Mac Viruses By The Numbers - Word Macro: 553, Classic Mac: 26, OS X: Zero
Mac Viruses By The Numbers - Word Macro: 553, Classic Mac: 26, OS X: Zero
by , 11:00 AM EDT, August 29th, 2003
So, another week, another Windows virus. Ho-hum.
Computer viruses--Windows-based computer viruses, for the most part--have been around for a long time now, but it's really only since the explosion of the Internet (the modern, commercialized Internet, that is) that they've caught the public eye, and it's only within the past 2-3 years (since the first "rock star" viruses, Melissa, AnnaKournikova and ILOVEYOU) that the media has made a fuss over it.
My, how times have changed. Today, nary a week goes by without headlines screaming about the latest Critical Security Flaw or Yet Another Doomsday Virus swarming the planet. Though Linux and even OS X have been known to have their own occasional security bugaboos, the vast majority of these warnings/threats have come straight out of Redmond (or, more to the point, straight out of sources that Big Redmond would prefer keep their mouths shut).
The past couple of weeks has brought the whole Virus Scare to a near-boiling point: the one-two punches of Blaster and SoBig seem to have FINALLY forced a few IT types to start questioning the whole Microsoft Is God And There Is No God Before Microsoft mantra. Some of the über geek types have started to look into alternate platforms and possibilities (this is particularly impressive since many of them didn't seem to be aware that there WERE any alternatives). Over at the Baltimore Sun, David Zeiler has written two columns exploring the long-standing debate over exactly why Macs are so seemingly immune to the numerous cyber-nasties flying around...is the operating system inherently harder to crack, or is it simply due to there being so many more Windows users out there than Mac users, or "Security Through Obscurity," as the saying goes?
Every time a new Windows virus hits the news (and the PCs), Mac users smugly go about their business and crow about how there's "hardly any" viruses for the Mac as opposed to the "thousands" of Windows-based viruses...but are often at a loss to pinpoint the exact evidence to support their claims. Supposedly, "everyone knows" that Macs have fewer viruses, but just how few has always been a bit of a mystery. In light of this, I decided to run a quick check on the exact numbers involved.
My source? Network Associates (NA), sellers of the McAfee and Virex antivirus products, and one of the leading names in computer virus/anti-virus/security software alongside Symantec and the oft-quoted Sophos PLC.
I kept my search fairly simple--this is just idle curiosity, not a paid research project, after all--but as logical as I could:
1. I went to NA's Virus Information Library
2. According to this site, "More than 71,000 virus threats exist today. The McAfee AVERT Virus Information Library has detailed information on where viruses come from, how they infect your system, and how to remove them."
OK, fair enough. I'm not going to look up all 71,000, but that's pretty specific...I'll take their word for it.
3. Next, I ran an advanced search using simply "Macintosh" as my criteria.
This kicked back a total of 612 virus listings.
4. Next, I subtracted out a couple dozen "Hoaxes"...hoaxes are not viruses, these are exactly what the name implies--phantom "chain-mail" style myths which perpetually circle the globe like the Flying Dutchman or the Wandering Jew, never settling down due to shmoes who keep forwarding them to their family & friends (with the best of intentions and the most annoying of results). Hoaxes are basically unintentional spam mail--annoying but not really dangerous, and there's so much actual spam out there nowadays that they've pretty much been buried by it. This brings the total down to 580.
5. I also deleted one which got listed only because the description stated that the virus does NOT affect Macintosh systems...the Boolean search threw it into the mix. Total: 579.
Before we go any further, note that we're already down to less than 1% of the total...even though Macs make up about 5% of the total INSTALLED BASE of computers worldwide (this is how many are IN USE, NOT how many are being sold each quarter/year, which is what "market share" means), depending on your source.
6. This is where things start to get very interesting. You see, out of those 579 total viruses which affect some versions of the Mac operating system, you'll notice that the vast majority of their names start with a WM/ or XM/. I checked these out, and sure enough, this means that they're a Macro virus which runs exclusively on some versions of--you guessed it--Microsoft Word or Microsoft Excel (there are a few Word/Excel Macro viruses which don't have WM/ or XM/ in their names as well). In fact, over 95% of these so-called "Mac" viruses are actually directly made possible by Microsoft software. If you take these out of the equation, which seems reasonable to me since there are solid alternatives on the Mac to Word and Excel, just as there are alternatives to Windows itself, you're left with the following number of viruses that affect the Mac and can't be blamed on Microsoft in any way, shape or form: 26.
Yes, thats right: 26 out of a total of over 71,000.
However, I've left out one of the most important factors here: All 26 of these, along with the other 553 Word/Excel Macro viruses, were designed for the OLDER versions of the Mac OS (and the older versions of Word/Excel, to be fair). None of this has anything to do with Mac OS X, which is the relevant system to look at.
If you remove the viruses which don't affect OS X, you know what you're left with--at least, as of this writing, and to the best of my knowledge?
Zero. None. Zip. Zilch.
A few final notes:
--Yes, Apple has had the occasional security issue update for OS X, but a security issue isn't the same thing as a virus--it's a potential, theoretical threat. Besides, any time Apple has released a security update, it's been a quick, quiet, simple install with no muss, no fuss, and no worsening of the original problem (again, to my knowledge).
--Yes, it can also be argued that just as the majority of Mac viruses can't be counted against OS X, so too the majority of Windows viruses may very well not affect Windows XP. To this I have two responses: 1) if you feel like digging into each and every one of those 70,974 virus descriptions to see which versions of Windows they do or don't affect, be my guest, because I don't have THAT much free time; and 2) even assuming that 90% of them don't affect XP, that would still leave a ratio of 7,100 to 0...and 7,100 is still infinitely more than none.
--Getting back to the original question of why there are so few viruses for the Mac, my response is simple: Does it really matter? Let's assume that the naysayers are correct, that the only reason is because "no one bothers" to crack into the Mac OS. Even if this is the case (which I doubt)...SO WHAT? If I live in a neighborhood with an extremely low crime rate, I really don't care WHY the burglars stay away. Maybe I have good locks on my doors. Maybe they don't like the stuff in my house. Bottom line, Ill still sleep better at night.
--Finally, yes, there's always the possibility of a nasty OS X virus someday--that's why Apple includes Virex with their .Mac accounts, and that's why the company issues the occasional security update. OS X is not 100% immune to nasty problems (as anyone who lost their hard drive during the iTunes 2 debacle can tell you). No operating system is.
Also, the argument keeps being made by some anti-Mac partizans that "if Macs had 90% of the market, they'd have just as many virus problems as Windows does," as if this justifies Microsoft's sloppy coding. Well, you know what? Maybe that's true; I doubt it, but perhaps it is. The day that Apple has a 90% market share and is plagued with viruses, I'll be more than happy to admit that I was wrong.
Somehow, I don't see either of those things happening anytime soon, but I can wait if you can.
- Fri, 3:25 PM
- New Teaser Video for Apple TV+ Gives Audiences a Peak at 2023 Programming
- Fri, 2:28 PM
- The Retro 67 Charger from Shargeek Rocks Retro Looks with Modern Functionality
- Fri, 1:32 PM
- Travelin' Tim Goes to Arizona, iPhone Production Woes and More
- Fri, 1:20 PM
- Season Two of 'Slow Horses' Now Streaming: How to Watch the Espionage Comedy on Apple TV+
- Fri, 12:59 PM
- Apple Releases New Betas for iPhone, iPad, Mac and More
- Fri, 12:32 PM
- Gurman: 'realityOS' for Apple's New Mixed-Reality Headset Changes Name to 'xrOS'
- Fri, 12:12 PM
- Apple's Emergency SOS Via Satellite Feature for iPhone 14 Saves A Stranded Man in Alaska
- Fri, 11:59 AM
- Coinbase Claims Apple 'Blocked Its Last' Wallet iOS App Release Following New Policy on NFTs
- Fri, 3:00 AM
- But Just Wait 14 Months - TMO Daily Observations 2022-12-02
- Thu, 4:51 PM
- Opening an Apple Card This Holiday Season Can Net 5% Back on Apple Purchases
- Thu, 3:13 PM
- Concerns in China and More On the Terrible Craziness That Is Twitter These Days
- Thu, 2:56 PM
- Google Doodle Allows Users to Create Their Own Game to Celebrate Life of Developer Jerry Lawson