Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [wpmac] Mac Security (New York Times)

Expand Messages
  • Patrick Sheffield
    Another theory put forward used to be that Macs were too expensive for eastern euro-hackers with no budget. But with a VERY active hackintosh scene, that
    Message 1 of 8 , Apr 8, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Another theory put forward used to be that Macs were too expensive for
      eastern euro-hackers with no budget. But with a VERY active hackintosh
      scene, that theory is put to rest...

      Patrick

      On Apr 7, 2009, at 9:52 PM, Randy B. Singer wrote:

      >
      > On Apr 7, 2009, at 5:53 PM, Paul Hogan wrote:
      >
      > > The article says:Yet Macs� relative safety is primarily due to their
      > > still-slim market share.
      >
      > I just submitted this to the site. We'll see if they post it:
      >
    • Chad Smith
      I think both sides are oversimplifying things. It is true - Macs are less of a target. Security through obscurity is very much in play. It is also true that
      Message 2 of 8 , Apr 8, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        I think both sides are oversimplifying things.

        It is true - Macs are less of a target. Security through obscurity is very
        much in play.
        It is also true that Mac OS X, being a Unix based system designed from the
        ground up this century, is by its very nature a more secure system.

        It is also true that Windows is a much bigger (read more profitable and more
        headlines grabbing) target than Mac.
        It is also true that Windows is buggy, bloated, and burdened with supporting
        over 15 years of legacy apps and leftover code from an operating system
        designed before there was a world wide web. There is still code from
        Windows 95 in Windows 7. Core code. All of this makes it much more of an
        easy target.

        The expense of Macs also can be prohibited for hackers, (European or
        otherwise), who are not known for paying full price for anything. And the
        Hackintosh scene may change that. (I, for example, have both a MacBook and
        a $350 netbook that is running Mac OS X 10.5.6.)

        However, what that last part overlooks is - hackers are not
        super-intelligent uber-coders who can crank out a world-stopping virus in 60
        minutes with nothing more than a text editor on a Pentium 2. Nor are they
        slick reluctant heroes who can hijack the Pentegon in 60 seconds if they
        have a gun to their heads. They are greedy losers who "stand on the backs
        of giants" by tweaking existing viruses, trojans, and worms to do what they
        want them to do. The term is "Script kiddies". They just lump a bunch of
        scripts that they find on their darknets together to make it do something.

        Are their hackers writing original code? Sure - there would have to be,
        right? But most viruses - the vast majority of them - are just variations
        on a theme. Even this latest major bug "Conficker" was actually "Conflicker
        D" meaning there were at least 3 preceding viruses.

        All that so say - add to the secure nature of Mac OS X, its limitations on
        the hardware it supports, its expense, and its smaller target size - add to
        all that the lack of existing malware raw materials for the hackers to use.
        Then throw in Windows decades of vulenarablities, its familiarity to
        hackers, the vast treasure houses of existing malware to play with, the
        bigger target, its widespread use in businesses, banks, and governments, (IE
        - Where the real money is), and it's much larger marketshare... Mix, bake,
        and serve. Somewhere in there do you get the "true reason" why Macs are
        ultimately pragmatically malware free.

        In the end, though, the reason why doesn't really matter (until that reason
        changes and we're no longer safe). The fact remains I don't need antivirus,
        antispyware, antiadware, etc. software on my MacBook. That's good enough
        for me.

        - Chad Smith
        http://www.chadwsmith.com/


        On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:24 AM, Patrick Sheffield
        <psheffield@...>wrote:

        > Another theory put forward used to be that Macs were too expensive for
        > eastern euro-hackers with no budget. But with a VERY active hackintosh
        > scene, that theory is put to rest...
        >
        > Patrick
        >
        > On Apr 7, 2009, at 9:52 PM, Randy B. Singer wrote:
        >
        > >
        > > On Apr 7, 2009, at 5:53 PM, Paul Hogan wrote:
        > >
        > > > The article says:Yet Macs� relative safety is primarily due to their
        > > > still-slim market share.
        > >
        > > I just submitted this to the site. We'll see if they post it:
        > >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.