why doesnt windows adopt some mac anti virus/malware stategies?

[Rudyard]

Firstly I better get this clarified. Is it true that Macs dont/cant get virus and spy/adware?

I have read it is possible in theory (they release security patches) but yet there hasnt been any real breaches.

I also read it has something to do with surfing the net under 'user' rights or something like that which sets the OS into a restricted mode not allowing things to be installed (is that similar to users/administratos in windows?)

Anyway my point is, why does MS not adopt this similar strategy with windows?

I personally dont suffer from virus/spyware as im kind of computer literate and take an interest but I have a few relatives/friends whos computers are infected useless pieces of junk due to it and they get into trouble because they dont know or care about having to maintain a computer.

Would running a MAC be better for these type of people due to better security or is it all a myth as I have used but not owned a MAC and as such have no idea of the security and upkeep of owning one. Many are switching to MACs due to the ads and word of mouth saying you avoid all these troubles, seems like something MS would want to counter and I just wonder why the dont copy the way of avoiding it?

Cheers for any info.

[Dv8ted2]

Macs can get infected. Any computer can get infected. Microsoft has taken the approach in Vista that everyone by default is a limited (standard user).

Macs use a method known as security through obscurity. This is not a very effective method.

[MOVIEGEEK]

The reason Windows gets infected with malware is because it's used by most people worldwide,if Mac was used by most people then the idiot script-kiddies would write malware for it.If everyone used an anti-virus and anti-spyware program it would greatly reduce infections.

[edDV]

Anyway my point is, why does MS not adopt this similar strategy with windows?

The grand Mac strategy was to screw up marketing so badly their market share stayed under 5%. That kept them from being a target.

I think the Apple iPhone products are now a huge target for exploit.

[Rudyard]

Anyway my point is, why does MS not adopt this similar strategy with windows?

The grand Mac strategy was to screw up marketing so badly their market share stayed under 5%. That kept them from being a target.

I think the Apple iPhone products are now a huge target for exploit.

Really, their market share is under 5%? I dont know about the US but here in AUs apple shops are popping up everywhere and virtually everyone I know who buys a new computer are buying MACs (as oppsed to 5-10 years ago, I couldnt name 1).

The ipod made them a very marketable and 'cool' brand, thought the sales would be way up, especially with the stores/people with them recently.

Where do you find sales stats? What percentage would linux have? (obviously hard to tell due to being free)

Also this post stemmed from an article I was reading about apples security settings, so are they no better/worse than windows its just there is such a small number it is not worth attacking them?

[edDV]

The issue is a typical organized crime hacker is interested in installed base or a particular connection or user profile. Windows has the greatest installed base by far and has many more machines on high speed connection though homes. The bad guys want to take over the machine as a launch site for their nefarious internet activity. While they are there they may look for financial data but that isn't their prime goal.

Historically Mac has operated in several niche markets such as education, media and home. Eduacation and pro media niches operate behind business firewalls so are less usefull. The home segment is very small but fast growing.

The Mac is becoming popular but that only brings attention.

[guns1inger]

Macs have hovered around the 6.5 - 7% mark for the past two years or so, and although there is the occasional increase that prompts (tragically hopeful) journos to claim the Mac is going to climb well about 10% by the end of ('07 ? Nope, 08 ? Nope, 09 ? . . . ) the average remains pretty static.

Apple have expended a lot of resources in getting visibility by shifting into high volume, low intelligence retailers like Dick Smith and JB HiFi over here, but just as they were looking like they might find a niche in the low budget laptop arena, out came the cute little netbooks and a big chunk of their potential audience walked to the next aisle. Their attempt at super lights - the Macbook Air - really only excited the journos that were committed Mac users, and underwhelmed everyone else by being grossly under-specced and over-priced.

The basic under-lying core of OS X - Unix/Linux - is fundamentally more secure out of the box that earlier versions of windows, and less prone to being made unsecured by the user, simply because it doesn't really appeal to the user that plays a lot. Having said that, the first computer virus was written for Unix, so it's not that it can't be done.

