[Evildave]

I dunno. Using the 'safer neighborhood' metaphor, I don't see why people choose to live in a demilitarized zone full of bloody outlaws, and tell Mac and iOS users what fools they are for living in a gated community, far, far away from that chaos.

Does living in the gated community automatically make you 'safe'? No.

If you want to live in a crowded septic tank, that's your choice. I choose a less densely populated place with more clean air and sunshine.

[KLanD]

42n81, on 06 April 2012 - 07:12 AM, said:

KLanD, on 06 April 2012 - 06:21 AM, said:

Also, how is it anti-Apple people perpetrating the "Virus Myth" when Apple uses it in it's own advertising?

...Apple haters don't like Apple users and that Apple haters think Apple computers get viruses.

Wait? so are you trying to say Apple computers don't get viruses?

[KLanD]

nonseq, on 06 April 2012 - 07:30 AM, said:

KLanD, on 06 April 2012 - 06:21 AM, said:

You really should give things a second chance.

Also, how is it anti-Apple people perpetrating the "Virus Myth" when Apple uses it in it's own advertising?

When did you last see the "Apple is immune to viruses" in Apple's advertising? But you see it here and other places from folks who, for whatever reason, remind us that Apple made the claim. People are funny, once a "meme" is established it becomes self replicating and self reinforcing despite the stimulus. So, when even when someone references the "Apple is immune to viruses" there will be a certain segment of the audience (receivers of the message) that will have the meme reinforced for them either consciously or unconsciously.

There are also those fence straddlers who read the negative claims by those who deny that Apple is immune but who also know Apple users who have had no virus or malware problems (of which they are aware), so the meme is reinforced as true.

Of course we all know that Apple products are NOT immune but surely seem less affected (for whatever reason) but the fact remains that there are very few (or any) viruses that affect Apple products in the wild but that there indeed are social engineered worms, trojans, etc. that require user action to invite them onto a users Apple products.

But, in my opinion, the old adage that there is no such thing as bad publicity is true in this case. When the anti-Apple folks point and claim "See, it's not true that Apple is immune" and quip ironically, "But I thought Apple was immune..." there is a small segment of the audience that only see the "Apple is immune" portion and take it as truth.

As for giving things a second chance- perhaps. I've given Flash, for example, multiple chances and the same is true of Firefox and I might look at Firefox another try but I really like webkit based browsers and see no real reason to invest time in changing.

Do I really have to go find the youtube link to the I'm a PC, I'm a mac ad that implies just that?

How about this quote from 42n81; "Apple haters think Apple computers get viruses."

Not sure if it's the language thing again, but that seems to be saying exactly that.

[nonseq]

KLanD, on 10 April 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

42n81, on 06 April 2012 - 07:12 AM, said:

KLanD, on 06 April 2012 - 06:21 AM, said:

Also, how is it anti-Apple people perpetrating the "Virus Myth" when Apple uses it in it's own advertising?

...Apple haters don't like Apple users and that Apple haters think Apple computers get viruses.

Wait? so are you trying to say Apple computers don't get viruses?

I can't prove that they don't get viruses but I've never encountered a virus in OSX on a score of machines, though I admit that I practice Safe Internet. That said, I've not seen any documented instances of a virus that has infected an OSX machine. So, instead of asking us to prove a negative which is logically impossible, could you please cite examples of virus infections of OSX. I'm not talking about worms and social engineered trojans which require intended or unintended user behaviors to gain entry. [Flashback is not a virus as I understand it. It started spoofing a Flash upgrade request (akin to one of those ubiquitous updates which seem, at least to me, to be spewed out of Adobe almost every other day to fix some security deficiency in flash) and has morphed into something more confusing for the user.]

So if you could share an example of a Mac "virus" I would be grateful.

[nonseq]

KLanD, on 10 April 2012 - 10:24 AM, said:

Do I really have to go find the youtube link to the I'm a PC, I'm a mac ad that implies just that?

How about this quote from 42n81; "Apple haters think Apple computers get viruses."

