backtop


Print 107 comment(s) - last by Smilin.. on Dec 8 at 9:51 AM


Sadly, even Macs need to practice computer safety these days.  (Source: GameSpot)
Macs are not the virus-free playground they once were, says Apple

Most computer users take buying or otherwise obtaining antivirus software protection for granted as part of normal computer maintenance.  However, users of Apple's Macs, while being greatly in the minority compared to PCs for years have most gone with no virus protection.  Apple even supported this belief, through ads indicating that Macs don't get viruses.  And while Apple's software security-related patching rate is among the worst in the industry, for years Apple was mostly right; its computers just didn't get targeted in great numbers by malicious users.

Recently, however, Mac has been building up a slightly larger market share, thanks to multiple months in the number 3 computer retailer spot.  While PCs still greatly outnumber Macs, there are now many more Macs, and that spells trouble for Mac security.  This growing problem is exacerbated by Apple's poor patching as was demonstrated at a recent hacker convention, in which an Apple machine was easily compromised a full day before Linux and Windows machines could be.

Now Apple has recognized this new problem and for the first time is recommending its users install antivirus software.  A little notice popped up on its support website, entitled "Mac OS: Antivirus utilities".  In the page Apple states, "Apple encourages the widespread use of multiple antivirus utilities so that virus programmers have more than one application to circumvent, thus making the whole virus writing process more difficult."

Apple goes on to suggest three products -- Intego VirusBarrier X5 and Symantec Norton Anti-Virus 11 for Macintosh, both available from the Apple Online Store, and McAfee VirusScan for Mac.  Just three months ago Brian Krebs, who first noticed the notice and reported on it in Washington Post, bought a MacBook and was told by Apple employees that he didn't need antivirus software.

Similarly, Apple ads like this have long indicated that Apple is immune to viruses.

So what caused Apple to change its tune?  One major factor appears to be the rise in non-OS attacks.  While Apple's base OS is relatively secure, many of its programs, both Apple and third party have numerous vulnerabilities; among them Flash and Apple's Safari web browser.  Dave Marcus, director of security research and communications at McAfee states, "Apple is realizing that malware these days is targeting data, and valuable data exists just as much on an OS platform that is a Mac as it does on an OS platform that is Windows."

Apple is likely also conscious of the increasingly strong security from Microsoft, and its possible effect on its own users.  With Microsoft beefing up its patching system, adding more OS security layers, and offering free antivirus and malware protection for Windows Vista in mid-2009, hackers may turn to easier hijack Mac computers as a source of bots for botnets or other malicious schemes.

One type of malicious program Apple is particularly vulnerable to is password-stealing Trojans.  Explains Mr. Marcus, "The malware we see today is Trojans, password-stealing Trojans," Marcus said. "They are little apps that are dropped onto the machine to do something. They don't infect files and copy themselves. They are looking for specific information and they send that information somewhere else."

Several such Trojans have popped up, such as the AppleScript.THT Trojan, and another one that targeted Mac users searching pornographic sites.

Apple also has to worry about its adoptees -- Microsoft Office for Mac and Firefox for Mac, both popular targets of exploits.

While some, particularly Mac users may find Apple's new announcement surprising, Mr. Marcus says at the end of the day, it is merely an acknowledgment of reality.  He continues, "At the end of the day, they're (Apple is) advising people to be safe and take precautions.  That's a prudent thing to tell people in Web 2.0 world."



Comments     Threshold


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

Hi I'm a MAC
By peter7921 on 12/2/2008 10:12:12 AM , Rating: 5
Hi I'm a MAC and I'm a PC!!

MAC: Uhhhh PC
PC: What is it MAC
MAC: Well I've got this rash and it hurts when I pee.
PC: Oh thats a virus MAC, not to worry, I'm sure your anti-virus will get rid of it
MAC: My what?
PC: Don't you use protection MAC?
MAC: ???? Protection thats for PC's, I'm a MAC we don't get viruses!!!!
PC: Well you have one, and well your probably going to die from it.
MAC: BUT......
PC: Yep you whored yourself around around without being safe and now look at you.
MAC: ........
PC: OH PC's are stuffy, Vista has annoying popups, BLA BLA BLA..... I hope you suffer!
MAC: Can't you help me PC!!! I'll be better I swear!
PC: Well I guess I could ask my DAD Bill gates, If he could pay for a doctor visit.
MAC: REALLY! Wow that's swell PC!! I love you PC.
PC: I love you to MAC.

The End




RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By mikefarinha on 12/2/2008 10:28:28 AM , Rating: 4
hehe, very nice.

However I think the 'fix' would be to have the Mac install Vista... then the Mac guy would be wearing a suit like the PC guy.


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By AstroCreep on 12/2/08, Rating: 0
RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By retrospooty on 12/2/2008 10:44:03 AM , Rating: 3
"MAC: Well I've got this rash and it hurts when I pee."

+1 LOL classic


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By foolsgambit11 on 12/2/2008 2:56:10 PM , Rating: 2
I can so see Justin Long saying that.


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By slashbinslashbash on 12/2/08, Rating: 0
RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By DASQ on 12/2/2008 1:25:17 PM , Rating: 5
Or Medium Autocannon.

Ain't no LBX.


