FLAMEWAR!

All this shows is that Apple are more proactive at announcing and fixing vulnerabilities and that MS can't even fix the ones that it knows about.

If I had a antivirus company and I wanted to make a lot of money, it would not be hard. Most of the world, the US in first place, react to fear. Put fear into the public and they will support and do what you want. Who knows viruses better that the anti virus people ? Where do you think most of the viruses come from anyway ? That's right, first seed the virus, put a little fear in the people, come out with a update to your product and save the world. And, naturally make a bundle of cash as-well.

Don't give these people any access to your OS and fewer viruses will be the result.

What are these people ON, maaaaan?

Maybe it's just another virus software company, or their slimy shills, spreading the usual viral FUD in an attempt to frighten the uninformed into purchasing their virus software?

Stranger things have happened.

...they devolve into a strange flame war of poor analogies. You can't add posts there, but it was interesting. I'm going to have to check the article again, but I wonder to which flavor of XP the author refers? Also, note that all but one of the vulnerabilities is unpatched and three are left in XP. Also, in the comments for the article, one author mentions that any Unix program's vulnerabilities are counted towards the total. With that in mind, I think a more fair assessment would be to compare Mac OS X (Client) with every Windows release starting with win2k, including IIS. SQL Server, etc. Since every Mac user has more power inside their 'client' OS, you'd have to have several Microsoft products running in order to mirror the functionality, and thereby potential vulnerability of our single OS. Otherwise, you'd have to compare default installations of OS X (with any optionally enabled features disabled) to XP Home. I would be curious to see the results of either the above and am confident the Mac would continue to devastate any variety of Windows.

So, we have to read that kind of S*** on a bi-monthly basis now? WTF?

Who owns zd|net? Er...isn't it Microsoft through one of it's ancillaries? Yes isn't it c|net that's owned by famous internet failure (boo.com) Paul Allen! Nuff said, nothing to see here, move along!

I'd be careful to avoid the blame the messenger posts here. Security is a looming problem for us and we need to be ready for it. While I agree that most of the article is FUD, based on crappy methodology (see above), the underlying problem is a good one for us: larger market share for Apple, growing interest in OS X from developers (because of Intel switch?) equal potentially cheaper boxes, more software options including games, and more jobs for people like me who prefer to work in the Mac universe; still, security will become more and more of a concern. So, don't get all knotted up by the usual c*** from the PC press, just stay informed and buckle down. While I'm at it, please avoid the ad hominem; I'm not sure I can agree that Paul Allen is an internet failure. Certainly wealth isn't everything; but, if becoming a billionaire is failure, let me fail a billion times!

ZDnets check from Microsoft must have just came in. Under XP a program can install any program it wishes without the user ever knowing. Since OS X requires a password to do that I don’t see how they can even compare them, let alone come to that conclusion.

What drugs are these people on? Oh right...the M$ dollars gotta keep rolling in. I'm forced to use XP Pro at work every day. In my previous job I got to see all the M$ betas as they came out, and hated XP from the moment I first saw it. I'll go back to Windows for personal use when they pry my dead, cold fingers from my Macs.

We don't need no steeeeenking anti-virus software.

Be vewwwy quiet ... MS is hunting Apples! Eheheheheheheheh!

The instant anyone in the media says that Apple is gaining marketshare, MS and its allies send Elmer FUDD (the Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt Dumbass) out in one of his not very clever disguises in a futile effort to stop the dollars from continuing to bleed away from their crappy products.

MS is terrified that more and more people are waking up and refusing to use their flagrantly flawed flotsam anymore.

It's just more rantings of George Ou - who, apparently, can only keep repeating his one gripe/myth, that of Mac OS X being more 'vulnerable' than Win XP, because Apple releases security updates that patch more issues.

Unlike Microsoft and Win XP, which aren't releasing, or fixing any of them -- I guess the manufacturer that actively fixes problems *must* be more prone to security problems, than the one that neglects to do so.

His whinings are squarely based on his 'logic' that Apple Security Updates address 'up to a dozen or more' security issues at a time, while Windows XP's updates address far fewer. What this windbag conveniently neglects, is how mnay security exploits are left unplugged, and for how long, by either manufacturer.

Hence, Apple jumps quite quickly on plugging security holes and addressing exploits, while MS often takes years (or, never) to fix their problems.

Then again, gotta give the guy a break - like all 'analysts', he does his profession proud by knowing very little (or, nothing) and managing to turn that lack of competence into a paycheck with his gullible employer.

Keep in mind this was written by the same moron who tried to do a MacBook Pro vs. Dell price comparison using invalid coupon codes, and who claims that adding an extra 2.5 pounds onto a 5 pound laptop makes no real difference to most mobile users (in that case, I've got a really sweet deal on a Core Duo 1.83 Ghz 17" "laptop" that can run OS X...it only costs $1299 at the Apple Store!!!).

