Patrick Marshall answers reader’s tech questions for The Seattle Times:
Q: I’m considering purchasing my first Apple iMac computer, the type that can run both Apple software and Windows software. How should I protect my system from viruses, scams and intrusions under this duo system? If I communicate through e-mail via the Apple side will I be protected from viruses? I’ve read that the only reason there aren’t many viruses for the Apple is because the hackers haven’t been that interested in “attacking” that system. Is that true or is there a difference in how the different systems communicate with the Internet environment?
Phil, Tacoma
A: You definitely want to install and maintain up-to-date anti-virus software for whatever operating system you’re going to use. Yes, there is some truth to the notion that there are fewer viruses that attack Apple Computer systems, in part because the operating system is less popular. It’s understandable that a virus writer would want to make the biggest splash possible. But there are a great number of viruses that can afflict Apple computers. For more information, you may want to take a look at SecureMac.com.
At the same time, it’s true some operating systems are more vulnerable than others. There are reportedly more vulnerabilities that can be exploited in Windows XP than Mac OS X. But that can be taken as a challenge by virus writers, too. Until the first virus appeared for Mac OS X, there was quite a bit of speculation about how long it would take. I’m sure there were a number of virus writers competing to see who could be the first.
Full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “BillH” for the heads up.]
The Seattle Times, huh? What a joke. A sad joke, but a joke nonetheless. Seriously, people are reading this idiot for tech advice! Granted, most of his readers probably work for Microsoft, which may actually explain a lot of things…
Anyway, there’s less misinformation and FUD thrown around at the bi-weekly Dvorak-Enderle-Thurrott coffee klatch than by Marshall in this mess of an answer. This isn’t Marshall’s first time down this road, either, See: Q&A Columnist uses ‘security through obscurity’ myth to defend Windows vs. Mac on virus issue – October 04, 2003
You’ll definitely want to think long and hard before installing, maintaining, risking stability, and wasting processor cycles on meaningless anti-virus software for Mac OS X. Do it if you want to fruitlessly attempt to help protect the indefensible Windows from viruses you might pass along that do not affect your Mac. Why pay Symantec et al for flawed “security” applications designed to protect Apple Macs from nonexistent threats?
“There are reportedly more vulnerabilities that can be exploited in Windows XP than Mac OS X,” Marshall wrote. We’re still laughing at that one. Patrick Marshall: Master of Understatement and General Cluelessness.
Mac OS X has zero (0) viruses; doing the Macarena or similar dances in AV company labs doesn’t affect real users. “Security via Obscurity” is a myth. For over five years and counting, no Mac OS X users have been affected outside of a lab with old, non-updated Mac OS versions that they intentionally infected.
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 just because less people use OS X, making it less of a target. By design, Mac OS X is also simply more secure than Windows. 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.
Macs account for roughly 10% of the world’s personal computer users — (some say as much as 16%) — so the first half of the myth doesn’t even stand up to scrutiny. Macs aren’t “obscure” at all. Therefore, the Apple Mac platform’s ironclad security simply cannot logically be attributed solely 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 dictate the numbers of viruses. The fact that Mac OS X has zero (0) viruses totally 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? According to Apple CEO Steve Jobs at WWDC 2006, there are “19 million Mac OS X users” in the world. Yet, still, there are zero (0) viruses. Quite the mathematical conundrum, huh? 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.
