Symantec talks Mac

DJ-S1

DISCLAIMER: I am posting this because it may interest many of the folks here, and I was surprised that Symantec would issue a press release like this. I am not bashing Apple. I am not trying to start an argument. I realize that Symantec, as a supplier of antivirus and security software, has a vested interest in making any system seem vulnerable, even to the point of possibly exaggerating potential problem areas to make their product look more necessary.

Symantec comments on Macs

mercphoto

DJ-S1 wrote:

DISCLAIMER: I am posting this because it may interest many of the folks here, and I was surprised that Symantec would issue a press release like this. I am not bashing Apple. I am not trying to start an argument. I realize that Symantec, as a supplier of antivirus and security software, has a vested interest in making any system seem vulnerable, even to the point of possibly exaggerating potential problem areas to make their product look more necessary.

Symantec comments on Macs

I saw that story too. My reaction was similar to yours. No system is 100% secure, but then again Symantec is peddling the cure for the woe, so you have to scratch your head.

Personally, I've heard way too many stories of how Symantec software actually makes a Mac more troublesome to use. It seems their software is not entirely stable. I don't use their software. I use the built-in firewall, an ecrypted wireless network, and turn off file sharing.

wxwax

Makes sense that they'd want to raise the alarm, as they sell Mac products. I don't know that anyone's seriously argued that Macs are invulnerable, just that their small market share and low profile has made them an unproductive target.

As we speculated here, if the Mac Mini takes off, and Apple gets a bigger market share, then hackers are more likely to attack them. Presumably Symantec's been thinking the same thing and wants to favorably position their products.

Nikolai

Thanks for the link

DJ-S1 wrote:

Symantec comments on Macs

Only confirms what has been said before.. No such thing as a 100% security if any I/O happens..

mercphoto

Nikolai wrote:

Only confirms what has been said before.. No such thing as a 100% security if any I/O happens..

Of course that is a correct statement. But don't fall into the trap that since nothing is 100% safe, then any amount of insecurity is acceptable. Macs may not be 100% safe, neither is a VAX/VMS system or an IBM/AIX system or.... but any of those systems are still quite a bit safer than a Windows system. Take OS-X, turn off file sharing (which is off by default), and enable the firewall, and you have a very secure system compared to Windows.

My biggest gripe about Windows and security? It ships wide-open and expects the user, who doesn't know anything about security, to button down the hatches. Much better to ship a system buttoned up, and let the user open which ever doors he wants/needs to have open.

JamesJWeg

I was once offered a job working to Symantec, God am I glad I didn't take it. There are not on my good list, and this does not help. Anyone with a brain should know that no computer is 100% safe, that report is nothing more than a lame attempt to scare people into buying a usless product.

James.

DavidTO

Interesting discussion about how they're peddling Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD).

DoctorIt

mercphoto wrote:

Of course that is a correct statement. But don't fall into the trap that since nothing is 100% safe, then any amount of insecurity is acceptable. Macs may not be 100% safe, neither is a VAX/VMS system or an IBM/AIX system or.... but any of those systems are still quite a bit safer than a Windows system. Take OS-X, turn off file sharing (which is off by default), and enable the firewall, and you have a very secure system compared to Windows.

My biggest gripe about Windows and security? It ships wide-open and expects the user, who doesn't know anything about security, to button down the hatches. Much better to ship a system buttoned up, and let the user open which ever doors he wants/needs to have open.

I've made the same observations and completely agree with your comments. Well said.

dragon300zx

Symantec talks sMac should be more like it. No system is ever truly secure and to be quite honest their software sucks. Even their pc applications only work without complications part of the time. First time I ever installed their software it crashed a system. I will never pay money for one of their products and use the better products myself. Ones like Trend-Micro's PC Cillin.

DJ-S1

mercphoto wrote:

My biggest gripe about Windows and security? It ships wide-open and expects the user, who doesn't know anything about security, to button down the hatches. Much better to ship a system buttoned up, and let the user open which ever doors he wants/needs to have open.

I think they switched to "default on" recently, IIRC. Only took 20 years.

Symantec doesn't corner the market on selling fear. A friend recently got DSL and called AOL to cancel. The guy scared her into thinking that if she canceled AOL, her computer wouldn't be safe from spam and viruses without spending hundreds of dollars on new software. She's a computer noob so she didn't know this was an exaggeration. So until she talked to me, she was paying for AOL even though she wasn't using it in any way. Which is exactly why AOL exists in the first place: to prey on those who don't know better.

lynnesite

DavidTO wrote:

Interesting discussion about how they're peddling Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD).

Symantec's article is a steaming pile of FUD all right. I'll go read your article.

Thinking about the OS X security patches, and how TINY they are compared to the Win ones. And how the first thing a new Mac does is "Call Home" to get the latest fixes unlike a new PC.

Symantec had to remove its NOrton Systemworks from the market after two versions in a row were impossibly buggy. Sour grapes, IMV.

Of course Mac users aren't immune to bad 'Net juju, phishing schemes get everybody.