Print 124 comment(s) - last by hiscross.. on Sep 12 at 12:42 PM

Is Apple's Snow Leopard as attack proof as the company believes? Probably not, but it does add some significant protections. Security companies, though, are coming out with criticism against Apple's efforts, in what seems a mix of sour grapes and legitimate points.  (Source: Simple Thoughts -- Computer Security Blog)
Are security firms' Snow Leopard gripes legitimate or just sour grapes? The answer may be be that they are a bit of both..

Just as attacks against Macs were beginning in earnest, and security software makers were ready to step into this new market and begin selling customers security suites, Apple dropped a bomb on the security software vendors -- OS X 10.6 "Snow Leopard" comes with built-in malware detection for a few Mac-specific viruses.

Apple, which has long lambasted Windows PCs as dangerously insecure in its advertisements, brags that its new OS offers unmatched protection against malware and cyber-attacks.  It points to hardware-based execution control for heap memory, stronger checksums for preventing memory corruption attacks, and built in antivirus protection -- dubbed XProtect -- as strong improvements in its OS design.

Now security companies are responding to Apple's boasts via blogs and emails that range from skeptical to scathing. 

Symantec was among the most critical, stating, "It is not a full-featured antivirus solution and does not have the ability to remove malware from the system.  File Quarantine is also signature-based only. Malware signatures are only as good as the definitions, requiring Apple to provide regular, timely updates."

The company points out that OS X's Software Update is not fully automatic and that it does not inform users what signatures have been downloaded, to indicate the current level of protection.  They also criticize that Apple's firewall is turned off by default and lacks the configurability of most third-party solutions.  Also they point out that the OS provides little to no protection against unauthorized access of sensitive information on disc or for information being transmitted over networks.  Finally, they say that Apple's reliance on site lists for its anti-phishing efforts make its blocking close to useless as the attacking sites typically change on a daily basis.

Andrew Storms, director of security operations at nCircle Network Security, also criticized the new software. "It feels like they are just trying to put a tic mark in the anti-malware compliance box for the enterprise customers they are still trying to woo.  So far, it looks like a pretty 'featureless feature.' Compared to other third party options, the functionality is pretty low. It's a lot like getting a warranty on your car that only covers floor mats, " he remarks.

Sophos researcher Paul O Baccas takes a more measured approach, stating that Apple's XProtect may be somewhat useful for certain programs -- Entourage, Safari, Mail, Firefox, Thunderbird -- which call LSQuarantine, an XProtect utility that detects malware.  However, for Skype, Adium, BitTorrent and Apple's Finder -- USB drives, shared network volumes, etc. -- there is no protection, he conversely points out.  He elaborates, "They haven't really integrated an antivirus program.  They've added something which can block some malware under some conditions."

He does say that the changes are better than nothing, however.  Apple meanwhile, refused to directly respond or comment on the criticism from security software vendors.

Security vendors will be facing a double-whammy when Microsoft officially releases its more full-featured security solution for Windows XP, Vista, and the new Windows 7.  Microsoft is set to drop this free security suite, dubbed Microsoft Security Essentials, before the end of the year.

Comments     Threshold

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

By hsvandrew on 9/1/2009 9:50:02 AM , Rating: 1
I can't wait for the day when virus writers release a killer virus for the Mac. Mac users are loaded with cash and very un-savvy computer users and when Mac finally gets a market share large enough to be worth attacking they will all be left with their pants down. Having been lulled into a false belief that they are secure, when really they are just a group of computer users hackers couldn't give a dam about because there is too few of them will see them all watching the hole blown in there wallet. Giving people security software that doesn't work well is very dangerous - take AVG free on Windows as an example. Many users use this thinking they have scored a free virus scanner - the reality is you better hope you don't get a "this season" virus because you won't be protected. If you don't understand why consider how it is free and yet so much work goes into finding and creating update definitions? Thats why others charge... to give you up-to-date protection.

By DCstewieG on 9/1/2009 10:29:17 AM , Rating: 2
With absolutely nothing to back it up, I would bet that the percentage of un-savvy users is about the same on both. Don't forget it's the people on Windows who open EXEs from strangers in their e-mail. And unknowingly become and stay part of a botnet. Meanwhile there are hardcore UNIX nerds who use OS X for that command line.

And I don't know why you're knocking AVG. It's not free because it's crappy and not up to date, but for 2 reasons. First, it's only for home use with no support. It gets the name out there so companies may consider buying it. Second, they're able to upsell support and their more Norton-like package which goes above simple virus/spyware cleaning.

"Google fired a shot heard 'round the world, and now a second American company has answered the call to defend the rights of the Chinese people." -- Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.)

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki