Snow Leopard comes with... malware blocker???

[DeaconFrost]

You can't believe that someone would come to such a moronic conclusion without the insidious suggestions of advertising, and therefore you assume that the Apple commercials must be suggesting these things.

I absolutely can believe that they would, because I could put together a list of people who purchased a Mac simply because they were told, either by commercial, or by an Apple Genius, that Macs don't get viruses or spyware. I'm the last person who wants to rely on an individual "I know a person" testimonial as proof, but there are PLENTY of people out there who buy into it just like that. I've even had people tell me they bought a Mac because of this, and figured that's why they cost more, because they were 100% safe from viruses. What REALLY separates the Mac users from others is that not only do they buy into the advertising bullshit, but they will argue about it CONSTANTLY. People absolutely, positively buy into them.

I'll look on Youtube for some of the ads. One of the more recent ones has an actor in it...he does the voice of Joe Swanson on Family Guy, but his name escapes me.

 

[soulesschild]

Personifying two operating systems into living beings, and in a wildly allegorical fashion having a conversation in which one states that viruses are not a problem for it, is in no way tantamount to suggesting immutability to them. Me saying this is far from pedantry.

I honestly think your problem is with deluded Apple users themselves and not the advertisements. You can't believe that someone would come to such a moronic conclusion without the insidious suggestions of advertising, and therefore you assume that the Apple commercials must be suggesting these things.

In reality, I'd chalk these delusional beliefs up to the intense and irrational tribalism that exists in the Apple-PC world, because if you watch through the advertisements you'll find that they're pretty substanceless and don't really suggest much, except maybe that there's some inherent trendyness in using an Apple, and that you're much less likely to get a virus (again, quite a reasonable statement).

I don't watch a lot of TV these days, so if you can link me to a video of an advertisement which you find particularly deceptive, then I'll watch it and consider revising my stance, but as of now I haven't seen anything which constitutes deception with respect to viruses.

You seriously doubt the stupidity of the general population. Nearly 90% of student mac user on UCSD campus thinks macs are superior whether its because they "just work" or because their "virus proof"

 

[TechieSooner]

If you come to the conclusion that the Civic gets 377 MPG (because the commercial says so) without even considering to question that figure, you've arrived at that conclusion illogically. Interpreting that statement logically entails questioning a suspect piece of data. That is the very definition of logic!

And you actually think everyone will go out and read up on that before making a decision? What are they going to do, go to Apple.com?

So, we have an Apple commercial that doesn't even say anything about Macs not being able to get virii,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_of_virus#Virus
It might look better when you are trying to argue a point when you can do so using the proper wording.

I don't watch a lot of TV these days, so if you can link me to a video of an advertisement which you find particularly deceptive, then I'll watch it and consider revising my stance, but as of now I haven't seen anything which constitutes deception with respect to viruses.

Go look at the last two.
One, the Mac says viruses aren't a problem, the PC then offers her a business card to call him when she is ready to "settle".
Two, the Mac guy says viruses and computer problems on PCs are actually myths, not to believe everything you hear. Then they show you that the Mac guy is really the PC guy in a suit.


You're going to SERIOUSLY sit there and argue that Apple isn't STRONGLY advertising that viruses aren't a problem on Mac, that problems aren't existent?

 

[phide]

And you actually think everyone will go out and read up on that before making a decision? What are they going to do, go to Apple.com?

I might guess that they wouldn't necessarily draw a definitive conclusion in their minds based on a suspect statement mentioned in an advertisement. If one is thinking rationally, one wouldn't. Would you?

It might look better when you are trying to argue a point when you can do so using the proper wording.

I'm uninterested in how I "look" to you, especially considering my posts have a modicum of substance (whereas yours rarely do).

As for why I use "virii" and not "viruses", I do so purposely. It is not an oversight on my part.

 

[AbJ32]

I didn't read much of this thread, because I don't care to, but I'll just throw out some of my thoughts.

I'm not too keen on the smug Mac users who think their machines are 'virus proof' or 'reliable'. A computer is only as virus proof or reliable as it's user is, and loading Apple's proprietary operating system onto their computers doesn't suddenly turn them into the 8th wonder of the world.

