Although “I was tethered to the World Wide Web, I was spared this ordeal. What saved me? These worms have no appetite for Macs, especially those running the latest operating system, OS X. And, it seems, I’m among the few here who uses a Mac,” writes Charles Haddad for BusinessWeek.
“And herein lies an irony. In bemoaning the Mac’s puny market share, the Wintel crowd misses the growing advantage of being small. Neither the disgruntled nor the crusader wants to bother attacking a computer that represents only 3% of worldwide PC sales. You see, going after such a small target won’t earn you front-page headlines,” Haddad misreports, parroting the “3% market share myth” yet again. See Syracuse Post-Standard: 3 percent is a false stat; Mac holds ’10 to 12 percent of the market for personal computers’ for an explanation of the myth. Haddad also insinuates that Mac OS X would be as porous as Windows if only Macs sat on 85% of the world’s desktops. This is just plain wrong, Charles. See: “Virus and worm problems not just due to market share; Windows inherently insecure vs. Mac OS X” and “Shattering the Mac OS X ‘security through obscurity’ myth”
Haddad continues, “That’s not to say that Macs are immune to attacks, but they’re as safe as you can get today. I’ve known only a handful of cases in which Macs or Mac networks were infected. Personally, I’ve yet to suffer an attack in 10 years of using e-mail and surfing the Web on various Macs. And I’ve lived dangerously, even disabling my virus protection while downloading files from unknown users off the Net. No savvy PC user would dare such a foolish thing. Today, my PC friends and co-workers live in constant fear of virus and worm attacks. It has greatly dampened their once torrid love affair with e-mail and the Internet.”
The full flawed and disappointing (even more so, coming from Haddad) article: “The Big Advantage in Being Small.”
Did you even read the article before posting your comments MDN? That article is right on. Haddad even says “…but they’re as safe as you can get today.”
All he is saying is that on top of the fact that macs are safe, hackers really don’t bother writing the viruses because a) Macs are a small percentage of comps, thus less bang for the buck, and b) it’s hard to write a virus for it anyway, so why waste time?
Quit getting your back up about everything!
David Zeiler has it right:
http://www.sunspot.net/technology/custom/pluggedin/bal-mac082803,0,1353478.column?coll=bal-business-indepth
rageous:
This comment from Haddad says it all – “I’ve known only a handful of cases in which Macs or Mac networks were infected”
That’s all you need to read to know he has no idea what he’s talking about. His statement “…save as you can get today” means nothing. Why are they as safe as you can get today? Because they aren’t targeted? Safe as you can get compared to what? And what degree of safety over other OS’s – if any?
He writes on a subject he knows nothing of. Bad journalism.
rageous,
Haddad writes, “Neither the disgruntled nor the crusader wants to bother attacking a computer that represents only 3% of worldwide PC sales. You see, going after such a small target won’t earn you front-page headlines.”
That is false. That is wrong. And since MDN posted direct quotes, they obviously did what you failed to do: read the article.
OS X roots on BSD makes it as robust as a worlwide developers communtiy working for 30 years would do to a OS: BSD Unix.
A virus author cracking into Windows sure creates disruption, damage and have all Windows users screaming in fear.
Deos s/he get any fame from that? c’mon, they are called script-kiddies !!! How lower that that as a self-esteem boost??
If a virus author would like fame and show off s/he would break into a BSD system and the OS X would be the ideal choice. If no one has yet succeeded is because it is difficult. The one succeeding would truly show off his technical skills and maybe even get a job at Apple.
IT IS a very attractive target, problem is it is way over average abilities.
Although Haddad has nice words he was afraid to tell the story straight: it is no visibility, it has nothing to do with market share. It is because you can even find kits for Windows virii on the net.
If you want to show off you’d go after a Unix/Linux/OS X system. Windows cracking is for BABIES!
Haddad was absolutely correct in saying most hackers won’t bither to write viruses for macs due to the small market. However, he also clearly states that this is not the ONLY reason viruses aren’t written.
Jebus the Mac fanatics really are a hostile bunch of late. Stop reading every article that mentions the fact that *gasp* Apple has a small market share as an afront on Apple Computer and Mac OS X. You guys are making a this into a distorted story.
As far as Haddad calling Macs “safe as you can get today” and then not explaining in depth what he means, for Christ’s sake how many times has someone posted on MDN “Macs are just safer” and not gone into it. This was by no means an in depth article, so the fact he didn’t dedicate 37 paragraphs to explaining one sentence was fine by me.
We all know if Mac OS X had roughly 90% share, people would be gunning to attack it. The fact that it doesn’t have that share, means fewer do. Why is this such a point of contention?
“…people would be gunning to attack it.”
They are. It’s just not that easy. And neither is this subject. Get over it.
Who said it was easy?
If I have two identical ultra secure homes, one in the country where few people try to get to it, and one in the ghetto with hundreds of criminals giving it the once over, the one in the country is more secure. Regardless of whether or not either gets broken in to.
Haddad regurgitates the “3% market share” myth as if only 3% of the world’s computers are running a Mac OS. This is wrong. And so are you, rageous.
rageous,
sorry to stress it but virus attack because of market share is a Microsoft distortion to get a positive PR out of a negative situation: “We are not attacked because we are bad, it is because we are everywhere”
Linux servers are at millions worldwide. Cracking one of them and having virus spreading the way it happens on Windows would create a much greater problem worldwide than infecting Windows (where the majority infected are anyway desktop users). You want to creat world disruption? Crack into Linux.
You want to play with kiddies? crack into Windows.
Nothing to do with visibility. Windows had already an enourmous number of virii from the very start: it was not visible then but already had the vast majority of virii. It has not changed with market share. It has been ALWAYS like that.
If Mac OS X had 90% presence (it has 12% on the internet based on Web site access logs, Linux ~9%) all those script-kiddies would still have to write virii and worms for Windows.
A virus author would LOVE to be able to say “I AM THE FIRST OS X, BSD UNIX succesfull author! Have it”
Windows? go download a virus-kit of the web and start playing with your toy. After you spent time shooting at FPS games that is.
Cheers
*shakes head*
Forget it. You guys win.
I’ll just wait until MDN posts the next pro Mac article and you guys rave about how smart and knowledgable he is and sit here with a silent grin.
I would just like to leave this discussion by saying that I never claimed OS X is only secure due to it’s small share. And neither, I believe, did Haddad. But it is a factor, even if that factor is a minimal one.
Another excellent reporting job from MDN. Yeah right.
rageous:
C’mon –are you really that thick? The point is, Charles makes his audience believe that the reason Mac OS X ‘seems’ more secure than Windows is because of marketshare. That is false. Mac OS X is inherently more secure than Windows. It wouldn’t matter if marketshare were reversed. Mac OS X would still be vastly more secure than Windows.
Get it?
Fort Knox is not secure because there’s only one
This equates the silliness of Windows being attacked because more visible and OS X, BSD Unix, Linux enjoy security-via-obscurity.
If you let Microsoft off the hook with this bait you can bet you will still have 100 security patches a year from anything from Redmont.
The problem is not Haddad right or wrong or not precise enough. The point is the all story of “security-via-obscurity” and Windows on the bullseye IS an escape route used Microsoft.
They even go with “other OSes has no more no less security problems”
This is what makes everything disgusting and Windows users wolrdwide gobble it and bend their heads.
Wake up buddy.
MDN is correct to call Haddad on this. What is MS paying Haddad to perpetuate the “security through obscurity” myth to cover up the fact that Microsoft has weak security and a shoddy OS? Haddad’s crap article is also deterring potential switchers who might figure, “If I switch, maybe everybody else will, too, and then we’ll all just get viruses on Macs because they’ll be popular.” This, rageous and journalist, is why MDN did good.
The problem with Windows that that MS makes idiotic “FEATURES” which are inviting people to write viruses to exploit them.
Why is Windows the only OS which allows every user to run apps as root/administrator as default?
Why does windows have features allowing other computers or apps via WWW control your computer ON BY DEFAULT!
Windows is for the masses, it is cheap and common.
Mission critical applications run other operating systems. EVEN MS SERVERS RUN *NIX OS’s.
MS has no faith in their own crappy product, only idiots and IT people worried about job security run windows servers.
If you read MS EULA, GOV’T, BANKS and HOSPITALS should not run any windows product. I do not want MS to access or autoupdate my servers or computers. I do not know what autoupdate is sending. It is an open portal a savy virus writer could take advantage of and control.
Like I said, Windows is for the masses. It is cheap and common. If you want security, GET ANOTHER OS!
I don’t want to defend Haddad but can you guys even read!?
“that represents only 3% of worldwide PC sales”
That percentage is totally right! Worldwide sales, not user base! For once somebody writes the right words after the percentage and you bash on him anyway!
I agree this article isn’t totally right but it’s not totally wrong either…
Anyone who uses this bogus 3% crap as ZERO credibility as an expert in this field.
Sales has nothing to do with this!
If they are trying to make a case for the number of Macs in use on the planet as a reason for lack of virus problems, then installed base is the number that matters and any INFORMED reader knows that Apple holds about 11% of that worldwide.
