Windows, Linux, and Mac user, it's quite clear to me that this is pure pre-Win7-rollout FUD. But 90% of the typical readership is going to buy it hook, line, and sinker.
That's a shame. But such is marketing hype...
Mind you, I'm currently busily converting all (but one) of my XP boxes to Win7. It's a fine operating system. Win7 cooperates very nicely, BTW, with my Mac boxes, Linux boxes, and even the old Unix machines.
But there's no excuse for this kind of crap article. It's just layer upon layer of BS. It's embarrassing to the rest of us in IT that people write this garbage, and that people publish it.
Myth 3: Mac OS X Users Don't Need A Separate Antivirus SolutionEven Charlie Miller, the winner of the last two CanSecWest hacking contests has stated that it is unnecessary to run anti-malware on a Mac at this time. That may change in the future, but until there are any credible virus threats against OSX in the wild, the only reason to run such anti-malware is to intercept Windows viruses to avoid passing them on to your Window using friends by sending them on as attachments to email, or by providing them as files.
Not so. Not even Apple says that anymore, even if it has downplayed the fact that users also should equip themselves with third-party antivirus software. There are just too many Mac Trojans and viruses out there that can evade Mac's built-in security systems -- and the numbers are growing.
This is even more true because the only Mac OSX Malware that currently exists in the wild are a couple of known Trojans with about six variants each that are easy to avoid by simple downloading only from trusted sources.
As of the release of the latest version of OSX, Apple has incorporated into Snow Leopard the ability to scan downloads seeking the signatures of such Trojans and warn the user that he or she has fallen victim to the social engineering needed to persuade a user into downloading and installing the malware. Updates that will include any new Trojans will be included with Apple's regular Snow Leopard security updates. Currently that Snow Leopard ability will recognize only the two that are in the wild... but that includes the dozen or so variants.
Security for an OS should be inherent in the DNA of the OS, not dependent on third party bolt-on applications. That is Apple's approach... and, to the dismay of many anti-virus security companies, more and more Microsoft's approach as well.
Myth 4: The Antivirus Feature In Snow Leopard Is Enough To Protect UsersOr not. If anything, experts say, the antivirus feature lulls users into a false sense of security -- that is to say, even more than the one they already had. Apple turned heads earlier this month with the release of its Mac OS X version 10.6 Snow Leopard, which touted that it came equipped with antivirus and additional security features. However, upon closer inspection, security experts said that the built-in antivirus feature was designed to block a whopping total of two -- yes, two -- Mac Trojans, despite the fact that researchers have detected dozens of malicious threats that target the Mac OS X platform. According to researchers at Intego, the built-in antivirus only scans files on a handful of applications, including Safari, Mail, iChat, Firefox, Entourage and a few other browsers, but fails to scan from other sources, such as BitTorrent or FTP files.
The "experts" who want to sell their anti-malware applications are the ones who are saying this.
In actual fact, there are several mis-representations here.
First of all, Apple has never claimed to have installed "anti-virus" in Snow Leopard. It is an anti-Trojan scan of downloading files that are being downloaded by Apple's own applications that are capable of downloading. It was never designed to be "anti-virus." Currently there are no viable, working self-replicating, self-transmitting, self-installing, self-executing Mac OSX viruses in the wild.
Secondly, the reason that there "only two" Trojans being scanned for is simple. There really are only two basic Trojans for OSX currently in the wild that, with their variants, masquerade as non-applications, that CAN be scanned for. Find another and it will be included. The two that do exist have been found to be masquerading as Video Codexes but are in fact applications. Their foot print is known. Other types are stand-alone applications that are merely programs that do something malicious. Until identified, they cannot be scanned to determine the intent of the application. Once they have been identified, they will be included in the scan database. Prior to being identified and added to the database, the only way to protect against them is educate users who become informed and smart enough to download only from trusted sources.
Finally, as to the complaint that Apple's built in anti-Trojan scan only scans downloads on limited applications, Apple is also making the scan API available so that other vendors can use the same function in their bitTorrent or FTP applications. Instead of making an application that is ALWAYS running in the background eating processor cycles watching for an incoming downloads, Apple wants third party publishers to hook their download capable apps into Apple's system wide anti-Trojan API and invoke the scan only when downloading. That's much more efficient than a stand-alone, always running approach.
Myth 5: Most Mac Exploits Target The Operating SystemNo. Actually, experts maintain that most of the attacks targeting Mac OS X will exploit the Web browser, and ultimately, the user's behavior.
This Myth is probably wrong. However, Apple is of the opinion that the OS should be the primary line of defense against malware.
DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!
Anti-malware folks whose livelihood depend on Windows flaws are running scared, as Windows becomes more secure, and Microsoft builds more anti-malware features into the OS.
Is it any wonder they are trying to create a Mac anti-malware market out of whole cloth?
40,000,000 OS-X machines.Sure, there are a few human-engineered "fool-the-user" Trojans, just like on Windows, and they are to be avoided, just like on Windows. BUT NOT A SINGLE OS-X VIRUS. How many new Windows viruses appeared this years, last year, and the year before that?
Mostly non-tech-savvy users, running with full admin privilege.
8 years in the public eye.
No anti-malware software.
Huge acclaim waiting for the writer of the first self-replicating OS-X virus.
Yet there are... ZERO OS-X VIRUSES IN THE WILD.
It's enough to make an ol' Unix-head proud! ;-)
Some days, though, I feel like the old Maytag repairman, loneliest repairman in the world. I sure hope somebody manages to write an OS-X virus before I grow old and croak. I really want to see how they do it.
This one I might agree with, since:
This is the only item in the list of "myths" where the author has a valid point. IMO.
Myth 6: Apple Is Just Like Microsoft And Has An Army Of Security HenchmenEr, no. In fact, the company's historic lack of emphasis on security issues has left Apple vastly underprepared to deal with the barrage of anticipated Mac malware coming down the pike. Experts contend that Apple lacks the necessary manpower to create and test patches on a monthly basis and still needs the extensive specialized team needed to develop significant changes to Mac OS X internals that would make the platform more resilient to sophisticated malware attacks. And security experts also emphasize that Cupertino needs to stay on top of security issues in its open source projects and third-party components.
However, Apple appears to be trying. In light of a groundswell of Mac OS X malware, Apple recently hired its first security guru, the former head of security architecture at One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) Ivan Krstic, to oversee the security division at Apple.
This canard that Apple has had a history of a lack of emphasis on security issues has been spouted too often and is classic FUD. It is untrue.
In actual fact, Apple DOES indeed have an army of security henchmen. Most of it is an all volunteer army. They are the UNIX and even Linux open source developers who are perusing and sifting through the 90% of Mac OSX that is UNIX, as well as the other parts of OSX that Apple has released to open source including the kernal, CUPS, Grand Central Dispatch, etc. For the balance of OSX that is proprietary, Apple has sufficient numbers of in-house programers (some of the best in the world) working to find any security gaps, as well as a host of beta testers working under Non-Disclosure Agreements testing and checking.
Microsoft NEEDS the army of paid, in-house testers and programers because Windows is, far more than Apple's OSX, proprietary. Changes can only come about in-house.
What recent "groundswell" of Mac OSX malware? In over eight years of exposure in the wild, the total number of actual malware exploits against OSX is still under a few dozen. There have been a few that have appeared every year... most as resounding, echoing thuds as the attempt failed.
That "recently hired" security guru? Krstic wasn't hired because Apple had been ignoring security, and is now finally, at long last, really late into the game,is getting serious about security (as is implied by the tone of the article). He was hired because he is the world's foremost expert on sandboxing applications on UNIX like operating systems. His employment is an example of and continuation of Apple's on-going commitment to security.
Myth 7: Apple Needs To Implement A Monthly Update Cycle Like MicrosoftHow is this a security myth? This is merely a recommendation and a preference.Not necessarily, security experts say. This is simply due to the fact that there still isn't the necessary volume of vulnerabilities to warrant a monthly update cycle.
Myth 8: Unlike Windows Viruses, Mac Malware Is A Recent PhenomenonActually, some of the first and most destructive viruses were initially written for Mac, experts say -- back in the 1980s when Mac still had sizable market share. Viruses for Macs dropped significantly in the mid 90s, along with Mac's market share and credibility in the marketplace. But the viruses have since experienced a resurgence as Mac gained popularity after 2001 with its Tiger, Leopard and now Snow Leopard operating systems.
Talk about mis-representation and FUD. Mac OSX and the previous Macintosh operating system are NOT RELATED. They share absolutely no code. The author of this slide show does not know his computer industry history or is deliberately obfuscating it.
The claim that Mac "viruses" only experienced a resurgence after 2001 (?!???) with Tiger (released April 29, 2005), Leopard (released Oct. 27, 2007) and Snow Leopard (released Aug. 29, 2009). Whow, those non-existent viruses were certainly prescient.
Myth 9: There Is Only A Handful Of Mac Malware, And It's Pretty BenignGranted, the number of Trojans and worms targeting the Mac platform does not even come close to the number for Windows platforms. That said, some of the current malware is pretty destructive. Last year a Mac Trojan swept from machine to machine, forcing users to download bogus antivirus software. Earlier this year, Mac users were pummeled with two variants of a Mac-only iServices Trojan distributed via pirated versions of Apple's productivity suite iWorks and cracked Adobe Photoshop CS4 applications. The Trojans later developed into a full-fledged global botnet that infected more than 40,000 Macs. And experts say that Mac users can expect to see more drive-by and browser attacks.
What happened to viruses? Now it's just worms and Trojans. However, the number of viable worms is also ZERO. . . and ZERO is certainly not close to the over one million malware stalking Windows users.
I sure would like to know what Mac Trojan it was that "swept from machine to machine, forcing users to download bogus antivirus software." I know what this idiot is talking about. it was not a Trojan... it was a SCARE advertising Pop-up. It resided on some web-sites and would pop-up a warning that your computer had been found to be infected with a virus. Clicking on the pop-up resulted in an ad for either a Windows or Mac version—depending on what computer the browser was using—of some expensive, but incompetent anti-malware applications to dis-infect the computer. If you fell for the pop-up claiming it had detected a virus on your computer, and paid for and downloaded their cure, you got scammed. But, either a Windows or a Mac, you didn't get malwared. You just got a useless, expensive app. It was neither a Trojan, nor was it capable of spreading from Mac to Mac, or even Windows to Windows, as is claimed here. FUD!
Next we have a TRUE MYTH: the infamous claim of the mythical first Mac BotNet. Announced in May 2009 in an articlen an obscure, $150 per year subscription, web-site called "The Virus Report"—which has not been ever reprinted or even verbatim quoted in any other credible source because of copyright claims—the botnet is claimed to have been uncovered by the article's authors, two (self-identified) Symantec engineers. The botnet (which they claimed was estimated at 20,000 strong) was supposed to have been created by a malicious package attached to two Free Public Trial files of iWork'09 that were uploaded on two BitTorrent sites in January. However, the facts fail to support the two self-claimed Symantec engineers.
Myth 10: Mac Users Will Surely Complain When Security Issues Become A ProblemHere's the thing -- experience is always the best teacher. Unlike PC owners, Mac users are simply not used to dealing with rampant malware, experts say. As a result, Mac users are much more likely than their Windows counterparts to underprotect their machines, or not protect them at all. PC owners acknowledge, in fact expect, that their machines If their PCs are a little slow or erratic, most will simply download that antivirus upgrade they had been meaning to install and go about their day. Not so Mac owners, who often assume that they're perfectly safe, even when they're not. So the upshot is, Mac owners don't know what they don't know. And that could likely be the biggest mistake of all.