Not sure if it's the language thing again, but that seems to be saying exactly that.

Dude, the "I'm a Mac" campaign ended 2 years ago and the virus emphasis was shifted longer ago than that. At the time, to my knowledge, there were no documented instances of OSX viruses in the wild. If I've missed some, I would appreciate correction. Now, I'm talking specifically about viruses, which the commercials addressed, and not about malware, which includes worms, trojans, and even viruses. So, here's your opportunity to set the record straight. Thanks

This post has been edited by nonseq: 10 April 2012 - 11:05 AM

[KLanD]

nonseq, on 10 April 2012 - 10:32 AM, said:

KLanD, on 10 April 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

42n81, on 06 April 2012 - 07:12 AM, said:

KLanD, on 06 April 2012 - 06:21 AM, said:

Also, how is it anti-Apple people perpetrating the "Virus Myth" when Apple uses it in it's own advertising?

...Apple haters don't like Apple users and that Apple haters think Apple computers get viruses.

Wait? so are you trying to say Apple computers don't get viruses?

I can't prove that they don't get viruses but I've never encountered a virus in OSX on a score of machines, though I admit that I practice Safe Internet. That said, I've not seen any documented instances of a virus that has infected an OSX machine. So, instead of asking us to prove a negative which is logically impossible, could you please cite examples of virus infections of OSX. I'm not talking about worms and social engineered trojans which require intended or unintended user behaviors to gain entry. [Flashback is not a virus as I understand it. It started spoofing a Flash upgrade request (akin to one of those ubiquitous updates which seem, at least to me, to be spewed out of Adobe almost every other day to fix some security deficiency in flash) and has morphed into something more confusing for the user.]

So if you could share an example of a Mac "virus" I would be grateful.

You claim it's non Apple users who are pushing the "Macs don't get virus'" mantra.. yet in your own runabout way you just made that exact claim.

To the general public all malware are virus'

Also, why is Adobe berated for putting out security patches and fixing holes in their platform, but Apple isn't? You mean to tell me Apple has never sent out a patch or an update or plugged a security hole? I see updates all the time on our macs, I guess that means (by your logic) that OSX has many deficiencies, right?

Also, if you never use flash, how would you know about how often it updates?

[KLanD]

nonseq, on 10 April 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

KLanD, on 10 April 2012 - 10:24 AM, said:

Do I really have to go find the youtube link to the I'm a PC, I'm a mac ad that implies just that?

How about this quote from 42n81; "Apple haters think Apple computers get viruses."

Not sure if it's the language thing again, but that seems to be saying exactly that.

Dude, the "I'm a Mac" campaign ended 2 years ago and the virus emphasis was shifted longer ago than that. At the time, to my knowledge, there were no documented instances of OSX viruses in the wild. If I've missed some, I would appreciate correction. Now, I'm talking specifically about viruses, which the commercials addressed, and not about malware, which includes worms, trojans, and even viruses. So, here's your opportunity to set the record straight. Thanks

Word play. Apple knows that to the general public all malware are virus'. They also stated in some print ads that Macs don't get PC virus'. Which is entirely true, but then again, PCs don't get Mac virus' either. To the general public this isn't interpreted as, 'Macs can't get a PC virus because it uses a different OS' it's interpreted as 'Macs don't get any form of virus whatsoever'. Apple knows this and they use word play like this all the time. I'm not saying other companies don't do it as well, but Apple is one of the best at it.

Also, if you can't find any documentation of Apple infections, you aren't looking hard enough or you are ruling out everything but a very specific piece of malware.

http://www.guardian....plemacs.viruses
http://openlearn.ope...553&section=1.1
http://en.wikipedia..../Computer_virus
http://www.sophos.co...macosxleap.aspx

And those were just in the first few. Looks like the first documented Apple virus was in 1982... first PC in 1986?.. now how about that..

This post has been edited by KLanD: 10 April 2012 - 12:40 PM

[KLanD]

Evildave, on 07 April 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

I dunno. Using the 'safer neighborhood' metaphor, I don't see why people choose to live in a demilitarized zone full of bloody outlaws, and tell Mac and iOS users what fools they are for living in a gated community, far, far away from that chaos.

Does living in the gated community automatically make you 'safe'? No.

If you want to live in a crowded septic tank, that's your choice. I choose a less densely populated place with more clean air and sunshine.

Actually a better metaphor would be that you both live in the same neighborhood, but you don't have anything the criminals want, so they just leave you alone. You don't put locks on your doors cause you've never been attacked, so why start now right?

[nonseq]

KLanD, on 10 April 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

Word play. Apple knows that to the general public all malware are virus'. They also stated in some print ads that Macs don't get PC virus'. Which is entirely true, but then again, PCs don't get Mac virus' either. To the general public this isn't interpreted as, 'Macs can't get a PC virus because it uses a different OS' it's interpreted as 'Macs don't get any form of virus whatsoever'. Apple knows this and they use word play like this all the time. I'm not saying other companies don't do it as well, but Apple is one of the best at it.

Also, if you can't find any documentation of Apple infections, you aren't looking hard enough or you are ruling out everything but a very specific piece of malware.

http://www.guardian....plemacs.viruses
http://openlearn.ope...553&section=1.1
http://en.wikipedia..../Computer_virus
http://www.sophos.co...macosxleap.aspx

And those were just in the first few. Looks like the first documented Apple virus was in 1982... first PC in 1986?.. now how about that..

I give up. You believe only that which you want to believe. I asked for virus and you give me worms. I'm done with you. You don't understand because your mind is made up. Your wrong on this and have offered no proof to the contrary. All you have offered is weasel words and they demonstrate ignorance and bias.



"Cut me some slack, Jack! Chump don' want no help, chump don't GET da' help! ... Jive ass dude [may not have a cebebral cortex] anyhow! [Golly!!!!!]." Jive Lady (Barbara Billingsly), Airplane , 1980

This post has been edited by nonseq: 10 April 2012 - 01:40 PM

[nonseq]

The following is what Apple currently says about the Mac and OSX. As far as I can tell it's true as presented. It certainly matches my personal experience.

Quote

It doesn’t get PC viruses.
A Mac isn’t susceptible to the thousands of viruses plaguing Windows-based computers. That’s thanks to built-in defenses in Mac OS X that keep you safe, without any work on your part.

Safeguard your data. By doing nothing.
With virtually no effort on your part, OS X defends against viruses and other malicious applications, or malware. For example, it thwarts hackers through a technique called “sandboxing” — restricting what actions programs can perform on your Mac, what files they can access, and what other programs they can launch. With FileVault 2, your data is safe and secure — even if it falls into the wrong hands. FileVault 2 encrypts the entire drive on your Mac, protecting your data with XTS-AESW 128 encryption. Initial encryption is fast and unobtrusive. It can also encrypt any removable drive, helping you secure Time Machine backups or other external drives with ease. Other automatic security features include Library Randomization, which prevents malicious commands from finding their targets, and Execute Disable, which protects the memory in your Mac from attacks.

Download with peace of mind.
Innocent-looking files downloaded over the Internet may contain dangerous malware in disguise. That’s why files you download using Safari, Mail, and iChat are screened to determine if they contain applications. If they do, OS X alerts you, then warns you the first time you open one.

Stay up to date, automatically.
When a potential security threat arises, Apple responds quickly by providing software updates and security enhancements you can download automatically and install with a click. So you’re not tasked with tracking down updates yourself and installing all of them one by one.

Protect what’s important.
OS X makes it easy to stay safe online, whether you’re checking your bank account, sending confidential email, or sharing files with friends and coworkers. Features such as Password Assistant help you lock out identity thieves who are after personal data, while built-in encryption technologies protect your private information and communications. Safari also uses antiphishing technology to protect you from fraudulent websites. If you visit a suspicious site, Safari disables the page and displays an alert warning you about its suspect nature.

http://www.apple.com...ter-os/#viruses

This post has been edited by nonseq: 10 April 2012 - 03:07 PM

[Evildave]

KLanD, on 10 April 2012 - 12:44 PM, said:

Actually a better metaphor would be that you both live in the same neighborhood, but you don't have anything the criminals want, so they just leave you alone. You don't put locks on your doors cause you've never been attacked, so why start now right?

70,000 new pieces of malware EVERY SINGLE DAY for the PC, versus one or two a year for OS X.

You're not even on the same planet.

[Evildave]

BTW, a 'Time Capsule' (or any other NAS), plus a Mac is downright convenient, seamless, built-in backup, through 'Time Machine'.

Under Windoze 7, unless you have a 'Professional' edition, you can't back up to NAS using their built-in backup feature. Microsoft considers this to be a 'premium' level service. So the vast majority of home users continue to go without backup, clueless idiots that they are.

This speaks volumes about Microsoft's idea of data protection, versus Apple's.

Backup is the single most critical piece of security. The only TRUE security that there is.

[bcappel]

Evildave, on 10 April 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

KLanD, on 10 April 2012 - 12:44 PM, said:

Actually a better metaphor would be that you both live in the same neighborhood, but you don't have anything the criminals want, so they just leave you alone. You don't put locks on your doors cause you've never been attacked, so why start now right?

70,000 new pieces of malware EVERY SINGLE DAY for the PC, versus one or two a year for OS X.

You're not even on the same planet.

The correct figure is a total of 55,000 per day for all platforms. A variation of 1 bit constitutes a new instance, most are not truly "new", updated would be a better description.

Obviously all platforms are vulnerable.

[42n81]

KLanD, on 10 April 2012 - 10:24 AM, said:

nonseq, on 06 April 2012 - 07:30 AM, said:

KLanD, on 06 April 2012 - 06:21 AM, said:

You really should give things a second chance.

Also, how is it anti-Apple people perpetrating the "Virus Myth" when Apple uses it in it's own advertising?

When did you last see the "Apple is immune to viruses" in Apple's advertising? But you see it here and other places from folks who, for whatever reason, remind us that Apple made the claim. People are funny, once a "meme" is established it becomes self replicating and self reinforcing despite the stimulus. So, when even when someone references the "Apple is immune to viruses" there will be a certain segment of the audience (receivers of the message) that will have the meme reinforced for them either consciously or unconsciously.

There are also those fence straddlers who read the negative claims by those who deny that Apple is immune but who also know Apple users who have had no virus or malware problems (of which they are aware), so the meme is reinforced as true.

Of course we all know that Apple products are NOT immune but surely seem less affected (for whatever reason) but the fact remains that there are very few (or any) viruses that affect Apple products in the wild but that there indeed are social engineered worms, trojans, etc. that require user action to invite them onto a users Apple products.

But, in my opinion, the old adage that there is no such thing as bad publicity is true in this case. When the anti-Apple folks point and claim "See, it's not true that Apple is immune" and quip ironically, "But I thought Apple was immune..." there is a small segment of the audience that only see the "Apple is immune" portion and take it as truth.

As for giving things a second chance- perhaps. I've given Flash, for example, multiple chances and the same is true of Firefox and I might look at Firefox another try but I really like webkit based browsers and see no real reason to invest time in changing.

Do I really have to go find the youtube link to the I'm a PC, I'm a mac ad that implies just that?

How about this quote from 42n81; "Apple haters think Apple computers get viruses."

Not sure if it's the language thing again, but that seems to be saying exactly that.

Yes, maybe you do have a problem understanding the English language, no doubt what you meant by "that language thing". Or maybe you're just plain lazy. All you had to do is read my statement over again, or at least quote my reply in its entirety.

Here, for your reading pleasure, is your original comment and my repy:

42n81, on 06 April 2012 - 07:12 AM, said:

KLanD, on 06 April 2012 - 06:21 AM, said:

Also, how is it anti-Apple people perpetrating the "Virus Myth" when Apple uses it in it's own advertising?

Apple may have used it in their advertising, but who keeps repeating it?

