On Symantec's blog website, the company writes: "Researchers and engineers who are working in the security field must have strong constitutions - especially when it comes to weathering negative backlash and tired conspiracy theories whenever security and Mac OS X are mentioned in the same breath. With that in mind, in an effort to improve the quality of the dialogue, I would like to discuss some important issues regarding Mac OS X and security. Let's start with the hot-button issue of Mac OS X viruses. Simply put, at the time of writing this article, there are no file-infecting viruses that can infect Mac OS X."
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2006-02-05
Member since:2005-07-07
Member since:2006-02-15
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
I would also like to point to this Wikipedia article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_of_virus
My father is a doctor and he says viruses when he speaks of multiple infectious organisms and nowhere in ANY of his medical texts does it reference virii or viri.
As one of the computer cognoscenti myself I recognize that some have to feel superior to others without ever really backing their statements up.
Member since:2006-06-14
Member since:2005-06-29
Eh, where did I say he was wrong? In the English language, the plural of virus is indeed viruses. I was not contesting that, now, was I? I just found it funny he corrected someone on spelling/grammar, while making a mistake himself. It's just humour.
EDIT: oh darn, I misunderstood him. Haha, I thought he was correcting the blog post, saying it was NOT virii. Hah. Excusez-moi.
In case you're interested, the Dutch plural of 'virus' [vee-rus] is also 'virussen' [vee-rus-n]. If I recall correctly, the plural of the word virus cannot be 'virii', as the Latin plural is 'viri'. However, it's been ages since my study of Latin was over, so I might be wrong.
EDIT 2: Ok, read the Wikipedia entry, I was partially right; it cannot be virii, but not for the reason I cited.
Edited 2006-07-15 19:08
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-02-05
Member since:2005-07-06
So now, some guy who originally, and wrongly, changed the plural form of virus to virii (probably to look more intelligent to his peers) has managed to get "leet" people to accept the perversion of the word.
Well, good for him!
Though, it DOES indeed seem to be in debate amongst us computer guys, myself being one and Todd Woodward, the man who wrote the post, who uses "viruses" himself. Is Todd himself not a computer guy? Since I program in many different types of languages and also partook in "nasty activities" as a child involving computer systems and viruses, am I not also a "computer guy"?
This isn't all about technocracy at all. It's about the proper way of saying something, which my original comment was directed towards. You had "corrected" the proper plurality of "virus" and was wrong. Just because a small group of people (the leet) say it otherwise, it is not accepted in general in that form.
Thats my opinion at least.
Edited 2006-07-15 22:33
Member since:
2005-07-28
Member since:
2005-07-06
Hmmm, well, while I do believe Unix to be more secure then most counterparts, I also believe that it is not a full proof "I won't get a virus (or malware)". I bought a MacBook pro about 2 months ago and I use Linux and FreeBSD on my desktop pc's and have never had a virus/malware problem, but that is not to say I don't watch out for it or that it will never happen.
Viruses and malware can infect any any computer regardless of the make or os, some are more prone then others, but it can happen to anybody.
As a general practice, I scan all my systems for viruses and malware weekly just to make sure I am not harboring or spreading viruses/malware.
Keep in mind, as Mac/Linux/BSD users, we may be mostly safe when it comes to viruses/trojans/malware, but we still can spread it. It may not affect our systems, but it is easily spread to other systems. It's always a good thing to run virus scans even if you are not afriad of it infecting your system.
It's all about keeping the community safe.
ps... Symantec sucks, find somebody else for your security needs, ClamXav works well, but I am sure ther are others.
Member since:
2006-01-08
I have been using a Macintosh OS computer since OS 7.1 back in 1994, "unprotected" as far as virus software is concerned. I have used every version of the OS since then, and was a Macintosh Tech for a year for AOL, and I had NEVER known anyone to get a virus, I have only even heard of one worm infecting a Mac and that was back in 96. I currently have been using the same imac for about three years and never gotten a virus.
Now I have also owned a PC running Windows since 1998, I have used Win98, WinME, Win NT4.0, Win2K, and WinXP, and no matter how careful I have been and diligent I have gotten infected with a virus at least once a year. I do full system scans atleast once a week and have active scanning on. I once was even running Norton AND McAfee at the same time along with Zone Alarm and still caught a virus.
BTW I have been using Linux on my computers since 1998 as well and never gotten a virus either.
I am NOT what you would consider a Mac zealot, but I am speaking from experience when I say that from a security perspective, Mac OS is VERY secure against viruses.
Member since:
2006-01-10
Member since:
2006-02-15
What is known: There are fewer documented exploits against Mac/OS than against Windows/XP.
What is not known: Which is more "secure".
If all else were equal, then the number of documented exploits would be a reasonable measure of relative security, but all else isn't close to equal.
Member since:
2005-07-22
Member since:2006-01-20
Member since:
2005-07-22
Member since:
2005-08-18
