MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

I assume they meant "relative" as in "zero is smaller than 100,000 relatively speaking" - but yes, they should have been clearer.

"Immunity" I think carries a connotation of "absolute" and that's not correct for OS X (or any operating system). Macs are "vulnerable" in a theoretical sense. I (and most folks here, I'm sure) believe that the degree of vulnerability is far less due to superior design and also believe that the "smaller target" argument is demonstrably wrong because while there are smaller numbers, they're far higher value targets in terms of bragging rights for the first person to release even a moderately successful OS X virus into the wild.

Don't get CARGO wrong... They love APPLE and every single thing that APPLE does.
When it comes to being picky about the word "relative." I understand, but nontheless, everything is "relative" indeed...
For example, even if you own a MAC, you can be subject of some "minor hacking" if you don't know how to restrict your "bonjour" connection! I mean, I access most of my friends MACs because they don't know that their sharing feature is on. From that point of view, I understand that CARGO is being careful with what they say, and want to warn people that even if you are on MAC, your use of your computer is "relative!" ( ^_- )

does anyone actually play cutting edge/high resource games on a laptop? I would have thought those required a big monitor, a proper mouse & keyboard, and your mother's basement.

I have MacMame and Scrabble on my Powerbook and get along just fine.

/not a 'gamer'
//have a life beyond my computer

I fully agree with Random Coolzip... Everything is relative in nature...

Mike, which version of Scrabble do you play ?

"Relative" is clearly the wrong word based upon its definition and does muddy the issue. Subtle things like this (and many not-so-subtle things) negatively affect the Mac platform's growth. MDN is "absolutely" correct to point out Cargo's error.

This coming Tuesday (on September 13, 2000 the first OS X beta was publicly released) will mark 5 full years of Mac OS X with ZERO viruses.

By contrast, Windows Longhorn/Vista wasn't even out in beta form for 5 hours before the first viruses for it were on the loose in the wild.

Tuner

amazingly, it came free in a cereal box. In Canada they ran some promotion with free games CDs a few years ago. I don't know if it also ran in the states.

I don't have my laptop with me so i cannot check the version but it boots in OS 9, and seems to have some primitive network capabilities. It features "Maven", the frustratingly good AI opponent.

it is a fantastic way to kill an hour.

Woo! First Post!

When will people learn that OS X is all powerful and immune to all viruses and spyware? These so called reporters and journalists that continue to report falsities just reaffirm my belief that people in general are stupid. (Except Mac users of course)

Something that I feel should be mentioned here is that when it comes down to reviews and the reviewers it should be noted that, depending on the magazine, who advertises or more specific who are the advertisers.

It is they that pay the majority of print run costs for publications and the newstand price not only goes towards this, but allows for special offers, ever wondered why there are free givaways when you take out a subscription or a special reduced price?

Now that is relative!

MW: 'ill' as in it makes you sick to read an article and have to break it for ads in between pages.

"For example, even if you own a MAC"

Hey Paul, and anyone else who has the peculiar habit of capitalising all the letters in Mac... If your computer has ethernet, then you have a MAC, even if you are a Windows or Linux user... MAC address, that is... "MAC" is an acronym for Medium Access Control...

"Mac" is short for Macintosh.

It's not rocket surgery, after all. It's the English language... Isn't it misused enough as it is already?

As a physician, I know a bit about immunity. A newborn mammal is born with it's mother's immunity, but this is temporary. As this temporary immunity is lost, the mammal develops "relative" immunity to specific agents only after exposure to the affending agents. A computer system that sits in a vacuum with no offending viruses, cannot be consider immune - it just hasn't been challenged yet. As a Mac user since 1984, I appreciate your enthusiasm for the Mac, but the Mac is not "absolutely" immune. As do mammals, the Mac OS will have continue to be adapted to future malevolent challenges, adjusting it's "relative" immune defense. It doesn't pay to be too smug or too righteous, even if the Mac is a great product.

>and relative immunity to viruses and spyware,>

Relatives are OK, but don't intermarry again Mark Spoonauer.

Solitaire works fine for my wife.

