Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

McAfee Feigns Fear at Mac Security 403

Posted by Zonk
from the raising-the-terror-level dept.
conq writes "BusinessWeek reports that McAfee has just come out with a report which asks the question 'Is Mac OS X the Next Windows?'." They appear to be attempting to scare consumers into buying anti-virus software for OSX. Blogger Arik Hesseldahl breaks down their claims: "First off, Mac users on average pay more for their computers, are self-selected because they tend to know more about technology than your average PC buyer, and by and large are a bit more affluent than those who buy cheapo commodity Windows PCs ... When you take into account the ongoing growth in general PC ownership, even if Apple pushes its annual unit sales to 12 million or more by 2010, its share of the overall market will still account for about 4%, leaving Windows the far more tasty target."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

McAfee Feigns Fear at Mac Security

Comments Filter:
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn AT gmail DOT com> on Friday May 05, 2006 @09:39AM (#15269951) Journal
    First off, read the original McAfee Report [nai.com] before you bash them as FUD spreading capitalists.

    Why that wasn't included in the posted story, I'll never know. If you actually take a look at the PDF, it's got some good histograms and charts as well as a little more detail into the Leap virus.

    Yes, it does follow from this that users should buy McAfee anti-virus for Macs. The simple fact of the matter is that this is a white paper that tilts in their favor. It has some valid points, though, and I don't think they need to tell people to be afraid. If Mac users start getting these viruses then they will truly need anti-virus software for their machines. They site the National Vulnerability Database and other sources in this document so it's not like they're making stuff up or are the only ones claiming there is an upcoming security risk.

    I hate McAfee software. Like most anti-virus software, it uses too much memory and hogs the CPU if it's a real-time checker. I wouldn't opt for it if it was the last anti-virus company in existence. However after reading their white paper, it is convincing. I do think that if Apple doesn't take an initiative to protect their users from things like Leap then Mac users will need auxiliary anti-virus protection from a third party.

    One man's FUD is another man's common sense. I don't care about the size or manufacturer of a device--if it runs programs in a turing-machine like manner, it can be infected.
    • by webdog314 (960286) on Friday May 05, 2006 @09:52AM (#15270060)
      I'm sorry, but McAfee putting out a security report is like Exxon putting out an environmental assessment for Alaskan drilling. Slight conflict of interest there. It doesn't matter who they quote. They simply cannot be trusted because making a profit will always be their number one priority.
      • by Gary W. Longsine (124661) on Friday May 05, 2006 @10:14AM (#15270254) Homepage Journal
        Hmm... I'm sympathetic to your position, but not your reasoning. Except for the occasional trust funder, just about everyone here is selling their services in exchange for cash. If you leave one job for another, higher paying job, are you profit motivated, and thus no longer to be trusted?

        I suspect that rather than their motivation to make a profit, it is really the years of strangely incongruous (for a security company) and untrustworthy behavior like pioneering the pop-up browser advertisements and so forth that have caused you to trust not McAfee.
        • I'm totally unsympathetic to your lack of reasoning. The GP was referring to trustworthiness with respect to reporting something which could influence people to pay the reporter. Saying that everyone works for cash is a smokescreen. He never said you shouldn't trust that their anti-virus software works, which is the strawman your reply addresses. Saying that you shouldn't trust people when they are better off telling you a particular thing regardless of its truth is just good sense.
        • by node 3 (115640) on Friday May 05, 2006 @08:15PM (#15274693)
          Two problems with your argument.

          1. McAfee isn't a person. Most people aren't profit-oriented. Yes, most people have to work, but the pursuit of profit is not the primary focus of most people. On the other hand, most corporations seek nothing *but* profits.

          2. While corporations have been known to do the right or promote honest facts, from time to time, this is not one of those times. Using fear is one of the most vulgar and appalling of manipulation techniques.

          Any time a corporation tries to spread fear, and that corporation just happens to sell a product that directly addresses that fear, it's wise to become weary, because it's in that corporation's best interest to overstate the fear.

