Is your Mac up to date with the latest version of the Mac operating system? Is it using the version required by a product that you want to use with your Mac? Which versions are earlier (older) or later (newer, more recent)? To find out, learn which version is installed now.
- Our Republic Mac Os Catalina
- Our Republic Mac Os Update
- Our Republic Mac Os X
- Our Republic Mac Os Download
If your macOS isn't up to date, you may be able to update to a later version.
Mac OS Names Through The Years; From Kodiak In 2000 To Big Sur In 2020 Mac os names through the years have been listed below. Read to know about all the mac OS names given by Apple to MacBook, iMac operating systems. 'Windows users shouldn't be feeling smug about this attack against Mac users. If you visit the website from a Windows computer, it will serve up a malicious Windows executable from the Zlob family of malware rather than the RSPlug-F Mac OS X Trojan horse,' Cluley said. Another Mac Trojan was spotted back in January, to add to several instances.
Which macOS version is installed?
From the Apple menu in the corner of your screen, choose About This Mac. You should see the macOS name, such as macOS Big Sur, followed by its version number. If you need to know the build number as well, click the version number to see it.
Which macOS version is the latest?
These are all Mac operating systems, starting with the most recent. When a major new macOS is released, it gets a new name, such as macOS Big Sur. As updates that change the macOS version number become available, this article is updated to show the latest version of that macOS.
If your Mac is using an earlier version of any Mac operating system, you should install the latest Apple software updates, which can include important security updates and updates for the apps that are installed by macOS, such as Safari, Books, Messages, Mail, Music, Calendar, and Photos.
| macOS | Latest version |
|---|---|
| macOS Big Sur | 11.3 |
| macOS Catalina | 10.15.7 |
| macOS Mojave | 10.14.6 |
| macOS High Sierra | 10.13.6 |
| macOS Sierra | 10.12.6 |
| OS X El Capitan | 10.11.6 |
| OS X Yosemite | 10.10.5 |
| OS X Mavericks | 10.9.5 |
| OS X Mountain Lion | 10.8.5 |
| OS X Lion | 10.7.5 |
| Mac OS X Snow Leopard | 10.6.8 |
| Mac OS X Leopard | 10.5.8 |
| Mac OS X Tiger | 10.4.11 |
| Mac OS X Panther | 10.3.9 |
| Mac OS X Jaguar | 10.2.8 |
| Mac OS X Puma | 10.1.5 |
| Mac OS X Cheetah | 10.0.4 |
| Free Republic Browse · Search | General/Chat Topics · Post Article |
Channel Web ^ 09/23/2009
Posted on 09/23/2009 10:59:20 PM PDT by Swordmaker
Myth 1: Macs Are Safer Than PCs
Thanks to aggressive marketing from Apple, Mac users often think they are impervious to the viruses, Trojans and numerous other assaults that have plagued Windows users for decades. Security experts say that if Mac users are less susceptible to attack, it's simply due to the fact that there are fewer viruses written for Macs than for Windows. That is rapidly changing, however, as Macs gain market share. Meanwhile, users who have the unfortunate experience of being attacked by information-stealing Trojans will likely have their systems compromised and their data stolen ... just like every other PC user out there.
Myth 2: Macs Have Fewer Vulnerabilities Than Windows
Not true. In fact, studies have shown that Macs actually have MORE vulnerabilities than their Windows counterparts, experts say. The reason? Constituting a 'seek and ye shall find' phenomenon, it was simply a matter of attention, experts say. Some maintain that Apple's credibility in the security community increased as it gained traction in the marketplace. Others contend that a disproportionate amount of researchers in the field prefer Apple, and subsequently put their efforts into finding Windows' vulnerabilities instead. But once security experts began to seriously research Apple, the number of vulnerabilities increased exponentially, experts say. However, whether exploits target those vulnerabilities is another question.
'We can compare it to the situation with Internet Explorer and Firefox. Lots of people were saying that [Firefox] was so much more secure than IE,' said Roel Schouwenberg, senior antivirus researcher for Moscow-based Kaspersky Lab. 'It actually gained in popularity. Now all of a sudden a lot of vulnerabilities were being found in Firefox. I don't think you can underestimate the importance of market share.'
