One of the main problems with many technology writers is that they don’t understand the technology they write about. Hit whore extraordinaire Nick Farrell of the Inquirer:
IF YOU BELIEVE Apple’s marketing then you would think that the expensive fruity machines are more secure than PCs.
Nick doesn’t get out much. Apple seldom says anything about Mac security and only points out the facts about Windows security. Did I mention that 99.99 percent of all exploited vulnerabilities occur on Windows PCs? Nick and the hacks at the Inquirer didn’t know that.
After all, most of the viruses out there are designed for the PC and Apple users hardly suffer from the problem.
Nick, that’s true. I wonder why?
But this line of reasoning does not influence corporate IT managers who, were it true, would be trying to stave off hackers by installing shedloads of Apple gear. However that’s not the case. Most tell us that even if Apple gear was half the price it’s just security by obscurity. A determined hacker who wanted to get into corporate systems would be though it like a knife through butter.
Amusing, but totally false. Just like the old security by obscurity myth, perpetuated by clueless writers who don’t know anything about facts, but love to stir up fear, uncertainty, and doubt to get more visitors to their web sites. Just like anti-virus software makers stir up fear, uncertainty, and doubt to get more customers.
The Mac ships with more exploitable vulnerabilities already on a system when it is delivered. Further, Eric Johanson, a security researcher pointed out that the Mac OS X has far more published vulnerabilities per user than Windows.
Spreading falsehoods seems to be a Inquirer personality trait. If Mac OS X has all those exploited vulnerabilities, then why doesn’t someone use them? Oh, it’s that age old Inquirer problem with facts, right? Vulnerabilities do not exploited make. Since there are no facts to back up the Inquirer’s typically outlandish rubbish, what about plain old slurs?
The cappuccino company’s mindset, however, while reinforcing the myth of indestructibility of OS X, means that Apple users will be exposed much longer than Microsoft. A hacker can go to the web and find a list of vulnerabilities which are months old and be secure in the knowledge that they are less likely to be patched.
Nick never disappoints. Apple, the $180-billion cappuccino company with the hottest technology stock and products and with more money in the bank than Microsoft is a fruity, cappuccino company. What will it take to satisfy the Inquirer’s cravings for legitimacy as a readable rag?
One enterprising malware writer to pen an interesting bit of code that installs itself on a Mac, sniffs address books for friends with other Macs and works out the way to distribute itself to them too. It is not a huge technology challenge and when it is designed then Macs will fall over all over the world.
Funny. We’ve heard that same story for nearly 10 years.
For whatever the reason, malware writers don’t have much success against Mac OS X. It must be that the 120-million OS X users are not an attractive target. Or, maybe malware writers prefer Windows because it’s so much easier. Or, maybe malware writers don’t want the notoriety and fame associated with becoming the first to reall knock down Apple.
Uh huh. Right.
Goodbye Nick. Goodbye Inquirer. You’re not wearing any clothes and all the world can see your limp journalistic credentials. It’s not a pretty sight.