M
Martin C.E.
A friend of mine is very proud of his Mac and makes the claim that
Macs don't get viruses.
Is this true? Or is he kidding me?
Macs don't get viruses.
Is this true? Or is he kidding me?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
D
David H. Lipman
He's full of sh!t !
There are infectors on MACs, just not as many target that platform.
Dave
| A friend of mine is very proud of his Mac and makes the claim that
| Macs don't get viruses.
|
| Is this true? Or is he kidding me?
There are infectors on MACs, just not as many target that platform.
Dave
| A friend of mine is very proud of his Mac and makes the claim that
| Macs don't get viruses.
|
| Is this true? Or is he kidding me?
J
J J
Ja,
There are quite a few and more often than not more likely to cause larger
scale damage - i mean, less virii which are more deadly as more can be
achieved on Unix based platforms.... mind you, to date... if my MSc
lecturers are correct, then Linux in general has only ever had 4 known
viruses... might bee bull$hit
There are quite a few and more often than not more likely to cause larger
scale damage - i mean, less virii which are more deadly as more can be
achieved on Unix based platforms.... mind you, to date... if my MSc
lecturers are correct, then Linux in general has only ever had 4 known
viruses... might bee bull$hit
D
Dudhorse
David H. Lipman said:He's full of sh!t !
There are infectors on MACs, just not as many target that platform.
Dave
... some people call it security thru obscurity.
N
Nigel Blatheringstock
David H. Lipman said:There are infectors on MACs, just not as many target that platform.
....and we might see a substantial rise in Mac infections as Unix-based
OSX gains popularity.
Nigel
M
Moonlit
Hi,
The more popular a system is the more virusses it will have (because then it
becomes more interesting to write it in the first place). This is the reason
MS based systems have the most virusses not because the technology is worse
thann *nix like systems. A virus writer obviously wants to have maximum
impact, therefore he writes his stuff for the most popular OS.
Regards, Ron AF Greve.
The more popular a system is the more virusses it will have (because then it
becomes more interesting to write it in the first place). This is the reason
MS based systems have the most virusses not because the technology is worse
thann *nix like systems. A virus writer obviously wants to have maximum
impact, therefore he writes his stuff for the most popular OS.
Regards, Ron AF Greve.
O
optikl
There are some number of Mac specific viruses; I think the number is aroundMoonlit said:Hi,
The more popular a system is the more virusses it will have (because then it
becomes more interesting to write it in the first place). This is the reason
MS based systems have the most virusses not because the technology is worse
thann *nix like systems. A virus writer obviously wants to have maximum
impact, therefore he writes his stuff for the most popular OS.
Regards, Ron AF Greve.
40 to 50. Mac's can receive macro viruses which will infect Word, Excel and
Power Point (assuming they have imbedded macros) files. By and large though,
because the operating system isn't built on a house of cards (dll files),
it's much less susceptible to malicious coding. Too, the Mac Operating
System isn't licensed the way Windows is and that may be a factor, as well.
If there were more software applications available for Mac's, I'd turn in
these Windows boxes in a heart-beat.
W
Walter Roberson
:The more popular a system is the more virusses it will have (because then it
:becomes more interesting to write it in the first place). This is the reason
:MS based systems have the most virusses not because the technology is worse
:thann *nix like systems. A virus writer obviously wants to have maximum
:impact, therefore he writes his stuff for the most popular OS.
That's a fallacy.
To quote myself from another posting in another group a month ago:
Microsoft until a year ago had a policy of emphasizing
features over security. Read Gate's interview with a German
computer magazine a few years ago: he outright said that people
should not obtain MS software upgrades expecting bugs to be fixed,
because "no-one buys security" so MS changes were aimed at new
features and any bug fixes were incidental.
Microsoft has now implimented a policy of security-first, but
you don't reverse 15+ years of bad coding in just one year.
Windows is *huge* (something like 55 million lines) and is not
internally well compartimentalized. Retrofitting security seldom
works: if it isn't designed in from the beginning, you're probably
better to re-write the whole thing.
Mac OS X, though, is based upon OpenBSD, the authors of which
take pride in security, and whom have spent years specifically
designing and testing for security. With all these exploits being
exposed over the years, less than half a dozen of them have applied
to OpenBSD. And the OpenBSD people keep actively thinking about how
they could do better. It's hard to say, though, how well Apple is
carrying those security concerns over into its customized version.
:becomes more interesting to write it in the first place). This is the reason
:MS based systems have the most virusses not because the technology is worse
:thann *nix like systems. A virus writer obviously wants to have maximum
:impact, therefore he writes his stuff for the most popular OS.
That's a fallacy.
To quote myself from another posting in another group a month ago:
Microsoft until a year ago had a policy of emphasizing
features over security. Read Gate's interview with a German
computer magazine a few years ago: he outright said that people
should not obtain MS software upgrades expecting bugs to be fixed,
because "no-one buys security" so MS changes were aimed at new
features and any bug fixes were incidental.
Microsoft has now implimented a policy of security-first, but
you don't reverse 15+ years of bad coding in just one year.
