I believe that's splitting hairs. An attack on your machine that the user has no "real" control over is a bad thing. In fact, I'd say a man in the middle attack is just as bad if not worse. But having said that, if you read the security bulletins from Mac, it shows there have been several buffer overrun issues that allows an attacker to run arbitrary code. Just because one hasn't written the virus, doesn't mean it can't be done. However, with Windows offering so many targets why waste your time on Mac? And that was my original point.
Analogy. I wrote an OS that does everything I need...it's secure because it hasn't been attacked by a virus. That is not a true statement. It's most likely not secure and it's just appears to be secure because no one has attacked it. Most times windows gets exploited AFTER they release the patch because hackers no enterprises don't apply patches quick enough. And that is a Windows problem (but it's also an industry problem). Windows has a bigger footprint in the environment so it's harder to ensure they are up-to-date enterprise wide. So once again why waste resources on developing a Virus for the Mac?
The results would be the Mac bigots would hate you and no one else would give a rats behind. Write a virus for Windows and all the ABM crowd will sing your praises til you die.
Just trying to define a bet.
However, with Windows offering so many targets why waste your time on Mac? And that was my original point.
So they can claim to be the first. Hackers run on pride. Also, even though Mac is a small percentage it would give that one first virus writer a pool of over 20 million machines all to himself.