“Malware writers faster in developing code than security industry, claims expert,” Rene Millman reports for ITPro.
Millman reports, “Malware writers appear to be much further along in developing malware for Vista than the security industry is in making products to protect the new operating system.”
Millman reports, “Speaking exclusively to IT PRO, Tim Eades, senior vice-president of sales at security company Sana Security said that 38 percent of malware is already Vista-compatible. ‘Malware writers have gone through the WHQL (Windows Hardware Quality Labs) list to make sure that their code works on new machines,’ he said. ‘They have managed to port code to Vista quicker than the security industry.’ The WHQL list defines hardware that is compatible with the Windows operating system.”
Full article here.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Windows ‘Storm Worm’ rages across globe; Apple Macintosh unaffected – January 19, 2007
Apple touts virus-free Macs – August 25, 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
Symantec researcher: At this time, there are no file-infecting viruses that can infect Mac OS X – July 13, 2006
Gartner analyst tries to propagate discounted Mac OS X ‘security via obscurity’ myth via BBC – July 06, 2006
Apple: ‘Get a Mac. Say ‘Buh-Bye’ to viruses’ – June 01, 2006
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
16-percent of computer users are unaffected by viruses, malware because they use Apple Macs – June 15, 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
Hey “Enterprise IT Expert.” You obviously are not. Either you did this as a joke or you are a 12 year old kid who just did a school paper on the plight of Native Americans during the 19th Century. None of your arguments make any sense but your ignorance is surpassed only by your complete insensitivity to Native Americans. Go back to your homework and try to learn something this time.
Mr. Enterprise IT Expert –
“Windows has been made stronger by all the malaware that infects it daily:”
Except that there are so many holes that the patches sometimes create more holes in Windows.
One of the “new” Vista features is UAC. This will supposedly make Vista much more secure than XP. Except that the early reviews on this feature say that it is such a pain in the ass that most users will likely turn it off. Or if they can’t because the IT dept administers the machine, they will constantly be complaining to the IT expert about it. Good luck with that.
Great. MS has been communicating with its developers to get those viruses out on time.. Good stuff, guys!
Yeah Newsflash! Who wants to be the FIRST hacker to break the Mac? It just isn’t worth trying to infect the several hundred MILLION Macs already in the wild!!
This is not to say it can’t be done, but I think the incentive is definitely there to try it.
Yet…no one does…
Must be hard to do, huh?
Welcome to the Social
SPUTNIK IS BACK, ladies and gentlemen, in the guise of “Enterprise IT Expert”!
Welcome, oh child of the wild blue yonder! (But don’t forget your bedtime.)
Clicking the “OK” button is hardly what I would call an improvement in security.
Looks like the malware writers have better quality control than Microsoft or the “security” companies. I personally do not think Microsoft did anything significant to improve security in Vista, except put in those “OK button with no password” dialog boxes to annoy users and get them conditioned into hitting OK without even reading the warning.
And here we are, during the so-called “month of Mac OS X bugs,” smug and happy to be Mac users.
Any “Enterprise IT Expert” is nothing more than a douche bag that makes his living off Windows deficiencies. One of these idiots told us at our job orientation that he runs so many virus checkers it makes his computer slow down. They’re so stupid it’s amazing… these are the fucktards buying computers for major companies and putting data and work efficiency at risk.
Microsoft: “Infects for sure”
Gotta love Fester and his brood of goons.
MDN: “plan” as in I plan to NEVER buy Windows.
An immune system attempts to adapt to real virus attack– it’s a miracle of nature. Windows does not adapt, it is reprogrammed by the same people who made the first mistakes. Windows does not evolve, it is changed at the hands of men who themselves do not change very quickly. Windows is a product of M$’s poor organization, not Windows’ inherent ability to adapt. No miracle there– just a strong suggestion that past behavior is probably going to be the best predictor for the future. Vista: Ultimate Swiss Cheese Signature Upgrade Edition. Now with more Uh-Oh.
Don’t you people ever watch Colbert?!?!
Zune Tang (Enterprise IT Expert, et al) is effing brilliant!
SATIRE, people, and satire on steroids at that. Read a book (without pictures) or something.
Hey Enterprise IT Expert, Unix has been around for years and runs most large enterprise backends and systems. (I assume you know this)
I work with large government agencies runinng Solaris, AIX and HP-UX and never seen a virus or one that brought down Unix systems.
I guess hackers have no interest in infecting large banks and Wallstreet? Oh the same assumption, not enough of these system going around!
Enterprise IT Expert gets it. Great post and thank you for having the courage to tell it like it is.
