Symantec 'scare tactics' don't rattle Mac users

Fran Foo, ZDNet Australia commentary 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 AU$799 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 AU$1,999.

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 keep mum in such instances. As clearly stated on its Web site: "For the protection of our customers, Apple does not disclose, discuss, or confirm security issues until a full investigation has occurred and any necessary patches or releases are available". It was Symantec and the French Security Incident Response Team that labelled the flaws "critical".

The media is used to the silent treatment from Apple.

When the recent Symantec report was released, I asked Apple to counter the allegations made by the antivirus company.

The response was plain disappointing. "Apple does not comment on another company's claims. We expect users to be vigilant about security and take whatever steps are necessary to secure their operating environment. According to Sophos, the top 10 viruses listed do not impact Mac OS X," Apple Australia spokesperson Debbie Kruger said.

Apple didn't respond when asked if OSX/Weapox was such a menace -- as Symantec claimed -- to its users.

Of course, there's more to security threats than viruses and worms.

Antivirus firm Sophos believes the malicious software Renepo (alias Opener) is plain nasty. "It turns off system accounting, turns off the OS 10 firewall, turns off auto updates, turns file-sharing on, opens an SSH back door, downloads and installs an open source video conferencing program and opens it in 'do not advise the user mode'," Paul Ducklin, Sophos Asia-Pacific head of technology, told ZDNet Australia in a previous interview.

While Macs are safer compared with Windows, Ducklin thinks the existence of Renepo should be a "sanitary reminder" that bad things can happen.

There's not doubt that Mac users believe they operate on a superior platform -- when you pay for a BMW, you expect a luxury car, not a scooter -- but to allude that OS X customers are living in a world of fantasy is fancy on any vendors' part. If Symantec or anyone else hopes to "educate" Mac users on security, here's a word of advice: don't go it alone; speak to Apple and let the voices at Apple carry the message.

Antivirus makers like Sophos and Symantec have thrived under the auspices of Microsoft -- the vulnerability of Windows and related products have helped create and sustain these companies. Isn't it blindingly obvious why Mac users are immune to the "advice" from these players?

Do Mac users think they are immune to security problems or is Symantec and others fishing for a new revenue stream? Do you think Apple should start following Microsoft's model by rating vulnerabilities and patches? Send your comments to edit@zdnet.com.au or talkback below.

Fran Foo is ZDNet Australia managing editor.

Like this article? Click below to send it to your mobile for free!

Talkback 36 comments

  1. don't take mac users for a ride Anonymous -- 28/09/05

    everybody knows Symantec has vested interest in delivering this message.

    i am both a mac and PC user, and i know that both the Windows and Mac OSes have programming flaws. mac users don't deny this fact. in fact, every program has flaws--but some more than others.

    then again, i wish apple could be more transparent about its security holes.

  2. don't take mac users for a ride Anonymous -- 28/09/05

    everybody knows Symantec has vested interest in delivering this message.

    i am both a mac and PC user, and i know that both the Windows and Mac OSes have programming flaws. mac users don't deny this fact. in fact, every program has flaws--but some more than others.

    then again, i wish apple could be more transparent about its security holes.

  3. symantec's argument is flawed macfan -- 28/09/05

    symantec's argument is based on market penetration... what does it have to do with program quality? The number of flaws on the Mac OS seems so insignificant compared with Window's.

    that said, i disagree that mac users have a false sense of security. nothing is completely secure. what makes anyone so sure that Windows patches don't contribute to new security holes?

    1. Number of holes in OSX Ridiculous Matthew Murphy -- 14/10/05

      When you compare the number and type of holes in OS X with those in Windows, you realize that there really *is* an OS more insecure than Microsoft's. OS X has an absolutely awful security record, with many times the number and severity. of vulnerabilities than Windows in major system components -- particularly since the advent of Windows XP SP2.

  4. Mac and MS Security Anonymous -- 29/09/05

    I own and use Macs, PC's and Shiners.

    Just a couple of things:

