Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 26th Jun 2012 09:34 UTC, submitted by tomcat
Mac OS X "In the wake of the Flashback botnet which targeted Mac computers, Apple has removed a statement from its messages on its website that Mac operating system X (OS X) isn't susceptible to viruses." It was an untenable statement anyway. Security is an illusion.
Thread beginning with comment 523884
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
umccullough
Member since:
2006-01-26

"Even if they get a proper configured OS, there are many stupid users that will just "Press this to..." when asked, regardless how good the OS is in regards to security.

Fun fact: This isn't true for Windows and other updates. ;)
"

If you mean, they refuse to "click here to install updates", then you're probably correct. The worst part about windows updates is that they often require a reboot (even under windows 7!).

How is it that malware writers are able to build malware that can dig into the deepest parts of the OS immediately after a user clicks a button (or even without that), while Microsoft can't even live-update their own OS properly and requires a full reboot?

Reply Parent Score: 3

tanzam75 Member since:
2011-05-19

How is it that malware writers are able to build malware that can dig into the deepest parts of the OS immediately after a user clicks a button (or even without that), while Microsoft can't even live-update their own OS properly and requires a full reboot?


A live update that succeeds on 99% of systems is an enormous success for a malware author.

In contrast, a live update that hoses 1% of systems unbootable is a disaster for Microsoft.

Reply Parent Score: 3

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

In contrast, a live update that hoses 1% of systems unbootable is a disaster for Microsoft.


This isn't strictly limited to live updates. Ever tried to troubleshoot a failed update in Windows 7 that installs, reboots, starts configuring, then locks? Not fun. Live update or no live update, it still rendered the install unbootable until it could be fixed.
However, as a Mac user myself, I feel obligated to point out that Apple isn't all that great at live updating either. There are some updates, sometimes for OS X-provided applications, that still require a restart when they really shouldn't need one. I will say that Apple at least packages updates more cleanly. Ever done a Windows update that installed some security patches and then, on the next reboot, you need to run windows update again to get yet more security patches to fix problems in the security patches you've just applied? One would think that Microsoft would at least packages these in a more coherent fashion. Granted, they do occasionally have "cumulative security updates" but even those often don't have the latest patches and require a few rounds of updates to get them all. Aside from being a general pain to those of us who have to maintain them and resulting in a machine having more down time than it really needs, this does eventually leave a lot of files lying around the system. They have gotten a bit better with this since the days of XP sp3 but still nowhere near Apple or the various Linux distributions. I can only hope this will be one area addressed in Windows 8.

Reply Parent Score: 2