“[Analysts] do agree on one area where Apple has an advantage: Security. Macs are targeted by viruses and hacking attacks far less often than machines running Microsoft’s Windows simply because there are fewer of them around. Computer criminals strive for maximum impact, so they pay less attention to the relatively small number of Mac users,” Arik Hesseldahl writes for BusinessWeek.
“While Microsoft struggles to build firewalls, anti-spyware, and anti-virus technology into Windows, Mac users are for the most part untroubled by these annoyances, and that’s a point it could press, says Richard Forno, a principal consultant with KRVW Associates, a computer-security firm in Alexandria, Va. ‘I’m seeing more and more people in the security business using Macs and saying they trust them and don’t have to cope with viruses and other hassles,’ he says. ‘I just wish Apple would market its security as a key feature to corporate customers.’ Of course, the more popular Apple machines become, the more likely they are to be targeted by hackers and virus writers,” Hesseldahl writes.
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: The idea that Windows’ morass of security woes exists because more people use Windows and that Macs have no security problems because less people use Macs, is simply not true. Mac OS X is not more secure than Windows because less people use OS X, making it less of a target. By design, Mac OS X is simply more secure than Windows. Period. For reference and reasons why Mac OS X is more secure than Windows, read The New York Times’ David Pogue’s mea culpa on the subject of the “Mac Security Via Obscurity” myth here.
Hesseldahl is the same writer who wrote for Forbes back in June 2003, “Naysayers have been calling for Apple’s demise for years. But Apple not only has survived but thrived, it seems, at least partially by the sheer force of Jobs’ will and his ability to maintain the ferocious loyalty of Apple’s users, who still account for 10% of the world’s computer users, while its sales usually account for about 3% to 5% of the world global PC market.”
So, if Macs account for 10% or so (some say as much as 16%), then, according to Mr. Hesseldahl himself, Macs aren’t “obscure” at all. Therefore, the Apple Mac platform’s ironclad security simply cannot logically be attributed to obscurity.
There are zero-percent (0%) of viruses for the Mac OS X platform that should, logically, have some 10-16% of the world’s viruses if platforms’ install bases dictated the numbers of viruses. The fact that Mac OS X has zero (0) viruses discounts “security via obscurity.” There should be at least some Mac OS X viruses. There are none. The reason for this fact is not attributable solely to “obscurity,” it’s attributable to superior security design.
Still not convinced? Try this one on for size: according to Apple, there are “close to 16 million Mac OS X users” in the world and there are still zero (0) viruses. According to CNET, the Windows Vista Beta was released “to about 10,000 testers” at the time the first Windows Vista virus arrived. So much for the security via obscurity myth.
Arik Hesseldahl’s email address is:
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Hackers already targeting viruses for Microsoft’s Windows Vista – August 04, 2005
16-percent of computer users are unaffected by viruses, malware because they use Apple Macs – June 15, 2005
ZDNet: How many Mac OS X users affected by the last 100 viruses? None, zero, not one, not ever – August 18, 2005
Intel CEO Otellini: If you want security now, buy a Macintosh instead of a Wintel PC – May 25, 2005
Apple touts Mac OS X security advantages over Windows – April 13, 2005
97,467 Microsoft Windows viruses vs. zero for Apple Mac’s OS X – April 05, 2005
Apple’s Mac OS X is virus-free – March 18, 2005
Cybersecurity advisor Clarke questions why anybody would buy from Microsoft – February 18, 2005
Security test: Windows XP system easily compromised while Apple’s Mac OS X stands safe and secure – November 30, 2004
Microsoft: The safest way to run Windows is on your Mac – October 08, 2004
Information Security Investigator says switch from Windows to Mac OS X for security – September 24, 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
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
Virus and worm problems not just due to market share; Windows inherently insecure vs. Mac OS X – August 24, 2003
Ted sez…
“Hackers (most, not all) want exposure, they are not interested in bringing down personal users, graphic designers, musicians and grandmas… Until OSX makes it’s way into the corporate world, we are obscure..”
———
Your argument that the Mac is never attacked because hackers aren’t interested is a joke. Do you seriously think that there’s not a virus writer out there who wouldn’t give his left n-t to be the very first to bring down all us smug Mac users and be able to brag about it for the rest of his life? You aren’t living in the real world!
It hasn’t been done simply because the guys who write viruses hasn’t been able to come up with one that will get through the built-in security. A sucessful virus attack would be a big feather in it’s author’s hat even if he didn’t take down more than 3 Macs! He would probably even be happy to go to jail over it just to be able to laugh at us.
OS X platforms runs at SLAC, LBL, Los Alamos, Virginia Tech, CERN, KEK, Genome Research Labs, Max Plank Institutes, NASA, US Army, etc.
Weird names for Retirement Homes.
UHAHHAHAHOHOHHUAHAHAHHA
personal users MY ASS!
AAHAHHOHUHHAHEHAOH what a drone.
Ralph,
Actually you are not living in the “real world” if you think that OSX is completely immune.
Yes, there probably are some virus writers who would love to wear the crown of first to write an OSX virus. Maybe some have tried and failed… I honestly do not know.
I do know that OSX is not in the most visible places to make the maximum impact.. ie.. Major corporations, banks, government agencies etc.. In that sense, we are obscure.
I’m not saying that it’s easy to get into OSX. I’m saying that it can be done.
Ted: of course it can be done. There are even white papers on virus exploitable flaws – common to practically all Unices – for OS X.
But that covers only requirement 1) as Seahawk up here explained.
Who cares if you may infect ONE machine doing specific things if you cannot spread to others. Seahawk is known for having explained this in one sentence time ago:
“If it cannot spread it is not a virus, it is a joke”.
So yes, you may infect any Unix platform, OS X included, for example using root exploits. The issue is, good, than what? you knock on your neighbor and ask “Hi, may I sit in front of your Mac so that I can infect yours as well, you know, I wrote this virus but I have to input manually some commands to infect other machines”.
Can’t you see the ridicule in it? Yes, it can be done. Nope, no automatic way to reproduce and spread effectively has been found so far. That is the reason for the 0%. That is the reason why even well conceived Unix viruses infect so few, so much so that it is a waste of time for virus writer to spend lots of efforts in cracking one Unix platform: they are faced with the question: “Now what? Got one, how to get a second?”
In regards to Grandmas post:
Laugh all you want.! Yes, I am aware that OSX platforms run at a few notable agencies like the 10 or so you’ve listed. And yes, there are probably another 20 or 30 that you have not mentioned. But compare that list to notable agencies and Fortune 500 companies that run Windows and talk about which would have a greater impact for a hacker to take down.
… and the reason why no way to automatic spread exponentially has been found has to do with how Unix is designed, not because people do not think it is an interesting target!
Ted: would you go after 500 Millions machines that let you infect 5% of them or after the 50 Millions machines that let you infect 60% of them?
iPodder says “Now what? Got one, how to get a second?”
I have no idea, I’m not a virus writer. I will however not be so smug as to believe that someone will not figure out a way.
Then, Ted, if you are aware, do not go writing here that OS X platforms are not present in JUICY environments to crack. Why to juicy than a bank.
Do you know how much you could sell nuclear secrets contained on the average OS X platform used at, say, Los Alamos?
“Hackers (most, not all) want exposure, they are not interested in bringing down personal users, graphic designers, musicians and grandmas… Until OSX makes it’s way into the corporate world, we are obscure..” -Ted
Ted are you the spokes model for ALL “hackers”? Since you know that “most, not all” want exposure, you must be their voice.
What about the hackers that are grabbing Windows PC’s, making them their bitch and turning them into broadband “zombies” to launch various illicit activities? Do you thing they want “exposure”? How about the hackers that snagged several thousand credit card numbers, social security numbers, drivers licenses, etc. in a massive identity theft campaign recently? Do you really think these hackers want “exposure”.
Give your head a shake and stop claiming to be the grandaddy of “logic” – may work for Spoke, doesn’t look good on you.
Sometimes MDN goes off course (we’re all human). MDN is right on point here!
Grandmas?
Because I am trying to make the point that 16 million users or not, we are still relativiely obscure compared to the alternative.
MDN, Arik Hesseldahl’s editor’s email addresses may be more usefull.
Mac Mania Says:
“What about the hackers that are grabbing Windows PC’s, making them their bitch and turning them into broadband “zombies” to launch various illicit activities? Do you thing they want “exposure”? How about the hackers that snagged several thousand credit card numbers, social security numbers, drivers licenses, etc. in a massive identity theft campaign recently? Do you really think these hackers want “exposure”.