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By MonkeyPaw on 12/2/2008 11:17:32 AM , Rating: 5
Next commercial:

Mac (Muffled): Hello, I'm a Mac
PC: Hello, I'm a PC.
PC: Hey Mac, I see you're all better now, but...
Mac (muffled): But what? I feel great!
PC: But why are you wearing 2 large body condoms?
Mac: Oh, this is Apple's new iDoubleBag program to fight off nasty viruses, because you never can be too safe, you know.
PC: Uh, I thought Macs didn't get viruses.
Mac: Well, it turns out that viruses just didn't know we were out there. Now that Leapord has sold so many copies, I'm feeling a little exposed.
PC: Honestly, you look pretty ridiculous.
Mac: Yeah, well, it is a bit stuffy in here, and I do feel a bit sluggish.
PC: I think that's because you're running out of air.
Mac: Yeah....well.....(Thud)
PC: Uh, Mac?

Fini


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By FITCamaro on 12/2/2008 12:12:20 PM , Rating: 5
I would pay to see either of these commercials produced.


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By 67STANG on 12/2/2008 4:44:10 PM , Rating: 5
I'm sure the new "iDoubleBag" setup will cost $599 for early adopters, and $199 for everyone else who knows better.

Astroglide™ not included.


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By FaceMaster on 12/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By theapparition on 12/2/2008 11:48:15 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
What has Apple ever had which has brought nuclear power plant safety computers to their knees? Exactly.

And what nuclear power plant safety computers use Mac? Exactly.

/troll


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By Gzus666 on 12/2/2008 11:52:40 AM , Rating: 5
I will take this further, what important anything uses a Mac? Nothing.


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By kelmon on 12/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By Gzus666 on 12/2/2008 12:31:14 PM , Rating: 5
Supercomputers? Really? Could you show one that actually ranks in the top 10, top 20 even? A novelty to say they did it at best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Top500_OS.png

I can barely see OS X on that chart, can you? That is probably cause it is hanging out on the 0% of the top 500 supercomputers. It's almost like they suck, who would have thought?


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By omnicronx on 12/2/2008 2:51:47 PM , Rating: 4
Now that OSX runs on Intel CPU's, you would have to be stupid to use OSX in a supercomputer. Why on earth would anyone pay a bunch of money to get marked up PC hardware just so they can use OSX, which isnt suited for multicore use on the scale that these super computers need anyways.

Heck most of these systems don't even run windows, they are likely unix based (running their own specialized and probably free version of their chosen Unix OS).

OSX is a bloated version of Unix, and is well suited for home use and thats about it, I really hope this discussion never comes up again.


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By jiteo on 12/2/2008 9:09:56 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone else think it's weird the Unix and Linux lines are symmetrical?


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By kelmon on 12/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By Headfoot on 12/6/2008 3:47:15 PM , Rating: 2
Just a related comment, nowadays you can buy 10 Radeon 4870X2's and have more Teraflops of "theoretical" performance for $5500.

Craziness


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By nerdboy on 12/3/2008 7:36:27 AM , Rating: 1
“Anyway, the moral of this story is to check your facts before dismissing something you personally don't like.”

Speaking of checking the facts, where is the link to this information? If you’re going to type something outrageous about Mac supercomputers please provide a link so that you don’t look like a Mac fanboy. Otherwise I wish the rating system would not stop at -1.


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By SuperFly03 on 12/2/2008 12:01:54 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Omg just give it a break. The MAC is the safest type of computer to use. MSBlaster or MYDOOM, any one? What has Apple ever had which has brought nuclear power plant safety computers to their knees? Exactly.


Your ignorance and fanboism is astounding.


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By brentpresley on 12/2/2008 12:05:13 PM , Rating: 4
MAC security is a JOKE.

The only reason they were secure in the past was b/c they flew under the radar of everyone.

Now that they are a prime target, chiefly b/c of the arrogance of their "fanbase", they look just as much like Swiss cheese as any other OS.


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By kelmon on 12/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By King of Heroes on 12/2/2008 12:24:48 PM , Rating: 2
While you have a valid point here, it should also be mentioned you that also haven't seen the code and therefore can't audit it.

Given the incredible complexity of a computer operating system, I find it extremely hard to swallow that theres no significant weaknesses to be found. Just because we haven't seen them doesn't mean they don't exist (and yes, I admit that sounds silly). As OS X becomes more widespread, more and more of the unsavory lot are going to start cracking open these weaknesses for all to see.


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By kelmon on 12/3/2008 2:39:39 AM , Rating: 2
Absolutely. This is the whole crux of the argument. No one commenting here actually knows how secure the Mac OS is, or Windows for that matter, because the code is closed. Given this no one really knows how many flaws there actually are and therefore, potentially, there could be no more flaws. Equally, there could be so many flaws in the Mac OS that we'd lose count. The point is that no one here actually knows so this argument that market share is the only thing that keeps these flaws, which may or may not exist, from being exploited is just stupid.

Until we start seeing these exploits, I am not worrying.


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By jimbojimbo on 12/2/2008 1:43:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So far there is absolutely nothing to worry about and this is all just rather pathetic scaremongering.
Keep thinking like that. That is exactly what the hackers want.


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By 67STANG on 12/3/2008 12:57:50 AM , Rating: 4
LOL, guess they haven't heard the news....
http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news/news.phtml/13675...


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By Smilin on 12/2/08, Rating: 0
RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By kelmon on 12/3/2008 2:46:37 AM , Rating: 2
Hahaha. That's funny. You took the word "retard" and removed the first couple of letters. What a hoot you must be...

The point, funny man, is that unless you audit the code you do not know how many flaws there actually are in total. I am very well aware that you do not need to see the code to find a vulnerability. Until you know how many flaws exist, and specifically the number of undiscovered flaws, how can you possibly state that Mac OS security is bad purely due to the market share when there is no evidence to support that assertion?


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By Smilin on 12/3/2008 1:00:10 PM , Rating: 2
My point, not not-so-funny man, is that even with auditing code you still won't know how many flaws there are in total. In fact you are very unlikely to find flaws simply by looking at source code alone. If it were that easy then OS makers would just audit their code and the world would be a happy magical place just like in an Apple commercial.

Since your brain is wrapped around this "must have source code" line of thinking you seem unable to see that there is indeed evidence that Mac OSes are not secure.

Go look at recent hacking contest results. Go look at all the day 0 vulnerabilities in Apple OSes and other software.


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By 67STANG on 12/2/2008 4:48:33 PM , Rating: 4
It's called "Security through Obscurity". That's all gone now....


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By kelmon on 12/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By Headfoot on 12/6/2008 3:47:53 PM , Rating: 3
So did you read the article above?


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By Smilin on 12/2/2008 12:20:48 PM , Rating: 5
Don't come in here with your uneducated fanboy tripe. You'll get smacked.

Blaster was 8 years ago and MS had the patch out before it hit. The IT world didn't have any sort of patch management in place back then.

Sasser was (same thing..fix ahead of time) the last self propagating worm on the internet. After that the IT world could put fixes in place before things hit.

Everything since has required user intervention to propagate. In other words Macs would have been just as vulnerable if anyone bothered to attack them.

..so don't go dragging up some vulnerability that was originally introduced in NT 4.0 back in 1995 to try and talk smack about MS security.

If you want to compare Apple and MS security on an apples-to-apples basis you need to look no further than the recent DNS vulnerability. Both Apple and MS (and Linux) had the same vulnerability.

When you put Apple, MS, and Linux on even footing like this it's very obvious who has their sh1t together when it comes to security. Out of the three of them guess who sucks?


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By Gzus666 on 12/2/08, Rating: 0
RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By Smilin on 12/2/2008 1:04:23 PM , Rating: 5
Apple, MS, and Linux all three had the vulnerability (which was indeed a flaw in the DNS spec).

This vulnerability is one of the few times when we can truly compare Apple, MS, and Linux on a level playing field (ie no market share argument etc..).

MS, Linux distros, Cisco, nearly everyone with a DNS implementation all released a fix on the same day.

Apple was the the bumbling retard that left their DNS implementation vulnerable for months after the announcment. There were even exploits available before Apple got it's crap together. This was a *major* vulnerability and Apple's response to it was pathetic.

My point was: On a level playing field MS smacks Apple around when it comes to security.


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By Gzus666 on 12/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By foolsgambit11 on 12/2/2008 3:14:32 PM , Rating: 5
I'm just going off of what everybody has said in this thread here, because I wasn't aware of this bug.

Why could other operating systems patch it? Because you can tell the OS to handle a specific situation (even within an open protocol) to keep it from becoming a security vulnerability. The other poster was saying that MS put out a patch to ensure that this problem with the DNS protocol wouldn't result in security vulnerabilities in MS OSes. Apple took months, and during that time, people figured out how to turn the DNS vulnerability into an OSX vulnerability. Which is to say, that is a vulnerability in the OSX code. If an OS cannot handle process errors safely, that is an OS vulnerability.


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By Gzus666 on 12/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By foolsgambit11 on 12/2/2008 4:24:26 PM , Rating: 5
Typical. First off, I'm not the person you were arguing with first - so I don't know what makes more sense now than before my post. I haven't been paying attention to security for a couple years, but I'm not completely ignorant.

Instead of explaining things I already know to me (the basics of TCP/IP and DNS servers), or trying to explain things you don't know (the actual specifics of this attack, not the generality that it allows DNS poisoning), why don't you explain why it's not an OS vulnerability. Here's the argument for why it was an OS vulnerability:

For about a month, major vendors had had their patches in place. Apple's patch wasn't forthcoming (and then it didn't actually work initially). So for that period, individuals on OSX systems, and OSX systems exclusively, were exposed to the threat of, for example, installing malware when they thought they were installing updates from Apple's website. The only major client OS's who were vulnerable to this attack (for a month or so) were people using OSX. Prior to that month, most every major OS was vulnerable to this attack.

Now, to debunk the idea that this is a DNS vulnerability only. Macs were vulnerable because of their implementation of DNS protocols. Other systems were vulnerable as well, but were patched quickly. Yet other systems weren't vulnerable to begin with, because they already implemented DNS port randomization, recognizing the potential vulnerabilities of non- or poorly-randomized ports. All of these DNS server and client programs 'properly' implemented DNS protocols. But not all proper implementations are created equal, nor are they equally safe or unsafe. The majority of DNS systems were implemented in an unsafe way, I will grant. But the implementation of DNS protocols in Macintosh systems is entirely Apple's creation, and the failure to patch it in a timely manner was entirely Apple's fault. The DNS implementation in Macs is part of the OS (you're not going to limit the definition of an OS vulnerability to the kernel, are you?). It leaves users of OSX open to malicious code, activated by user actions. User actions taken, for instance, because the user was tricked into trusting that www.apple.com was, in fact, 17.149.160.10, (the Apple IP address), when it could actually have been any site. During that same month, a user on a Windows box would not have been vulnerable to this attack (obviously, when trying to get their updates from the MS Update website, not the Apple site).

I guess the counterargument would be that a user could have installed a different DNS handler than the one that comes standard with OSX (assuming OSX allows this?). But this isn't like a web browser, where the average user can decide to switch away from IE6 because it's not very safe. Networking protocols and how they are handled and implemented is part of what people are talking about when they talk about OSX or Windows or Linux. Therefore, this is an OS vulnerability. The same way it would be an OS vulnerability if it was discovered that, due to how it was implemented, only Vista had some DNS bug.


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By Gzus666 on 12/2/2008 9:52:10 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.betanews.com/article/Major_fix_to_DNS_v...