    1. Macs don't boot in administrator mode ... so users have to OK the installation and running of any downloaded software/code.
    2. Windows does boot in admin mode by default ... this will be changed in Vista.
    3. Old OS 9 viruses and worms amounted to 43 from memory. ACTUAL OS X viruses and worms amount to 0
    3 a. Qualifier to 3 ... some MS Office viruses and worms (and 9000 odd are circulating) can infect and run on Macs.
    4. Windows viruses and worms exceed 30,000. If the argument that pupularity makes a platform dangerous is true, then Macs should have between 1500 and 3000 viruses and worms.
    5. MS with COM, Activex, VBScript and, to an extent, DCOM provided a software architecture that was meant to make applications interoperable. The downside of this architecture is that they also make the architecture more vulnerable.
    (.NET is much more secure - if one follows the conventions.)
    6. Apple bundles Applescript with its OS, but in OS 9 this was a non-issue because there was no such thing as a standard install that Apple 'script kiddies' could take advantage of. In OS X this may be more problematic.
    7. Both MS and Apple have an automated update process and seem to correct bugs and security holes as they are found.
    8. Both have a policy of not commenting on security holes ... not just Apple.
    9. Most of the Mac threats cited by Symantec have never even got past proof of concept - and Apple has remedied the threats found by OS updates. Most require ACTIVE permission from the user to run ... since few users are dumb enough to run their system in administrator mode for normal use (goes for all UNIX variants really).
    10. MS should improve Windows and Office security immensely with Windows Vista and Office 12 ... indeed a number of the announced architectural changes make this a given.

    On security vendors commenting on platform security generally, I have problems with separating fact from fiction. Is this a marketing exercise? Is this an altruistic comment meant to protect users.

    So, what I do is decide if the threat mentioned is generic rather than specific. If it's generic ... then the security vendor is in marketing mode. If it's specific then the security vendor is in altruism mode (even though they may sell more product.)

    In this case ... Symantec's warning was generic (applying as it did to the whole platform with some reference to threats generally), and hence falls under my definition of a marketing announcment.

    So I ignored it.

    Regards,

    1. Booting in Admin mode Michael Heinz -- 04/10/05

      You're right that OS X is more secure than XP normally, but there's one thing that worries me - stupid developers who make users type in their admin password for no good reason.

      There are so many application installers out there that make the user type in the admin password that users are in the habit of providing it whenever the dialog box appears.

      This opens the door for a socially engineered virus/trojan horse - one that politely asks the user for permission to infect the system.

      Really. Why do developers insist on providing windows-style installers when all you have to do is drag the app to the right folder and let go?

    2. admin mode should be secure too Max Riethmuller -- 14/12/05

      Whew some common sense! I agree completely. The other day, I went to install a print driver on a mac, and I had to enter the admin password AND restart the computer. For a printer driver for god's sake. My friend, the owner of the mac, said quick as pie "just type in the admin password, you need to do that a lot"!!!

      The fact is that probably 50% or much more of the viruses that MS are vulnurable to can be avoided by NOT falling for some sort of social engineering. Why should it be that when a mac user open's an infected email it's the user's fault, but when a windows users opens an infected email it's Windows fault? But yet this is what MAC advocates infer time and again.

      My second beef with the issue of administrator - why would I want my system to be MORE vulnurable in admin mode? That to me is just stupid. I don't want my system to be able to run ANYTHING from outside, ESPECIALLY when I am logged in as root!! That's why I run a decent firewall, whether it be windows or mac or linux that I am running. Infact, a correctly configured firewall (a thirdparty one for Microsoft since theirs is pretty plain) will protect BOTH admin and User level users from viruses and hacks.

      Once Windows is behind a firewall, virus protected, and has sensible security settings in IE, it is as secure as MAC OS X. Beyond that, the attacks the system will be susceptible to are social engineering attempts only. Once Apple market share increases these types of attacks will target MAC as well, but by then Windows users will be used to ignoring such threats whereas MAC users will be blindly clicking on every "Admin password" request that pops up!!

      And as far as MAC claims that they don't need antivirus software goes - well it's true. It's also true of windows. I know many windows users who have enough clue to avoid the social engineered threats. They never go to porn cites etc and they never get viruses. Many of these users have no firewall or virus protection. So a person's susceptibility to viruses stems mostly from their internet useage pattern and their ability to resist social engineering. IE: with the right training, a windows user can avoid threats with LITTLE OR NO protection.

      In short, it's rather a phallacy that windows is so weak. It's not as good, but still not that far behind OS X. I wonder how OS X would fare under the same massive attacks windows systems are exposed to on a daily basis from script kiddies, virus writers, malware authors etc? I bet it would all go to hell very quickly, and soon their would be no discernable difference in percieved protection of either OS.

  5. Mac and MS Security Anonymous -- 29/09/05

    I own and use Macs, PC's and Shiners.