Myth 3: Mac OS X Users Don't Need A Separate Antivirus Solution
Not so. Not even Apple says that anymore, even if it has downplayed the fact that users also should equip themselves with third-party antivirus software. There are just too many Mac Trojans and viruses out there that can evade Mac's built-in security systems -- and the numbers are growing.
'If you look at the Apple consumer base, and how they generally tend to think about security, the vast majority of Apple users will assume this is all they need,' Schouwenberg said. 'It's really nothing fancy and it can be easily bypassed.'
Fortunately, there also are a number of antivirus offerings specifically designed for the Mac OS X platform.
Myth 4: The Antivirus Feature In Snow Leopard Is Enough To Protect Users
Or not. If anything, experts say, the antivirus feature lulls users into a false sense of security -- that is to say, even more than the one they already had. Apple turned heads earlier this month with the release of its Mac OS X version 10.6 Snow Leopard, which touted that it came equipped with antivirus and additional security features. However, upon closer inspection, security experts said that the built-in antivirus feature was designed to block a whopping total of two -- yes, two -- Mac Trojans, despite the fact that researchers have detected dozens of malicious threats that target the Mac OS X platform. According to researchers at Intego, the built-in antivirus only scans files on a handful of applications, including Safari, Mail, iChat, Firefox, Entourage and a few other browsers, but fails to scan from other sources, such as BitTorrent or FTP files.
Myth 5: Most Mac Exploits Target The Operating System
No. Actually, experts maintain that most of the attacks targeting Mac OS X will exploit the Web browser, and ultimately, the user's behavior. As in any PC, the biggest threat typically starts with the user and quite often via e-mail -- falling for phishing sites, clicking on malicious links, surfing infected Web sites, etc.
And as with their PC counterparts, Mac Trojans are becoming more sophisticated and stealthy, frequently designed to steal information and evade antivirus software. This means that as Mac's market share further grows well into the double digits, users can only expect to see more Trojans, worms and other Web-based threats taking over their favorite machines.
'The main danger for Mac comes not from the operating system but it comes from the behavior of the user,' said David Perry, director of global education for Trend Micro. 'Falling for bad phishing Web sites, responding to ads on Craigslist -- that is enough so that the end user requires additional protection.'
Myth 6: Apple Is Just Like Microsoft And Has An Army Of Security Henchmen
Er, no. In fact, the company's historic lack of emphasis on security issues has left Apple vastly underprepared to deal with the barrage of anticipated Mac malware coming down the pike. Experts contend that Apple lacks the necessary manpower to create and test patches on a monthly basis and still needs the extensive specialized team needed to develop significant changes to Mac OS X internals that would make the platform more resilient to sophisticated malware attacks. And security experts also emphasize that Cupertino needs to stay on top of security issues in its open source projects and third-party components.
However, Apple appears to be trying. In light of a groundswell of Mac OS X malware, Apple recently hired its first security guru, the former head of security architecture at One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) Ivan Krstic, to oversee the security division at Apple.
Myth 7: Apple Needs To Implement A Monthly Update Cycle Like Microsoft
Not necessarily, security experts say. This is simply due to the fact that there still isn't the necessary volume of vulnerabilities to warrant a monthly update cycle. However, experts agree that Apple could definitely stand to address security bugs in a more timely manner. After all, there are more efficient ways to repair vulnerabilities than with a patch that averages 70 to 80 fixes every few months. Meanwhile, Apple scrambled to repair a six-month-old critical Java vulnerability this spring after -- but only after -- researcher Landon Fuller published a proof of concept exploit exposing the flaw six months after it was first detected. Yowza.
However, Apple will likely consider a more frequent patch cycle as malware authors more frequently find ways to launch attacks that exploit its vulnerabilities.
Myth 8: Unlike Windows Viruses, Mac Malware Is A Recent Phenomenon
Actually, some of the first and most destructive viruses were initially written for Mac, experts say -- back in the 1980s when Mac still had sizable market share. Viruses for Macs dropped significantly in the mid 90s, along with Mac's market share and credibility in the marketplace. But the viruses have since experienced a resurgence as Mac gained popularity after 2001 with its Tiger, Leopard and now Snow Leopard operating systems.
Myth 9: There Is Only A Handful Of Mac Malware, And It's Pretty Benign
Granted, the number of Trojans and worms targeting the Mac platform does not even come close to the number for Windows platforms. That said, some of the current malware is pretty destructive. Last year a Mac Trojan swept from machine to machine, forcing users to download bogus antivirus software. Earlier this year, Mac users were pummeled with two variants of a Mac-only iServices Trojan distributed via pirated versions of Apple's productivity suite iWorks and cracked Adobe Photoshop CS4 applications. The Trojans later developed into a full-fledged global botnet that infected more than 40,000 Macs. And experts say that Mac users can expect to see more drive-by and browser attacks.
Myth 10: Mac Users Will Surely Complain When Security Issues Become A Problem
Here's the thing -- experience is always the best teacher. Unlike PC owners, Mac users are simply not used to dealing with rampant malware, experts say. As a result, Mac users are much more likely than their Windows counterparts to underprotect their machines, or not protect them at all. PC owners acknowledge, in fact expect, that their machines will be riddled with security flaws, which leaves them susceptible to all kinds of malicious code. If their PCs are a little slow or erratic, most will simply download that antivirus upgrade they had been meaning to install and go about their day. Not so Mac owners, who often assume that they're perfectly safe, even when they're not. So the upshot is, Mac owners don't know what they don't know. And that could likely be the biggest mistake of all.
KEYWORDS:fud; ilovebillgates; iwanthim; iwanthimbad; microsoftfanboysNavigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first1-20, 21-40, 41-49nextlast
The Astroturfed articles are flying hot and heavy... this slide show has some howlers of mis-information in it.
Mac Security FUD Ping!
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Myth one:. . . Security experts say that if Mac users are less susceptible to attack, it's simply due to the fact that there are fewer viruses written for Macs than for Windows. That is rapidly changing, however, as Macs gain market share.
This is true, since thd ZERO Mac OSX viruses in the wild is definitely fewer than the number of viruses written for Windows that are in the wild.
How, however, is this rapidly changing? The number of viable, working self-replicating, self-transmitting, self-installing, self-executing viruses was ZERO and is still ZERO.
There are under 10 proof-of-concept virus candidates that have been proposed by hackers... but all of them failed miserably to infect any Macs and have never been seen outside of a security lab.
In other malware, there are approximately a dozen or so known Trojan Horse applications and variants that have been seen in the wild. All of them require the participation of the targeted user to be downloaded, installed, and run for the first time. They are easy to avoid by downloading only from trusted sources.
BTTT
bookmark
Our Republic Mac Os Catalina
The phrase “expert’s say”, or a close derivative, is used 15 times in the article.
Myth 2: . . . Others contend that a disproportionate amount of researchers in the field prefer Apple, and subsequently put their efforts into finding Windows' vulnerabilities instead. But once security experts began to seriously research Apple, the number of vulnerabilities increased exponentially, experts say.The first sentence asserts that hackers use Macs to find Windows vulnerabilities? That's funny, but could be. If you were a world class hackers wouldn't you want a safer computer to keep your secret hacking techniques secure?
First of all, no OS is perfect. They are, of course, made by fallible people and also technology changes, allowing someone to find that what was thought was secure, is not. So it is not a bad thing to find vulnerabilities, especially when you report and patch them regularly.
The actual facts are that Apple releases security updates that patch the vulnerabilities that were found since the last update. Apple, as a matter of policy, includes every update for every UNIX module and application that is included with Mac OSX distribution, whether it is an active part of OSX or not... or even included in the default install. Many of the updates affecting security are for third party applications, but, because of this policy of including everything including the kitchen sink in Apple security updates, are counted against Apple. Often, unless you know exactly what is being updated, many pundits think that it is an Apple vulnerability when it is actually a vulnerability that would impact UNIX, Linux, and other open-source OSes. Some of these pundits DO KNOW and only too happy to count the vulnerability as an Apple error.
