“People are way too paranoid these days. Especially Mac users. They’re going completely insane lately. You’ve got Symantec claiming that Mac OS X is at risk for malware. Despite the fact that in 4 years since OS X’s release (Happy Belated Birthday, Mac OS X!) there hasn’t been one virus or ‘valid’ trojan. Downloading an under 200k file off a peer to peer network that claims to be Microsoft Word (one of the most bloated apps on the Mac) is not valid. Nor are concepts. Then you’ve got that silly root kit called John the Ripper. The problem with root kits is that they’re only really useful if you already have access to the machine. In the case of John the Ripper/Opener you had to have already had administrator access to install the thing. So chances are the guy that had it installed on his computer had let someone use his computer that he shouldn’t have,” rosyna writes on the Unsanity Webblog.
“Now Symantec has vested interest in making Mac users paranoid and scared. The more paranoid or scared their customers are, the happier Symantec is since they sell anti-virus software. The funniest thing about them trying to say that OS X is a malware target is the fact that just a few months ago a vulnerability was found in Symantec’s file scanning libraries. So their antivirus software could be used as a vector to spread viruses. Go figure. My point is that even if viruses on the Mac increased two thousand percent, that’d still mean zero viruses on the Mac,” rosyna writes.
“What’s worse is that people always try to claim OS X has nothing because it is such a small target. That claim doesn’t work. We have a virus for mobile phones and a virus for a firewall that less than a hundred thousand people use (which I can’t seem to find right now). These things are much, much smaller targets than OS X yet they have viruses written for them. Why is it so hard to believe that there are no viruses for OS X just because OS X is better engineered? Most of the things I see now days exploit buffer overflows. And you see security fixes for such overflows on OS X all the time. The issue here is it is much harder to run executable code from a buffer overflow on the PowerPC than it is from an x86 chip. On the x86 basically any memory is executable. On the PPC you have to make sure it goes into the two separate caches (data and instruction) in a very specific manner. Depending on the program, such an exploit may only run executable code 16% of the time. The rest of the time, it will just crash,” rosyna writes.
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Those with the most invested in the status quo, be it in cash, time, effort, pride, ego, etc., will the the ones spreading the most fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) against the Mac platform. As the Mac shows continued growth, the FUD will increase; it’s already happening. Mac users aren’t paranoid about viruses (we can plainly see that we’re unaffected), we’re just sick and tired of the FUD. Sadly, we probably should just get used to it, because it’s going to get worse before it gets better.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Motley Fool writer: ‘I’d be surprised if Symantec ever sells a single product to a Mac user again’ – March 24, 2005
Symantec cries wolf with misplaced Mac OS X ‘security’ warning – March 23, 2005
Symantec’s Mac OS X claims dismissed as nonsense, FUD – March 22, 2005
Symantec warns about Mac OS X security threat – March 21, 2005
Apple’s Mac OS X is virus-free – March 18, 2005
68,736 Microsoft Windows viruses vs. zero for Apple Mac’s OS X – March 12, 2005
Microsoft tries to turn its own security flaw into commercial gain – February 25, 2005
Cybersecurity advisor Clarke questions why anybody would buy from Microsoft – February 18, 2005
Microsoft’s Gates espouses homogenous operating system environments for better security – February 07, 2005
Windows’ mounting security problems make some consumers eager to purchase Macs – January 03, 2005
Windows Media songs and videos found to carry Windows malware payloads – December 30, 2004
Anzae/Inzae worm affects all Windows versions after 3.1; Macintosh unaffected – December 28, 2004
Unlike Windows users, Mac OS X users surf the Internet without a care in the world – December 28, 2004
Multiple unpatched Windows holes crop up; Windows systems compromised within minutes in experiment – December 24, 2004
Windows spyware mess is out of control, get a Mac and surf with impunity – December 21, 2004
New Microsoft Internet Explorer exploit spoofs Web sites on fully patched Windows XP systems – December 17, 2004
Microsoft may charge extra for Windows spyware protection software – December 16, 2004
Detroit Free Press: Windows malware problem getting worse, it’s time to get a Mac instead – December 16, 2004
Sick of spyware, adware headaches? Get a Mac and surf the Internet freely – December 13, 2004
Mossberg: Windows PCs plagued with problems, Apple’s Mac is ‘rock solid, elegant and affordable’ – December 09, 2004
Security expert: Don’t use Microsoft Windows, Office, Outlook, Internet Explorer – December 09, 2004
