SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
ZDNet have put out a story claiming that, although Apple's walled-garden approach is not popular with everybody, it does appear to have prevented almost all malware from becoming prevalent on iOS. From the article:
Everyone knows there's no iOS malware, right? Strictly speaking, there is. As a practical matter, there isn't. At least if you stick with the official Apple store, you are more likely to win Powerball than to be hit by iOS malware.
But to make that "strictly speaking" point, FortiGuard Labs's Axelle Apvrille ("the Crypto Girl") felt it necessary to list all the iOS malware on record all 11 instances, eight of which work only on jailbroken phones.
[....]
It's not like iOS isn't an inviting target. There are zillions of devices out there and iOS customers have shown that they are willing to spend money on apps. And there absolutely are ways that iPhones can be attacked, although more likely through vulnerabilities, especially in Safari, than through malicious apps.
In fact, Apple's rules for what it will allow in its App Store are so strict that they effectively ban security software. It's a good thing there is next to no malware, because what you would need to do to block it on your phone is not permitted. Android, on the other hand, has a burgeoning market for security software and no shortage of malware.
Do you agree with this assessment?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 14 2014, @06:10PM
It is called a fitness test, system health check, and many other names. They have lists of known vendors because, well, how can you know what you don't know? Nothing is secure. Nothing ever has been. Security as a profession is all about mitigating risk. You complain about vendor whitelists while saying "They don't care about real security." Real security is not allowing anything anywhere near your system without knowing what it is. If you aren't on the list and don't pass the checks, you don't get on. It is rather frustrating to see people still whining about 'crap requirements' while saying that the people imposing those same requirements do not care about security. Why do you think those requirements exist? You are a 'physicsmajor' you would not expect someone in the IA field to know the nuances of yours, and likewise you do not know the nuances of security, or even what it is for that matter.