Mac Users Blast Symantec ... Again 141
An anonymous reader writes "Once again Symantec has spouted FUD about Mac OS X ... perhaps in an attempt to make more money as Microsoft pushes its own security products? A commentary on the issue entitled "Symantec 'scare tactics' don't rattle Mac users" says Symantec's latest Internet Security Threat Report continues to voice concern for the security and stability of the Mac operating system, Mac OS X in particular. However, there isn't proper evidence to back this claim. Also from the story, readers are asked: Do Mac users think they are immune to security problems or is Symantec and others fishing for a new revenue stream? Do you think Apple should start following Microsoft's model by rating vulnerabilities and patches?"
There are no threats...now (Score:2, Interesting)
--mike
Re:There are no threats...now (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:There are no threats...now (Score:3, Informative)
I think I saw an nVir infection, and maybe Scores as well. That was back in, umm, I think ’89 or so.
Re:There are no threats...now (Score:2)
Re:There are no threats...now (Score:4, Funny)
For example you install Symantec norton antivirus. It detects something as a virus. Let's say you DON'T clean or quarantine it, and just install norton.
Now install McAfee antivirus. It may not even detect that same virus at all. Assuming both scanners are all updated, how can a virus count in one software and not the other.
Re:There are no threats...now (Score:2)
Yes. Next question.
Re:There are no threats...now (Score:2)
But if you think that means I don't run an anti-virus program on it you're wrong.
I don't run anything on my Mac. Until such time as the threat is higher than theory there is no point.
I have no doubt that a virus of significant threat will appear on the OS X platform one day. Until it does I have no reason to think any particular implementation of anti-virus software would be effective
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There are no threats...now (Score:2, Insightful)
And once there is a threat, I'm going to look to Apple first before possibly considering purchasing a symantec product.
I'm sure that someday there will be this worm or virus that infects a large portion of the Mac community and causes havoc on a never before seen scale, but Symantec can't respond quickly enough to protect me from the *big one* anyway.
I believe that buying anti-virus software for the Mac now is akin to buying magica
Re:There are no threats...now (Score:4, Insightful)
It's that simple.
Re:There are no threats...now (Score:2, Insightful)
Errrr (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple would be retarded if it followed any of MSFT's security policy.
Re:Errrr (Score:4, Interesting)
Semantec Panicing (Score:5, Insightful)
- Users all switch to platforms without security problems.
- Microsoft makes Windows Vista secure.
- Microsoft includes AV and a decent firewall with Vista.
This is a counter to the possibility of option one.On the Mac, as with most other platforms, there are periodically vulnerabilities that allow arbitrary code to be run. These are generally patched quickly, making them a poor vector for attack (except amongst the uptime-is-a-measure-of-masculinity crowd, who refuse to reboot for security patches). The only convincing things they have are things like opener. Opener itself is nothing more than a bash script - it runs, and if you run it as root then it will disable the firewall, etc. and run a server people can connect to. Of course, you then need some kind of social engineering attack to persuade people to download it, run it, and enter an admin password. This is, of course, possible - just find some stupid people. The problem is that a virus scanner won't do anything to protect you against this kind of thing.
Re:Semantec Panicing (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe Semantec should start selling stupid people scanners. Unfortunately, the scanners would go nuts in their own PR department.
Re:Semantec Panicing (Score:2)
Re:Semantec Panicing (Score:5, Funny)
Jeez, you don’t have to look directly at me when you say that, do you?
Re:Semantec Panicing (Score:5, Informative)
The only convincing things they have are things like opener.
Opener is a generic trojan, nothing special about it. Trojans have been somewhat effective vectors for years on many platforms. Right now someone could craft a sneaky trojan and use it to attack os x users. That said, it is unlikely, and it is even less likely such an a attack would be effective. First, Pretty much any way the user gets the trojan they will be notified that it is an executable. This means the social engineering has to pass it of as such. Second, unless it is a cross platform trojan, it will not propagate itself, thus it will only effect a small portion of the user base. Third, in order to do much useful, the user will have to enter their admin password, which will make some people suspicious of it. Fourth, there is disproportionately large number of security people using OS X, increasing the speed and likelihood it will be discovered, documented, and mitigated. Fifth, pretty much all OS X users run auto updating of their system, allowing security fixes for a given trojan to be rolled out to all users, not just those running the latest OS's. Sixth, Open source tools like ClamAV already function just fine on OS X, meaning Apple could turn around a trojan detector for a given trojan in very little time. seventh, many OS X users do not run as admin users and thus cannot perform many useful operations themselves (non-admin accounts are usable and local privilege escalations are non-trivial). Finally, while all of these stumbling blocks for a successful trojan can be overcome, it would take a great deal of motivation, which will not be financial due to the small number of machines that will be compromised compared to the relatively easy and profitable target that is Windows.