I know that the commenters on these forums repeating Apple's claims do so to discredit Apple and its user base but what people remember is that Apple haters don't like Apple users and that Apple haters think Apple computers get viruses.

Everybody knows someone who uses Apple products and they also know there is no reason to believe they're as detestable and stupid as the haters claim.

If the haters are wrong about the users, they might also be wrong about the virus thing.

So people end up remembering the Apple equals no virus claim and that haters are, well, haters.

People doing certain things or visiting certain places find it necessary to wear body armor. Some other people who don't do the same things and don't visit those same areas might also get shot. Should we all wear body armor or should we just balance the pros and cons considering the LIKELIHOOD of our getting in harm's way?

If you find my comment too difficult to parse and decode because of your "language thing", I'll be only be too glad to repeat it again, while typing more slowly.

[Evildave]

70,000 a day. I'm not just pulling that number out of my buttocks.

http://research.clou...rg/content18103
http://whitepapers.p...om/content18103
http://www.kaspersky...N-10-107947.pdf
http://www.faronics....-are-avoidable/

http://images.kasper.../b2b_5_ksn3.png
http://inagist.com/a...&utm_medium=rss

Granted, 'security experts' are a dime a dozen, and kaspersky has a stake in over-dramatizing and catastrophizing their findings.

But even using YOUR number, (55,000 x 365.25 = 20,088,750) versus (about two) is pretty dramatic. Actually closer to TEN MILLION TO ONE.

Not even the same solar system.

Of course, there is a very good reason for there to be tens of thousands of new virus signatures per day, even without thousands of virus developers.

People who are overly reliant on 'antivirus' trust it to detect viruses before they 'get in'. But if there are always newer 'signatures' for viruses than your 'virus database' contains, there is always a decent chance to be infected without your 'antivirus' detecting the 'new' virus/malware/etc. Especially if the core vulnerabilities that 100,000 different viruses exploit remain unpatched for years.

This is the state of the art of antivirus, and the eternal war it will fight, so long as this technology is what is relied on versus secure signatures from secure, centralized software repositories, containing revokable keys and code reviewed content.

This is a battle that antivirus loses terribly, because of what it does to Windoze PCs running it. All that excess, useless thrashing about 'activity' running a snipe hunt for undefined snipes, that could have made the computer faster, and the battery (or portables) last longer. But as long as the 'Microsoft Windows' logo is afixed to that computer, it will 'need antivirus', according to all of the 'experts'.

Why do you think Mac (AND LINUX) people loathe the very idea of 'antivirus'? It's because you have to be an idiot to fall for that con.

This post has been edited by Evildave: 10 April 2012 - 04:40 PM

[42n81]

KLanD, on 10 April 2012 - 12:24 PM, said:

nonseq, on 10 April 2012 - 10:32 AM, said:

KLanD, on 10 April 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

42n81, on 06 April 2012 - 07:12 AM, said:

KLanD, on 06 April 2012 - 06:21 AM, said:

Also, how is it anti-Apple people perpetrating the "Virus Myth" when Apple uses it in it's own advertising?

...Apple haters don't like Apple users and that Apple haters think Apple computers get viruses.

Wait? so are you trying to say Apple computers don't get viruses?

I can't prove that they don't get viruses but I've never encountered a virus in OSX on a score of machines, though I admit that I practice Safe Internet. That said, I've not seen any documented instances of a virus that has infected an OSX machine. So, instead of asking us to prove a negative which is logically impossible, could you please cite examples of virus infections of OSX. I'm not talking about worms and social engineered trojans which require intended or unintended user behaviors to gain entry. [Flashback is not a virus as I understand it. It started spoofing a Flash upgrade request (akin to one of those ubiquitous updates which seem, at least to me, to be spewed out of Adobe almost every other day to fix some security deficiency in flash) and has morphed into something more confusing for the user.]

So if you could share an example of a Mac "virus" I would be grateful.

You claim it's non Apple users who are pushing the "Macs don't get virus'" mantra.. yet in your own runabout way you just made that exact claim.