Apple also, as a practice, includes security updates for its own applications in these security updates including Safari, Mail, iTunes (Mac only issues), iPhoto, iMovie, Quicktime (Mac only issues), Aperture, iWork, etc., while Microsoft releases separate security updates for most of their other applications. These application updates are also counted in the gross number of 'vulnerabilities' only against Apple, with the security agencies keeping a separate count of security vulnerabilities against Microsoft's Internet Explorer, etc., as though it were independent.
In addition, Windows vulnerabilities are counted against the currently shipping specific version of Windows... for example, the number of vulnerabilities found in Windows Vista... yet, because Apple tends to release patches that are inclusive of vulnerabilities for previous versions of OSX, the total number is counted against OSX, although it may include vulnerabilities for Panther, Tiger, Leopard, and Snow Leopard—four different versions—where the reported vulnerabilities may not be applicable against all.
The other thing to be aware of is the degree of severity the vulnerabilities found on each platform represent. In the last half of 2006, for example, it was widely reported that OSX had 45 reported vulnerabilities (although after discounting third party updates, it was only 32) while Windows XP had only 39. What goes ignored is that almost 1/3rd of the Windows vulnerabilities were rated as 'severe' but only one of the Mac OSX vulnerabilities got the 'severe' rating. Very seldom can anyone point to any of the patched vulnerabilities in the Mac OSX list as actually having an exploit attached to them. That is not the case in the Windows lists.
Our Republic Mac Os Update
The phrase “expert’s say”, or a close derivative, is used 15 times in the article. Translate 'experts' to mean a person who has a 'nifty piece of Mac anti-malware to sell that I want to scare you into buying.'
As a long-time Unix, Windows, Linux, and Mac user, it's quite clear to me that this is pure pre-Win7-rollout FUD. But 90% of the typical readership is going to buy it hook, line, and sinker.
That's a shame. But such is marketing hype...
Mind you, I'm currently busily converting all (but one) of my XP boxes to Win7. It's a fine operating system. Win7 cooperates very nicely, BTW, with my Mac boxes, Linux boxes, and even the old Unix machines.
But there's no excuse for this kind of crap article. It's just layer upon layer of BS. It's embarrassing to the rest of us in IT that people write this garbage, and that people publish it.
Myth 3: Mac OS X Users Don't Need A Separate Antivirus SolutionEven Charlie Miller, the winner of the last two CanSecWest hacking contests has stated that it is unnecessary to run anti-malware on a Mac at this time. That may change in the future, but until there are any credible virus threats against OSX in the wild, the only reason to run such anti-malware is to intercept Windows viruses to avoid passing them on to your Window using friends by sending them on as attachments to email, or by providing them as files.
Not so. Not even Apple says that anymore, even if it has downplayed the fact that users also should equip themselves with third-party antivirus software. There are just too many Mac Trojans and viruses out there that can evade Mac's built-in security systems -- and the numbers are growing.
This is even more true because the only Mac OSX Malware that currently exists in the wild are a couple of known Trojans with about six variants each that are easy to avoid by simple downloading only from trusted sources.
As of the release of the latest version of OSX, Apple has incorporated into Snow Leopard the ability to scan downloads seeking the signatures of such Trojans and warn the user that he or she has fallen victim to the social engineering needed to persuade a user into downloading and installing the malware. Updates that will include any new Trojans will be included with Apple's regular Snow Leopard security updates. Currently that Snow Leopard ability will recognize only the two that are in the wild... but that includes the dozen or so variants.
Security for an OS should be inherent in the DNA of the OS, not dependent on third party bolt-on applications. That is Apple's approach... and, to the dismay of many anti-virus security companies, more and more Microsoft's approach as well.
