I personally don't expect an OS to protect me from Stupid.

But you should!

Just like you should expect the Government to feed you, clothe you, house you, transport you, employ you, and take care of your owwies.

Personal responsibility is old-school.

I don't think Mac users need to be too concerned until drive-by infection and 'automatic' infection becomes a problem, like it has been on Windows boxes. Admittedly though, Vista has done a LOT to improve the security of the OS on the internet - it's not bulletproof, but it's a bit harder.

Don't panic yet, Mac users. Wait until you hit 20% market share. :P

This is so stupid. Yet another attempt to scare Mac users into buy useless software.

See unlike Windows you have to actually ask real politely to do anything on OSX.

Why is this news?

That's not an OSX exploit. It's a human dummy manipulation tool.

For all you morons out there who think that OSX is starting to get a few pit marks. you are wrong. Nothing on the system is going to run rampant without root. Guess what, the admin account aint root. The root account on OSX is not and never has been enable by default.

Some of you kids don't seem to realize or choose to ignore the fact that OSX is Unix. Nothing like Winblows -nothing I tell you.

Basically, those whom actually know what they are doing, make the system better. They would never try to destroy it. Thus it will never happen.

Word to the Virus and Trojan makers... Stick to Visual Basic you might hurt yourself.

So sad that the companies that made it can't even make a good exploit. You all suck.

....end of line

>>See unlike Windows you have to actually ask real politely to do anything on OSX

Yes, exactly like Vista. Geesh.

>>Nothing on the system is going to run rampant without root. Guess what, the admin account aint root. The root account on OSX is not and never has been enable by default.

Yes, just like Vista, except OS X Admin allows root escalation, Vista doesn't. Vista has NO USER-MODE ACCOUNT equivalent to root, even if you tried to 'enable it'...

>>>Some of you kids don't seem to realize or choose to ignore the fact that OSX is Unix. Nothing like Winblows -nothing I tell you

You are right, NT (Windows) is NOTHING like UNIX by design. Go read 'Inside NT' and you will see why the Culter team specifically chose NOT TO USE UNIX constructs for file/device I/O, Security, etc. It was outdated and lacking in 1990 when NT was designed, let alone today.

So if the Culter team (Consisting of both the best VMS and BEST UNIX designers of the time) specifically abandoned UNIX concepts when NT was designed, why do you think UNIX is better than NT today? Fact: It simply isn't.

We could go into things like the Object based nature of the device I/O system in NT that is better than the textual based UNIX file/device system or even hit on the token based security system in NT that requires even kernel level processes to obtain privledges unlike UNIX.

Windows 9x was NOT NT, it was a DOS x86 assembly OS, just like System 9 is nothing like OS X. Yet people like you seem not to realize they are not the same.

Microsoft screwed up with WindowsXP in replacing the Win9x consumer line, as they didn't enforce the NT security model in the Win32 subsystem, because Win9X applicaitons had no concept of security. Microsoft should have just BROKE all the applications at that time as Apple did in moving from OS 9 to OS X.

Oh, and for the Mac people that love to yell BSD, BSD is more secure... BSD is NOT what people think it is, and OS X is only using the BSD kernel APIs.

The reason OpenBSD is highly secure is the detail to the development of the OpenBSD variant, something even FreeBSD can't claim. BSD is not a magically secure kernel API technology, just like 35 year old UNIX concepts are NOT magically more secure.

As for your comment about OS X having a few 'pits', go look up the security holes/vulnerbilities of OS X compared to XP and Vista in the last two years.

I even challenge you to go compare 10.5 to Vista alone (Vista being a year older), the ratio of vulnerbilities and patch is 10 to 1, with OS X being the (10) that is highly insecure.

So please stop with the insane (UNIX makes it more secure) crap, as an OS Theorist, NO IT DOESN'T, in fact Apple has to work harder to patch around UNIX constructs to maintain security and performance. (Just like the monolithic UNIX kernel design in OS X, they had to code in a few tricks so it would even multi-task at a a reasonable level, and it is not nearly as good still as Linux or NT.)

Side Note Hint: If you think UNIX or BSD makes everything magically secure, go look up the SUA, it is a FULL BSD UNIX subsystem that runs on XP and VIsta. So with your logic, applications running in the BSD subsystem on NT would be magically the MOST SECURE in the history of computing.

Geesh...

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAH

if it requires your root password, it is NOT an exploit! LOLOLOL

^aka stupid people behind the keyboard!

Why can't we all just get along and sing Kumbaya? Who cares which OS is better. So what if someone doesn't have the same opinions as you?

"Kumbaya my Lord, ..."

So what if someone doesn't have the same opinions as you?

And here I could have sworn forums were the exact place people were supposed to go online to discuss their opinions.... ;)

Welcome to the real world, MAC users.

Now that more people are buying MACs, get prepared for trojans/exploits.

It's about time. Some people still don't understand how it works. Windows is used by what, over 90% of users in the world? Guess who is being targetted first.

Oh well, that's great news for us, Windows users. Trojan makers will now split their "work" between MACs and Windows. :) I was also getting tired of this MAC nonsense around me. Let's hope they'll now shut up once and for all.

Man, how old are you? 12?

The OS argument to end all OS arguments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHK8Irb3P5E

http://www.youtube.com/w...jvs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvskEGWMLp4

Again?

You spammed these last week.

Get some new material.

Not that we all don't find it incredibly amusing you back your "arguments" up with Youtube.

Isn't You Tube for 14 or 15 year old kids? I admit I tend to ignore links posted here because god only knows where they will send you.

Again, all this article shows is that no OS is secure. It is all about market share. Now that Apple has attained a certain share and in some important areas, look for more of these articles.

Like I said just use common sense no matter what OS you use: good security, avoid certain sites and be careful in opening email. Having a good email filter helps and if you use Outlook, set the default settings to NOT show a preview of the email.

Have a nice day:)

PC_Tool, please don't use "we" in your posts.

Just speaking for myself and the voices in my head.

No need to be offended. ;)

Just shows no Os is completely secure. In the end, it doesn't matter what Os you use as long as you have good security, keep your OS updated, and, most importantly, use common sense on where you go and what email you open.

I am often amazed at the number of people that don't follow these simple Principles

if it's built by man, it can be taken apart by man

Oh! So here is where all of the Windows fanboys are!

Funny, none seem have to be over at the LATEST Windows exposure regarding Bluetooth.

But then I guess that such old news loses its novelty when they can instead distract themselves from their many problems by complaining about a platform they feel is SO inconsequential that they must run out to discuss OS security at the awareness level of an actor in a TV commercial.

yawn.......

Ah and the Apple fanboys have arrived to feverishly defend their beloved Apple. Nobody is saying Windows is without flaws. They are just pointing out that Macs are not perfect like the fanboys like you would like people to believe.

oh! so here is where all the Apple fan-boys are!
oh wait, they are in every single thread trying to convince the world (and themselves) that the o/s they use is superior and everything else is crap.

but whenever something negative is said about apple they cant handle it.

cry more, yours tears taste so sweet

Fanboy my @ss. Unless you consider my distaste for biased bullsh!t! - a feature which dominates so much of the nonsense that is routinely posted on the forum, and which one might hope would cause more to cringe who routinely read the comments in this site! So I guess I would be an anti-BS fanboy. And that transcends platforms. Damn I am tired of listening to folks argue over whether they like chocolate or vanilla ice cream.

I don't care what platform you use, as long as it suits your needs! And I certainly wouldn't waste my time like so many here worrying about what platform someone else chooses to use!

I just get damned tired of idiots who have no idea as to what constitutes OS security misrepresenting systems which by design ARE more secure.

Does that exempt them from lazy or inept coding implementations that fail to abide by best practices? NO! But conversely, that doesn't render them as ineffectual as some others either! And its amazing that so many here fail to have ANY idea as to the fundamental architectural differences. ...But then most of the 'IT professionals'(sic) here think this refers to IDE or SATA! LOL!

And its a hoot listening to erudite folks like you make the asinine claim that OSX and the more secure architectural structures of UNIX are just as susceptible to incursion and compromise as Windows, and that ONLY the number of installed copies makes Windows more vulnerable!

Whenever bullsh!t is said about ANY topic!

Just because there is more crap spewed by the Windows fanboys about OSX doesn't make me an Apple fanboy.

But it is also interesting to listen to so many emotionally argue issues without any basis in fact other than what they want to believe. After all, why should any knowledge be required to intelligently discuss a topic right?

What amazes me is the degree of utter ignorance and stupidity expressed by so many who profess to have an understanding of computers!

As I have said before - I don't care what platform you use. . But with regards to security, while OSX isn't perfect, it is a dare sight better froma fundamental designperspective thatn Windows.

Yet as we have seen, neither system allows for inept programmers who cannot, or simply do not follow best practices in their design and coding. And if either system were actually designed to prevent access by fools, based upon the majority of crap posted on this site with regards to security and the knowledge of OS security, most here would never be allowed to logon.

Then if your not a fanboy why do you only *attack* those who say something positive about windows or negative about apple? Why not the other way around? If you read here you would surely know the stupidity posted here by certain self-admited apple fanboys?? Yet you say nothing to this *biased bullsh!t!*
Your very quick to accuse people here, just not both sides

Apple fanboys who only press an emotional basis for 'superiority' are annoying as hell as well!

But they are entitled to like their machines just as Windows folks may like theirs.

But as you will note, the thread with the latest Bluetooth security hole for Windows is devoid of both Windows AND Apple fanboys! DUH!

Instead ALL of the Windows fanboys are over here b!tching about the Mac - and not one critic has actually discussed either a fundamental architectural limitation or the fault of an inept coding practice that failed to follow best practices. NOT ONE!

Rather than discuss issues of substance, the mantra is that the sole imagined reason for the lack of routine Mac compromise is SIMPLY due to the lack of numbers. A fact that is utterly incorrect!

So, to paraphrase a line from the Ken Burns Civil War series when the average poor southerner was asked why they were in effect fighting to preserve the interests of a southern aristocracy contrary to their own interests - the response was "Because You are HERE!"

(And we certainly wouldn't ask YOU what YOU have to offer of substance here!)

So, how about the Windows fanboys taking care of their own SUBSTANTIAL security issues, and let the little MAC fanboys enjoy their own machine and revel in the potential of actually incurring a real compromise!

And if the Apple fanboys venture over to gloat about their platform in the all too common - read: ROUTINE - Windows malware announcement, you can tell them to shutup and go back to worrying about their one piece of malware and an elitist megalomaniac leader of a company who spends more time telling folks what they should be using their machine for instead of simply facilitating the usefulness of their machine for whatever purpose one might want to use it.

If you want people to read your posts don’t drag them on… there was absolutely no need to dribble on like you just did. It makes it look like your trying to hide something by distracting the reader from the subject at hand.

“But they are entitled to like their machines just as Windows folks may like theirs.”

Absolutely and that’s the one thing no one here should forget.

“Instead ALL of the Windows fanboys are over here b!tching about the Mac - and not one critic has actually discussed either a fundamental architectural limitation or the fault of an inept coding practice that failed to follow best practices. NOT ONE!”

That’s your expectations based your view (to which of course you are entitled to). True there are some stupid mac hating posts but not everyone who has said something negative about mac, but *ALL* is a stretch. Just because someone hasn’t shared something you agree with doesn’t make everyone else a *windows fanboy*

Nope, they just pathologically whine without substance about a platform they claim has no significance that has experienced ~199,999 fewer real world exploits. and claim that makes them 'equal'.

Such pathos. Such angst. Such stupidity.

And I have read this forum long enough not to have any real expectations of intelligent discourse among a group who fancies themselves so erudite, but who repeatedly demonstrate that they have little technical understanding and even less understanding of the business marketplace.

But like most 3-4 year olds, they Are quite proficient in repeating every commercial on TV.

Reply to "Just because there is more crap spewed by the Windows fanboys about OSX".

Totally disagree. Whenever there is an OS comparison being debated, nine times out of ten it's started by either a Linux user or a Mac user. Windows users don't give a crap, or else they'd be using it themselves.

Oh, really?

So, today must be your first day at Betanews.

Welcome, newbie! :-D

"And I have read this forum long enough not to have any real expectations of intelligent discourse among a group who fancies themselves so erudite, but who repeatedly demonstrate that they have little technical understanding and even less understanding of the business marketplace."

Posting on a forum does not make one intelligent, especially the way you go about it.
Those people could argue that you have even less understanding of the business marketplace, you have done very little to show this yet you still attack people as if you are on some sort of higher ground? And insulting people... is the best way to show people your opinion is no better than theirs (if they even care).You have to understanding it's an opinion, you are just the same as anyone else. You are one of the crowd here.
Dancing around a subject with fancy wording is not attractive in the slightest.

hehe...it's more funny to watch the 2 individuals trying to remark with defenses....I'm sure we all know who they are

Unfortunately there's no patch for stupidity. But I must say that Mac users are more likely to have little to no security on their systems. Since the majority bought into Apple's illusion that Macs are immune to everything out there. Macs seems more secure than Windows because they only have 5% of the market. Nobody's really trying to hack them. But as their market share grows so will the attacks.

Yup! The very same fundamental architecture that Macs are built upon doesn't power any other systems but their desktops with their plethora of graphics files.

Except that the large predominate back end systems and databases run very similar systems with very similar architectural security features. Oh, and just what anti-virus program do you suggest for AIX or HP-UX any of the other BSD variants?

Yup, no one tries to get into those systems!

Is anyone here aware of anything other then their 'rad' game platform?

"Unfortunately there's no patch for stupidity." Indeed!

"Unfortunately there's no patch for stupidity."

LOL. That quote should be plastered in giant bright red letters on every box of Windoze sold in the world.

What would we do without fanboys in this world? Forget about the article, the comments are more fun to read.

You got that right. The idiot comments by you M$ fanboys is hilarious and entertaining. :)

Thanks. It's people like you that keep me coming back to Betanews. Keep talking, it's pretty funny.

do you even READ what you post?....

Mac sucks and so does crap OS X Leopard, Vista is the best

AND THIS VIDEO LINK IS PROOF THAT VISTA IS FAAAARRRRR SUPERIOR OVER CRAP OS X LEOPARD:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHK8Irb3P5E

Enjoy the proof! ^__^

Shell coder huh?

Spoken like a wacko fanboy. Its a shame that legitimate Windows users should be embarrassed to read your, and other ignorant fanboy, crap.

You must be amazed at the concept of a scripting environment having been suggested for Windows!

Whoopee! Such advances! LOL!

If only UNIX would discover scripts...LOL!

*laughing*

You are such a moron...

I know, you're trying to be. Just letting you know it's working. :)

So, how many shares of Apple stock does the narrator own? The bias oozes.

Think Different.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I'm waiting for the mac fanatics to make a post thanking Steve Jobs for letting them experience the wonders of trojans. and talk about how much more colorful and intuitive the mac trojans are.

