[66926] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: MS is vulnerable
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jonathan Nichols)
Thu Jan 29 12:54:06 2004
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:53:27 -0800
From: Jonathan Nichols <jnichols@pbp.net>
Reply-To: jnichols@pbp.net
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <DD7FE473A8C3C245ADA2A2FE1709D90B0DAE6C@server2003.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>>When the last big MS virus/worm caused it's major shitstorm,
>>my mom asked me if I ever get infected with viruses. I said
>>no, I run a Mac. They are immune to these viruses.
>
>
> Complete BS. There are Mac viruses allright, and the reason these worms
> target the Windows platform is simply because there are much more of
> them and therefore an Outlook worm is much more likely to succeed than a
> Mac worm.
>
<unlurk>
I'm sorry, but this is a very common misconception. There hasn't been
one single Mac virus in several years, and I believe that one was a
Microsoft Word macro virus. Or, maybe Autostart 9805 - but that was
discovered in May, 1998. How many Windows viruses have shown up in the
past few years?
Apache powers far more websites than IIS, yet IIS has suffered a much
larger number of exploits.
The reason there aren't any Mac viruses most certainly is *not* because
"there are not as many of them." One could even go so far as to say that
the Mac would be a more likely target because of Apple's security
claims. It's a much more high-profile target. Imagine the boasting
rights one would have if they could get a Mac virus to spread in these
modern days!
<lurks once again>
-Jonathan