Our Republic Mac Os X
Myth 4: The Antivirus Feature In Snow Leopard Is Enough To Protect UsersOr not. If anything, experts say, the antivirus feature lulls users into a false sense of security -- that is to say, even more than the one they already had. Apple turned heads earlier this month with the release of its Mac OS X version 10.6 Snow Leopard, which touted that it came equipped with antivirus and additional security features. However, upon closer inspection, security experts said that the built-in antivirus feature was designed to block a whopping total of two -- yes, two -- Mac Trojans, despite the fact that researchers have detected dozens of malicious threats that target the Mac OS X platform. According to researchers at Intego, the built-in antivirus only scans files on a handful of applications, including Safari, Mail, iChat, Firefox, Entourage and a few other browsers, but fails to scan from other sources, such as BitTorrent or FTP files.
The 'experts' who want to sell their anti-malware applications are the ones who are saying this.
In actual fact, there are several mis-representations here.
First of all, Apple has never claimed to have installed 'anti-virus' in Snow Leopard. It is an anti-Trojan scan of downloading files that are being downloaded by Apple's own applications that are capable of downloading. It was never designed to be 'anti-virus.' Currently there are no viable, working self-replicating, self-transmitting, self-installing, self-executing Mac OSX viruses in the wild.
Secondly, the reason that there 'only two' Trojans being scanned for is simple. There really are only two basic Trojans for OSX currently in the wild that, with their variants, masquerade as non-applications, that CAN be scanned for. Find another and it will be included. The two that do exist have been found to be masquerading as Video Codexes but are in fact applications. Their foot print is known. Other types are stand-alone applications that are merely programs that do something malicious. Until identified, they cannot be scanned to determine the intent of the application. Once they have been identified, they will be included in the scan database. Prior to being identified and added to the database, the only way to protect against them is educate users who become informed and smart enough to download only from trusted sources.
Finally, as to the complaint that Apple's built in anti-Trojan scan only scans downloads on limited applications, Apple is also making the scan API available so that other vendors can use the same function in their bitTorrent or FTP applications. Instead of making an application that is ALWAYS running in the background eating processor cycles watching for an incoming downloads, Apple wants third party publishers to hook their download capable apps into Apple's system wide anti-Trojan API and invoke the scan only when downloading. That's much more efficient than a stand-alone, always running approach.
No. Actually, experts maintain that most of the attacks targeting Mac OS X will exploit the Web browser, and ultimately, the user's behavior.
This Myth is probably wrong. However, Apple is of the opinion that the OS should be the primary line of defense against malware.
DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!
Anti-malware folks whose livelihood depend on Windows flaws are running scared, as Windows becomes more secure, and Microsoft builds more anti-malware features into the OS.
Is it any wonder they are trying to create a Mac anti-malware market out of whole cloth?
40,000,000 OS-X machines.Sure, there are a few human-engineered 'fool-the-user' Trojans, just like on Windows, and they are to be avoided, just like on Windows. BUT NOT A SINGLE OS-X VIRUS. How many new Windows viruses appeared this years, last year, and the year before that?
Mostly non-tech-savvy users, running with full admin privilege.
8 years in the public eye.
No anti-malware software.
Huge acclaim waiting for the writer of the first self-replicating OS-X virus.
Yet there are... ZERO OS-X VIRUSES IN THE WILD.
It's enough to make an ol' Unix-head proud! ;-)
Some days, though, I feel like the old Maytag repairman, loneliest repairman in the world. I sure hope somebody manages to write an OS-X virus before I grow old and croak. I really want to see how they do it.
This one I might agree with, since:
- the browser will always be the forward scout, sticking its nose out into the interwebs and fending off the attacks from malware sites and so forth, and
- the user will always be the weakest link in the chain.
This is the only item in the list of 'myths' where the author has a valid point. IMO.
Er, no. In fact, the company's historic lack of emphasis on security issues has left Apple vastly underprepared to deal with the barrage of anticipated Mac malware coming down the pike. Experts contend that Apple lacks the necessary manpower to create and test patches on a monthly basis and still needs the extensive specialized team needed to develop significant changes to Mac OS X internals that would make the platform more resilient to sophisticated malware attacks. And security experts also emphasize that Cupertino needs to stay on top of security issues in its open source projects and third-party components.
However, Apple appears to be trying. In light of a groundswell of Mac OS X malware, Apple recently hired its first security guru, the former head of security architecture at One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) Ivan Krstic, to oversee the security division at Apple.