With only 4 exceptions, all of the "security advisories" are simply patches - whichever company is more pro-active about patching will be more likely to lead this count. The main criticisms of how Microsoft has handled Windows security are:

(a) The system itself is fundamentally designed in an insecure way relative to OS X, Linux, etc. (even Microsoft apologists like Paul Thurrott admit this!!).

(b) Microsoft is slow, lazy, and irresponsible about patching its vulnerabilities.

The data he displays is completely consistent with both of those statements.

FUD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a bunch of baloney! Prove it ZDNET! 3 poorly written worms that infected no one and suddenly OSX is less secure than Windows, yea right! NOT!!!

All this data came from Secunia, it's right at the top of this article. Secunia, the same company who was right at the crest of the OMG OS X VULNERABILITY wave about a year ago. Luckily for all of us, Secunia was there to offer their anti-virus software, which would fix all those "extremely critical Mac OS X exploits". How, er, coincidental.

Make no mistake, Secunia will say just about anything to get you to buy their software. Their entire purpose in life is to find whatever small vulnerabilites they can (usually only found in processes that aren't running by default in OS X) and blow them as far out of proportion as possible, then present themselves as the saviors of the Mac-using community with their amazing anti-virus software.

It's snake oil, just like everything else they peddle.

The real message here is one from the 'windoz security mafia'.

It goes like this, 1, Since you mac types don't use our security softwares; and there fore don't pay us the hyjacking fee that we demand. 2, You Mac users must open up your wallets and pay us now, or else bend over...and recieve your punishment. 3, Windows users are safer because they purchase our products which we wrote to take them down and now we own thier a**, and we're gonna own yours two, or just wreak havoc on your life. 4, The justic department should arrest these thuggs before they get triger happy. 5, Don't be a fool with your security, create backups and follow logical methods of security. 6. Don't believe all the BS you hear from these HACKERS. 7, All anti-virus software is by design MIDDLEWARE, designed to take control over your mac. Your safer in the digital age with a sheet o paper than an electronic document anyway. 8, XP Has over 14,000,000,000 known exploits as of noon today, and 16 new ones coming out every second. 9 Mac OS X has one proof of concept bug that when reverse engineered by the chinese mafia will amount to nothing but FEAR!!!! 10, A totally un-hackible computer does not exist, unless it's network wire is detached and guarded by by snot nose bull dog and his companion my fully loaded unregistered revolver. bang-bang.

"concept" worms, where the user has to give permission for it to do its thing, is the best the virus writers can do against Mac OS X, I have never felt MORE SAFE using Mac OS X. The fact that, even after weeks of more attention from the press, no "ace" virus coder has stepped up to create a nasty Mac OS X bug is more proof.

Yes OS X is a gui built on top of a shell... and so is XP (in essence). But what that isn't the problem. The problem is the shell it self. Compare dos and a BSD shell. The comparison isn't even fair. DOS is extremely generic compared to a unix shell. As it should be, since it basically copied the current unix shells at the time. MOST of the security breaches in Windows throughout history have been due to the underlying DOS.

I like how ZD has defended M$ 2 days in a row now. The net has been flooded with hatred towards Vista... being a resource hog, fugly, mac copy, etc. So what does ZDNet do? They release an article of why Vista will be greater than XP. Give me a break. I have lost all respect for ZD.

Does this poll include the fact that the recent worms required the user to enter his or her password in order to work???

Here's how you completely prevent any variant of the "new exploit" (it's actually 2 years old) on OS X - turn off "Open Safe Files After Download" in Safari.

Here's how you completely prevent any variant of the comparable exploit (now 9 years old) on Windows XP - remove the Microsoft HTML control, and install dozens of third-party and shareware packages to replace parts of the OS that are dependant on it. You lose the ability to use Windows Media Player, Outlook, and parts of Office.

Let's see... Apple's fix involves turning off a setting you should have turned off two years ago, Microsoft doesn't have one unless you want to roll your Windows XP back to something that acts like Windows NT 3.51.

TURN OFF "OPEN SAFE FILES AFTER DOWNLOAD" ALREADY, YOU BUMS!

I dunno, just look at http://secunia.com/product/96/#advisories for Apple and http://secunia.com/product/22/#advisories for Microsoft. I'm not much with numbers, but it looks like Microsoft has much larger numbers; 62 for Apple, and 110 for Microsoft. 5% of the Apple problems are unpatched, versus 21% of the MS.

Does the guy think people won't look at the website for themselves? The data he cites does look make it look pretty clear he's wrong.

Just put this with the rest, and wake me up when there is a real threat for the mac.