backtop


Print 159 comment(s) - last by techhappy.. on Apr 29 at 7:50 PM


Apple users better stock up on protection, a new worm has been specifically tailored for Macs.  (Source: GameSpot)

Will the recent round of Mac viruses finally end the falsehood that Macs are immune to viruses, a message Apple is happy to perpetrate in its commercials?  (Source: CNN.com)
So much for Apple's being "immune" to viruses

A curious falsehood has surrounded Mac computers over the last decade, as they have resurged onto the market.  People believe that Macs are immune to the malware, viruses, and worms that have wrought havoc on PCs. 

In reality, OS X is not much more or less secure than Windows Vista -- rather it is Apple's small market share that has protected it.  Since Mac attacks would have to be custom-made, there just hasn't been much interest among Black Hats to attack them.  Kevin Haley, a director of security response at Symantec, states, "The bad guys generally go toward the biggest target, what will get them the biggest bang for their buck."

However, with surging market share and pop icon status, the Macs are suddenly finding themselves under attack.  On the heels of Apple's announcement that customers should get an antivirus program, Apple has been attacked by what are some calling OS X's first official trojan virus. The trojan, dubbed "iBotnet", has snuck its way into several thousand Macs.  The virus is written specifically for Mac computers and does not affect Windows machines.

The new virus infects users’ computers via pirated copies of Mac software iWork, which have been floating around P2P networks.  It was first reported in January, and unlike other viruses, like the Conficker worm, is relatively harmless due to the small number of infected machines (precluding effective denial of service attacks) and user role in infection.

States Paul Henry, a forensics and security analyst at Lumension Security in Arizona, "We all knew it was going to happen.  It was just a matter of time, and, personally, I think we're going to see a lot more of it."

While the new virus is the first to only target Macs, it’s not the first botnet to consist of some Mac machines.  Jose Nazario, a senior security researcher with Arbor Networks, states, "This isn't the first botnet that's been built using Mac computers.  This is an interesting one in that it's a little more flexible and includes some new features. ... It's getting a lot of press mostly because it's Mac and people are talking about how Macs are immune to malware -- and, sure enough, they're not."

In a statement, Apple responds, "Apple takes security very seriously and has a great track record of addressing potential vulnerabilities before they can affect users."

Macs today account for approximately 7.4 percent of consumer computers in the U.S., according to Gartner, a leading market research firm.  While, according to Gartner, these users on average are more affluent than PC owners, the unproven nature of Mac virus software (owing to their low market share in the 90s) has made Mac viruses still unexplored territory.  However, that looks to be changing, and given Apple's slow rate of patching, it could be in trouble in the near future, particularly with the prospect of Apple-specific worms hitting in the near future.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Finally.
By PhreakyMike on 4/23/2009 10:05:48 AM , Rating: 5
One myth down, 39 to go.




RE: Finally.
By the goat on 4/23/2009 10:17:57 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
One myth down, 39 to go.

Next can we tackle the myth that the abbreviation PC (personal computer) has anything to do with microsoft windows?

from the article:
quote:
People believe that Macs are immune to the malware, viruses, and worms that have wrought havoc on PCs

The abbreviation PC refers to the computer hardware architecture. It has nothing to do with the operating system (irregardless of how much advertising money microsoft dumps out).


RE: Finally.
By overcast on 4/23/2009 10:24:49 AM , Rating: 5
Now let's tackle imaginary words, starting with the double negative "irregardless".


RE: Finally.
By quiksilvr on 4/23/2009 11:32:21 AM , Rating: 5
Any person that says irregardless, a whole nother, or all of a sudden, shall be sent to a work camp!


RE: Finally.
By afkrotch on 4/23/2009 11:42:57 AM , Rating: 5
All of a sudden your irregardless opinion on a whole nother subject flawed.

:P


RE: Finally.
By quiksilvr on 4/23/2009 1:43:00 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Finally.
By LorKha on 4/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Finally.
By someguy123 on 4/23/2009 4:56:38 PM , Rating: 2
whats wrong with saying all of a sudden or a whole nother? they're just sayings....while irregardless is a double negative word that really shouldn't exist, but it's been added to the dictionary because idiots use it constantly.


RE: Finally.
By nixoofta on 4/24/2009 11:23:43 AM , Rating: 2
Supposably constantly,....:P


RE: Finally.
By callmeroy on 4/24/2009 8:38:20 AM , Rating: 1
Its funny you guys were reading my mind this time...before I scrolled down enough to see the comment about "irregardless" I was thinking the same exact thing. That word has always made me laugh, but the new one that is being used in funny ways is the word "and". As in I saw and cow. Instead of I saw an cow. I only really noticed heavy useage of that form of the word in the last few months -- first noticed it of all places in World of Warcraft chat channels. LOL....now I see folks using the word like that all over the place. I know it shouldn't bug me -- but God help me it does.


RE: Finally.
By overcast on 4/24/2009 10:24:50 AM , Rating: 3
NO, it's you "saw A cow", NOT "you saw AN cow". *smacks forehead"

AN precedes a vowel.
A precedes a consonant.


RE: Finally.
By callmeroy on 4/24/2009 12:08:23 PM , Rating: 2
You sir are correct....that is my flub, and I did notice it but too late after I posted it. The basis of my example still illustrates my point though.


RE: Finally.
By ebakke on 4/27/2009 10:21:10 AM , Rating: 3
Well technically 'an' precedes a vowel sound.


RE: Finally.
By quiksilvr on 4/29/2009 3:14:02 PM , Rating: 3
English sucks. It confusing just because it wants to be.


RE: Finally.
By Epaminondas on 4/29/2009 3:13:04 PM , Rating: 2
Beware Chinese trolls who make grammatical errors.


RE: Finally.
By HaB1971 on 4/23/2009 12:18:01 PM , Rating: 4
It would seem that the 'Keepers of the Words'(American version) would disagree with you.

from : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregard...

quote:
The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however


Yes the rest of the sentence does point you to use regardless instead and I chopped that bit out

So it can be used in scrabble.


RE: Finally.
By Karmakaze on 4/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: Finally.
By Epaminondas on 4/29/2009 3:11:04 PM , Rating: 1
Read The History of the Peloponnesian War(s). It's someone(s) PLAYBOOK. In the U.S., the Red Party is Blue, and the Blue Party is Red. Elsewhere, partisans are more upfront about who they are and what they are trying to accomplish. Confuse the language of the people you are trying to subdue, (who outnumber you). It's a classic tactic that worked for Sparta, China, Russia, Operation PUSH, etc.


RE: Finally.
By the goat on 4/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Finally.
By smackababy on 4/23/2009 2:13:41 PM , Rating: 3
Irregardless should mean "not regardless" and that is not how it is used. Irregardless should not be a word, regardless of the amount of idiots who claim it is. "I could care less" is another phrase that most people commonly use that makes no sense at all.


RE: Finally.
By thornburg on 4/23/2009 2:50:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
"I could care less" is another phrase that most people commonly use that makes no sense at all.


That's because people are lazy, and don't pay attention. It used to be "I couldn't care less", but guess that was one syllable too long...


RE: Finally.
By smackababy on 4/23/2009 3:12:27 PM , Rating: 2
It has nothing to do with lazy and more of stupidity. "I could care less" makes no sense. The ability to care less about something shouldn't have to be stated.


