Comments on: Immunity

By: Mantiz

Mantiz — Tue, 16 May 2006 15:08:52 +0000

I must say i have to agree with both views here Worlebird has a point, Apple has a very small market share compared to windows, so the logical idea for a hacker/coder/as*ole is to attack windows. There are a lot more viruses for windows than Mac.
That is also helpful for apple to repair possible flaws in the programming that make Mac’s vulnerable.

Less viruses -> less flaws being misused -> less time repairing them -> more security.
So i get where the article is coming from, yes there are holes in OSX but there are even less viruses (miss) using them.

Ryan on -THE APPLE BLOG-:
“[ MSNBC reports… ]
That’s enough information to discredit the news for me”
Yes and your comment isn’t biased?

By: Worlebird

Worlebird — Fri, 05 May 2006 17:56:57 +0000

Funny to compare this post to the one just after it…

From this post:
“Say what you will, but I’m positive Macs have never been ‘immune’ to viral attacks.”

From “New Mac Ads”, immediately following:
“Stating the obvious, Long informs Hodgman that Macs cant catch viruses.”

Interesting.
If Apple ever gets a big enough market share to even warrant writing viruses against Macs, they’ll be singing a different tune. Apple is protected by its tiny market share.

By: Brent Harris

Brent Harris — Tue, 02 May 2006 22:32:51 +0000

interesting, dosent look like he is even using a mac in the picture…

Brent

By: Todd Baur

Todd Baur — Tue, 02 May 2006 21:18:17 +0000

Looks like John Gruber is pissed too…

http://daringfireball.net/

By: Peter OD

Peter OD — Tue, 02 May 2006 16:27:39 +0000

It seems obvious to me that this was arranged by MS’s external PR folks to counter the new Apple ad campaign that launched this week.

By: Gareth Potter

Gareth Potter — Mon, 01 May 2006 23:52:15 +0000

Why must the firewall be on by default? There are no services running, so there is nothing to be blocked. I must say, outside of the corporate/university/government/etc. environment, where a complex firewall configuration is often a matter of necessity, I can never understand the raison d'être for the firewall. Firewalls (in the conventional port-blocking sense, like the one Apple ships) wouldn't have prevented the spread of this worm anyway - it needs you to be running iChat, and if you were and had a firewall, you'd have the ports for that opened anyway. All firewalls do is create additional undesirable complexity. Most users will never need to go near the Shared panel anyway, so they won't have any services running in the first place. That way they can remain blissfully ignorant. Talk of ports and firewalls is only going to confuse. Incidentally, Slashdot has had some interesting commentary on this, including some who've noted that this Tom Ferris is the typical unknowledgeable type that MSNBC et al roll out for an anti-Apple troll. This is the sort of stuff that Symantec and McAfee love. I mean, we're taking the word of someone who describes Apple's security track record as "unvarnished". (Clue: the bloke's a fucking idiot). I'm not too worried yet. There are real issues with Mac OS X, as Drunken Blog has been cataloguing for a little while now. But even that is just about crashing, rather than remote code execution. It's a non-story.

By: Zac Nida

Zac Nida — Mon, 01 May 2006 23:35:50 +0000

I hate reading completely biased/ignorant news.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Mon, 01 May 2006 22:15:51 +0000

[ MSNBC reports... ]

That’s enough information to discredit the news for me :)