[lotuseclat79]

From LiveScience Blog here.

Author Robert Roy Britt

Spurred by a content with a $10,000 prize, a hacker http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,13...oke into a Mac at the CanSecWest security conference in Canada. We Mac users have long bragged about how we don’t need virus software, but experts have been warning more and more that even a Mac needs protection.

The hacker got in via a wireless connection.

“You see a lot of people running OS X saying it’s so secure and frankly Microsoft is putting more work into security than Apple has,” said conference organizer Dragos Ruiu.

The BBC has an overview of Mac vulnerabilities. Also see this list of virus protection programs for the Mac.

-- Tom

[wish i had a mac]

Of course Macs aren't invulnerable to attacks and bugs. Who ever claimed they were? The fact is that PC users have all experienced those incredibly annoying-- and often crippling-- error messages due to sloppy Microsoft programming and malicious software infestations. Now, the funny thing is that the Mac-based Microsoft applications often run much better than the Windows versions. Perhaps it's time to consider the fact that while Microsoft may be a fully competent software building empire, they simply haven't got it down the way that Apple does when it comes to operating systems. Mac users may be a bit complacent... but that's because they have so few problems compared to their Windows counterparts. Who can blame them for feeling confident in their systems?

[darkerjustin]

BUT they had to relax the security after no one could hack it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

After two Apple MacBook Pros survived the first day of CanSecWest's 'PWN to OWN' contest that dared hackers to take control of default Mac OS X installations, CanSecWest earlier today lowered the barriers as planned since "there has not been a successful attack." Both MacBook Pros were connected to a wireless router and with all security updates installed, but without additional security software or settings. The contest's second-day relaxed rules allowed attackers will be allowed to place exploit code online and launch drive-by exploits on the Mac's built-in Safari browser.

"Time to expand your attack surface," CanSecWest's contest organizers stated. Hackers were invited to email links to organizers who would then visit the hackers' exploit attempts from the target machines using Safari.

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/we...omments/13368/

EDIT: article here too: http://news.com.com/

[wish i had a mac]

Any unbiased, knowledgeable expert with experience with both PCs and Macs will tell you the same thing: compared head-to-head with Windows, OS-X is far more secure.

[lotuseclat79]

And any competent security analyst will tell you that security is a figment of the imagination.

-- Tom

[VegasACF]

Any competent computer user, regardless of platform, can tell you that. The key word there is competent. Because the market is saturated with Windows users there is a far greater likelihood that the vast majority of incompetent users are on the Windows side of things.

What does this prove? Absolutely nothing. Your thesis is flawed. What you mistake for smugness is, likely, ignorance of an existent risk, but one with which the users have not come into contact. Still, I'll humor you for no longer than the moment it takes for me to type this (from within a Windows environment, by the way).

I've been a Mac user since 1984. I also am well-versed in the ways of all things Windows (well, except for Vista--I have no need to be on the bleeding edge anymore). Anyone who doesn't understand the workings of malware, regardless of what platform s/he uses, is a detriment to the computer-using segment of our population. And we all are detrimentally affected by those unsavvy users, regardless of their platform of choice.

That said, the title of your thread belies your beliefs. As such, it cannot be taken seriously. Viruses are promulgated by far more Windows users than Mac users, and affect far more Windows users than Mac users. Who is the smug one? The one using an OS that represents 5% of the market share? Or is it the one who uses the OS of 95% of the market share and blindly, and blithely, forwards emails to all their friends without bothering to scan them for malware?

Are there "smug" users of the Mac OS? Certainly. There are also "demure" users of the OS. And the same can be said for any population of users, regardless of platforms. I have to say, even as (a former) employee of a software developer in an industry dominated by the Mac OS, that there was far more "smugness" on the part of the Windows users than the Mac users. Perhaps it's a different kind of smugness I'm referencing, but smugness is smugness, and it is anathema, regardless of from whence it springs. Regardless, perhaps the percentages in each population are nearly equal. If that is so, a given percentage of a vastly larger population is far more onerous than the same percentage of a vastly smaller population.

Are these people of whom you speak truly smug? Or are they just ignorant of the dangers of connecting to a vast network of computers, the users of which are largely benevolent, but some of which are malevolent? Ignorance is, thankfully, a curable condition.

Statistically, Mac OS users are at a far smaller risk than Windows users. And that just makes sense. If you're going to be a "terrorist" you're going to strike at the largest population you can reach. There are two opportunities that present themselves to such a person: create a "bomb" that will affect a large populace; or create a "bomb" that will affect a small populace. Which one would you choose, if you were the bomb builder? If your answer is anything other than the "large populace" you're either a blithering idiot of a terrorist or you're a liar. Either way, you're a blight and should be removed. But that's beside the point.

I've never been one to leave security to happenstance. Every Mac I've ever owned that has been connected to a network, and that's a considerable number, has had some sort of virus security installed upon it. The same is true with every Windows machine I've owned. And now that the twain have met in one computer, I've got security on both platforms within the same computer. Am I smug? Not in the slightest. But I know which side of the aisle presents the greatest risk. I can assure you the number of times I've been alerted to the possibility of malware on the Windows side of my Mac outweighs the number of times the same has happened on the Mac OS side of my Mac by 100 to 1. And the only times I've encountered anything remotely malware-ish in the past decade has been regarding Microsoft Office Macros.

Just out of curiosity, what's the common thread running betwixt the two? Smug? Not in the slightest. I am protected in any case, as best I can be. But I also have an understanding of statistics, and I know which platform presents the greater risk.

In the interest of comity, I will again entertain your notion. Who would you rather have in your network, a "smug" user who is statistically zero threat, or an "ignorant" user who could potentially, and unknowingly, be a huge threat? I'll go with the smug guys all day, every day.

[wish i had a mac]

Well, I think that pretty much sums it up.