" The real vulnerability is not in Windows or Linux but in BIND, the most widely deployed DNS software everywhere. A security feature in BIND creates a transaction ID for communications between an IP host and a DNS server. Supposedly, that transaction ID is supposed to be randomized using a 15-bit binary number. But the way it's typically deployed, each limitation or option added to the system reduces the number of bits in that random number by one each time, and reduces the number of guesses a malicious script requires to guess the transaction ID by a power of two."

Nothing to do with the OS, inherent to how the protocol is handled, enjoy.


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By ZmaxDP on 12/3/2008 2:45:01 AM , Rating: 3
Ahhh, the power of bold...

"... But the way it's typically deployed, each limitation or option added to the system reduces the number of bits in that random number by one each time, and reduces the number of guesses a malicious script requires to guess the transaction ID by a power of two."

In other words, some OS vendors changed how it was deployed in their OS to remove the vulnerability, and Apple didn't. I understand that the SOURCE of the vulnerability wasn't the OS, but the deployment of that vulnerability (and the fix) is in the OS. So, I think this can be used as a comparison pretty effectively...


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By Gzus666 on 12/3/2008 9:02:53 AM , Rating: 2
No, they patched the vulnerability with an update. It still wasn't a hole in the OS, it was a whole in the DNS implementation that is platform neutral. As I stated before, you can easily fault Apple with taking forever to patch the thing, but when you realize like 2 servers in the world are Mac, you see why they would probably not care to do it in a timely manner.

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

Berkley made it so you expect all the OS manufacturers to be responsible for its problems? They integrate it in cause it follows the standards, there was a problem, so it was fixed independent of OS. No inherent problem will go across all operating systems just for the pure fact that they don't share the exact same code. Any problem that is across them all is a problem with a shared program or protocol, like Flash for instance, not their core OS.

What next, we blame Microsoft for an HTTP flaw that allows an attack? I don't like Apple, but it's kinda hard to fault them for something like 4 people in the world use on their machines and isn't even their fault or any of the OS maker's fault.


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By Smilin on 12/3/2008 11:18:30 AM , Rating: 2
Wow you guys are really missing my original point which was this:

The DNS vulnerability (a RFC deficiency that manifested in nearly every RFC implementation) created a level playing field that made for a great real-world comparison of how companies react to security flaws. In this level playing field it became very obvious that Apple sucks. Period.

Regarding the "OS" debate:
There is no such thing as "THE dns implementation". There is the DNS specification which frankly is riddled with ambiguity on on a great number of topics. It is up to OS makers to follow the *specification* to come up with an *implementation*. In the case of this vulnerability the net result was that everyone had a problem in their implementation. In other words it's an OS vulnerability. The fact that everyone had the same one doesn't change this.

And to answer your question (as a Microsoft fan), yes we would blame MS for an HTTP flaw that allows an attack...if they fail to fix it once the flaw becomes known. I therefore blame Apple for leaving their customers vulnerable to the DNS flaw.

Flip the argument:
If MS had waited two months to fix the DNS flaw what would everyone be saying? You're damn right MS would catch hell. So don't go cutting Apple any slack.


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By Gzus666 on 12/3/2008 11:56:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The DNS vulnerability (a RFC deficiency that manifested in nearly every RFC implementation) created a level playing field that made for a great real-world comparison of how companies react to security flaws. In this level playing field it became very obvious that Apple sucks. Period.


I agreed with this in my post. On that same basis, also stated in my subsequent post that the obvious reason they weren't in a hurry to patch it is cause what runs on a Mac server? Nothing. Windows and Linux had to patch it quickly, cause they are actually used for this, Apple most likely realized the 2 people who run a Mac server weren't priority.

Also, no the OS manufacturers do not make DNS, as I showed they are all made by third parties. The most popular being BIND by Berkley.

I am not cutting Apple slack, Apple is a piece of crap company with other examples of piss poor patch times, the DNS issue is just a stupid example for the above reasons. The difference is I hate Apple for things they actually do wrong, you hate them just to hate them.

Also, if you are dumb enough to blame MS for an HTTP attack, why don't we blame them for driver problems and browser problems while we are at it? Can we also blame them for any 3rd party program issues? How about we blame them for holes in Flash? Good fun, needlessly blaming those not involved. If it falls beyond the Kernel, I wouldn't really blame the OS maker, since they are not in direct control of it. Granted there are areas where this is gray and we aren't sure, but this problem isn't one of those times.


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By Smilin on 12/3/2008 1:32:37 PM , Rating: 1
I'm going to disagree on one final point:

I don't think apple wasn't in a hurry because nobody uses their DNS. I think they actually were in a hurry and simply lacked the capability respond properly.

It's doubly sad because for months they were able to look at others fixed source code (FreeBSD).

MS had to do their own fix (NT 4.0 DNS was BIND but that code all but gone) and put it through far more rigorous regression testing given the size of their install base.

We forget just how shitty apple is at writing OSes. They essentially had to give up and start over because they had fallen so far behind. FreeBSD caught them back up but unless something changes they'll eventually lag again.


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By FaceMaster on 12/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By Smilin on 12/3/2008 11:06:46 AM , Rating: 3
Yes you should have.

You're trying to point back over a decade to a time when we got caught with our pants down yet you are doing so while standing around with no pants on whatsoever.

You are used to people laughing when you're pants-less so yes, you "should have expected such blatant PC fanboy responses." this time as well.

Now run along and cover your little self before a hacker notices you.


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By FaceMaster on 12/4/2008 7:28:46 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
you are doing so while standing around with no pants on whatsoever.


