Posted on 09/19/2005 2:09:19 PM PDT by Panerai
Mac users are “operating under a false sense of security”, according to Symantec, and Firefox users will have to recognize that the open-source browser is currently a greater security risk than Internet Explorer.
Symantec’s latest Internet Security Threat Report, published Monday, found evidence that attackers are beginning to organize for attacks on the Mac operating system. Researchers also found that over the past six months, nearly twice as many vulnerabilities surfaced in Mozilla browsers as in Explorer.
“It is now clear that the Mac OS is increasingly becoming a target for the malicious activity, contrary to popular belief that the Mac OS is immune to traditional security concerns,” the report said.
Symantec said OS X - based on BSD Unix - now shares many of the security concerns affecting Unix users. “As Mac OS X users demand more features and implement more ports of popular UNIX applications, vulnerabilities and exploits targeting this operating system and its underlying code base are likely to increase,” Symantec said in the report.
The number of security bugs confirmed by Apple has remained about the same over the past two six-month reporting periods, with no widespread exploits, Symantec said. But an analysis of a rootkit called Mac OS X/Weapox - based on the AdoreBSD rootkit - indicates the situation might not last much longer. “While there have been no reports of widespread infection to date, this Trojan serves to demonstrate that as Mac OS X increases in popularity so too will the scrutiny it receives from potential attackers,” the report said. “Mac users may be operating under a false sense of security.”
(Excerpt) Read more at macworld.com ...
When Symantec System Works proved incompatable with OS 10.4, I deleted it and got a noticable increase in my G5's response.
Bull. You can't write an effective virus for OSX because of its Unix base. There has never been an OSX virus, other than Word macros, etc.
EXACTLY! I paid for a years AV protection and after the first download it no longer worked. I could not get a single response from Symantec. If it were in my power I would send them a virus but I don't think their server handles any inbound traffic except credit card numbers.
A married couple decided to stick with Symantec, rather than go with a free option, because they were satisified with Symantec. Time came where they had to renew their subscription to continue using the product. They re-upped their subscription, didn't receive the e-mail with their billing info. When time come that the CC bill came in the mail, their statement showed Symantec received payment and cashed the money. I installed AVG on their system.
Sure you can, no one has bothered.
Well, sure. If you make your living from virus propagation, you're bound to prefer Windows.
Reiterating what I've said already on THIS thread, I've owned Windows machines for 12 years, and not one system failure or virus attack. But, then again, it appears you didn't bother to read my previous post.
IMO, that sense of security comes less from a confidence in the Mac OS, than it does from a near-religious conviction on the part of Mac users that hackers really only hate Microsoft.
I won't pile all Mac users into that box, but in my experience there are a lot of people for whom "being a Mac user" includes a hefty dose of evangelistic zeal.
As for the hackers, they do include a goodly number of anti-MS types. But hackers are hackers first, and Mac OS is just another target.
Not every windows user is as saavy as you. Nor are Mac users. My point though is that as a casual computer home user, you WILL be more likely to have issues with viruses if you use Windows machines. I know 10 people right now whose machines are running slow because of the numerous viruses they have unknowingly picked up. Not that Macs don't have issues, just not due to viruses.
I am a Mac user and I am delusional
Yep!
OK, now for my window sucks comment: Macs are just better machines running a much better operating system.
Feel better now.
Anyone else notice Symantec's NAV and other security prices going up lately?
Anyone who "unknowingly" picks up a virus these days is fiddling with the default settings.
And then you threw your money at me and bragged about having no repeat customers. Which makes me think that you make your living from virus propagation and elimination. Which means you would be poorer if there were fewer Windows machines out there. And the Mac folks don't have to work nearly as hard, or pay so much money for your services. Which was my point.
My point exactly BigSky. Most home users in my opinion would be better served with a Mac. They really are more user friendly and harder to screw up.
Symantec hasn't produced an acceptable security app for Macs since OS 8.5. IIRC, that was around NAV version 5 or 6 for Mac.
They haven't figured out OS X yet. And when you install the Symantec AV app on an OS X Mac, it puts files all over the place. It practically takes an exorcism to get rid of it.
I might consider Clam AV at some point, but never a Symantec product.
I won't even use Symantec on my WinXP PC. I use Grisoft AVG 7.0 Pro.
Well, I'm a Mac user (as well as Windows when I have to), and I would argue the exact opposite.
Hackers don't hate Microsoft - they LOVE Microsoft.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner.
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.