Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 1st May 2006 16:02 UTC
Apple "Daines was browsing the Web when he clicked on a series of links that promised pictures of an unreleased update to his computer's operating system. Instead, a window opened on the screen and strange commands ran as if the machine was under the control of someone - or something - else. Daines was the victim of a computer virus. Such headaches are hardly unusual on PCs running Windows. Daines, however, was using a Mac - a machine often touted as being immune to such risks." Remember boys and girls, this story is published on MSNBC.
Thread beginning with comment 119950
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
No OS Is Immune
by enloop on Mon 1st May 2006 17:42 UTC
enloop
Member since:
2005-11-13

No operating system is immune to viruses and other attacks, including OS X. So that headline -- which I've seen repeated on several sites today -- sets up a false premise and then happily demolishes it.

Ignoring the technical merits of OS X and Linux, the primary reason they've been unbothered by malicious attacks is their tiny market share. People seeking to do harm or to gain attention will go after the biggest target. Right now, that's Window's. If Windows suddenly became the most secure OS in history, it would still be the target of the most attacks.

Reply Score: 0

RE: No OS Is Immune
by raver31 on Mon 1st May 2006 18:00 in reply to "No OS Is Immune"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

Ignoring the technical merits of OS X and Linux, the primary reason they've been unbothered by malicious attacks is their tiny market share. People seeking to do harm or to gain attention will go after the biggest target.

obviously, you still take your daily dose of crap that certain companies feed you.

This analogy has benn proven wrong over and over and over again. It is NOTHING to do with market share. Windows is flawed by design.

It is was purely on market share, then why are all the Apache servers not getting defaced hundreds of times more than the IIS ones ?
Come on, Apache shares are like 80% of the internet servers, and IIS is on maybe 15%.... how come IIS is getting attacked more ?

Windows was designed as a single-user stand-alone system, and needs to be re-written properly.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: No OS Is Immune
by StephenBeDoper on Mon 1st May 2006 20:04 in reply to "RE: No OS Is Immune"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

This analogy has benn proven wrong over and over and over again.

Proven? Really? I've mainly seen it argued against by those who apparently skipped Junior high math and think that the relationship between marketshare and "malicious activity" would be linear.

It is was purely on market share, then why are all the Apache servers not getting defaced hundreds of times more than the IIS ones ?

The original poster never said "purely," he said "primary reason," so I'm gonna go ahead and call strawman argument.

Come on, Apache shares are like 80% of the internet servers, and IIS is on maybe 15%.... how come IIS is getting attacked more ?

So your solution to countering a facile argument is... to present an equally facile argument?

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE: No OS Is Immune
by thabrain on Mon 1st May 2006 18:11 in reply to "No OS Is Immune"
thabrain Member since:
2005-06-29

Ignoring the technical merits of OS X and Linux, the primary reason they've been unbothered by malicious attacks is their tiny market share.

I disagree. The primary reason that most viruses haven't hit OSX and Linux are that the vast majority are targeted to Microsoft Networking Protocols, Active X controls, and security holes because of running as Administrator.



People seeking to do harm or to gain attention will go after the biggest target.

They go after Microsoft because they also know the code isn't secure, not soley because Windows is a big target.

If Windows suddenly became the most secure OS in history, it would still be the target of the most attacks.

You're describing an event that up until this date (and that includes the use of Vista) hasn't happened. Microsoft won't be secure because they would have to write Windows from the ground up to do it.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: No OS Is Immune
by rockwell on Mon 1st May 2006 19:21 in reply to "RE: No OS Is Immune"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

//and security holes because of running as Administrator.//

uhh ... you're kinda proving his point of "flawed by design" there ...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: No OS Is Immune
by suryad on Mon 1st May 2006 21:52 in reply to "RE: No OS Is Immune"
suryad Member since:
2005-07-09

IMO it is a mix of Windows being flawed and that it has a huge huge presence in the market. Both combined together make it a malware writer's paradise.

Reply Parent Score: 1