On 25 May 2011 at 17:21, Kim Patrick Clow wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 4:54 PM, David W. Fenton > <lists.fin...@dfenton.com> wrote: > > On 25 May 2011 at 13:22, Eric Dannewitz wrote: > > > >> And Macs do not have viruses. Ever. They have had a couple of > >> malware and trojans, but not a virus. > > > > Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the vernacular use of the term > > "virus", but the fact is, when somebody talks about needing anti- > > virus software on a PC, they mean to protect against malware and > > Trojans and worms. > > > > So, what you really mean is: > > > > Macs CAN have "viruses", but they are very rare. > > That's because they have such a small market share. Why bother writing > viruses, maleware, etc that would only affect 10 percent of > computers, and very few are enterprise systems at all.
Actually, no. It's because Macs since OS X have been relatively difficult to exploit compared to Windows. Even if market share were 50:50, there would be more Windows exploits because the security model was so bad. Vista/Windows 7 brings a change in that, with UAC, which prohibits you from running processes with administrative permissions unless you OK it (as is the case on Mac and on Linux with SU and such). It's not that user-level execution cannot do damage, it's just that it can do a lot less. As Windows XP sunsets, there will be fewer and fewer successful Windows exploits, and I would expect the number of malware writers targetting the Mac to increase (since the level of difficulty and the amount of damage that is doable will then be comparable). Given the fact that Mac users wrongly feel immune to the threat, I'd think it would be ripe for exploitation! -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