          McAfee is just trying to build a market (which is a completely reasonable thing for a corporation to do), but in this specific case, they are trying to build a market which does not exist, and trying to force it into existence will have a net negative impact on the rest of us, as tends to be the case with FUD.
      • I'm sorry, but McAfee putting out a security report is like Exxon putting out an environmental assessment for Alaskan drilling. Slight conflict of interest there. It doesn't matter who they quote. They simply cannot be trusted because making a profit will always be their number one priority.

        But you see, there are companies that make products, even have "monopolies" in their market, yet don't spread FUD or even advertise to my knowledge.

        Take Bic for example. There revenue comes from: stationery (pens, penci
        • No marketing to speak of, hmmmm I guess some people are unaware of the secret world of supermarket checkout aisles. Hey, you know how when you go to the grocery store there are always the same certain items at the checkout aisle? Grocery store chains do not randomly select the same items from coast to coast...or do they. Talk about mass marketing.
    • by addie macgruer (705252) on Friday May 05, 2006 @09:53AM (#15270066)
      They have produced some good-looking graphs; however, the number of viruses observed (about 2 per year for the last decade) means that the substantial upturn could be little more than statistical noise.

      I think it speaks for itself that, according to that PDF, the macintoshes with 1/50th of the market share have 1/1315th of the number of identified viruses, somewhat disproportionate to their decreased market share.

      Have got MacAffee antivirus installed as corporate policy on my business peesee, and it humbles what is otherwise a fairly able laptop. Perhaps Apple's move to a more powerful architecture means that they can now shoulder the MacAffee burden too?
    • by MathFox (686808) on Friday May 05, 2006 @09:54AM (#15270068)
      I just copy and paste the Key Findings:
      1. From 2003 to 2005, the annual rate of vulnerability discovery on Apple's Mac O S platform has increased by 228 percent (Figure 2), compared to Microsoft's produ cts which only saw a 73 percent increase.
      2. As demonstrated by its March 2006 patch, which corrected 20 vulnerabilities, Apple's Mac OS platform is just as vulnera ble to targeted malware attacks as other operating systems (Page 6).
      3. Security researchers and hackers will increasingly target the Mac OS and other Apple products, such as iTunes and iPods (Page 6).
      If you don't read much further, Apple is doing bad... If you compare the absolute numbers of exploits Apple trails a factor 1000 by Microsoft. It will take some time until Apple reaches par with Windows (if ever), even if all malware programmers dropped their Windows work ans started concentrating on OSX instead.
      • If you compare the absolute numbers of exploits Apple trails a factor 1000 by Microsoft. It will take some time until Apple reaches par with Windows (if ever), even if all malware programmers dropped their Windows work ans started concentrating on OSX instead.

        What does Windows have to do with this? Nobody questions the fact that Apple is more secure that Windows. However, being better than the worst does not automatically make you good. Cuba is freer than North Korea, but that doesn't mean I'd want to liv
    • Well, Macintoshes could be infected by a virus. There's no reason why Macintoshes are immune or anything. However.....

      Symantec, McAfee, and the like have been urging Mac users to buy antivirus software for years. There's always this threat that someone might write some very bad viruses soon, and those viruses never materialized. So if you bought an anti-virus 4 years ago, and paid for all the updates, you've pretty much wasted your money.

      Also, I think it's worth noting that for anyone who knows what t

    • McAfee has over-sensationalized the virus threat ever since there were viruses. Before there were viruses, McAfee was suspected of introducing their own.

      With regard to computer viruses, McAfee has a substantial and growing credibility deficit.

  • If the users are "more affluent," wouldn't they be bigger targets? You'd get a bigger payoff with fewer attacks if you're stealing personal information, credit card info, etc.