Macs in the enterprise would be short lived as the viruses, malware, adware and spyware that has only made Windows stronger would take the little Apple toys down in an instant. You lemmings don’t have a clue.
You want stability and security? GET WINDOWS VISTA!
Your potential. Our passion.
When Apple announced the switch to Intel processors I dumped my Macs and switched to Windows XP because I refuse to pay Apple’s “premium” for PC hardware. Best move I ever made. Windows can be used to actually do things other than running iLife because the Windows software portfolio is huge.
The day Mac OS X gets even 25% of the developer base and software portfolio that the Windows platform has, you frickin’ brain-dead Mac weenies will be singing a different tune because the malware writers will follow. You air heads sit here on your Mac forum with nothing better to do than bash the competition thinking your Macs are infallible. Well, I got news for y’all – they’re not.
Former Mac User, but NOT former Mac Forum Flamer!
Go away, Fanboy.
Take your “Infects for Sure” PC and do ANYTHING – anything worth a dime, I dare you to.
Now please quit pumping up your pal Wang Chung and Steve “Fester” Ballmer.
One more thing:
Steve Ballmer is sex, and vice-versa.
Zune Tang
> you frickin’ brain-dead Mac weenies will be singing a different tune because the malware writers will follow.
If Mac OS X has ever gets to 25%, Windows will probably still have at least 60%. Windows Vista is proving that it is not secure, and not “more secure” in any meaningful way than Windows XP.
Real world evidence (the absolute lack of Mac OS X malware “in the wild”) is proof that Mac OS X is much more secure than Windows “whatever.” There are vulnerabilities, but they are difficult to exploit into anything useful to the hackers. It may not be “infallible,” but with Windows sitting there like a duck, being such an easy target, why would hackers wrack their collective brains trying to do something harmful with a Mac OS X “vulnerability”?
The “security through obscurity” myth is proven wrong by common sense. However, I believe Mac OS X is more secure in practice because Windows is so “insecure”; hackers will take the path of least resistance and target Windows. That’s not going to change even if Mac OS X gets to 25% of the user base.
But Apple is like those naive and isolated native America indians;
when the Real World traders and immigrants arrived;
they died and disappeared from North America.
— Enterpri$e it “Expert”
Because they caught the same viruses from the pox-laden “Windows” disease carriers. Can’t happen with a Mac.
Course, you’re a 12-year-old kid, not that there’s any difference between you and a Windows IT feather-bedding “expert,” ripping the company off for fraudulent “work” in trying to keep the third leg from falling off the M$ milking stool.
OK Ok Ok , Former. Are This is fun, A bit PC bash fight yeah. It is a shame it would be nice if the mac was more common, so more third party software, but this can be recitfied. MS iS POO Vista Milesta, hahhahah ah
“When Apple announced the switch to Intel processors I dumped my Macs and switched to Windows XP because I refuse to pay Apple’s “premium” for PC hardware. Best move I ever made. Windows can be used to actually do things other than running iLife because the Windows software portfolio is huge.”
—
Hey shithead, your statement is erroneous.
Oh, wait a minute. I better use little words you can understand.
What you said is wrong.
When I bought my second Mac, (At a store that sold mostly PCs) I believed the same thing. There just wasn’t enough software for the Mac. The clerk pulled out a catalog about 1 1/2″ thick and laid it on the counter. “That’s all the software available for Windows at this point,” he said. Then he reached under the counter and pulled out a catalog that was easily 3″ thick and said, “That’s all the Macintosh software available today.” Almost twice as much!
The main issue at that time (1999), and which is still an issue today is over-the-counter availability.
And with Open Source, the list just grows bigger and bigger all the time.
Check out this link to Native OS X applications. Grand total: 16,906. Apparently this is only freeware/shareware and open source software, it doesn’t include commercial apps.
http://osx.hyperjeff.net/Apps/
Who says there’s no software for Macs?
Enjoy your FeeCee experience.
People have always said you should use Windows because it was compatible with everything.
I guess they weren’t kidding!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
38%! That’s it! We expect and demand 100% backwards compatibility.
Former Mac User gets it. You Apple lemmings don’t have any software. If Apple didn’t write it, who would? All the good software is on Windows, and the best part it, there’s lots of it.
Windows has more software so it’s better. End of story. Welcome the glorious world of Microsoft and all of their magnificent partners which in turn creates a fantastic computing experience rich in software, productivity and pure enjoyment. Glad to have you on the team.
Your potential. Our passion.
MDN Magic Word: ‘better’ as in Microsoft is way better than Apple. Any day.
I miss my Amiga. Even that was better than Windblows.