In today's Windows world, a virus attacks, then the anti-virus software gets updated. Then the Windows OS gets updated. Seems to me that running anti-virus on Mac doesn't make too much sense since it wouldn't stop an infestation of a currently unknown virus anyway.

Hey, yet another Mac-Baiting bullsh1tter! I'm guessing that this guy is still running OS 8.5.1 and likes a few inches of Uncle Bill. Health warning: Don't Swallow or it seeps into your brain and forces you to write MacFUD and invite the ridicule of the smartest people on the internet! ;)

""We want to be ready for the first big Macintosh virus -- because it will come. Some day, somebody will say 'I am going to create a headline and write a virus for Mac'," said Borrie. "

I am pretty sure that has already been said, probably thousands of times by would be David's to OSX' Goliath, yet here we are?

Being ready is a good idea, but FUD is FUD whoever is spreading it!

Without being needlessly cruel, allow me to point out that this fellow hails from *New Zealand*.

Having just returned from living in that backward disease swamp for the past two years, I can tell you firsthand that the natives aren't the brightest stars in the heavens. In fact, I dare-say, they are generally the most clueless dolts on the planet.

So, I wouldn't worry too much about any missives spewing forth from the University of Otago regarding the imminent arrival of the killer Macintosh virus.

After all, these are the same little folks who are too frightened by the idea of someone running coax into their dwellings to have cable TV. (Instead, they are content to have Sky TV beam down signals that drop out every time it gets windy or rains... which, of course, is every ten seconds in New Zed-land).

~H

I'm so sick of this "Mac's aren't as popular" argument for there being no immediate security threats.

Here's what a REAL security expert has to say on the subject:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/12/16/windowsstyle_security_hell_stalks_mac/

"It's only when things start *failing* that users try to figure out why."

Perhaps Apple could engineer Mac OS X to stop working every 3 months unless a security patch or OS update was installed ;-)

ZDNet always gets a boost in traffic with these stories. It keeps their ad rates up. Viva Capitalizm!

Back in reality-world, Mac OS X has been out for almost 4 years and no virus or piece of malware has ever been written that can gain control of Mac OS X, never mind propagate itself exponentially over the internet. Microsoft has the monopoly on that phenomenon.

Frankly, if you want to make headlines you're better off attacking Windows. Why waste months trying to exploit the Mac? The Mac doesn't have holes in Safari or Mail or WebDAV or AFP that allow remote code execution, whereas Windows programs and services have more holes than a Swiss cheese factory. If you want to make a headline you can write a Windows virus in a weekend, and there are even dozens of code samples out there to get you started.

In fact, why do anything at all? There'll be a Windows virus headline within a few weeks anyway. Just wait, and someone else will do it for you.

Would help if us Mac users could read the whole article using Safari.

Shame - he starts off well - I think everyone needs to be security aware and 'malware' is an issue for anyone on any platform - regardless of what built in security you offer there is always someone dumb enough to run an executable thinking it's something else - even if it prompts you to enter your admin password. Like the XP SP2 Firewall, the Mac firewall doesn't warn about programs dialling out - however, my experience is that people just approve everything - I've seen firewalls spyware programs manually approved!

I'm sure it won't be long before someone creates a Trojan widget (maybe it pretends to do something useful but once you've granted it permission does much more). There are also security holes in both Apple's code and the open source components Apple use - hence the security updates. Same as in Linux and other Unix O/S. Then again, these can be over-played - how many Mac users are running Apache?

What none of these O/S are vulnerable to is the sort of automatic download and execute vulnerabilities MS built into Outlook and Explorer (i.e. ActiveX). Apple notably came close with the initial release of the Dashboard - and reacted quickly, contrary to the security consultants article.

Worms are feasible on non-MS systems - there's been talk of potential vulnerabilities in Cisco routers and most of the security patches (on Unix derived systems or Windows) concern buffer overrun vulnerabilities - holes that allow malicious code to be inserted into an already executing process. Only thing you can do is keep your firewall up and your programs up to date.

Security by obscurity : Macs had more viruses back in the old days, when they were mostly distributed by swapping infected floppy discs. Strangely they dried up about the same time Apple moved MacOs over to a Unix basis. There's not a lot of known Linux viruses, and despite some FUD trying to suggest that the virus writers don't attack their own (yeah right, most Linux users I know wouldn't have a Windows system in their house to test a virus on). To me that says 'design' not 'obscurity'. It also says 'Unix' rather than 'Apple' is what's responsible, but then what do you expect from a system that was designed to run multiple users and multiple programs and protect the underlying machine and other users from being affected by the action of one user??

There's also the fact that far from being obscure it's a well known major target - which is more tempting, writing the 15000th Windows virus or the 1st OS/X one? Especially when you know none of those OS/X users will be expecting it or running security software.

Security updates : Apple's auto-update is equal to the one on Windows XP - that's sufficient for domestic users, but I'm aware corporate networks don't normally use it (imagine having 2000 machines all trying

It's just FUD. Nothing more. He probably got a check from an anti-virus software vendor.

-t