    Of course in the case of zombie machines and spam, you'd go with the easier target.
    • Wtf? (Score:5, Funny)

      by gravyface (592485) on Friday May 05, 2006 @09:46AM (#15270000)
      "First off, Mac users on average pay more for their computers, are self-selected because they tend to know more about technology than your average PC buyer..."
      Are self-selected?
      "Self. Your technical savviness has not gone unnoticed. You've been selected. Congratulations."
  • I'm not so sure... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by SScorpio (595836)
    I'm not so sure after seeing the new Apple commercials saying how PCs have all of these Viruses; however, Macs are not susceptible to them. This could get more people to purchase Macs and while it might not be as large a target, if the majority of the community isn't being cautious it could be seen as an easy target. You will see outbreaks of Mac viruses. It's only a matter of time. As for Mac purchasers being more computer savy. I don't really consider the majority of the artsy, yuppies that are the m
    • As for Mac purchasers being more computer savy. I don't really consider the majority of the artsy, yuppies that are the majority of the Mac audiance to be over savy.

      You're probably right and I personally share your opinion, but you'd lend more weight to our position by using complete sentences and non-random punction, and by spelling 'savvy' correctly...

    • by chowhound (136628) on Friday May 05, 2006 @10:44AM (#15270469) Homepage
      How this crap got modded Insightful I'll never know.

      I'm not so sure after seeing the new Apple commercials saying how PCs have all of these Viruses; however, Macs are not susceptible to them. This could get more people to purchase Macs and while it might not be as large a target, if the majority of the community isn't being cautious it could be seen as an easy target. You will see outbreaks of Mac viruses. It's only a matter of time.

      I think we've already discussed to death that Mac virus security is not due to obscurity but rather due to sensible security practices built in. We've been hearing "it's only a matter of time before a virus brings the whole Mac community to their knees" drivel for years. Still waiting on that service pack?

      As for Mac purchasers being more computer savy. I don't really consider the majority of the artsy, yuppies that are the majority of the Mac audiance to be over savy.

      I'd have to say that with a Unix command prompt and OS X/WinBlows/Linux dual- and tri-boot capability you're gonna see a lot more fascinating possibilities for tinkering that appeal to true geeks. Perhaps not so much to the poltroons whose idea of originality in computing is to casemod a neon light and window onto their beige hunk-o-junk, or who use their (e)machines simply as pricy game consoles. If that makes me a artsy yuppie for wanting to delve into my computer's innards, then I'll switch my 2600 shirt for a cardigan and my ratty sneakers for penny loafers.

      OK, have at me. I can take it!

  • self-selected? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gEvil (beta) (945888) on Friday May 05, 2006 @09:43AM (#15269979)
    "...are self-selected because they tend to know more about technology than your average PC buyer..."

    While this is true in some segments of the market (*nix geeks migrating to OS X), it is by no means true of other segments. There are many designers/graphics pros who choose to use Macs. However, this in no way implies that they actually understand technology. Some do. Many don't. The choice to use Macs is typically because either they have always used Macs or that is what they were trained on.
    • If only every manufacturer had the power of self-selection, there would be no need for advertising since the product was indeed 'self-selected' or wait....come to think of it, is everything we buy 'self-selected'?

      Or, could it be that we are just mindless Mac buyers controlled by the powers of the Great Black Turtleneck?
  • by pubjames (468013) on Friday May 05, 2006 @09:44AM (#15269983)
    The antivirus companies are scared. Why? When Vista comes out, potentially their market is going to quickly dry up. So they are trying to convince Mac users that they need their software.

    Personally, I don't trust any of the antivirus companies one inch. It's big business, and it is in their interests that there are security threats and viruses around. Talk about conflict of interest...
     
    • It's big business, and it is in their interests that there are security threats and viruses around.

      Do you also distrust pharmaceuticals? (Actually, that one might be justified.) Or hospitals? It's in their interest to have people always getting hurt. Policemen? It's in their interest to have lots of crime. Firefighters? It's in their interest to have fires everywhere.

      I don't necessarily love the anti-virus companies myself, I'm just not sure I understand your logic.
      • I don't necessarily love the anti-virus companies myself, I'm just not sure I understand your logic.

        I'm not sure I follow yours. Do you really believe it is relevent to compare firemen, hospitals and policemen to antivirus companies?

