MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Symantec?

Who are they?

Virus? What's that?

Oh yeah, I remember. Three years ago when I finally trashed my Windows PC for good, it had some Symantec anti-virus software on it.

But that was a long time ago....

68,736 Windows viruses! Yeh-heh-hesssss. I once knew a Pekinese like that! Yesss, you know it's true. I had to get a whole series of shots because of that bitch! But really, Symantec, what's de point? You know it's not going to work. Noooo. We Mac users aren't Windows tools. I mean, come onnnn, you think we look like Leno's audience or something? Hey, I keed. I keed those who like low-quality. But seriously, I'm all over Conan lately for that stupid Microsoft hosting job he took. I mean, heyyy, Gates wrote a big check, you know what I mean?!? Besides, everyone knows Conan's a whore. Kind of like that Pekinese I mentioned. But I got even. With her, she was so easy . . .

FOR ME TO POOP ON!!

Now go buy my CD!

I'm sorry, but whether they write pro-Apple stuff or anti-Apple stuff I can't stand these Motley Fool pieces. They have little or nothing new to say, and insist on saying it in as "cute" a way as possible. Terrible investment advice to boot.

I hate this pettiness.

Every Mac user knows that OSX is vulnerable. Just nowhere near as vulnerable as Windows which is a joke.

Secondly, the reason why people won't buy Symantec products for the Mac is because they suck. And not in a "I don't like the screen layout" but 'Norton SystemWorks wrecked my hard drive' sucks.

I bought one product from Symantec for my Mac--an Antivirus product. It lasted two weeks, and not because I am an arrogant Mac guy who thinks OSX is flawless, but because the program crashed my computer repeatedly.

It was not Mac users that Symantec's load of shit report was designed to fool. It was designed to fool the Windows users wavering about picking up a Mac mini instead of buying more Symantec crap to plug up Microsoft's swiss cheese OS.

Judge Bork's post above is clearly the truest thing I've read in some time. Thanks, J.B.

OS X may not be flawless..but for a Virus checker.. well.. what's the point.

ZERO VIRUSES.

That's pretty damning stuff if you're trying to sell anti-virus software.

Why didn't Seth mention that number?

Please spare me the hyperboles about how every Mac user prays to a shrine of Steve Jobs

I must admit that I laughed at the line "I'm as shocked as you are. Steve Jobs, fallible? Get me my gun." though.

Goddamn it! I have had enough of Symantic. Never ... ever ... agian will I buy anything from these skanks.

They are liars.

"It was not Mac users that Symantec's load of shit report was designed to fool. It was designed to fool the Windows users wavering about picking up a Mac mini instead of buying more Symantec crap to plug up Microsoft's swiss cheese OS."

Definition of "spot on" above.

"[...] but for a Virus checker.. well.. what's the point. ZERO VIRUSES."

True. It's also true that nobody thinks about home security until they (or their neighbors) are robbed.

To borrow from Weinberg, the first woodpecker to come along will destroy civilization.

MAC USERS:

Can all of us Mac users please unanimously agree as a whole to NEVER PURCHASE ANY SYMANTEC PRODUCTS EVER AGAIN?

Thank you!

I posted this in a different thread, but it fits here better:

A question for everyone (and MDN): Has there ever been an independent study done that rated the relative difficulty of writing a virus for Windows as compared to OS X? Or is the only thing out there the stilted claims put forth by each side (primarily the Microsoft camp)?

Something that would or could put an actual number to the results would be great -- on a scale of 1 to 10, for instance. One (1) being the easiest and ten (10) being the most difficult. I'd have to guess that the results would be something like: Windows - 1.5; OS X - 9.

Just wondering.

Let Symantec know that their latest misinformation campaign is having the opposite effect they were hoping for -- I just did.

Symantec feedback: https://symantec.iseva.net/support.aspx

"MAC USERS:

Can all of us Mac users please unanimously agree as a whole to NEVER PURCHASE ANY SYMANTEC PRODUCTS EVER AGAIN?

Thank you!"

You got my vote. I installed it before and it besides not really using it, the software acted weird.