Please lets us pay for a Secur.... err "feature" update apple!

Obviously your mother should be just a bit upset at the Trojan failure to prevent further pollution of the gene pool with your advent!

Let's see...to use a limited analogy... Is living in the typical suburbs of the US safer than living, say, on the streets of Rio de Jeneiro or Haiti?

So One Trojan imparts the same sense of risk that several hundred thousand exploits do for Windows? LOL!

I guess you also excelled in 'new math'. LOL!

Enjoy your sense of equality. I guess if you are used to the streets of a slum, all of the world looks alike.

Given your statement below, this one's a bit confusing.

Not really.

Some seem to place all of their eggs in the basket whereby the existence of one potential threat is equivalent to the routine exposure to several hundred thousand threats.

Such risk analysis is simply asinine.

Just as it would be foolhardy to equate the risk profiles of a kid playing in the middle of a busy Interstate during peak traffic periods with that of another kid playing on a small private country drive. The point that many here will miss is NOT the location, but rather the frequency of virile threats to which one is exposed.

And the failure to perform risk analysis and to recognize the relative dangers as well as the repercussions of such a breach illustrates just how silly and infantile such comparisons by fanboys who are want to grasp at literally ANY straw in their disparate attempt to rebut a valid flaw in the Windows architecture...regardless of what platform you may prefer or use.

The fact is, the real target rich plums are the large backend database segment that is owned by the large UNIXes. And the major compromises have come primarily from incursions into Windows servers. The argument that if only more people used UNIX systems that more would target them and that there would exist a problem of the magnitude that Windows experiences is quite literally nonsense.

But its always interesting to hear of the imaginings (to use a loose fitting analogy) that places such as Fort Knox are of little or no interest to thieves compared to ATM machines and cash registers simply because there are less of them and more tiny targets of lesser value. UNIX systems, while not perfect, have generally (and in the case of OSX based upon the BSD legacy) and historically developed and incorporated a more robust system of 'intrusion' mitigation ranging from issues of inheritance and resource restriction in the form of such techniques such as sandboxing - while minimizing such fatally flawed technologies as ActiveX!

In other words, the fact that a system can potentially be compromised does not not necessarily translate into a higher risk profile. And like it or not, Windows presents a MUCH larger risk of compromise than does UNIX, despite the significant imbalance of the availability of figurative 'Fort Knoxes' existing in the UNIX environment.

And the existence of a single limited breach in a system which can be easily fixed by the proper adherence to best practices (as opposed to the existence of a fatal architectural flaw!!!) is cute, but not a reason to equate the risk profiles.

*Laughs a$$ off*

Yeah, it's Steve Jobs fault that a trojan horse exist for the Mac and we should thank him for it.

Listen, don't get your panties in a wad over this. This doesn't even begin to scratch the surface in comparison to the legions and myriads of viruses, spyware, adware, trojans, keyloggers, rootkits, ransomware, etc. that exsit for Windoze.

Just because this is the misery you're use to, there is no reason to try and drag Mac users into this. Fact of the matter is, Mac OS X will ALWAYS be far more secure at it's core than Windoze will ever be.

http://www.crn.com/software/199701019

looks like this hit a nerve with you and foxfyre.
is the apple shine wearing off?

it's OK, you can always use a O/S for grownups once you are done playing with the apple toys

p.s I think the first comment of mine blew right over that "special" head of yours.

"Yeah, it's Steve Jobs fault that a trojan horse exist for the Mac and we should thank him for it."

Why not? Bill Gates has been blamed for years.

"Every week there are reports of newly discovered security problems in all kinds of software, from individual applications and services to Windows, Linux, Unix and other platforms. We have done a great job of having teams work around the clock to deliver security fixes for any problems that arise. Our responsiveness has been unmatched - but as an industry leader we can and must do better. Our new design approaches need to dramatically reduce the number of such issues that come up in the software that Microsoft, its partners and its customers create. We need to make it automatic for customers to get the benefits of these fixes. Eventually, our software should be so fundamentally secure that customers never even worry about it. "

- Bill Gates

"currently the only interim solution being advertised is to only download files from trusted sources until the problem is fixed."

After that, go wild.

Well, that's interesting, but Remote Desktop Agent doesn't run unless you enable it, so most users will be safe.

Mac are great but they don't have perfect security. There is no protection against dumb.

Well, since hardly anyone uses a Mac than you're safe...... [smiles]

Thats not true I know like 3 myself included!

3 out of 100?

Nope, four.

4 out of a 100? I thought that sounded more accurate.

So... does this mean that all the Apple Fanboys will get it, since they ALL insist that an Anti-Virus on a Mac is not needed?

LOL... I can't wait to watch this deck of cards fall!

An anti-virus is indeed not needed when you're on a Mac, if you restrict your downloads to safe places. Not because the Mac is more secure than Windows (which any Unix is, but anyways...) but because Macs are minority. I can confidently open any MS Office doc in NeoOffice and not worry about whether or not my co-workers have inadvertly sent me a virus. There are two kinds of viruses: The ones you may get because they are cleverly concealed in things you use on a daily basis, and the ones you may get because you're dumb enough to believe that they are the latest pics of Paris Hilton. There is no protection against the latter, but the formers will hardly affect Macs because 90% of the environment they're supposed to live in is made up of Windows machines.

