The real news is not that Apple won't remove malware, it's that Apple is apparently actively working to conceal the truth and perpetuate the Mac-selling legend that Macs cannot get viruses.
If you run "sudo rm -rld /*" on a Mac, it may not run so well either.
Of course, it may be a sign that more sophisticated malware (i.e. real viruses, and other stuff that actually exploits the Mac's vulnerabilities) will be on the way.
Once an OS has the attention of malware writers (even user-installed malware like this), real malware won't be far behind. Especially when you consider how much easier exploitation is on OS X than, say, Windows or Linux. It's 2011, but OS X still doesn't have useful ASLR -- supposed to be coming in 10.7, but it was also supposed to come in 10.6, so we'll see how that goes.
[citation needed]
It wasn't until Windows 7 that windows finally got a reasonable security approach. I don't know what install bases look like these days but most PCs I interact with are still on XP which is obviously not harder to exploit that OS X.
To you and to fellow readers of this site.
However to the average Joe, there is no difference between the terms "virus", "malware" and "my computer is now doing things that I don't like that I didn't want it to do and it's interfering with me using my computer and I can't stop it"
However, from a marketing point of view it's a lot harder to sell. Compare:
You can't get viruses on Mac.
with:
Using a Mac you are very unlikely to get a virus, and provided you don't download and install anything shady ad/spyware isn't a concern either.
The second statement is true of Macs today, and still presents an advantage over Windows, but "No viruses" is a much simpler message, and one it seems they are trying to keep (superficially) intact.
Well yes, but lately how are these drive-by installations happening? Mostly through holes in third-party software. My concern, as a Mac user, is that there's no fundamental reason it should be any harder to attack OS X this way; it's just that up until now Windows has been a vastly more profitable target. And that is changing.
If you're a careful and conscientious user I'd honestly say you're safer on Windows at this point, because Windows is used to being attacked. It's used to defending itself against this kind of threat. You have this ecosystem of powerful antivirus programs like MSE or AntiVir that update themselves constantly, and innumerable other third-party tools such as Secunia PSI as preventative measures, and these just don't really exist on OS X yet. Windows also yet has some exploit mitigation facilities that OS X lacks, such as ASLR and kernel patch protection.
It will be a while before OS X has developed such an ecosystem of its own, and we just have to hope the adjustment period won't be too painful.
nope. by the user running an installer when requested by a browser ad popup.
I agree that this is how most malware happens in general, but I was talking specifically about the subset of malware installations that are drive-by downloads, i.e. which are performed without user interaction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive-by_download
What I mean to say is that most of those are exploiting third-party software (Java, Adobe Flash and Reader) rather than Microsoft stuff these days.
And hopefully they never will. This is the stupidest possible way of protecting your computer. The proper solution is a more modern security system like SELinux instead of this outdated user/group/others approach.