Ho hum - I'll be back in a year, maybe you'll have woken up by then. Once you do, read the link I posted, it'll still be more current than what you presented.
And yes, perhaps troublemakers such as yourself should re-read their posts! SO angry!
Some people are forced by their ego to self-affirmation of their poor decisions due to ignorance. This despite his apparently not being able to comprehend any basic information security concepts or choosing to ignore such.
"More software updates means they must be doing something right. My contractor, electrician and plumber have made trips every week to make repairs to the house they built for me seven years ago. My house must be better than everyone else's."
Ho hum - I'll be back in a year, maybe you'll have woken up by then. Once you do, read the link I posted, it'll still be more current than what you presented.
Tell me, mister kustardking… how will you be back in a year if… you are unable to post…?
Aside from said person not reading my posts which clearly indicate that (although Apple has rarely needed the ability to push security updates daily) they have the capability to push security updates daily. As most of us know, there is a vast difference between having the ability to push security updates every day and needing to push security updates every day.
His whole premise of marketshare drives the number of viruses is simply irrational and stupid. He makes no effort to consider how the OS could have an effect on the efforts needed. He gives no explanation why Apple has increased their viruses by 1% for each 1% gain in PC marketshare. He gives no explanation as how Macs had more viruses in the 90s with less marketshare.
By his definition the installed base has absolutely nothing to do with the interest in targeting a platform. It's all about marketshare! That the only relevant metric is how much one has in comparison to another.
Win7 has less infections than WinXP but there are more viruses for Windows than ever before. There hasn't been a drop in the number of viruses just an improvement with MS being able to prevent them. But in his mind there is no protection except to have low marketshare, except that Mac OS X doesn't even have a comparable number of active malware much less viruses.
Finally, where are all the iOS viruses? There were over 150 million iOS-based devices in 2011. Where are all the viruses for it? You count Mac and Apple TV having the same core OS and you have about half the number of Windows licenses sold worldwide. So that's 33% marketshare to 66% between the two and yet I've seen no viruses that are bringing iOS to its knees.
His whole premise of marketshare drives the number of viruses is simply irrational and stupid. He makes no effort to consider how the OS could have an effect on the efforts needed. He gives no explanation why Apple has increased their viruses by 1% for each 1% gain in PC marketshare. He gives no explanation as how Macs had more viruses in the 90s with less marketshare.
By his definition the installed base has absolutely nothing to do with the interest in targeting a platform. It's all about marketshare! That the only relevant metric is how much one has in comparison to another.
Win7 has less infections than WinXP but there are more viruses for Windows than ever before. There hasn't been a drop in the number of viruses just an improvement with MS being able to prevent them. But in his mind there is no protection except to have low marketshare, except that Mac OS X doesn't even have a comparable number of active malware much less viruses.
Finally, where are all the iOS viruses? There were over 150 million iOS-based devices in 2011. Where are all the viruses for it? You count Mac and Apple TV having the same core OS and you have about half the number of Windows licenses sold worldwide. So that's 33% marketshare to 66% between the two and yet I've seen no viruses that are bringing iOS to its knees.
Considering that Apple's customer demographic is more urban, more educated and earns more money as a result, Apple systems should be a prime target for exploits. Of course, there are many possible explanations why Apple customers aren't exploited via malicious software but, given the ever broadening demographics as well as considerable and increasing market share, the privacy and security measures provided by Apple is the most likely explanation.
I'm sure after the Australia 4G advertising lawsuit, Apple's lawyers scoured all of the promotional material to see what could be future lawsuit material. If anyone lost any data to a Mac virus and Apple is saying "to protect your data, do nothing", it's an automatic lawsuit. Going forward, I'm sure all advertising will be going through the lawyers for a final check.
There are NO Mac viruses in the wild!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
PR. They had to.
The average user doesn't know the difference between "trojan" and "virus" and "malware." In fact, Joe Lunchbox lumps everything into the "virus" category.
Next time a trojan shows up for OS X (we get one or two every few years, Lol) they'll scream "virus!!!" and there goes the neighbourhood.