Windows is *huge* (something like 55 million lines) and is not
internally well compartimentalized. Retrofitting security seldom
works: if it isn't designed in from the beginning, you're probably
better to re-write the whole thing.
Mac OS X, though, is based upon OpenBSD, the authors of which
take pride in security, and whom have spent years specifically
designing and testing for security. With all these exploits being
exposed over the years, less than half a dozen of them have applied
to OpenBSD. And the OpenBSD people keep actively thinking about how
they could do better. It's hard to say, though, how well Apple is
carrying those security concerns over into its customized version.
G
Guillermito
(e-mail address removed)-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) :
This is not a good argument, for historical reasons.
There was less viruses for Mac even when MacOS was not Unix-based,
and, according to MrSandman, an excellent virus coder who coded a few
bugs for Mac, DOS and Win32, it was actually much easier to code
viruses for for Mac than for PCs. But most virus writers didn't care
(or didn't have a Mac).
So obviously the popularity of a computer system has an impact on the
number of viruses written. If you want to make headlines (and that's
the goal of some coders), you need a certain critical mass.
.... [and that's why there are fewer viruses, to make it short]That's a fallacy. [...]
Mac OS X, though, is based upon OpenBSD [...]
This is not a good argument, for historical reasons.
There was less viruses for Mac even when MacOS was not Unix-based,
and, according to MrSandman, an excellent virus coder who coded a few
bugs for Mac, DOS and Win32, it was actually much easier to code
viruses for for Mac than for PCs. But most virus writers didn't care
(or didn't have a Mac).
So obviously the popularity of a computer system has an impact on the
number of viruses written. If you want to make headlines (and that's
the goal of some coders), you need a certain critical mass.
T
Tommy
Walter said:Mac OS X, though, is based upon OpenBSD, the authors of which
take pride in security, and whom have spent years specifically
designing and testing for security. With all these exploits being
exposed over the years, less than half a dozen of them have applied
to OpenBSD. And the OpenBSD people keep actively thinking about how
they could do better. It's hard to say, though, how well Apple is
carrying those security concerns over into its customized version.
www.openbsd.org
Only one remote hole in the default install, in more than 7 years!
I dropped windblows about two monthes ago and have been useing FreeBSD. I
Couldn't be happier, It's super secure and very stable. Not to mention you
have a whole world of free software..BSD also has a port system that has
thousands of programs.
Don't have to worry about viruses or Trojans, the good points go on and on..
D
Dudhorse
.... have to agree with you - in order to kill off Netscape and any otherWalter Roberson said::The more popular a system is the more virusses it will have (because then it
:becomes more interesting to write it in the first place). This is the reason
:MS based systems have the most virusses not because the technology is worse
:thann *nix like systems. A virus writer obviously wants to have maximum
:impact, therefore he writes his stuff for the most popular OS.
That's a fallacy.
To quote myself from another posting in another group a month ago:
Microsoft until a year ago had a policy of emphasizing
features over security. Read Gate's interview with a German
computer magazine a few years ago: he outright said that people
should not obtain MS software upgrades expecting bugs to be fixed,
because "no-one buys security" so MS changes were aimed at new
features and any bug fixes were incidental.
Microsoft has now implimented a policy of security-first, but
you don't reverse 15+ years of bad coding in just one year.
Windows is *huge* (something like 55 million lines) and is not
internally well compartimentalized. Retrofitting security seldom
works: if it isn't designed in from the beginning, you're probably
better to re-write the whole thing.
Mac OS X, though, is based upon OpenBSD, the authors of which
take pride in security, and whom have spent years specifically
designing and testing for security. With all these exploits being
exposed over the years, less than half a dozen of them have applied
to OpenBSD. And the OpenBSD people keep actively thinking about how
they could do better. It's hard to say, though, how well Apple is
carrying those security concerns over into its customized version.
browsers Micro$oft made Explorer part of the OS - so all a hacker has to do
is crack Explorer and then they are in Windows and they own the system. They
also bundled a "free" version of Internet Explorer(Outlook Express)with
their OS which just about everyone uses(including me). Outlook Express is
one big magnet for spyware, viruses/worms whatever. So we all are paying
the price for Micro$oft wanting to kill off the competition. From what I
have read OSX keeps every app. separate from the OS so they are more
bulletproof(they make hackers work harder or they have to rely on the
stupidity of the user). Suspect that vulnerability is the biggest reason
why the next version of Windows(codenamed Longhorn) release date keeps
getting pushed back; they are having to totally rewrite Windows and have
Explorer separate and away from Windows. Also wonder if Linux wasn't around
and taking business away from Micr$oft would they be all that concerned
about security?
Seriously thinking of downloading/installing Mozilla but I know nothing of
its newsgroup abilities.
E
E.
TRanslation: even virus writers don't support mac's anymore...Martin said:A friend of mine is very proud of his Mac and makes the claim that
Macs don't get viruses.
Is this true? Or is he kidding me?
E.