This canard that Apple has had a history of a lack of emphasis on security issues has been spouted too often and is classic FUD. It is untrue.
In actual fact, Apple DOES indeed have an army of security henchmen. Most of it is an all volunteer army. They are the UNIX and even Linux open source developers who are perusing and sifting through the 90% of Mac OSX that is UNIX, as well as the other parts of OSX that Apple has released to open source including the kernal, CUPS, Grand Central Dispatch, etc. For the balance of OSX that is proprietary, Apple has sufficient numbers of in-house programers (some of the best in the world) working to find any security gaps, as well as a host of beta testers working under Non-Disclosure Agreements testing and checking.
Microsoft NEEDS the army of paid, in-house testers and programers because Windows is, far more than Apple's OSX, proprietary. Changes can only come about in-house.
What recent 'groundswell' of Mac OSX malware? In over eight years of exposure in the wild, the total number of actual malware exploits against OSX is still under a few dozen. There have been a few that have appeared every year... most as resounding, echoing thuds as the attempt failed.
That 'recently hired' security guru? Krstic wasn't hired because Apple had been ignoring security, and is now finally, at long last, really late into the game,is getting serious about security (as is implied by the tone of the article). He was hired because he is the world's foremost expert on sandboxing applications on UNIX like operating systems. His employment is an example of and continuation of Apple's on-going commitment to security.
Not necessarily, security experts say. This is simply due to the fact that there still isn't the necessary volume of vulnerabilities to warrant a monthly update cycle.
How is this a security myth? This is merely a recommendation and a preference.Our Republic Mac Os Download
Actually, some of the first and most destructive viruses were initially written for Mac, experts say -- back in the 1980s when Mac still had sizable market share. Viruses for Macs dropped significantly in the mid 90s, along with Mac's market share and credibility in the marketplace. But the viruses have since experienced a resurgence as Mac gained popularity after 2001 with its Tiger, Leopard and now Snow Leopard operating systems.
Talk about mis-representation and FUD. Mac OSX and the previous Macintosh operating system are NOT RELATED. They share absolutely no code. The author of this slide show does not know his computer industry history or is deliberately obfuscating it.
The claim that Mac 'viruses' only experienced a resurgence after 2001 (?!???) with Tiger (released April 29, 2005), Leopard (released Oct. 27, 2007) and Snow Leopard (released Aug. 29, 2009). Whow, those non-existent viruses were certainly prescient.
Granted, the number of Trojans and worms targeting the Mac platform does not even come close to the number for Windows platforms. That said, some of the current malware is pretty destructive. Last year a Mac Trojan swept from machine to machine, forcing users to download bogus antivirus software. Earlier this year, Mac users were pummeled with two variants of a Mac-only iServices Trojan distributed via pirated versions of Apple's productivity suite iWorks and cracked Adobe Photoshop CS4 applications. The Trojans later developed into a full-fledged global botnet that infected more than 40,000 Macs. And experts say that Mac users can expect to see more drive-by and browser attacks.
What happened to viruses? Now it's just worms and Trojans. However, the number of viable worms is also ZERO. . . and ZERO is certainly not close to the over one million malware stalking Windows users.
I sure would like to know what Mac Trojan it was that 'swept from machine to machine, forcing users to download bogus antivirus software.' I know what this idiot is talking about. it was not a Trojan... it was a SCARE advertising Pop-up. It resided on some web-sites and would pop-up a warning that your computer had been found to be infected with a virus. Clicking on the pop-up resulted in an ad for either a Windows or Mac version—depending on what computer the browser was using—of some expensive, but incompetent anti-malware applications to dis-infect the computer. If you fell for the pop-up claiming it had detected a virus on your computer, and paid for and downloaded their cure, you got scammed. But, either a Windows or a Mac, you didn't get malwared. You just got a useless, expensive app. It was neither a Trojan, nor was it capable of spreading from Mac to Mac, or even Windows to Windows, as is claimed here. FUD!