Then you'll be waiting a long long time...lol

You mean you run antivirus on your PC? You must open every attachment and download files from sketchy sources.

This is the inverse of the very same "supposedly fallacious" argument that Mac people use when viruses are brought up, trying to say why Apple is supposedly more bulletproof, saying we PC users are more vulnerable, when it's simply NOT true. Yet we PC users point out the market penetration favors Microsoft's side so that the virus writers concentrate more on Windows than trying to create worms that attack the Apple community, and are crucified by Mac users as putting out excuses.

So which is it?
Are both vulnerable?
Is Apple "perfect" and the RD field encompasses all?
Is MS perfect and their users "noobs" or "sheep"?

What does it mean?

Gee whiz fanboy...if it does exist, it means that the Mac now has ONE real world exploit compared to what...just 2 or 3(hundred thousand! LOL!) on your platform of choice that has generated a multibillion dollar industry dealing with such exploits.

It indicates that this subsystem has not been designed to take advantage of the fundamental design strengths of sandboxing and other rigorous best practices that are fundamental to the design of the basic OS architecture and in someone's braindead haste, they have, by virtue of lazy programming (as opposed to a fundamental OS design flaw!), created a viable vector.

This should result in the redesign of the subsystem to the best practices model effectively taking advantage of the fundamental design strengths of the OS and effectively preventing such vectors. ...Unlike other systems which employ fundamental integral structures that are fatally flawed by design to prevent authentication and which even elegant programming cannot correct. Can we say ActiveX?

This news is like telling the continent of Africa that is engulfed with malaria and AIDS that someone in Brazil has a cold. But I am sure it will make the malaria and AIDS victims feel smug.

Bottomline: What does it mean? It means that No one is going to get rich selling Mac Anti-Virus products.

Only a fanboy would make this ridiculous case.

What systems house the most critical data? Where do you find the most extensive databases?

THOSE are the true plums to be picked. And they have typically been run on the large UNIX systems. Not simply the relatively small databases run under Windows.

If your case has any merit, the plethora of viruses, etc. for Windows exists not because of the data value, but due to the relative ease with which one can compromise the systems.

On the other hand, explain the relative dearth of equivalent malware for UNIX. And while some certainly exists, there is not much in the way of a market for anti-virus software simply because the OS architecture incorporated enough safeguards as to render the market a very small one.

And even so, only a fool admin would fail to follow best practices in configuring the resident OSes, hardware and software tools that run on such systems.

And your absurd attempt to make the risk associated with each platform equal is ridiculous as well.

The variants of UNIX available are fundamentally more secure than Windows. (And no, that is NOT to say there are not less secure variants available or that there have not been significant issues in the past!) But the more secure versions of UNIX, and OSX is one, are fundamentally more secure than Windows. And this is due to the evolution and implementations of fundamental architectural design, Not simply some anti-malware band-aid that attempts to patch a very leaky ship.

In either camp, poor practices in writing software can circumvent fundamental safeguards, and while no one can make satisfactory excuses for such shoddiness in either camp, neither is it grounds to judge the base platform. There will always be a risk regardless of platform. Especially as lazy programming discipline exacerbates issues. But don't for a second think that by virtue that all are OSes, that the exposures created by the OSes are equal.

Use whatever platform you like that suites your purposes. But don't be so stupid as to simply equate architectures and assess risk simply due to the number of users!

Its time that the fanboys (on all sides) spend a little more time studying OS architectures and secure design and less time debating commercials on the same level as the average consumer who hasn't a clue about either.

we all know how secure macs are.
I mean, it took a whole two minutes to hack one back in the march security contest.

You point out market penetration, but you don't point out the WHOLE MARKET.

Unix / Linux still owns ~ 50% of the server market, yet there are few viruses or worms that have ever been released for Linux / Unix servers. How many have there been for Windows Server?

Oh right.

Keep hanging on to the make-believe argument that it's marketshare.

Meanwhile, be sure to keep updating your AV and anti-spyware every day to keep you kinda-protected.

Tell you what, when any one of you create a real virus for Linux / Unix even if it's just a lab model those of us that firmly believe the market share argument is complete bullsh*t may take another look.

Till then?

Yeah, sure it's market share alright. That explains the >50K viruses for the Microsoft Windows platform.

I state this as a Windows, Linux, and Unix person (that seriously dislikes Macs). I also base my opinions on facts not fiction. Just because wanna-be security dudes and "analysts" believe it and state it in the news media, that doesn't make it true.

Thanks.

Microsoft has 60% of the server market and growing.

as for virus/trojans, they have very little to do with server security problem and are more of a workstation/home user problem

and you silly mac fan-boys just don't get it do you, there are more systems running windows vista out there then there there are macs all together (almost double). the total number of all versions of windows installed compared to apple is staggering.. there is just way more of a base to be writing malware for. apples grown to a lowly 4.5% and security holes/malware are being found all the time now just think if they ever get a real user base how much it will grow.