    Just a couple of things:

    1. Macs don't boot in administrator mode ... so users have to OK the installation and running of any downloaded software/code.
    2. Windows does boot in admin mode by default ... this will be changed in Vista.
    3. Old OS 9 viruses and worms amounted to 43 from memory. ACTUAL OS X viruses and worms amount to 0
    3 a. Qualifier to 3 ... some MS Office viruses and worms (and 9000 odd are circulating) can infect and run on Macs.
    4. Windows viruses and worms exceed 30,000. If the argument that pupularity makes a platform dangerous is true, then Macs should have between 1500 and 3000 viruses and worms.
    5. MS with COM, Activex, VBScript and, to an extent, DCOM provided a software architecture that was meant to make applications interoperable. The downside of this architecture is that they also make the architecture more vulnerable.
    (.NET is much more secure - if one follows the conventions.)
    6. Apple bundles Applescript with its OS, but in OS 9 this was a non-issue because there was no such thing as a standard install that Apple 'script kiddies' could take advantage of. In OS X this may be more problematic.
    7. Both MS and Apple have an automated update process and seem to correct bugs and security holes as they are found.
    8. Both have a policy of not commenting on security holes ... not just Apple.
    9. Most of the Mac threats cited by Symantec have never even got past proof of concept - and Apple has remedied the threats found by OS updates. Most require ACTIVE permission from the user to run ... since few users are dumb enough to run their system in administrator mode for normal use (goes for all UNIX variants really).
    10. MS should improve Windows and Office security immensely with Windows Vista and Office 12 ... indeed a number of the announced architectural changes make this a given.

    On security vendors commenting on platform security generally, I have problems with separating fact from fiction. Is this a marketing exercise? Is this an altruistic comment meant to protect users.

    So, what I do is decide if the threat mentioned is generic rather than specific. If it's generic ... then the security vendor is in marketing mode. If it's specific then the security vendor is in altruism mode (even though they may sell more product.)

    In this case ... Symantec's warning was generic (applying as it did to the whole platform with some reference to threats generally), and hence falls under my definition of a marketing announcment.

    So I ignored it.

    Regards,

    1. For the record... Anonymous -- 29/09/05

      <i>I own and use Macs, PC's and Shiners.

      Just a couple of things:

      1. Macs don't boot in administrator mode ... so users have to OK the installation and running of any downloaded software/code. </i><br /><br />

      That depends on what services you are running and how secure your users and passwords are. If you are running MySQL on your machine and there is a vulnerability posted, you are just as potentially vulnerable on the Mac as you are on any platform, given the nature of the vulnerability. If you are running Remote Login (sshd) and or Apple Remote Desktop (ARD; VNC), you have opened two very large security holes in your system, and if you don't keep these services patched, or monitor your logs, you are just as vulnerable as any Unix/Linux box to any vulnerabilities in those application stacks. If someone breaks into your system via ssh, there is NOTHING stopping them from installing and running malicious code on your machine.
      <i><br /><br />
      2. Windows does boot in admin mode by default ... this will be changed in Vista. </i><br /><br />

      Windows boots to a login screen just like any other OS. It also will autologin as a user (with admin priviledges) just like Mac OS X. So I'm not sure what you mean by 'admin mode', but there is little difference in behavior between Windows and Mac OS X defaults in that regard. The ONLY difference that I know of is that Mac OS X does require password authentication in order to write files to system level directories.
      <i><br /><br />
      3. Old OS 9 viruses and worms amounted to 43 from memory. ACTUAL OS X viruses and worms amount to 0
      3 a. Qualifier to 3 ... some MS Office viruses and worms (and 9000 odd are circulating) can infect and run on Macs.
      </i><br /><br />

      This may be true of viruses and worms, but again, it is not true of vulnerabilities to network attacks and exploits. There have been numerous security patches issued for Mac OS X over the past five years. Is it comparable to the number released for Windows? No. But it's not zero either.
      <i><br /><br />
      4. Windows viruses and worms exceed 30,000. If the argument that p[o]pularity makes a platform dangerous is true, then Macs should have between 1500 and 3000 viruses and worms.
      </i><br /><br />

      Again, this is a dangerous comment. This is a question of; a. path of least resistence, b. greater number of potential targets along that path, and c. the fact that Microsoft allows people to write really BAD code a lot easier than you can for Mac OS X. Trust me. If/When Mac OS popularity/market share grows, we will see viruses and worms begin to increase in number for the platform. It's only naive arrogance and platform lemming practices that have held the hordes at bay.
      <i><br /><br />
      5. MS with COM, Activex, VBScript and, to an extent, DCOM provided a software architecture that was meant to make applications interoperable. The downside of this architecture is that they also make the architecture more vulnerable.
      (.NET is much more secure - if one follows the conventions.)
      </i><br /><br />

      Very true, and I spoke to this with my BAD code comment above.
      <i><br /><br />
      6. Apple bundles Applescript with its OS, but in OS 9 this was a non-issue because there was no such thing as a standard install that Apple 'script kiddies' could take advantage of. In OS X this may be more problematic.
      </i><br /><br />