Your Mum likes it when I's standing around with no pants on whatsoever.


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By Smilin on 12/4/2008 11:49:10 AM , Rating: 2
Your mum likes kneeling in the middle of a circle of people with no pants on whatsoever while the cameras run.

How far do you want to go with this?


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By FaceMaster on 12/5/2008 9:00:07 AM , Rating: 2
As far as she wants me to. Any questions?


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By Pavelyoung on 12/7/2008 6:04:24 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, can you tell your mum not to use her teeth as much from now on?


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By Smilin on 12/8/2008 9:51:26 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, could you step out of the way?

Just because you're "FaceMaster" doesn't mean you get to hog your mom all day. We've got a line back here buddy.


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By PhobosAnonomly on 12/2/2008 9:27:42 PM , Rating: 3
PC knows a lot about getting viruses.


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By JamesM on 12/5/2008 8:27:01 PM , Rating: 2
Well, until about a year ago, I had been a windows PC user pretty much my entire life (30 yrs old now), and bought myself an imac last December. So far, I haven't had any virus/malware issues at all on the imac. Nothing. And I don't have any virus protection. And it feels good. And I'm typing this on my girlfriend's PC researching virus protection software because her Dell has more worms and viruses than a Compton crack whore. Just like every PC I've ever owned. :P


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By Headfoot on 12/6/2008 3:53:08 PM , Rating: 2
Unrelated....

Maybe you shouldn't go to sites with tons of worms and viruses?
I haven't had a virus on a PC I've owned since 2001.


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By CrazyBernie on 12/6/2008 10:04:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So far, I haven't had any virus/malware issues at all on the imac. Nothing. And I don't have any virus protection. And it feels good. And I'm typing this on my girlfriend's PC researching virus protection software because her Dell has more worms and viruses than a Compton crack whore. Just like every PC I've ever owned. :P


Oh, that's just friggin' hilarious. How the hell would you even know that your imac has been zombified and someone is watching all the pr0n you download when you don't have any way of checking?? Hello, McFly....

Well I lived in New Hampshire most of my life, and since I've moved to Tennessee I don't go see a doctor for checkups anymore. And so far I have ZERO health problems. None. I just talked to my grandfather who lives in NH and he has more health problems than a leper in a nuclear fallout zone. Just like all my other relatives in NH. :P


RE: Hi I'm a MAC
By kayronjm on 12/6/2008 7:52:11 AM , Rating: 2
Hahahahaha love it.

Of course Macs aren't invunerible, it would be plain stupid to think they are. Any software can be broken, good or bad. With the unfortunate increasing popularity of Macs, they're making better and better targets for viruses, trojans, etc.


Antivirus is a scam and a waste of time
By mmagliaro on 12/2/2008 11:11:52 AM , Rating: 5
Yes, I am a die-hard Mac owner, and also a professional software developer who writes code for Windows machines all day. So I don't harbor these ridiculous religious affiliations. I use both. I like Macs better.
But...
I NEVER, EVER, have installed or used any anti-virus product on either one, and I never will. They are such a waste of system resources and time! Self-discipline. That's the key. Stop installing garbage applications, clicking on whatever the heck random junk goes by you on a web page, and stop opening weird emails. For 10 solid years of using Windows and Mac machines connected to the internet every day, I have gotten a virus exactly one time, and it was because my whole company network got infiltrated because of some idiot using Internet Explorer. And guess what? All the virus products we had did NOT notice that the virus was present. And they couldn't get rid of it either. I had to do it manually by digging through .exe files and the registry.

Like I said. WASTE OF TIME. By the time Norton, or MacAfee, or AVG are updated to recognize or protect you, you are already screwed. Look out for yourself, and stop depending on these things. They don't work.

Oh, that, and NEVER EVER use Internet Explorer or Outlook. But that's another story.




RE: Antivirus is a scam and a waste of time
By TomZ on 12/2/2008 11:40:06 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Oh, that, and NEVER EVER use Internet Explorer or Outlook. But that's another story.

I've used IE and Outlook for many years and never received even a single virus infection. So applying your own logic, avoiding these programs for fear of viruses is nonsense.

Actually, I think using these programs - not avoiding them - is probably better to help avoid viruses. For example, IE7 has good security features (e.g., Protected Mode, anti-Phishing filter, ActiveX controls run in separate process) and Outlook blocks access to attachments that are typically used to e-mail viruses. Security by obscurity is not security at all.


RE: Antivirus is a scam and a waste of time
By theapparition on 12/2/2008 11:52:05 AM , Rating: 2
I'll agree with you there. I've never once got a virus or adware in all my years using PC's and internet explorer or outlook.

Maybe it's because I don't spend every waking moment looking for warez or porn, but I think the values of most AV programs are overrated at best.


By jeff834 on 12/2/2008 10:22:07 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, warez. Haven't heard that term in a long time. The kids are calling them torrents these days. Not even torrentz lol.


RE: Antivirus is a scam and a waste of time
By AssBall on 12/2/2008 12:04:01 PM , Rating: 1
I agree completely. 50$ a year to make your computer slower.... brilliant. Windows security updates solve most of any virus issues alone.

10+ years ago there was such a huge scare and proliferation of viruses that IT people smartened up and wrote more secure code. Since then Norton and McAfee have been riding the wave of morons that bought into all the hype and disinformation (made me think of Swordfish, which was one of the dumbest movies ever, BTW).

Are viruses and security a huge concern for companies? You bet your ass. This is a big reason why we have IT departments now for even small companies.

For the home user though... well I guess (wish) they were just a little bit more educated and/or responsible. How can one crap all over Windows defender and refrain from pointing fingers at the rediculous limitations a 3rd party antivirus application throws down on your system? In the end the average person understands NEITHER.

