FUD Alert: CNET tries to equate Windows’ insecurity to handful of Mac OS X proof-of-concepts

“Microsoft unleashed Windows Vista for business users this week. The long-awaited operating system offers many security improvements over its predecessor Windows XP, but that doesn’t mean users will be safe from hackers. CNET News.com’s Joris Evers and CNET’s Robert Vamosi predict cyber break-ins will continue, in particular via applications that run on top of Vista,” CNET News reports.

“And while Vista may be available to business users today, installing it and connecting a Vista PC to the Internet is not wise. Only one of the top four security vendors–McAfee–has antivirus tools ready for the new operating system. Microsoft itself advises users not to run Vista without antivirus software,” CNET News reports. “Apple Computer’s Mac OS X could offer an alternative, but it also isn’t without flaws. Apple this week offered a patch for 31 Mac OS X-related security holes, including a zero-day flaw. The Mac maker also left some flaws unpatched and saw a sample adware program target its operating system.”

Full article with link to podcast here.

MacDailyNews Take: Who does CNET think their readers are, drooling idiots who are incapable of seeing the vast gulf between Windows and Mac OS X security and the effects on end users? They must. The reason you see this sort of bullshit on CNET and elsewhere is because, according to IDC analyst Marcel Warmerdam, for every $1 that Vista earns for Microsoft, it will pump a minimum of $12 into the global economy. Billions upon billions of dollars are riding on duping people into continuing along with Windows. That’s really what they mean by “long-awaited.” If protecting the Windows hegemony means distorting all sorts of things to make Apple’s Mac platform look like an unacceptable alternative, then so be it. They really have no other defense for the indefensible Windows except for FUD when comparing to Apple Mac OS X’s stellar record of protecting their users’ security. The fact is that Mac OS X users, using only common sense, surf the Net with impunity while Windows sufferers most certainly do not.

According to CNET: CNET News.com strives to meet the highest editorial standards for accuracy and completeness in its reporting.

When you stop laughing enough to click your mouse, contact:
Jai Singh: CNET Editor-in-chief: jais@cnet.com
Joris Evers: CNET Security Bites Podcast: joris.evers@cnet.com

Related articles:
Microsoft’s Windows Vista vulnerable to malware from 2004 – November 30, 2006
Microsoft’s Allchin: Vista won’t need antivirus software – November 10, 2006
McAfee: Microsoft ‘taking security risks’ with long-delayed, oft-pared-down Windows Vista – October 02, 2006
Microsoft’s oft-delayed, much-pared-down Windows Vista hacked at Black Hat – August 07, 2006
Symantec details more security holes in Microsoft’s Windows Vista – July 26, 2006
New invisible rootkit hits Windows including Vista – July 17, 2006
Sophos: Apple Mac OS X’s security record unscathed; Windows Vista malware just a matter of time – July 07, 2006
Windows chief Allchin: Buy Windows Vista for the security – January 30, 2006

‘Macarena’ malware does not exploit Mac OS X bug – November 06, 2006
Why is Apple’s Mac OS X so much more secure than Microsoft’s Windows? – October 01, 2006
Apple Macs are far more secure than Windows PCs – September 26, 2006
Chicago Tribune falls for the ‘Security Via Obscurity’ myth – August 14, 2006
Oxymoron: Microsoft security – August 12, 2006
Symantec researcher: At this time, there are no file-infecting viruses that can infect Mac OS X – July 13, 2006
Sophos Security: Dump Windows, Get a Mac – July 05, 2006
Apple: ‘Get a Mac. Say ‘Buh-Bye’ to viruses’ – June 01, 2006
Apple Macs and viruses: Fact vs. FUD – May 26, 2006
Symantec CEO: We think more people ought to buy Apple Macs – May 15, 2006
Unix expert: Mac OS X much more secure than Windows; recent Mac OS X security stories are media hype – May 03, 2006
BusinessWeek: Apple should hire security czar to combat uninformed media FUD – March 09, 2006
Spate of recent Mac security stories signal that Microsoft, others getting nervous – March 06, 2006
Security company Sophos: Apple Mac the best route for security for the masses – December 06, 2005
Computer columnist: anti-virus software purely optional for Apple Macs, not so for Windows – November 01, 2005
Why Symantec’s ‘scare tactics’ don’t worry Mac users – September 28, 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
Symantec’s Mac OS X claims dismissed as nonsense, FUD – March 22, 2005

42 Comments

  1. “MacDailyNews Take: Who does CNET think their readers are, drooling idiots who are incapable of seeing the vast gulf between Windows and Mac OS X security and the effects on end users?”

    Unforunately, CNET may be right about that. ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”oh oh” style=”border:0;” />

  2. The use of the word “Unleashed” is definitely creative writing. From what I can tell it’s more like – “finally pushed it out the door.”

    Secondly – if you still have to run Virus & spy ware protection on Vista. What’s the improvement?

    Get a Mac and save your Virus/Spyware protection money. Buy something nice for yourself instead. Like a new iPod.

  3. True, CNET is ridiculously anti mac and also loves to talk about how other mp3 plays-including Zune- are way better than the ipod (come on, is fm really that important?!!). That said, my heart goes out to the still missing CNET editor James Kim and his family, may they all return home safely…

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.