The myth that software popularity doesn't affect number of vulnerabilities is a myth

[Asher]

Agathon, you're playing a game of semantics.

You can't prove it one way or the other, it's time for you to leave behind the fantasy land of philosophy and enter the harsh world of reality.

Think: What makes OS X as a platform invulnerable to viruses?

Answer: Nothing.

Question: Why are there no viruses for Mac OS X?

My answer: It's a pointless target, no marketshare.

Your answer: ?

[Whaleboy]

You can't prove it one way or the other, it's time for you to leave behind the fantasy land of philosophy and enter the harsh world of reality.

In fairness, I'd consider a struggle to justify why we shouldn't all kill ourselves (the only pertinent philosophical question and the one it all boils down to) more important than which operating system you use to download your MILFs.

I'm sure it's a fascinating technical discussion, but does it actually matter, and will anyone remember it as anything but a waste of time in even 5/10/20 years time?

[Fve Crathva]

You should do things because they are right, not because people will remember them in 5/10/20 years' time. So yeah, I'd take that approach to these retarded arguments.

Security through obscurity is a legitimate technique. It just shouldn't be relied upon.

SP

[Whaleboy]

You should do things because they are right, not because people will remember them in 5/10/20 years' time. So yeah, I'd take that approach to these retarded arguments.

But you don't see people obsessing over their choice of teabag? Or at least you shouldn't...

[Whaleboy]

[Fve Crathva]

Round teabags aren't nearly as useable as square teabags, mother****er. The square teabags may look less stylish, but the corners catch on the cup walls, so they don't just bob back up to the water surface like those trashy round teabags. Plus, square teabags are easier to assemble, so they don't come apart as easily as round teabags.

SP

[Whaleboy]

wow...

[RGBVideo]

The myth that software popularity doesn't affect number of vulnerabilities is a myth

I've never heard of this myth, but if it exists then it truly is one. If you're going to infect as many PCs as possible then surely it is rational to design your viruses against the most widespreadly used OS's, right?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher
Agathon, you're playing a game of semantics.

What an absurd statement.

You can't prove it one way or the other, it's time for you to leave behind the fantasy land of philosophy and enter the harsh world of reality.

No-one has proved it one way or the other. Especially you.

Think: What makes OS X as a platform invulnerable to viruses?

Answer: Nothing.

Nobody said that. What makes it harder to install viruses or malware is that you need root access to install those things if they are to work properly. As a regular user you don't have that access. And if a program attempts to start for the first time without being directly started by the user, you will get a prompt.

The only OS X malware I'm aware of requires physical access to your machine to install.

Question: Why are there no viruses for Mac OS X?

My answer: It's a pointless target, no marketshare.

Why do you think that repeating yourself somehow answers the question? One could as well speculate that OS X's well-known virus free status makes it a more tempting target, and God knows there are plenty of Apple haters out there who would love to take it down. In that sense it is not a pointless target.

But it has been four years and nothing. Not one virus. IIRC there are other systems which have even less marketshare which have more viruses - that puts a spanner in your argument right there. The Classic OS had more viruses, for example.

Perhaps hackers are secretly in love with Jobs? Who knows..

I'm actually surprised that nothing has turned up yet. It's great for me. All that I care about are the facts - and the fact is that in practical terms OS X is light years more secure than Windows. Now that is a fact - you are much more likely to get a virus or piece of spyware on a platform that supports thousands of them than one in which there has yet to be identified a real threat.

[q]Your answer: ? [/QUOTE]

No idea. No-one has sufficient proof of what it is -- especially you. There could be various reasons, but no-one really knows which one is correct.

The fact that you bothered reporting what a company with a vested interest says on the matter is revealing. Of course Symantec are going to say this: no-one needs their mac products, so every year or so they publish an opinion saying how security threats are growing and people should be worried. It's been FUD in the past and likely is FUD now.

[Asher]

So behind all those words, here's a summary of your post:

1) It is possible for viruses to exist and spread on the Mac
2) The fact that there are none is unknown, and we can never know!

Is that right?

If so, I think it's a pretty blinding case of ignoring the obvious.

There is less useful software on the Mac, there are less harmful viruses on the Mac, both of them tie back to the pathetic marketshare.

[Agathon]

1) It is possible for viruses to exist and spread on the Mac
2) The fact that there are none is unknown, and we can never know!

1 is true. 2 is false.

Nice modal fallacy. I just said we don't really know, not that it is impossible for anyone to ever know.

At least I don't know and you don't appear to either from the "evidence" you have come up with (mainly speculation).

Nice of you to be taken in by Symantec's FUD though.

[Asher]

I've had this opinion way before Symantec said anything about it, and it's also one that just makes sense from a reasoning standpoint.

If you're asserting it's possible to know (as in, prove), where od you get that idea?

It's a question of psychological motivation of social misfits who want to make a name for themselves.

Maybe you just don't understand the mindset of the typical cracker.

[Agathon]

I've had this opinion way before Symantec said anything about it, and it's also one that just makes sense from a reasoning standpoint.

Jesus Christ... aren't you the one who's always complaining that philosophers rely too much on reason instead of empirical confirmation?

There are many reasonable explanations for it. Perhaps all of them have some part to play, but you don't know and you are just speculating, so shut the **** up. If you want to do some serious research to find out why, go ahead. But don't pretend that your idle speculation is anything more than that.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Jesus Christ... aren't you the one who's always complaining that philosophers rely too much on reason instead of empirical confirmation?

If there's emperical confirmation, I'd love to hear it.

Not all cases have emperical evidence or confirmatoin available...it's not practical in all of them. This is one of your worst arguments of all time, for the record.

There are many reasonable explanations for it.

So then shouldn't you be able to name them?

Simple question: If the OS is capable of viruses, why are there none? There is only one rational, reasonable reason for this. You assure me there are many, yet have not been able to mention them...

[Agathon]

Not all cases have emperical evidence or confirmatoin available...it's not practical in all of them. This is one of your worst arguments of all time, for the record.

Then we should be sceptical instead of blindly assuming things like you do.

So then shouldn't you be able to name them?

The following explanations seens just as plausible (in fact I think it is more plausible, since there are zero viruses for OS X, and OS 9 had quite a few, and had comparable numbers of users).

It's hard to get software to install itself on OS X in a way that would compromise a machine without root access (a password) or physical access to the machine (that's why the only bad stuff so far has been a trojan that must be manually installed).

If you don't have an admin account, you can't even get that far.

Even if you could, if you tried to start it, the system would warn you that the app was starting and you could prevent it from running.

Simple question: If the OS is capable of viruses, why are there none?

Because "capable" is a vague term. Human beings are probably capable of travelling to Mars just as they are capable of going to the shops, but no one has yet done the former because its so much more difficult than the latter.

If we followed your logic it would be the case that Windows is only a swiss cheese operating system because of its popularity rather than its bad design or the lack of incentives to fix it properly.

Of course it is probably down to all three, but no-one really knows. That's why people still argue pointlessly about it.

But it's just dumb to say that it "must" be one to the exclusion of the others, which is what you are claiming, with flimsy evidence, in the other case.

But in the end it doesn't matter. In practical terms OS X is still more secure than Windows - for whatever reason.