You can make an in-escapable prison, but that's not going to do you any good if the guards forget to lock the gates behind them. If the computer user is an idiot, even the most well engineered computer system is going to crumble at their feet.

As for why I use "virii" and not "viruses", I do so purposely. It is not an oversight on my part.

He's trying to overwhelm you with powerful Ad Homenim attacks!

 

[jimmyb]

You're going to SERIOUSLY sit there and argue that Apple isn't STRONGLY advertising that viruses aren't a problem on Mac, that problems aren't existent?

That's not what I've been asserting at all.

I've been very clear about what I'm arguing: that Apple isn't suggesting their OS is virus-proof but merely is safer from viruses than PCs, which is probably a true statement and therefore it's inaccurate to call their advertising deceptive with respect to the issue of viruses.

It seems like you're equating two disjoint issues: whether viruses are a big problem on Apple computers (they aren't), and whether Apple computers can get viruses (they can). Apple only makes claims about the first category; you are inferring conclusions about the second when Apple doesn't speak to that issue in any capacity I have witnessed.

My previous posts have been explicit on this.

 

[phr0m]

/off topic

I kind of wonder if he uses any anti-virus on his Macs.

A properly configured windows machine (xp, vista, or 7) needs no anit-virus if the tcp-ip settings and proper ports are closed off, or basically using a good firewall. I would assume the same to be true for a mac and probably what this guy does

/back on topic

 

[phide]

He's trying to overwhelm you with powerful Ad Homenim attacks!

Ad hominem attacks, too!

A properly configured windows machine (xp, vista, or 7) needs no anit-virus if the tcp-ip settings and proper ports are closed off, or basically using a good firewall.

I guess it depends on how you define 'need'. If you're careless, it's still relatively easy to get yourself infected. A careless person benefits tremendously from a great deal of security. A cautious person...not so much.

 

[heatlesssun]

I guess it depends on how you define 'need'. If you're careless, it's still relatively easy to get yourself infected. A careless person benefits tremendously from a great deal of security. A cautious person...not so much.

100% correct. This is how it is with all things in life, not just computers.

 

[TechieSooner]

I might guess that they wouldn't necessarily draw a definitive conclusion in their minds based on a suspect statement mentioned in an advertisement. If one is thinking rationally, one wouldn't. Would you?

Marketing lives off the ignorant public. An informed public doesn't need marketing drivel to make their decisions.
The entire POINT of the Apple ads is to get people to buy a product off what the Ads say.

As for why I use "virii" and not "viruses", I do so purposely. It is not an oversight on my part.

Thanks for clarifying that:

The impetus of this discussion was the potential irony that the use of virii could be construed as a claim of superior knowledge of language when in fact more detailed research finds the naive viruses is actually more appropriate.

I've been very clear about what I'm arguing: that Apple isn't suggesting their OS is virus-proof but merely is safer from viruses than PCs, which is probably a true statement and therefore it's inaccurate to call their advertising deceptive with respect to the issue of viruses.

So you'd acknowledge with respect to everything else (stability, compatiblity, etc) that they are lying? If so, I'd agree.

A properly configured windows machine (xp, vista, or 7) needs no anit-virus if the tcp-ip settings and proper ports are closed off, or basically using a good firewall.

Please leave the IT field.

 

[jimmyb]

So you'd acknowledge with respect to everything else (stability, compatiblity, etc) that they are lying? If so, I'd agree.

I haven't, and will probably not provide any commentary on those issues in this thread.

 

[phide]

Marketing lives off the ignorant public. An informed public doesn't need marketing drivel to make their decisions. The entire POINT of the Apple ads is to get people to buy a product off what the Ads say.

Does an uninformed public need marketing drivel to make their decisions? Is it not the responsibility of the uninformed to become informed in order to make a wise purchasing decision? If they don't seek ways of becoming informed, what does that say about their buying decision(s)?

