14 DAY TRIAL // There is absolutely no difference between Mac OS X and the Windows operating systems in the threat arena. The claim belongs to security company Symantec, which joined Russian anti-virus maker Kaspersky in beating the old drum of Windows vs. Mac OS X as the most insecure platform. Although there is no panacea for user protection, and no silver bullet solution, and neither Mac OS X Tiger nor Windows Vista (Microsoft's latest and most secure Windows operating system available) are even close to foolproof, security ultimately comes down to customer perception. And in this context, Mac OS X is taking the centerstage while Windows is pushed to the periphery.
Still, Kaspersky and Symantec are looking to correct this perspective, by underlying the small detail that Mac OS X is just as vulnerable as Windows is. "Apple has been demonstrated to suffer a number of vulnerabilities over the years," stated Ollie Whitehouse, Architect, Symantec Advanced Threat Research, as cited by Tech.co.uk, adding that Mac OS X is affected by the same security problems as Windows. But unlike Windows users, trained by the threat environment to deploy Kaspersky, Symantec products, or alternative security solutions, Mac users are nothing short of antivirus ignorant. And they can afford it.
My friends running Mac OS X Tiger never installed a security product on their operating system. Not once in the past couple of years. And they don't need it. However, security, as well as beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Symantec and Kaspersky claim that Mac OS X is just as vulnerable as Windows, but vulnerable to what? To an inexistent threat environment? Well, Whitehouse also provided the answer: "suffice to say that Symantec and other software security vendors do produce anti-virus software for the Mac because we believe there is the potential of a problem."
Both companies live and profit from the lack of security inherent to software products, with the focus on Windows. Accounting for in excess of 93% of the world's operating systems, the ubiquitous Windows platform has for a long time been the bread and butter of antivirus makers. In this regard, Whitehouse offered obscurity and a small market share as the main reason for Mac OS X's security. "When you look at the percentage of the desktop market, Apple versus Windows, Apple is very small comparatively. So that's one big reason why Macs are not targeted like PCs are.", he explained.
And believe it or not, Whitehouse is right. Furthermore, Charles Miller from Independent Security Evaluators, the security researcher that hacked the iPhone, revealed that Leopard, the upcoming Mac OS X platform, is a joke compared to Windows Vista, judging by the security it offers.
"I don't think it's impossible that viruses will start appearing on the Macintosh platform. How likely is another point. We see regularly on a monthly bases new vulnerabilities being disclosed in Apple software. It suffers the same types of problems as the Windows platform, it's no less susceptible it's just that no-one has targeted it on a grand scale. Why? Partly because if I sent out a million emails with a malicious attachment and it's an executable for Windows there's a good chance that a large proportion of those that receive it will be Windows users. To locate and target a lot of Apple Mac users is actually relatively hard," Whitehouse concluded.