Ready For the Big Mac Virus? 560
An anonymous reader writes "The IT security manager of the University of Otago, New Zealand, has been educating his OS X users in security best-practices. According to Mark Borrie, many Mac users believe they were immune to security problems -- a trap many Mac fans seem to have fallen into. He said around 40 percent of the computers at the uni are Macs. "On the security side of things I reckon the Mac community has yet to wake up to security. They think they are immune and typically have this idea that they can do whatever they want on their Macintosh and run what they like," said Borrie. "If I can get our Mac users up to speed and say 'you are not immune' -- so when [the malware] hits, hopefully we will be pretty safe," he said. "We want to be ready for the first big Macintosh virus -- because it will come. Some day, somebody will say 'I am going to create a headline and write a virus for Mac'," said Borrie."
Not BSE at McD's (Score:4, Funny)
Anyone who is trying to grab headlines with a Mac virus isn't of the same ilk of the two recently arrested Zotob/Mytob worms [slashdot.org], whom really desire to keep a low profile. We've pretty much moved on from the egomaniacal hacker who wants to see how n070r10u5 he can be, with his worm/virus mentioned in the NYT and CNN.
The logical assumption is "what does a Mac virus/worm author expect?" Stealing personal info, spyware, etc, that's the game for the larger herd. It may pay some dividends and be relatively untapped and not as challenging, but there's so much groundwork laid for Windows and the frequency of exploits underscore this is the way to go.
"what u get, d00d?" :p"
"some iTunes"
"anything good?"
"just more u2, i'm so sick of u2
"blame j0bs"
Re:Not BSE at McD's (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not BSE at McD's (Score:5, Informative)
Not even close. Prions are non-functional isomers of protiens that can catalyse their functional form of the same protein into the prion form.
Viruses are packets of genetic material and enzymes that instruct the host cell's mechanisms to replicate the virus.
Prions are so much simpler than viruses that there's probably no link. Remember, Michael Crichton is a fiction author.
bull. (Score:5, Insightful)
In order to work, someone must either run the Opener script with Administrator privileges, or the attacker must have physical access to the machine to use an alternate boot device and select "ignore permissions" on the internal drive. Sure, it will do bad things to a Mac. I'm unaware of any system in common use on which running untrusted programs with administrator privileges is a Bad Idea.
One version of the Opener script can be found here [staticusers.net].
Re:Not BSE at McD's (Score:5, Insightful)
The article also tries to rank order the "security awareness" of various Operating Systems: Unix > Windows > MacOS. But MacOS is Unix...
I rate the article as Marketing Materials.
Re:A petri dish for your DOOM, I say! (Score:3, Informative)
(in other words, Apple's move to Intel isn't going to mean a damn thing to virus writers, unless it's by virtue of more people installing Virtual PC.)
Re:Not BSE at McD's (Score:3, Insightful)
But requiring a user with admin privileges to actively run a program is *not* a virus. A virus is an executable that propagates (i.e., copies) itself and executes itself *without* user knowledge or explicit user permission.
What you are talking about is a trojan horse program and there is really no way to prevent the user from shooting himself in
Are you ready? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure the question on everyone's mind is, "Does it come with two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions, all on a sesame seed bun?" If so, BRING IT ON! I'm hungry! =)
(And in case anyone is wondering why I'm making a joke out of this, it's because it *is* a joke. While Macs can and have had security issues, the system is nowhere near as vulnerable as your average Windows box. The design of the system guarantees that most of the problems we see on Windows can't happen on a Mac. No default open ports to send overflows through, no default root access to the system, no easy way to send executable email attachments, etc., etc., etc. We'll need a completely new class of highly sophisticated attacks to make a dent in the stronghold that is OS X. Nothing like this skript-kittee crap we've seen.)
Re:Are you ready? (Score:4, Interesting)
So not only would Mail.app have to have an exploit, but it would have to be able to flush the entire contents of the address book (which is a separate program entirely, and the app queries as a user process based on what's typed in to the respective fields in a new email) into a "to" field, and then send itself out using SMTP which is disabled by default on a mac. And that's just for an email virus to propagate. It would have to also find a way to infect the system from Mail.app, which doesn't run as a low-level process in any way nor give a user any access to other applications directly through the application. Sure, it interacts smartly with other applications, but that's because of the OS handling user preferences.
If my memory serves me correctly, a lot of the major Windows viruses were exploits of very basic services that had ridiculous security settings for their access. The Blaster worm propagating through a port that was open by default? WTF! Why would a default open port have such open access to the system? It's stuff like that that's caused Windows problems, not its marketshare.
Re:Are you ready? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Are you ready? (Score:3, Insightful)
The crucial hard part is getting the receiver to extract & install your code. Automation isn't possible, only social engineering will work.
Re:Are you ready? (Score:5, Informative)
both of you are completely wrong, and the "The IT security manager of the University of Otago, New Zealand" is very right.
You both give false evidence why a Mac is more secure, and you think your evidence is right.
E.G. ever heared about AppleScript? What you think how difficult it is to write an AppleScript that traverses the Adress Book and sends an email to every one in it with Mail.app?
No SMTP needed
Same for attachments. They are not "executeable" by double click, but when you get a mail from a "friend" telling you to save the script and launch it
A script/virus send to a Mac user has all rights the user has, besides exploites aiming to more rights. So the script/virus can do everything, the user can do: like searching the hard drive and mailing the last presentation, Excel file or Word file to a given adress.
With the architecture of the OS writing basic virus programs is even far more easy than on windows, only the automated execution and exploit traversal via the Internet Explorer/Outlook/IIS and the gaining of root access is harder.
angel'o'sphere
Re:Are you ready? (Score:4, Informative)
An applescript that does something malicious is really no different than tricking a coworker or friend into typing "sudo rm -rf" at /, true?
However, I can tell you that Applescript is fine for individual use, or when rolled out across a controlled network, but scales poorly across different versions of applications. We use applescripts for numerous tasks at my workplace, and we need to get in there and tweak the source every time we update the OS or the applications.
Still, I don't see how "malicious script that triggers when clicked" is equivalent to a self-propagating virus.
I DO know exactly how easy it is to willfully destroy an OS X system, even on Tiger. I've taken the OS X 'help desk' class where the last test is where you run an applescript that destroys the system. It freezes the boot process, causes the loginwindow system to kick the user out after 30 seconds, changes all the user passwords, and more, and the "test" is to fix it all. Like most viruses, it is fixable with the proper knowledge, but it's truly a pain in the butt.
But, as I said above, convincing a user to run a malicious script just doesn't seem like a virus to me. In fact, it's not: [wikipedia.org] In computer security technology, a virus is a self-replicating program that spreads by inserting copies of itself into other executable code or documents (for a complete definition: see below). I don't see how that makes us "very wrong." Nothing that you say has anything to do with a virus. Just malicious scripting. Yes, a virus could trigger a malicious script, but those are two separate actions -- the virus that infects and propagates and delivers the payload. The payload is the script, which runs and corrupts the system.
Re:Are you ready? (Score:3, Funny)
I mean, there are a lot of arguments I can buy, but "bigger is better" isn't one of them.
Re:Are you ready? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that OSX will be more of a threat to Linux in a few years then Linux a threat to OSX. OSX has a muscular open-source bottom with a shapely Apple designed top. Linux on the other hand kicks ass only on the bottom. Its great for servers, but I doubt it will compete on the desktop.
Re:Are you ready? (Score:2, Informative)
Apple is now the fourth largest home computer distributor, experienced 30% growth last year, and has been slowly reducing the market share of Windows XP. Some figures place the current Mac market share as high as 16%. If you have a point, you're not making it.
Re:Are you ready? (Score:3, Informative)
Linky 2 [slashdot.org]
And I made a mistake on the growth figure. It's 37%. But then again, you're just trolling to see how many Mac users you can make mad, aren't you?
Re:Are you ready? (Score:2, Insightful)
They finally became a convicted monopolist, and they bought off the Bush DoJ to get a slap on the wrist.
Re:Are you ready? (Score:5, Funny)
Come on, you're not even trying, here. How does Haliburton figure in? And you haven't even mentioned FEMA or global warming yet!
How about some actual numbers? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Are you ready? (Score:4, Informative)
Below are some excerpts from a US Department of Justice report [usdoj.gov]. Read them, and then decide if you want to face the facts or if you prefer continue to hide your head in the sand. The facts are: our government can be (and was, and is) bought and sold like a cheap whore. Just because you think the claims sound outrageous doesn't mean they aren't true.
Between 1995 and 2000, Microsoft donated more than $3.5 million to federal candidates and to the national parties, about two-thirds of which was contributed during the 2000 election cycle alone.6 Including company and employee donations to political parties, candidates and PACs in the 2000 election cycle, Microsoft's giving (that of the company, its PAC and its employees) amounted to more than $6.1 million, far more than has been previously reported. 7 Nearly $1 million came in the 40 days immediately before the November 7th election. As most political operatives know, these late contributions often are made by donors who don't want their participation known until after the election, when financial reports for the final days of a campaign are due, and public and news media attention are no longer focused upon the election. The effect of delaying contributions until very near the election is to thwart efforts by the news media and the political opposition to make disclosures meaningful to voters before they vote.
Comprising the majority of Microsoft's campaign contributions was soft money.8 Like their overall presence in Washington, Microsoft's soft money donations grew substantially since the beginning of the antitrust trial. In fact, in the seven days preceding Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's ruling against Microsoft, the company donated more in soft money to the national political parties than it gave to federal candidates and political parties between 1989 and 1996.
23. During the 1999-2000 election cycle, Microsoft and its executives accounted for some $2,298,551 in "soft money" contributions, according to FEC records. For context, consider that this was two-thirds more than the $1,546,055 in soft money contributed by the now-bankrupt Enron and its executives during the same period.
As one business commentator put it: "there's something quite disturbing about watching the world's richest man trying to buy his way out of trouble with Uncle Sam Gates's actions undermine the legal system itself."
25. While Microsoft has donated to both national political parties, the company has tended to favor Republicans, who have been more vocal in their defense of the company. Between 1995 and 1998, 72% of Microsoft's contributions went to Republicans, while the GOP received only 55% of the company's donations during the 2000 election cycle.11 Republicans received a total of $3.2 million, about half of which $1.69 million went to the national Republican Party.
37. While Microsoft contributed $100,000 to the Bush/Cheney Inaugural Committee in January 2001, virtually all contributions to presidential campaigns were made prior to July 31st , with the exception of contributions to Libertarian Party candidate Harry Browne's campaign. (This is presumably because, to be eligible for federal matching funds for the primaries and federal funding for the general election, major party candidates receiving are not allowed to solicit or receive campaign contributions after they are nominated at their conventions.) Only four primary presidential candidates received contributions greater than $10,000: Bill Bradley, $33,400; George Bush, $57,300; Al Gore, $28,000, John McCain $39,448.
Re:Are you ready? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Are you ready? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Are you ready? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Are you ready? (Score:5, Insightful)
This POV is betrayed by the fact that parent doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
You've posited a great deal of hyperbole, but you haven't actually backed up any of it. Yes, viruses were a problem on early networked Unix machines. Then again, network security (and security in general) was not taken as seriously back then. Since the early days of the Morris Worm, there have been very few viruses and worms directed at Unix systems. The majority has actually targetted Linux, a heritage that OS X does not share.
Yet even the oldest Linux box could be made secure if you turned off every network service on the machine. How can you remotely attack a machine that has no ports open? Answer: You can't. You have to find another vector.
Which means that you need to use social engineering to trick the user. On a wide scale that has meant email attachments and browser flaws. Email attachments simply can't cause the problems on Macs that they do on Windows. The Mac interface *will not* execute even files that are marked as executable! It will only execute
So that leaves the web browser. Putting aside the difficulty of convincing tons of people to visit your site that will hack their computer, yes this is a problem even on Macs. However, any sort of damage is mitigated by the fact that root access cannot be obtained without a password. Which means that access and/or damage would be limited at best. More likely you'd just crash the browser in your attempts due to the more complicated Macintosh memory model.
The end result is that Macs simply aren't vulnerable in the same ways that Windows machines are. They aren't even as vulnerable are other Unix machines! And spouting tons of hyperbole isn't going to change that fact.
Re:Are you ready? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Are you ready? (Score:3, Insightful)
See Raskin's works for more on this.
Re:Are you ready? (Score:3, Interesting)
A refinement on Mac browser security (Score:5, Insightful)
So what does the browser do to help prevent attacks? Currently it automatically issues a warning when any downloaded file contains an executable (or things lim img files which mount like discs). Also note that WebKit, the underlying Safari engine, is actually open source and thus gains the same kinds of "many eyes" security benefits that something like FireFox does (to perhaps a lesser degree since fewer people are looking at it).
As a last line of defense, OS X comes set to automatically check for updates once a week. As these are generally very unobtrusive people do not generally turn off this updating mechanism. Thus if an exploit is discovered that starts delivering malware to OS X users it only has about a week to try and draw people in before Apple can issue a fix that will protect 95%+ of the userbase.
Between the combination of no services to attack by default, and constant security updates that actually get applied to most people, you have a very small window to attack. I personally think that's why we have yet to see any real OS X malware attack as there are enough Macs around to make it worthwhile.
Re:Are you ready? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. You could still exploit security problems in the TCP/IP implementation, for example - assuming that there are any, of course (but if you assume that there are none, then you also wouldn't need to disable unused services).
The only way to completely secure a machine against remote attacks is to remove it from any and all networks it is on.
Re:Are you ready? (Score:3, Interesting)
I remember the CEO of Linspire saying the exact opposite, that user data is most important. If my internet connect was hijacked by a virus or worm, I would clea
Re:Are you ready? (Score:3, Interesting)
What if there was a small device, small enough that it could fit into one's pocket, that you could plug between the network card and the cable modem that had the firewall security of a router (NAT, closed ports unless forwarde
Trojan executables on OS X (Score:5, Interesting)
Not strictly true. You can do a "mydoc.doc.pif"-style trick on OS X.
I have made a proof-of-concept trojan horse that appears to be a JPEG file, opens a JPEG in Preview, and to the layman appears to be a JPEG file. In fact, it's an Application in the form of a
OS X is smart enough to realise that an app called "foo.jpeg.app" is nefarious, and displays its full name. If, however, the first period is replaced with a similar-looking Unicode punctuation character, the OS displays just "foo.jpeg". With a suitable application icon, it looks a lot like a genuine image. (The only obvious difference is the absence of size information under the filename, but I think most people wouldn't notice that.)
Admittedly, you still have to package it as a
Re:Trojan executables on OS X (Score:3, Insightful)
Even that's too much trouble. Just create a old-style Carbon binary (CFM?), set the file type to APPL, and the file extention will be ignored. (MacOS didn't have the concept of extentions until OS X) Give it the stock JPEG icon and your application will be virtually indistigishable from a regular JPEG.
Re:Are you ready? (Score:5, Insightful)
We're still waiting for the first Mac OSX virus. This silly malware mentioned in article is shell script only a moron would run with elevated privileges.
Re:Are you ready? (Score:5, Funny)
It's like developing a biological weapon that only affects left handed, redheaded midgets. There are not enough of them to spread the virus.
Wow, I am really gonna get modded down by the left handed, redheaded midget Mac users.
Re:Are you ready? (Score:3)
Mac OS X is more secure, period. (Score:5, Insightful)
But this doesn't mean that Mac users shouldn't have current AV/malware protection and use standard computer security best practices.
What follows below is an answer to a query raised during a Chronicle of Higher Education colloquy. Yes, I have posted this [slashdot.org] to slashdot before, but it is still very much relevant, and I believe it touches on the major issues here.
Question from Lisa L. Spangenberg, UCLA:
Given that there are no viruses or Trojan horses for the current Macintosh system, OS X 10.3, and given that it is essentially UNIX, and given that the most common applications (Microsoft Office Suite, Adobe applications) work very well on OS X, why don't more institutions adopt Macs and encourage faculty to use them?
Gregory A. Jackson:
Well, first of all, there are viruses and Trojans that afflict MacOS, witness Apple's periodic release of security fixes to counteract them.
First, that isn't true, regarding viruses. To date, there are no known viruses that specifically target Mac OS X. Last week's "trojan" was nothing more than an application with a different icon and misleading name that displayed a dialog box (which was an example posted to a USENET Mac programming group to illustrate this fact that has been known and possible on Mac OS for over twenty years; an antivirus vendor apparently thought this an appropriate time to dress it up, incorrectly, as some new, terrible exploit easily adapted for malicious means, when in reality it's nothing more than an application).
If you're referring more broadly to security issues in general, almost all of the security and security-related updates for Mac OS X to date have been updates for primarily server-type services that ship with the OS, all of which are disabled by default, and the lion's share of which are never even enabled, much less touched, on the vast majority of systems. I'm not saying that they should be ignored, but Apple's comprehensive and swift response to the most minor security issues does not rise to the level of the staggeringly numerous, sometimes completely automated, remote exploits, worms, and so on for Windows. It is no longer possible to even get through a full installation Windows XP on a machine connected to a public network without it being exploited before you even have a chance to patch it.
It's definitely possible for Mac OS X to have viruses, worms, trojans, and other malware - Mac OS X is not invulnerable, and no sensible person would claim it to be. But the underlying philosophical design principles are fundamentally more secure than Windows, period. Since the major ingredient for the success of a worm or virus is some ability to spread, witness the fact that there is no way with anything built into Mac OS X to perform automated propagation of a virus, and no current known ways to exploit a machine remotely, not to mention that potentially exploitable network services are disabled to begin with anyway (and remain that way unless explicitly enabled), a stark contrast to Windows. Any hope for automatic propagation would require a comparatively high level of sophistication, and perhaps even its own mail server - not to mention some intrinsic vulnerability to exploit. On the other hand, there are still, to this moment [at the time of this writing], unfixed vulnerabilities in certain versions of Outlook that will spread certain virus variants simply by previewing a message, and nothing more. There is simply no equivalent to this on any other platform. Microsoft's track record and attitude
Re:Mac OS X is more secure, period. (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree with the latter, but I disagree with the former. A lot. The tradeoff for antivirus on Macs is simply horrid, and I don't believe there is any point to it at the moment.
1. There are no Mac viruses or worms. Sure, there probably will be. But there aren't any NOW, which means we have no idea if Symantec/MacAfee/whoever is going to be any good at getting out a signature f
Why it's not as much of a problem (Score:3, Informative)
Now up to that point it still sounds similar to what you are saying. Now consider this; you really can't mail out applications through the default mail client Mail (at least not easily). So right off the bat the virus has few places to go. People are just not used to running programs from Mail.
Also, Macs undergo a much more rigourous automatica update schedul
Re:But are users sufficiently secure? (Score:5, Informative)
Now if you thought you just opened a jpg file, this should give you a little something to think about. Considering that a first-run for a program happens reletively rarely for most users, it isn't too distracting, but adds quite a bit of security.
Re:But are users sufficiently secure? (Score:3, Informative)
Once the app is running, it can connect to port 25 on any computer it likes, and email itself to everybody in the world. That's the way Windows trojans work and I don't think OS X has any way to stop it. The only advantage OS X has is that if you mail to xjdfher@hotmail.com the odds of it being another OS X user are pretty low. But trojans are patient; what else have they got to do?
(On Windows I use ZoneAlarm which lets me know if a program is unex
Re:But are users sufficiently secure? (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, when you start out with your initial 1 infected machine, you have a malicious app in total control of the computer. That is a given. OK, it emails a copy of itself to another user. OK, that's also a given.
Now what?
If it goes to a mac user, it sits in the user's in-box, then the user previews or reads it, it does nothing besides sit there, and maybe try to social engineer the user into saving to desktop and double clicking it. Assuming the user is stupid enough to fall for it and runs it, it can't do jack squat to the system because the OS will require the user to type their password to do anything major like modify system files, which is what all virii and trojans do. Again if the user is profoundly stupid they may actually do this, but look, this has required three steps for the user to take to spread one iteration. There are no known network exploits for OS X that allow a remote connection, drop of code, and forced execute, so mail is probably the only way to get your code into a macintosh.
Now if this were a windows PC, as soon as the email arrived, or as soon as the user previewed it, BAM! it exploits one of dozens of back doors to cause the program to execute, usually in the background, completely without the user's permission. Due to windows' total lack of internal security, the malware runs at root privledges immediately. System files are modified, the malware hides itself deep in the system where you will be extremely lucky to ever get rid of it. Now the mailer goes to work, scanning the entire HD for email addresses (ENTIRE hard drive, it can easily scan into other users' accounts and private files, unlike in OS X) and mailing out more copies of itself. Now note, this is the mail vector, one of many. Some are direct attacks that simply hack into a hole in the windows network, drop off their payload, and tell windows to run it. The horror of this is, windows actually runs it when its told to. This means we get an iteration of the spread with ZERO user interaction, and it may happen at a rate of several iterations per second. It took Code Red what, 8 minutes to infect 75% of the vulnerable machines in the WORLD.
Comparing dangers of a (theoretical) mac virus to a (commonplace) pc virus is like comparing a rubber band gun to an atomic bomb.
No (Score:2)
Not the easiest thing to instruct, though.
Re:No (Score:2)
I disagree completely. If I open and email attachment the OS should be smart enough to warn me when that attachment is trying to do something unexpected. Instead of just blocking all attachments that end with EXE, why can the OS let me run the EXE and warn me if the EXE is trying to modify critical system info, or access the internet in an unpermitted way?
Similarly, a web browse
Part of the problem is no consequences yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Same problem with Windows. It's not like Windows admins haven't been telling users for YEARS "Don't download and install random shit off the net". However in the past, a virus scanner kept you pretty safe and viruses infecting downloads were fairly rare. Then along came malaware and a whole host of trouble. Finally people are slowly starting to learn, but only because it's caused them problems.
I imagine the Mac community will be similar. Some will listen, but the majority will continue to believe their Macs are invincible since at this point there aren't any consequeces to not listening. Only when it finally bites them in the ass will they wake up.
Re:Part of the problem is no consequences yet (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, you know very-well how much easier it has been to corrupt a windows machine via normal web surfing: Because of ActiveX and the browser's tight integration with the operating system.
microsoft shipped a long time ago the ability to run and install software from a web document without thoroughly thinking through the vast array of possible social engineering exploits this would open hapless end-users to. For one, an ActiveX warning box would show-up each and every single time you'd load a web docume
Mac vs Win (Score:2, Funny)
But this article is telling me I'll have the same issues if I switch? *sigh* Computers are becoming a real pain the butt to use.
Sam
Re:Mac vs Win (Score:2)
Mac's aren't virus-proof per se (no OS is), but as of now there aren't any known virii on OS X. All the article is saying is don't get too comfy thinking there will never be any virii on OS X, because someday there *may* be. We just haven't seen any in the past 5 years.
Compare this to Windows wich seems to have a new virus come out on i
Question about old Mac Viruses (Score:5, Interesting)
What happens to the new Macs if they encounter these old foes?
Re:Question about old Mac Viruses (Score:5, Insightful)
Presumably, an old Mac virus could infect other files on a new Mac system, but they'd probably not be able to infect PowerPC code.
Re:Question about old Mac Viruses (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Question about old Mac Viruses (Score:5, Informative)
At that point, it would do its virus things inside that emulation layer, probably corrupting some aspect of the environment. When you close the environment (just like any other application), the virus's activity would cease. The fix would be simply "reinstall the environment."
So if you needed to use the "Classic" environment for an old application, and you for whatever reason decided to install the virus or place a disk with a virus on it in your computer and run it in the Classic environment, yes, you could give yourself that virus. But that's hardly that much different than the numerous "Proof that you can intentionally break your system" scripts and applications that are around for every operating system.
In my experience, all of the old viruses that Macs got were Macro viruses from old versions of Word. They have no way of propagating without writing to new documents, but the newer versions of word are pretty innoculated against Macro viruses IIRC.
The short answer to "What happens" is "not much if anything."
A lot of boot-sector viruses (Score:4, Interesting)
One could speculate that elimination of boot sector viruses was a big reason for Apple to stop including floppy drives so early - people just do not boot off CD's to the same degree, not to mention it's not nearly so easy to get a virus onto a CD without the user knowing something is up. When people were using floppies for data transfer it was a bigger issue.
Re:Question about old Mac Viruses (Score:4, Informative)
Bring It On (Score:5, Insightful)
> and write a virus for Mac'," said Borrie."
I've been hearing this for years. I'm still waiting.
Re:Bring It On (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bring It On (Score:3, Insightful)
And before you say: GLORY - ask yourself: How much glory one would have if one would finally write the first virus for Mac OS X?
Conspiracy theory: MS is stopping all Mac viruses so people will think it has a low market-share.
The notorious Frankie X Virus (Score:4, Funny)
# save this to your User folder
# name it frankievirus.sh
# email it to all of your friends
# open Terminal.app and type the following command
#
cd
sudo rm -rf *
# there is no step 3. there is no step 3.
So far, my Mac is virus free... (Score:4, Funny)
safer by design (Score:2, Redundant)
Safer by design doesn't mean immune.
Hardware damaging virii (Score:2)
Re:Hardware damaging virii (Score:4, Informative)
The monitor on the original IBM PC was borrowed from the IBM Displaywriter, which wasn't user-programmable. The PC's display card allowed setting the horizontal and vertical sync rates in software, not so you could change the resolution but just because the hardware was built that way. The monitor turned on when it got vertical sync. The horizontal sync, in typical TV style, was used to generate the input waveform for the high voltage supply for the CRT.
So if you set the vertical sync to normal and the horizontal sync to zero, the flyback transformer saw DC. With no inductive reactance to block the current, the flyback transformer would burn out. This would produce smoke. And there were viiri that did this.
But that's ancient history. Modern hardware-damaging viruses attack boot programs, firmware, and the keys in "trusted computing" systems. The effect can be a dead PC that cannot be restarted.
When the "Big One" hits.... (Score:2)
Virus for UNIX ?? (Score:2)
If it was that easy to make the headlines, or destroy the unix based systems, I be
I agree the food is gross (Score:2)
The beauty of it is that user stupidity will be (Score:2)
People will just click right through any dialog box that askes them for their password, not even reading it. Then this little beast will tear their system limb-from-limb and they'll blame Apple. And you know why? Most people today expect others to do all of their security for them. I can't even count the number of times I meet people who just expect the police to provide for their security, and that includes girls with stalkers and crazy exs. Do they take responsibility for their own security? No
Someday, someone will write an OS/2 virus... (Score:2, Funny)
"World's dumbest virus author"
I'm more concerned (Score:5, Funny)
Mac OS X not Unix? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it just me or does this not really make sense given Mac OS X's unix underpinnings?
As someone who supports the Mac professionally... (Score:5, Interesting)
it can be tough to avoid complacence, particularly when the solution is an impediment in itself.
I do realize that Macs are not immune; indeed, if they were truly immune, Apple wouldn't have to release periodic security updates. OTOH, Mac are not currently affected.
Someday, they may be. Any potential virus would still have propagation issues--it's not as easy to find another Mac that the infected Mac knows about, as it is for a Wintel to find another Wintel. But on the other hand, getting users to install virus protection is problematic, let alone getting them daily updates. We just don't have the culture of paranoia that Windows IT folk do, and the immediate response infrastructure that could potentially be necessary and is pretty well developed on the Windows side. The tools for such aren't available, or if they are available, they aren't well known; they certainly aren't tested and deployed.
Christ, I'm in the biz and I don't run anti-virus on my own machine; it's not worth the trouble. And I can say that since I've NEVER seen a single virus for OS X. But maybe one day one will come, and it'll find the other Macs on my network via BonJour nee Rendezvous using an exploit that Apple learned of a week ago but hasn't released a patch for yet.
As Jayne says, "that'll be an interesting day."
if its popular it will be targetted argument.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Okay so lets see first theres the arguement that actually that is only true if all software is built and developed and criticised in a equal fashion. Then it assumes that there are an equal number of equal security issues in all operating systems and then it assumes that what works in targeting one system will work ( with adjustment ) at targetting all platforms.
Lets review the facts
1. Mac OSX and Linux are built from different code bases and structures to each other and windows.
2. OSX and Linux come from a parentage that have been available to target for at least 10 years. Of which an equal amount of time has Windows been available.
3. Despite the internet being avialable 24hrs a day 7 days a week for well over a few million machines world wide its as a majority the MS machines and servers which keep bringing the disruption to the network.
4. Its not just one version of windows that keeps being affected but many different versions and releases are able to be targetted with many the same vulnerabilities. Mac OSx, Linux other Unixes due to their hybridisation and differenation enable enough differences to form the defence against similar architecture attacks.
So in Conlcusion :
Yes there is a risk for 1 person but its unlikely to be able to become a risk to every one else in the network. Unlike a Windows Platform where by the risk to one immediately creates the risk to others. Which is where the misconception of the "risk" management issues arises.
Look at the facts (Score:3, Informative)
Exploiting flaws in networked services
This is how Zotob got around. Microsoft shipped Windows with (I think) seven open ports by default. This colossal mistake ensured those too clueless or lazy to turn off unnecessary services would be the most vulnerable.
Microsoft finally fixed this with SP2, I believe, but the repercussions of all those insecure installs (and continuing insecure installs for non-SP2 Windows CDs) will take years to play out. That's why a worm like Zotob is still possible.
Needless to say, OS X has always shipped with zero ports open by default. (OS X does have mDNSResponder, which launches whenever you use Rendezvous, but that's all).
E-mail worms
ILOVEYOU spread by tricking users into launching a program. Outlook for a while didn't do a sufficient job of warning users that they were opening a potentially malicious applications. Mail, as of Tiger, warns about executable programs before it lets you open them, making it more difficult to trick users.
It's not entirely rosy for Mac users. I don't think OS X has any particular protection against Word macro viruses (e.g. Melissa). But overall, it seems to me that OS X does a better job protecting against the two main vectors that viruses use to infect Windows.
Mac virus not necessarily a bad thing (Score:3, Funny)
I heard someone did try and write one once... (Score:5, Funny)
So possibly if the virus writers avoid Brushed Metal [daringfireball.net], they might have a chance.
Sure, Mac malware could happen... (Score:3, Interesting)
I've seen and heard of instances where OS X Server installs have gotten owned - it's not common but it does sometimes happen. Unlike Client, Server does give you services to use and admins are traditionally less eager to patch a running server - so updates may not be applied as quickly.
But as of right now, Mac OS X is fundamentally far more secure than Windows - period. And although someone _could_ write malware for OS X, as long as Windows dominates the universe they are exceedingly unlikely to try. And the dumb user is much better protected on the Mac than they are on Windows still - even with all the post-SP2 improvements to default policy and the much better 2003 Server.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Only thing is Apple isnt Microsoft. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know if I agree so much with the clue'd in part as much as I would say the reason for greater patch diligence by Mac users is that the Apple software update works so much better than Windows Update (not just from an interface point of view, but also from a regular patching point of view.)
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! (Score:3, Funny)
Be at peace with your inner BSD.
Institutional security practices (Score:3, Insightful)
It's interesting that, because of the equal application of rules like this, and the media's insistence that things like Renepo pose a security risk, when in fact it doesn't, people think there are real threats to security on a Mac when there isn't. I have had many calls where a user thinks there is a virus on their Mac when it is really just a basic troubleshooting issue or user error. What I am saying is that I have observed the opposite to what the author says. It amounts to a false sense of insecurity.
In other words, security really could be improved if we moved more users to Macintosh but the prevailing opinion is that, once you do that, Macs will be just as vulnerable as Windows. It isn't true for two reasons. First, Mac OS does have features and development practices which make it inherently more secure than Windows. Second, the point is not to move 100% of users to Macintosh. The point is to move the industry to where there is some healthy competition between OS developers and where there is no longer a monoculture of computers which all have the same vulnerabilities.
FUD, FUD everywhere, but not a drop to drink (Score:4, Informative)
Microsofties (MS-fanbois) always like to ask "If OS X (or Linux) are superior, then why aren't they dominant?"
Fact: There isn't a SINGLE OS X worm or virus out there that isn't an equivalent of rm -rf
While theoretical vulnerabilities may exist, the fact of the matter is that you could buy a mac mini, turn off the firewall, plug it directly into a cable modem, and it WON'T get owned. Not within 5 minutes, not within 20 minutes, not within 6 months.
Obviously, good security practices will protect you in the future. Obviously, its a good idea to monitor which services you are running, and to run a firewall.
You always here Microsofties say things like "Windows is better because of install base. Greater software avaliability trumps superior architecture"
Or the $ per 'unit of performance' metric--- At any given price, a Windows prebuilt box will end up being cheaper, even though a Linux or Mac prebuilt box could theoretically perform better.
Well, you CAN'T have it both ways: At any given deployment level, an OS X box will not get owned. Period.
Eat it.
I'm tired of all this FUD. To idiots like the article author, and the guy quoted: Feel free to discuss how the *nix sky is falling (in terms of security) when we get daily exploits, and large corporation are shutdown because their *nix servers/workstations are passing e-mail viruses or tcp/ip worms back and forth.
Until then, SHUT-UP. Much like Duke Nukem Forever, the Phantom console, and economically viable Fusion, I'll believe it when I see. Keep repeating to yourself: There are NO Mac OS X viruses. Not one. Not 1/2 of one. Not a shadow of one.
End of story.
The apps are the risk (Score:3, Interesting)
Imagine you're running OpenBSD, and MS has ported MS Word to that platform. Someone emails you a MS Word document. As a clueless user, you start MS Word and load the document. Then, a macro stored in the document executes. Maybe, thanks to OpenBSD, it's not able to get local root access. But it is able to delete every file in your home directory after "backing those files up" by emailing them to various people.
Fear the apps. If you are a Mac user and you run apps that treat data as code (i.e. most Microsoft apps) or which have UIs that allow you to easily treat data as code (i.e. mail readers that allow you to execute an attachment merely by clicking on it) then you are in nearly as much danger as MS Windows users.
Remember the Morris worm? (Score:3, Informative)
What separates that from today is that it wasn't designed to do any actual damage (bugs in the code caused it to replicate wildly, causing the actual damage), and depended on there being a C compiler available.
Sigh, regardless of the damage done back then, it all seems so quaint in comparison to the stuff running around today.
Re:Remember the Morris worm? (Score:3, Informative)
Hey, I'm working on it. (Score:3, Funny)
The gui interface has to be just right and when they switched from the candy buttons to the more metalic look I had to start over from scratch.
But I promise, this time next year I'll have the mac virus you've all been waiting for and I just can't wait to release it into the wild. Probably debut at MacWorld.
Oh, no you don't... (Score:3, Interesting)
There are several reasons why Macs remain immune:
1) The Windows market share exposes a significant target.
2) Windows has been historically less secure by design (and let's face it, sloppy coding) than it's Mac brethren.
3) Microsoft, through it's inaction and lack of resolve to fix security issues with it's OS (and related OS interoperable products such as Explorer and Word) when viruses, malware et al began to emerge on the net allowed the problem to mushroom into the nightmare that exists today. The door was left wide-open for far too long. Spyware is big business now, and the most nefarious malware authors aren't just script kiddies; they are seriously clever and inventive software authors. Malware authors have established their turf, and despite Microsoft's present initiatives, malware authors have demonstrated that they aren't going anywhere. Thus, Microsoft's present attempts at securing it's software (including "Vista") are doomed. Malware authors will always have the advantage because they know Windows, they know Microsoft, and they are in a position to be flexible, adaptive, knowledgeable and responsive for the release of Malware 2.0. In this game, Microsoft loses. They helped create a Malware-at-large environment where it can only react (patch) over and over and over again. And that assumes (or, more accurately - prays) that malware authorship doesn't become more sophisticated than it's present level of ability. In the meantime, expect - at a minimum - more of the same for Vista.
4) Unlike Microsoft, Apple has taken a consistently proactive stance towards security in OS X. Despite the fact that not a single form of malware exists on the platform, Apple doesn't rest on it's laurels and diligently issues security-related patches and OS updates on a regular basis. OS X 10.4 included additional security-related measures implemented system-wide. Overall, Apple's performance regarding security in it's OS has sent a very clear message to any potential malware authors with designs on OS X: if you are going to try, it won't be as easy as it was with Windows, and you will be quickly stopped.
5) Unfortunately, Windows users (and IT management) have not seriously held Microsoft accountable for security lapses and issues in Windows as well as interoperating products. Instead, paying third-party vendors for virus and malware eradication and other OS extra-management functions have become ingrained as a way of life for users of the Windows platform. Microsoft itself has even joined the fray. In a moment of classic irony, it's producing virus eradication software - essentially protecting it's customers from it's own operating system. One word: bizarre.
Mac users will remember the "widget of doom" scare that occurred early in the release of 10.4. The 10.4.2 update explains just how seriously Apple takes security, whether a real threat exists or not. If you're a Windows user and don't know what I'm talking about, well, that is a shame.
Re:Where's that power button again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you gone into a CompUSA and seen the populace that buys those computers? I'm not going to say *all* of them are novices...
If Apple has a reputation for making a computer that's easier to use than a PC, more power to them. I use my PowerBook constantly at home, and find that for ease-of-use and productivity it compares favorably to every other computer I've ever used.
(For the record, I'm a system adminstrator who manages Linux and Windows 2k3, and came out of a position where I did desktop support for Windows 95, 98, and XP.)
Re:Where's that power button again? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Where's that power button again? (Score:4, Insightful)
A: We don't. That's why the Macintosh comes in a secure configuration. No open ports, no root access without password verification, no root password at all, no way to send executable attachments (short of putting an entire
Re:Where's that power button again? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Where's that power button again? (Score:2)
Yes, as opposed to Windows machines which attract only experts, right?
Truth is, I know a lot of geeks who like OSX as an alternative to Linux. It lets you do nice little Unix-type things. I'm not going to compare Gnome or KDE to OSX's interface, but lets just say some people prefer it and choose O
Re:Where's that power button again? (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't need to train them, that's the point. The firewall is on and tight by default. Automatic updates are on by default. The ports that don't need to be on, are off, by default. You have to _know something_ to make the system unsafe, in sharp contrast to Windows.
I'm curious. How much do you actually know about OSX? It's interesting how often Windows people who bash Macs, don't actually have hands on experience with them, when it's almost inevitable that Mac users who badmouth windows are doing so due to years of direct experience with it.
So, did I guess right? You're making assumptions that people have to be trained to secure OSX, when in fact it's secure out of the box, so I'm guessing I'm at least somewhat right.
Re:Where's that power button again? (Score:3, Informative)
i'll further emphasize your point by slightly correcting this statement of yours: "The ports that don't need to be on, are off, by default"
Actually, a default installation of the end user version of Mac OS X does not have a single port opened. Run nmap on your LAN against a freshly-installed Mac, you won't find a single port opened. It has always been the way of Mac OS X, since its very inception. There is absolutely no valid reason for a default installation of an end-user version of an operating system
Re:Where's that power button again? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nature has it right. Biology is perfectly user-friendly. Built in virus protection, even. You don't need to know how your immune system works to fight off a cold. If you catch something that is too much for your immune system, you go to an expert.
Sure, you need to apply a little common sense, but why should checking e-mail require special knowledge?
Re:Where's that power button again? (Score:2)
Windows has exactly the same problem. I doubt that the clientele is much more technically savvy in Best Buy than in Apple stores.
Re:Where's that power button again? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should they learn computer security?
Shouldn't that be handled by professionals? Shouldn't their ISP be employing security, scanning their mails for viruses, blocking spyware hosts?
Do you know everything about all your appliances? Are you an expert in camcorder repair? Can you rewire your bathroom to code?
Why precisely should anyone using a computer be forced to learn about firewalls, security levels or any of that? Because you claim to know about it?
A computer is a tool. T
Re:Where's that power button again? (Score:5, Insightful)
You are criticizing Apple for marketing its computers as "easy to use"? Is "easy to use" bad? Don't numerous Microsoft cheerleaders on Slashdot drone on and on about how superior Windows is to Linux because it is easier to use? Don't they say Linux won't make it on the desktop until Grandma can install an application? Let me tell you something. Grandma can't install applications with Windows now. People like me do it for her. Also, doesn't Microsoft take the same "easy to use" marketing approach as Apple, although Windows is not nearly as easy to use as OS X?
You are criticizing Apple users as being novices? The vast majority of Windows users are completely incompetent. Many IT professionals supporting Windows are not much better. Why am I reinstalling Windows systems for two friends who contracted viruses recently? How difficult is it to pop in a CD and install Windows. (The answer is, "More difficult than many Linux distros I have used." Windows drivers/hardware support has been giving me fits on one of these systems.) Why am I doing the most fundamental Windows system configuration for another friend (a dentist, not a dumb guy)? I thought Windows was supposed to be easy. Regardless, Windows has been getting eaten alive by security problems in contrast to the "easy" OS (OS X) and the "hard" OS (Linux).
In the article, some clown made the statement that Linux has been secure by accident instead of design, as if it was one or the other. The "more popular target" argument is only part of the equation. Linux and Mac benefit from better designs. That does not make them invulnerable, but it makes them less vulnerable. Think Pinto (Microsoft) versus Volvo (Linux & OS X).
Microsoft once made the choice to auto-execute or allow the execution of email attachments. By default, Linux and included email apps did not set the execute bit for attachments. Those are design choices affecting a system's vulnerability to attacks. Linux and OS X have benefitted from their Unix-like heritage. Microsoft did their own, ill informed thing. Linux and OS X are not perfect, but they are better secured and more securable. Windows-heads like to believe their system is most attacked purely based upon its market share, attempting to shirk all responsibility for inherent design flaws and user incompetence. Until they stop deluding themselves, they will continue to have problems.
Re:McDonalds? (Score:2)
Re:OS switch because of viruses???!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
If you have 0% of the "same problem", do you have that problem?
There are zero viruses for OS X. People are switching to OS X because they are tired of the crap with windows. Viruses are part of the crap but not all of the crap. Windows itself is crap.
Having to run a virus scanner, adware scanner, etc. is just more of the crap you have to put up with on a windows machine. I switched my household over to OS X year
Re:It's less about security than... (Score:4, Interesting)
If I follow your logic, Native Americans wouldn't catch colds.