Macs 'inherently more secure', say Mac users

Mac users have reacted angrily to yesterday's leader article on silicon.com which questioned whether the Mac operating system is perceived as being more secure simply because Macs are less popular, and therefore represent a less attractive target for hackers and virus writers.

Not so, argue Mac fans who were quick to point out that, in their opinion, Macs are perceived as being more secure because they are inherently more secure by design. End of argument.

silicon.com reader Steve Erickson wrote: "There are many differences, many discussions, and a wide consensus that Macs are more secure because of the technical underpinnings of the Unix Mach kernel. It is doubtless true that increased market share brings increased attempts at attacking any OS. What you fail to mention is that the technology in Macs make them inherently more resistant to those attacks."

Another reader, Mark Costa, wrote: "The current Windows platform was designed with the needs of IT professionals in mind and provides them with opportunities to remotely administer and manage large numbers of machines. The current Mac platform builds on an Unix foundation and has many services disabled by default.

"I suspect that virus, worm, and Trojan authors have simply grasped for the low hanging fruit and exploited opportunities presented to them by Microsoft.

"I also suspect that Apple, in creating Mac OS X, deliberately sought to build an OS that minimised these opportunities."

Though some accepted that a 'never say never' approach remains the most pragmatic.

John Konopka wrote: "It is probably possible to write malware for Mac OS X but for technical reasons it is much, much more difficult than writing malware for Windows."

Many other readers argued that surely the niche appeal of the Mac, coupled with the boasts about security, should be like a red rag to a bull for the hackers as they jostle for the kudos of being the first to write a successful Mac virus.

Ron Evry wrote: "Fascinating but flawed analysis. In the second half of 2005, there were over 11,000 new viruses for Windows. Comparing it to a graffiti artist trying to get attention, it would be like tagging a building so covered with graffiti that it looked like a Jackson Pollock painting.

"In other words, writing a Windows Virus is a good way to get lost in the hacker crowd.

"Now imagine if you were the first hacker to write a successful Mac virus. You would be famous."

Jon Spratlin wrote: "The only hole I can find in this logic is the 'dare' factor. Apple has been, by toting OS X as more secure, daring the hacker community to break it. Following the analogy to graffiti artists although Apple is a smaller target wouldn't hacking it make a bigger splash?"

But many security experts will tell you that modern virus writers are no longer the trouble-making teens looking for such kudos but are in fact motivated by the financial gains of big hits. Fame and kudos don't pay the bills.

And it's not just the virus writers making money from viruses, said Roy Judd, pointing out there is now a huge industry developed around antivirus technologies.

Judd said: "No OS is beyond a determined attack and, paradoxically, there is now a sizable segment of the IT industry with a strong vested interest in the perpetuation of malware. Windows obliges, at least in the current flavours. It will be interesting to see how Vista fares. But I don't expect massive improvements.