MW-used, as in-used for something other than games....get a life.

jt: OSX has been, and is being challenged all the time.

With 16 million copies out there, there is no possibility that it could NOT have been.

But I take your point that anything is possible, but as someone said, Vista was attacked successfully in 5 hours. So, yes, some things are relative, ESPECIALLY the comparison between Vista and OSX, one "relatively horrible", and one "relatively great."

Just because some one has the title of "journalist", as a reader, you should do your own research and come to your own conclusions about everything. And NO, getting a Journalism degree from an "established" university has no bearing on whether you will, or will not do adequate research, in my experience.

I have to side a little with Cargo on this one. Macs are not absolutely immune since there is a (very) small chance there might be malware written that can affect them. So relative immunity is pretty accurate as a description in my opinion.

I can understand however, why MDN is making a point of this. Time and again writers are giving the wrong impression that there IS malware out there for OS X, just not as much. And that is absolutely wrong. As MDN points out, currently there is NO (zero, zip, nada, nil) malware in the wild that affects OS X and that point should be made clearly in anything written on the subject and very very often it is not.

Cargo's phrasing, however, is technically accurate. The thing is, anyone who has already gotten the misconception elsewhere that there is malware that effects OS X could misinterpret this phrase to mean that malware does exist. Cargo should have had the cajones to say flat out that currenly there is no known self-propagating malware that effects OS X. But since they were technically correct, I won't be writing them to call them on this one.

I like to play Snood" on my iBook 14". It's sometimes funny!

whatNow?: "Woo! First Post!"

Dude, you seriously need a faster Internet connection.

whatNow?

When do you have your first date with someone...after the birth of your fifth child together???

You need to get your timing right!!!

I fully agree with Random Coolzip... Everything is relative in nature...

Uh, this ain't nature... it's computers made by humans

We should say the relative difference between the frequency of virus infection between Windows and OS X, currently some 80,000 to 0, is because OS X is different. Saying OS X is superior increases adrenaline and raises the irritability quotient in Windows users causing interrupts in their brain function. Saying simply OS X is different, something a Windows user is willing to admit, allows normal brain function leading to a reply of, "Well, how's it different." One can then say OS X ports are normally closed, permissions are handled differently, administration passwords required for installation, etc., functional differences not related to number of users.

MW 'lot' - Makes a lot of sense to me.

I'm sorry, while I agree that "relative" is the wrong term, I think so is "absolute". Nothing is "absolute" in the world of computer security, nothing. I'm crazy about Apple; and gag-ga over Mac OS X. I do believe its pretty darn secure out of the box. But, I have to say, it continues to annoy me when other Mac enthusiast go to the extreme and say nothing, nada, zippo, can or will happen to the Mac OS, just look at our history.

History is history. It's the future that one needs to think about sometime. It's like saying you lived in a nice, safe town, where people didn't need to lock their doors or train their kids on how to call the police or fire department in cases of emergencies; because there's always been an adult around. But one day some stranger breaks in, robs, steals, kills or maims, and sets the house on fire; and all the town can say is, its never happened here before.

I believe the likelihood of a Mac OS X virus/worm is slim to none; because of how Mac OS X is configured out of the box. But that doesn't mean security SHOULDN'T be important to Mac users. There is key logging software, trojans (which admittedly would need a fantastic developer to get anywhere on the Mac, because we hate ugly useless software), word/excel viruses, software that calls home, and a host of other venues that could eventually lead to a host of regrets for Mac users who believe they are invulnerable, so take no pre-cautions.

I'd much rather hear the message that, we, Mac OS X users, are pretty damn smug and secure out the box, but also vigilant about maintaining our security against the "sh*t that happens". Like your pyscho boyfriend/girlfriend installing key logging or monitoring software on your machine; or the vendor you purchased "brand new cool app" from also included "brand new tell us what web sites this user goes to" software; or that clever script kiddie who created the new Word Macro Virus, learned how to use a case statement to determine how a virus should behave based on the OS its activated under.

Sh*t happens! Wouldn't it be better to be vigilant now, than regretful latter? Especially since we're inviting a whole lot of not so nice people with very levels of intelligences and morals into our homes.

Besides, there's some pretty cool Mac security applications out there. Little Snitch rocks. Not because its ever protected me against a virus, but because it also protects me against all those not so trust worthy vendors who feel like they have the right to install software that occasionally phones home to a server; and could eventually be adapted to include any number of details about your computing experience (not just serial numbers).

I agree with Paul regarding opportunities for hacking if, for whatever reason, someone has turned on their sharing functions. Someone else with access to the computer could do that and, at that point, the Mac can be open to others. Still, not the same as the possibilities on Windows, relatively speaking.

Further, almost all of us know that Macs DO get viruses: Microsoft Office-related (and other Windows) viruses. I have had a number of Word viruses which can eventually hurt files or, if transferred to a co-worker, can hurt their computer which hurts Office files, which hurts the project, which can hurt me. Relatively speaking, these viruses are not generally a big deal unless we pass them on to someone with whom we do business or damage someone else's computer. Sure, perhaps it didn't damage our Mac outside of Microsoft-related things at our point or with others, but it can still affect us later by doing damage to others.

Well, seems relative to me.

If I am running a Mac Server and a folder is infested with Windows viruses because it is serving a particular application on a Windows network, that DOES affect me by then being present to reinfest the cleaned-up Windows machines.

Relatively speaking, it is not a big deal for my Mac Server. Practically speaking, it can mess up some of the network the Mac is tasked to watch over. That messes up the service my Mac provides. That hurts the image/reputation of the Mac itself.

Of course, that is probably just relative compared to a full infestation that would damage the actual system, which does not occur. Still, it seems relative - not absolute - to me...

ron,

Maybe Mark Spoonauer just spends too much time with is blonde/brunette/redhead "relative".

MW = clearly, as in Mark Spoonauer cannot write clearly

Technically speaking

The Mac is susceptible to spyware that's installed and Mac's can be a carrier of Windows viruses attached to files.

Mac programs that come from Microshet are susceptible to viruses and malware.

Mac's are also susceptible to trojans, but it's effects require a bit of social engineering and is limited to the "user".

Of course downloading and giving a admin password to anything without trusting the source is just asking to be owned.

Also Mac's use other companies software, like Apache (very secure) and Javascript (not very) integrated into the OS and applications like Safari, any vulnerability in these programs affects Mac OS X security.

So Mac OS X is very secure, and Apple is making steps in the direction to thwart social engineering and tricks to get Mac users to run malicious code.

The main thing is malware doesn't come on Mac's uninvited or "fresh out of the box" like a PC is.


However there is a severe hole in Mac OS X security amour, and that comes from a trojan "helper" program or gizmo that runs all the time and looks for a "sudo window" to open, like a legit installation for example.

Once it detects this window opens, it can gain control.


Another vulnerable is a program that is fine the first time it's downloaded, but secretly contacts a server and downloads a more vicious version of itself, like the root kit "Opener" for instance.

Little Snitch is a outgoing firewall that catches these little secret internet connections. It's highly advised to use it. Not only to catch this, but also if a real exploit occurs it can't download or pass itself on.


Another vulnerability is giving a application a admin password, instead of a app asking Mac OS X to ask you to open a sudo window.

What happens now is a app knows your admin password, and yes it can pretty much do what it wants after getting full access, but it can send the admin password over the internet and turn on a few services, allowing a hacker to gain control of your machine.

If a app has no way of knowing a admin password and Mac OS X controls this information and grants access instead of giving a app a blank check, then the damage a malicious app can do is only limited to the time the sudo window is open.

Anyway I might not be a 100% right on, but I feel Mac OS X security can be better that it is.

it all depends on context... MAC also means Mycobacterium Avium Complex, a relative to TB. Doesn't infect the computer, though, just the operator...

Well put Mac Dude.

Scroll up to Random Coolzip's comment.

Everything comment after that is absolutely pointless since he gave the perfect response.

Nothing is absolute.
Nothing is absolute.
Nothing is absolute.

Why did I waste my time reading this? Cargo? Ralative? I don't care! I really don't care!

Woo! First Post!

Mac users aren't smug about lack of malware, it's just something that's not thought about, because there's nothing TO think about.

