Is Mac OS X weaker than Windows?

commentary No, but alarmist advice by security software vendor Symantec has the Macintosh community up in arms.

Apple has apparently become a victim of its own success -- since Mac OS X is gaining in popularity, Symantec expects it to become a target for more attacks and intense vulnerability scrutiny.

This trend was published in Symantec's Internet Security Threat Report for July to December 2004.

To back its claim, Symantec cited several reasons -- ranging from Mac OS X's heredity to attacking the intelligence of loyal Mac fans.

"With a newly designed operating system based on a BSD-Unix lineage, Mac OS X has begun to not only capture the attention of users but of vulnerability researchers as well.

"Contrary to popular belief, the Macintosh operating system has not always been a safe haven from malicious code," the report said. Sure, Microsoft's attempts at security are often scoffed at but to infer that Mac users (or Unix, Linux etc) are living in a bubble is ignorance on Symantec's part.

Another point of contention was Apple's new products. Increased adoption of the Mac Mini -- the company's low-priced computer -- will escalate malicious activity since it could be purchased by less security-savvy users, the report stated.

I can understand how non-IT literate users -- at large -- struggle to understand the difference between a virus and a worm but is Symantec saying only technologically-competent people purchase Windows machines? Rebooting a machine multiple times a day can't be that hard (I should know).

It's difficult to grasp the reasoning behind these statements. Symantec's only piece of solid evidence is reference to 37 previous high-impact vulnerabilities in Mac OS X -- all of which have been patched. Juxtaposed against the 17,500 Windows-based viruses and threats, it's clearly an uneven contest.

One telling finding in the report was the decline in bot scanning activity during the second half of 2004 -- Symantec recorded a dip from 30,000 per day to 5,000 on a daily basis. The company concluded that the decrease corresponded with the availability of Windows XP Service Pack 2.

"Ports 445 and 135 are common paths for bot networks to spread onto computer systems, either through unpatched vulnerabilities or bad user name and password choices.

"Many common bot network applications, including Gaobot, target vulnerabilities that are accessible through these Windows ports as a method of infecting new systems. The sudden drop in bot network scanning indicates that Service Pack 2, in addition to cumulative patches, may have been successful at reducing the number vulnerabilities in Windows XP systems that are subject to remote compromise," Symantec said.

If Microsoft does a stellar job at improving the security of its products -- coupled with the availability of proprietary anti-spyware and anti-virus solutions -- which platform will be Symantec's new engine for growth?

Talkback 7 comments

    We been used to Microsoft soft ...Anonymous -- 23/03/05

    We been used to Microsoft software being so bad for so long that now we have to drag down others even if we have to invent scenarios. C'mon guys give it a rest. Or are you all so bankrupted you have to wave this red herring to drum up business. The blodware which Symantec puts out will never make it on my Windows systems again, although Symantec’s buggy software has increased my clientele, not withstanding.

    IMHO, the title of this articl ...Anonymous -- 24/03/05

    IMHO, the title of this article is deceptive. It is a "bait and switch" tactic. No where does the report compare the Mac OS to Windows.

    I support Apple and I only have to reboot my computers when
    I install new software. I use Windows at work; the fear of virus
    attacks is greater in this environment.

    There is nothing weaker than W ...Anonymous -- 25/03/05

    There is nothing weaker than Windows, and I hope there will never be.
    So Fran Foo just consentrate on something more interesting. And then again perhaps not.

    A Symantec FUD marketing exerc ...Anonymous -- 25/03/05

    A Symantec FUD marketing exercise. How many Mac OS X users really feel the need for virus protection, not many it seems if Symnatec is putting out FUD to drive up sales of its product.

    This is poor journalism

    Has anyone ever looked at Micr ...Anonymous -- 26/03/05

    Has anyone ever looked at Microsofts default settings? In an effort to make everything "easy and available" every setting runs counter to a secure setting. Take file sharing as an example. When that is enabled (which it is on the Administrative shares automatically) adding someone to a share gives them FULL privledges.