This ignores the fact that probably 80% of the 40,000,000 Macs out there are owned by people who have SWITCHED away from using Windows PCs and who WERE people who acknowledged and expected "that their machines will be riddled with security flaws, which leaves them susceptible to all kinds of malicious code." Most of them have enjoyed no longer having to participate in paranoid computing, always fearful of drive-by infections from no-where, email attachments with stink bombs attached, and malicious self-installing viruses as well as the numerous Trojans they could download all on their own. Most of us Mac owners STILL use Windows machines at work or elsewhere... and those paranoid reflexes are still there. It is because of this that I occasionally hear calls for help from people's whose Macs have developed a hardware problem but almost always assuming they have picked up a virus. it's what they knew from before. Invariably, it has not been a virus or even a Trojan.
The real upshot of this is: When there are finally, someday, credible threats to OSX that cause us to start worrying about the violation of our computers, then, and only then should we start to think about wasting computer time and processor cycles with continually running, back-ground anti-malware.
Me too.
I can tell you that I am my own worst enemy... when I advocate that my clients' who have been having repeated Windows problems with malware, slow-downs, and MS cruft, switch to a Mac, and they do, I don't make nearly as much money from them.
Doing Mac Updates and Mac software installations doesn't pay nearly as well as re-installing the Windows OS along with all of their vertical solution apps or going dumpster diving into the Windows Registry to really clean out stuff that's been left behind by malware or just everyday applications that have been removed or updated, or trying to get a mixed environment of WindowsXp, Windows2000, Vista, and whatever else the client may have on his network, talking together again.
My dad actually was a Maytag repairman, way-back-when, in the 1930s... when a lot of Maytags were gasoline powered. That was before he enlisted in the Army and became an aircraft mechanic... then on mustering out in 1940 a civilian employee... then later the technical writer for all the books for the F-86 and F-100 fighter planes. Amazing what those idle Maytag repairmen can do...
Feel free to add anything to the rebuttals I have posted on each of the so-called myths.
By definition, this means that right now, security issues are NOT a problem.
Game, Set, and Match to Apple.
Cheers!
Propaganda knows no boundaries, does it?
More FUD for sure.
Gonna put a helmet & great ready for all those trojans coming down the pike. :)
Appreciate your time and expertise on the Mac threads.
My democratic Mac geek hubby signed up to FR just because of you!
Great way to expose him to more right thinking folks!
Thanks for all your work on this thread, Swordmaker. I appreciate your clear explanation of the real facts.
No. Actually, experts maintain that most of the attacks targeting Mac OS X will exploit the Web browser, and ultimately, the user's behavior.
BINGO, and if this was point one and the subject of the headline, this article could be quasi-useful.
The whole geist of the claim about Mac superiority with regard to security is that if the Mac user exhibits just an iota of common sense he is secure, whereas the PC user regardless of good habits still requires AV and frequent updates and STILL is more likely to come down with a case of malware.
I liked comparing the security of OS X of today with Apple of the 80s.
I know MACs have many superior features and are less subject to evil things, but the whole mindset that they are wholly secure and wholly without issue, is incomprehensible to me. MAC users view their machines with something like a religious fervor. Truth, in the current environment, all machines are at risk through the portals of the web browser and e-mail. Users who view those portals realistically for the potential dangers they represent, will suffer less disruption from viruses and the like regardless of the operating system they use.
I knew they virus's but didn't know which ones. That's when I started running AV software to protect those windows boxes.
Obviously, it is seriously unwise not to back up data regardless of your OS, but what other steps do you recommend a Mac owner take?
Windows 7 must be close
as there is already talk
in the trade journals of
Windows 8
Mad Hatter: Have some more tea.
Alice: I've had nothing yet, so I can't have more.
Mad Hatter: You mean you can't have less. It's very easy to have more than nothing.
Ah, then, Mr. Mad Hatter Tech Writer, let's have some Mac OS-X viruses now, please!
