MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

he probably believes it himself. Its amazing how when people get emotionally involved they distort reality to fit their ideal.

what a maroon!

"Its amazing how when people get emotionally involved they distort reality to fit their ideal."

Yeah. I know what you mean.

Mature Mac users understand that there are no known viruses for the Mac. (Only some Mac users believe they are immune from security problems.)

Antivirus Companies issue warnings of a malicious virus attack on Macs.

Is there any value at all to reporting of this sort?

This guy should work for the networks, all they know how to do is spread FUD as well...

I work for the Tech Center at my University....when new students moved into the dorms they were all forced (Pc and Mac users) to install Sophos antivirus if they wanted to get on the internet from their room. Well, with in a few days of school we had over 100 mac users coming in complaining that their Apple computer "just stopped working." Turns out the version of Sophos antivirus that the University wanted on the Macs wasn't compatible with Tiger and broke the system software. Glad Mac users have anti virus protection, does a lot of a good.

Stop the insanity.

Hypothetical arguements does not make a virus/malware.

Zero means zero.

Nuff said.

Apple behind MS which is behind Unix? Um, OSX *IS* Unix, you morons. In order to accomplish any of the listed malware modifications to your system the program must have ADMIN privileges on your system. If you know naything about Unix (these morons abviously don't) you know that users log in on user accounts with encrypted and shadowed password files, not as ADMIN (root). I can break into any vault in the world if I get the administrator to give me access and the combination. That doesn't make me a safe cracker. This isn't a serious threat unless some Mac owner out there is monumentally stupid. These MS shills are simply trying to preserve their gravy train by scaring people away from alternatives to the MS OS, and by scaring uninformed Mac users into buying their useless products. Apple should frankly sue these people. This is malicious slander with intent to do harm.

This guy is the like the windows poster boy, desperately trying to convince himself that he is not making an ongoing mistake by sticking with windows. Well, ol buddy ol pal, just keep telling yourself that while re-installing windows or patching the patch that broke the patch before last.

The thing is, OS X ISN'T invulnerable. And someday, maybe, a virus WILL be written for it. And all the windozers will hoot and holler and gloat. Standing there up to their necks in pigsh*t laughing because we just got a dab of it on our shoe.

I've got what may be a technically retarded question, or just a really good one--virus protection works by monitoring for known viruses, and detecting when an unknown virus/trojan whatever attempts to do something that it is allowed to do, but shouldn't be doing.

There have been these articles talking about how Mac users shoudl have virus protection, but what exactly is virus protection for OS X? Since there aren't any OS X virus, there isn't anything for the program to recognize, right? And under OS X, anything a program should be doing it isn't allowed to do, unless the user enters a password a gives it permission, which one assumes would override any virus protection.

How do you buy a program to protect yourself against something that doesn't exist?

So isn't virus protection for OS X basically vaporware? Is there an OS X network security program sold that does anything other than scan for Windows exploits?

These words are from the article;
"I put apple a few years behind Microsoft in understanding how to manage security for the users. I put Microsoft a number of years behind the Unix community because the first systems that got hurt -- ten or fifteen years ago -- were Unix systems. Microsoft had to fix the security because it had such a bad reputation and to its credit, the company has really turned it around, "

The guy didn't even capatilize Apple.
I think that the guy has M$ Stockholm Syndome.
He does not state anywhere that that Renepo is not a virus

Jack,
You are completely correct.
You mean a tiny dab of pigsh*t, don't you?

you can let Mr Martin Reynolds, know what you think

http://www.gartner.com/Init

be elocuent or you too will lose credibility

Apple's Mac OS X reputation for being largely free of online security concerns is well known. Anyone who could write and spread such malware would be famous and wreak a lot of havoc. That has not yet happened. Why do you think that is so?

Some people still need to face facts: Mac OS X is simply more secure than Windows by design, no matter how many articles Munir Kotadia manages to bang out on his Windows PC.

This says it all and is so true.

As soon as there are hundreds of reviews saying OS X Tiger has all the problems that M$ Winhose is facing now, MAC users have to worry.
This "Aussi" earns a MAC Mini 1,42 to test for 10 weeks or so !
In the land of the blinds the one eye has the vision.

So an IT security guy believes mac users should worry about security.

This just in: neighborhood termite guy says every building should test and employ termite specialists.

mrw0lf-

Check your facts before posting, please. There are no known Mac viruses, but there is most definately malware. Some as dangerous as Windows malware. Here's one example. And another.

Just wait and see what happens if Macintels take off.

As a Mac user, and being very happy that there's no virus/malware for our beloved platform, security is still something we all need to have good practice on. That means not relying entirely on the fact that there's no virus on OS X--we shouldn't let our guards down and become careless. And carelessness is going to be the biggest problem--I'm sure there are lots of hackers who'd love to grease Mac users with devastation.

OS X's superior architecture gave us a very comfortable computing environment and experience. Let's not blow it through carelessness.

Magic Word: respect--you know what that means.

I think congratulations are in order for ZDNet. I mean, it's not just ZDNet USA that is spreading manure like this -- when it comes to the global market, ZDNet is an equal-opportunity FUDer.

Yes, lets all bury our heads in the sand and repeat the mantra:

It can't happen here,
It can't happen here,
It can't happen here,
It can't happen here,
It can't happen here . . .

As Carl Saga once said, "Absence of proof is not proof of absence". OS X has no viri YET! We can only hope that remains the case, but the real truth is that there is no system that can't be broken into given sufficient time and determination. To not at least be vigilant is just stupid, and Apple isn't stupid, that's why they release periodic security updates. They're vigilant, they find weaknesses, and then they fix them. If some of you guys were running Apple we'd still be using OS 9 and pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist.

OK, now I'm just confused:

"I put apple a few years behind Microsoft in understanding how to manage security for the users. I put Microsoft a number of years behind the Unix community because the first systems that got hurt -- ten or fifteen years ago -- were Unix systems."

Let's see, apple [sic] is behind Microsoft, but Microsoft is behind UNIX, but apple is UNIX.

Huh?

And, guys:

"it's" is a contaction for "it is"
"its" is the possessive form of "it"

I don't know how to be "elocuent," but I can be eloquent.

Bryan: Just wait and see what happens if Macintels take off.

It's not the Intel processor that gets attacked, it's the OS running on top of it. OS X on an Intel is no less secure than OS X on the PPC.

Blaa, blaa, blaa.

Sic Leo Laporte on 'em. He and Steve Gibson can make minced meat of this guy.

EMail sent.



ZDNet looks great with Bills cock in their mouth.

I've e-mailed a critical response to them along with a very good PDF from a security firm on how to utilize Apple's technologies to make OS X even more secure in various environments.

Here is the url with the download link to the document:

http://securityawareness.blogspot.com/2005/09/securing-mac-os-x.html

Be careful that this page's layout doesn't install a blank space at the line break confusing your browser.

The entire ZDNet consortium has had a hard-on for Macintosh, Linux and anything not WinTel for as long as I can remember.

I think MDN does a good public service when they debunk their crap whenever it surfaces like stinking sewage from time to time.

As I said before, I would never buy a single line of code from those sleezy FUD muckers, Symantec, Sophos and McAfee. If (and it is a big if) a virus is ever successfully created for Mac OS x, I will go with Open Source virus detection like ClamXav.

Those two above "malware" examples are not malware.

The first one requires physical access or admin password to install onto the computer. With such requirements, anyone can install a script to delete the entire hard drive.

The second one was patched within a week, and it requires quite a few agreements by the mac user to get deployed. Maybe a handful of potential victims there.

I've been working with the Macs since 1984 and I've haven't have any attacks or viruses yet. That's all the proof I need.

Sadly, virus software should be used to be a good network citizen. ClamXaV is open source and good.

inaminit is right, and so is macaholic. Just because there haven't been any virii yet does not mean there won't ever be. OS X may be more secure by design, but it is far from perfect. Someday, someone will successfully exploit some vulnerability. An ounce of prevention (ClamXaV) is worth a pound of cure.

He's probably on the MS payroll like other "journalists" to put this crap out to stop the flood of switching windows users.

... "I put apple a few years behind Microsoft in understanding how to manage security for the users...."

This holds some truth. Look at all the practice MS has had with dealing with viruss, worms and ?ware. They should be good at managing security patches, since they aren't too good at creating good software.

Does anyone have the email of the editor of this dumbass?

I think it is time for an ol' time floooood!

Okay good people, what about this article I found on the same site? OS X malware…http://zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Destructive_OS_X_malware_spies_on_Apple_users/0,2000061744,39164062,00.htm

Has anyone heard about this?

Borrie has no credibility, as he doesn't even know what OS X is based upon.

Hey McDoctor, you're obviously not an optometrist. See the above malware posts.

To Michael MacIsaac.

There are no known viruses for OS X. This means that any existing "anti-virus" software cannot protect you from viruses based on the standard anti-virus definitions mechanism. That type of mechanism looks for signatures of existing viruses based on the definitions that are downloaded when new viruses appear. There are no existing OS X viruses hence no definitions. If a real virus did appear, you would have no trouble finding out as long as you track tech sites. They will be screaming about it for months if it ever happens (unlikely.)

The other thing that anti-virus software can do is look for suspicious behavior. The problem is that without any OS X viruses the list of known suspicious behavior is very short. And 100% of it is already covered by standard OS X (as in Unix) security. Unless you do something stupid like run as root without a firewall to the internet with a easily guessed password you are going to be as safe without OS X "anti-virus" software.

The Mac "anti-virus" software is left with a single task, looking for Windows viruses. While this sounds useful in reality it really isn't much use. First, by extreme necessity any Windows machine will have far superior virus protection over anything a Mac "anti-virus" package will provide. Also, Mac "anti-virus" software is notorious for being really poorly written. As in delete files unexpectedly and crash your computer bad. This is to be expected since why would the virus companies put good programmers on a task that is essentially useless. Any "anti-virus" functions at all will work fine on OS X because there are no viruses. If you don't promise Windows virus detection you can ship a text file with the words, "You are now protected" in it and it will work fine and you won't get any OS X viruses (because they don't exist.)

You could, however, choose to pay Symantec or McAfee $60 for nothing and have a good portion of the CPU capacity of your machine needlessly consumed every time you open a file. I'm forced to use a PC at work and it's amazing to open the process log and watch the AV software use 60% of the CPU capacity most of the time.

And BTW, if I were writing a unix virus I wouldn't aim it at OSX. I'd be writing it to crack banks and transfer funds to an account in Luxemburg. The security through obscurity myth fails to take into account that there are millions of VERY rewarding targets out there for unix virii. I believe th largest recent breach of credit card information involving millions of accounts occurred on a Windows server, not a unix server, but that wasn't made very public.

Just to clarify, here's a quote from an article about the break-in at CardSystems on a banking sescurity site:

"The CardSystems Solutions website which has several Microsoft-based set-up runs on Microsoft's Windows 2000 operating system and IIS Server 5.0."

Not only is it Windows 2000, but apparently it's a WEBAPP!!!!!

I've posted this elsewhere on MDN, and I'm posting it again, because I feel it is important for people to know that although OS-X is far superior by design and Macs have had no viruses since it came out, there are practical reasons for Mac-users to consider installing a free and light AV software:


I recently installed the FREE ClamXav. It found 15 infected files in my 'cached email'. Interestingly, this email account is an IMAP mail served by a geeks' network (Unix based) and runs server-side SpamAssasin. Obviously, some spam gets through which I promptly delete. However, some of these spam messages that got through were infected, and the infected files remained in the cache folder. Naturally, all of these malware were for Windows.

It is common on MDN for some people assume that:
a) ALL Windows users are idiots, and
b) that ALL Mac users are geeks that could not make errors or spread malware inadvertently.
Obviously, neither assumption is correct.

For those who do not make these assumptions, allow me to list 6 current, non-hypothetical reasons to install AV software on your Mac (granted they are NOT about your Mac's protection):

1- You have friends, family or colleagues that you send emails to and who use MS Windows and you do not have a reason to be vindictive with them
2- You are on a mixed Mac/MS network at work, school or home and wish not to be kicked out of the network while others take their time to switch to Macs
3- You use Virtual-PC for apps that don't yet run on OSX (yes, the virtual OS can become infected!)
4- You use MS Office on your Mac and share documents with others and wish not to infect Macro users among those you share/email docs with/to.
5- You are on a file-sharing network and benefit from files or music that MS Windows users share and wish to be polite in return and not contribute to spreading malware.
6- You have a thing for such gadgets as BT and handheld devices that you connect/synchronize with your Mac: It turns out that even non-Windows based/imbedded devices have had their share of viruses, and you could inadvertently infect your Palm or GSM phone with what would be harmless for your Mac.

Regarding MDN's take:

I can understand your questioning of the "esteemed" IT security manager as this person is hardly someone that is regularly referred to as an expert (although he may be an expert on the Australia/NZ region – security isn’t an interest of mine). However your inference about the "prestigious" University of Otago in New Zealand is a bit rough.

I am not from New Zealand, however I have heard of the University of Otago, and they do have a good reputation as a quality institution.

It may come as a surprise to you (being an American) that there are very HIGH quality universities in other countries.

Contrary to the US centric propaganda that you obviously believe, the intellectual capacity of people from other countries compares favourably to that of American citizens. In fact I'd say in SOME countries the AVERAGE is a LOT higher.

You may wish to get off your self inflated sense of superiority and recognise that your condescension towards others is exactly why American tourists are abused in parts of the world and young US tourists stich Canadian flags on their luggage to avoid being assumed to be a ego-centric idiot.

Your personal attack on the third party who was simply asked his opinion is completely disingenuous (look it up). His position is VALID - running anti-virus software as a RISK reduction exercise in case of a POTENTIAL future threat seems like a VERY sound security principle. In fact that alone raises his standing as someone that DOES understand security risks!!!

My 2 cents

Luke

re my previous post.

I apologise for my assumption that MDN take was based in a sense of American superiority, I know all nationalities are guilty of that.

I do note however that IN MY EXPERIENCE Americans do seem to be indoctrinated that they alone hold humanities best and brightest.

IN MY EXPERIENCE - that isn't true.

Luke

Regardless of the inherently better security Mac OS X providesover Windows,, there is one point made in the article that is extremely valid.....

"Some day, somebody will say 'I am going to create a headline and write a virus for Mac'," said Borrie.

He's right. It will happen. You know how egotistical those little hacking f*cks are.

And as MD's Take stated - "...so that when "The Big One" hits, if it ever hits, we won't have a virus definition to defend against it anyway?"

Another true statement.

So, just try no to get too pisssed WHEN it does happen.

And remember - always backup your important files and apps, just in case!!!

Would help if us Mac users could read the whole article using Safari.

Shame - he starts off well - I think everyone needs to be security aware and 'malware' is an issue for anyone on any platform - regardless of what built in security you offer there is always someone dumb enough to run an executable thinking it's something else - even if it prompts you to enter your admin password. Like the XP SP2 Firewall, the Mac firewall doesn't warn about programs dialling out - however, my experience is that people just approve everything - I've seen firewalls spyware programs manually approved!

I'm sure it won't be long before someone creates a Trojan widget (maybe it pretends to do something useful but once you've granted it permission does much more). There are also security holes in both Apple's code and the open source components Apple use - hence the security updates. Same as in Linux and other Unix O/S. Then again, these can be over-played - how many Mac users are running Apache?

What none of these O/S are vulnerable to is the sort of automatic download and execute vulnerabilities MS built into Outlook and Explorer (i.e. ActiveX). Apple notably came close with the initial release of the Dashboard - and reacted quickly, contrary to the security consultants article.

Worms are feasible on non-MS systems - there's been talk of potential vulnerabilities in Cisco routers and most of the security patches (on Unix derived systems or Windows) concern buffer overrun vulnerabilities - holes that allow malicious code to be inserted into an already executing process. Only thing you can do is keep your firewall up and your programs up to date.

Security by obscurity : Macs had more viruses back in the old days, when they were mostly distributed by swapping infected floppy discs. Strangely they dried up about the same time Apple moved MacOs over to a Unix basis. There's not a lot of known Linux viruses, and despite some FUD trying to suggest that the virus writers don't attack their own (yeah right, most Linux users I know wouldn't have a Windows system in their house to test a virus on). To me that says 'design' not 'obscurity'. It also says 'Unix' rather than 'Apple' is what's responsible, but then what do you expect from a system that was designed to run multiple users and multiple programs and protect the underlying machine and other users from being affected by the action of one user??

There's also the fact that far from being obscure it's a well known major target - which is more tempting, writing the 15000th Windows virus or the 1st OS/X one? Especially when you know none of those OS/X users will be expecting it or running security software.

Security updates : Apple's auto-update is equal to the one on Windows XP - that's sufficient for domestic users, but I'm aware corporate networks don't normally use it (imagine having 2000 machines all trying to download the same patch externally). I can't comment on how deploying patches compares, but I can't imagine it's that behind, and the existence of security updates is well publicised, if not exactly broadcast on CNN. I'd say where they are is an 'unknown' - until we see a virus or spyware, we don't know how quickly Apple reacts.

Too Hot, you seem to be under the misapprehension that Macs can spread Windows viruses. They can't. You would have to specifically send the virus to one of your windows using friends/family. So I ask you, why would you forward spam to someone?

You can't possibly be saying that those email messages that contain the viruses are things that you wanted to receive, or are you?

Why would someone kick you off the network for using a Mac without virus protection? Again, are you copying viruses to other peoples computers? If so why? Is it, "gee here is a random Windows executable, I thiink I will send this to my friend Bob. I wonder what it does?"

Under Virtual PC you would be much better off running a Windows anti-virus application if you are so foolish as to allow VPC to connect to the internet or even worse, use it to receive mail. Though why you would do either of those things with VPC escapes me.

Under MS Office, are you the one writing the viruses? If not, why not just turn on Macro Virus protection that is built into Office? Now if you receive a virus (from where? spam?), it won't propagate to any of your documents and you are protected.

The file sharing network point is somewhat valid. Since files get automatically shared while downloading this might actually be a vector. I do have to ask though, why are you downloading Windows executables to your Mac? I'm not saying no one does this but it seems like it is out of the mainstream.

Gadgets such as bluetooth on your Mac won't spread viruses. Are you in the habit of sending random Windows files to people with BT on your Mac?

In most cases, Mac users need not worry about any of those situations. Most are tenuous at best and some others are just not how viruses spread in the wild.

James Bailey,
I actually do none of these things. The issue is that many do. These are not tenuous situations at all. It is absolutely true that viruses will not "spread" through a Mac on their own. Human error is necessary for that to happen as you have explained.

The unfortunate fact is people often forward messages that contain viruses without checking or thinking, may be oblivious to the problem of macros in office and may connect to the internet from within VPC and download emails. These human errors are at least partly to blame for the spread of some of Windows ailments (not all these bugs auto-propagate, and social engineering + ignorance and carelessness have a role).

Network administrators often have to follow rigid rules that were based on the expectation that everyone will be using Windows. I know of a few people who were forced to install AV software on their Macs.

As for gadgets, I'm less concerned about a Mac user deliberately spreading a virus, than about the possibility that they would, ignorantly, upload a virus that damages their own BT devise. There actually are some Palm and Pocket Windows viruses out there, and someone who is careless could infect their own device.

from article..."Borrie also believes that over the past three years, after so many high-profile embarrassments, Microsoft has finally delivered more secure products and created an impressive patching infrastructure, which he believes has left Apple "a few years behind the Redmond giant."

what a total fucking cocksucker this dude is.

Windows typically gets infected within ~17 minutes of being connected to the internet.

Macs dont get infected. (period)

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

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

I want to say so much more, but I will sum it up this way; Windows isnt worth the dog shit on my shoe.