On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 13:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Ben de Luca wrote: > > I think the major reason for a lack of virii on mac's so far is the > > over all small number of them. > > I disagree. I've had this argument on another list and the "pervasive" > Windows argument doesn't wash. Writing exploits for Windows is > like shooting fish in a barrel. Writing exploits for MacOS (any version) > takes a lot more skill and in depth knowledge of the OS and hardware. > > There are more vulnerabilities for Windows because it's too easy, > not because it's more pervasive. > I believe this article backs up your statement above. I love the following statement from the article.
"To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it." "There are about 60,000 viruses known for Windows, 40 or so for the Macintosh, about 5 for commercial Unix versions, and perhaps 40 for Linux. Most of the Windows viruses are not important, but many hundreds have caused widespread damage. Two or three of the Macintosh viruses were widespread enough to be of importance. None of the Unix or Linux viruses became widespread - most were confined to the laboratory." http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/56/33226.html -- Regards, Graham Smith --------------------------------------------------------- -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