I don't get the argument that OS X doesn't make a good target for hackers/viruses since it has low market share. Seems like that a hacker/virus would get pretty significant media time and "prestige" in Hackerland if they penetrated the impenetrable Macintosh or wiped out users $10K iTunes library. OS X's code is just written on a firmer base than Windows but I don't think it's perfect. Symantec is a joke and so is Reuters and other media outlets that pickup on their hype. For all of these increased hacker attacks the mention, how about an example of a successful one??

Why buy a product named after a DOS guru? Symantec has sucked for years.

When a single Mac OS X virus is made, I will consider installing antivirus software on my Mac. Maybe.

This is all BS as virus/worm writers will generally write something for anything they can. Just look at recent worms or script kiddie tools to take advantage of things like security issues in web applications like phpBB or AWStats, these are not used on millions of web sites, but someone felt it was enough of them out there to write something to take advantage of the issues in them. AWStats probably does not hold multiple percentage points of the web log analysis market, but yet sites are constantly being scanned to see if they are running a version with issues... I can see the attempts all day against both AWStats and phpBB in our intrusion prevention system... or the 10's of thousands of worm attempts against MS-SQL the "slammer/saphire worm", just scans IP addresses over and over again from infected MS-SQL servers to infect other ones... it accounts for 90% of blocked traffic currently in the intrusion prevention system... There have been a number of security issues in recent times where Apple has released security updates, there are more than enough MacOS client systems running that could be targeted... more than there are web sites again running AWStats or phpBB, or Mambo, or phpNuke, or hundreds of other web applications... while these are not OS issues but web applications, it just the point that there don't have to be 10's of millions of users of something to be a target... yet MacOS X is not targeted...

Most software used on webservers is not produced by Microsoft, it is unix based and virtually virus free - very very hard to crack, yet it is very prevalent. No obscurity and no viruses. Yet whenever I hear OSX and its resistance to viruses how come it is always put down to market share?

JFK's Head:

Sometime ago I read a claim by a programmer that writing a virus for OS X is 9.5 on the scale you suggested. I have not seen a claim for Windoze, but 1.5 sounds about right. Sorry, I cannot recall where I came across this information.

JFK Head:

Dificulty writing Virus and worms for OS X:
I saved something written by a UNIX and Windows programmer my link to the macworld forum post doesnt work anymore so sorry for not given credit to the guy who wrote the following:
Creating a UNIX “virus” would require the writer to muck with program text and data segment pointers, and change the program initialization pointer from the “crt0.o” equivalent to something else. The degree of difficulty here is at least 9.5 on a scale of 1-10... even if you do have the source to the runtime invocation routines. Then, to screw up the system, you have to attain root privileges from within the attached routines in that user-privileged program, which is indeed quite a bit harder. It’s not impossible with the default OS X install, but it ain’t easy. The easiest way to defeat this is to create a root account with a scrambled password on EVERY *NIX system you use, and that includes OS X.
Writing a UNIX “worm” is easier. Any program can create a detached process. BUT, the same issues with user-level vs. root permissions exist. Worms will run on properly protected systems, but they may never be able to attain the privileges necessary to do significant damage.
Now, these are not easy tasks. It’s much easier to write a simple script that fools Windows into thinking that an offending program is actually something the user wants to run. Windows does NOT have user-level protections - and that’s why viruses and worms are so easy to invoke on Windows.
Lastly: each task on a *NIX program runs in its own virtual memory space. Programs running within these virtual spaces are not allowed to “touch” devices or other system resources. Instead, programs make requests to the system for system resources. Even the graphics subsystem runs as a task under OS X. Hence, a “buffer overflow” within the OS X desktop would cause the desktop to crash and restart, but shouldn’t cause any other problems.
.......
Another thing: Points given to Hackers at the 2003 Meeting was:
1 point for a Windows Hack
3 points for a Linux Hack
and 5 points for a Mac OS X !
So assuming that more points are given to a more difficult hack, we might say that it is 5 times harder to hack OS X than windows

Excellent points Xavier...

My only concern is that if Symantec is willing to go this far... I wontder if they will CREATE a need for their software... if you get my drift (for those who are inferring impaired... I mean they make a virus and we need them - or something as dastardly).

