Published in News

Tame Apple Press discovers that Macs are less secure than PCs

by on02 October 2017

But that means that Apple has been lying to us

Reporters at the International Business Times were shocked to discover that their Apple Macs, which they have been insisting were more secure than PCs, are actually a doddle to knock over.

After peddling a mantra that Apple were more secure than PCs because Apple said so, the poor IBT was forced to eat its words as it discovered that Jobs' Mob could not be bothered issuing firmware updates on its Macs.

The shortcomings in Apple’s security efforts were highlighted by researchers at secure authentication company Duo Security after the company analysed the essential, built-in software found in every device.

Duo looked under the bonnet of more than 73,000 Macs and found that 4.2 percent of the machines were not running the most up-to-date version of firmware available, leaving them at risk of attack.

More than two-in-five (43 percent) of the 21.5-inch iMac, released in 2015, were discovered to be running out of date firmware—a troubling number for a machine that isn’t even two years old.

In dealing with the issue, the IBT journalists decided that the problem could not be Apple, but its stupid users.

“Apple has taken to pushing out firmware updates in tandem with operating system updates in order to keep the built-in software as secure as possible—an effort that apparently fell short, in part because users often avoid software updates, which in turn means they are skipping the necessary firmware updates bundled with them”, it claimed.

”Apple continues to work diligently in the area of firmware security, and we’re always exploring ways to make our systems even more secure.”In order to provide a safer and more secure experience in this area, macOS High Sierra automatically validates Mac firmware weekly”, Apple told IBT.

So that is ok then, go back to bed Apple fanboys, you are still more secure than a PC.... if you believe Apple.

Last modified on 02 October 2017
Rate this item
(0 votes)

Read more about: