Not to mention apache would indicate a unix machine, more than likely run by a competent and technically skilled user – in other words a poor target for exploitation. Apache being 60% of the webserver market, when the webserver market is about 2% of internet connected machines (numbers made up, but seem reasonable to me) still means it’s a minority target. It’s not a valid comparison because even combined, IIS and Apache make for a tiny chunk of marketshare.

in this case, a microsoft product with a smaller user base has more exploits (if anyone has metrics on this, please post).

How come people don’t say the same thing about apache?Īpache runs more then 60% of web sites, but i’ve often read it is less vulnerable (especially a default install) then IIS. were put in the wild just last month, shouldn’t there be at least 40 equivelent OS X exploits? but there’s not. and because of things like lowered user permissions (even for the main user of the system), requiring elevated permissions to do anything that will affect more users then yourself, not allowing a web browser to execute arbitrary remote programs without user intervention, and not opening ports/services to the wild internet by default, you’re giving users a safer environment to start with.Īlmost 1000 windows worms/etc. I’m not saying OS X doesn’t have the ability to be plagued by spyware, i’m just saying it isn’t.

the user got what they deserved for downloading pirated software!Īll vulnerabilities to date have been discovered in safe environments, by security groups, etc, and, to the best of my knowledge, no known worms, viruses, etc that take advantage of these exploits have been found in the wild. the trojan floating around was software disguised to look like a pirated copy of office 2004. There has been at least one trojan for OS X in the news lately.

Apache spyware on mac