To the general public all malware are virus'

Also, why is Adobe berated for putting out security patches and fixing holes in their platform, but Apple isn't? You mean to tell me Apple has never sent out a patch or an update or plugged a security hole? I see updates all the time on our macs, I guess that means (by your logic) that OSX has many deficiencies, right?

Also, if you never use flash, how would you know about how often it updates?

Yet, you keep shoving the "Macs don't get virus'" mantra" into everyone's face and when anyone tells you that Mac's don't get Windows PC viruses, which are the most prevalent by a HUGE margin, you go right back to the starting line and repeat the "Macs don't get virus" mantra.

The only person on this thread repeating the "Macs don't get virus" mantra is YOU. Most Mac users are going "Yeah, OK, so what?"

Sounds like it really pisses you off that Mac users aren't panicking.

[bcappel]

Evildave, on 10 April 2012 - 04:38 PM, said:

70,000 a day. I'm not just pulling that number out of my buttocks.

http://research.clou...rg/content18103
http://whitepapers.p...om/content18103
http://www.kaspersky...N-10-107947.pdf
http://www.faronics....-are-avoidable/

http://images.kasper.../b2b_5_ksn3.png
http://inagist.com/a...&utm_medium=rss

Granted, 'security experts' are a dime a dozen, and kaspersky has a stake in over-dramatizing and catastrophizing their findings.

But even using YOUR number, (55,000 x 365.25 = 20,088,750) versus (about two) is pretty dramatic. Actually closer to TEN MILLION TO ONE.

Not even the same solar system.

Of course, there is a very good reason for there to be tens of thousands of new virus signatures per day, even without thousands of virus developers.

People who are overly reliant on 'antivirus' trust it to detect viruses before they 'get in'. But if there are always newer 'signatures' for viruses than your 'virus database' contains, there is always a decent chance to be infected without your 'antivirus' detecting the 'new' virus/malware/etc. Especially if the core vulnerabilities that 100,000 different viruses exploit remain unpatched for years.

This is the state of the art of antivirus, and the eternal war it will fight, so long as this technology is what is relied on versus secure signatures from secure, centralized software repositories, containing revokable keys and code reviewed content.

This is a battle that antivirus loses terribly, because of what it does to Windoze PCs running it. All that excess, useless thrashing about 'activity' running a snipe hunt for undefined snipes, that could have made the computer faster, and the battery (or portables) last longer. But as long as the 'Microsoft Windows' logo is afixed to that computer, it will 'need antivirus', according to all of the 'experts'.

Why do you think Mac (AND LINUX) people loathe the very idea of 'antivirus'? It's because you have to be an idiot to fall for that con.

Two of your "sources" are identical, and the other two are from companies that sell anti-virus software...aren't those the companies that you claim are "conning" everyone? Where do any of your sources claim the count is Windows PC only?

It's easy to find anything online that fits your agenda. But if you'd like unbiased data try here: http://www.av-test.o...istics/malware/

I have several windows PCs, I have several Macs, I have several Linux boxes. I have anti-virus running on one windows box. I have a second completely identical windows box that does not have anti virus on it. There is absolutely zero different in performance. The whole idea that anti-virus measurably affects performance is yet another con job, complete nonsense. Maybe that is true on Macs, I don't know. The claim that only Windows PC's are vulnerable to attack is also complete nonsense, as this article proves.

[Evildave]

Oh, noez! Another critical zero day bug for Windoze, being exploited. Patch patch patch! Hurry hurry hurry! Where's the links to antivirus scareware stuff that promises to clean it?
http://forums.pcworl...now-exploiting/

Suckers. Even though 'Microsoft Update' will 'fix' the exploit (and kill any number of malware examples relying on it), people will stampede to buy any new edition of 'antivirus' that promises to protect them.

Well, except for Vista, since Microsoft says they won't support it anymore. Seems like only a very few years ago, it was the most secure thing, ever. Now they're throwing it under the bus.