    • When Vista comes out, potentially their market is going to quickly dry up.

      Did I miss a meeting? Since when is Vista going to be immune from viruses? I know MS has all sorts of anti-virus measures planned, from making Vista itself more secure to introducing its own anti-virus/anti-spyware app(s). But I seem to recall hearing the same thing about XP, and 2000 before that, and NT, and 98, and, and, and...

      • Are we getting old or nobody really remembers the scandalous "anti virus" built into MS DOS 6.22 which was treated as a virus itself by "real" anti-viruses?

        It didn't make anyone go out of business, it even created a better business.

        I am not speaking about the crap MCafee sells as antivirus. I am talking about "real antiviruses" of today which even runs a virtual processor in them to score heuristics, in cases like F Secure, neural networks based scanning.
      • I understand Vista is to have antivirus protection built in. If that is the case, then of course that is seriously going to affect the virus companies business. Of course I may be wrong.
  • by TrippTDF (513419) <hilandNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday May 05, 2006 @09:44AM (#15269986)
    Im' an avid fan of Macs, and I don't run anti-vi on my Powerbook, but I DO run it on the Macs in my office for a reason that people don't often think of: Macs can be a virus CARRIER, even if they can't be infected!

    A few years ago I had a situation (in an all mac offce) where we burned a CD and sent it to a client (the client was Windows based). The client complained that some of the files were infected. As a Mac-only office, I didn't care about running virus protection, so the files went unchecked.

    In my current office, a mixed enviroment, I make sure that both OS's are covered. even if the chance of the macs getting infected is next to nill, I want my PCs to be safe.
  • by Gary W. Longsine (124661) on Friday May 05, 2006 @09:44AM (#15269989) Homepage Journal
    The Witty Worm [caida.org] demonstrated that a market niche as small as perhaps 12,000 systems can be vulnerable to a worm based attack. The Macintosh is not inherently safe due to niche status. Anybody making this claim is seriously not keeping up with the field of information security.

    Worms that have targeted other niche platforms including web servers and database servers of various kinds have also demonstrated that platforms with a few hundred thousand deployed systems (much smaller than the deployed base of Macintosh systems) are vulnerable to worm attacks.
  • by Crazy Man on Fire (153457) on Friday May 05, 2006 @09:44AM (#15269993) Homepage
    Seems to me that virus writers would want to target Macs because of all the talk about how Macs are less succeptable to viruses. It would be more prestigious to create a virus that spreads like wildfire through the "impenetrable" Mac community than to create one for the "wide open" Windows community.

    Just my $0.02...
    • by Jace of Fuse! (72042) on Friday May 05, 2006 @10:03AM (#15270143) Homepage
      Seems to me that virus writers would want to target Macs because of all the talk about how Macs are less succeptable to viruses. It would be more prestigious to create a virus that spreads like wildfire through the "impenetrable" Mac community than to create one for the "wide open" Windows community.

      Don't worry, McAfee and Norton are working on it as we speak. As soon as they can put together something more fearful than the cute little proofs of concept that have been floating around expect them to announce a full "epidemic".

      It's not legal? It's not ethical? It's not honest? It doesn't matter. Their business model REQUIRES them act in this way. Though not officially, of course.
      • It's not legal? It's not ethical? It's not honest? It doesn't matter. Their business model REQUIRES them act in this way.

        Yes, in the same way that my desire for pizza REQUIRES that I kill you and take your pizza.

        In additions to the anti-virus business, here are other professions which REQUIRE unethical and illegal behaviour:
        - Medical doctors are REQUIRED to spread cancer, AIDS and hepatities.
        - Firefighters are REQUIRED to be arsonists.
        - Auto mechanics are REQUIRED to cause broken fuel pumps,

    • by suwain_2 (260792) on Friday May 05, 2006 @10:12AM (#15270230) Journal
      To play devil's advocate, a lot of malware these days seems to want to infect as many hosts as possible, without caring about 'rarity' of hosts. Things like botnets and info-harvesters just want maximum victims.
  • Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by realmolo (574068)
    "... are self-selected because they tend to know more about technology than your average PC buyer..."

