[X Newbies] Apple and all of these viruses?

[Florin Alexander Neumann]

On Saturday, Aug 23, 2003, at 12:48 Canada/Eastern, Steven Rogers wrote:

> This is probably the #1 PC user's wisdom on virus distribution. It 
> makes sense, but its not right. Its not even a logically sound 
> argument.

Something that makes sense, but isn't right and not even logically 
sound... Hm, I wish I'd realized earlier I could produce something 
_that_ good...

> The first step of this argument is to assert that Unix/Macs are no 
> more secure that PCs - yet no evidence whatever is offered for that.

Steven, I can see you're passionate about the subject and I appreciate 
your passion, but in this instance I'm afraid it's led you astray. If 
you read more careful my post, you'll realize that, in a logical 
analysis of the argument, whether Macs are more secure or not is 
immaterial. (I'm certainly not qualified to decide if Macs are more 
secure than Wintels, and I doubt anyone can tell for sure. Until Macs 
represent a large enough segment of the market to be attacked at a 
comparable rate, we cannot have a definitive answer.)

So, (a) no such argument as you claim was made, and (b) no evidence was 
adduced because none was necessary for a non-existent argument.

> First, anything that explains a widespread phenomena using group 
> psychology is questionable. Are we to think that no virus writer has 
> ever had the motivation to knock the smiles off these arrogant Mac 
> users who don't even *have* virus protection?

I must admit I'm somewhat baffled. First, you question group psychology 
-- then you argue on the basis of group psychology...

Moreover, if you'll pardon me for saying it, you're displaying a little 
group psychology yourself. It's a phenomenon quite familiar to 
Canadians. You see, Canada and the US (to paraphrase one of our Prime 
Ministers) are a bit like a mouse living together with an elephant. The 
mouse must be constantly watching the elephant and guessing what he's 
going to do next, whereas most of time the elephant can't even remember 
the mouse is around. Being a Mac user in a Windows world is not 
dissimilar. We think a lot about them, and have to find ways to get 
around in their world; most of them are not even aware we exist. (The 
story about the lady who went to a store to buy a computer, got an iMac 
because she liked the colour, then called the store to complain she 
couldn't install any of her Windows software on it, may be apocryphal, 
but, se non e vero, e ben' trovato.) "Knock the smile off"?! The few 
Windows users who, once in a while, take a couple of seconds to spare 
us a thought think Mac users are some sort of living fossils.

> Second - a widespread Mac virus would certainly attract big press.

I beg to differ. Try to rid yourself of the narcissism of small sects. 
A Mac virus would attract about as much attention as
Osama bin Laden would have attracted if, instead of the WTC, he had 
bombed a mom-and-pop corner store in Watkins Glen, NY, after closing 
hours.

> If you look at virus propagation methods on the two platforms, its 
> obvious the two systems are not equivalent with regard to providing 
> ways to spread viruses.

I'll take your word for it. But it's simply not germane to the issue. 
If Macs represented a segment of the market at all comparable to 
Windows (say, 25% to 30%), and still there'd be no more Mac-native 
viruses than are now, then one would be entirely justified to argue 
that Macs were more secure than Windows.

> The way to prove which system is more secure (or more securable) is to 
> look at the consistency of design and the kinds of tasks a typical 
> administrator must perform to make and keep the system secure.

Nope. The way to prove which system is more secure is to subject both 
to the same kind of real-world challenges. In other words, hypotheses 
need to be tested experimentally. Remember iTunes 4? One of the points 
Apple used to sell the iTunes 4/Music Store project to major labels was 
the issue of security. Presumably, Apple did the kind of systems 
analysis you suggest. Perhaps also some in-house testing. In the real 
world, it took no more than a week to break it. If it had been a 
Windows version, it would probably not have survived more than half a 
day.

f