You and I are in perfect agreement as far as what the purpose of Apple's ads are: to get you to buy a Mac. That's generally the key function of any advertisement. What we're debating here is more specific: whether they are deceptive/misleading/etc. with respect to what information is presented in them.

As for this:

The impetus of this discussion was the potential irony that the use of virii could be construed as a claim of superior knowledge of language when in fact more detailed research finds the naive viruses is actually more appropriate.

I laughed. Wikipedia rarely fails to disappoint with respect to being a nearly constant source of amusement (in fact it's almost more amusing than those who frequently reference it as an authority on all matters...almost).

 

[TechieSooner]

I haven't, and will probably not provide any commentary on those issues in this thread.

Fair enough.
Security through obscurity is a debatable topic. Yes- Mac has less malware.
But no, it's not a valid security model.

Does an uninformed public need marketing drivel to make their decisions? Is it not the responsibility of the uninformed to become informed in order to make a wise purchasing decision? If they don't seek ways of becoming informed, what does that say about their buying decision(s)?

Not sure what utopia you live in, but here on my world: people are idiots that believe these ads.

I laughed. Wikipedia rarely fails to disappoint with respect to being a nearly constant source of amusement (in fact it's almost more amusing than those who frequently reference it as an authority on all matters...almost).

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virii
End of discussion.

 

[Serpico]

Basically this is an admission that Apple lied to its customers all these years. They could get away with the lie with low infection rates but now that they are doing nothing but going up they couldn't lie any more.

.mac subscriptions included anti-malware software. Saying that malware is less of a problem isn't lying, saying that it is non-existent is, and Apple has never claimed that. Far from it, they used to offer anti-malware until they changed .mac to MobileMe, and you can buy anti-malware software for OS X in any Apple Store. Be logical, there is no lying here.

Another thing, while I don't agree with the Mac immunity concept, I also don't buy the "security through obscurity" concept either.

Mac OS X has been out for about nine years now with an average over that time of over 10 million Mac OS X users. (Apple would certainly put that number much higher.) That's over 91 billion system-days for OS X with no virus or worm in the wild targeting Mac OS X.

Conversely, within 10 days of the initial developers' release to just 10,000 developers of Vista there was a virus in the wild that specifically targeted Vista. That's only 100 thousand system days for Vista.

In any objective frame of mind, I would have to conclude that the Vista developer release at the time of the virus appearing in the wild Vista was much more obscure and much smaller a target than Mac OS X.

Besides, with the common misconception by Mac users that "we don't need to ever worry or check", a really malicious virus could probably spread very quickly through that community. Targeting the Mac community could net some really malicious, really inventive malware vendor quite a haul.

As it stands, the only times OS X machines have been taken down publically (Javascript vulnerability in this case) have been by Mac security experts that do it so that they can win a Mac.

The bottom line is that viruses (defined as self-executing and self-propagating malicious code) simply aren't a problem for OS X, and its all for the same reason they aren't a problem for Vista and Windows 7; accounts don't run as admin/root, which means that applications can't execute themselves without user authorization. Trojans and other similar malware are a problem though, but as long as a user can install or execute any application, they can potentially install/execute malicious software, and that will always be a problem for any OS in perpetuity.

At that point it comes down to warnings like sudo or UAC and diligence on the part of the user. A careless user on any platform is a security problem, but I feel that OS X since its inception and Windows since 2006 have both handled security issues very well.

 

[Serpico]

That's not what I've been asserting at all.

I've been very clear about what I'm arguing: that Apple isn't suggesting their OS is virus-proof but merely is safer from viruses than PCs, which is probably a true statement and therefore it's inaccurate to call their advertising deceptive with respect to the issue of viruses.

It seems like you're equating two disjoint issues: whether viruses are a big problem on Apple computers (they aren't), and whether Apple computers can get viruses (they can). Apple only makes claims about the first category; you are inferring conclusions about the second when Apple doesn't speak to that issue in any capacity I have witnessed.

My previous posts have been explicit on this.

QFT, although I would substitute "virus" with trojan in terms of what's the bigger problem for OS X.