RE: Finally.
By pro5 on 4/24/2009 12:00:35 AM , Rating: 2
Glad you pointed that out. In the UK (where I am) we have and always will say 'I couldn't care less'.

Now in the US they all say 'I could care less' (from what I've seen), and it really annoys me because it made no sense. I'm glad you shed light on the fact that ONCE the US did say 'couldn't' but just shortened it around the time Maccy Ds came into being for the 'fast' mentality :)

this is not a pro UK/Anti US post - the UK has plenty of stupid stuff going on also and yes my post is probably full of errors but it's 5am here and I've not slept.

And yeah it's "regardless" always was always will be. The word people are suppose to use if not that, is "irrespective" - and I don't even care if I've got the spelling wrong on that or any of the rest of my post - just a heads up :)

And no online dictionary will ever make that word 'correct' (same goes for 'addicting' or 'funner').. what a load ;P


RE: Finally.
By croc on 4/23/2009 8:21:50 PM , Rating: 2
Really, I could care less. However, it's hard to imagine.


RE: Finally.
By Sulphademus on 4/27/09, Rating: 0
RE: Finally.
By TomZ on 4/23/2009 2:16:59 PM , Rating: 2
You must not have read the entry in your link, since it clearly suggests to "use regardless instead."

The "purposely used it" part was kind of funny, too. LOL.


RE: Finally.
By piroroadkill on 4/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Finally.
By SiliconDoc on 4/24/2009 1:40:41 AM , Rating: 2
The retards are successfully spamming up the Mac gets virally gouged thread to the glee of the apple eating butt kissing fanboy and fangirls glee.
I'm down to about post 30 and haven't seen a red apple chime in with their fud and bs yet, this is not right!
I demand some mac n apple bashing and some fanfreaks spewing out their lies, and soon !


RE: Finally.
By callmeroy on 4/24/2009 8:54:24 AM , Rating: 2
Apparently they did -- if you believe just because they relatively recently added it to the dictionary its now a valid word.

"Ain't" is technically a word then because it appears it some dictionaries.

My question is this -- what defines proper word useage ? Any old dictionary publisher or the rules of language and word useage built up over generations upon generations as a culture evolved.

Seems "cheesey" to me -- that a people's language that was built with structured rules on what words mean and how they are used over thought out processes during the length of many years is now to be undone in a single editorial re-write from a publisher.

IRREGARDLESS is not proper wording because Merriam says so.


RE: Finally.
By callmeroy on 4/24/2009 8:59:10 AM , Rating: 2
Btw, one thing I pride myself on is the fact I constantly laugh at myself .....as I typed up for others on word useage, I laugh at the how many darn typos and spelling errors I make (ie. typo = means you know how it should be but you fumble on the keys, spelling mistakes = you suck at spelling). Oh well at least one thing, I don't use words if I don't know the proper use or meaning of them.


RE: Finally.
By Karmakaze on 4/24/2009 7:16:17 PM , Rating: 2
No, you used it because you have a faulty understanding of the English language.

There is no such word as "irregardless" - even Merriam-Webster admits as much when they say it is a nonstandard form of "regardless" and that "Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance."

So is "supposebly" and "pasghetti" - and they aren't real words either. Spelling mistakes are NOT valid forms of the misspelled word!

In spoken language, "general acceptance" is the key to whether a word is "real" or not. If it is NOT generally accepted, does NOT mean what it is being used to mean, and is actually a mangling of a "real" word, then it is NOT a real word - it is and always will be a MANGLING of a real word.


RE: Finally.
By knutjb on 4/23/2009 8:05:20 PM , Rating: 2
I'm confused, does Microsoft dump money and if so where can I get it? Irregardless I want some!


RE: Finally.
By Spivonious on 4/23/2009 10:26:01 AM , Rating: 5
Did you seriously just use "irregardless"?

Go directly to school. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.


RE: Finally.
By jhb116 on 4/23/2009 10:29:23 AM , Rating: 5
True enough - however, in Apple's Mac/PC commercials doesn't Mac call the Windows rep PC all the time???


RE: Finally.
By SiliconDoc on 4/24/2009 2:19:14 AM , Rating: 2
Funny, although the maccies call the ibm'ers PC, the maccies have this most irritating PC mindset going on, like they are out to keep their little fantasy world in perfect mental harmony and have a fit if anyone points out the truth to them.
Macheads are totally, irritatingly, irrefutably, PC monsters of suppression and opression.
I know a machead who got in some internet sharing board, and was "endlessly fascinated by the way the a group could collude on the net in creating a piece of text".
Do any macheads play multi user games, while voice communicating in real time, and sharing text tips in the pop up windows available ? I mean do they have ANY idea what is out there, and has been for years?
I don't think they do.
They still have a macgasm from sharing a whiteboard online with someone else's app. Virginal man, and way behind the curve.


RE: Finally.
By Ratinator on 4/23/2009 11:35:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The abbreviation PC refers to the computer hardware architecture. It has nothing to do with the operating system (irregardless of how much advertising money microsoft dumps out).


Funny you would make a comment like this when Apple uses the term PC in their attack adds. Hello pot, this is kettle.


RE: Finally.
By omnicronx on 4/23/2009 4:28:10 PM , Rating: 2
Heh, don't know why you were rated down as Apple (not MS) starting using the term 'PC' for windows based machines.

Apple made the term 'PC' popular, I think its genius that Microsoft decided 'if they can't beat em, join em'. No need to come up with new marketing when your competitor does it for you. (For comparison they paid millions to some marketing company to come up with the name 'Zune')

PC is now a household name for Windows based machines (even if this is far from the truth)


RE: Finally.
By Karmakaze on 4/24/2009 7:30:59 PM , Rating: 2
"Heh, don't know why you were rated down as Apple (not MS) starting using the term 'PC' for windows based machines."

Actually, no.

In 1968, "Hewlett Packard advertised their "Powerful Computing Genie" as "The New Hewlett Packard 9100A personal computer"."

By 1975 the term had become standard so that "when Byte magazine published its first edition, it referred to its readers as "[in] the personal computing field"

So, once again Apple fans are claiming something for Apple that Apple was NOT responsible for.


RE: Finally.
By Epaminondas on 4/29/2009 2:50:26 PM , Rating: 2
So the blackhats could be Linux users, for example.


RE: Finally.
By Epaminondas on 4/29/2009 3:23:03 PM , Rating: 2
So, the black hats could be using a different OS, say Linux, for example.


RE: Finally.
By Epaminondas on 4/29/2009 3:56:31 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry for the double post.

It wouldn't make any sense, in the short-run, for Lenovo to attack PCs, because most Lenovo computers would use a Microsoft OS.

For the record, if I make any grammatical errors, I am not a Chinese lurker. OR AM I?? LOL

We ARE being played, though. "Oligarchs and kings do not trust the people, so they seek to disarm them." The leaders of the 13 Original states ALSO read Thucydides. That is why they insisted that The Bill of Rights, (including the 2nd Amendment), be packaged together with the U.S. Constitution.


