By SteveJack
Viruses that aren’t viruses. Hysterical reports that equate Mac OS X security to Windows. Media reports about Mac OS X “worms, trojans, and viruses.” Totally unsubstantiated reports that Mac OS X can be “hacked in under 30-minutes” (the lack of proof screams for attention). Which, of course, is the headline that’s blared.
Why all of this noise about Mac OS X and “security issues” lately? I’ll tell you why: Microsoft and their parasites are getting nervous. Market share is increasing for Apple Macintosh. The Windows platform means billions of dollars to Microsoft and companies built and run around Windows’ deficiencies. Throw in antivirus purveyors now threatened by Microsoft’s slimy entry into the market (it’s beyond belief to Mac users that Mafiasoft will now charge suckers $50 per year to “protect” their own product) that are looking for a new market and you have more than enough reasons for the spate of articles questioning Mac OS X security.
Many people are worried. And rightly so. What if a large portion of people switch to Mac from Windows? What happens to the mom and pop operations that depend on selling boxes that run Windows and that have no experience with Macs? What happens to the antivirus companies that depend on the Windows security mess? How will they sell their wares to Mac OS X users? What happens to Microsoft’s Windows profits? What happens to software makers that make Windows-only software? The list goes on forever; there’s a whole economy based on fixing and supporting Windows.
Munir Kotadia’s latest for ZDNet is just another in a string of FUD pieces (see related articles below) designed to introduce doubt about the Mac in Joe and Jane Sixpack. Gotta keep ’em in the fold; by whatever means possible, it seems. Big bucks is involved here. (In all fairness, Kotadia has written at least one pro-Mac security piece, too.)
People are switching to Mac from Windows. Apple’s Mac market share increased over a percentage point in the last year alone, according to Gartner and IDC. That is why Mac OS X’s security is being attacked in dubious articles (weakly, but attacked nonetheless). In fact, over a year ago, I warned about Mac backlash from those interested in protecting their Windows turf. Such backlash will get worse before it gets better. These people and companies aren’t about to let facts get in the way of continuing to fill their pockets with Windows-related profits.
Ultimately, these articles mean good things for Apple. It shows that the Mac is gaining and it’s making a lot of people who depend on keeping the masses stuck on Windows very, very nervous.
SteveJack is a long-time Macintosh user, web designer, multimedia producer and a regular contributor to the MacDailyNews Opinion section.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Apple Mac OS X clearly offers superior security over Microsoft Windows – March 02, 2006
Apple Mac OS X has a lot more vulnerabilities than Windows XP? – February 28, 2006
Enderle: Security vendors see Apple as next big opportunity – February 28, 2006
As Apple Mac grows in popularity, will security issues increase? – February 27, 2006
The Idiot’s Guide to Mac Viruses For Dummies 101 – February 24, 2006
Wired News: ‘Mac attack a load of crap’ – February 22, 2006
Report: Apple developing fix for automatic execution of shell scripts – February 21, 2006
Ars Technica: Fears over new Mac OS X ‘Leap-A’ trojan pointless – February 20, 2006
Atlanta Journal-Constitution asks: Is ‘Mac virus’ all just propaganda from Mac haters? – February 20, 2006
Mafiasoft: Microsoft to charge $50 per year for security service to protect Windows – February 07, 2006
ZDNet Australia publishes latest Mac OS X security FUD article – January 26, 2006 (Kotadia)
IDC: Apple Mac 2005 U.S. market share 4% on 32% growth year over year – January 20, 2006
Analysts: Apple Mac’s 5% market share glass ceiling set to shatter in 2006 – January 09, 2006
ZDNet Australia publishes latest Mac OS X security FUD article – September 09, 2005 (Kotadia)
Joke of the month: Gartner warns of Mac OS X ‘spyware infestation’ potential – March 30, 2005 (Kotadia)
Symantec warns about Mac OS X security threat – March 21, 2005 (Kotadia)
DLMeyer — can you at least talk your daughter into turning off auto-login? And if she’s backing up her files regularly (and properly), it should be fairly easy to restore once changes are made — just make sure the data she needs is in her user folder, not the Admins.
I don’t have a separate admin account…I’m the administrator. But I don’t do auto-login either, because I don’t want my spouse screwing things up; he’s the only person I know who crashed a Windoze box just playing Minesweeper…
“…On average mac users (not all mac users, just the average mac user) are less sophisticated than PC users…” -AttackWhatAttack
Riiiiight. Like you’ve done any research into the “average Mac user”.
Sounds just like the kind of ridiculous statement the average PC user would make.
Troll.
PC users – They’re just mad ‘cuz they ‘wuz had.
Wasn’t it just a couple of weeks ago that people were talking about how the media is too easy on Apple/Apple biased? At least we can put that myth to rest. You know that myth busters show on cable could do a whole show about the mac.