[...crickets...]
What does Media Access Control have to do with the relative security of OS X?
> Windows 7 must be close as there is already talk in the trade journals of Windows 8
So let's see...
Win2000 is NT 5.0
WinXP is NT 5.1
Vista is NT 6.0
Before Vista bombed, Microsoft had already started talking about the Next Big Thing, a huge departure from the Vista/NT codebase (hopefully a major re-write), that would be "NT 7.0", and the project was code-named "Windows 7" as a result.
But when Vista bombed, they had to rush out a "fixed" version (Vista SP3, as it were). Due to the negative reputation of Vista, and the positive outlook for "Windows 7", Microsoft Marketing stole the project codename and applied it back onto Vista SP3.
Vista SP3 - NT 6.1 - was thus named "Windows 7".
So what will "Windows 8" actually be inside? NT 7.0? or merely NT 6.2? Will they force the programmers to skip over the "NT 7.0" and go straight to NT 8.0 so they don't have the current confusion propagated into the future?
Stay tuned for Microsoft's next complete disconnect from sanity....
My bet is that enough code already existed from the REAL Windows 7 project, with the label "NT 7.0", that they will have to keep on with that, for the so-called "Windows 8" product.
Microsoft must be spending some big bucks for all these “experts.”
Great posts, thanks.
Name 1 (or actually several, as the numbers are supposedly growing).
What an inane sack of crap. The absolute ONLY antivirus I have run on a Mac since OSX's debut - running in VirtualPC to protect the Windows install there.
If I had an Intel mac with parallels or bootcamp with some flavor of Windows - then I would run antivirus on that particular area.
How many millions of active OSX machines out there? And if they are supposedly such easy targets, then wouldn't that make an appealing target for any hacker trying to score zombie machines or compromise data? MS is constantly having to pump out security updates (often daily+). Again - a platform that is getting sometimes daily security updates, that is often protected with daily updated antivirus software - or millions of supposedly unprotected machines? Seems like a no-brainer for a hacker.
So why not a huge library of attacks on Macs?
And to add to your statement - there is no way to "patch" the most vulnerable weak link in the computer security link- the operator.
The school where I use to teach - there were certain teachers who had computers constantly getting infected- some infections that would spread to other computers... Yet those machines had the same level of antivirus as all the other machines that NEVER got infected (including the one in my room). The common thread - these women would open any and every attachment that ever came through. So even when filters would block some - all it would take is one to show up and they would open it - even after repeated warnings by the tech person and the rest of us. District finally implemented for a time - a block on all emails with attachments. That messed things up worse - because of so many emails with style sheets/Vcards, etc. Hardly any mail at all was getting through. Having been gone from there for 15 months - that is one thing I definitely do not miss!
I have never owned a Windows machine, though have used them (mostly against my will) in work. The one at my last work - an XP machine, went through 3 power supplies, a hard drive, and an optical drive in the 3 years it was in service. The HP laptop I use for work - hard drive died in it at 11 months (having been used VERY lightly in that time). It died after a Windows auto-update.
Which brings up one other difference between average Apple hardware and Windows-running hardware - quality standards by the manufacturer. Most PCs are built from the lowest-price commodity parts at a given time to make them as inexpensively as possible. Apple tends to have somewhat higher standards, and though they do shop around, they have typically higher standards from their suppliers, thus components that are a bit more expensive. This contributes at least part of the perceived cost difference to consumers. But even with Apple's higher standards, they have been bitten a few times - like the Sony-supplied battery cells that had to be recalled.
But your point is well taken - regardless of how reliable a computer might be (or not), there are some good practices that carry over regardless of platform (kind of like a Ford truck vs. Chevy) - do your regular maintenance, don't drive like a total idiot, etc. and it will work better, regardless of brand.
And even the very best of the best manufacturer of anything has a bad day and lets a less-than-great product out the door. That is what warranties are suppose to be for.
Have a great day!
