Quote Originally Posted by 'Vyndree',index.php?page=Thread&postID=153956#post 153956
You can scrap the 'security through obscurity' because that's something quite different.
Nobody said that OS X was safe, it's just that momentarily it's safer than Windows [insert version].
If your definition of "safety" is "likelihood of attack", I suppose that's accurate. What we're saying is that the "likelihood of attack" is directly related to the population size using that particular platform because of the quoted "security through obscurity" -- and that can change at any time so it shouldn't be considered reliable.
Indeed, that's what I meant: the likelihood of being attacked on system X.
Still I don't see how security through obscurity applies to this. The fact that you're not as likely to be attacked on OS X has nothing to do with a system where its owners believe that security flaws will not be discovered. However, it has everything to do with market importance and virus effectiveness.

So I guess we're in accord: Macs are less likely to be attacked AT THE MOMENT, but that statement should be taken with a grain of salt since we cannot predict the future popularity of various OS'es.
Yep. And for a while it should remain so. Even though the market share of OS X might be growing, it's still going to take a while to become big enough to become of interest for virus writers and script kiddies. And even if it gets that far, it's going to take even longer before a big enough virus threat that starts to compare with the current virus threat for Windows computers.

I mean, by the very statement "Switch to Macs, Macs are (at the moment) safer" you're undermining your (well, not yours since you don't use it) own security by attempting to gather a large population base. Technically, it's in your best interests of security to prevent people from adopting the Mac OS. ;) Amirite? hehe
Hahaha, that's absolutely true!