Hey Spongebob,
I use both a Mac and a Windows laptop daily. When I was Mac only I did not have the faintest idea about internet security. After getting infected using XP several times I am one paranoid mofo while using XP SP2, with a hardware firewall and Norton AV software chewing up processor cycles, while surfing the net.
On the Mac I have no worries and still take few precautions other than surfing using a non admin account.
Mac only users are all newbies when it comes to internet security.
SpongeBob, Yes I have done research on the average Mac user. Macs are specifically pitched at less technical users, and are generally installed and maintained by people with less professional IT experience.
Are you proposing that it takes more technical expertise to install and maintain a Mac than a corresponding PC? Please provide more support for that argument.
Big Al is right. Windows users have toughened up, they’ve had to. Mac users haven’t toughened up – Yet.
Has anyone ever considered that Apple might run this sight. There is never, NEVER, anything critical of Apple. I’d be willing to bet that if Apple decided it was going to put nuclear warheads in its computers, and that Apple would detonate when it felt like it, MDN would probably decide this is a good theft deterrent. I mean, come on find one negative article. By the way, the thing about the nuke is going to happen in Apple’s *New* Theft Deterrent: *****iBomb+iDetonate*****!!!!!!
I triple guarantee you, there are no Viruses in Mac OS X.
If Viruses do come, we will welcome them with bullets and shoes.
Their viruses are committing suicide by the hundreds on the gates of Mac OS X. Be assured, Mac OS X is safe, protected.”
We will kill them all……..most of them.
Is this land for you and me?
In the Grapes of Wrath, Steinbeck’s ideas of property are clear. One of his characters said “I got thinkin’ how we was holy when we was one thing, an’ mankin’ was holy when it was one thing. An’ it on’y got unholy when one mis’able little fella got the bit in his teeth an’ run off his own way, kickin’ an’ draggin’ an’ fightin’. Fella like that bust the holi-ness. But when they’re all workin’ together, not one fella for another fella, but one fella kind of harnessed to the whole shebang—that’s right, that’s holy.” Steinbeck is saying that the unification of mankind is holy. In the book, the main characters eventually live in a commune, sharing their food with other poor and starving people. While this system worked then, In the long run I think that there is no security to the system he offers. I am sure that for a while, a town might prosper as a commune, but eventually, maybe even in another generation, this system will need reinforcement. Who decides who gets what? What if one person’s needs are more than others? Eventually there needs to be a system to ensure fair division of resources. It would seem that the answer would be to have the government be in charge of overseeing division. I find Steinbeck’s message questionable, because I think that putting government in charge of property is a very bad decision.
The American economy is a complex and confusing thing. Anyone can own propriety, and that property is theirs, and free from the government. In a sense, the American economy is every man for himself, in that the government doesn’t have true control over trade or labor. Your house, your money, and your need for housing and money are all your own initiative, and free from the government. In a way this is liberating. Our government is fundamentally the government which governs least, keeping the power of property in the hands of it’s owners. There have been many times in history where this system has been thrown into a different light. During the dustbowl, for example, America’s once liberating ideal of individual control over propriety is contorted into a classiest system where a few control everything, and everyone has nothing. When one studies the dustbowl, certain questions are inevitable. Why should the government let the banks control so much propriety? Can the banks strip these people of their land simply because they have a deed to it? It seems very difficult to imagine our once ideal and liberating system has trapped so many people in an unfair and unequal society. I think that it is necessary to contemplate how this system came about. Democratic capitalism offers an economic system based on competition, under the law, to channel self-interest into the service of others, and to promote human creativity as the key to ending poverty. Individuals can get rich while others don’t. Maybe the idea property is immoral; maybe no one can own anything. However the idea of property is one of the fundamental building blocks of our society. The legal checks and balances of capitalism aren’t meant to protect the poor and keep the rich from getting richer. They are meant to keep the government out of the economy. Ideally, this system of capitalism makes everyone equal and gives everyone the same opportunities. However, in times like the dustbowl, the morality of letting individuals own property is thrown in to question. However, I disagree with the idea that everyone should be made equal by the government, or that there was a better system to protect against the devastating effects of the dustbowl. When a government system is put into place, it is of primary importance that it is immune from foreseeable dangers. The US government is based solely on the idea that the government should have as little control over the people’s lives as possible, and that many fates, even poverty, may have to take a back seat to the prevention of a controlling government. If everyone were to be made equal, who would do it? If a government is so powerful that they can make us all equal, than none of us are free. The dustbowl is an example of the downside to a free economy. During the dustbowl, the income of the entire middle of the US was wiped out. This is the tragedy, not any fault of the economy. There is no system that can prevent such tragedy and poverty without fundamentally compromising the integrity of the economy and jeopardize liberty from the government. I think that we can ask the government to do no more than stay out of out individual lives.
I would say they are going more and more each year i have done a lot of resrch on them i mean i use there computers for my jobs i do i. Some are not that a great but that was back in the day boy