Apple Tells Mac Users: Start Using 3 Anti-Virus programs... at the same time

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by Pae
I can accept that. My perspective is that I am a mac user and it has been my experience that their original claim is quite true. I don't have virus protection, and never needed it.

Actually, the fact is that even a basic XP with SP2 and a batch of updates (which is what I'm running - not the latest updates, but everything up to maybe 6-12 months ago) is immune to the most common external attacks. Most malware (this problem is way broader than the technical term "virus", so I'll use "malware" instead) comes from either:

1) An external intrusion - an unsolicited network-transported stream of data which affects operation
2) Execution of infected code - the classic virus; also trojan horse attacks
3) Vulnerabilities in an otherwise good and useful program such as a web browser, exploited maliciously.

Ultimately, you can't execute code on a computer unless that computer chooses to execute it. I had to argue this point with my sister a while ago - you fundamentally cannot reprogram a computer through its network port unless that computer is specifically choosing to respond in that way. Buffer overrun errors can result in the execution of arbitrary code, but they are (a) fairly easy to code against (which leaves you wondering why there are so many in Microsoft code), and (b) somewhat tedious to exploit, so only a pretty determined attack will succeed. (You may be able to crash something via a buffer overrun, but getting it to execute your own code is much harder.) This means that, for the most part, only major targets like the base Windows code and Internet Explorer are going to be targeted.

Microsoft has had a history of fairly poor security, this is true; but even Microsoft manage to fix a few problems now and then, no matter how much people may point cynically to the still-long bug list. A raw, unpatched, no service pack XP system is pretty vulnerable; but slap on SP2 (avoid SP3 for now, but once it's less buggy, you'll be able to say the same about it) and a bunch of patches, and even without enabling Automatic Updates, you're fairly safe. Of course, if you're doing something as idiotic as running a major bank server on Windows XP, then you'll want something a tad better than this; but for the average home user, it's not too bad. I've run happily for over a year like this, and practically all my problems can be pinpointed to a fault between the keyboard and the chair.

All it takes is a common-sense approach to code received from untrusted sources, and you're fairly safe against most attacks. Yes, you might get SYN-flooded or laid low with millions of fragmented pings, but neither attack is going to leave you infected with malware. Of course, you really DON'T want to leave NBT active on your internet connection, nor do you want to go executing code out of Picture.JPG.SCR files that strangers email you. Avoid Microsoft LookOut Express, and funnily enough, most email virosus don't work.

So, having "piled an awful lot of words onto one page", I guess I should put an executive summary down. Pae, you're quite probably safe, running without protection. But so would a Linux box be. So, definitely, is my OS/2 box. And so can a Windows box be, too. It's definitely easier for non-Windows to be safe, for numerous reasons, but there's nothing magical about Macs that keep them virus-free, nor anything accursed about Windows that means you spontaneously get attacked. It's just that Windows happens to be fairly buggy.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Pae
I can accept that. My perspective is that I am a mac user and it has been my experience that their original claim is quite true. I don't have virus protection, and never needed it. So I find the entire cover ups and "gotcha" language all kind of moot.

To me this is just the rather large group of people who hate those annoying mac preaching elitists and want to 'stick it to them'.

I agree on both points.

First, the Mac is safer from malware of all types generally, and MacOS is better designed.

Second, that people enjoy the opportunity to stick it to the snobby, smug, mac elitist types. A year or two ago, I was actually starting to seriously consider a mac laptop. Those Mac/PC ads killed that desire. The absolutely disgusting arrogance just irks me.

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by Aristotle
... MacOS is better designed.

I don't know what part you mean is better designed, but either way, I find it hard to disagree.

There's two major parts to a PC operating system (and by PC, I mean a computer that one person handles and uses, not "PC" as opposed to "Mac" - an iBook is a PC, same as a Lenovo laptop is a PC). There's the underlying kernel and task scheduler, with all the handling of hardware-level signals; and then there's the shell, the user interface. With Windows, you don't get a choice - you pick your edition of Windows, you get that kernel and that shell. Mac OS is BSD kernel and a very Apple shell. When you pick a Linux, you're picking a kernel, but you can then install a variety of different shells (command line or GUI) on top of it.

When you say that Mac OS is "better designed", do you mean kernel or UI? Anyone who tries to claim that the Windows kernel is better than BSD Unix is either ignorant, idiotic, or insane... possibly all of the above. The UI, though, is a bit closer-run. There are many problems in both default graphical interfaces, mostly deriving from history.

Why Mac Sucks: Single mouse button mentality still pervades so many applications. Yes, you do get two buttons; but for the foreseeable future, most apps are going to support one button, which means that menus will come out if you hold the button down for a certain amount of time. I met this concept in SimCity 2000 for DOS; after playing the OS/2 version (in which you right-click to get the menus), the other one seemed horribly clunky. Even if I had the option of right-click or click-hold, it'd still be a nuisance any time I held the button without intending to click.

Why Windows Sucks: Way too much emphasis on the glitter and chrome, too little emphasis on usability. Again, it's more a matter of apps than the base OS, but philosophies pervade. Worst example I've found recently: Adobe Creative Suite apps do not acknowledge the CUA standard clipboard keys of shift-del, ctrl-ins, shift-ins - they only recognize the Windows standard ctrl-x, c, v. I'm accustomed to using the CUA keys, which is a real problem when I find that Shift-Del is treated the same as Del. It breaks the law of least astonishment; I told it to delete and put onto clipboard, it deleted (which is the only part I'd see) and did not put onto the clipboard.

There is no perfect UI. You can argue that A is better than B, and that B is better than C, and that C totally licks A hollow, but beyond coming up with new ways to play Rock-Paper-Scissors, it's not going to prove or achieve anything much, most likely. Still, it's fun to rant once in a while!

[Riek]

Originally posted by Pae
I don't have virus protection, and never needed it.

How do you actually know this?

The vast majority of malware today is of the trojan variety, which in most cases the user will not even know they have.

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/96/
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/17989/

Whilst Macs have far fewer vulnerabilities (and therefore threats) within their OS and browser, and are far more responsive than some vendors, they do still exist.

If you do not have AV installed, it is only a matter of time before you are infected.

I cannot go into details, but there are users out there that have had Identity Theft occur while only ever using a Mac. This was directly linked to a trojan installed on their mahine.

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by Riek
How do you actually know this?

...

If you do not have AV installed, it is only a matter of time before you are infected.

Yes, but conversely, how do you know that having AV installed makes you safe? Antivirus (etc) programs are like any others... they have their limitations. Usually they get updated only when something's discovered, which means that if you're one of the unlucky few to be in that first batch of infections, you're still in trouble. It's not immunity, only protection against what's already known.

[Pae]

Originally posted by Riek
How do you actually know this?

I closely monitor the root activity of my computer. I am a comp-sci geek/nerd .. so I do think it's safe to say I do know that.

Originally posted by Aristotle
The absolutely disgusting arrogance just irks me.

The ads didn't bother me so much. However, I really do applaud you on openly choosing AGAINST product because of their advertising. I wish more people would do that.

A lot of marketing has seemingly gone from informative to entertaining to annoying-so-it-sticks-in-your-subconscious.

[Aristotle]

Yes, I mean the Mac kernel.

With Windows XP, I'd say the UI was a toss up. But with the horrid Vista UI, Windows took a few steps back.

I actually thought the Gates/Seinfeld ad campaign was getting good. I was bummed they scrapped it. The full versions of the commercials online were awesome.

[Pae]

One real CRAPPY thing about macs is the lack of good FTP and Telnet (ie Mudding) programs.

They are SO bad that I actually have windows xp installed with VMWare so I can run windows programs (ie Rosmud/ftp progs) flawlessly on mac.

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by Pae
One real CRAPPY thing about macs is the lack of good FTP and Telnet (ie Mudding) programs.

They are SO bad that I actually have windows xp installed with VMWare so I can run windows programs (ie Rosmud/ftp progs) flawlessly on mac.

There's a difference between a good Telnet client and a good MUD client, and the latter is _extremely_ subjective. There's lots of Windows MUD clients around, some of them quite excellent, and yet I was asked to tinker with GMud. It's easy for Apple to provide some sort of telnet client... hey, look what Microsoft provided with Win 95. Doesn't mean it'll be any good.

As to FTP programs, though... I think every OS in the world (at least, since the World Wide Web explosion) has included some sort of FTP client; a few include FTP servers, but not all. But the default ones are usually fairly simple, which leaves a large opening for third-party programs. Personally, I'm the sort of guy who happily embeds socket calls into other programs, so my FTP client was written into a build-and-upload script (plus the download-only passive FTP client that I wrote as nothing more than a set of TinyFugue commands and triggers); but for Windows work, I've found FileZilla to be excellent. It has both server and client components, and it's quite handy. Gives you the graphical interface that most people want. It's cross-platform, too; supports Linux and, bringing this back on topic, Mac OS X. >> http://sourceforge.net/projects/filezilla/

I don't know enough about your mudding needs *or* Mac OS to be able to even consider writing you a client, so I'm glad VMWare is working for you

[Pae]

Okay... the same goes for MUD clients as it goes for FTP clients.

Every single one (and I have looked and looked and looked) is plagued with the one most annoying component. Lag.

Mud clients for the mac are few and the ones I have used are no where near as user-friendly/effective as Gmud (much less MushClient or RosMud).

FTP programs, are so freaking slow compared to windows ones it's not even funny.

I did a side by side comparison with CuteFTP and the windows one downloaded easily at 4x the speed. I tried a number of other programs and it was nasty horrible on the mac. I can run Filezilla under WindowsXP which is running under MacOSX Leopard and still download faster than the Mac port for FileZilla.



So bad in fact, having an install of XP and running that within the MacOS to do ftp/mudding is by FAR more effective / faster than any mac solution.