      Actually, it is about the same. I can write a malicious AppleScript for either platform (Mac OS 9 or X) fairly easily. The script would not be install dependent for execution.
      <i><br /><br />

      7. Both MS and Apple have an automated update process and seem to correct bugs and security holes as they are found.
      </i><br /><br />

      Eeeeehhhhhh, kinda. Apple is much more proactive than Microsoft, IMHO.
      <i><br /><br />
      8. Both have a policy of not commenting on security holes ... not just Apple.
      </i><br /><br />

      Better to say ALL vendors are hush-hush about security holes, but again

  6. Windows patching nightmare russell white -- 29/09/05

    My first Mac, was a 512K. (I opened the box the weekend that LiveAid went to air around the world.) Since going online I've kept basic Antivirus and Firewall systems in place and up to date with minimal expense, minimum fuss and thus far no disasters other than those of my own making.

    I've had to work with Windows PC's in office environments and lately have ended up being responsible for keeping a mixed bag of a dozen or so Win98 and XP desktops functioning in a networked small office. The time, effort , expense and perseverance required to keep those PC's operating and patched up to date is nothing short of breathtaking. I suspect that if the lost productivity resulting from the effort of maintaining windows systems was calculated, there would likely be a few cost-benefit anlyses done to see if it was worth a class action against the richest man in the world!

    Trying to keep them patched and vaguely secure is a nightmare! 'Normal' people have to use them and be able to use them. They're supposed to be a means to an end, not the be all and end all they seem to have become.

  7. Rush Limbaugh mentioned "Symantec's bogus claim". James Greenidge -- 29/09/05

    Rush Limbaugh mentioned this during his Mac break on his radio show earlier this week, chastising "Symantec's bogus claims" and he found OS-X "bulletproof" on his systems from day one. I didn't realize how big a deal this issue was till I read it on-line.

    JimWG

  8. Can you name an active malware program that attacks Macs, No? Thomas MacFhearghaile -- 29/09/05

    One question for the anti virus makers, can you name an active malware program that attacks Macs, No? There should be a law against the kind of fraud these people vend to the public. I'm bitter because I payed over $70 us for Norton system works several years ago, and it trashed my hard drive, Symantech refused to refund my money. They are the chicken littles (as in the sky is falling) of the computer world.

  9. Astonished by the general assumptions made about Mac users Jamie Anderson -- 29/09/05

    Thank you for a great article, looking objectively at the issues.

    As a Mac user, I am constantly astonished by the general assumptions made about the level of sophistication of the Mac user community. To use your BMW analogy, just because you drive a BMW doesn't mean that you don't know how to drive a car, and same for the Mac, many people seem to assume that Mac owners don't know how to use computers. I believe that Mac owners are just as security conscious as PC owners. Many of us use or own both platforms and are very well aware of the issues.

    In my view Semantec have played this issue rather poorly on several counts:

    1. They insulted their market on several occasions - Ignorance isn't platform specific.

    2. Their software is commonly known to be heavy on resources and cause other problems - Windows or Mac and most people who really know what they are doing steer clear of it in preference for other products.

    3. They missed a golden opportunity when McAffes Virex software (which Apple offered through their .Mac service) broke when OS X 10.4 Tiger was released. Semantec could have developed a relationship with the .Mac community by offering equivalent software - this in my view would have been a far more successful strategy than lambasting Mac users. To my knowledge, Virex still isn't offered to Tiger users.

    What is transparent to me is that Symantec are concerned about strong OS X adoption impacting on their revenues. Reacting to this with a fear campaign is a rather unsophisticated and old fashioned approach. What better approach than to collaborate with the community through the .Mac service and be in the box seat when the new Intel Macs arrive and, depending on how things pan out, could potentially require protection from both Windows and OS X threats.

  10. Thank you for being a voice of sanity! Bruce Johnson -- 29/09/05

    Thank you for being a voice of sanity!

    "Antivirus firm Sophos believes the malicious software Renepo (alias Opener) is plain nasty. "It turns off system accounting, turns off the OS 10 firewall, turns off auto updates, turns file- sharing on, opens an SSH back door, downloads and installs an open source video conferencing program and opens it in 'do not advise the user mode'," Paul Ducklin, Sophos Asia-Pacific head of technology, told ZDNet Australia in a previous interview.

    While Macs are safer compared with Windows, Ducklin thinks the existence of Renepo should be a "sanitary reminder" that bad things can happen. "

    Of course Mr. Ducklin is careful not to note that YOU NEED TO HAVE ROOT ACCESS TO INSTALL RENEPO. And if you have root access, doing all of the above is trivial already.