RE: Finally.
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/23/2009 10:26:58 AM , Rating: 5
Mac: "Hi I'm a Mac"
PC: "And I'm a PC"
Mac: "Hey, PC did I show you my cool new photo program... UGHHHH OH GOD!! I FEEL LIKE MY INSIDES ARE ABOUT TO EXPLODE!!!"
PC: "Mac? Are you feeling okay??"
Mac: (says nothing and collapses)
PC: (Pulls out Mac's emergency card from his wallet. In case of fire... call 911... in case of malfunctioning graphics... call 911... in case of antivius... *reads* Ha ha ha I don't get antivirus)
PC: "Well I guess I'm not sure what do..." *walks off*
Mac: *dies*


RE: Finally.
By Hieyeck on 4/23/2009 1:03:09 PM , Rating: 3
Haha, I wonder if you can 6 yourself :P


RE: Finally.
By grandpope on 4/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Finally.
By grandpope on 4/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Finally.
By omnicronx on 4/23/2009 4:33:54 PM , Rating: 2
Because his entire post which was obviously a joke was suppose to be 100% factual...


RE: Finally.
By wetwareinterface on 4/26/2009 10:55:49 AM , Rating: 1
last i checked this virus is also imbedded in photoshop cs4, which is why his joke is relevant.

the original article here on DT failed to mention that though.
funny how i have read this same news story on 4 other sites already and those did mention photoshop...


RE: Finally.
By wetwareinterface on 4/26/2009 10:58:03 AM , Rating: 2
wtf, i posted my comment and got rated down to a 1 in like 1 second? auto rate down bots on DT? literally while the page refreshed (which took around 1 second) after i clicked post i was already rated down to a 1.


RE: Finally.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/27/2009 10:16:33 AM , Rating: 3
Replying to a -1 post causes your post to subtract 1. It's a penalty for feeding the trolls. :P


RE: Finally.
By FITCamaro on 4/23/2009 1:22:41 PM , Rating: 2
God I'd love that.


RE: Finally.
By themaster08 on 4/24/2009 3:42:39 AM , Rating: 3
Hahaha. Brilliant.


RE: Finally.
By fibbeh on 4/23/2009 11:32:06 AM , Rating: 5
From an actual reliable site:
http://www.osnews.com/story/21331/First_Mac_Botnet...

quote:
Since we're talking trojans here, there's no need to worry about self-replication, as it's incapable of doing that.


IT'S NOT A WORM. Please DailyTech, please quit posting TITLES that aren't even true. I've never owned a Mac and I never plan to, but I hate disinformation.

There's a HUGE difference between a trojan and a worm.


RE: Finally.
By kattanna on 4/23/2009 11:42:49 AM , Rating: 4
all you need to know is who posted this article and it explains everything about all the inaccuracies.


RE: Finally.
By msheredy on 4/23/2009 11:43:05 AM , Rating: 2
I can't stand it either when titles are misleading such as this. To date I don't recall any true viruses for the Mac at all. All of these recent "attacks" are just scripts written to perform "malware" type actions. Is this really a "virus"—nope.


RE: Finally.
By amanojaku on 4/23/2009 8:28:11 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
There's a HUGE difference between a trojan and a worm.
Women everywhere agree.


RE: Finally.
By wetwareinterface on 4/26/2009 10:53:17 AM , Rating: 2
actually you are mistaken in what a worm is.
a worm is a piece of malware code capable of self replication. it's attack vector having to be user initiated or execution vulnerability based is IRREGARDLESS of it's status of being a worm. if the virus offers a copy of itself to an outside source it is then a worm and not simply a trojan. whether it copies itself to a floppy or creates a tcp port and waits for a download request it's still a worm. a trojan is a type of worm or non-self replicating virus that relies on a user's interest in the host code it hides in to request it. a simple trojan is a virus hiding in code that does not make a copy of itself once it has infected the host. a worm makes a copy of itself available to others to download. a trojan worm makes a copy of itself and the host code available for download.

in this case one of the first things this worm does is get updates for itself then creates a p2p client and makes itself available as a share. that's a worm.

and as to being a huge difference between a trojan and a worm. that's like saying (forgive the car anaolgy but in this case it applies) there's a huge difference between a car and a honda. sure honda makes non cars too but honda is also at the same time a type of car.


RE: Finally.
By fibbeh on 4/23/2009 11:35:45 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
...Apple has been attacked by what are some calling OS X's first official worm. ...


From the CNN article that you link to in this quote:
quote:
The harmful software is a Trojan horse, meaning it tries to sneak into the computer with some sort of permission from the user. Computer worms travel differently. They wiggle their way into computers and replicate without the owner's approval or knowledge.


At least READ YOUR SOURCES.


RE: Finally.
By pro5 on 4/24/2009 12:03:11 AM , Rating: 2
And in regards to the story.. HA FKIN HA.. those smug Mac daddys will finally realise that the majority of Window's problems were due to it being popular - now that their 'kiddy' OS is also becoming popular it will follow much the same process of berating and scorn..

and about time, the badge snob fools had it coming to them.


It's not really a worm, just malware.
By EarthsDM on 4/23/2009 11:02:07 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
A computer worm is a self-replicating computer program. It uses a network to send copies of itself to other nodes (computers on the network) and it may do so without any user intervention. Unlike a virus, it does not need to attach itself to an existing program.

- Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_worm ), on April 23, 2009, 11:00 AM

This virus isn't a worm because it requires the user to download it. Also, the user has to enter his or her admin password to install the worm.

I try to stay out of Mac-Windows flamewars, but this really isn't the kind of security threat to get worked up over.




RE: It's not really a worm, just malware.
By Yawgm0th on 4/23/2009 12:00:44 PM , Rating: 3
It looks like you beat me to it.

Honestly, I don't have it out for Jason and I even like some of his articles. But... I mean... C'mon.

How can someone write a blog or article relating to information security without understanding the difference between a Trojan and a worm? The terms "Trojan" and "worm" exist specifically so laypeople can easily understand the differences.


By Yawgm0th on 4/23/2009 1:00:20 PM , Rating: 2
I see the changes. That's a little better, Jason, but...
quote:
While the new worm is the first to only target Macs,


By sprockkets on 4/23/2009 12:19:53 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but seeing as how this would not be unexpected when installing a pirated ilife, that detail is irrelevant. All those that did it were expecting ilife, and not a trojan with it. Mac users should wake up and know that their fellow mac users are not all knights in shining armor anymore.

Oh, and btw, I found the firewall disabled on a macbook, and I'm pretty sure she would never know how to disable it, seeing as how buried the settings are for it. That's a stupid policy for security.


RE: It's not really a worm, just malware.
By Hieyeck on 4/23/2009 1:08:57 PM , Rating: 2
You assume most mac users are smart.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/27/2009 10:20:30 AM , Rating: 3
Given that they purchased a Mac in the first place I think we can safely rule that out.


By cochy on 4/23/2009 1:28:16 PM , Rating: 3
Well now that we are getting super technical. The title has been changed to "Trojan Virus"

Which is still incorrect. Trojan Horses are not computer viruses, just a form of malware, for which there are many types.

"Viruses are sometimes confused with computer worms and Trojan horses, which are technically different."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_viruses


By gmljosea on 4/23/2009 3:07:05 PM , Rating: 2
Well, if any little malware written for Mac gets this kind of publicity, I'm sure somebody will actually bother making a Mac worm.


RE: It's not really a worm, just malware.
By omnicronx on 4/23/2009 4:45:10 PM , Rating: 2
Really.. people should stop considering wikipedia as 'proof'. Take that quote and put 'can' in front of every sentence and maybe it would be correct. A worm does not have to attach itself to a file, but it can.

In the end worms are just another form of malware, they just have the ability to spread far more easily.

While worms usually use a network to copy itself to other nodes (i.e to spread), the point of entry is usually by a downloaded file (from an email attachment, download, usb key etc)

Blaster for example was spread by infected files, and then replicated through networks after infecting a workstation or server. It didnt just appear from nowhere over the internet.


By sprockkets on 4/23/2009 5:27:34 PM , Rating: 3
No, it didn't, it spread by a rpc vulnerability in DCOM, and like any real virus, tricked it into running and spreading. It DID come from "nowhere" on the internet, and spread simply by having unpatched and unfirewalled xp computers on, which at the time was about everyone since the firewall was turned off by default (unless you used dial up or dsl style connections, in which case the stupid broadjump software for SBC disabled the firewall because they are stupid) and most never bothered to keep their pcs up to date. And since DCOM used to run with system privileges in the background all the time, millions were infected.

The port it used to spread is no longer allowed traffic on just about all isps, unless you ask to opt out or have a business level service.


Let's stick to the skipped FACT here
By mydogfarted on 4/23/2009 11:55:42 AM , Rating: 4
The one part that no one is talking about is that this comes from PIRATED software that a user is installing. Like Windows users never get viruses/trojans/worms from crappy torrents/etc. How is this Apple or OSX's fault? Its not.

Steal enough of anything, eventually you'll get screwed.




RE: Let's stick to the skipped FACT here
By Helbore on 4/23/2009 2:19:29 PM , Rating: 5
Just like its not Microsoft or Windows fault if their users go on dodgy websites and run dodgy software downloads.

But try telling that to Apple's marketing department.


RE: Let's stick to the skipped FACT here
By BZDTemp on 4/23/2009 7:19:53 PM , Rating: 1
There is difference between an Admin-rights user having to approve installing the software by entering his/hers password which is what happen on OS X. Or as it is on Windows with the software installing without any questions (as on XP and older) or by having the user clicking OK (which is an auto response for any Vista user).

Windows can be safe but by default it is not. With OS X it is safe by default and making it unsafe is not something a normal user needs to do.


By SoCalBoomer on 4/23/2009 7:30:30 PM , Rating: 2
This ends up getting debunked over and over - a single click (w/o password) is what got the Mac hacked at Pwn2Own and it's likely that this is what happened here as well.

It's an exploit when it takes advantage of the system.

I tell students that it is the right fore-finger that is the single biggest weakness of computers - NOT the OS, NOT the computer. . .it's the user downloading, clicking on something.

In this case, it's a pirated piece of software on a Mac. Welcome to the club!


By sprockkets on 4/23/2009 10:48:27 PM , Rating: 2
Sticking in the admin password you know on your own computer vs. giving the same rights via a click - what's the difference? NONE.

And btw, I was able to install FireFox on OSX without any admin password. I needed it to add a printer via cups in the FireFox browser though.


RE: Let's stick to the skipped FACT here
By Helbore on 4/24/2009 6:04:59 AM , Rating: 3
I'm sorry but you lost all credibility when you blamed Vista for idiot users recklessly ignoring UAC prompts.

Those prompts are the OS making sure nasty software cannot automatically run on the system. If the user is smart, they are also running under a restricted user account (instead of working on a full-admin account), in which case UAC also requires you to enter an admin username and password - and not just click on OK button.

At the risk of repeating myself again, you cannot blame the OS ir its software house for the idiocy of users. Someone installing malware on Vista - because they stupidly ignore random UAC prompts - is no different than someone installing malware on OSX. Both could be avoided. Both have their security breached by the idiots sitting at the keyboards.


By inighthawki on 4/24/2009 7:39:37 AM , Rating: 2
I think requiring a password at every prompt is a bit excessive, especially in vista where the prompt comes up a lot more than in 7, but you are essentially right. The user should however read what they are allowing and if they do there really shouldnt be any problems.


By Durrr on 4/23/2009 8:55:04 PM , Rating: 3
Here's the REAL solution to the problem of dodgy software installations.

http://www.dumbentia.com/pdflib/stupida.pdf


Hey Pirks !
By Reclaimer77 on 4/23/2009 10:03:03 AM , Rating: 5
Where's your god now !!??? :P




RE: Hey Pirks !
By marvdmartian on 4/23/2009 10:13:48 AM , Rating: 3
Deworming, perhaps??

BTW, does anyone know what's worse than biting into an apple and finding a worm??

Finding half a worm!!! ;)


RE: Hey Pirks !
By spuddyt on 4/23/2009 10:55:28 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, I find strawberries substantially worse, particularly when the creature then decided to wave at me XD


RE: Hey Pirks !
By HaB1971 on 4/23/2009 12:22:55 PM , Rating: 4
<Insert image of Steve Jobs bare butt shuffling across a carpet trying to scratch those worms here>.

Yes I know it's a trojan and not a worm, the image would be disturbingly funny though.


RE: Hey Pirks !
By nixoofta on 4/23/2009 10:39:35 PM , Rating: 2
Actually,...if you think about it,...Jobs scootin' across the floor with a trojan dangling from his butt is pretty easy to imagine too. :P


RE: Hey Pirks !
By DrRockzo on 4/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hey Pirks !
By Pirks on 4/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hey Pirks !
By croc on 4/23/2009 8:41:04 PM , Rating: 1
Well, now we finally know.... MAC users are thieves AND liars. MACs really do need AV software. I hope the resulting botnet only attacks MACs...


RE: Hey Pirks !
By Pirks on 4/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hey Pirks !
By themaster08 on 4/24/2009 3:50:55 AM , Rating: 1
"LIES! LIES! IT'S ALL LIES! :'("

I'm sure you'll find the truth one day :), just keep lookin', kid.


RE: Hey Pirks !
By Pirks on 4/24/2009 4:04:34 PM , Rating: 1
Just keep trollin', troll.


Security
By TomZ on 4/23/2009 10:07:06 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
In reality, OS X is not much more or less secure than Windows Vista
I think the answer to that question is "less." After all, Windows has been the target of malware for many years now and has had tons of security patches applied.

In addition, Vista got "the security treatment" as part of Microsoft's security initiative and very vigorous security development lifecycle. Apple hasn't publicly disclosed going through anything similar, and frankly, they haven't had the need for it yet.

Bottom line, the two are not even in the same ballpark as far as security is concerned. Security is going to be one of Apple's major growing pains in the next 5-10 years.




RE: Security
By Pirks on 4/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Security
By amandahugnkiss on 4/23/2009 4:09:41 PM , Rating: 5
What FUD are you talking about? It is a fairly common thought in the tech and security industry that MS has pretty much set the bar for how to handle security threats. The system they have in place is one of the best around, it has been beaten to death and revised over time as Windows has been the number one target. The phrase 'What doesn't kill you makes you stronger' kinda fits here. Apple does not have such a system in place and would require several years to get one in place that is up to par. This is not speaking of the public perception that screams everytime they hear 'Security' and 'Microsoft' together, that is driven by FUD and poor media.


RE: Security
By Pirks on 4/23/2009 5:23:10 PM , Rating: 1
I'm talking about FUD like "Macs will get huge mass infections just like Windows, this is inevitable!".

The last time I checked TomZ was not a prophet or psychic, hence it's FUD, clear and simple.