Why? How did he lose data? What was wrong. It sounds to me as if he has a problem hard drive rather than anything invading the Mac. I administer numerous Macs and have had to re-install a Mac OS only once in over 8 years... and no data was lost. Doing a clean install on a Mac is easy and no data will ever be touched. I think you are claiming something that did not happen, Roses.
Oh, goody... A Mac v. PC thread! Yay!
Maybe THIS will be the thread that settles the matter once and for all!!
:-)
Hope springs eternal!
“Obviously, it is seriously unwise not to back up data regardless of your OS, but what other steps do you recommend a Mac owner take?”
This really holds true for any OS. In driving, you’re gonna get a flat tire. In computers, at some point a hard drive failure will occur and you will be up the proverbial creek. Mac drives are can be more difficult to recover due to how the data is stored.
Back up your entire system and applications as well as your data (documents) to another hard drive using Time Machine or some other app and periodically test to make sure you can restore.
Excellent advice!!
I don’t even run anti virus on the Windows side of my Mac. I just make sure that when I’m nline I don’t operate windows. All downloading is done in Safari the zip files are opened and looked at before anything is transfered to windows and as always I am offline when this is done.
In what way is it more difficult to recover?
“Mac drives are can be more difficult to recover due to how the data is stored.”
“In what way is it more difficult to recover? “
~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~
It has to do with how a Mac writes to the hard drive as to how Windows writes to the drive. There can be two parts that make up a file on a Mac: a data fork and a resource fork.
Recovery may be more difficult in that one fork may be damaged while the other is intact. You can have an empty data fork or an empty resource fork.
More on forks here
http://jonsview.com/2009/08/21/mac-os-x-resource-forks
If you use a Mac or Windows for that matter and have a hard drive crash and no backups (bad bad bad), you’d want to turn to a company that handles OS X or Windows and has a record in recovery.
There are some bad scenarios in data recovery regardless of your OS.
You send in your crashed precious disk of (unbacked up) data and all you get back are plain text files or just text fragments of files. And your original files that were nicely formatted Word, Excel, etc. documents are gone. Images that link to Word are gone.
Or you might get back a handful of files with one restore data and you don’t know what was not recovered. Or if you ar cursed, you’ll just get a mammoth folder of files with 198,731 file names that are sequentially numbered
file_9222009_1,
file_9222009_2,
file_9222009_3,...
file_9222009_198,731
Talk about a nightmare. I have seen cases where you’d be better off rekeying data.
Some better data recovery companies will not charge you if they cannot recover your data. That way, you save 2K or 3K before killing yourself to cover funeral expenses.
;)
The moral: backup backup and backup.
And DO NOT keep backing up to the same old ‘trusty’ hard drive.
Periodically store backups off site and as President Reagan would say: trust but verify.
Periodically do a test restore of your applications and documents on some new system.
Hope this helps.
Thankfully, Apple has a great backup facility these days, and with external storage being so cheap, there really is no excuse for (especially businesses) to get caught with their pants down. I use 'rsync' for my backup needs as it makes it fairly straightforward to keep my wife's laptop, and her home directory on my desktop in perfect sync. I don't even worry about backing up program data on our laptops or desktop, as my programs are basically a 'yum install... ' away.
One thing that is superior about the Unix way of dealing with user data is that it is (or at least can be) completely partitioned away from program data. My /home partition is on a separate physical drive from where I mount /, so when I update the OS, (even a full destructive upgrade from boot media) never touches my personal files, settings and personalizations.
You just can't do that given the way Microsoft utilizes the registry. IMO the 'registry' is an abomination, and the source of much of Microsoft's troubles.
I was called in to look a computer at a friend’s office. The PC was initially set up as a non-Internet connected system but at some point it was connected to the Internet. Since then it has acquired over 600 virii. It is running Windows Vista.
Windows is safest when still wrapped in bubble wrap. After the bubble wrap comes off and you plug it in it is only a matter of time before it is compromised through no fault of the user.
Thanks Swordmaker.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.