  11. No computer user is immune from viral suicide. Peter Barrett -- 29/09/05

    While companies like Symantec harp on about theoretical threats to the OS X platform, and from time to time someone puts their hand up to say they've found a way to make one, why are there NO viri/worms/ trojans actually in circulation?

    Because any threats that arise are going to need some dumb user to enter a valid administrator password to begin any kind of privilege escalation to make them do ANYTHING. Virus protection can be ignored and Macs running OS X remain safe, much to the annoyance of companies like Symantec.

    No computer user is immune from viral suicide. But it's a far cry from the regular passive infection experienced by Windows users on the receiving end of infected music/jokes/anything. Theirs is a valid fear and it's how Symantec makes its money.

    However, according to some we live in a fool's paradise only because so few of us use Macs that no one bothers to target them. Bunk. Let Symantec bleat when it actually finds a pandemic in the wild. It'll be a while. Meanwhile I'll just keep OS X's free firewall up.

  12. After 15 years, no sign of virus, worms or malware Ted -- 29/09/05

    I have used Macs for over 15 years in companies and in my own business using anti-virus software for only one reason --- to protect my vulnerable and venerable clients who use Windows.

    But I have yet to experience any bad things from a virus, worm or malware. Be aware that I use email (many with pdf, PowerPoint, Excel and Word attachments for back and forth editing) heavily with hundreds of Windows clients across the country and do research on the Internet visiting hundreds of sometimes questionable quality web sites using four different browsers. I also use a wireless Airport system to trade information on several internal computers, print files and surf the web. Yet I have never experienced any issues either with or without anti-virus software.

    So until that actually happens, it is very difficult to persuade users like me that installing a pervasive and often buggy anti-virus package on their Macs is worth the trade off in cost and negative user experience.

  13. Difference between a sense of security and suicidal stupidity Koen van Hees -- 29/09/05

    There's a difference between a sense of security and suicidal stupidity. Of course I feel safe on OS X, as I felt on Mac OS. But since viruses are just part of the things a computer user needs to watch out for, doing security updates is just part of the routine, I even do the occasional virus scan (Sophos - free download). It doesn't compare to the average Windows or Linux maintenance and I like being smug once in a while (nothing like pissing off your friends) but it would be stupid not to do it.

    In the end none of these companies have said anything newsworthy, but imo they can't say it enough. Whatever the cause of data loss or corruption, it's not a nice thing, so be vigilant.

    But if I have to choose I take Sophos' measured attitude over Symantec's hyperboles (a proof of concept is not a deadly virus/troyan, especially if said proof of concepts work on vulnerabilities that have been plugged a year ago). Maybe I can smile at Jobs' reality distortion field (who at least has proven I'll probably like the product behind the hyperbole), but I don't as a rule like over the top marketing infomercial-**** especially the kind that uses fear. I mean, it's not as if we're voting for a president, so go easy on the gloom and doom please ;-)

  14. Symantec 'scare tactics' don't rattle Mac users Anonymous -- 29/09/05

    Strange to see warnings from Symantec concerning Mac Security. Symantec ended support for several Mac programs and their actual support of Norton Antivirus is more than weak.
    Bugs in NAV vers. 10 were not repaired by updating the program since many months and their Uninstaller was/is not able to uninstall some parts of NAV.
    Most critical is their update from NAV 9 to NAV 10, which keeps the old Norton Auto-Protect instead of installing the new one.
    Would be nice to see at Symantec more efforts to bring their own Mac program line up to date and support them instead if discontinuing them like Norton Utilities and Norton Systemworks. There is no reason from their side to blame apple.

  15. these are the guys that manufacture the viruses Anonymous -- 29/09/05

    These guys generate the viruses to keep themselves in business don't they?

  16. Symantec missing the corporate Macs MacDaNife -- 29/09/05

    If Symantec is so concerned about Mac security, why don't they prove it by finally releasing a Enterprise version of NAV 10. We're still using NAV 9 and it isn't compatible with MacOS X 10.4, which has been out since April '05. Enterprises don't want to be saddled with the definition update subscription crap that individuals must deal with.

  17. i hope people would stop writing crap about Mac/Apple runar petershagen -- 30/09/05

    I'm a Mac user, and I can tell you that what Symantec or other "anti" virus makers say about OS X and Mac isn't something we users care about. In fact we just find it bothering, and just hope people would stop writing crap about Mac/Apple.

    When the "criticism" comes from a virus company I just find it stupid. Such companies have nothing to do with Mac/Apple, and they should stay away. Like a PC using friend of mine told me: " If you want to make sure you'll get viruses, get a antivirus program, the viruses will follow shortly". So - STAY AWAY.