 

[heatlesssun]

.mac subscriptions included anti-malware software. Saying that malware is less of a problem isn't lying, saying that it is non-existent is, and Apple has never claimed that. Far from it, they used to offer anti-malware until they changed .mac to MobileMe, and you can buy anti-malware software for OS X in any Apple Store. Be logical, there is no lying here.

I've never said that Apple DIRECTLY said that Macs don't get viruses. I've said that their commercials are designed in such a way as to deceive customers into thinking Macs are invulnerable to malware. Never a direct statement but definately misleading.

Now of course Macs face FAR fewer native attacks and its fair to mention that. But if that's all you mention then I do think that that is deceptive because in all honesty if there where more Macs there'd be more attacks.

 

[DeaconFrost]

Here's the latest commercial. My mother-in-law happened to be over when it was on earlier tonight (during House). I asked her what she thought the point of the ad was, and she immediately replied that Macs have no viruses. Then she asked me right away if Macs don't actually have any viruses, that maybe she should get one since they do their banking online now. That, my friends, is what Apple tries to do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9J-7asbTBc

 

[heatlesssun]

I don't understand why people try so hard to fight the obviously intended messages these commercials are meant to have on non-technical consumers. Of course companies do this all the time and its up to individuals to do their own due diligence but the message of these commercials is just plainly obvious. NO viruses, no not one. NO hassles, no not one. Obviously ludicrous claims to those that understand computers but not ludicrous if you don't understand.

 

[phide]

Claims? What claims did that commercial make, exactly?

 

[soulesschild]

Claims? What claims did that commercial make, exactly?

You really are just trying to push it aren't you?

 

[heatlesssun]

Claims? What claims did that commercial make, exactly?

1. PCs have thousands of viruses and tons of headaches.
2. Macs don't.
3. Macs just work. PCs don't.

These are the claims that this and most of the other "Mac vs PC" ads make. Clearly deceptive. Yes there are THOUSANDS of PC viruses. NONE mean a rats ass if you practice simple security procedures, THE EAXCT same ones that one should also be practicing on a Mac. Firewalling, patches (it’s not like Apple doesn't send tons of those out now), AV/malware protection (now included in Snow Leopard) and not running as an admin and installing random stuff.

The deception is that you DON'T have to worry about this on a Mac. Decent security practices are IDENTTICAL on both platforms which if practiced means you're about as equally safe on both platforms in reality. Infection rates on PCs with good security are nearer to 0% than 1%. The deception is that Macs are superior by DESIGN,

Yes you can get away not doing this on a Mac because it’s such a small target for malware authors but doing nothing on a Mac security wise is simply security by obscurity and something than can bite you in the ass even on a Mac today.

 

[AbJ32]

The deception is that you DON'T have to worry about this on a Mac. Decent security practices are IDENTTICAL on both platforms which if practiced means you're about as equally safe on both platforms in reality. Infection rates on PCs with good security are nearer to 0% than 1%. The deception is that Macs are superior by DESIGN,

And here-in lies the problem. Yes, Macs are safer for a number of reasons. That doesn't, however, mean you can just go run into a mine-field and not expect to be blown up.

They also put safety-switches on guns to reduce accidental injuries and deaths, but that doesn't do any good for the guy who doesn't engage the safety mechanism. If you think you're invincible simply because you're on a Mac, you're more vulnerable than the Windows user who keeps their machine well secured.

 

[Catweazle]

You really are just trying to push it aren't you?

There are a couple of fellas just 'trying to push it" in this thread. Some of you, though, don't seem to realise thatr all they're trying to 'push' is the button which sparks you off! It's a wee little bit of trivial, petty bait being cast out, and it's working well enough to kick off a frenzy!





Apple ads are intentionally designed to give naive folk the impression that Macs are immune to viruses, despite the fact that Apple don't ever actually explicitly say so in those ads. Pedantic argument about whether or not Apple have actually made those claims is a complete irrelevence. Their intent is quite obvious for all to see, so in the washup it doesn't really matter whether or not Apple have made those explicit claims. And the blatherings about the quality and character of people who draw wrongful impressions from the advertisement is a sidetrack subterfuge, rather than an addressing of the topic at hand.