But this doesn't stop people from operating a vehicle without having a clue about physics or blood alcohol imparement. This is why highways are regulated. Do not misunderstand, I do not like regulation of any kind in general. However, with more retards and assholes online every day, I think more and more that perhaps some form of regulation wouldn't be such a bad idea. The problem I see is that any regulation(s) will be formulated by those same retards and assholes.

More thoughts?


By CrazyBernie on 12/6/2008 10:12:38 PM , Rating: 2
I use AVG. It doesn't bog down my system, and it's free. At the rate that viruses have been proliferating it's better to be safe than sorry.

I equate it to the people who drive around with no car insurance insisting that they'll never get into an accident because they're "safe" drivers.


By SuperFly03 on 12/2/2008 12:07:22 PM , Rating: 2
Well said. I also concur with your view point about security and self-discipline.


By King of Heroes on 12/2/2008 12:20:23 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you here. I've never had a virus infection (that I was aware of). Always use a web interface when checking email, never download attachments from people you don't know, and never go to suspicious websites (and yes, its easy to spot a suspicious website). Its amazing how such simple steps can be missed by most people.

Now, admittedly, I still run an anti-virus despite this (NOD32 is awesome). I just feel safer when its there, even though I've never had to actually use it.

P.S.: And always run Firefox + NoScript!


By Reclaimer77 on 12/3/2008 1:53:33 AM , Rating: 3
Wow proof that code monkeys can still be ignorant.

quote:
I NEVER, EVER, have installed or used any anti-virus product on either one, and I never will.


Stupid, stupid, and more stupid. Some ppl claim they never use condoms either, that doesn't mean they are smart because they think they can spot the " clean " women.

quote:
Self-discipline. That's the key. Stop installing garbage applications, clicking on whatever the heck random junk goes by you on a web page, and stop opening weird emails.


Even if you do none of the above, you could STILL be infected.

quote:
For 10 solid years of using Windows and Mac machines connected to the internet every day, I have gotten a virus exactly one time, and it was because my whole company network got infiltrated because of some idiot using Internet Explorer.


I think the idiot here if your companies IT head. Internet Explorer is only the most used browser on the planet. Sheesh how DARE that " idiot " use it and intentionally infect your company ! /sarcasm.

And how the hell do you know you never had a virus/worm/trojan/malware etc etc if you never run security software in the first place ? You sound like the type of idiot who has his machine running 8000 bots and never knows it. On behalf of the Internet community, thanks pal, we appreciate it...

Sounds to me like your entire company has the same fast and loose approach to computer security as you personally practice. Let me get this straight, we're supposed to blame the end user's choice of browser and NOT the IT department for poorly patched and protected work machines ? Uhhh, riiight.

quote:
. And guess what? All the virus products we had did NOT notice that the virus was present. And they couldn't get rid of it either.


And guess what ? It wasn't a virus. It was a trojan or malware. I'm taking a shot in the dark here, but given your proclivity for being slack, you probably relied on some crappy " all in one " security suite instead of doing some research and getting the best solution for EACH type of threat.

Virus scanners work on viruses. Trojans and malware specialize in being hard to clean and kill. Even if the virus scan cleans the infected files, they aren't set up to find and quarantine the cause and the machines become infected again.

quote:
I had to do it manually by digging through .exe files and the registry.


*smacks forehead* No, you didn't HAVE to do that. Your illogical fear and ignorance of security products is why you HAD to do that. Five minutes, tops, of Google searching would have rendered you the perfect app or cleaning utility to fix the problem for GOOD.


Ok, how many people are scared by this..
By ercinkc on 12/2/2008 10:42:01 AM , Rating: 2
They are recommending running multiple anti-virus programs? Norton and McAfee, I know people have said that Norton has gotten better on bloat in this last version, but still, how much power is going to be left after running multiple anti virus programs. I have never heard of such a thing being suggested, and although I have seen it, I quickly charge the client an arm and a leg to untangle their silliness.




By Gzus666 on 12/2/2008 10:47:12 AM , Rating: 3
I'm not scared cause I'm not dumb enough to use a Mac. But it will be hilarious when you see their comparatively slow hardware drug to a crawl with these anti-virus suites. Oh how the smug have fallen.


RE: Ok, how many people are scared by this..
By UNHchabo on 12/2/2008 12:10:47 PM , Rating: 3
They're not suggesting that each user run multiple AV clients; they're suggesting that the userbase adopt more than one AV client, so then when hackers write an exploit that bypasses a specific client, less than 100% of the userbase will be affected. If Apple were to say "Mac users should use Norton", then the Black Hats would only have to bypass Norton.


By HVAC on 12/2/2008 12:41:28 PM , Rating: 3
I like the older westerns when the good guys wore black.


By omnicronx on 12/2/2008 2:30:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They're not suggesting that each user run multiple AV clients; they're suggesting that the userbase adopt more than one AV client,
Sorry buddy, one goes with the other. Whats the point of suggesting that other programs should be developed if there is not a plausible threat?

Apple knows that with market share, comes the threat of more attackers, why do you think Windows is targeted so much in the first place?

It has been shown how insecure OSX is, not to mention the delay between security updates, there is no reason to believe that OSX cannot contract viruses just as easily as Windows without protection. (of course with a little common sense you don't need an antivirus on either OS, but thats another story)


By omnicronx on 12/2/2008 2:31:57 PM , Rating: 2
Oops misread your post, I thought you said they are not recommending ANY AV client.

Disregard my post


By Bruneauinfo on 12/2/2008 4:57:03 PM , Rating: 2
you have to give that expensive web-surfing machine something to do with that quad-core.