    You've got to be kidding. Mac users are even MORE clueless than the average PC buyer, in my experience. They buy Macs specifically to *avoid* having to know anything about technology.

    • by barzok (26681)
      My next computer will be a Mac. I'm perfectly capable of understanding all the PC components (I used to build & spec out PCs regularly), I just don't have time to anymore, nor do I want to spend a week ordering parts from all over the web and waiting for everything to show up, dealing with RMAs on bad parts, assembly time, component conflicts, etc.

      Plus, I want to be able to run OS X.

      Pick up a Mac and it's all taken care of; the hardware WILL work with the software, it's all done in one package, and the
    • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by nine-times (778537)
      They buy Macs specifically to *avoid* having to know anything about technology.

      That used to be true, but these days, people who know nothing about computers like to use "normal computers", by which they mean MS Windows. In my experience (which is fairly extensive), current Macintosh users break into a couple of groups:

      1. Hold-overs: They've been using Macintoshes since Apple was big the first time. They're fans. They know off-hand which model of Macintosh was new in 1992, and can tell you the code-name
  • Mac users on average pay more for their computers, are self-selected because they tend to know more about technology than your average PC buyer

    In my experience Mac users know bugger all about technology, and care more about furnitures than they do about computing.

    There may be exceptions in their established graphic artists user base, but even they are more likely to be "gadget collectors" rather than tech-heads.
  • ... are self-selected because they tend to know more about technology than your average PC buyer

    My experience with Mac users is that they do indeed know more about Macs and OS X, but not much else. Ask them about Windows or Linux (or BSD, for that matter) and they won't get very far.

    That's just been my experience.

    • Funny, my experience is just the opposite. Most of the Windows users that I know couldn't find their way around a system that's not theirs if their life depended on it. And I don't mean an OSX or Linux system, I mean another machine running the SAME OS they use, just configured differently.

      Meanwhile, most of the Mac users I know are administrators of non-Mac sites, or do support for non-Macs. I know a Mac guy that's a Solaris admin, and another that manages several school buildings full of XP laptops and d
    • Ask ANY segment of the general populace about Linux or BSD (except maybe programmers and network guys), and they won't get very far.

      For that matter, ask any segment of the general populace about OSX or Windows, and they'll probably tell you a few things they learned by rote - where the Word icon is, how to save a document, etc.

      One difference I guess you can point to is that Mac users all must care about computers to SOME degree, otherwise they'd be buying cheaper Dell boxes. But I certainly wouldn't attribu
  • In London... (Score:3, Informative)

    by dave420 (699308) on Friday May 05, 2006 @09:50AM (#15270044)
    Most Mac users are not tech-savvy... many claim to be, but believe me they are not. :) There are, though, some real tech-savvy mac users, but they're in the minority.
    • Funny, thats similar to the Windows user demographic... and in fact most population of this fine island (especially the ones that work in IT).
    • Re:In London... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DragonWriter (970822)

      Most Mac users are not tech-savvy... many claim to be, but believe me they are not. :) There are, though, some real tech-savvy mac users, but they're in the minority.

      Tech-savvy users of any consumer OS are, always have been, and always will be the minority. Wheter Mac users are more tech-savvy than PC users is a matter of degree, not a matter of the trend being reversed.

      I suspect that it is the case that Mac users are at least a little more tech-savvy, overall, than PC users, if only because Pcs are so domi

  • Just because you pay more for your computer doesn't mean that you are more computer-savy.