Either way, the whole premise is ridiculous! The reason Macs don’t have virus problems is because the operating systems are vastly superior and more secure than Windows.
Sheesh! It truly amazes me how fricking ignorant the press is regarding Macintosh. The moronic userbase is bad enough, but when you have the computer press driving these untruths home on a daily basis, it is no wonder Apple has trouble selling more machines to the average SHEEP.
“We all know if Mac OS X had roughly 90% share, people would be gunning to attack it. The fact that it doesn’t have that share, means fewer do. Why is this such a point of contention?”
Because the whole idea is absurd and we are tired of idiots like yourself spreading such BS as fact around the internet! Popularity has nothing to do with it! The fact of the matter is that 99% of the virus writers are lousy programmers and can’t crack a system that is designed to be secure.
Windows is nothing more than a BUSY BOX for baby virus writers to ply their skills. It is so fricking easy to exploit that even a first year programmer can do it!
But % of sales is not the relevant number in terms of number of targets. (Unless a virus writer decides they only want to attack computers sold this month.)
Actually, our functioning user base as a percentage of overall functioning units (as opposed to malfunctioning units or disfunctionally users in a funk) increases when one of these virii are functional. Then there’s the 2% who crash three or more times a day anyway, the 5% who crash twice a day and the 15% who crash everyday, more than half of which can’t fix their machines without a techie, and I figure our functioning user base is between 16 and 18% going to 50% when everyone is chasing patches.
rageous:
saying “We all know if Mac OS X had roughly 90% share, people would be gunning to attack it. The fact that it doesn’t have that share, means fewer do. Why is this such a point of contention?”
Is the same theory of security-via-obscurity, nothin more nothing less.
It is pure FUD and allows Microsoft to duck and avoid its responsibilities.
I do not know whether you believe that or blindly accept it but as it is it is the greatest disservice Windows users could do to themselves.
Until you say: fuck, nothign to do with being visible: A OS that allows an attachment to be double-clicked, get administrators rights and destroy mine and other system IS a DANGER and totally MORONIC.
A system that comes with all ports opened and allows a third party executable off the net to enter without a user being able to notice that, become administrator, interacting with the inner guts of my OS and breacking havoc to my system and to other users automatically has NOTHING to do with visibility. It is a MORONIC OS and it should not be allow to be on the net.
What happens to Windows CANNOT HAPPEN TO OTHER OSes.
Repeat that to yourself everyday till finally you stop swallowing the visibility FUD>
Again, open your eyes.
rageous said:
“I would just like to leave this discussion by saying that I never claimed OS X is only secure due to it’s small share. And neither, I believe, did Haddad. But it is a factor, even if that factor is a minimal one.”
Don’t leave with the impression of having been stoned to death for no reason. But realize that as a user I could not care less of the how many attempts are out there if none had success. To me ZERO is still ZERO, either if 100 tried or 1,000,000 tried to crack in.
So with Mac OS X at 90% presence *maybe* there will be some virus and I will have the certitude that – relying on BSD – the spread would not have the avalanche effect as on Windows.
90% of OS X does not mean they are all equal. There can be some having root enabled, other with firewalls on, other still without essential dameons for the virus to spread NOT running, etc. Windows provides a common base configuration that HELPS virus to operate.
An OS X virus *might* affect a small percentage of that 90% base which would recover quickly and the security flaw fixed for ever.
Microsoft virii are always the SAME and they still break havoc. SoBig.F is the next to the latest variation. SoBig.G is expected mid September.
Although Microsoft releases patches it does not fix entirely the problem. The same breed of virus can still be activated with minimal changes.
Now, this scenaio is only there on Windows. So 90% of OS X on the market? GOOD: 90% of the virii already gone. The remaining 10% would not spread so much and once the BSD (extremely rare) security flaw is fixed only entirely NEW virii could ever exist.
Don;t you know Windows virii have a date where they stop working? Do you think they stop spreading because the danger is gone?
There are tens of variations of virii exploting the VERY SAME access weakness in WIndows. Windows cannot FIX it: it would crumble. Virii exploits the design and architecture of the OS. You cannot fix it the way BSD Unix has been fixed in 30 years. You can only patch that particular virus variation. The next one is already there to turn around the patch and exploit the SAME weakness.
Again, it can only happens the way we see it on a Windows system.
Peace.
Haddad right or wrong, and this time he’s wrong, is beyond doubt the goofiest looking mac slammer of them all. He also claims to be in the Mac camp, after reading several of his biased ramblings, he is in my opinion a Wintel man, that makes him a liar to boot. As with most of the Wintel crowd, he’s fond of the 3% myth. and to lazy to do proper research before posting his drivel.