The whole debate in this thread is quite laughable, really!.

 

[heatlesssun]

The whole debate in this thread is quite laughable, really!.

Of course its laughable. But that's why these types of debates can fun. It's not like anyone here is going to change anyone else's mind. But I now have a new weapon to stop the lies.

The next time someone asks me about getting a Mac because they think its safer because of this debate I have a new and powerful argument that I admit just really occured to me because of this debate.

My weapon is simple. The next time someone who is ACTUALLY intrested in getting an honest opinon I'll simply say this. You'll need a firewall for a Mac or PC. You'll need to run updates for a Mac or a PC. You'll need to run AV for a Mac or PC. You should not run as admin or root all the time on a Mac or PC. Macs and PCs are IDENTICAL in the security department. You need to do exactly the same things for both. Save yourself a ton of cash and get a cool Windows 7 machine.

This is a HELL of a lot more honest than the Apple ads. And I owe it to debates like this! Thanks!

 

[Vermillion]

I present Exhibit H to the jury.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/mac/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=219500492

Enjoy!

 

[DeaconFrost]

Claims? What claims did that commercial make, exactly?

You can't POSSIBLY be serious? Don't know the first thing about advertising or marketing? EVERY ad makes some kind of claim. Wave goodbye to your credibility, because it just left the thread. If you can't see the claims in that commercial, but my mother-in-law could...that means one of two things. You're more dense than a black hole, or you are a blind, brainwashed Jobsian zealot.

 

[DeaconFrost]

But I now have a new weapon to stop the lies.

Indeed, we do.

Save yourself a ton of cash and get a cool Windows 7 machine.

Thank you!

 

[DeaconFrost]

I present Exhibit H to the jury.

While I do appreciate the comments about how "featureless" the anti-malware software is that comes with Snow Leopard, I would expect Symantec to be looking for a reason to bash the included software, because it threatens to hurt their sales. I'd expect a similar article to come out bashing MSE once it is released as a full version product.

 

[TechieSooner]

I present Exhibit H to the jury.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/mac/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=219500492

Enjoy!

LOL, Anti-Malware that doesn't actually remove the malware?

And it won't even scan like Skype, BitTorrent, the FINDER (USB Drives, Network Shares, etc).

Big fail.

Symantec's complaint are actually legitimate though. No UI to see what's going on, the last update, etc. It's entirely signature-based (no hurestics).
And OS X firewall is turned off by default? How freaking ignorant are Mac users...

 

[phide]

1. PCs have thousands of viruses and tons of headaches.
2. Macs don't.
3. Macs just work. PCs don't.

1. I have no idea if OS X has "thousands" of virii or not. Technically speaking, the "thousands" number may actually be incorrect if there are technically more than 2,000 in the wild. If not, then I don't see an issue. If OS X isn't susceptible to thousands of virii, then users don't need to worry about thousands of virii. As for PCs causing headaches -- that's simply too generic to dispute. It's a bit akin to Ford saying the new Fusion is a "nice car". There's no way to quantify that either way.

2. May be true with respect to virii. The supposed lack of headaches (I've had a couple myself) is too generic to disclaim.

3. Another generic reference. Can't really disclaim that. Standard marketing fare here.

The deception is that you DON'T have to worry about this on a Mac.

It's been my experience that you really, truly don't. OS X may not feature the most secure operating system from a foundational perspective, and it may lack many of the fine-grained security features than Vista/7, but that doesn't necessarily mean Mac users need to arm themselves to the teeth to maintain a sufficiently secure environment. As always, security best practices start with exercising reasonable judgment and proper caution. A properly-configured firewall is the next step, and the majority of Mac users today are most likely behind a hardware firewall built into their router in addition to the built-in software firewall in OS X, which is configured with a fairly lax policy by default. Modifying the OS X firewall's policies to prohibit inbound and outbound connections per-program until the user authorizes them is literally a ten second process (though, admittedly, it should be the default policy -- I don't know why that hasn't changed).

