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 ...
Uhmmmm Mac Central?
Security is just a small reason why I use Macs. But I tell you what, in 8 years of using them I have never had mine down due to any virus.
FUD ping!
I would take this a lot more seriously if it did not include such preposterousities.
The fact (if it is one) that over the past six months, nearly twice as many vulnerabilities surfaced in Mozilla browsers as in Explorer doesn't imply "more security risk" at all.
Why does IE have vulnerabilities unpatched for months, and FF has them unpatched for hours?
I can't take this seriously at all. Just because the Firefox developers admit it when a bug is found and have it fixed within days, and Microsoft doesn't admit a bug exist untill there are exploits already taking over your pc before fixing doesnt mean firefox has more bugs.. It just means Firefox bugs are reported and fixed, while Internet Explorer Bugs are kept secret and only fixed when MS deems in necessary.
Of course, that doesn't mean that IE is any safer.
Beware the crime statistics quoted by a lock salesman.
They are telling us that MAC users are delusional, okay I can understand that point of view....lol
Sounds like it came from Microsoft.
In 22 years of using CP/M, MS-DOS and various flavors of Windows, I've never had a virus survive long enough to execute on any of my systems, much less take one down or even harm one. It's not all that hard to secure one's system.
Never used Macs; they don't run the software that I need to run and they're overpriced for what you get.
Sounds like it came from Microsoft.
Symantec telling Mac users they are delusional over security ping
Security is just a small reason why I use a PC. But I tell you what, in 12 years of using them I have never had mine down due to any virus.
I am not a big fan of Microsoft either, but lets face it, when they had 80+% of the market they had 95% of the hackers looking to exploit them. Now that people have a decent choice and more and more of us switch then these other companies are finding out what its like to have thousands of people hacking their code instead of a dozen. People start seriously hacking hard enough and they will find close to as many vulnerabilities in Mac and FF, just watch the number of patches keep rising.
Security is just a small reason why I use a PC. But I tell you what, in 12 years of using them I have never had mine down due to any virus.
You're both probably telling the truth. But I'll bet I know who worked harder.
I've never even had the blue screen of death, but then again, I'm not loading a bunch of unneccesary gunk onto the system that brings it to a screeching halt.
I did not know that.
What do you base this bit of wisdom on, pray tell?
Sounds like the old "nobody wants to hack it because there's only 20 million (or whatever) machines out there" argument.
Which makes me wonder why there are viruses for freakin' CELL PHONES with 100k units out there?
If you said me, you're right. I make $50 an hour, and not one repeat customer.
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.