You missed where I said I (really) don't like Macs.

Way to validate your argument. Lump me into the Mac fanboi camp. Instant credibility loss.

"they have very little to do with server security problem"

Surely you are kidding?! I guess you weren't using computers for the last 20 years.

So, are you saying it's 60/40 Microsoft / Unix? WOW you've still not invalidated my argument, you've indirectly proven it. In your claim 40% of Unix and Linux servers are out there.

SO WHERE ARE THE VIRUSES?!

Thanks!

you seem to be confusing the server market with desktop market

servers don't tend to be breached by way of a virus/trojan, it's more to do with not locking down or not flowing basic security and physical entry.

and unix is about the same of windows out of the box only more of a pain to lock down.
that could explain why unix is on a steady decline in use (.1%/month)

Oh no, I'm not confusing anything.

I'm combining the markets, because not combining them is as stupid as the claim that it's marketshare.

Unix is nothing like Windows out of the box, Vista and 2003 are better though.

And that was without the help of the additional ~200,000 exploits available for the Windows platform.

with a mac who needs exploits, its just plain insecure without the help of them.

that's what you get when you build a o/s for people who just don't know anything about computers.

Care to explain why mac is plain insecure?

No good comeback, so lets put down Windows!

maybe you should look up a post
it took no more then two minutes at the CanSecWest security conference's for them to get into the mac system
using nothing but the software that comes installed on the mac.
the year before someone won it by using another apple product.. quicktime

apple does not admit when there is a security problem and they don't report them in patch notes but its been proven time and time again that OSX is no better then or worse then windows when it comes to security (read Secunia some time)

there is almost one hundred times more windows systems out there then apple so when there is a problem allot more people talk about it. while apple does all it can to hide it from the public eye.

and then there is the fact that apple does not seem to take security very serious and when something does go public, they brush it off for as long as they can

Tell you what, when any one of you create a real virus for Linux / Unix even if it's just a lab model those of us that firmly believe the market share argument is complete bullsh*t may take another look.


Viruses:

* Alaeda - Virus.Linux.Alaeda[6]
* Bad Bunny - Perl.Badbunny[3][7]
* Binom - Linux/Binom[8]
* Bliss
* Brundle[9]
* Bukowski[10]
* Diesel - Virus.Linux.Diesel.962[11]
* Kagob a - Virus.Linux.Kagob.a[12]
* Kagob b - Virus.Linux.Kagob.b[13]
* MetaPHOR (also known as Simile)[14]
* Nuxbee - Virus.Linux.Nuxbee.1403[15]
* OSF.8759
* Podloso - Linux.Podloso (The iPod virus)[16][17]
* Rike - Virus.Linux.Rike.1627[18]
* RST - Virus.Linux.RST.a[19]
* Satyr - Virus.Linux.Satyr.a[20]
* Staog
* Vit - Virus.Linux.Vit.4096[21]
* Winter - Virus.Linux.Winter.341[22]
* Winux (also known as Lindose and PEElf[23]
* ZipWorm - Virus.Linux.ZipWorm[24]

http://en.wikipedia.org/...omputer_viruses#Viruses

Yeah, it's wikipedia. So sue me.

I don't really care, I just want this stupid "My OS is teh more secure than youz!" bull to go bye-bye.

Hmm 31 since 1992 vs over 50,000 since whenever doesn't make an argument that it's "market share" stand up.

I'm absolutely not implying that Windows sucks, or Mac is the greatest OS ev0r (Linux either); but the market share argument just doesn't stand up.

Vista and 2008 don't get nearly as many viruses as they used to because Microsoft learned how to write good code. The proof is in the pudding.

It's not a "my os is better than yours" argument.

security conferences are not the best way to tell if a OS is insecure, what's to say they were not doing a lot of research before?
Software by nature isnt secure, no matter what operating system you have there is bound to be problems

Important to note also it is not JUST virus's that make a OS insecure. Why on earth are we leaving out the main cause of insecurity? :)

The proof is in the pudding.

Gah!

No, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

There is no proof "in" the pudding.

31 for the one with minimal market share and some absurd number for the one with the lion's share.

Huh...

I can see how you might not see any relation in market share there????

???

(Vista and 2008 are brand spanking new. Give them time)

Why on earth are we leaving out the main cause of insecurity?

Self-doubt?

minimal? HAH!! 40% of the server market + 2% of the desktop market is not minimal.

Some "obsure" number does not make it a fact.

Vista, Win2K8, and even XP SP2+ are all why you haven't have a serious world impacting virus since Bill Gates said "Umm, we can do better".

Thanks.

:-P

Yes, minimal.

Those 40% are hardened, sitting behind hardware firewalls with limited hands-on interaction.

Considering most viruses are of the "click me if you're an idiot" variety, *of course* they won't affect the servers.

Keep in mind, most of the viruses that affect windows servers only do so because they share components with their desktop counterparts.

Using the server market as an argument revolving around desktop security is cute and all, but I *know* you can do better than that.