Probably not, that is why I said “Most, Not All.”
I would not use the word ‘obscure’. It depicts a wrong situation. Sure, it is more fun to bring down CNN and ABC, and DMVs but would not be as fun and disruptive to bring down major newspapers – where they use a lot Macs? There are environment as fun – for a virus writer – to bring down, that use extensively Macs, and yet, they are not brought down.
Don’t you think that bringing down major designers companies disrupting commercials and advertisement companies, and ads on newspapers would not cause major mayhem around in the country? I think it would, and by a lot. Why it does not happen? Think about blocking all ads publicists in the US for 3~4 days. What would happen? CHAOS.
Be glad those creative designers for the most are on Macs
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Seahawk; you jumped in, thus keeping me from having to quote your posts about the subject from March of this year.
Sorry, but the explanation you wrote in March is more clear than the one you wrote today!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
I am stupid, sorry.
Unix is a more secure OS period. How many Sun OS viruses have you heard of? Okay well the Mac is on a BSD Unix based OS. It’s just more secure by design than Windows will ever be.
Have you tested your Mac’s defenses?
First make sure your Firewall is on, and using the advanced features turn on everything. Take a look at the ipfw.log (firewall log) and have it open.
Now visit this site and go through all the tests, you should be invisible.
http://scan.sygate.com/
This is almost amusing, but let me add my points and continue chuckling.
I don’t think business installs have much to do with Windows being a big fat juicy curve ball for viri writers. It’s the OS. It’s the ease of access, as others have mentioned, that makes it so attractive a target, and also the ease of a quick expansion. Drop a package in an email saying “Brittany shows her goods” or pathetically “Someone loves you” and social engineering opens the door. Then the fact that ports are open, visual basic a click away, and the user doesn’t have to authorize system level installation…well, if some people don’t get that that is much less secure that OS X, there’s not much more to say.
I however do agree that someday something may come along that somehow gets into OS X, and I agree, that is why Apple doesn’t advertise security: that would be dumb because of the crow it would have to eat. So I will run my iBook with no virus software and no spyware software, but I will pay attention and if something bad comes along I will react appropriately. I will continue to run my PC behind a firewall with antivirus software auto updating and me manually clearing out spyware.
Well obviously that post above was not me. It’s sad that one can not carry on a debate in this forum without being ridiculed and called names by presenting an opinion that is not in the majority. Now that the name calling has started I am leaving this debate.
Bottom line: I love Macs, I love OSX, I love Apple. I hope that OSX can remain virus free and free from hacker attacks for a long time to come. I just don’t think it’s realistic to say that we are completley immune.
Oh another thing make sure you click “reload” in the consol logs to display several days worth of attacks.
Copy, paste and save the text in a textedit file as the log rotates over time and old info is discarded.
Running a Network Utility “who is” on the IP of the attackers is quite revealing.
Steath mode attacks from Apple and Google this labor day weekend.
Must be some Windows machines online over at Apple or something. 🙁
Okay last post.
Thanks TGR. My thoughts exactly. How long now before someone says you are stupid?
This is a bit of an over-reaction. The “security through obscurity” point was not a big issue in the article, and someone has posted a rebuttal on the article web site.
If you want another good rebuttal though, consider Java — probably one of the most widely used technologies in secure applications (banking etc.). As far as I know, there has not been one case of maliciously exploiting a Java security hole (though a few have been exposed and fixed, so the potential exists for a previously unknown Java security hole to be exploited).
I seem to remember not long ago some Mac platform software vendor putting out a large, ($25,000 or something like that), reward for anyone who could successfully write and release in the wild a virus that could infect Macs running OS X. I also remember the Mac community pissing their pants over the challenge, convincing the company in the end to rescind their challenge.
Wisdom it would seem would be in recognizing the possibility of a successful threat, and preparing against it, rather than burying ones head in the sand and pretending “it can’t happen here”.
>I just don’t think it’s realistic to say that we are completley immune.
We are not compeletly immune, Apple is patching things all the time, but they stay right on top of it before it becomes a major headache.
Also Mac OS X has what’s called compartmentalized security, this stems from the military.
Windows has a raw egg form of security, hard on the outside (if you take proper steps) but soft on the inside.
Mac OS X is hard all the way though, like a hardboiled egg.
But still something can get through, if the conditions are right, the social engineering is right etc.
But it’s no where as soft as Windows.