
"Yesterday, I read what I consider to be a
provoking piece at ZDNet. It pointed out that while there is no question that Macs are not the malware targets that Windows machines are, they're most certainly not immune to an attack of the right variety. It went on to backup its point with a real world scenario in which a University of New South Wales Mac server had been hit by malware. Disturbingly, the server had apparently been running the latest updates from Apple and still managed to get hit. It mentioned that, in the author's opinion, Apple was 'misleading people' into believing that their OS was more secure than it really is. Whether or not that is true is frankly immaterial to me. It should be noted that no OS is 100 percent bulletproof, and I believe this is what it was driving home at. Unfortunately, some people within the Mac community
felt differently."
Member since:
2006-11-09
I think that many just get tired of people making statements about which they don't understand. Reading ZDNet is something of an exercise in frustration for professionals who work with multiple operating systems daily and take the time to know their strengths and weaknesses. I must admit that I still browse their site, but it's mostly to get a quick look at headlines and a good laugh.
As for the blogger, the Mac users mentality is similar to a Linux/BSD user's when someone starts spouting about Windows being more stable and less vulnerable to exploits than a typical Linux distro or PCBSD. Face it, it's human nature to defend what you believe in.
If someone in the "media" started on about how your primary OS was just damned insecure and you should consider buying Windows (hey, conveniently, we also have security companies adds along the sidebar so you can purchase extra peace of mind for your new glorious OS). If they backed up their statements by pointing to a 3rd party piece of software and a lack of internal process monitoring / securing your servers, well...