The built-in firewall does offer little flexibility compared to Windows Firewall, but that ends up becoming a user interaction issue rather than a security issue when the firewall is configured properly but finer changes can't be made or are difficult to make (there are other means of controlling the firewall despite the lack of a comprehensive GUI).

Decent security practices are IDENTTICAL on both platforms which if practiced means you're about as equally safe on both platforms in reality.

Given that Mac users are not targeted nearly as heavily as Windows users, I disagree. This really omits the obscurity factor which is so well agreed upon, and that's a critical omission. As such, an OS X machine can remain "decently" (sufficiently) safe from infection with fewer safeguards and fewer active protection systems. That's my opinion, anyway.

There are a couple of fellas just 'trying to push it" in this thread. Some of you, though, don't seem to realise thatr all they're trying to 'push' is the button which sparks you off!

By "a couple a fellas" I'll assume you mean me (since no one else is really approaching this to the same extent I am), and all I can tell you is that you're wrong.

Pedantic argument about whether or not Apple have actually made those claims is a complete irrelevance. Their intent is quite obvious for all to see, so in the washup it doesn't really matter whether or not Apple have made those explicit claims.

I fail to see how it's "irrelevant". The fallback argument here is "oh, but you know what they mean!", and that's a non-argument. It's a fine opinion, but as an argument, it's not particularly meaningful or useful.

And the blatherings about the quality and character of people who draw wrongful impressions from the advertisement is a sidetrack subterfuge, rather than an addressing of the topic at hand.

I believe the topic at hand is what Apple has been telling consumers and whether or not they've been lying to consumers about Mac security. And, for the record, I haven't attacked anyone's quality or character for jumping to conclusions (impressions are different) about certain aspects of OS X security based on information presented in the commercials.

Wave goodbye to your credibility, because it just left the thread.

Heh. Didn't you already say something to this effect?

If you can't see the claims in that commercial, but my mother-in-law could...that means one of two things. You're more dense than a black hole, or you are a blind, brainwashed Jobsian zealot.

There happens to be a third option you've forgotten

LOL, Anti-Malware that doesn't actually remove the malware?

Anti-malware is kind of a bad description, since it's not really a malware scanner like most anti-malware apps. It's really just a basic system to try to dissuade users from opening/executing known malware (file quarantining). That being said, it can be a good system so long as the list of malware definitions is kept current. Given how little malware exists for OS X, it's probably sufficient. And, hey, it's an improvement over Leopard, so I find it hard to complain about that.

And OS X firewall is turned off by default? How freaking ignorant are Mac users...

In 10.5, that technically isn't accurate. The firewall is not "off" by default. I can't imagine that's changed in 10.6.

 

[DeaconFrost]

Heh. Didn't you already say something to this effect?

I did, and all you've done since my first mention of it, is reinforce that fact. Fact is, their commercials are notoriously deceptive, and you continue to argue with several people that they aren't. You have some legitimate comments with respect to heatlessun, so now if you'd open your eyes to the fact their commercials are deceptive, and purposefully designed to be so, we'd be getting somewhere.

 

[heatlesssun]

Given that Mac users are not targeted nearly as heavily as Windows users, I disagree. This really omits the obscurity factor which is so well agreed upon, and that's a critical omission. As such, an OS X machine can remain "decently" (sufficiently) safe from infection with fewer safeguards and fewer active protection systems. That's my opinion, anyway.

HERE'S THE DECEPTION!!! Because Macs don't have as many viruses is NO EXCUSE FOR LACK OF REAL SECURITY! First of all, lots of flaws in exist in external programs (need I say it, Flash) from the OS. Some of those attacks are cross platform as well. Plus security is meant to help mitigate not only attacks you know about, but ones you DON'T know about.

Really a Mac user that doesn't use a firewall, doesn't patch, doesn't use least user privledge and doesn't run AV is FAR more likely to pick up a nasty if they surf torrents and install shit than a Windows user practicing decent security mesaure doing the same thing. No I can't prove it but I don't think that its a stretch to say.

