Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> wrote in news:8jvpbiF7g4U1
@mid.individual.net:

>> Mike Easter wrote:
>
> In addition, the design and use of OS X is more secure than Win's,
> altho' not as secure as that of linux in which the majority of users get
> their apps from certified repositories and install in root/admin or
> superuser mode.
>
> Consequent to the lesser numbers of users compared to Win and the much
> greater security compared to Win, the sensible/logical malware writer
> would write for Win rather than the others. Because of the linux/mac
> difference, there is even less linux malware than mac malware - leading
> to the paradox 'the more secure you are, the less threats there are'.


But to what extent is it the "secureness" of the OS that is driving the
numbers of exploits written against it? While I have no doubt that it is a
part of the equation, I often wonder to what degree it actually holds true.
When one considers that Mac users comprise ~7% of all users and Linux users
comprise <2%, would it not be at least as valid to say "the fewer you are,
the less threats there are?" Especially in today's environment where the
"bad guys" are more interested in making money than in bragging rights. The
more potential "customers" they have, the larger the potential profit.



--
Don't bother trying to
contact me via email.