Security test: Windows XP system easily compromised while Apple’s Mac OS X stands safe and secure – November 30, 2004
Sick of spyware, adware infecting your PC? Don’t fret, just get a Mac – November 01, 2004
Microsoft: The safest way to run Windows is on your Mac – October 08, 2004
Spyware plagues Windows users while Mac users surf Net with impunity – November 01, 2004
Ballmer blames Windows users for not upgrading systems as Microsoft’s biggest security problem – October 22, 2004
Windows users line up to pay for spyware removal; Mac users surf Web with impunity – October 18, 2004
Microsoft: The safest way to run Windows is on your Mac – October 08, 2004
Windows users’ security woes spark interest in Apple’s secure Mac OS X – October 06, 2004
Windows desktop monopoly threatened by secure, safe Apple Mac OS X – October 04, 2004
Even Bill Gates can’t avoid Windows malware; Mac users surf the Web freely – October 03, 2004
Cyber-security adviser uses Apple Macintosh to avoid Windows’ security woes – September 27, 2004
Information Security Investigator says switch from Windows to Mac OS X for security – September 24, 2004
Mossberg: Apple iMac G5 ‘powerful, affordable, virus-free with better, more modern OS than Windows XP’ – September 23, 2004
USA Today: people are switching from Windows to Mac because of security issues – September 21, 2004
Windows besieged by hackers; number of Windows viruses soars by more than 400% – September 20, 2004
USA Today columinst angry about Windows viruses, adware, spyware – September 15, 2004
University of Chicago recommends all students patch Windows at least once a day – September 14, 2004
Windows XP worm speaks to users as it deletes their files; Macintosh unaffected – September 13, 2004
Security is top priority in Apple’s Mac OS X – September 12, 2004
Millions of Windows PC’s hijacked by hackers, turned into zombies; Macintosh unaffected – September 08, 2004
Mossberg: Dump your Windows machine and get an Apple Macintosh to free yourself of spyware – August 25, 2004
Tired of patching patches to patch Windows patches? Writer suggests getting a Mac – August 03, 2004
Windows ‘Scob’ virus designed to steal financial data, passwords; Macintosh unaffected – June 26, 2004
Gartner: Worms jack up the total cost of Microsoft Windows – May 07, 2004
Spyware, adware plague Windows users online; Mac OS X users surf freely – April 19, 2004
SmartMoney: Long-suffering Windows users can only dare to dream of Mac’s ease-of-use – February 12, 2004
Mac OS X has no viruses; what’s wrong with Windows? – February 11, 2004
Gates: Windows ‘by far the most secure’ system; tries to use ‘Mac OS X secure through obscurity’ myth – January 27, 2004
Columnist tries the ‘security through obscurity’ myth to defend Windows vs. Macs on virus front – October 1, 2003
New York Times: Mac OS X ‘much more secure than Windows XP’ – September 18, 2003
Wall Street Journal’s Mossberg on making the switch from Windows to Mac – September 18, 2003
Fortune columnist: ‘get a Mac’ to thwart viruses; right answer for the wrong reasons – September 02, 2003
Shattering the Mac OS X ‘security through obscurity’ myth – August 28, 2003
Is Mac OS X really inherently more secure than Windows? – August 26, 2003
Chicago Sun-Times columnist: Windows ‘many holes in its security’ but ‘none of my Macs have ever been affected – August 26, 2003
Sick of worms and viruses? ‘Move to Mac OS X’ suggests Chicago Tribune columnist – August 25, 2003
Virus and worm problems not just due to market share; Windows inherently insecure vs. Mac OS X – August 24, 2003
“People are way too paranoid these days. Especially Mac users.”
Well, I’m a Mac user and I’m not even remotely paranoid. In fact, I don’t think the majority of Mac users are paranoid either. The only reason to have antivirus software is so your Mac won’t act as a “carrier” for Windows virii. I agree that companies like Symantec are spreading FUD, but remember, us Mac users made an informed decision when we chose this platform, so I think the FUD falls mostly on deaf ears. The only paranoia going on here is this shift in computing trends that has all the MS apologists trying to secure their next dollar.
Do you think unsanity.com has an anything to gain by writing this article? Of course they do… their product is completely dependant on OS X. Again, nice reporting MDN, thanks for the propaganda and pop under.
when i get my first virus…then i’ll worry. Until then, i’m as worry free as my mac is virus free. It doesn’t mean i’m going to be stupid and not run virus protection…I just guarantee it won’t be symantec.
They can take their FUD and FOD.
It is sad that all they have is FUD… No proof, barely any legitimate concepts… I think Symantec would probably end up being used as a trojan (as mentioned in the article) before any other virus’ are actually found.
it is so boring at mdn when there is nothing to read of interest….
come on apple bring out some new computers…something!..not a new ipod though-been there, done that.
i am showing up less and less at the mdn pit stop.