    Compare the above to Novell Netware which would only grant Read and File Scan by default when adding users.

    Mac OS X which has many items (services and daemons) turned OFF by default, (a wise security setting) and opens only the appropriate ports when requested (very easily thru a system preference). Even the all important "Root" user is disabled.

    Although there have been vulnerabilities found, clearly Apple has learned from others mistakes of the past. They have started with a relatively secure system and adjusted the defaults to make it more secure.

    To answer your question "Is Mac OS X weaker than Windows?" No. It is clearly much stronger.

    Hi Fran, I don't know whether ...Anonymous -- 29/03/05

    Hi Fran,

    I don't know whether you are being deliberately provacative here (and I wouldn't put that past you), but you appear to be using a definitively antogonistic tone in your posting...

    In saying "Contrary to popular belief...", this is not necessarily a statement that Mac users firmly held this belief. While there are certainly some who are like this, the majority are not - which I think is what you are saying. However, on the outside, it appears to be only the voices of the arrogant (and possibly ignorant) that have been printed or repeated in many places - effectively creating an impression to the "great unwashed" that the mighty Mac is indeed an awesome bastion, or possibly the impression that this is the opinion of the majority of its users.

    I believed from my reading of the statement that it was to this commonly held (albeit, inaccurate) belief that Symantec was referring.

    The second part is your reaction to the statement about the Mac Mini. If more people who are less technically competent are now buying Mac Minis, what were they buying before? Clearly Windows machines. It is a matter of record that the buyer surveys have regularly found Mac owners to be more computer literate. However, as the Mac is becoming a more "consumer-oriented product", it is clear that the less tech-savvy will start purchasing it. Therefore, the decline in the computer literacy of owner will occur (as Symantec stated), with a probably flow on into the quality of security management.

    If anything, Symantec are saying that the majority of Windows users are not particularly tech-savvy. As a support engineer, I would agree with this!

    The third statement is the comparison between the number of vulnerabilities and the number of threats. This is definitely comparing apples to oranges (or is that window frames?). While the number of threats (as in "out in the wild, on the roam" viruses) that target Macs is definitely also very low, this is a self propogating argument. As many Linux users have been saying for some time, if everyone was using Linux, there would be lots of Linux viruses.

    In short, Symantec do not appear to have stated anything inaccurate, and I don't agree with your stated beliefs about the meaning or intention of the majority of the statements. However, I do think that they - like so many other security product vendors - are beating up a story about potential risks.

    Fundamentally, we need to remember that Symantec are in the game of marketting their products. They have multiple Mac security products, including Corporate AntiVirus, Personal Firewall and Internet Security. By "alerting" users to the "immenent" or "potential" risks, they can only help their own market...

    Talking about "beating up a story" - controversy always keeps a story going, which works towards publicity. As they say in marketting - "any publicity is good publicity".

    You wouldn't be on the Symantec payroll, would you Fran?

    The real problem is Symantec's ...Anonymous -- 31/03/05

    The real problem is Symantec's not the OS X. A swathe of free and shareware system utilities and a secure OS X means they are iRelevant.

    If I was Symnatec and there was a security hole in OS X I would exploit it and sell the solution. (This is not an original idea.)

    Does that sound unethical? I guess it's more unethical than trying to scare people into buying their software. But they've crossed that line already so the most likely case scenario is that they just can't crack OS X and if they can't...

Add your opinion

Latest Videos

Sponsored content

Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

Blogs

  • Brad Howarth The key Topik is always money
    One of the big problems of the internet is that is practically impossible to keep up-to-date on preferred topics. You can limit your sources, but this can mean missing a lot of valuable data.
  • Array Do we need the legislative blackmail?
    Virtually everyone in the telecommunications industry has their say in the Senate Standing Committee's public hearing into the pending legislation to split up Telstra, in this week's Twisted Wire podcast.
  • Array Give Tax a break for a Change
    Considering the circumstances the Australian Taxation Office's (ATO) Change Program has been operating in over the last few years, it really hasn't been going too badly.
  • More blogs »

Tags

Back to top

Featured