RE: Security
By BBeltrami on 4/23/2009 7:18:53 PM , Rating: 4
Your problem is that TomZ's points are valid and he is not alone in his assertion. From the article:
quote:
States Paul Henry, a forensics and security analyst at Lumension Security in Arizona, "We all knew it was going to happen. It was just a matter of time, and, personally, I think we're going to see a lot more of it."

This doesn't seem unreasonable.

On the other hand, your post exaggerates the OP's statement simultaneously taking a dig at MS, it twists reality, it slings mud, it derails the logic train, and reiterates your man-crush on TomZ.... all in two sentences.

Now THAT's entertainment!


RE: Security
By Pirks on 4/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Security
By themaster08 on 4/24/2009 4:00:01 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, because Mac users are stupid enough to actually pay for antivirus programs.


RE: Security
By Pirks on 4/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: Security
By themaster08 on 4/24/2009 4:40:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Some of them are indeed. But not a lot, fortunately.

This is true, due to the fact the vast majority are even more stupid enough to think they're completely immune to malware, as callously advertised.


RE: Security
By Pirks on 4/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: Security
By webstorm1 on 4/24/2009 9:51:21 AM , Rating: 2
Can you hear anything with your head buried in the sand?


RE: Security
By Pirks on 4/24/09, Rating: -1
MACSIMUM ARMOR
By Crazyeyeskillah on 4/23/2009 10:14:52 AM , Rating: 1
oh wait. . .can i even play crysis on a mac?




RE: MACSIMUM ARMOR
By StevoLincolnite on 4/23/2009 10:20:32 AM , Rating: 2
Yes but you will need to use bootcamp, however most Mac's don't have decent 3D Graphics hardware anyhow.


RE: MACSIMUM ARMOR
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/23/2009 10:47:54 AM , Rating: 4
Should read, has good 3D hardware, but you'll have to pay ridiculously inflated prices to get it ... (e.g. MacBook Pro 17" or Mac Pro)


RE: MACSIMUM ARMOR
By afkrotch on 4/23/2009 11:52:46 AM , Rating: 1
That's really subjective. Some would say good, while others would not.

I lean towards the latter. They have decent, but not good.


RE: MACSIMUM ARMOR
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/23/2009 12:39:20 PM , Rating: 4
I would call 4xNvidia GeForce GT 120 (512 MB) and 2xQuad core 2.93GHz Intel Xeon processors "pretty good graphics". (Fully loaded Mac Pro tower) Yes, the Nvidia graphics are rebranded 9 series, and a set of 8800 ultras/GTS 2xx series cards in SLI or a pair of crossfired ATI/AMD 4870x2's would be *better*, but in all honesty, the offered graphics should be pretty darn good still.

However we're now talking $6,350 for it. That is *ridiculously* overpriced. See my point?


RE: MACSIMUM ARMOR
By Johnmcl7 on 4/25/2009 7:25:05 PM , Rating: 2
Since when did a Macbook Pro 17in have decent 3D hardware? The Apple site only shows a 9600m which is weaker than you can have in a 15.4in machine never mind a 17in laptop.


RE: MACSIMUM ARMOR
By DeepBlue1975 on 4/23/2009 10:58:31 AM , Rating: 2
No. You'll just to settle for software Crysis.

The good thing is that finally Mac's market started "worming up".


Goes to show...
By Tegrat on 4/23/2009 10:32:36 AM , Rating: 3
You can still be killed driving a Volvo...




RE: Goes to show...
By TomZ on 4/23/2009 10:37:23 AM , Rating: 2
Volvo's safety image is pretty similar to Apple's security image - both are fictional.


RE: Goes to show...
By kyleb2112 on 4/24/2009 1:47:18 AM , Rating: 2
Bad comparison. Volvos may not be much safer than comparably priced cars now, but you gotta give them credit for being huge innovators in the field. Macs, on the other hand, have never been tested. They're the immunity-challenged bubble boy of the computing world.


Not a Worm
By JMS3072 on 4/23/2009 10:53:44 AM , Rating: 2
My God, check the definition of a worm before blatantly posting raving drivel! The iWork trojan is NOT a worm. A worm is self-progogating, and grows its host population without user intervention. The iWork trojan could not be deemed to do this by ANY reasonable person who actually checks the facts! A few idiots torrented pirated software that had been modified to include a Trojan. They gave that software administrative access to the system by typing their root password into the box giving the installer access to the system! Simple solution: Practice safe computing, and DON'T PIRATE. Pirated software is KNOWN to often include viruses. Get a grip, this is a case of a few people being stupid. In a sense, it's no difference than turning your remote desktop server on and broadcasting your credentials to the Web! Is it Apple's fault that people are stupid? Nope. I personally think that people who are dumb enough to do this (and scummy enough to pirate software in the first place) deserve whatever they get. Don't pirate. If you can't afford proprietary software, use open source. One of the huge advantages of Open Soure software is that it's basically impossible to insert malicious code into, due to the large community checking for problems in the codebase.

I do find it somewhat ironic that this hack of OS X was accomplished using a pirated version of Apple software.




RE: Not a Worm
By TomZ on 4/23/2009 11:11:19 AM , Rating: 2
But saying that Apple has Worms makes for more interesting headlines and copy!


RE: Not a Worm
By jgigz on 4/23/2009 12:14:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is it Apple's fault that people are stupid?

Nope, but they certainly like to tailor their products for them . . .


Hold On
By Yawgm0th on 4/23/2009 11:54:56 AM , Rating: 2
While I'm all for dispelling the myth of Mac's being secure...
quote:
The new virus infects users’ computers via pirated copies of Mac software iWork, which have been floating around P2P networks.
It's not a true if it requires users download pirated software over P2P. I could write a virus for Mac right now and put it on a P2P network. They would have to execute it themselves, but can I call it a worm for fun?

Of course I JUST read the original article, which more accurately designates this as a Trojan. Some variant of the word "worm" appears seven times in this article, but this is not a worm. There is no remote exploit here, which makes the article less newsworthy and (more importantly) inaccurate.




RE: Hold On
By Yawgm0th on 4/23/2009 1:41:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's not a true worm if
Fixed. I guess I decided to exclude the word that so offended me.


5 Tips for Reading Mac Security Stories
By KeithP on 4/23/2009 2:19:48 PM , Rating: 1
Courtesy of tidbits.com

http://db.tidbits.com/article/10218

-KeithP




By TomZ on 4/23/2009 2:23:31 PM , Rating: 3
I'm sure that article gives you a lot of comfort. But what you don't seem to understand is that Apple gets in the press a lot for security issues mainly because they themselves claim, through their advertising, that they are somehow exempt from malware. It's that obviously false and arrogant claim that people are reacting to.

KeithP, you should meet up with Pirks. He's our most "popular" Apple apologist here on this site.


Survival of the Fittest
By grandpope on 4/23/2009 4:27:41 PM , Rating: 4
What I can't understand is why somebody would torrent iWork in the first place?
It would be like seeing a ferarri and a yugo idling on the roadside and stealing the yugo.




Not a worm
By curse on 4/23/2009 10:49:41 AM , Rating: 3
Just a clarification, this is not a virus or a worm, this is a Trojan, since the malware can't spread on its own (it is attached to an existing installation.) Not saying it can't happen on a Mac, but we should keep our terms straight. Trojans are easy to create. Self-spreading malware is slightly more challenging.




By jabber on 4/23/2009 10:56:16 AM , Rating: 2
...after all if you are going for 'best bang for your botnet buck' then surely the small but perfectly funded Mac user population are a prime target.

After all, they have little/no add on security, they wont expect/suspect it, and have more money than sense.

In a few months time could be like shooting fish in a barrel.




Perpetuate, not perpetrate.
By Ordr on 4/23/2009 10:59:40 AM , Rating: 2
Check the caption.




By hmurchison on 4/23/2009 11:39:02 AM , Rating: 2
Unless you have some sort of app checking deep into every file. Thus the argument cannot be Mac vs PC because it's a user issue. Downloading files from potentially illegit places.

Windows has improved greatly and Mac users certainly do not think they're immune to things like this.




hmmm
By espress0 on 4/23/2009 12:20:42 PM , Rating: 2
You have to actually install a pirated copy of iwork to get this. So if you aren't stealing then you won't get a worm. However I will definitely put avg on my mac when it comes out.




Silver lining for Apple
By grandpope on 4/23/2009 1:14:41 PM , Rating: 2
Now the new Apple commercials can claim that they are in the big time! They have a virus! They are a sombody! Woot!!




GET IT RIGHT
By Shadowself on 4/23/2009 2:19:34 PM , Rating: 2
First: this is NOT the first Trojan in the wild for Mac OS X. It is the fourth or fifth that I have heard of -- there may have been even more that I haven't hear of. The first happened back in 2002 or so.

Second: this is a Trojan. This is NOT a "Trojan Virus". There is no such kind of malware. This is a Trojan, plain and simple. It takes an intentional act of installation by the user for it to get onto the computer.

Third: the infected systems were compromised because the users were stupid enough to intentionally install pirated software onto their systems. 100% of the machines reported as infected have installed pirated software. If you install pirated software onto your system you deserve whatever you get. Want to avoid this trojan? Don't install pirated software.

Fourth: absolutely no operating system can protect itself from a user intentionally installing bad software. If the user is stupid enough to install the software -- even giving the administrative password in the process -- then there is nothing the operating system can do to prevent it.




Definition time!
By Magnus Dredd on 4/23/2009 4:36:23 PM , Rating: 2
A Trojan is not necessarily a virus.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=virus
S: (n) virus, computer virus (a software program capable of reproducing itself and usually capable of causing great harm to files or other programs on the same computer) "a true virus cannot spread to another computer without human assistance"

A Trojan is a something that pretends to be something else in order to trick a user into executing/installing it.

A virus, like the floppy boot sector viruses of the past, do not require the user to run a program in order to infect the computer. Just visiting a web site, or accessing the drive they're on is enough for them to infect your machine.

-----

The Trojan in question does not replicate. It is not a virus.

For the record, a Worm is a virus that replicates across a network (generally IP based)

At some point there will be a working virus for OSX. I have played with a few of the supposed viruses for OSX, and couldn't get them to work without entering in an admin password... A real virus can infect without authentication.

Also Linux has fewer machines in use, but has had a fair share of viruses. The Ramen worm to name one.

I'm not sure why there aren't more OSX viruses, but it's not just about market-share (otherwise there'd be more than on Linux). I think it has more to do with how much they cost.




By SiliconDoc on 4/24/2009 2:06:16 AM , Rating: 2
I've gone through the whole list of spewful postings, and should have realized when "irregardless" was the topic of conversation that the Mac attack had failed.
I see down through the entire list not a single post that lists the endless number of Mac viruses, and therefore the LACK of a real butt whoopin' in that area settles the score 100%.
I conclude the Mac whacking is much like the ati fanboy set that tells a thousand lies a day against nvidia to promote their red rooster fanfreak card that is mired in billion dollar a year losses.
It appears the hatred of Mac heads in this area is another case of sourpussed lording it over the clear winner. It is in this area, worse than the lies of ati fanboys, as it appears the hatred is nowhere near defensible, and the post leave the clear impression that for the most part, Macs do not have viral and infection problems to speak of.
MAC WINS !
( that doesn't mean overall, but in this specific case, the raging PC crowd is getting irregular, regardless. )
Nice try pc fanboy and fangirls, but you got STOMPED.




Headline = fail
By tjoynt on 4/24/2009 5:31:13 AM , Rating: 2
Your headline is misleading. The article itself says,
quote:
Jose Nazario, a senior security researcher with Arbor Networks, states, "This isn't the first botnet that's been built using Mac computers.


So, um... fix it or something.




Apple is NOT fool-proof . . .
By blueboy09 on 4/26/2009 3:32:43 AM , Rating: 2
Come on guys, you had to see this coming a mile away. It was only a matter of time before Apple get shafted in this category. As the old saying goes, "Too much pride presides before a crash." - BLUEBOY




Congrats!
By vkeser on 4/26/2009 12:19:41 PM , Rating: 2
Congratulations to Apple users...




Top Picture
By techhappy on 4/29/2009 7:50:42 PM , Rating: 2
Am I only one who thought the top picture in this article is hilarious and bit over the top?




Daily Tech is really straining its credibility
By KeithP on 4/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Daily Tech is really straining its credibility
By TomZ on 4/23/2009 2:19:52 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Please prove me wrong on this, but I don't think I ever seen any credible source, no matter how much a OS X fanboy they are, say that OS X is "immune" from malware
One in the latest Mac ads stated again Macs don't get viruses. This was just in the news a couple days ago.

http://www.dailytech.com/Ad+Wars+Apple+Fights+Back...

Nice try, fanboy. :o)


RE: Daily Tech is really straining its credibility
By Pirks on 4/23/2009 8:10:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, they don't get viruses if they don't pirate warez, which is true for vast majority of Mac users. So the ad conveys a valid point here. After all the ad was not targeted at pirates and warez leechers.


By amanojaku on 4/23/2009 8:40:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, they don't get viruses if they don't pirate warez
That's not true and you know it. A lot of websites are hacked these days to load up malicious code with the normal pages so every visitor is at risk of being compromised. That's the most efficient way to spread an exploit; pirates are a small minority, even on today's Internet. Besides, anti-virus software is efficient at detecting exploits in warez, even things that have yet to be identified.


By Pirks on 4/23/2009 10:10:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A lot of websites are hacked these days to load up malicious code
Windows specific malicious code, not the Mac specific one.


By themaster08 on 4/24/2009 4:22:15 AM , Rating: 2
Regardless to where the malware came from, it's there. Isn't that the whole point?

The more Apple callously spout their so-called "immunities" to malware, the more likely people will be willing to test it.

Apple is digging it's own grave.


RE: Daily Tech is really straining its credibility
By Pirks on 4/24/2009 3:51:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Regardless to where the malware came from, it's there
Yeah, I see it in the news and in Winzealots' posts here. It's there indeed.
quote:
Apple is digging it's own grave
Hello FUD tank #3


By themaster08 on 4/24/2009 5:09:50 PM , Rating: 2
The only FUD I see on these articles (or not if I dont click the "+" tab) are the posts that people so kindly rate down to -1 to prevent the rest of us from wasting our time reading.

Namely about 90% of your posts.


RE: Daily Tech is really straining its credibility
By Pirks on 4/24/09, Rating: 0
By themaster08 on 4/24/2009 6:01:39 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Are your really proud of all those downrating idiots who're too dumb to understand my posts?

Or perhaps you're too dumb and to understand that your posts are nothing but crap to those that know better.
Besides that, your bigoted attitude is not particularly appealing.