K
kurt wismer
Martin said:A friend of mine is very proud of his Mac and makes the claim that
Macs don't get viruses.
Is this true? Or is he kidding me?
its not true... but he's probably not kidding either... he's probably
just ignorant of the fact that there are mac viruses...
not surprising since the number of mac viruses is far, far less than
the number of pc viruses, and the likelihood of getting one is much,
much less (in part because there are fewer of them and because there
are fewer mac computers from which mac viruses can spread)...
K
kurt wismer
Walter said::The more popular a system is the more virusses it will have (because then it
:becomes more interesting to write it in the first place). This is the reason
:MS based systems have the most virusses not because the technology is worse
:thann *nix like systems. A virus writer obviously wants to have maximum
:impact, therefore he writes his stuff for the most popular OS.
That's a fallacy.
no it's not...
To quote myself from another posting in another group a month ago:
Microsoft until a year ago had a policy of emphasizing
features over security.
while this is true it's also a non-sequitur... when one releases a
virus, the hope is that it will have a big impact... the single most
important consideration in maximizing the impact is to go after the
largest userbase...
F
FromTheRafters
Moonlit said:Hi,
The more popular a system is the more virusses it will have (because then it
becomes more interesting to write it in the first place). This is the reason
MS based systems have the most virusses not because the technology is worse
thann *nix like systems. A virus writer obviously wants to have maximum
impact, therefore he writes his stuff for the most popular OS.
While this is true, there is also the fact that when an OS
bundles so many utilities and applications with it, it creates
a wider platform to attack. If we were all running a wide
disparity of utilities and applications, even on Windows
machines, we wouldn't be as likely to see phenomena
such as this. Since almost *every* Windows machine has
a honeypot of addresses available in .dbx files, worms
have a good meal waiting for them in every Windows
lunchbox.
Linux distros may suffer the same fate if one becomes
too much more popular than another, and they bundle
too much application software.
D
David H. Lipman
| Ja,
|
| There are quite a few and more often than not more likely to cause larger
| scale damage - i mean, less virii which are more deadly as more can be
| achieved on Unix based platforms.... mind you, to date... if my MSc
| lecturers are correct, then Linux in general has only ever had 4 known
| viruses... might bee bull$hit
|
|
|
| There are quite a few and more often than not more likely to cause larger
| scale damage - i mean, less virii which are more deadly as more can be
| achieved on Unix based platforms.... mind you, to date... if my MSc
| lecturers are correct, then Linux in general has only ever had 4 known
| viruses... might bee bull$hit
|
|
D
David H. Lipman
JJ:
There is no such term as virii - the term is viruses - PERIOD !
Please read the following URL which relates the subject far better than I could ...
http://www.perl.com/language/misc/virus.html
Dave
| Ja,
|
| There are quite a few and more often than not more likely to cause larger
| scale damage - i mean, less virii which are more deadly as more can be
| achieved on Unix based platforms.... mind you, to date... if my MSc
| lecturers are correct, then Linux in general has only ever had 4 known
| viruses... might bee bull$hit
|
|
There is no such term as virii - the term is viruses - PERIOD !
Please read the following URL which relates the subject far better than I could ...
http://www.perl.com/language/misc/virus.html
Dave
| Ja,
|
| There are quite a few and more often than not more likely to cause larger
| scale damage - i mean, less virii which are more deadly as more can be
| achieved on Unix based platforms.... mind you, to date... if my MSc
| lecturers are correct, then Linux in general has only ever had 4 known
| viruses... might bee bull$hit
|
|
M
mhagen
snip
current flavour.
Mozilla's news capabilities are excellant. Go for it! 1.5 rc 1 is theSeriously thinking of downloading/installing Mozilla but I know nothing of
its newsgroup abilities.
current flavour.
I
Indigo Moon Man
David H. Lipman said:There is no such term as virii - the term is viruses - PERIOD !
Please read the following URL which relates the subject far better than I
could ...
http://www.perl.com/language/misc/virus.html
Thanks for posting this. I too was under the mistaken impression that virii
was a word.
K
KRF
A friend of mine is very proud of his Mac and makes the claim that Macs
don't get viruses.
Is this true? Or is he kidding me?
False. He may be kidding you or he may just be ignorant.
ANY, operating system, including mainframes, can be attacked by a virus if
there is an infection point, and that is a negative that can't be proven
until a successful attack occures.
Both Mac and Linux machines have far fewer successful virii attacks,
mainly because there are far fewer Mac's and Linux machines and writers go
after the most numerous targets. That and the fact that both OSs are
quite a bit more rationally written than the warmed-over-from-DOS days
versions from Redmond. Unfortunately the swiss cheese attributes of
Windows are not going to be fixed in the forseeable future just because of
the huge size of the task. Bill Gates policy of quantity over quality has
come home to roost.
However, I would suggest that Linux and Mac users slow down on the
hoorawing of the current WinSituation that has almost closed down Al
Gore's invention. It is just a matter of time until someone finds a
massive hole in one of their favorites and the horselaughs from the other
side of the fence are going to be hughly enjoyed.
KRF