 

[TechieSooner]

TBH, I only read the last quote of mine. I honestly have stopped caring to pointlessly argue with trolls, and this next point is a very good demonstration of why:

In 10.5, that technically isn't accurate. The firewall is not "off" by default. I can't imagine that's changed in 10.6.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/mac/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=219500492, but this has been confirmed by numerous sources.
"The company also says that Mac OS X's firewall is turned off by default and isn't as configurable as its product."


So in short, STFU and leave us all alone.

 

[soulesschild]

*snip*

It's been my experience that you really, truly don't. OS X may not feature the most secure operating system from a foundational perspective, and it may lack many of the fine-grained security features than Vista/7, but that doesn't necessarily mean Mac users need to arm themselves to the teeth to maintain a sufficiently secure environment. As always, security best practices start with exercising reasonable judgment and proper caution. A properly-configured firewall is the next step, and the majority of Mac users today are most likely behind a hardware firewall built into their router in addition to the built-in software firewall in OS X, which is configured with a fairly lax policy by default. Modifying the OS X firewall's policies to prohibit inbound and outbound connections per-program until the user authorizes them is literally a ten second process (though, admittedly, it should be the default policy -- I don't know why that hasn't changed).

The built-in firewall does offer little flexibility compared to Windows Firewall, but that ends up becoming a user interaction issue rather than a security issue when the firewall is configured properly but finer changes can't be made or are difficult to make (there are other means of controlling the firewall despite the lack of a comprehensive GUI).


Given that Mac users are not targeted nearly as heavily as Windows users, I disagree. This really omits the obscurity factor which is so well agreed upon, and that's a critical omission. As such, an OS X machine can remain "decently" (sufficiently) safe from infection with fewer safeguards and fewer active protection systems. That's my opinion, anyway.

See. This is the main issue. Sure you may theoretically be "safer" but in reality, your far more vulnerable when an attack comes. This is the issue I have with Mac users and the Mac ads.

 

[phide]

...so now if you'd open your eyes to the fact their commercials are deceptive, and purposefully designed to be so, we'd be getting somewhere.

It wouldn't make any sense for me to do that given that I've spent a significant of time in this thread arguing against that very idea.

Really a Mac user that doesn't use a firewall, doesn't patch, doesn't use least user privledge and doesn't run AV is FAR more likely to pick up a nasty if they surf torrents and install shit than a Windows user practicing decent security mesaure doing the same thing.

Possibly, yeah. A careless user on an poorly-secured OS is going to be susceptible to attacks/infections no matter how insignificant a target the OS itself is.

"The company also says that Mac OS X's firewall is turned off by default and isn't as configurable as its product."

I read the article, Techie. I thought it was incorrect given info I had seen previously, though further reading seems to suggest that the default is that the firewall is off (but I haven't seen anything to confirm that apart from the article posted). So, that was my mistake.

So in short, STFU and leave us all alone.

You read my posts and respond to them by your own volition. If you'd rather not spend the energy, consider utilizing the ignore user feature. In fact, I highly recommend it.

 

[DeaconFrost]

It wouldn't make any sense for me to do that given that I've spent a significant of time in this thread arguing against that very idea.

It doesn't make any sense to continue arguing that point either, one that's so blatanly incorrect, but you continue to do so...so why would logic enter into your side of the debate now? Silly me.

 

[heatlesssun]

Possibly, yeah. A careless user on an poorly-secured OS is going to be susceptible to attacks/infections no matter how insignificant a target the OS itself is.

This has been my only point. Implying that a Mac is "just secure" and and even more so than a PC without any of the procedures that you should implement on a PC or a Mac is just deceptive.

 

[TechieSooner]

I read the article, Techie. I thought it was incorrect given info I had seen previously, though further reading seems to suggest that the default is that the firewall is off (but I haven't seen anything to confirm that apart from the article posted). So, that was my mistake.


You read my posts and respond to them by your own volition. If you'd rather not spend the energy, consider utilizing the ignore user feature. In fact, I highly recommend it.

At least you admit to a mistake
So you're not in the lower 90% of the other Mac zealots I've got on there...

 

[phide]

At least you admit to a mistake

I make 'em often.

 

[heatlesssun]

I make 'em often.

Don't we all!