Security vendor Symantec has once again pointed the knife at Apple Macintosh users.
Symantec's latest Internet Security Threat Report continues to voice concern for the security and stability of the Mac operating system, OS X in particular. The publication covered findings for the first half of 2005.
"An ever-increasing number of users are adopting OS X. Many of these users believe that this operating system and the applications that run on it are immune to traditional security concerns. However, as evidence suggests, increasingly they may be operating under a false sense of security," the report stated.
What exactly was the supporting and undisputed evidence? A SecurityFocus page that aggregates 78 entries of OS X flaws starting from version 10 (circa 2001) onwards. Compare this to Windows ... well, where would you start? OK, I hear your ... it's not an apples-to-apples comparison.
SecurityFocus describes itself as a vendor-neutral site that provides objective, timely and comprehensive security information to all members of the security community. Oh, and by the way, SecurityFocus was acquired by Symantec in 2002.
The report briefly touched on a Trojan called OSX/Weapox — its discovery indicates that OS X may no longer be spared from widespread attack. "Though vulnerabilities and malicious code targeting other operating systems continue to outnumber those on OS X, Symantec recommends users continue to apply security patches and educate themselves on OS X security issues," the report stated.
Symantec's stance against OS X users — that this group is delusional — is familiar.
The false-sense-of-security claim was mentioned in a previous report which covered the second half of 2004. Then, Symantec said increased adoption of the Mac mini will escalate malicious activity since it could be purchased by less security-savvy users. These statements were widely covered in the press and opined on by your writer.
The company also claimed OS X's BSD-Unix origins made it susceptible to vulnerabilities.
In the latest report, however, the Mac mini didn't score a mention. This is due to the fact that OS X has increased in popularity on all of Apple's platforms, Symantec security manager Dean Turner said.
"When we referred to the Mac mini we were referring to it as a popular device for OS X (which we continue to talk about).
"Cheaper hardware can mean increased adoption ... which has been the case for Apple," Turner said.
Indeed, the mini version is more affordable compared with the sleek iMac; a 1.25GHz 40GB Mac mini costs £359 but throw in a keyboard, mouse and monitor, and the cost is almost comparable to a Dell or any other IBM compatible, while a 1.8GHz, 17 inch iMac starts at £899.
Symantec reckons as Mac OS X increases in usage, bad things will happen. Last week was a prime example — Apple released 10 security patches but made no mention to how dangerous the flaws were.
As company policy, Apple tends to...
For more, click here...
Talkback
I have been a Mac user since 2002 having got tired of the instability and continual security problems of Windows. Like most Mac users I would regard myself as a convert as it IS a positive pleasure to use compared to XP which I use at work. Apple's update procedure is simple and efficient and does give you a sense of security. I also use Intego anti-virus although I get so few updates sometimes I wonder if it simply isn't working. I think the problem is not just one of market share. Apple use unix and unix was designed a long, long time ago to be robust and run on minicomputers with multiple users needing security. Windows grew from MS-DOS that was knocked together to run on something small with a single user. Personally I think Windows' security problems are due to its heritage rather than its market share. Symantec are just trying to open a new market which is proving frustratingly difficult for them. Solaris is unix too, why aren't they flogging anti-virus programs for that? I use a Mac with OS X because it's the best consumer unix solution available, not because I like the logo. Just my opinion.
"Do you think Apple should start following Microsoft's model by rating vulnerabilities and patches?"
What is there to rate? As much as what Symantec and other anti-virus sellers out there says, there hasn't been any report of macs getting infected by a virus.
If you know one then post your claim here:
Mac OS X Viruses: Put Up or Shut Up (part 1)
"All, right, I'm sick of people reporting that Mac OS X is 'mostly' virus-free. It is, as far has been proven, ENTIRELY virus-free. Macs are not magical, and one day there will be virus that infects them. However, I don't think it's happened yet, and I think it's time we, the Mac community, started saying, "No, we don't have any viruses." "
http://wilshipley.com/blog/2005/09/mac-os-x-viruses-put-up-or-shut-up.html
and win $500
read this also:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/index.php?p=431
"That's why there have been hundreds of widely publicized Solaris and MacOS X vulnerabilities for which there are no actual exploits and therefore no victims."
Lets see if I can make this clear. I live in San Diego and we have never had a hurricane. But we live on the coast and water temps are changing so lets assume that a hurricane is at least theoretically possible (maybe it is?). Do you think it is prudent for me to purchase storm shutters, backup generators etc to be ready? This is what Symantic is asking us to do.
Now, on the other hand, is it worthwhile for me to have a weeks worth of food and water for my family just in case any disaster happens? Hell yes. This is sort of like allowing your system to download regular patches from Apple (say weekly as a minimum).
Also this doesn't mean that if the weather agency says a hurricane has formed and will make land in one day that I would ignore it. Just like hurricanes, Viruses take time to affect most people and I would be quick to board up the windows (immediately load any patches) and get out of town (purchase virus software).
Today the ranting of Symantic is them saying that it is possible for the storm to hit and I and my fellow mac users are waiting for them to say that the storm has formed and is coming to land. Until then, any efforts in this direction are probably a waste of time.
Geez Louise, what the hell is a sanitary reminder?
Is it:
1 A reminder from the female of the species to pick up sanitary napkins/pads from the shop?
2 A reminder to wash your hands after going to the toilet?
3 A reminder to sanitise a purification system with 1 molar sodium hydroxide prior to producing parenterally administered pharmaceuticals?
Answer, none of the above.
What I think the geek in a suit was trying to communicate was that it was a "salutary reminder".
Please people, if you are pretending to be journalists, or writing verbatim from some clueless dweeb's witterings trying to flog their wares, clarify exactly what it is they've said.
http://wilshipley.com/blog/2005/09/mac-os-x-viruses-put-up-or-shut-up.html
of course ALL computers are susceptible to mailicious code, but when an operating system is designed to have all ports open before youve even logged on then thats a fundamental design flaw, i myself am sick and tired of the XP vs OSX 'thing'. Most new users of a mac are semi-computer/net savvy, most, have just had enough of the constant battle of XP based pc's. As for symantec..pfft..your jedi mind tricks might work by scaring the entire microsoft community but they wont work on apple converts, we've been there already you see, thankyou but cry wolf to a market that haven't made an informed switch to OSX.