[Nitemare]

I can't speak for Mac security but the others who mentioned their low market share are dead on.

If the people you know only use their machine for internet, I recommend Linux because
1) It's free
2) it's really secure and
3) If internet is all they do, most come with the firefox browser pre-installed. (If the optional "windows fonts" are installed later they might not ever know the difference)

Many linux distributions (distros) are available as a "Live CD", it can be test-driven before installed to see if they'll like it or not. The newer Ubuntu Linux CDs come with a windows installer for dual XP/Linux action and can be installed or removed right from windows.

[AlanHK]

Firstly I better get this clarified. Is it true that Macs don't/cant get virus and spy/adware?
I have read it is possible in theory (they release security patches) but yet there hasn't been any real breaches.
I also read it has something to do with surfing the net under 'user' rights or something like that which sets the OS into a restricted mode not allowing things to be installed (is that similar to users/administrators in windows?)

Yes, it is true. There are very few Mac viruses in circulation.

As others claim, partly because Mac users are a smaller target, but also because OSX is based on Unix and is inherently more secure. It isn't as blindly trusting as Windows is.

Anyway my point is, why does MS not adopt this similar strategy with windows?

Because it would break compatibility with old software, designed for stand alone systems that won't work when user's privileges are restricted. And because they really don't care.

Would running a MAC be better for these type of people due to better security

Yes, unless they want to run Windows games and the like.

[lordsmurf]

Too many Windows users set themselves into admin accounts is the real problem. Linux doesn't by default make user accounts root accounts, so the ability to overwrite system core files is next to nil. Windows Vista has added security layers to move in that direction.

[Nitemare]

Windows Vista has added security layers to move in that direction.

I've heard that. I've also heard that it hasn't been a popular move with Vista users. I'm not a Vista basher as I haven't tried it yet, but this sounds like a move in the right direction to me.

People can't seem to understand that you can have it secure, or you can have it easy.

[Zen of Encoding]

And on the problem goes into the next generation:

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/windows-7-uac-vista,news-3416.html

[JohnnyMalaria]

I also read it has something to do with surfing the net under 'user' rights or something like that which sets the OS into a restricted mode not allowing things to be installed (is that similar to users/administratos in windows?)

Anyway my point is, why does MS not adopt this similar strategy with windows?

They do. Their current OS and browser do exactly that. Open IE7 in Vista and it runs in a protected environment. And this has been the case for over two years. And on 64-bit Vista, you can run 64-bit IE7 which further lessens vulnerability.

MS' other option is to reduce their market share by 90% so that no-one gives a fudge about their OS - just like with Apple.

[Seeker47]

Macs use a method known as security through obscurity. This is not a very effective method.

Au Contraire ! It's a very effective method, and works great for me ! (Not a Mac user, but often running something even more obscure . . . . )

[Dv8ted2]

Macs use a method known as security through obscurity. This is not a very effective method.

Au Contraire ! It's a very effective method, and works great for me ! (Not a Mac user, but often running something even more obscure . . . . )

Information security professionals, such as myself disagree with you. Layered security is better.

[Seeker47]

Macs use a method known as security through obscurity. This is not a very effective method.

Au Contraire ! It's a very effective method, and works great for me ! (Not a Mac user, but often running something even more obscure . . . . )

Information security professionals, such as myself disagree with you. Layered security is better.

I'm sure you have good reasons for your opinion . . . but, if there are no familiar (or targeted) structures of the OS that the worms, virii, trojans, spyware, etc. can hook onto, they are effectively D.O.A. They bounce off the vehicle you are driving, and don't even go splat against the mudflaps. It's like you were operating from another dimension.

[JohnnyMalaria]

if there are no familiar (or targeted) structures of the OS that the worms, virii, trojans, spyware, etc. can hook onto, they are effectively D.O.A. They bounce off the vehicle you are driving, and don't even go splat against the mudflaps. It's like you were operating from another dimension.

Surely, the more appropriate position would be WHILE there or no familiar structures etc, not IF. Everything in this world is safe until the moment it isn't.

[Dv8ted2]

if there are no familiar (or targeted) structures of the OS that the worms, virii, trojans, spyware, etc. can hook onto, they are effectively D.O.A. They bounce off the vehicle you are driving, and don't even go splat against the mudflaps. It's like you were operating from another dimension.

Surely, the more appropriate position would be WHILE there or no familiar structures etc, not IF. Everything in this world is safe until the moment it isn't.

Exactly, and you need to think that your computer or network will be attacked. This mindset better prepares you to ward off attackers. To believe something is bulletproof, is to be delusional.

[guns1inger]

Too many Windows users set themselves into admin accounts is the real problem. Linux doesn't by default make user accounts root accounts, so the ability to overwrite system core files is next to nil. Windows Vista has added security layers to move in that direction.

A handful of our users have Mac laptops that they have purchased themselves (we provide only Toshiba tablets as of 2009 through a leasing option). Without fail, all the Mac laptops comes to us configured by external suppliers with the user set up as an administrator, and with all the preferences unlocked and open. Why ? Because otherwise the users complain that they have to enter passwords or confirm passwords when they make changes or install software. For all the bitching and sniggering that went on with UAC in Vista, it is little different to having to enter local administrator credentials if you are a Mac standard user, or having to SU to root in the Linux environment. Working in an administrator account with all your preferences open is the same as being a Vista administrator with UAC turned off. But that is how the so-called 'Experts' set them up.

The truly scary thing is that if Apple ever did reach a respectable market share and become a target, the "I'm a Mac" brigade will be so blase and ****-sure of their invincibility, there would be no resistance until it was too late. The resellers and the "consultants" are as vocal in this propaganda as average misguided user, hence the lax way these machines are now being setup.

[Dv8ted2]

Too many Windows users set themselves into admin accounts is the real problem. Linux doesn't by default make user accounts root accounts, so the ability to overwrite system core files is next to nil. Windows Vista has added security layers to move in that direction.

A handful of our users have Mac laptops that they have purchased themselves (we provide only Toshiba tablets as of 2009 through a leasing option). Without fail, all the Mac laptops comes to us configured by external suppliers with the user set up as an administrator, and with all the preferences unlocked and open. Why ? Because otherwise the users complain that they have to enter passwords or confirm passwords when they make changes or install software. For all the bitching and sniggering that went on with UAC in Vista, it is little different to having to enter local administrator credentials if you are a Mac standard user, or having to SU to root in the Linux environment. Working in an administrator account with all your preferences open is the same as being a Vista administrator with UAC turned off. But that is how the so-called 'Experts' set them up.

The truly scary thing is that if Apple ever did reach a respectable market share and become a target, the "I'm a Mac" brigade will be so blase and ****-sure of their invincibility, there would be no resistance until it was too late. The resellers and the "consultants" are as vocal in this propaganda as average misguided user, hence the lax way these machines are now being setup.

That is why there is a need for information security people like me. We fix the machines that people mistakenly believe are bulletproof toasters.

[deadrats]

Firstly I better get this clarified. Is it true that Macs dont/cant get virus and spy/adware?

I have read it is possible in theory (they release security patches) but yet there hasnt been any real breaches.

I also read it has something to do with surfing the net under 'user' rights or something like that which sets the OS into a restricted mode not allowing things to be installed (is that similar to users/administratos in windows?)

Anyway my point is, why does MS not adopt this similar strategy with windows?

I personally dont suffer from virus/spyware as im kind of computer literate and take an interest but I have a few relatives/friends whos computers are infected useless pieces of junk due to it and they get into trouble because they dont know or care about having to maintain a computer.

Would running a MAC be better for these type of people due to better security or is it all a myth as I have used but not owned a MAC and as such have no idea of the security and upkeep of owning one. Many are switching to MACs due to the ads and word of mouth saying you avoid all these troubles, seems like something MS would want to counter and I just wonder why the dont copy the way of avoiding it?

Cheers for any info.

first things first: OS X is a UNIX os, it's based on the bsd kernel and it's fully UNIX compliant, as such any discussion of OS X security should begin with a look at UNIX.

all unix based OSes rely on a security model based on permissions, with root being "king" and allowed to do anything it wants. all other accounts, by default, are limited user accounts and don't have read/write/execute permissions on certain critical files (under unix everything is considered a file, even a folder).

many unix variants take the above model a step further and restrict even logging in as root, it's just not possible, if you wish to perform a "root" action then you must use the "super user" method by either typing "sudo" with the root password within a terminal or from within a gui (like gnome and kde) you will be prompted for a root password.

because of this (and the way unix handles scripts and binaries) it is extremely difficult, though not technically impossible, to code a virus that can really do any serious damage to the system, most attacks would have to be made to target some feature within an api or a particular app and even then, when running under a limited user mode, the amount of damage done would be minimal.

as for why microsoft doesn't embrace a similar approach the answer is it does and it doesn't: all NT based windows OSes have the ability to run as a limited user and all NT based windows have robust permission enforcement, but on the desktop it is rarely used.

you can take windows xp, create a secondary account and assign any permissions you want to it, lock it down so tight that you can't even install any software, run any scripts, and only have access to one folder, disable remote log in, remote registry, telnet, set a ridiculously hard password for the admin account and only use the limited user account on a daily basis and for all intents and purposes your pc would be hack proof and virus proof, but if microsoft did that by default the first time the average user tried to install an update and got a "permission denied" message you can bet they would be calling up tech support to rip them a new one.

now in the server and enterprise world, you can bet your ass that those systems are locked down tight and in fact in a recent competition, vista enterprise edition proved to be more resistant to hacking attempts than OS X and on par with linux (if i can find the link i'll post it).

[INFRATOM]

Windows was designed with the idea to make money for industry otherwise those smart guys could have designed it like linux. Millions of $ dollars spent on anti virus and other security stuff. It runs slower and requires more resources and power as it updates are some examples. Their only explanation is they are creating an easy platform for end user. Software like virus protection or else used to be a one time buy but now it is like utility you have to buy the service for a period of time. Look at Ubuntu it kinda looks and feels like MAC and doesn't need any anti virus stuff and requires less resource and runs faster. When a server is up it never needs a reboot vs windows. That's why windows made Bill richest man on earth. If Bill hadn't created windows now we would all have a dum terminal and would have been a subscriber of IBM but at least now we have fun building computers, trouble shoot and exchanging ideas on all these forums.

[AlanHK]

in fact in a recent competition, vista enterprise edition proved to be more resistant to hacking attempts than OS X and on par with linux (if i can find the link i'll post it).

Rubbish. Cite the proof or withdraw this.
I've seen similar claims, and oddly enough all were results of "tests" conducted by Microsoft retailers.

[AlanHK]

If Bill hadn't created windows now we would all have a dum terminal and would have been a subscriber of IBM but at least now we have fun building computers, trouble shoot and exchanging ideas on all these forums.

Despite claiming the very word as a trademark Bill didn't invent the windows GUI.

You never heard of Xerox? Apple? GEM? Atari? OS/2?

PS, just in case it comes up, Bill didn't invent the PC, the Internet, the mouse or the keyboard.
He's just great at capitalising on other's inventions.

[edDV]

Look at Ubuntu it kinda looks and feels like MAC and doesn't need any anti virus stuff and requires less resource and runs faster. When a server is up it never needs a reboot vs windows.

I bought my Windows Home Server* last November and haven't needed to reboot it once. I even installed two additional SATA hard drives hot.

NT has always been permissions based. Desktop Windows Home is another story.


* based on Windows Server 2003

[lordsmurf]

in fact in a recent competition, vista enterprise edition proved to be more resistant to hacking attempts than OS X and on par with linux (if i can find the link i'll post it).

Rubbish. Cite the proof or withdraw this. I've seen similar claims, and oddly enough all were results of "tests" conducted by Microsoft retailers.

I've read this twice now, too, in magazines. It was last year, those magazines are in a landfill. Information Week was probably one of them.

[AlanHK]

I've read this twice now, too, in magazines. It was last year, those magazines are in a landfill. Information Week was probably one of them.

Well, that's a really useful citation.