LATS,
So, just how much do you have invested in the status quo? And is it mainly cash or time or pride or something else? Stockholm Syndrome much?
Defending Windows over Mac a sign of mental illness
Come onnnnnn, I haven’t spread any viruses since my last series of shots! Besides, that little bitch tricked me. Seriously, it just proves de old saying. You know: Never trust a Pekinese with an overbite.
Hey, I keed. But really, there are more Windows viruses out there than there are nerds at a Star Trek convention! I mean, you can’t shake an iPod these days without hitting a Windows virus — or a Trekkie. But seriously, speaking of trojans (and Trekkies, you can stop listening now, no sense wasting your time with things that don’t apply to you) don’t use them. Trojans, I mean. They’re the K-Mart of rubbers. Yeh-heh-hessssss.
Look at the source
I don’t get pop anythings on MDN. I never have. I’m running Safari with PithHelmet, have Java enabled, and Safari’s pop-up blocker on.
So I dunno why you’ve got a prob.
Back on topic, it’s interesting that there was so much less FUD when Mac’s marketshare was large (much larger). And why? Because it was declining. Show’s the hypocrisy and lies of those spreading the FUD.
So, all I have to do is have a lame weblog to create the guise of real journalism and be quoted by news reporters?
I’ve been using a Mac since it came out in ’84 and MaxOSX is rock solid. We who have sued the Mac for any length of time KNOW it’s secure.
I think the only people who will succume to Symantec’s propoganda campeign is the switchers who have recently come over from the dark side where they were used to living in FUD.
Talk about a company preying on the vulnerable. What ethics! Way to go Symantec, you’re a fine example of humanity. If Symantec’s business behavior was translated into human behavior, they’d be convicted as a serial rapist.
A board Shelly is not a happy Shelly. Come on everybody, let’s all whine and make this a better place!
egarc…wait…are you whining about Shelley´s whining???
Hmmm…
Does this mean the total number of viruses on the Mac can only be expressed as an imaginary number?
While I still feel it is foolish to think there will never be an OS X virus, on the other hand the security through obscurity myth just plain bothers me….Especially now…heck the Mac OS X is parading around the internet with a big target painted on its back taunting all those would-be crackers to “infect me…go ahead and try”
Zac
Since computer viruses are non-existent in the
Apple Mac OS X world…virus protection software
companies lose customers every time a Mac is purchased
over a PC. That’s a virus in itself, to companies
like Symantec.
It’s not easy to face the fact that for most home-based
“net surfers”, who chose a Mac, won’t confront a
virus/external software issue thanks to brilliant code.
Thanks Apple!
Don’t be surprised when the next wave of Apple software
comes from former vrus writers and software protection
company employees who saw it coming.
After being hit by so many viruses over the course of
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”shut eye” style=”border:0;” />
so many years…it might take a year or more for new
Mac users to breathe a sigh of relief.
CT
2000% x 0 = 0
DURRR
One virus added for Mac OS X would mean an indefinetly per centage increase!
On Windows, one added virus would only mean an obscuritly small 0.001% increase!
If I had a nickel for every virus that has plauged
the PC world & a dime for every virus that the Mac
world has never seen, I’d have more nickels than
dimes.
With a Mac…you really do get those dimes,and they add
up. You get the nickels too, but the dime is worth two
nickels. WE MADE A GREAT CHOICE with the MAC OS
Dimes = trouble free computing
Nickles = other people’s problems
CT
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”shut eye” style=”border:0;” />
º
I’m not paranoid. I cut my firewall off whenever I use Aquaduct, and I’m not in the least bit worried. If only Halo ran as well as Halo2 on XBC…
“Paranoid” isn’t the proper word. “Arrogant”, “defensive”, and “juvenile” would characterize most of the responses.
>>>>’Paranoid” isn’t the proper word. “Arrogant”, “defensive”, and “juvenile” would characterize most of the responses.<<<<
zupchuck,
Here it is…the key word was ‘paranoid’. The words you use
to describe some of the responses all have a negative tone.
“Paranoid” is negative as well.
When someone attacks you with a negative jab…
maybe you should just agree with them and that would end
the discussion. That jab could lead to a blistering
uppercut, that could knock you down flat, We have a strong
defense for that jab…NO uppercut will follow without a
good opening.
Why hold back your opinions on a topic that could harm
your platform if it’s not stamped out?
Let’s just call the collective responses confident, but not
overly because…you REALLY never know.
CT
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smirk” style=”border:0;” />+