“Apple Macs running the Mac OS X operating system are just as vulnerable to viruses and other threats as Windows PCs are. That’s according to Symantec software architect Ollie Whitehouse,” James Rivington reports for Tech.co.uk.
“‘Apple has been demonstrated to suffer a number of vulnerabilities over the years,’ he said. ‘Suffice to say that Symantec and other software security vendors do produce anti-virus software for the Mac because we believe there is the potential of a problem,'” Rivington reports.
Full load here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “MT” for the heads up.]
MacDailyNews Take: FUD scare tactics to try to sell anti-virus software to Mac users. Your act got old years ago, Symantec. Please see related articles below.
Surprise! More fear-mongering out of “the Whitehouse”.
LOL
The most telling line of this being “…there is the potential of a problem.”
Meaning: Although we know there isn’t a problem, you should be scared (like Windows users are), so buy our software now (even though you don’t need it)
Surprise! More fear-mongering out of “the Whitehouse”…
LOL
Did nobody else not notice that the system requirements on the Symantec site for their Mac products say “Macintosh® system with PowerPC G3/G4/G5 processor only?”
So, they are committed to developing for and severing the Mac users, who are 18 months or so into using Intel chipsets, are they?
Of course, that should have read “serving” but it must have been a “Freudian typo.”
Funny the magic word to post this was “high” as in that’s what Ollie must be to make this statement.
Echo?
Ever wonder if it’s the supposed virus protection companies that are actually creating the bulk of the malware out in the wild? Seems like that’s just a great way for them to remain in business.
Further spin: whose to say Apple isn’t helping in funding them to keep those windblows viruses coming… might be why there’s no Mac viruses in the wild. Muah ah ah ahah aaaah
MW: needs… as in Symantec “needs” to get a life. Norton/Symantec anything sucks on a Mac!
> Apple has been demonstrated to suffer a number of vulnerabilities over the years
“Vulnerability” does not equal exploit. That’s the difference. What the hacker can gain through a Mac OS X vulnerability is not worth a hacker’s time and effort. Maybe access to the user’s directory, if they work hard enough, but by definition, a “virus” has to self-propagate. There have never been any Macs that turned into spam-spewing net-bots, unless those Macs were running Windows.
You can have all sorts of theoretical discussions about this, but it’s just plain silly to claim that a system with no known infections are as vulnerable as a system with a hundred thousand known infections. One would wish that companies like Symantec issued statements that were rooted in the reality their consumers live in.
Just in case Symantac is reading the comments on MDN:
Gentlemen. Your claim that the Macintosh OS is “just as vulnerable to viruses as Windows” had forced me to conclude that your company operates without the benefit of integrity. Telling lies and spreading FUD to sell your product is inexcusable. I will not purchase your products and I will advise my friends and coworkers to ignore you as well.
NAV is the only OS X malware available in the wild, but you have to be tricked into installing it on your system to be affected by it.
“One would wish that companies like Symantec issued statements that were rooted in the reality their consumers live in.”
You can’t get board approval for those. It wouldn’t make it past their legal dept. either.
<b>@MuzoInOz
FYI: re McAfee’s Virex + .Mac
Apple <u>did not</u> drop anti-virus protection from .Mac because there was “no need for it”.
Virex was dropped from the .Mac lineup about 3 years ago, because McAfee didn’t seem able to write a version of Virex (v7.5) that didn’t screw up OS X <u>10.3 Panther</u>. The problems made by Virex were worse than what any virus would have caused.</i>
OS X is probably more vulnerable to being bogged down and messed up by crappy antivirus software (as with any OS) than it is to any real virus attacks, barring user stupidity (such as downloading software from torrents).
After all, the antivirus will want to run with root-level privileges. Even if I execute a virus like an idiot by downloading and double-clicking it, it won’t have that level of access.
And speaking of “vulnerabilities,” what about the ones that have cropped up in Symantec’s software?
I quit using Symantec products years ago on Windows. I had been using AVG for the past couple of years, and PC Cillin before that.
Symantec software is written in the grand, bloated tradition of Windows…
MW=change – I got my change on and bought an iMac (24″ and I LOVE the glossy screen).
This is a riot. What Symantec means is that a Mac is just as vulnerable to slow downs and crashes once you install Symantec software as a PC is.
@Dan
MDN has at times written sensationalist headlines, but in this case, they have not. The article they have reported on contains the same exact headline as written by Rivington. You quoted the 2nd paragraph, but the 1st paragraph reads:
“Apple Macs running the Mac OS X operating system are just as vulnerable to viruses and other threats as Windows PCs are. That’s according to Symantec software architect Ollie Whitehouse who made the claims in an interview with Tech.co.uk.”
In fact, Rivington’s headline is embedded in the URL for the article:
http://www.tech.co.uk/computing/mac/news/macs-just-as-vulnerable-to-viruses-as-windows?articleid=1249719608
There is no other written source here, as Tech.co.uk IS the primary source, from an interview with Symantec’s Ollie Whitehouse. If you happen to have the original recording from the interview, please share it, pray tell!! Otherwise, we’ll have to take Rivington’s integrity at face value regarding what Whitehouse said and/or implied.
Full LOAD here: Indeed!
Full LOAD here, indeed!
“Full LOAD here” indeed!
Oops – didn’t notice page 2 – redundantly – Joey
Come see all other Mac viruses like me:
http://www.mininova.org/sub/27/seeds
Random third party software from the internet. Same thing that happens on Windows. Virus attacks on OSX are very real. Mac users never use detection to spot bad files that can install.
The great thing about the security of Macs is that there is no argument against it. The security through obscurity argument is nonsense even if you were to accept it were true. If an OS had to have a large user base to become a target, what level is that? 10%? 20%? More? Even at 10%, based on the Mac market share trotted out by the media of 3-4% that’s an awful lot more Macs that need to be sold before we need to worry. Even with Apple’s phenomenal growth we’d be secure for years.
If people spout the STO myth then why even argue? Who cares? I’ll go on using my secure, powerful, beautiful and easy to use OS and everyone else can use Windows and be plagued with security issues, but at least they can tell themselves that they’re in the majority because that really makes a difference when you’re one person sitting at your computer.
Symantic! I used to be a faithful user for years.
Had it on as many as 20 Macs I was dealing with.
Now – you couldn’t pay me enough money to install it on a Mac or a PC for that matter.
What a bunch of CRAP!
FYI – I did have a virus back in the 90’s. It was a worm and I got rid of it with a freeware virus killer. No biggie!
T!
thats like asking a barber if you need a hair cut…of course their gonna say that. they want to sell you software wether you need it or not!!