Come on, man...

Oi, more excuses.

Windows servers should be just as hardened, but until Bill uttered those magic words they were in the news almost weekly.

I'm tellin ya, take a step back and think about it for a while.

"you can do better than that"

If you know me better than that you should consider that I may be right.

:-D

Windows servers should be just as hardened,

Okay, think about it for a second:

Any virus that attacks a Windows XP...will probably also work on Windows Server 2000.03. Right? Same core OS? Just because it will "work" on the OS, doesn't in any way mean it's ever actually "hit" one of those "hardened" servers.

You keep bringing up that quote... He was talking about the desktop market. You know that, right?

If you know me better than that you should consider that I may be right.

You should consider the same.

Look, the server and desktop markets are two entirely different beasts. Same OS, for the most part (hence why most windows viruses *can* also affect the server market...but rarely do)...but entirely different markets and usage patterns (markets being a keyword here since viruses have become a marketing tool).

You don't actually think the virus programmers write these things for Servers, do you? I know no server admins who IM, check email, and browse website on the *server*. Do you?

Viruses are written, by and large, for the desktop market. When comparing desktop market share to virus penetration, it becomes self-evident.

No excuses needed. (I am not defending Windows, here man. Really.) Take both Windows and Linux servers out of the equation. While viruses and such are a concern, they aren't the intended target.

..and "oi"? What's next, "vay"? ;)

"You should consider the same."

I have considered it. I didn't just pull the idea out of my ass, I analyzed the data and found a TON of data to support my hypothesis. You can claim that Desktop and Server are different all you want, but at the end of the day they aren't.

"I am not defending Windows, here man. Really"

Oh, I sure will defend Windows. Vista; 2003; XP SP2+ really don't suck at security like previous versions did and that's the real reason there aren't nearly as many globally impacting viruses anymore.

I hope you aren't lumping my argument into the anti-windows camp because it's absolutely not anti-windows.

vay.. (heh)

I didn't just pull the idea out of my ass,

Nice implication.

I analyzed the data and found a TON of data to support my hypothesis.

I can find a TON of data supporting Scientology...or Intelligent Design. Doesn't mean I believe a word of it when my own experience and common sense tell me otherwise. Where *is* that Data?

If what you suggest is true, then the server penetration of viruses should be at the same percentage as that of the desktop market (at least on Windows systems).

I simply don't believe that to be the case, therefore I do not believe lumping *any* server OS into a market share vs. virus penetration discussion is relevant in the least.

If you *do* have data that refutes that, please...do tell.

500 viruses for Windows Server 2003:
http://www.trendmicro.co...alt=Windows+Server+2003

500 viruses for Windows XP:
http://www.trendmicro.co...s+XP&alt=Windows+XP

Granted I didn't dig through many of them, but they all seem to indicate both that I did click.

70% of virus activity linked to one man, Sophos report reveals

- http://www.sophos.com/pr.../2004/07/va_oneman.html

"Following in the footsteps of last year's hard-hitting Blaster worm, Sasser exploited a critical vulnerability in Microsoft's operating system in order to spread - this type of worm is proving to be extremely 'successful' as Microsoft is finding it tough to ensure computer users apply patches as soon as the flaws are discovered"

- http://www.sophos.com/pr..._uk_20040728topten.html

"The student admitted writing and releasing the two damaging worms when arrested by German police on 7 May 2004 after a three-month long international investigation. Following his arrest, Microsoft confirmed that they had received tip-offs from more than one source, and that the $250,000 reward for identifying the author of the NetSky worm would be shared between them"

"There was also speculation that he had written the worms to drum up business for his mother and stepfather's PC support business and was actively working on an antidote to the worm"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sven_Jaschan

"Just 16 days later, at 3 p.m. local time, a Russian hacker known as Houseofdabus releases a proof-of-concept exploit--a program that shows how to take control of an unpatched PC--for the LSASS vulnerability."

Russia, April 29, 2004 - http://www.pcworld.com/a...808-page,3/article.html

Windows XP Service Pack 2
Release Date: August 25, 2004
- http://support.microsoft.com/kb/322389

"Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) contains major security improvements designed to provide better protection against hackers, viruses, and worms. Windows XP SP2 also improves the manageability of the security features in Windows XP and provides more and better information to help users make decisions that may potentially affect their security and privacy. Microsoft strongly urges customers with Windows XP and Windows XP Service Pack 1-based systems to update to Windows XP SP2 as soon as possible."

- http://technet.microsoft...s/library/bb457097.aspx

"On March 30, 2005, Microsoft released Service Pack 1 for Windows Server 2003"
= http://en.wikipedia.org/...ver_2003#Service_Pack_1

"Install Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 (SP1) to help secure your server and to better defend against hackers. Windows Server 2003 SP1 enhances security infrastructure by providing new security tools such as Security Configuration Wizard, which helps secure your server for role-based operations, improves defense-in-depth with Data Execution Protection, and provides a safe and secure first-boot scenario with Post-setup Security Update Wizard."

- http://www.microsoft.com...1f43&DisplayLang=en

Silence.