It's not that Microsoft doesn't patch exploits. They've just fallen terribly behind after growing the malware business based on their platform to such a horrifying level that there's a whole INDUSTRY dedicated to NOTHING BUT producing malware for Windows/IE, and other popular Microsoft products.

Funny thing, I betcha LibreOffice/OpenOffice don't fall for the same bug that M$ Office has. Not that there aren't problems in either, there just isn't a gigantic industry of people earning their daily bread doing it.

Exactly as the Microsoft apologists say.

But again, given a CHOICE, why live in a high crime neighborhood?

Don't use Microsoft Office, don't use IE, and if possible, don't use Windows. There go 99.99999% of your threats. Virtually 100%, if you use Linux wisely.

You know, like living in a SAFE neighborhood. It's not impossible that you'll be hit by a car, or suffer some form of crime. It's just a lot less likely than in the middle of a stinking DMZ ghetto with bullets flying everywhere.

[42n81]

bcappel, on 10 April 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

Evildave, on 10 April 2012 - 04:38 PM, said:

70,000 a day. I'm not just pulling that number out of my buttocks.

http://research.clou...rg/content18103
http://whitepapers.p...om/content18103
http://www.kaspersky...N-10-107947.pdf
http://www.faronics....-are-avoidable/

[snip]

Two of your "sources" are identical, and the other two are from companies that sell anti-virus software...aren't those the companies that you claim are "conning" everyone? Where do any of your sources claim the count is Windows PC only?

It's easy to find anything online that fits your agenda. But if you'd like unbiased data try here: http://www.av-test.o...istics/malware/

I have several windows PCs, I have several Macs, I have several Linux boxes. I have anti-virus running on one windows box. I have a second completely identical windows box that does not have anti virus on it. There is absolutely zero different in performance. The whole idea that anti-virus measurably affects performance is yet another con job, complete nonsense. Maybe that is true on Macs, I don't know. The claim that only Windows PC's are vulnerable to attack is also complete nonsense, as this article proves.

Then why isn't the second Windows machine running anti-virus software? Running a Windows box without A/V is a definite no-no, unless we've all been conned of course.

It was claimed earlier that the infection ratio is similar between Windows and Mac platforms. Assuming that's true, and assuming that a much larger proportion of Windows machines run anti-virus when compared to Macs, and also assuming that the anti-virus is actually effective at stopping most threats, what does it say about the comparative ratio of infection between unprotected Windows versus unprotected Mac boxes when a relatively small percentage of unprotected Windows boxes account for most of the infections?

Doesn't that say anything about the respective threat level when the largely anti-virus protected OS (Windows) performs no better than a largely unprotected OS (OS X)?

This post has been edited by 42n81: 10 April 2012 - 07:27 PM

[Evildave]

You HAVE been conned.

"My Magic Rock protects you from TIGERS! See any tigers? IT WORKS! IT WORKS!"

How stupid is that? If the real tiger comes, you're screwed, and it's the same with malware and 'antivirus'.

People running OS X mostly infect their own machines, running trojans. Is there a way to protect from trojans? Yes. Only allow them to download from secure app stores. Or educate them to. (Good luck with the latter....) Don't let them download anything executable from 'mywarezizcool.kr'.

Need to 'protect' your clueless grandma from herself and her grandkids? Buy her a computer, install what she needs, set up an account, and don't give her a way to elevate her permissions. Or buy her a sandboxed 'Chrome' machine, since all she does is read emails and open any potential malware links she gets.

Apple's iOS has very few 'security' complaints, even compared to Android. You play nice in the sandbox, or your app is pulled. My 77 year old dad loves his iPad. Just what he needed. Absolutely NOTHING to 'administrate' or worry about. Like magic.

Can Windoze be made 'secure'? Yes... but not when OEMs build windoze machines that log in with 'Administrator' privileges by default. And they still do. Even most manufacturers of wireless routers now slap a default password on them, because dimwit users who didn't know any better always turned them on, set up the default 'open' networks, and forgot about them. There are so many PC manufacturers who are hideously irresponsible, and Microsoft lets 'em do it.