Too much.
By Rabelais on 4/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Too much.
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/23/2009 10:58:01 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
We're not really talking about the same thing between this iBotnet joke and the conficker worm.


From the article:
quote:
It was first reported in January, and unlike other worms, like the Conficker worm, is relatively harmless due to the small number of infected machines (precluding effective denial of service attacks).


quote:
Fact is there hasn't been any single virus counted for OS X up to now.


Incorrect, there HAVE been OS X-specific viruses. Follow the links to stories we ran this fall to find out the details, if you honestly didn't know this.

quote:
Mac OS X is written on Unix bases, which are solid, but also far easier to get to know since the core is documented for everyone to see on the net, Windows on the other hand is mostly closed, proprietary software which should render it far more difficult to find holes and bugs


Macs aren't closed? Are you familiar with Apple at all?? Apple practices a very tight policy when it comes to its code base. I think you have it confused with *Linux*.

quote:
Last thing, in the article wou say Apple is slow to patch, well justify it please. Slow compared to what? Apple publishes updates regularly for their systems (4-5 times a year usually) and they issue security patches as soon as they get them ready and tested.


Several security research firms have criticized Apple for leaving critical and serious vulnerabilities unpatched for long periods of time. If you search DailyTech you should find some articles about patching, which include info on research which indicates that OS X is being patched far slower than Windows Vista.

You are entirely missing the point in your blind Mac/Apple devotion. Sure Apples/Macs are decent systems, I never said they were broken (as Apple's ads seem to infer about PCs). HOWEVER, they're by no means bulletproof, and they're ridiculously expensive, though they come in pretty cases and form factors.

When it comes down to it the ONLY reason Macs have been less attacked than Windows Vista/XP boxes is because up until a couple years ago Macs had virtually no marketshare. Virus programmers aren't entirely stupid -- they know that there's no point to target 1 percent of the market when you can instead target 97 percent.


RE: Too much.
By TomZ on 4/23/2009 11:10:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sure Apples/Macs are decent systems, I never said they were broken (as Apple's ads seem to infer about PCs). HOWEVER, they're by no means bulletproof, and they're ridiculously expensive, though they come in pretty cases and form factors.
We welcome you since you have turned away from the Dark Side. :o)


RE: Too much.
By Yawgm0th on 4/23/2009 12:09:56 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Macs aren't closed? Are you familiar with Apple at all?? Apple practices a very tight policy when it comes to its code base. I think you have it confused with *Linux*.

I hate to quote Wikipedia, especially for something that's common knowledge, but the opening line is so well phrased.
quote:
Darwin is an open source POSIX-compliant computer operating system released by Apple Inc.
And I'm sure you are aware:
quote:
Darwin forms the core set of components upon which Mac OS X and iPhone OS are based.


Apple has relatively accessible APIs and the kernel is open source. It's not open on the level of Linux, OpenBSD, or FreeBSD, but it's relatively open.

I don't disagree with the point you're making in the post, but it is inaccurate at best to say that Macs are "closed".


RE: Too much.
By Hieyeck on 4/23/2009 1:13:11 PM , Rating: 3
Both wrong, yet both right. Simply put, Apple is fairly closed on the software it writes on a fairly open kernel/system.


RE: Too much.
By TomZ on 4/23/2009 1:50:31 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention the OS is closed in that it only runs on Apple hardware.


RE: Too much.
By Magnus Dredd on 4/23/2009 8:06:01 PM , Rating: 1
Bullshit. I have installed OSX on all kinds of non Apple stuff. This includes the Darwin OS (core) of OSX, as well as full OSX installs. Getting OSX to run on non-Apple hardware is not terribly hard, however the hardware support is limited due to a lack of drivers.

About 70% or so of what makes up OSX (Darwin) is open.

What isn't open is the GUI stuff. Basically the apps, utilities, the Window/Desktop Manager, File manager, etc.

In contrast:

Windows is not open at all.
Linux and BSD are entirely open.


RE: Too much.
By TomZ on 4/23/2009 9:09:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Windows is not open at all.
Depends on your definition of "open" I guess. Windows runs on all X86 and X64 PC-compatible hardware, including Macs, across a wery wide range of hardware combinations. It has device driver support for nearly every device on the market, and it can be programmed using any one of dozens of very popular development environments.


RE: Too much.
By Rabelais on 4/23/2009 6:06:15 PM , Rating: 1
For the first quote you have from my text, I expressed myself poorly. What I meant to say is that your iBotnet and the conficker worm aren't on the same footing. Why so? Because one is a Trojan you have to manually install as I detailed in other parts of my post and the other one is a worm.
Second thing I note is that you changed your title to acknowledged you were wrong in saying worm which means you don't get your facts checked despite the fact that you try to say I'm faulty on that count. However, it is funny to note you're still wrong in your title. There have already been Trojans for the Mac, so it's not the first time sorry.

As for viruses, go ahead show me a link where you can find a list of virus for Mac OS X, you know some that did damages, like all the viruses on Windows did. Because the point is also that and you don't say anything about that. In fact you don't even seem to acknowledge that security is still a problem on Windows. Talk about me being a blind Mac/Apple devotee. I just pointed out the flaws in your article and reasoning.

As for the OS X part, some already responded what I meant. You didn't even check because you're so sure you must be right. However, the truth is often more complex and nuanced than just black or white. But of course that means looking up things and doing some actual research instead of merely rewriting something else. On the other hand isn't that the job of a writer? Just to point how off the charts you are, you ask if I am familiar with how Macs are closed. Hmmm, apparently you have trouble reading, I talked only about OS X. As others said, the foundations OS X are far more open though not as much as Linux, than Windows, and by a wide margin.

Show me your security firms analyses of Apple slow rate of patching. The ones I saw were so flawed (notably arguments I said in the last quote you chose) they were simply useless. Also, in these studies one ought to think about who is writing it (security/antivirus firms) and why (selling more of their software/services maybe?).

And YOU are completely missing the point of my post here. You confuse my post on the weaknesses of your article and lack of critical judgment and start a rant about how the Macs are expensive and not bullet proof and all that???? Ooooook, maybe just take the pills the doctor gave you. I just said that currently there are no viruses in the wild that did any damages to Macs, whereas there are hundred of thousands for Windows. I did what you said, I googled for Mac virus, all I got was Trojans, a few Macro virus for Office and some vulnerabilities on web frameworks such as Flash. And I got a handful for old systems working in very particular conditions like under Tiger and on PowerPC (which version of Tiger it wasn't specified). Then I checked on dailytech, but I found nothing except an article from 2006 in which Symantec said there wasn't any virus on the Mac yet. So please, I welcome fact, unlike you it seems, send me the links to all the Mac Viruses you know, that is ones that don't require the user to give his admin password.

As for your last argument. The traditional security through obscurity Myth. There are several million Macs connected on the net and about 37 million iPhone OS devices in the wild of which 21 million iPhones permanently connected. In several studies it was shown that Mac owners were generally more affluent, which means it would make sens for at least the ones writing code to steal banking information and the lot. Yet, not a single piece of malware or virus to that effect on OS X. True there are more people on Windows and for specific activities (such as Botnets) it is more interesting to have a greater number of machines, because you can do more things. But botnets are only a part of the security issues. Breaking into computers to steal information is also valuable and Mac users if they should have less virus than Windows users due to the marktshare as you say, they should nevertheless suffer from at least a few known viruses as Windows has thousands and thousands. So far we have not proof it is the case and I don't see how your argument holds.