Next we have a TRUE MYTH: the infamous claim of the mythical first Mac BotNet. Announced in May 2009 in an articlen an obscure, $150 per year subscription, web-site called 'The Virus Report'—which has not been ever reprinted or even verbatim quoted in any other credible source because of copyright claims—the botnet is claimed to have been uncovered by the article's authors, two (self-identified) Symantec engineers. The botnet (which they claimed was estimated at 20,000 strong) was supposed to have been created by a malicious package attached to two Free Public Trial files of iWork'09 that were uploaded on two BitTorrent sites in January. However, the facts fail to support the two self-claimed Symantec engineers.
- These two Symantec engineers never bothered to report their finding of the world's first Mac botnet to their purported employer, Symantec.
- Symantec still lists the number of Macs infected by the BitTorrent Trojan that supposedly built this botnet as 'zero to 50' on the their website.
- The two bitTorrent sites pulled the files shortly after they were posted... and reported that the total downloads were in the 'dozens,' hardly sufficient to create a 20,000 (much less 40,000) member botnet.
- The malicious payload of the downloaded files, after being installed by the hood-winked downloading user, failed to do what it was supposed to do: mail copies of itself to everyone in the Mac's user's addressbook.
- If it had succeeded in sending itself, it had no method other than trickery and inducement to the recipient user to get it installed on the email targeted Macs.
- No other security agency has ever found a member of this mythical 20,000 (now 40,000) Mac botnet, anywhere. There simply are no reports of it existing outside 'The Virus Report.'
Here's the thing -- experience is always the best teacher. Unlike PC owners, Mac users are simply not used to dealing with rampant malware, experts say. As a result, Mac users are much more likely than their Windows counterparts to underprotect their machines, or not protect them at all. PC owners acknowledge, in fact expect, that their machines If their PCs are a little slow or erratic, most will simply download that antivirus upgrade they had been meaning to install and go about their day. Not so Mac owners, who often assume that they're perfectly safe, even when they're not. So the upshot is, Mac owners don't know what they don't know. And that could likely be the biggest mistake of all.
This ignores the fact that probably 80% of the 40,000,000 Macs out there are owned by people who have SWITCHED away from using Windows PCs and who WERE people who acknowledged and expected 'that their machines will be riddled with security flaws, which leaves them susceptible to all kinds of malicious code.' Most of them have enjoyed no longer having to participate in paranoid computing, always fearful of drive-by infections from no-where, email attachments with stink bombs attached, and malicious self-installing viruses as well as the numerous Trojans they could download all on their own. Most of us Mac owners STILL use Windows machines at work or elsewhere... and those paranoid reflexes are still there. It is because of this that I occasionally hear calls for help from people's whose Macs have developed a hardware problem but almost always assuming they have picked up a virus. it's what they knew from before. Invariably, it has not been a virus or even a Trojan.
The real upshot of this is: When there are finally, someday, credible threats to OSX that cause us to start worrying about the violation of our computers, then, and only then should we start to think about wasting computer time and processor cycles with continually running, back-ground anti-malware.
Me too.
I can tell you that I am my own worst enemy... when I advocate that my clients' who have been having repeated Windows problems with malware, slow-downs, and MS cruft, switch to a Mac, and they do, I don't make nearly as much money from them.
Doing Mac Updates and Mac software installations doesn't pay nearly as well as re-installing the Windows OS along with all of their vertical solution apps or going dumpster diving into the Windows Registry to really clean out stuff that's been left behind by malware or just everyday applications that have been removed or updated, or trying to get a mixed environment of WindowsXp, Windows2000, Vista, and whatever else the client may have on his network, talking together again.
My dad actually was a Maytag repairman, way-back-when, in the 1930s... when a lot of Maytags were gasoline powered. That was before he enlisted in the Army and became an aircraft mechanic... then on mustering out in 1940 a civilian employee... then later the technical writer for all the books for the F-86 and F-100 fighter planes. Amazing what those idle Maytag repairmen can do...
Feel free to add anything to the rebuttals I have posted on each of the so-called myths.
first1-20, 21-40, 41-49nextlast
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
| Free Republic Browse · Search | General/Chat Topics · Post Article |