Posted on 02/06/2010 12:09:39 PM PST by driftdiver
When I am asked the question "Which is more secure, Mac or PC?" I find myself stumbling around for a response because I don't have a clear-cut answer. I use both. And I use antivirus software with both.
So I decided to conduct an informal survey of a bunch of security experts and see what they had to say in the hopes that people can use the information to help them come to their own conclusions.
Before I provide quotes from the 32 experts who participated in the survey, along with edited comments from an interview with a Microsoft representative and a link that Apple provided, I'd like to share some relevant research from antivirus vendor ESET.
More than half of Americans believe that PCs are "very" or "extremely" vulnerable to cybercrime attacks, while only 20 percent say the same about Macs, according to this ESET survey. (Credit: ESET)
ESET released the results of a survey in November related to awareness of cybercrime in the U.S. The survey of more than 1,000 people found that while both PC and Mac users perceive the Mac as being safer, Mac users are victims of cybercrime just as frequently as PC user
(Excerpt) Read more at news.cnet.com ...
Could it be because PC’s are 80-90 percent of the computer population?
Pretty well answers the whole debate.
whoop de do. On the Mac the vulnerability simply meant the adobe reader crashed. A Denial of Service failure. No possibilty of code execution. And that just for those few Mac users that bother Adobe using it instead of letting Preview handle the PDF File.
Very strange thing about that Mac botnet, Driftdiver. Nobody has EVER found an infected Mac member of it in the wild! Not even Symantec. . . who subsequently FIRED the two characters who published the article claiming it's discovery in the Virus Bulletin! To this day Symantec reports the virulence of the supposed Trojan that spread the Bot, which was included in a BitTorrent copy of the Trial version of iWork'09 that the torrent sites themselves listed as having only been download fewer than two dozen times before the infection was discovered, as "zero to 49"!!! Despite those bozos claim the bot was "20,000 Macs" large in their artcle. Not one. None. Zip. Nada.
And that one is like why the recipe for elephant stew is so hard to make. It's the first instruction. First you have to kill the elephant.
For that exploit to work, if you read the hackers paper, which I did, the hacker Awouls have had to have root access to the Mac to insert the code. First you have to kill the elephant. Once you've done that, the stew is easy.
same ole tired argument based on fallacy.
BZZZZZT !!!! Wrong!
This what comes of having Windows centric security people write these vulnerability warnings. IDefense goes on to say:
This vulnerability exists due to the way PDF files containing Type 1 fonts are handled. When processing a font with an overly large length, integer overflow could occur. This issue leads to heap corruption which can allow for arbitrary code execution.Except for one little problem with their Windows' centric thinking: the data heaps on Macs are non-executable. Arbitrary code cannot run in the heap on a Mac.
Probably a Window executabe malware of somekind that won't run in a Mac.
What's the fallacy. That the to, now ex-Symantec workers made up their story about the Macbot? Or that some one has to "not" find any to prove it doesn't exist? The fact is that Mac anti-virus vendors have put the profile of the so called bot into their indexes and it is NOT being reported as being found in the wild. Apple has NOT seen any being brought in for service with such an infection. The payload the bozos claimed it carried would have shown up in statistcal bank data, it hasn't. So what fallacy are you falsely attributing to my post, driftdiver? Please elucidate.
that macs have no security vulnerabilities.
As for me, I have yet to get any malware on my Mac running OS X sans AV for about 7 years.
And I haven’t had any malware on my windows PC for more than 9 years.
But you’re not counting AV as malware :-)
Well you’re right, I did install iTunes once.
There are several console-based browsers (elinks comes to mind immediately).
If you want a browser in your editor, you'll probably want to be using emacs. :-)
Your point about income differentials is a good one. However, the ‘market share’ canard has been completely debunked. Do a search on the “witty worm”. It’s a worm from a few years ago that was written and exploited even though the target universe was some 15-20k systems total. I suspect there are a few more than 20k Macs out there. If there were an easy way to subvert them, it would be done.
I think a direct answer to her question would be illuminating.
Can you point me to a site
that will automatically install a virus on my Mac?
I realize that all operating systems are vulnerable to stupid users, but I'd really be interested in seeing something like what she requested. It would surely put the argument of the safeness of Macs to rest if there is such a beast.
So you want me to direct someone to a hacker website. thats illegal and unethical
perhaps you don’t trust apples own security updates.
Please point out the law to me that says that you cannot direct someone to a 'hacker website'.
Especially when said reference was explicitly requested, and a direct response to said inquiry would explicitly identify the presented URL as being possibly malicious.
Years ago, when I had to use ms-windows computers regularly, I had a collection of viruses and trojans on hand to validate the functionality of anti-virus software. After all, what the heck good is it, if it doesn't actually work?
I don't even own a Mac. I'm a Unix/Linux guy because it suits the way I work better than the alternatives, so I don't even have a dog in this fight. I'm genuinely interested in an actual example of Mac viral and/or trojan code extant on the web. If you can't actually identify same, just say so.
there are several identified in the article that haven’t been addressed yet. why dont you look to those?
instead its the same tired argument.
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.