And whereas media coverage about the precious few pieces of OS X malware in the past was next to nonexistent, Apple's brand name has
garnered more attention over the past few years than ever. Count on the news about next trojan (maybe sometime next year)
to clog tech news sites and mainstream news outlets.
Apple doesn't need to deal with that kind of bullish*t. Can't blame them for modifying the PR blurb.
It wasn't necessary, but the possibility for negative PR arising from consumer misunderstanding (or rather, ignorance) is far too great.
Exactly!
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmsley
It's perfectly reasonably for Joe Lunchbox to think so. Whether it's a worm or virus, or an STD, he doesn't care, "It just doesn't work, fix it" he yells.
Regardless, his understanding should be that "OS X doesn't need extra anti-viral software, because Apple will issue a security update ASAP if there is anything wrong". It really doesn't make sense that they would need to teach us anything too technical.
Should I be worried about my iOS running on 'unsecure wireless networks' yet?
No it's not so reasonable. I'm an administrator for my small office and i have to deal with a few people constantly telling them how to best behave or how to do common sense computing, and guess what those people are exactly the ones that are technologically challenged. Those people always disregard my suggestions or advice and thus i had to proceed to lock down even more. So in conclusion if the average Joe,"doesn't care" i say f$*$@ him and his problems sometimes because he didn't care from the get go. Now he's just paying for his own stupidity, recklessness and lack of decent IT knowledge.
Back to topic:
I'll post some great resources for everybody that still thinks that OS market share has a direct correlation to the malware pool for it:
Apple needs to get serious about security fast. At least they are not being so crazy about how safe it is.
I hope Apple gets security build back up to when it had a smaller market-share.
Sadly i think it will not happen.
My bigger concern is now that most OSX users are much less careful than most Windows users....
Yeah... no. You clearly don't know what you are talking about. Since the release of Lion Apple has been so serious about security I'm wondering if they have obsessive compulsive disorder.
Older versions of OSX back when Apple had a smaller market share had the worst security you could imagine and were far easier to break into. Windows 7 and even Ubuntu had better security than OSX Leopard and Snow Leopard by a considerable degree.
OSX Lion, on the other hand, has had all of its security features go through a Major overhaul. ASLR in OSX was vastly improved and is now on par with the implementations in Windows7. The Non-Executable bit has had some little tweaks made to it and, of course, you have the BSD-UNIX permissions system. Even if you manage to get past the ASLR you'll end up in the Application Sandbox and it is nearly impossible to get out of a sandboxed environment (like Google Chrome, only for the entire OS).
This is why I upgraded to OS Lion the day it came out.
To put it simply:
Lion is Fort Knox inside another Fort Knox.
Snow Leopard is a car parked on the street where the owner forgot to lock the door. But you're not quite sure if its unlocked or not when you walk past it.
Leopard is your house with a neon sign above it saying "We don't lock our doors or own an alarm. Keys to the Audi are in the vase in the hall".
To put it simply:
Lion is Fort Knox inside another Fort Knox.
Snow Leopard is a car parked on the street where the owner forgot to lock the door. But you're not quite sure if its unlocked or not when you walk past it.
Leopard is your house with a neon sign above it saying "We don't lock our doors or own an alarm. Keys to the Audi are in the vase in the hall".
Now that's not the case… Not a bad analogy, though.
Yet after 10 years and millions of users, we're yet to see a single virus affect Mac OS X. True it has been affected by malware, but not the deluge that engulfs the Windows world.
The real problem is this:
many (most?) OSX users have never had to deal with viruses/moved from PC and have stopped dealing with them.
People who use OSX are *generally* not very well prepared to deal with an influx of viruses.
People who use Windows are *generally* prepared to deal with the viruses.
Also note, Many Windows users have AV programs, which stop viruses.... not so many for OSX.
The thing about Windows, is that Microsoft issues patches very frequently for viruses. I believe the last huge one that hit OSX had been patched in Windows for a month or something before Apple did anything about it.
It is an issue of users who in general are less prepared to deal with viruses, and a company which does not have a much experience in dealing with viruses.
The issue becomes a problem because OSX is gaining enough market share that it may become more profitable to target solely OSX. Why?
1. in general people with OSX are richer as most Windows machines are cheaper than Macs.
2. in general people using OSX are more likely to be tricked by viruses/not worry about them
3. Apple is very slow (so far) in responding to viruses that affect many people.
If you want to debate this further please PM me !
EDIT: added reply to this post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by benanderson89
Yeah... no. You clearly don't know what you are talking about. Since the release of Lion Apple has been so serious about security I'm wondering if they have obsessive compulsive disorder.
Older versions of OSX back when Apple had a smaller market share had the worst security you could imagine and were far easier to break into. Windows 7 and even Ubuntu had better security than OSX Leopard and Snow Leopard by a considerable degree.
OSX Lion, on the other hand, has had all of its security features go through a Major overhaul. ASLR in OSX was vastly improved and is now on par with the implementations in Windows7. The Non-Executable bit has had some little tweaks made to it and, of course, you have the BSD-UNIX permissions system. Even if you manage to get past the ASLR you'll end up in the Application Sandbox and it is nearly impossible to get out of a sandboxed environment (like Google Chrome, only for the entire OS).
This is why I upgraded to OS Lion the day it came out.
To put it simply:
Lion is Fort Knox inside another Fort Knox.
Snow Leopard is a car parked on the street where the owner forgot to lock the door. But you're not quite sure if its unlocked or not when you walk past it.
Leopard is your house with a neon sign above it saying "We don't lock our doors or own an alarm. Keys to the Audi are in the vase in the hall".
I do not upgrade OSX often.... so yes, you may be right about newer version.
however, is the majority of OSX running Lion?
and being on Par with Windows 7 is nothing special... my bigger concern as noted above is that Apple took so much longer to fix the vulnerability, I believe it was about a month after Microsoft fixed the problem, and announced it in its patch....
As a note, if i ever stop using a thinkpad for work (cough when i have to buy another computer.... WHY YOU STOP USING 16:10 LENOVO!!!) I will be sure that any Mac i get will have Lion or better
many (most?) OSX users have never had to deal with viruses/moved from PC and have stopped dealing with them.
People who use OSX are *generally* not very well prepared to deal with an influx of viruses.
People who use Windows are *generally* prepared to deal with the viruses.
Also note, Many Windows users have AV programs, which stop viruses.... not so many for OSX.
The thing about Windows, is that Microsoft issues patches very frequently for viruses. I believe the last huge one that hit OSX had been patched in Windows for a month or something before Apple did anything about it.
It is an issue of users who in general are less prepared to deal with viruses, and a company which does not have a much experience in dealing with viruses.
The issue becomes a problem because OSX is gaining enough market share that it may become more profitable to target solely OSX. Why?
1. in general people with OSX are richer as most Windows machines are cheaper than Macs.
2. in general people using OSX are more likely to be tricked by viruses/not worry about them
3. Apple is very slow (so far) in responding to viruses that affect many people.
If you want to debate this further please PM me !
EDIT: added reply to this post:
I do not upgrade OSX often.... so yes, you may be right about newer version.
however, is the majority of OSX running Lion?
and being on Par with Windows 7 is nothing special... my bigger concern as noted above is that Apple took so much longer to fix the vulnerability, I believe it was about a month after Microsoft fixed the problem, and announced it in its patch....
As a note, if i ever stop using a thinkpad for work (cough when i have to buy another computer.... WHY YOU STOP USING 16:10 LENOVO!!!) I will be sure that any Mac i get will have Lion or better
Every single one of these points has been covered earlier by a post in this very thread.
People who use Windows are *generally* prepared to deal with the viruses.
No, they generally aren't. I've found that most people think that having AVS installed means they are protected. They don't realize that they need to keep the app and virus definitions up to date. You'd be amazed by how many companies I've been to that don't even have up to date definitions on their AVS.
No, they generally aren't. I've found that most people think that having AVS installed means they are protected. They don't realize that they need to keep the app and virus definitions up to date. You've be amazed by how many companies I've been to that don't even have up to definitions on their AVS.
Not only this but people forget that AV software just like any kind of software has it's own vunerabilities that can be exploited. That's one of the reason i don't encourage AV on Macs
To be honest I am surprised that Apple managed to make such misleading "virus" claims for such a long time.
The earlier campaigns that mentioned the 114000 windows viruses were disingenuous in the extreme. In one sentence Apple define all windows malware as viruses but in the following sentance that definition changes to virus in its strictest sense when saying that there were no OSX viruses.
The flaw in such a strategy was that if they wanted to be honest abut the relative merits of security on both platforms, they would have had to say, for example, "windows has a lot of malware but we have much less". That doesn't sound as reassuring as "buy a MAC, you don't need to do anything to be 100% safe"
Sure there are no known OSx viruses but the marketing department were chopping and changing the meanings of words in an attempt to convince owners that OSx is bullet proof when Apple knew it wasn't.
The recent rewording is welcomed but still stretches the truth. Apple now claim that it is not possible to become a victim of malware without one intentionally installing malicious code. If I were a Flashback victim I'd be pretty hacked off at the suggestion that I infected my MAC intentionally.
I don't know if there will ever be a true OSx virus but until Apple start to be honest about exploits/worms/trojans etc, owners will refuse to take adequate steeps to protect themselves. Perhaps the amendments are part of a gradual move to be more open and honest about security with Apple slowly digging themselves out of the "OSX is bullet proof" hole.
Not only this but people forget that AV software just like any kind of software has it's own vunerabilities that can be exploited. That's one of the reason i don't encourage AV on Macs
Not sure what you mean when you say that AV can be exploited, do you have any examples?
I guess another problem with AV is that owners don't realise that no one product will suffice (nor that there are lags). Different firms will treat "suspect" software differently, for example when the scumbags at Micro Billing Systems started to hijack the PCs of people that had visited porn sites, none of the big AV vendors were willing to treat it as malware, even though it rendered the PC unusable, because MBS argued that users had agreed to the ToCs and it was therefore not malware.
That said, I personally think one is morally obliged to secure their computer.
Not sure what you mean when you say that AV can be exploited, do you have any examples?
I guess another problem with AV is that owners don't realise that no one product will suffice (nor that there are lags). Different firms will treat "suspect" software differently, for example when the scumbags at Micro Billing Systems started to hijack the PCs of people that had visited porn sites, none of the big AV vendors were willing to treat it as malware, even though it rendered the PC unusable, because MBS argued that users had agreed to the ToCs and it was therefore not malware.
That said, I personally think one is morally obliged to secure their computer.
Here is a quick, easy list of 47 known exploits of various anti-malware software implementations, in particular this is the results of a search for "Sophos" which offers a well known security suite for Mac OS X.
Are you suggesting that Mac users should be obligated to use software that removes malware targeted at Microsoft Windows operating systems thus causing Mac users to experience performance issues and open potential exploits on their systems as well?
Not sure what you mean when you say that AV can be exploited, do you have any examples?
I guess another problem with AV is that owners don't realise that no one product will suffice (nor that there are lags). Different firms will treat "suspect" software differently, for example when the scumbags at Micro Billing Systems started to hijack the PCs of people that had visited porn sites, none of the big AV vendors were willing to treat it as malware, even though it rendered the PC unusable, because MBS argued that users had agreed to the ToCs and it was therefore not malware.
That said, I personally think one is morally obliged to secure their computer.
Your second paragraph captures a small part of AV software weakness. Other vulnerabilities are more technically oriented.
Your last statement is a no brainer though! Of course everyone is morally obliged to secure their computer but that's an ideal statement. Not everyone is capable by itself of securing their own computer and not everyone cares about it or has the power to let an expert do it (e.g. a technologically challenged secretary). Moreover, everyone should first practice safe computing, common sense, reality awareness etc. before weighing the benefits and disadvantages of using AV products or other scanners/malware.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by kustardking
Ho hum - I'll be back in a year, maybe you'll have woken up by then. Once you do, read the link I posted, it'll still be more current than what you presented.And yes, perhaps troublemakers such as yourself should re-read their posts! SO angry!
And he's gone.
(Maybe)
He will be back. He can't help himself.
Some people are forced by their ego to self-affirmation of their poor decisions due to ignorance. This despite his apparently not being able to comprehend any basic information security concepts or choosing to ignore such.
"More software updates means they must be doing something right. My contractor, electrician and plumber have made trips every week to make repairs to the house they built for me seven years ago. My house must be better than everyone else's."
Tell me, mister kustardking… how will you be back in a year if… you are unable to post…?
Of course, I joke.
Well ... I did report him for insulting other members. I am not sure why he is still here.
His whole premise of marketshare drives the number of viruses is simply irrational and stupid. He makes no effort to consider how the OS could have an effect on the efforts needed. He gives no explanation why Apple has increased their viruses by 1% for each 1% gain in PC marketshare. He gives no explanation as how Macs had more viruses in the 90s with less marketshare.
By his definition the installed base has absolutely nothing to do with the interest in targeting a platform. It's all about marketshare! That the only relevant metric is how much one has in comparison to another.
Win7 has less infections than WinXP but there are more viruses for Windows than ever before. There hasn't been a drop in the number of viruses just an improvement with MS being able to prevent them. But in his mind there is no protection except to have low marketshare, except that Mac OS X doesn't even have a comparable number of active malware much less viruses.
Finally, where are all the iOS viruses? There were over 150 million iOS-based devices in 2011. Where are all the viruses for it? You count Mac and Apple TV having the same core OS and you have about half the number of Windows licenses sold worldwide. So that's 33% marketshare to 66% between the two and yet I've seen no viruses that are bringing iOS to its knees.
Considering that Apple's customer demographic is more urban, more educated and earns more money as a result, Apple systems should be a prime target for exploits. Of course, there are many possible explanations why Apple customers aren't exploited via malicious software but, given the ever broadening demographics as well as considerable and increasing market share, the privacy and security measures provided by Apple is the most likely explanation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada
I'm sure after the Australia 4G advertising lawsuit, Apple's lawyers scoured all of the promotional material to see what could be future lawsuit material. If anyone lost any data to a Mac virus and Apple is saying "to protect your data, do nothing", it's an automatic lawsuit. Going forward, I'm sure all advertising will be going through the lawyers for a final check.
There are NO Mac viruses in the wild!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
PR. They had to.
The average user doesn't know the difference between "trojan" and "virus" and "malware." In fact, Joe Lunchbox lumps everything into the "virus" category.
Next time a trojan shows up for OS X (we get one or two every few years, Lol) they'll scream "virus!!!" and there goes the neighbourhood.
And whereas media coverage about the precious few pieces of OS X malware in the past was next to nonexistent, Apple's brand name has
garnered more attention over the past few years than ever. Count on the news about next trojan (maybe sometime next year)
to clog tech news sites and mainstream news outlets.
Apple doesn't need to deal with that kind of bullish*t. Can't blame them for modifying the PR blurb.
It wasn't necessary, but the possibility for negative PR arising from consumer misunderstanding (or rather, ignorance) is far too great.
Exactly!
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmsley
It's perfectly reasonably for Joe Lunchbox to think so. Whether it's a worm or virus, or an STD, he doesn't care, "It just doesn't work, fix it" he yells.
Regardless, his understanding should be that "OS X doesn't need extra anti-viral software, because Apple will issue a security update ASAP if there is anything wrong". It really doesn't make sense that they would need to teach us anything too technical.
Should I be worried about my iOS running on 'unsecure wireless networks' yet?
No it's not so reasonable. I'm an administrator for my small office and i have to deal with a few people constantly telling them how to best behave or how to do common sense computing, and guess what those people are exactly the ones that are technologically challenged. Those people always disregard my suggestions or advice and thus i had to proceed to lock down even more. So in conclusion if the average Joe,"doesn't care" i say f$*$@ him and his problems sometimes because he didn't care from the get go. Now he's just paying for his own stupidity, recklessness and lack of decent IT knowledge.
Back to topic:
I'll post some great resources for everybody that still thinks that OS market share has a direct correlation to the malware pool for it:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/04/01/the-unavoidable-malware-myth-why-apple-wont-inherit-microsofts-malware-crown/
Secunia has issued a total of 15 Secunia [URL=http://secunia.com/advisories/product/27467/?task=advisories_2012]advisories in 2012 for Microsoft Windows 7[/URL]. Currently, 0% (0 out of 15) are marked as unpatched.
Secunia has issued a total of 15 Secunia [URL=http://secunia.com/advisories/product/13223/?task=advisories_2012]advisories in 2012 for Microsoft Windows Vista[/URL]. Currently, 0% (0 out of 15) are marked as unpatched.
Secunia has issued a total of 11 Secunia [URL=http://secunia.com/advisories/product/16/?task=advisories_2012]advisories in 2012 for Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition[/URL]. Currently, 0% (0 out of 11) are marked as unpatched.
Secunia has issued a total of 16 Secunia [URL=http://secunia.com/advisories/product/22/?task=advisories_2012]advisories in 2012 for Microsoft Windows XP Professional[/URL]. Currently, [I][B]19% (3 out of 16) are marked as unpatched[/B][/I] with the most severe being rated Less critical
You simply don't need as many patches when your product isn't riddled with vulnerabilities.
[URL=http://forums.appleinsider.com/image/id/169416/width/443/height/270][IMG]http://forums.appleinsider.com/image/id/169416/width/443/height/270[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=http://forums.appleinsider.com/image/id/169415/width/443/height/270][IMG]http://forums.appleinsider.com/image/id/169415/width/443/height/270[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=http://forums.appleinsider.com/image/id/169420/width/443/height/270][IMG]http://forums.appleinsider.com/image/id/169420/width/443/height/270[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=http://forums.appleinsider.com/image/id/169425/width/443/height/270][IMG]http://forums.appleinsider.com/image/id/169425/width/443/height/270[/IMG][/URL]
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicolbolas
Apple needs to get serious about security fast. At least they are not being so crazy about how safe it is.
I hope Apple gets security build back up to when it had a smaller market-share.
Sadly i think it will not happen.
My bigger concern is now that most OSX users are much less careful than most Windows users....
Yeah... no. You clearly don't know what you are talking about. Since the release of Lion Apple has been so serious about security I'm wondering if they have obsessive compulsive disorder.
Older versions of OSX back when Apple had a smaller market share had the worst security you could imagine and were far easier to break into. Windows 7 and even Ubuntu had better security than OSX Leopard and Snow Leopard by a considerable degree.
OSX Lion, on the other hand, has had all of its security features go through a Major overhaul. ASLR in OSX was vastly improved and is now on par with the implementations in Windows7. The Non-Executable bit has had some little tweaks made to it and, of course, you have the BSD-UNIX permissions system. Even if you manage to get past the ASLR you'll end up in the Application Sandbox and it is nearly impossible to get out of a sandboxed environment (like Google Chrome, only for the entire OS).
This is why I upgraded to OS Lion the day it came out.
To put it simply:
Lion is Fort Knox inside another Fort Knox.
Snow Leopard is a car parked on the street where the owner forgot to lock the door. But you're not quite sure if its unlocked or not when you walk past it.
Leopard is your house with a neon sign above it saying "We don't lock our doors or own an alarm. Keys to the Audi are in the vase in the hall".
Now that's not the case…
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiA
If Windows was so battle hardened and perfect it would be impenetrable. Yet with Windows 7 still requires antivirus because Windows 7 vulnerable to 8 out of 10 viruses.
Even Microsoft acknowledges that its current Windows 7 requires anti-virus software:
How can I help protect my computer from viruses?
Yet after 10 years and millions of users, we're yet to see a single virus affect Mac OS X. True it has been affected by malware, but not the deluge that engulfs the Windows world.
The real problem is this:
many (most?) OSX users have never had to deal with viruses/moved from PC and have stopped dealing with them.
People who use OSX are *generally* not very well prepared to deal with an influx of viruses.
People who use Windows are *generally* prepared to deal with the viruses.
Also note, Many Windows users have AV programs, which stop viruses.... not so many for OSX.
The thing about Windows, is that Microsoft issues patches very frequently for viruses. I believe the last huge one that hit OSX had been patched in Windows for a month or something before Apple did anything about it.
It is an issue of users who in general are less prepared to deal with viruses, and a company which does not have a much experience in dealing with viruses.
The issue becomes a problem because OSX is gaining enough market share that it may become more profitable to target solely OSX. Why?
1. in general people with OSX are richer as most Windows machines are cheaper than Macs.
2. in general people using OSX are more likely to be tricked by viruses/not worry about them
3. Apple is very slow (so far) in responding to viruses that affect many people.
If you want to debate this further please PM me
EDIT: added reply to this post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by benanderson89
Yeah... no. You clearly don't know what you are talking about. Since the release of Lion Apple has been so serious about security I'm wondering if they have obsessive compulsive disorder.
Older versions of OSX back when Apple had a smaller market share had the worst security you could imagine and were far easier to break into. Windows 7 and even Ubuntu had better security than OSX Leopard and Snow Leopard by a considerable degree.
OSX Lion, on the other hand, has had all of its security features go through a Major overhaul. ASLR in OSX was vastly improved and is now on par with the implementations in Windows7. The Non-Executable bit has had some little tweaks made to it and, of course, you have the BSD-UNIX permissions system. Even if you manage to get past the ASLR you'll end up in the Application Sandbox and it is nearly impossible to get out of a sandboxed environment (like Google Chrome, only for the entire OS).
This is why I upgraded to OS Lion the day it came out.
To put it simply:
Lion is Fort Knox inside another Fort Knox.
Snow Leopard is a car parked on the street where the owner forgot to lock the door. But you're not quite sure if its unlocked or not when you walk past it.
Leopard is your house with a neon sign above it saying "We don't lock our doors or own an alarm. Keys to the Audi are in the vase in the hall".
I do not upgrade OSX often.... so yes, you may be right about newer version.
however, is the majority of OSX running Lion?
and being on Par with Windows 7 is nothing special... my bigger concern as noted above is that Apple took so much longer to fix the vulnerability, I believe it was about a month after Microsoft fixed the problem, and announced it in its patch....
As a note, if i ever stop using a thinkpad for work (cough when i have to buy another computer.... WHY YOU STOP USING 16:10 LENOVO!!!) I will be sure that any Mac i get will have Lion or better
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicolbolas
The real problem is this:
many (most?) OSX users have never had to deal with viruses/moved from PC and have stopped dealing with them.
People who use OSX are *generally* not very well prepared to deal with an influx of viruses.
People who use Windows are *generally* prepared to deal with the viruses.
Also note, Many Windows users have AV programs, which stop viruses.... not so many for OSX.
The thing about Windows, is that Microsoft issues patches very frequently for viruses. I believe the last huge one that hit OSX had been patched in Windows for a month or something before Apple did anything about it.
It is an issue of users who in general are less prepared to deal with viruses, and a company which does not have a much experience in dealing with viruses.
The issue becomes a problem because OSX is gaining enough market share that it may become more profitable to target solely OSX. Why?
1. in general people with OSX are richer as most Windows machines are cheaper than Macs.
2. in general people using OSX are more likely to be tricked by viruses/not worry about them
3. Apple is very slow (so far) in responding to viruses that affect many people.
If you want to debate this further please PM me
EDIT: added reply to this post:
I do not upgrade OSX often.... so yes, you may be right about newer version.
however, is the majority of OSX running Lion?
and being on Par with Windows 7 is nothing special... my bigger concern as noted above is that Apple took so much longer to fix the vulnerability, I believe it was about a month after Microsoft fixed the problem, and announced it in its patch....
As a note, if i ever stop using a thinkpad for work (cough when i have to buy another computer.... WHY YOU STOP USING 16:10 LENOVO!!!) I will be sure that any Mac i get will have Lion or better
Every single one of these points has been covered earlier by a post in this very thread.
Did you even read before posting?
No, they generally aren't. I've found that most people think that having AVS installed means they are protected. They don't realize that they need to keep the app and virus definitions up to date. You'd be amazed by how many companies I've been to that don't even have up to date definitions on their AVS.
To be honest I am surprised that Apple managed to make such misleading "virus" claims for such a long time.
The earlier campaigns that mentioned the 114000 windows viruses were disingenuous in the extreme. In one sentence Apple define all windows malware as viruses but in the following sentance that definition changes to virus in its strictest sense when saying that there were no OSX viruses.
The flaw in such a strategy was that if they wanted to be honest abut the relative merits of security on both platforms, they would have had to say, for example, "windows has a lot of malware but we have much less". That doesn't sound as reassuring as "buy a MAC, you don't need to do anything to be 100% safe"
Sure there are no known OSx viruses but the marketing department were chopping and changing the meanings of words in an attempt to convince owners that OSx is bullet proof when Apple knew it wasn't.
The recent rewording is welcomed but still stretches the truth. Apple now claim that it is not possible to become a victim of malware without one intentionally installing malicious code. If I were a Flashback victim I'd be pretty hacked off at the suggestion that I infected my MAC intentionally.
I don't know if there will ever be a true OSx virus but until Apple start to be honest about exploits/worms/trojans etc, owners will refuse to take adequate steeps to protect themselves. Perhaps the amendments are part of a gradual move to be more open and honest about security with Apple slowly digging themselves out of the "OSX is bullet proof" hole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Win7 has less infections than WinXP but there are more viruses for Windows than ever before. There hasn't been a drop in the number of viruses
With out the aid of a time machine, how could the number of viruses ever drop?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreiD
Not only this but people forget that AV software just like any kind of software has it's own vunerabilities that can be exploited. That's one of the reason i don't encourage AV on Macs
Not sure what you mean when you say that AV can be exploited, do you have any examples?
I guess another problem with AV is that owners don't realise that no one product will suffice (nor that there are lags). Different firms will treat "suspect" software differently, for example when the scumbags at Micro Billing Systems started to hijack the PCs of people that had visited porn sites, none of the big AV vendors were willing to treat it as malware, even though it rendered the PC unusable, because MBS argued that users had agreed to the ToCs and it was therefore not malware.
That said, I personally think one is morally obliged to secure their computer.
Here is a quick, easy list of 47 known exploits of various anti-malware software implementations, in particular this is the results of a search for "Sophos" which offers a well known security suite for Mac OS X.
Are you suggesting that Mac users should be obligated to use software that removes malware targeted at Microsoft Windows operating systems thus causing Mac users to experience performance issues and open potential exploits on their systems as well?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover
Not sure what you mean when you say that AV can be exploited, do you have any examples?
I guess another problem with AV is that owners don't realise that no one product will suffice (nor that there are lags). Different firms will treat "suspect" software differently, for example when the scumbags at Micro Billing Systems started to hijack the PCs of people that had visited porn sites, none of the big AV vendors were willing to treat it as malware, even though it rendered the PC unusable, because MBS argued that users had agreed to the ToCs and it was therefore not malware.
That said, I personally think one is morally obliged to secure their computer.
Read this paper pls! The net is abundant of such papers or publications regarding AV software vulnerabilities and exploits.
Your second paragraph captures a small part of AV software weakness. Other vulnerabilities are more technically oriented.
Your last statement is a no brainer though! Of course everyone is morally obliged to secure their computer but that's an ideal statement. Not everyone is capable by itself of securing their own computer and not everyone cares about it or has the power to let an expert do it (e.g. a technologically challenged secretary). Moreover, everyone should first practice safe computing, common sense, reality awareness etc. before weighing the benefits and disadvantages of using AV products or other scanners/malware.