    Just look at how these companies make their money, you'll understand my concern. And on the topic, viruses on Macs, I would just like to say that I have used Mac for 13 years without ever using any type of virus protection, and yes I've been on the net for the same amount of time. To this day I have never seen a virus. However, I have some friends who are PeeCee users and they constantly call me for help on virus problems. I keep telling them that they should go over to Mac, but I guess that people who are stupid enough to think PeeCees are good, are stupid enough to think virus problems are good as well.

    Finally let me say, APPLE rules!!! and the Pee, well that is supposed to go down the toilet (some people just don't get that).

  18. OSX Haven Anonymous -- 01/10/05

    The truth is that NO Operating System is immune to vulnerabilities. Being a user of both Mac and PCs I have an objective security view. Granted, to date, PC Virii / Trojans / Worms compose the vast majority of the Malware landscape, yet this does not mean that things will not change in the future. As Macs popularity and acceptance increases it will attract the attention of unsavory characters who spend their time reverse engineering programs in order to find flaws which they can exploit in order for them to compromise them. This will translate to an increase of malicious programs that target OSX. Bleak, true, but inevitable. All we can do is enjoy the security haven we have (for the time being) and keep an eye open.

    1. Theory as yet unproven Sees through the **** -- 04/10/05

      Sorry to say, but your theory has more holes than a slice of swiss. UNIX/BSD have been around for years and aren't on the target list. Every hacker knows that it's pointless to waste your time trying to find exploits on these OS's as they are virtually bulletproof.

      The theory that enough users will draw out virus and worm writers is a complete fallacy. There is no evidence to support this position. The thing is that most people with malicious intent don't have a brain in their heads to begin with. 99% of released virii, trojans and worms come from the script kiddies. These are the morons trying to gain recognition and they do it with other peoples creations as they couldn't do it themselves if their lives depended on it.

  19. Symantec=horrible software Anonymous -- 01/10/05

    It's a total joke. It's worse than Word 6 was. It is one of the worst security holes going to install it. You would have to be a total moron to use it on a Mac.

    They are partners with MS on many projects--read about it on their web site. They are not at all objective as a result of this.

    It's like asking criminals if they are guilty, and taking them at their word.

  20. Symantec has dropped Mac users due to the complexities of X Not Important -- 04/10/05

    They quit making NUM(Norton Utilities for Macintosh) when it became too difficult for them to support such a complex OS as OS X. Symantec produces products that do more damage than good. In the case of NUM, their damage costs were far outweighing their bottom line, so they quit making the product and said "screw the Mac user". Well, screw you Symantec and your POS predictions. It seems that the only real vulnerabilities to OS X are still listed as problems from Microsoft Office Exploits which haven't been dealt with since Office 97.

  21. Symantec has dropped Mac users due to the complexities of X Not Important -- 04/10/05

    They quit making NUM(Norton Utilities for Macintosh) when it became too difficult for them to support such a complex OS as OS X. Symantec produces products that do more damage than good. In the case of NUM, their damage costs were far outweighing their bottom line, so they quit making the product and said "screw the Mac user". Well, screw you Symantec and your POS predictions. It seems that the only real vulnerabilities to OS X are still listed as problems from Microsoft Office Exploits which haven't been dealt with since Office 97.

  22. fud Anonymous -- 04/10/05

    fear uncertainity and doubt

    quite frankly i do not trust symantic, they keep dragging up the same old opener thing even tho the fault was fixed ages ago and has not produced a shred of evidence to show there is any viruses out there. it's also getting rediculas the fact thay they are still say (in other words) your platforms getting bigger theres got to be some kind of security breach somewhere soon. FOR GOD SAKE YOUR A ANTI VIRUS COMPANY your supposed to be looking for flaws and weakneses yourself not guessing

    mac os comes with it's own stateful packet inspection firewall (not something it made but unix/bsd's own ipfw) and has available it's own free anti virus, (that also has a fast response time to threats, faster than symantic so it seems and appears to use the same database for all platforms) if everyone who had an inkling to buy anti viruses software not even the whole amount they would spend on symantic, we'd have the best FREE anti virus for our platform and there would be no chance of viruses.
    i run it as a precaution because yes something could happen and i'd rather it not. i sure as hell trust someone with to anything to gain rather than a corperation with little to loose

    p.s. i have yet to find a single virus

  23. dont believe symantec Anonymous -- 04/10/05

    Hi, ive been a mac user for the last 2 years and here is what i say. Dont believe symantec, believe in challenge that this guy proposed http://www.macnn.com/articles/05/09/28/500.virus.bounty/ and no one answered yet

  24. Installing anti-virus software on Mac's is a bad idea (right now) Laird Popkin -- 05/10/05

    Right now it's a very bad idea to install anti-virus software on Mac's. Let's break it down:

    Pro's: there are 2 pro's, though they're weak.
    1) Stop some Windows email viruses from getting forwarded by your Mac to a Windows user. (obscure, and Windows users _should_ be running anti-virus software to protect the computers, not relying on Mac users to protect them from Windows viruses).
    2) Possibly stop some hypothetical future virus. This would be ineffective, because anyone writing that hypothetical future virus can make sure that it's not detected by whatever the anti-virus software checks for.