Contact info:
Becky Bisbee, Seattle Times Business Editor: bbisbee@seattletimes.com
Patrick Marshall: pmarshall@seattletimes.com or pgmarshall@pgmarshall.net
Related articles:
Symantec Antivirus software flaw allows hackers to seize control of PCs without user interaction – May 25, 2006
Sophos anti-virus software mistakes real files for pests, breaks Mac OS X systems – February 22, 2006
Why pay Symantec for flawed ‘security’ app designed to protect Apple Macs from nonexistent threats? – December 27, 2005
‘Highly critical’ flaw in discovered in Symantec AntiVirus for Mac OS X – December 21, 2005
Symantec details flaws in its antivirus software – March 30, 2005
Symantec details ‘Macarena’ Mac OS X ‘proof-of-concept virus’ – November 03, 2006
Microsoft’s Windows is inherently more vulnerable to severe malware than Apple’s Mac OS X – August 23, 2006
Chicago Tribune falls for the ‘Security Via Obscurity’ myth – August 14, 2006
Get a Mac: Viruses, spyware cost U.S. consumers $7.8 billion over last two years – August 08, 2006
Symantec researcher: At this time, there are no file-infecting viruses that can infect Mac OS X – July 13, 2006
Sophos: Apple Mac OS X’s security record unscathed; Windows Vista malware just a matter of time – July 07, 2006
Gartner analyst tries to propagate discounted Mac OS X ‘security via obscurity’ myth via BBC – July 06, 2006
Sophos Security: Dump Windows, Get a Mac – July 05, 2006
Apple: ‘Get a Mac. Say ‘Buh-Bye’ to viruses’ – June 01, 2006
Analyst: McAfee’s recent Apple Mac security report is ‘sloppy scaremongering’ – May 08, 2006
Apple: ‘Leap-A’ not a virus; only accept files from vendors and Web sites that you know and trust – February 16, 2006
FBI: Viruses, spyware, other computer-related crimes cost U.S. businesses $67.2 billion per year – February 01, 2006
Security company Sophos: Apple Mac the best route for security for the masses – December 06, 2005
Apple Macs are inherently safer and more secure than Microsoft Windows – November 22, 2005
BusinessWeek columnist propagates discounted ‘Apple Mac security via obscurity myth’ – September 06, 2005
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
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
USA Today calls iMac G5 ‘exquisite’ but implies Mac OS X more secure than Windows due to obscurity – September 30, 2004
Another columnist trots out Mac OS X ‘Security through Obscurity’ myth – April 03, 2004
Gates: Windows ‘by far the most secure’ system; tries to use ‘Mac OS X secure through obscurity’ myth – January 27, 2004
Q&A Columnist uses ‘security through obscurity’ myth to defend Windows vs. Mac on virus issue – October 04, 2003
Columnist tries the ‘security through obscurity’ myth to defend Windows vs. Macs on virus front – October 01, 2003
New York Times: Mac OS X ‘much more secure than Windows XP’ – September 18, 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
Virus and worm problems not just due to market share; Windows inherently insecure vs. Mac OS X – August 24, 2003
Who needs viruses on the Mac when Apple’s quality control has become so rotten these days. Here I sit without my poor Mac, having to type this on my PC (which hasn’t ever had a virus either btw).
Another flaw in the “marketshare too small to care about” argument is the fact that there were several viruses for the mac prior to MacOS X being released.
joe
what a lazy hack!
Here’s my letter, which I’m sure will go unread:
Mr. Marshall.
You are mistaken, and because of this, you have offered some bad advice to a reader. I’m referring to a Q&A entitled, “Keep that iMac up to date on anti-virus software.”
To date, there are no known viable viruses that affect Apple’s OS X operating system. Zero. It’s a fundamental difference in the architecture of the UNIX-based OSX kernel. Unlike Windows, Root-level access in a Mac environment requires the administrator to enter a password manually. So unless you manually install a virus, it isn’t going to happen. The “popularity” of the OS has nothing to do with it. In fact, considering its reputation for security, I would surmise that OSX is target number-one for hackers out there. Anyone can write a Windows virus. The person who writes the first OSX virus will be a legend.
Tens of millions of Mac users and zero viruses. On the other hand, after MS Vista was released to fewer than 10,000 developers, a virus popped up not long after. So much for the lazy security-through-obscurity myth. So, in fact, your assertion that “there are a great number of viruses” that affect Macs is patently and demonstrably false. In fact, I would challenge you to name a single bona fide virus for the Mac. (Don’t try to name the one or two trojans that are out there – as I’m sure you’re aware, a trojan isn’t a virus, as it requires admin intervention to install.)
In fact, Mac anti-virus software is not only wholly unnecessary, it can also adversely affect a Mac’s operation. So your advice, if followed, could actually harm your reader’s computer.
Being a consummate professional, I’m sure you will correct your error in a future column.
Regards.
Macca
P.S. my two Macs have been hooked up to a broadband connection 24/7 for four years without anti-virus protection. In that time, I’ve not had one single instance of malware of any kind, let alone a virus. Macs aren’t perfect. They’re just far more secure than PCs.
I wrote to the Seattle Times Managing Editor Stanley Farrar. Here is his reply, verbatim.
“I’ve forwarded you message to our personal technology editor, Mark Watanabe, who’s in charge of that column.
Thanks very much for writing.
Stanley Farrar
Managing editor/seattletimes.com”
So MDN readers…here is Mr. Watanabe’s email.
mwatanabe@seattletimes.com
I suggest you send him a note politely requesting an accurate correction.
Blucaso,
I must say, you hit the nail right on the head with that one! Good job.
Here is another article filled with FUD…
Macs, Hackers and the Computer Security Game
This one claims 2000 Mac viruses! They say that statistics don’t lie… but liars use statistics… but liars also make up lying statistics…
Hey fags, “Virii” is not a word
First off we are not (all) fags, the amount of “fags” on Windows is considerably higher due to it’s larger market share.
Second, “Virii” may not be a word officially yet, but if it’s used enough by the general population long enough it will become one.
So your statement shows your inability to be flexible, to try new things, your a Microsoft conformist and your life is essentually dead.
Go back to your pigeon hole dumbass and let someone tell you how to think.
Blorcoe is not a word but I’m going to use often and maybe it’ll become a word.
Rabid Dog–you are indeed a dork of the highest blorcoe order.
Virii—Bwahahahahaha.
Mackle: I’d like to buy a capital.
Matt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_of_virus
This thread is pretty much dead,.. but I’ll share this anyway. Mr. Marshall and I corresponded off and on thru out the day. He is actually a very nice person. Eventually I sent him to this page: http://www.apple.com/getamac/viruses.html he said that cleared some things up for him. Maybe he’ll do a follow up article addressing his ‘half-truths’. After he received much mail from the Mac Faithful, I’m sure he’ll be more careful with his words next time. That new proof of concept virus better not affect Macs in the real world, or I might have to learn how to cook crow.
I wonder is Mark Watanabe is any relation to Mac developer David Watanabe (acquisition, newsfire, xtorrent)
Apple is the Fourth largest computer maker so security via obscurity is the biggest joke aka FUD that any of these so called Tech writers can throw at people.
OSX is secure because it was built that way period.
I only hope that this Phil from Tacoma, Washington gets some of these postings, setting him straight. I hope that he will get his iMac anyway, because he’ll love it.
I have both my Mom and Mother-in-law on iMacs and they’ve been using them 3 – 4 for years without any viruses at all. Now they may have the usual problems with being a novice computer user, but viruses, mallware, and other things that Windows folks experience, isn’t one of them.
Thank you Steve and Apple Computer for creating an OS that tries it’s hardest to be trouble free and virus free. This isn’t an easy task, but you continue to work at it and we Mac users have benefitted from your work. The only thing that I do in return is to try to set people straight.
Thank you again.
Dear Dev,
We stand by our story.
Regards,
Becky Bisbee
Business editor
—–Original Message—–
From:me
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 6:16 AM
To: Becky Bisbee
Subject: respect your readers ! (Patrick Marshall)
As a frequent reader, I find it confusing that your magazine presents drivel as truth. This is in regard to Keith Marshalls article ” Keep that iMac up to-date on anti-virus software”. If this “journalist”
had done some research, and he obviously hasn´t, then he would know that there at the moment are no viruses on Mac OSX at all. When there are no viruses, you can´t make an anti-virus… My 12 year old daughter undersstands that and, frankly, so should this “journalist”.
kind regards,
Dev Singh
; This is the reply I got…