A guilty pleasure?
By Diesel Donkey on 12/2/2008 10:03:54 AM , Rating: 5
Does anybody else get a feeling of happiness from this? I don't wish bad things upon any computer user, but I am just so tired of hearing how invulnerable Macs are to viruses and how much more secure they are. It feels kind of wrong, but this pleases me.




RE: A guilty pleasure?
By Flunk on 12/2/2008 10:12:31 AM , Rating: 2
No, I feel the same way. Anything that will wipe that smug look off my Mac-using buddy's face. I use linux anyway so, I never need a... oh wait no EVERYONE should have an anti-virus installed.

Oh well, if you choose to be stupid I'll fix your computer system up for you. $100/hour please.


RE: A guilty pleasure?
By xti on 12/2/2008 10:48:20 AM , Rating: 2
not that I would ever buy a mac, or any oem built pc either to be fair, but the commercials sealed the deal that I just wouldnt want one.

I have a ipod video, an iphone 3G, so its not that I am anti mac, but their entire computer solutions line turn me off.

macs = little man syndrome. always talking a lot of noise, but cant see over the counter at the bar.


RE: A guilty pleasure?
By foolsgambit11 on 12/2/2008 3:19:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have a ipod video, an iphone 3G, so its not that I am anti mac, but their entire computer solutions line turn me off
I think what you mean to say is that you're not anti-Apple, but you are anti-Mac.

Agreed?


RE: A guilty pleasure?
By FITCamaro on 12/2/2008 12:32:22 PM , Rating: 3
Inside I'm choking on my tongue from laughing so hard. All these years Apple toted their invulnerability. Finally they admit they're just as vulnerable as everyone else. Perhaps more so given their horrible patch times for security issues.


Easy sales?
By RR6 on 12/2/2008 10:46:53 AM , Rating: 1
...or is because anti-virus software makes machines runs really slow. This is a great way for Apple to persuade existing users to purchase the latest faster hardware and software.

This tactic works for Microsoft ;-)




RE: Easy sales?
By xti on 12/2/2008 10:50:20 AM , Rating: 4
microsoft? like...faster mice and keyboards?


RE: Easy sales?
By HVAC on 12/2/2008 12:38:14 PM , Rating: 3
No, the point your parent was trying to make is in regards to dwindling support for legacy hardware.

Here's the scenario:

1) As time passes, your software (OS, A/V, etc...) is updated.
2) The updates bog down the software.
3) The computer feels slower and slower to you.
4) Eventually, you decide to update your hardware.
5) The updated hardware doesn't have drivers for "Ye Older OS".
6) You have to buy a newer version of OS.
7) Lather.
8) Rinse.
9) Repeat.


RE: Easy sales?
By foolsgambit11 on 12/2/2008 3:30:06 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, that's just too much of a stretch. I mean, are you really telling me that MS leaves their OS vulnerable so that AV software can bog it down, so that, in 10 years when they stop supporting the OS, or maybe in 5 years (at worst) when new hardware doesn't have drivers for the OS, you'll buy a $99 OS upgrade? Dubious.

Maybe some kind of Windows-Intel collusion ("Wintel"), or something like that (buy a faster processor to support the bloat of AV-ware). But if you buy that MS sabotages its OS for the sake of ensuring very very very late adoption by cheapskate upgraders, you'd better reposition your tin foil cap.


OMG
By TheSpaniard on 12/2/2008 10:06:21 AM , Rating: 4
the reality distortion field generator is down!

the MS AT-ATs are approaching the base! ALL TRANSPORTS EVACUATE!




Oh dear Lord, the spin…
By Zandros on 12/2/2008 10:15:58 AM , Rating: 2
OSX:AppleScript.THT is dead which leaves us with two functioning trojans.

OSX.Lamzev.A, which installs a backdoor, and OSX,RSPlug.A which screws with the DNS.

Do we have a new definition of several that I'm not aware of?




RE: Oh dear Lord, the spin…
By Headfoot on 12/6/2008 4:03:07 PM , Rating: 2
Are you the all-knowing Mac Virus god?

There are alot more than just two viruses out there

http://antivirus.about.com/od/virusdescriptions/l/...


This isn't new
By rtk on 12/2/2008 1:53:36 PM , Rating: 2
ZDnet suddenly noticed this yesterday as well.

Apple has had that technote up for at least three months, I've referenced it a number of times to debunk claims that Apple doesn't need anti-virus.

Since September at least.




RE: This isn't new
By kelmon on 12/3/2008 7:17:05 AM , Rating: 2
And suddenly the article is gone...

Still, none of the exploits are so far anything to worry about since they need the user to install the bad software themselves and therefore aren't that much more advanced than the Amish Virus. If or when a worm appears that can wreak havoc without the user having to do something, then I'll agree that the Mac needs anti-virus software but not until then.


Its a evil plot
By Belard on 12/2/2008 5:20:00 PM , Rating: 2
Its true...

Its an evil plot by Microsoft. Only they have the money and resources to create viruses for the Mac OS!

Mac viruses are made of Microsoft!!!




RE: Its a evil plot
By inighthawki on 12/2/2008 7:53:21 PM , Rating: 2
No microsoft is clearly sitting back and LETTING apple get some market share so that people make viruses for them. It's a clever plot really, giving someone market share to lead them to their demise...


OSX antivirus
By wallijonn on 12/5/2008 1:40:50 PM , Rating: 2
Norton? McAfee? No thank you.

As I see it, the greatest threat to web security is Java. Well, that and people dumb enough to install .dmg files when a pop-up window appears. I'm surfing the 'net, a pop up window appears asking for my administrator password? I don't think so...