    Mac users tend to be mac users because they want things to "just work". If anything, they may be less tech-savvy, since they don't need to delve into the inner working of the OS as much. And, therefore, they should be *more* prone to get viruses/trojans. Except, of course, Mac OSX is built with security in mind, as opposed to Windows 95/98/98SE/ME/NT/2K/XP/etc.
  • The guy is flat out wrong. Most Mac users are no more tech savy than your average Windows user. The walk into the Apple store and see shiny computers/pretty OS X is a damned secure OS. Especially with it's default root account disabled, among other things. I don't know what sickens me more though. The FUD from McAfee and Symantec as they salivate to capture another market, or the snottiness of a bunch of geek-wanna-be's in black turtle necks sipping red wine and eating cheese acting like they are invi
  • If you go to the iPod page [apple.com] on Apple's website there appears to be an error. This is the text:

    Home > Hardware > MacBook

    Perhaps this is a slip-up signaling the near release of the MacBook (sans Pro) to replace the iBook line. You can catch a screenshot here [cutterpillow.com] (until my server melts down).
  • Is the OSX code protected while running in WinXP mode? While this is an even smaller group than just Mac users alone, they might be more vulnerable. If they believe that since they are running a Mac, it is imune regardless of OS and thus not have WinXP secured.

    Just curious if anyone has any insight in this direction.
  • Will be the first BIG Virus/Trojan/Worm for OS X to hit and hit hard.

    I agree most Mac people I know don't even think about security. If they do they just wrap themselves in the "Apple is immune to viruses" blanket and suck their collective artsy fartsy thumbs.

    Someone will write it. Some nasty malicious code and they won't even have to be as sneaky as the windows guys in getting an end user to run/install it because they won't think anything could adverse affect their "immune" mac.

    It will happen.. when it d
    • ...the first BIG Virus/Trojan/Worm for OS X to hit and hit hard.

      Personally, I'd love to see it, strictly from a geek perspective. Actually getting a virus to work in OSX that's not a social engineering hack (having the end user physically enter their admin password) would be very interesting.

      I haven't had a virus on any of my Macs since the early 90s. I haven't bothered with anti-virus software since the mid-90s. I kinda hope that a virus *does* hit, so the guy that wrote Disinfectant feels the need to com
  • I work for an IT outsourcing company and we handle a TON of medical offices as well as their home stuff. Almost ALL of the docs have Mac's and have no idea how to use them. Sure they know how to do their basic email, web surfing, music stuff but beyond that they have no clue. They use PC's at their offices and have no issues. It has nothing to do with being smarter in doctors cases. It's all about being an elitist for them. They look at Mac's and say if I get one of those i'll be cool. The exact same way th
  • Essentially... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by voice_of_all_reason (926702) on Friday May 05, 2006 @10:11AM (#15270216)
    Nice Mac you got there. Would be a shame if anything were to... you know... "happen" to it. Just sayin'...
  • by benbritten (72301) on Friday May 05, 2006 @10:13AM (#15270240) Homepage
    Ok, so i see a pattern here. over the last twenty years all i ever heard about the mac was about how dead apple was, and how they were going to vanish and the company was going to go under.

    Now all i hear about is that 'any day now' All the macs on the planet are going to be suddenly and utterly destroyed by the impending virus rush.

    Look, I don't encourage people to run any system without security. My macs are all behind a nice firewall. However, I think that, given the record of some clever young programmers to break industry strength security in short order, i wonder when all of these virus writers are going to come over and focus on the mac? i mean, the mac market hasn't really changed much in the last year or two. (in terms of numbers) and the hardware change doesnt seem to have made it any easier to infect the systems.

    Mac users and the mac community in general have been snobbishly touting the no viruses thing for quite awhile now. There are tons of clever hackers out there who can break all sorts of security, yet all we have so far are a few lame-ass trojans that you have to type your password in to install. (which, really are not viruses so much) So apparently the big carrot of 'first mac virus that actually was a virus' is really not that big of a carrot.

    While i am a software engineer on macs, my expertise does not lie in the virus-area, so i can't really say if it is really much harder to write for the mac, or if it is just unappealing in a business sense (for the virus writers).

    my opinion: if i measured my income with each thousand machines i added to my botnet with a virus i wrote, then i think i would stick to the 95% of the market that is fairly homogenous in terms of security. (ie all windows) and leave the outlying OSes (mac, linux) because even if both mac and linux double or triple their respective marketshares in the next five years, windows will still be the easy choice for virus makers.

