By Will Sturgeon, 7 July 2006 14:25
NEWS
Mac users have reacted angrily to yesterday's leader article on silicon.com which questioned whether the Mac operating system is perceived as being more secure simply because Macs are less popular, and therefore represent a less attractive target for hackers and virus writers.
Not so, argue Mac fans who were quick to point out that, in their opinion, Macs are perceived as being more secure because they are inherently more secure by design. End of argument.
silicon.com reader Steve Erickson wrote: "There are many differences, many discussions, and a wide consensus that Macs are more secure because of the technical underpinnings of the Unix Mach kernel. It is doubtless true that increased market share brings increased attempts at attacking any OS. What you fail to mention is that the technology in Macs make them inherently more resistant to those attacks."
Another reader, Mark Costa, wrote: "The current Windows platform was designed with the needs of IT professionals in mind and provides them with opportunities to remotely administer and manage large numbers of machines. The current Mac platform builds on an Unix foundation and has many services disabled by default.
"I suspect that virus, worm, and Trojan authors have simply grasped for the low hanging fruit and exploited opportunities presented to them by Microsoft.
"I also suspect that Apple, in creating Mac OS X, deliberately sought to build an OS that minimised these opportunities."
Though some accepted that a 'never say never' approach remains the most pragmatic.
John Konopka wrote: "It is probably possible to write malware for Mac OS X but for technical reasons it is much, much more difficult than writing malware for Windows."
Many other readers argued that surely the niche appeal of the Mac, coupled with the boasts about security, should be like a red rag to a bull for the hackers as they jostle for the kudos of being the first to write a successful Mac virus.
Ron Evry wrote: "Fascinating but flawed analysis. In the second half of 2005, there were over 11,000 new viruses for Windows. Comparing it to a graffiti artist trying to get attention, it would be like tagging a building so covered with graffiti that it looked like a Jackson Pollock painting.
"In other words, writing a Windows Virus is a good way to get lost in the hacker crowd.
"Now imagine if you were the first hacker to write a successful Mac virus. You would be famous."
Jon Spratlin wrote: "The only hole I can find in this logic is the 'dare' factor. Apple has been, by toting OS X as more secure, daring the hacker community to break it. Following the analogy to graffiti artists although Apple is a smaller target wouldn't hacking it make a bigger splash?"
But many security experts will tell you that modern virus writers are no longer the trouble-making teens looking for such kudos but are in fact motivated by the financial gains of big hits. Fame and kudos don't pay the bills.
And it's not just the virus writers making money from viruses, said Roy Judd, pointing out there is now a huge industry developed around antivirus technologies.
Judd said: "No OS is beyond a determined attack and, paradoxically, there is now a sizable segment of the IT industry with a strong vested interest in the perpetuation of malware. Windows obliges, at least in the current flavours. It will be interesting to see how Vista fares. But I don't expect massive improvements.
Comments
There are 12 comments. Join the discussion
1. Richard A
Arghhhh! For god's sake, you're all missing the point!!!
Has nobody else looked beyond the bluster about Mac vs PC and noticed the truly bizarre aspect in all of this:
Why would Sophos, an antivirus vendor, advise customers to switch to the 100% virus-free Mac OS, when their business only exists thanks to a widespread OS that is literally swamped with malware?
Take you pick from these possible answers:
a) They are really nice people and don't care about their bottom line so much as making the world a better, happier, apple-flavoured place. Aaah.
b) They are getting overwhelmed writing daily Windows virus fixes and want a holiday, which can only happen if people move to Mac OS X.
c) They can't grow their Windows market share any more and want to expand into Mac OS X - which only becomes viable if more people buy Macs.
d) They just hate Microsoft and facied a cheap bash at the goose that lays the virus-infested golden egg.
e) They have a clever PR department with a small budget and figured this might just get a bit of coverage...
f) They just bought shares in Apple?
g) They are cynical, evil geniuses, fed up of all the untested hype about Mac security and wanted to make OS X a sexy target, thus destroying the last refuge of beautiful, creative and peaceful folk living in harmony with their computers.
h) They just felt kinda guilty after all these years of taking money for old rope - like a Big Pharma selling a palliative instead of a cure - and decided it was time to restore their karmic balance. So they fessed up.
j) They got drunk at the office party and let slip that the answer has been staring us in the face the whole time (if only we would click our heels together three times and say "there's no place like Cupertino").
k) All of the above.