'nuff said :-D

Seriously, before August 2004(ish) viruses were a problem on both Desktops and Servers. Now? Not so much on either.

I can go on, but well unfortunately it doesn't sound like you'll believe that "market share" and viruses aren't related either way.

meh.

1st two links: Both server and Desktop. Why? Because they've been basically the same OS since...Windows 2000.

The real question was: penetration. How many of those servers were hit compared to the number of desktops.

Again, the percentages *should* be the same.

3rd link...??? Don't know quite where you are going with that one.

4th link supports my argument that viruses are now marketing tools *not* targeting servers. (Who'd market to servers...they sit in back rooms...no-one uses them)

5th link: "take control of an unpatched PC-" (Notice it says PC, not server?)

..then a desktop service pack and a server service pack? ??? still not seeing where you are going with those.

before August 2004(ish) viruses were a problem on both Desktops and Servers.

Your data doesn't even touch that claim. All it does is allude to the fact that a virus that affects XP *can* *possibly* affect a non-hardened server where Best Practices are totally ignored. Again, infection rates on both should be the same...if your assertion that there's no difference between the desktop and Server are to be believed.

None of your data touches on infection rates of servers vs. desktops. You'd have to be high to think they are anywhere near the same ballpark.

I think it would look something like this:

Sasser: Desktop infection: 80% Server infection: 3%.

Assuming that's anywhere near reality (I believe much closer than your 50/50 claim) lumping servers in with desktops on any market-share vs viruses discussion is a cop-out.

Ok then, I guess I should start ignoring all of this security work that Microsoft is doing, and all these reports point at things other than "market share" and start blindly following everyone else. I'll also ignore that there have been almost ZERO global outbreaks since the releases of XP SP2 and 2003 SP1 because that just can't be right.

stickingfingersinearsscreaming "LALALALALA" - "ITS MARKET SHARE" "SERVERS ARE IMMUNE, NIMDA SLAMMER BLASTER AND OTHER SERVER VIRUSES ARE MYTHS, ONLY DESKTOPS GET VIRUSES" /stickingfingersinearsscreaming

EOD :-(

*SHAKES HEAD*

I fail to recall when I once stated that Microsoft hadn't done anything to secure windows.

I fail to recall ever saying servers were immune.

We seem to be having separate discussions here because you've now completely lost it over what I can only assume are someone else's comments.

Fo'get about it... I'm the last person you need to try and convince windows has made leaps and bounds in security. So has Linux. (Probably even at a similar pace...)

[you've now completely lost it]

HAH!

rockssidetosidechanting "LALALALALALALALA" /rockssidetosidechanting

This conversation's always been about the same thing, viruses not being about "market share" and Desktops and Servers both being thrown in the same bucket. It's never been about reducing the attack vector with good security practices. You must-a missed the memo. ;-)

I don't "lose it" I have fun playing the part though.

heh

I don't "lose it" I have fun playing the part though.

Nope. I saw it. I have witnesses.

You lost it. Completely. You turned into a raving, frothing-at-the-mouth, homicidal maniac. Right there in front of God and everybody.

I'm going to start calling you "Hulk" now. ;)

HULK SMASH!

This is not good. Many (most) Mac users have a false belief of invulnerability to viruses. This belief has been encouraged by Apple in their efforts to acquire market share from the "insecure" Windows platforms. If this is not patched ASAP this trojan will spread very, very quickly. This is an opportunity for Apple to step up and show that they are worth the trust their users place in them. I hope they do so.

personally, I sincerely HOPE this spreads through the Mac community like wildfire.

Or, MS could do a Mac vs PC commercial showing the PC guy all healthy and Justin Long comes in looking all green faced, and then falls over dead with the PC guy yelling "code blue" and pounding the Mac guy's chest.

"personally, I sincerely HOPE this spreads through the Mac community like wildfire. "

Of course you do, because it would lend you a tool to help validate your false argument.

It won't however spread far.

Sorry.

Wow, a virus on mac :( what a sad day. But look on the bright side with in a week Apple will send a fix out for it. But if you was using windblows they would not do jack you would have to go buy all sorts of 3rd party stuff to fix it.

Oh yes? Have Apple actually admitted there is an issue? Or are they currently debating how to sue those security researchers for tarnishing their product?

Yeah...MSFT *never* releases patches...

*yawn*

http://www.betanews.com/...uetooth_hole/1213977062

Let me guess, you own a Mac? [rollseyes]

I do.

An old iBook, and a G4.

Why is that at all relevant?

Let me guess, you own a PC? [rollseyes]

Tool,

The myopic 'if I can find a point to dislike in your platform, that necessarily implies that mine is better' idiot fanboys never get it.

I have vmac, does that count?

heh

Let me guess, you own a pony? [rollseyes]

thing is when apple puts out fix's they don't list all the security problems fixed, its all feature updates aka denial patches - nothing wrong here kids, look the other way and smile.

send out the flocks to troll windows based websites.

Haha, that was pretty good.

:-D

Impossible! Macs don't have flaws! /sarcasm