    Con's:
    1) Anti-virus software slows down and destabilizes your computer. Because anti-virus software must (by definition) integrate itself throughout the operating environment, it makes your computer slower, and if the software is buggy (clue: it is) it can render your Mac unstable.
    2) It's a waste of money: why spend $60/year (or whatever the fee is) for every Mac in order to stop the 0 Mac viruses? Also, since anti-virus software makes computers unstable, they require more support, which costs time and money.
    3) If a Mac virus emerges, you don't know that the software you bought will be the best software to address it, so you may need to buy new anti-virus software anyway.

    My recommendation is that instead of wasting money to destabilize your Mac in an attempt to possibly block a hypothetical future Mac virus, you should:
    1) Don't turn on any services that you don't need. MacOS X is quite secure by default, but if you turn on file sharing, remote login, etc., they each introduce potential risks. Of course, Samba, Apache, SSH, etc., are all relatively well tested and secure, but nothing's more secure than software that isn't running. :-)
    2) Make sure that system updates run automatically. Apple's good about making updates painless (generally), but it's easy to forget to check for updates, so let the computer do it automatically. And aside from addressing viruses, the updates improve system performance and non-virus security issues.
    3) Keep alert for the emergence of an actual Mac virus. If one emerges and it's not addressed by Apple, then it might be worthwhile reading reviews and seeing if any of the anti-virus programs block it, and if so buy it then.

    Overall, we should keep things in perspective. MacOS X launched in early 2001, and here we are in late 2005 with no MacOS X viruses, so I wouldn't bet too heavily that a flood of viruses are just about to hit just because Symantec wants to sell anti-virus software to Mac users.

  25. My sense of security on the Mac is not false. Marvin Price -- 05/10/05

    My sense of security on the Mac is not false. Every day I surf the web with impunity. I do not worry about trojans. I do not worry about viruses. I do not worry about spyware. I don't worry about my own browser compromising my system. I don't worry about clicking on an e- mail and compromising my system. My e-mail address book has never been taken and used against me by malware. I do not worry about which pieces of crappy overly integrated Microsoft software are going to provide a buffer overflow that allows the average 6 year old to compromise my system.

    Those concerns are the foundation upon which the Windows user exists. Not the Macintosh user.

    I have sat down and tried to develop a contagion that could spread quickly on the Mac. It's hard, real hard. I haven't been able to do it. First of all, the BSD UNIX underpinnings make it far more difficult than apparently Symantec and Sophos are aware. Just attempting to load code onto the Macintosh without the knowledge of the user is next to impossible as the system starts alerting the user and asking for permission. Access to critical portions of the system seems next to impossible to get at because of the UNIX privilege system. More importantly, every program on the Mac isn't somehow connected to every other program providing an endless smorgasbord of compromise opportunities. THERE IS NO REGISTRY TO HACK FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

    I am not saying it is impossible.

    I am however saying that common sense on the part of the Mac user will suffice. There is no reason to support the likes of Sophos or Symantec.

    IN FACT:

    One of the most destabilizing things you can do to a Mac is install ANYTHING from Symantec onto the machine! I spend more time uninstalling Symantec software on Macs than I care to think about because people who don't know any better have succumbed to the FUD (fear uncertainty and doubt) foisted upon them by the media and Symantec.

    Symantec writes software on the Mac as if they are writing for Windows. The software loads crap all over the system, and it is wholly useless. There are zip, zero, nada known viruses for the Mac. What the heck then is the software looking for?

    Bottom line, if and when the first Mac OS X virus appears, those products won't be ready, and by the time they are there will probably be a security update from Apple, which is far more nimble at such things than Microsoft.

    And another little known secret, Most Mac users are actually more knowledgeable than their Windows counterparts from what I've observed as a consultant. They are very aware of where to go to get Mac information and news. They understand their systems. They know where the OS ends and applications begin. They are not like the typical Windows user that falls for simple minded porn tricks.

    The only problem I have with viruses is MICROSOFT RELATED VIRUSES INVADING MICROSOFT DOCUMENTS ON THE MAC THROUGH YET AGAIN ANOTHER INSECURE SYSTEM CREATED BY MICROSOFT. Yup, Word Macro Viruses and Excel Macro Viruses are known to breakout in Mac shops and you have to remove them. They can't hurt the Mac, but it is annoying to know they are there.

    Using Microsoft products on the Mac is like living in a disease free environment but having to deal with a SARS infected prostitute because she's the standard.

    Again, I'm not saying compromise on the Mac is impossible. I'm just saying tell it like it is. Tell the truth, which really amounts to "Windows is the absolute most insecure system on the face of the planet, but just to be safe, you Mac users should use some common sense."

  26. symantec: ignore Patric King -- 06/10/05

    symantec's products have long been hindrances to the mac platform, as far back as system 8. norton antivirus was a frequent cause of startup conflicts during that period. since migration to OS X, symantec has shown very little interests in doing anything but issuing scare press releases to increase their market potential andattempt to prove themselves a knowledgeable source of mac security information.

    as a mac user, do i think i'm invulnerable? no. do i think symantec has anyone's best interests in mind but their own? of course not. they never have. they assume the average user is a point-and-clicking monkey who will simply point, download, decompress, and allow anything on their computer -- and longtime mac people really know better than that.

    i'll take my virus protection from someone whos not so transparent, thanks.

  27. Mac users are in better shape without Norton products Anonymous -- 07/10/05

    No operating system is perfect, but some are definitely more perfect than others. Mac OS X isn't perfect either, but the only virii I ever found on my Mac were infected files from a PC user.

    That's not to say a Mac can't catch a virus, but even on my PC I find that my system is more stable without Symantec's software running than with it. Norton is so invasive that it is next to impossible to uninstall short of a nuke & repave cycle.

    Frankly, even if there were multiple virii floating around for Mac OS X, Symantec would need to improve their product before I would run it on my machine because the cure is worse than the disease.

    1. agreed macboy -- 11/10/05

      remaining vigilant is one thing. i think symantec underestimates mac users.we're not that alien to viruses, worms etc and don;t live under a false sense of security

  28. re Symantec 'scare tactics' don't rattle Mac users Anonymous -- 12/10/05

    There are no active OSX viri/trojans/etc, Apple is a superiour comapny.
    After having personally run MS Windows for years, OpenBSD, Linuxes and even a somewhat buggy OpenSolaris, all OSes have vulnerabilities which, outside of MS products, are rarely exploited on a large scale.
    Symantec's 'the sky is falling' attempts to frighten or emotionally blackmail OSX users into buying its mediocre products are rightly being ignored by most users.
    The criminals that write malware deserve to be literally crucified, penalties are much too weak, so they will continue. OSX isn't truly safe, but much like OpenBSD, its not easy to code for, so few will make the attempt, and even fewer or none will succeed.

  29. Symantec Offices in Cupertino Not Opulent Enough Anonymous -- 21/10/05

    If your company became wildly rich and successful over time performing 3rd party backdoor support for a corrupt, poorly designed and heavily flawed product and that product was showing signs of being superseded by a superior product, you'd bust your keister to find something - ANYthing wrong with that superior product in order to drum up new business. Hell, this is America: Fear tactics work here: you've got bills to pay. You've got a staff to payroll. You've got hanging tapestries and sports figure memorabilia to purchase.

    Symantec got to the placet they now occupy by doing the same exact thing that Microsoft did: make a supporting product that's marginally functional for the least capital expense and subsequently co-opt every innovation that their attorneys say is fair game for theft.

    When Vista finally launches next year, it will still be 4 years behind OS 10 in terms of functionality and reliability. If you were running Symantec, you'd have to be worried right now.

  30. Antivirus companies + M$ darkStar -- 22/10/05

    AV companies + M$ have ripped off users for a long time. Now M$ has managed to create a new category - the anti-spyware market! More business for them! Yey! I am a GNU/Linux user and I am proud of it :D No license fees to M$, no viruses, no spyware, no concerns! I think Apple made an extremely good decision when it decided to change over to the BSD kernel :)

    Long live GNU/Linux!

    Long live Mac OS!

Add your opinion


Latest Videos

Sponsored content

Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

Blogs

  • Renai LeMay Australian Govt funds IT start-ups
    This week Australia's Federal Government announced it had allocated $3.6 million in funding to 57 local research projects so that they could be commercialised, with many of them being web or IT-related start-ups.
  • Array Google should come clean on datacentres
    It's nice that Google says it has put an effort into making its datacentres more energy efficient, but the search giant's pledges won't mean much until it discloses just how many of the beasties it's actually running.
  • Array US shows what OPEL could have been
    Sprint's WiMAX roll-out in Baltimore will prove the Australian government's decision to worm its way out of the Opel WiMAX contract was a short-sighted, and ultimately damaging, political stunt that has benefited nobody.
  • More blogs »

Tags