     
  • Before everyone gets too excited, perhaps this claim can be read to refer to 'non-technical knowledge'. Being in the minority, even average - i.e. 'non-technical' - Mac users at least tend to know about alternatives. That is to say, they tend to know something about the 'other' operating platform, for either they are switchers or they use Windows at work or they were strongly advised not to buy a Mac by Windows users who claim that there are no programs for the Mac, that Macs are slow, that they suck etc. M
  • The idea that McAfee is trying to drum up sales for its Mac anti-virus product seems unlikely to me.

    If they wanted to sell the product, they'd actually, you know, let people buy single licenses for their Macs.
  • I'm sorry, I'm sure I'll get 'modded down' like it appears the others have, but that is the single worst statement I have ever heard. We sell enterprise level hardware at my work and recently started supporting Mac's. I've yet to have a user call in who even knew how to set an IP address. Terminal, what's that? At least the windows users know what I'm asking for when I tell them to open up a command prompt...
    • Ok, you are probably trolling, but anyway...

      You are selling enterprise hardware to companies that don't use DHCP? Also, if you sell "enterprise level" hardware, shouldn't there be some sysadmin on the other end setting it up and supporting it? If you have to explain IP setup to _users_ you or your customers have bigger problems than Mac users who can't find the command prompt.

      By the way, you might try to tell your Mac, Linux and Unix users to open a terminal instead of a command prompt.
  • by AviLazar (741826)
    Huh?

    are self-selected because they tend to know more about technology than your average

    BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA. Ok, this guy has statistics backing this up? While it is not for all, with the exception of ONE person I have met, all Mac users I have met know very little about computers. I am not saying there aren't extremely knowledgable Mac users out there - that would be dumb of me to say - but Mac has always been touting the "we are easier to use then the other guy".

    As for his other comment, about Ma
  • by Ilgaz (86384) on Friday May 05, 2006 @10:41AM (#15270448) Homepage
    I have read this today and was about to post to Mac usenet groups, decided to post /. instead.

    It is a very interesting article about the real problems of anti virus companies (yes, no mac viruses mentioned) by Mr. Kaspersky himself. It also includes the problems antiviruses have including their products.

    http://www.kaspersky.com/eugenearticle [kaspersky.com]

    As a guy gave up running win32 for 3 years, I still check their site/blog as well as F-Secure one.

    As a side note (hopefully not needed)
    KASPERSKY DOES NOT PRODUCE MAC PRODUCTS. No FUD there.

  • Dear McAfee, (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jocknerd (29758) on Friday May 05, 2006 @01:00PM (#15271731)
    Thank you for your concern regarding OS X and viruses. Because of this information you have put forth, I will pay more attention to the coming virus threat to OS X. If, and when that should happen, I will be sure to follow your advice and get some anti-virus software. Unfortunately for you, it won't be your product. I'll download ClamavX instead.

    Thank you for your concern,

    A very "frightened" OS X user.
  • by grrrl (110084) on Sunday May 07, 2006 @08:43PM (#15283053)
    The biggest threat to OS X users are the 'virii' an AV will not protect you against - poorly written software and drivers.

    People trust the CDs that come with their latest printer/scanner/multi-function, but in my experience they are the biggest memory-hogging, system crashing, bloatware you could find.

    Examples: Brother multifunction drivers install a 'ControlCenter' that loads (in the background) and prompts EVERY user to set up the printer, even if it is already configured. It is hidden away in the printer driver directory (/Library/Printers - not obivous given it is an application - though one you can't launch or control or quit yourself). It loads about 3 or 4 'agents' that run in the background and use over 100 MB of memory footprint each! WTF!

    I found the HP scanner programs are just as bad - the acutal program to scan is great, but the bloatware you have no choice but installing (in random places) alongside makes me feel dirty inside.

I am here by the will of the people and I won't leave until I get my raincoat back. - a slogan of the anarchists in Richard Kadrey's "Metrophage"

Working...