If only MDN were'nt so hypocritical on many of it positions. But I guess it's all relative..

How about swap "currently" with "relative."

Macs are currently immune to known viruses and spyware.

Who knows what the future will bring?

Wow! I haven't had cancer in the last five years--I am IMMUNE! I can chain-smoke, fry myself in the sun, and sniff fiberglass resin catalyst all day for the rest of my life!

This whole relative/absolute/immune crap misses the point. Nobody said OS X is absolutely immune. The point is — do the math. 16M users with 0 viruses vs. xxB users with 80,000 viruses and counting. This is not about "immunity," nor is it about "relative" immunity. It's about security by design. So, the basic concept goes: Windows is sh*t for security (because of its patchwork design) and Mac OS X is quite secure — not immune — because of very solid design.

Any journalist who wants to comment on the Mac's current state of security need only say, "Mac OS X, in its five years, has 0 viruses to date." Not only is that truth, but it also makes no implications either pro or con in regard to immunity.

And by the way, MDN is wrong in stating that "Apple's Mac OS X's immunity to viruses and spyware is an absolute." Your take should read that "Mac OS X suffers from 0 viruses and spyware to date." That is not that same as absolute immunity.

Dennis,

Not only are you immune, but your immunity to cancer is an absolute.

If I were the writer, I would have written it like "...and to date, total absence of viruses and spyware, blah blah..".

That would have silenced all the "absolutes" and the "relatives" among us.

But, I am not the writer. May he just loved the sound of "relative immunity".

Folks...

JT is a doctor, who recognized the term from his field. (Scroll back up if you haven't read it.) "Relative immunity" has a very specific meaning. You can't get it's meaning from the dictionary in most cases unless that dictionary has this complete term found within it.

The being made by Cargo using this word is easy to relate to, knowing this definition. Unfortunately, it seems the writer in Cargo assumed most of us have college level biology on our mind.

How JT's comment using the biological definition of the term: JT says, saying a Mac is immune to viruses is like saying a person is immune to chicken pox, just because they've never had chicken pox. Now, we know that they could get chicken pox, it is just that they haven't come in enough contact/ any contact with the virus. But no one would ever call that person immune. But you might say that they have a relative immunity to chicken pox, if they were somehow isolated from people who could infect them with that virus.

As for me, I have no clue to what degree Macs may be "immune" to viruses, though the fact that Apple offers Virex is a clue that they think it's possible to target a Mac, therefore making MDN's use of immune incorrect. Nor do I know if one can say that Macs have true relative immunity: couldn't anyone target a Mac right now if that was their aim to do so?

I agree with JT in the comment that MDN's use of "immune" seems too strong, and even needlessly smug. Let's keep on supporting Mac computing without exaggerating the Mac's prowess.

Otherwise, great articles, great writers, great topic: the Mac.

I love this place,
John Gee

It is as theoretically possible to have a Mac virus as it is for the Earth to be swallowed up by a black hole.

While the physics behind both events do not prevent such an occurrence, and as such one could sophomorically make the statement that it "is possible", the element being ignored is time. Just as the likelihood of an actual collision of the Earth with a black hole's singularity within the next 1 billion years is brought to zero due to the time necessary for the collision to actually occur (distance divided by speed), so is the likelihood of a Mac virus brought to zero within the next hundred years due to time necessary for a hacker to develop a Mac virus within his attention span (Any Potential Pleasure divided by complexity of UNIX+MacSecurity).

Virus creation is a programmer's equivalent to masturbation. They need to be able to do it quickly and get a worthy reward. Mac's security and it's UNIX core make this very difficult. While not theoretically impossible, it is so difficult that it diminishes any possible reward for the virus creator. It is this fundamental reason for the existence of a virus that makes it impossible for a virus to appear on the Mac platform.

Until some totally whacked out genius programmer decides to dedicate his entire life's purpose to the single goal of creating a Mac virus, forsaking all of life's other pleasures, and knowing it may be quickly circumvented with Apple's next update, that we MIGHT see a Mac virus. Even then, I would suspect the virus' successful half-life to be similar to that of a Tauon.

Theoretically possible: Yes
Probability: ZERO

Thanks for the correction. When do English people learn that foreigners can speak their language, but they can't?
Sorry for capitalizing MAC... Hum... Get a life dude...

Mac OS X isn't "immune" from viruses and spyware, relatively or otherwise. You are correct that there are, so far, zero reported successful (spreading outside of the lab) viruses or spyware apps for Mac OS X. And you are correct to call out ignorant articles which imply otherwise, as you have done on a regular basis.

But it goes way too far to say Mac OS X is "immune." It is possible to write both virsues and spyware for the Mac OS. It is much harder, but still possible, to get them to spread in the real world. But it is not impossible. Everyone I have ever spoken to at Apple about this has quickly affirmed that, while OS X is harder to infect than Windows, it could be done.

hmm... so mossberg reads mdn... or someone pretending to be him does.

But I can't stand MDN's glib response to any mention of Mac not being the best games platform.
As they can't defend this criticism, they write: "...get a console."

That's really week MDN!
Most of us are average earners, and after we've saved enough of our hard-earned money to buy a Mac (which isn't, after all, the cheapest computer on the market) MDN expects us to spend another few hundred $'s, €'s, or whatever, just to be able to play the games that can be played on 96% of all the other desk-top computers in the world.

Instead of glib responses to justified criticisms of Macs, MDN should grow up and start being balanced in its responses.

MDN posted this so we would argue about it all weekend while they take a vacation.

Here is commerical spyware for Mac OS X

http://www.spectorsoft.com/products/Spector_Macintosh/index.html


Another way to install spyware is to use Timed Screenshot to take secret sceen shots to a folder and then use Deja Vu to backup the folder of pics to a server online or even another computer on the network at regular times.


Control a Mac with Virtual Network Computing (hereafter referred to as VNC). Luckily, for Tiger users this is almost effortless and extremely simple, plus it's free.

VNC allows you to log into your computer from a remote location and have control as if you were sitting in front of it. All mouse movements, clicks, and keyboard commands are echoed back to you as if your were really there. You can even launch a browser and cruise the internet on your home computer using your home internet connection.

In order to turn VNC on and configure it on your Mac running Tiger just go to:

System Preferences->Sharing->Services-> check "Apple Remote Desktop" and you will be presented with a configuration panel. Check the box that enables "VNC viewers may control screen with password:" .

Enter a master pasword to use when logging in remotely. Use lots of UPPERCASE, lowercase, and 0123456789's when thinking of a password, after you expose your computer directly to the internet it will be available to the anybody who has an internet connection.

You will now be able to log into your home computer and control it from **ANYWHERE** on the internet as long as you know your IP address, username, and password and have VNC Client software installed on the computer your trying to log in from.

Where's MDN?

I know it's Sunday but hey I need my fix OK?

I been trying for weeks to get first post... :D

Macdude

Good luck...

Spin some more poop... whos computer are you using your tricks on your moms?

Sooo far from being a virus.

You suck!

Lame...

NO SPYWARE and NO VIRUSES FOR Mac. It hasn't happened yet and I doubt it ever will. Why? Because you can't install something without the users permission period. Unlike Windows which will install anything at anytime without the users permission or knowledge for that matter.
OSX is simply more secure period.

There IS something that is absolute.....

MS typically gets infected within ~17 minutes of being conencted to the internet.

Macs dont get infected.

I am not saying it wont happen, Canada could nuke the US to, it oculd happen.

If the tides turn and Windows stop fucking sucking then you dopes will have an argument. Until then 100% Macs for me and my family.

MacAddict magazine describes NoMacForYou's Windows XP Pro immunity to viruses, spyware and malware as 'relative'

Gee. Its SOOO hard to get a Windows PC Secure.

Do
1) Turn on AutoUpdate
2) Turn on Firewall

Dont
1) Disable AutoUpdates
2) Turn Off Firewall
3) Surf Porn
4) Surf Warez
5) Download Unknown Files

Wow..I had SOOO much trouble remembering all of that.

Hmm Doesnt that apply to ever OS.??? Geez, MDN..Slow Day at the Orfice?