Mac God

Hmmm why not? The only reason is that there are people outside of symantec that are smarter than anyone inside. A few. Same goes for MS. Why doesn't MS start writing virii like mad for XP and then none for Longhorn.. Longhorn will look like a fortress of security.

The problem is that, there are smarter people, so if someone was caught (inevitable) the consequences would be dire.

If Symantec was caught writing viruses, they would be burned. If MS was caught writing viruses they would burn also.

It's just too risky.

Besides.. With Windows there's a legitimate need for anti-virus.. why go to all the trouble for a measly Mac marketshare.. when you can just make stuff up.

After all.. they can't slam you for rhetoric and heresay, can they?

Also, do not forget that the CEO of Symantec once said:

"The OS wars are over. Microsoft has won".




______________________
I got a C- in Women's Studies. That course wasn't what I expected!

Xavier & beryllium -- Thanks much. That's exactly the kind of thing I was wondering. It makes sense that it has to be that way. God, Windows blows.

People write virii for wintel because they hate them,
as long as apple is not a hated monopoly they are safe.

Mac God. I wonder who actually produced the "proof of concept" viruses and worms last year? It probably wasn't an anti-virus software company but at the very least they really jumped on them and hyped them when they came out even if they never damaged even one computer in the whole wide world.

I still think one of the contributing reasons that you don't see Mac viruses is because you really have to know the system to write a virus for it. And in getting to know OS X, they fall in love with it and lose all motivation for doing the platform harm. Windows, on the other hand, well we all know how people generally feel about that.

Just to debunk the "security through obscurity myth", Linux runs on 70% of all web servers according to netcraft. Microsoft runs on less than 30%. ( see link )

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2005/02/01/february_2005_web_server_survey_finds_40_million_sites_on_apache.html

If virus hackers attack the largest population/market share then why are there so many more virii and vulnerabilities on Windows we servers over Linux?

NEVER use SYMANTEC... or WINDOWS... or MOTLEY FOOL.

They stand for FUD and poor quality.

In APPLE and JOBS we TRUST.

QUALITY will OUT.

No other advice needed really. Gradually, the world is learning this.

Speaking of problems with PHP:

http://www.macactually.com/

I just shot a letter off to Sophos about opening up their product to Mac consumers, not just businesses, because of the poor performance from McAfee's Virex and Symantec's insulting comments.

Symantec would be better off explaining the real need for Mac anti-virus is to scan for WINDOWS viruses, to prevent Macs in networks (including the Internet) from being "carriers" of viruses which don't affect Mac OS X.

And yes, the headlines that have been spawned from this FUD is truly disgusting.

"Creating a UNIX “virus” would require the writer to muck with program text and data segment pointers"

The blog sprintbare attributes the quote to Burt Janz:

http://sprintbare.com/radioactive/fission_comments.php?id=A57_0_3_0_C

VEEERRRYYY INTERESTING

I used to use norton for years until I had a problem with my OSX hard-drive.

I used norton utilities to repair it and it totally fscked up my hard drive!

I had to wipe my drive and re-install OSX all because of Norton Utilities!

Regardless to say, I have never used Norton since - and I would strongly everyone NOT TO USE NORTON ON OS X!

On another note, ever since my norton anti-virus subscription expired everytime Norton Anti-virus runs it comes up saying that I have a 'Worm' on my drive.

More than co-incidence!!....

Strange, I also use virex and it has more upto date virus definitions and yet it tells me my hard drive is clean of virus's.

It looks like there is a part of norton anti-virus that shows a window telling me I have a virus (even though I don't!) - and all because my anti-virus subscription is run out!

Norton is total CRAPPOLA!

DON'T BUY NORTON UTILITIES - BUY VIREX INSTEAD!!

Even my Mac tech support experts say the best utilities you can get to repair your OS X drive drive is 'disk utility, disk warrior and Techtool Pro.

They advise people to forget about buying Norton because it destroys the OS X directories and B-tree data!

Symantec? They're dead to me....well, actually never used 'em... so they're still dead to me...
...I'm going to eat a sandwich.

Wow. They said, "bullshit." I think I like this site.