So again, you answered mostly to things I haven't said and/or with points that are inaccurate at best. That's a shame really, as I said in my email I sent you some time ago, I appreciate your other articles in general, because you tend to get balanced on your facts and not too biased. But most of the time when you talk about Apple you just quote another source and do a poor job analyzing it.


RE: Too much.
By HaB1971 on 4/23/2009 6:51:29 PM , Rating: 2
Do you have to be so pedantic? Your post resembles the rantings of an over zealous Star Trek fan.

Pointing out inaccuracies is fine but you're over doing it.


RE: Too much.
By Rabelais on 4/24/2009 3:40:27 AM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't HAVE to be so "pedantic" if the writer didn't go after me in a quote pointing quest of my mistakes, when he obviously didn't do his job correctly and simply doesn't seem to care about being accurate. If you just tell somebody "you're wrong" and don't back up your claim correctly, he won't change. And if somebody wants to go all fussy about how I'm wrong in the first place, but backs his argument with only preconceptions and weak points, I don't really see why I shouldn't be pointing it.

We already read pointless, analyze-free piece of writing in mainstream media and I expect from a site such as Dailytech something more and better than this, that's all.
And if by pedantic you mean I use a lot of words, some of them not commonly used in colloquial speech, it's because 1) I'm not a native speaker of English and I want to make sure I'm properly understood 2) Come on, it's a written comment, not a little bar speech. My comment was about some arguments I didn't agree and pointing mistakes. It seems normal it's a bit longer and better constructed than the usual lame-and-pointless flamewar comments we see here about how "your computer is sooo gay and I'm better than you."


RE: Too much.
By Magnus Dredd on 4/23/2009 8:20:25 PM , Rating: 2
I have downloaded, entirely legally I might add, 70% of the source code for OSX.

Can you show me ANYTHING like this on Microsoft's web site:

http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/

Large amounts of the source code Apple's shipping OS is available for download at the above link.

Seriously, where is the link to download the source for a Windows kernel?

http://developer.apple.com/Darwin/

Apple has serious faults. Shipping an entirely closed and proprietary OS sure as hell isn't one of them.

It's one thing to have a bias, but allowing it to affect your work is unprofessional.


RE: Too much.
By TomZ on 4/23/2009 9:10:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Seriously, where is the link to download the source for a Windows kernel?
Windows CE source code is readily available when you license it.


RE: Too much.
By Magnus Dredd on 4/23/2009 10:04:29 PM , Rating: 2
WinCE/Windows mobile is a completely different OS. It is not, contrary to what some might tell you, a small version of the desktop OS. Simply because it supports a subset of Win32 does not mean there is a shared code heritage.

On the other hand, I understand that the iPhone OS is directly derived from OSX (which in reality is still NextStep at heart, which was a BSD derivative.).

I am referring to the desktop OS.

Not an embedded OS.

The embedded market generally requires source code, and Microsoft is pretty desperate to try to keep Linux out of this market. It's far easier to compete with Linux when you're not competing against free AND open. Simply competing with free is hard enough. Also from what I've picked up talking to embedded developers, they're not as willing to take on a "black box" OS as desktop developers are, due to the fact they work so much closer to the metal.

Nice try tho.

And no, posting code that was illegally downloaded from a Microsoft Partner does not count.

See here: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/15/71552/7795


RE: Too much.
By Magnus Dredd on 4/23/2009 9:47:46 PM , Rating: 2
This is some code from Apple's File System Driver...

This is from the AppleFileSystemDriver.cpp file which is a C++ source code file.

Some includes at the top (standard practice):
quote:

#include "AppleFileSystemDriver.h"

#include <IOKit/IOLib.h>
#include <IOKit/IOBSD.h>
#include <IOKit/IOBufferMemoryDescriptor.h>
#include <storage/RAID/AppleRAIDUserLib.h>

#include <libkern/OSByteOrder.h>

#include <sys/param.h>
#include <hfs/hfs_format.h>
#include <ufs/ufs/dinode.h>
#include <ufs/ufs/dir.h>
#include <ufs/ffs/fs.h>
#include <libkern/version.h>


Here we can see that Apple's old 16bit FS used 512 KB blocks (MS-speak: clusters™):
quote:

enum {
kHFSBlockSize = 512,
kVolumeUUIDValueLength = 8
};

typedef union VolumeUUID {
uint8_t bytes[kVolumeUUIDValueLength];
struct {
uint32_t high;
uint32_t low;
} v;
} VolumeUUID;


RE: Too much.
By Shadowself on 4/24/2009 3:00:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:


From the article:
quote:
It was first reported in January, and unlike other worms, like the Conficker worm, is relatively harmless due to the small number of infected machines (precluding effective denial of service attacks).

quote:
Fact is there hasn't been any single virus counted for OS X up to now.

Incorrect, there HAVE been OS X-specific viruses. Follow the links to stories we ran this fall to find out the details, if you honestly didn't know this.


NO, JASON, YOU ARE FLAT OUT WRONG ON THIS ONE.
TO DATE THERE HAS BEEN NO -- ABSOLUTELY NO -- VERIFIED VIRUS IN THE WILD THAT TARGETS MAC OS X. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION.


There have been several Trojans (dating back to about 2001 or 2002), but no viruses. Just calling a Trojan a virus or worm does not make it one.


RE: Too much.
By KingViper on 4/23/2009 11:05:58 AM , Rating: 2
See...the thing is..you're living in a dream land.

The article noted the fact that OSX isn't exploited because it has such a small slice of the pie. Exploits exist for OSX..and it's going to become more and more common for people to write code using them.

I know you're in the little Mac bubble that comes with your overpriced hardware...but let's be serious..your time will come.


RE: Too much.
By Magnus Dredd on 4/23/2009 8:59:35 PM , Rating: 2
It's not the market-share that determines the number of viruses, because there's more OSX out there than Linux or BSD.

Although it definitely does have something to do with it, due to the fact that Windows is has surpassed 1 MILLION** viruses, worms and other malware (of course the horrific state of security on the Win9x line helped here, which was also why MacOS 9 had a fair number of viruses for it)

However where this theory fall apart is that there are far more worms, viruses, and malware in existence for Linux/BSD than for OSX. Actually in fact, there has been more malware for specifically RedHat Linux than for OSX. Thankfully my distro of choice is Slackware.

Either way, US market-share isn't the deciding factor. It could be that it's the market-share of Macs in Russia, China, and other nations where virus development is prevalent that is a deciding factor.

I'm actually guessing that the fact that there are no cheap Macs has far more to do with it. When you pay that much for a machine, you're probably not writing viruses on it... Just like I would expect FAR fewer BMW owners to take their cars off-road than Chevy owners.

**AV-Test.org has a library of 1,164,662 malware samples.
http://www.virusbtn.com/news/2008/09_02


RE: Too much.
By smackababy on 4/23/2009 11:27:28 AM , Rating: 5
I think someone needs to do a little research on how fast OSX fell at Pwn2Own. 40 seconds on the first day, which does not allow user interaction. Windows and Linux didn't fall until the next day. User had to be phished into clicking link to malicious code. That right there should be proof enough that Vista is more secure than OSX.


"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki