Replies

The elephant in the room - fewer MAC viruses because MACS are a smaller population. If tomorrow, MACS were everywhere and PC’s were a small portion - then MACS would have more IT support calls and businesses would have to pick from much smaller libraries of applications - sometimes not finding an equivalent in MAC land. I like MACs - it’s just that this article misrepresented reality.

That Security by Obscurity canard has been shot down so many times it is ridiculous. There have been Windows worms and viruses written to exploit computer populations with fewer than 20,000 vulnerable machines and they were ALL infected within 30 minutes of the virus/worm being released into the wild. In fact, in the past, one was written to exploit a vulnerable population of fewer than 125. If your Security by Obscurity claim were true, no one would have written those exploits.

There are now over 100 million Macs in the wild, with 99% of them running completely bare naked of any anti-virus protection and yet there are STILL zero viable viruses/worms in the wild after 17 years of OS X actually being in the wild itself. Yet, no one has succeeded in writing a successful computer virus/worm for the OS X system.

There is a legitimate reason why Apple Macs are far more secure than Windows. In addition, there are only 58 known Trojans in eight families for the Mac, and every one of them is known to the OS which will warn the user if he or she tries to download, install, or run any of them and require and administrator's name and password to continue with any of those steps. It takes INDUSTRIAL STRENGTH STUPID to continue and be infected on a Mac with any one of them.

There are more than enough Macs in the wild to attract hackers and miscreants to hack into them, but they still have not. These data on user IT call center use is from LAST WEEK. . . and they are from a very reliable source, IBM, who is reporting on REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE, not from some fly-by-night Mac fanboy.

The fact is, ransom note, that Macs can run far MORE software than any Windows computer can . . . because they are true UNIX™ computers capable of true multi-user multi-virtual machine environments. I have access to the entire libraries of everyone of those operating systems. I also have Virtual Machine instances available to me of THEOS, MS-DOS, Amiga-OS, the original Apple MacOS 9.2, and emulations of the C=64 and C=128, and Atari lines, which I can load in, should I have need of them. . . and access to all of their libraries of software.

Your conclusions are erroneous. . . because it is false to the reality that already exists. . . and the people at IBM know this.

You said:
That Security by Obscurity canard has been shot down so many times it is ridiculous. There have been Windows worms and viruses written to exploit computer populations with fewer than 20,000 vulnerable machines and they were ALL infected within 30 minutes of the virus/worm being released into the wild. In fact, in the past, one was written to exploit a vulnerable population of fewer than 125. If your Security by Obscurity claim were true, no one would have written those exploits.
_____________________________
I say:
This is cherry picking on your part. The first MAC I used in 1990 crashed constantly with a little bomb icon displayed saying “System Crashed. OK?” Now, you had no other choice but to click “OK” like it was just fine with me if I just lost my work. New to MACs, I didn’t realize it had a MACRO virus in it’s word processing software so I lost weeks of work and infected a branch office in New Jersey when I visited (and to think, they hated us because our group was from California. Think how i felt calling them and telling them their MACS now had the virus I brought on a disk.) You cite the examples of viruses written for less than 20,000 machines and then less for 125 machines. To little information to bolster your point. New operating system alreay infected? Then there’d be less than 20,000 live but the virus was written anticipating adoption (some buggy version of Windows is coming! Release the hounds!) by more computers. Small numbers of computers may reduce virus production (i.e., MACS) but if those few computers have high value information (Satellite) or are on the leading edge of the next technology, then yes - viruses are written in advance of wide exposure. Talking in terms of market - I haven’t heard that Ransomware was written for MACS but I could be wrong....
______________________
You said:There are now over 100 million Macs in the wild, with 99% of them running completely bare naked of any anti-virus protection and yet there are STILL zero viable viruses/worms in the wild after 17 years of OS X actually being in the wild itself. Yet, no one has succeeded in writing a successful computer virus/worm for the OS X system.
__________________
I say there may be 100 million Macs in the wild (how many are in 3rd world countries?)- how many of them are thought to house key information worth stealing? Business still = PC’s (Unless art or music). Who wants to steal money from “starving artists and musicians”? How about investment bankers (PC’s)? Now you’re talking.

You say: There is a legitimate reason why Apple Macs are far more secure than Windows. In addition, there are only 58 known Trojans in eight families for the Mac, and every one of them is known to the OS which will warn the user if he or she tries to download, install, or run any of them and require and administrator’s name and password to continue with any of those steps. It takes INDUSTRIAL STRENGTH STUPID to continue and be infected on a Mac with any one of them.

here are more than enough Macs in the wild to attract hackers and miscreants to hack into them, but they still have not. These data on user IT call center use is from LAST WEEK. . . and they are from a very reliable source, IBM, who is reporting on REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE, not from some fly-by-night Mac fanboy.
____________________________
I Say: If MACS gain enough market share and a reputation for housing high value information, the viruses will come.
_________________________________________
You say: The fact is, ransom note, that Macs can run far MORE software than any Windows computer can . . . because they are true UNIX™ computers capable of true multi-user multi-virtual machine environments. I have access to the entire libraries of everyone of those operating systems. I also have Virtual Machine instances available to me of THEOS, MS-DOS, Amiga-OS, the original Apple MacOS 9.2, and emulations of the C=64 and C=128, and Atari lines, which I can load in, should I have need of them. . . and access to all of their libraries of software.
________________________________
I say: “Can run” ? But they don’t. The software library is what I reference everytime I buy a PC and because Windows can’t limit software development to the extent that MAC can, more programmers write more software for more purposes, more competition etc. then MAC can feasible field. MAC has to license every piece of software it develops and when I go to look for a utility for MAC, if APple didn’t bless it, it doesn’t exist. With PC’s, I have access to more software actually written and sold or offered free. Apple’s theoretical advantage (i.e., your claim that Unix seals the deal) doesn’t mean anything to me if I can’t buy it or I have too few choices.
I’m glad you like Macs - I don’t think that software produced anywhere by anyone is bullet proof. You’ve heard that there are hacks into aircraft, pacemakers, self driving vehicles but you’re certain that Macs are invulnerable because...well because, they are Macs.
_________________________________