I've just suffered a distributed denial-of-service attack. Not from a network of zombie computers under the control of an uber-hacker, but my inbox is creaking under the weight of the abusive email I have received from around the world.

The reason is that I dared to say something publicly that previously I've only said behind closed curtains, amongst trusted friends and family – something that has really, really annoyed some people: 'Have you thought about buying an Apple Mac instead?'

Yes, I hold my hands up. I dared to say the thing that a fair few in the security industry have appeared reluctant to say: there's an awful lot of malware for Windows, but hardly anything for Mac OS X.

I was spurred to say the unthinkable by some new research conducted by SophosLabs. An examination of the top malware seen at our global network of monitoring stations in the first half of 2006 found it was all Windows-specific. Not only that, but some of the biggest culprits (like the Netsky and Zafi worms) have been spreading successfully for a couple of years now. What's most interesting about these statistics, however, is what doesn't appear in the list. Apple Macintosh malware is nowhere to be seen. None of the malware in the chart can infect computers running Mac OS X.

It is still relatively rare for viruses to be written for Apple Macintosh computers. While the first malware for Mac OS X was seen in February 2006, it has not spread in the wild and has not spawned a flurry of other malicious code for Mac.

I like to think that businesses have woken up to the importance of running an up-to-date anti-virus product, and research suggests that most of them are recognising the importance of securing their systems properly. So it must be home users who are being infected by these old viruses. So, what are we going to do about home users like my Aunty Hilda who is never really going to get a grasp of computer security but still wants to email? The anti-virus industry has told users ad nauseum about the importance of running anti-virus, installing firewalls, applying patches and not opening unsolicited attachments. But worms, spyware and pornographic pop-ups are still hitting the average man in the street.

When I suggest to those home users that they might want to consider getting an Apple Mac next time, it is with good reason. My aim is to get them out of the hackers' firing line.

The issue here is analogous to advice the government might give people who are making travel plans. They might tell you that going to Iraq would put you at a greater risk of getting shot than going to the south coast of England, for instance. Yes, you could be killed in either Bournemouth or Baghdad, but I know which destination I would be more concerned about if my loved ones started packing their suitcases.

We’'e tried educating Joe Average about security for the last 20 years and he doesn't want to listen. He's not interested in hearing about the latest remove code execution vulnerability in the handling of WMF graphic files. But saying to users, 'You know, you'd be less prone to getting so many viruses if you used a Mac, because there are hardly any Mac viruses at all', is a message that many people would find easier to grasp.

Mac owners mustn't be complacent about security, of course, and should be sure to follow safe computing practices, but there can be no doubt that the vast majority of attacks are happening on Windows, leaving Mac users relatively unscathed. And that is something that home users may wish to consider if they're deliberating about the next computer they should purchase.

 

Latest articles:

Bulletin Archive