I have yet to see an OSX machine that gets infected by the AntivirusXP, Antivirus2008 or Antivirus2009 spyware.




RE: OSX antivirus
By Headfoot on 12/6/2008 4:07:29 PM , Rating: 2
Probably because that is a Windows specific virus.

I have yet to see a Windows machine that gets infected by AutoStart, Code 252, CDEF or Melissa. You know why? Because they are Mac specific viruses.

What's your point?


Embarassed Apple
By toyotabedzrock on 12/3/2008 1:01:58 AM , Rating: 3
They have taken down the tech bulletin already, seems being on DailyTech was to embarrassing.




This just in.
By Smilin on 12/3/2008 11:25:51 AM , Rating: 3
"Apple deletes Mac antivirus suggestion"

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10111958-83.html?...




The End of Days.
By Mitch101 on 12/2/2008 10:02:05 AM , Rating: 2
First the Simpsons going postal on Mapple and now AV software?

I hear Steve is going to be giving away Nike Shoes and some Cool Aid soon to select people.




Web 2.0
By VaultDweller on 12/2/2008 10:07:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's a prudent thing to tell people in Web 2.0 world.


What does Web 2.0 have to do with anything? Sure Web 2.0 gives rise to XSS worms in large communities, but anti-virus won't do anything about that.




Rotten Apple
By SpaceJumper on 12/2/2008 12:11:47 PM , Rating: 2
Bill Gate took a bite, and now the viruses are going to destroy it.




LMFAO!!! Just like my brother!
By Manch on 12/2/2008 3:21:06 PM , Rating: 2
I gave my brother the same lecture as I gave my MAC friends several years ago. Now after all that raw doggin there both wondering what those bumps on their dongles are LOL.




Meh..
By MystaEB on 12/3/2008 2:46:59 AM , Rating: 2
My Anti Virus is my trigger finger. It works great, I can choose whether or not to click on garbage on the Internet and in my Inbox. Best of all, it doesn't slow down my PC!

Well, that and Opera. A good browser and some common sense is way more important than any AV software. Flashing hippo wants you to click for boobz? Don't do it! Prevention is better than the cure, after all.




Big Deal
By kelmon on 12/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: Big Deal
By TomZ on 12/2/2008 11:43:19 AM , Rating: 2
The purpose of Apple's disclaimers/warnings is to help avoid the likely future scenareo where a Mac mainstream virus hits and affected users bring a class action suit against Apple because they claimed their products were somehow magically free from the possibility of viruses.


RE: Big Deal
By kelmon on 12/2/2008 12:22:37 PM , Rating: 2
That's probably quite a sensible suggestion and another reason to ignore this story altogether. If Apple's legal department is anything like ours then this is based more on fear of a problem by the company itself than a problem itself that may or may not exist.

Please preserve us from lawyers...


RE: Big Deal
By Smilin on 12/2/2008 5:55:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

The purpose of Apple's disclaimers/warnings is to help avoid the likely future scenareo where a Mac mainstream virus hits and affected users bring a class action suit against Apple because they claimed their products were somehow magically free from the possibility of viruses.


I think it's a bit late for that. Apple has shown a pattern of deceptive advertising. If someone can get a million bucks for a coffee scorched penis they'll surely get some money out of the "mac dude".

Think about some of those ads: making fun of "pc guy" as he sneezes from a cold. Implying the "secret service agent" UAC guy is useless etc..


RE: Big Deal
By jimbojimbo on 12/2/2008 1:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
So following your logic every updated Windows user should uninstall their antivirus programs until a new worm first appears before installing it again? Makes no sense.

The reason their announcemnt is such a big deal is because one of their biggest selling points was that it was completely virus free. Their target consumers were mostly computer-illiterate people, the very same people willing to click on anything especially moreso now that they have a computer that's supposedly virus proof.

You don't need a worm before this could cause problems. You just need a lot of stupid people, people that purchase more on fad and fashion than with thought.


RE: Big Deal
By kelmon on 12/3/2008 7:10:47 AM , Rating: 2
Hey, do what you like. What I am saying is that I do not perceive ANY threat and therefore I don't see the need to install a virus scanner. I don't think aliens are trying to read my mind so I'm not wearing a tin hat, either.

I know that loads of people here would absolutely love to see the Mac OS infested with malware so they can all have a good laugh and I have never understood that puerile attitude. But the fact remains that there is absolutely nothing out there to worry a Mac user whereas Microsoft is currently getting everyone to install an emergency patch for Windows and the criminals are attempting to build themselves another botnet. So why we are even talking about a hypothetical situation is quite beyond me...


RE: Big Deal
By omnicronx on 12/2/2008 2:23:22 PM , Rating: 2
I don't use antivirus software with Vista, but thats because I am the only one using the computer and i know what to download and not what to download. Same can be said for Mac.

I think what Apple is trying to say is now that they have 8-10% marketshare, people are actually creating viruses and malware for OSX.

I'm just waiting for an 'I told you so' from Microsoft, after all these years of Apple parading that they dont get viruses, when everyone (including them) knew it was because of a lack of marketshare. If linux suddenly had a 10% share I would expect the same thing.

The fact that Apple is becomming the prefered home OS for many also does not help things. 9 times out of 10 its a home user that will contract a virus or malware as people are willing to do things they would not do at work.


"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot

Related Articles
Apple's Safari Security Woes
March 31, 2008, 12:22 PM
Microsoft Gets Cozy With The iPhone
March 26, 2008, 2:39 PM
MacBooks Get Hacked Within 60 Seconds
August 4, 2006, 12:46 PM













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