[deadrats]

in fact in a recent competition, vista enterprise edition proved to be more resistant to hacking attempts than OS X and on par with linux (if i can find the link i'll post it).

Rubbish. Cite the proof or withdraw this.
I've seen similar claims, and oddly enough all were results of "tests" conducted by Microsoft retailers.

well, here's a few links for you:

first one is the macbook air where a hacker gained control of it inside of 2 minutes:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/pwn-2-own-over-macbook-air-gets-seized-in-2-minutes-flat/

and here's the link with the results from the PWN to OWN hacking competition, which is not a microsoft event btw, in which 3 identically configured laptops where use, the above mentioned macbook air, a notebook running ubuntu and a notebook running vista and guess what, the vista was "last man standing".

i'll even do you one better, i can show you how to hack into most pc's running linux in under 30 seconds.

disclaimer: it works on most distros installed using a default configuration, to the best of my knowledge only a handful ship with the backdoor closed.

feel free to google a bit and see if you can figure out what the backdoor is that exists to this day, i'll post the method tomorrow.

i know it's popular to hate microsoft but the truth is that if you really want to you can lock windows so tight in about 5 minutes that it will be practically hack and virus proof. if you like i'll give you step by step instructions on how to do it so that you can test it for yourself.

edit: sorry, forgot to post the second link:

http://dvlabs.tippingpoint.com/blog/2008/03/28/pwn-to-own-final-day-and-wrap-up

[AlanHK]

in fact in a recent competition, vista enterprise edition proved to be more resistant to hacking attempts than OS X and on par with linux (if i can find the link i'll post it).

Rubbish. Cite the proof or withdraw this.
I've seen similar claims, and oddly enough all were results of "tests" conducted by Microsoft retailers.

well, here's a few links for you:

first one is the macbook air where a hacker gained control of it inside of 2 minutes:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/pwn-2-own-over-macbook-air-gets-seized-in-2-minutes-flat/

How many similar or worse vulnerabilites exist for Windows?
No one said Macs were invulnerable. It's comparative.
The point is, in the real world, how often does this happen?
To Macs, hardly ever. To Windows: a new zero day exploit is a weekly occurence.

and here's the link with the results from the PWN to OWN hacking competition, which is not a microsoft event btw, in which 3 identically configured laptops where use, the above mentioned macbook air, a notebook running ubuntu and a notebook running vista and guess what, the vista was "last man standing".

No, RTFA:

So at the end of the last day of the contest, only the Sony VAIO laptop running Ubuntu was left standing.

[victoriabears]

I have been using a PC since 1989. so thats now 20 years.

I once read that the reason viruses are written is coz people hate Bill Gates.

What has always baffled me is what do virus writers/spammers/malaware writers get out of all of their work?

The only time I have had a virus or malaware was when I was stupid on two main counts:-

1: I didn;t have anti virus as it was slowing up my pc (ISP protection suite) and was daft enough to think I didnl;t need it.

2: When I downloaded some new trial software and my ISP protection suite didn;t pick it up.

I now have Avira anti virus, Win Patrol with the nice scotty dog and spybot.

My two main computers are 4 years old, have

1: amd athlon 34+ 2.41 GHZ and 3 GB RAM with GE Force 6200 GPU
2: amd athlon XP 2500+ 1.84GHZ and 2 GB Ram and Ge Force 6200

No capture cards or add ons other than Firewire.

Neither show signs of being slower than a friends brand new Vista machine with QUAD Core and whistles.

I just treated myself to a new laptop with Vista and read that it is important to have a laptop that is designed for Vista , not leftover XP Technology with Vista on it. Alocal computer store also told me that Vista problems are people trying to use PC's too old to cope with it,

My new laptop is a Toshiba Sattelite A350- 04S and I am pleased with it, also got a new Linksys Wireless N Router and am mega pleased with speed I am getting, over 700 kB/s if I let it, and I have not seen many pieces of kit so easy to set up, all networks well with XP/Vista.

I am an Financial administrator type and PC's sit better with our brains, its seem the more artistic fraternity like Macs and good luck to them.