2. Adam S
Thanks Richard A for summing up so beautifully what I couldn't be bothered to write.
The only answer I can come up with is Sophos are targetted at the bigger enterprise with server based products. Apple are still very much a desktop producer. Get people using Macs at home meaning you don't have to deal with home users running 3 year old versions and keep enjoying the big bucks for corporate subscriptions.
And before anyone gets 'Mac do servers too' on me, I know, I have one, it looks lovely!!
3. Fandyllic
It would be interesting to hear from an actual security expert (perhaps at a corporation with both Macs and PCs) that doesn't have the obvious bias of wanting to sell product like most anti-virus company PR folks who tend to dominate these discussions.
Is it because they won't talk or that the enlightenment they might spread cuts into the FUD that most IT journalists like to stir up?
4. Nick Collingridge
Journalistic credibility demolished yet again!
Once again the comments that people have made about your unblanaced leader article are dismissed as Mac users being "angry". If they are, I would guess that for the majority of them the anger is directed at the lack of thoroughness in the original article - poor journalism in fact - rather than the fact that it is not as Mac-positive as they would like.
This is what gets me about the leader - there appears to be no attempt to present a balanced and complete perspective on the issue (which should surely be the aim of any journalist who wants to retain their credibility?). So all its readers will either dismiss the article with the effect of diminshing the credibility of silicon.com in their view, or swallow it and hence be given a limited and uneducated perspective on the subject.
Is this really a satisfactory outcome for the editorial team?
5. Roy Judd
Nightmare scenario... Sophos geeks have finally cracked OS X and Sophos sales are at phase 1 - developing market potential. Wake me up someone... Please?
6. Mr Teroo
Macs more secure? What absolute bullsh*t!!
Lets try to imagine a world where Apples market share was 90% and Microsofts was 5% (Hard I know given the cost of buying / repairing a Mac)
Who do you think the script kiddies would target then?
One button mouse - what a joke!
7. anonymous
I think a lot of people are still missing 1 big security issue on any platform - THE USER!!!
how do you get round that one???
8. phil
Any machine is as "safe" as it's user!
9. Jeremy Wickins
Isn't the whole PC v Mac argument vgery much like buying cars? A PC running Windows is like an old Ford Cortina - you know it is going to go wrong, and everyone knows how to break into it, but you expect it to happen, should be prepared, if you can't fix it yourself there are lots of people that can, and for not a lot of money. On the other hand, a Mac is a new Bentley - expensive, generally reliable, but when it does go wrong it will cost you several limbs to repair, if you can find anyone that can do it. Alternatively, there is the PC running Linux - a kit car that is as reliable as you make it!
10. Dave
Nick,
I work for a large telco who has a large security consulting team working for big multinationals. We are given Wintel machines by default, however most of the security team buy and support their own laptops. Can you guess what they almost exclusively use? Yep, Macs.
Why, because in contrast to our fearless Leader from Silicon, they recognise that far beyond the small market share argument, Macs actually are more secure, and more securable. Sure, people really are the weakest link in any organisation, but if you give them the right tools to be a little more secure, your corporate information has a little more chance of staying where it should.
I also use a Mac at home, because it's so much nicer to use, and I don't have to go and buy 100s if not 1000s of pounds worth of additional software for it. Just a thought to the more expensive argument (which as most Mac users know these days is far from true anyway!!!).
11. Anthony Hunt
"Burgers are good for you and make you healthy and beautiful" says MacDonalds...
No, I wouldn't believe them either..
Mac Users are 'inherently full of hot', say PC Users.
12. anonymous
Well if you actually think about don't mroe user's have Windows, and a large portion of those user don't really have much knowledge about computers. So there are novices in reality sorry if it offends people, but the point i'm trying to make is that alot of ~Windows users wont really know about how to make there computer "secure".