Does Apple need a Chief Security Officer?

Hmm, I have to admit that the more publicity that gets out there about the Mac and it's "security" the more it is going to attract the script kiddies. I suspect that we'll see some full blown virus/trojan attacks on OS X within the next year to year and a half, simply because so many people are saying "The Mac is invulnerable." Which is obviously not true.

The Virus writers won't let those kinds of challenges go unmet for long I am afraid :(

Yes, Apple should set up a whole new department to reassure people about security. They should call it the "Ministry of Truth."

The dumbest idea I've ever heard.

The Mac OS is all the proof anyone needs that Apple is dead serious about security. It reflects a level of awareness and concern that goes far deeper than any nominal C-level security czar could ever hope to convey.

If people just want to hear Apple come out and counter spurious rumours, a PR person to do that.

yes, I think it shows a commitment to security and keeping OS X one of the safest platform out there.

I would love to have that job, it sounds like it would be pretty cush, a dozen of crisis a year, a bunch of smoozing with the press, and all the Apple hardware you could ever use... Where can I submit my resume?

The last thing the Mac security team needs is some marketing bozo hovering over them. Apple does have a great security team working on Mac OS X. Definitely no.

I personally think that all this negative press is just defense attempts by the IT industry to fight for their job security. When CEOs and CFOs learn their CIO has been duping them in to buying crap hardware and software to give them temporary boosts in creditability, they will fire half of their IT division and make the rest switch to an easy to use platform with all the right usability built right in. I just laughed as hard as I could when I found out my old anti-Mac university blew 10 grand on a packet shaper system that doesn't work and does nothing more than the packet shaper program that comes with every copy of OS X Tiger Server for $999. The worst part is that they blew 10 grand on a hard to use Linux system (a whole 1U rack plus $9,000 wasted). Who thinks Linux is still "free?"

Yes they should. The Mac community arrogance around this, like "I never got one" is just begging to get a smackdown. I've never had a crushed skull either, but it wouldn't prevent me from getting one in the future.

Apple should hire me as their security guy. I can wear a big sombrero and sit outside an adobe hut next to the main campus, napping with my dog.

Patches? We don't need no steenking patches!

Without a doubt they should have one.

Apple is reaching a tipping point of adoption. The last thing they need are security woes. "Fast to act and not like microsoft" that's what we love about Apple isn't it?

This position/group can also handle the spin around rumors and uphold the strong sense of "security" the platform enjoys both for new users and those of us who have been around a while.

I'm a much bigger fan of the current strategy. Security is always in the mind of ALL the programmers designers, and that a program should be written from the ground up with security in mind. Make it secure out of the box, and require little in the way of later intervention to make it secure. Default denial is better than default permissiveness.

"While Apple VP of software technology Bud Tribble called the suggestion a "good idea," he said that Apple's approach was different -- that the company was hesistant to assign the responsibility of security to a single person, instead distributing the responsibility to all involved.

"For pretty much all the senior people at Apple, security is one of the top jobs on their list," Tribble told BusinessWeek. "When we think about security and how we design software, the basic approach is to make it as secure as possible, because most people really aren't security experts. We try to make sure things are pretty well locked down out of the box.""

In one word.... YES!!

In more than one word... If Apple were to do just what you said, it would definitely help there cause in getting people to switch. Though I don't think Apple thinks that it's worth their money now to have a security "spokesperson". To my knowledge, Apple is on top of their game with Security Updates, especially ones that are released in 2 weeks or less after a security issue is reported on the web.

I can't tell you how many people who are new to Mac at my company, and are afraid of spyware and viruses, and I have to tell them REPEATEDLY that they have nothing to worry about. Ughh...

Bloody oath!

Then he could fly down here to ZDNet Australia, sock them in the jaw, and ask them how long their Windows boxes would last on the internet with no security and remote users with SSH!! :-p