I'd also like to argue that there are a great many things that could be done to make OS's in general less susceptible to trojans. BSD Jails and virtual machines are a great step towards making trojans harder to implement. Properly implemented ACLs, with a good, understandable GUI, built into the OS, and with a well thought out series of defaults could make trojans very, very hard to pull off. I think this will eventually be done, but has not really happened simply because there is not a strong incentive. Windows has a monopoly and so many other security problems that there is no reason for them to implement such a system. Linux distros and UNIXes have implemented some protections, but for the most part they are not well tested or easy to use because the demand for them is so small. Apple has the talent to create this type of system, but customers don't want it since they are not generally under attack. These will materialize and become usable when something takes significant desktops from Windows, or when MS successfully creates a basically secure OS, and then has to address the proliferation of trojans that results.
Re:Semantec Panicing (Score:2)
YES!
exciter root # uptime
18:18:07 up 421 days, 4:24, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
exciter root # uname -a
Linux exciter 2.4.23_pre8-gss #1 Fri Dec 12 17:51:50 CET 2003 i686 Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU 2.10GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux
Re:Semantec Panicing (Score:5, Funny)
[slartibartfast@magrathea:~] $ uptime
9:47 up 5 eons, 41 epochs, 3 users, load averages: 0.00 0.00 0.00
I can put anything in here. Ha!
Re:Semantec Panicing (Score:3, Funny)
So.. the smallest unit of time to measure uptime is User life spans....
Who'd you have to kill to get that machine?
Re:Semantec Panicing (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Semantec Panicing (Score:2)
Also that nothing is immune to stupidity, not even virus scanners. If someone is stupid enough to be convinced to run arbitrary unknown code from an untrusted source, there's a good chance that they can be convinced t
psymantec (Score:3, Interesting)
OS X's stability is absolutely , in all the time i have been running the system I have had one crash (The Crash was my fault ) , The finder has restarted itself a few times which i believe has lost me a sum total of 60 seconds working time .
The only times I have had programs that were unstable was when i was using Beta versions of things.
Security has also not been a problem , It automatically runs the system update regularly if you don't do it yourself . The worst that could happen is someone passes you a dodgy installer which runs some sort of server but that's not OS X's fault .
OS X is up there with the best *NIXs in these regards .
Symantec I believe has been using classic mac OSs (someone should tell them that 10 is a bigger number than 8) , They were buggy and full of holes .
OS X is not perfect by any means and has had its fair share of patches , But I could say with confidence that it could go toe to toe with linux in these areas .
Re:psymantec (Score:5, Insightful)
The only times I have had programs that were unstable was when i was using Beta versions of things.
how much software do you run? How much do you actually do with your computer?!
I've had Adium, illustrator 10, illustrator CS, photoshop CS, MPlayer, Safari (many, many times), iTunes, Word, Filemaker Pro, InterfaceBuilder, Bittorrent, and Quake3 (repeatedly) unexpectedly quit on me.
Having a program die is not a reflection on the stability of OSX, but the programming of the application. Application crashes are usually caused by unexpected things happening in memory (accessing a freed block of memory or memory that doesnt' belong to the app)... eg: bugs.
I've had dozens of kernel panics in OSX, although most of them are attributed to bad hardware or bad drivers or earlier versions of X. OSX beta and 10.0 panic'd pretty often. Jaguar was quite solid and panther was even moreso. My G5 panic'd the first time I booted it, but when I called for support, they said that the machine may have just had some processor calibration issue, but if it panics again to give them a call (it's been 2 months an no panics).
Anyway... the only real market I see for symantec for OSX users is system diagnostics and filesystem repair. Maybe even support for trojan protection. I don't think it would be that difficult to have something that looks for certain "bad things." It could protect from malicious scripts and even user error. It could stop a beginner user from typing the 'rm -rf
i don't understand why they didn't do that already.
Re:psymantec (Score:5, Interesting)
Too bad they gave up on that market by killing Norton Utilities for Mac a couple years ago. Of course, that product peaked at version 6 and started stinking up the place after that. IIRC, it was never updated for OS X, either-- the most they did with it was make it OS X aware, so it wouldn't screw something up while trying to "fix" something that OS X needed a certain way.
Pity, that. I used to swear by NUM back in the day. These days, I rely on Cocktail, DiskWarrior, and Data Rescue X. Not that I need them very often.
~Philly
Re:psymantec (Score:3, Informative)
but it would be nice to have. just in case. =P
we still reply on Norton at work, here, since we still have a single OS9 machine (for streamline and the occasional Jaz/zip disk that comes in). The machine occasionally won't boot or gets a system error and we need t
Re:psymantec (Score:2)
Norton Utilities does exist for OSX. Unfortunately, they don't keep up to date on it to make sure it supports Apple's latest OS, so it
Re:psymantec (Score:2)
Frankly, I feel like Symantec has pretty well given up on their "Utilities" products. Norton Disk Doctor used to be a great product. Much better than the utilities that came with the OS. But now, run Norton Disk Doctor in Windows on your boot drive, and it'll tell you that you need to restart. When you restart, it'll run a chkdsk. I don't mean, "It'll run the Symantec equivalent of chkdsk", I me
They just don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
That doesn't mean the Mac is more secure it just means that there are less windows for worms and virii to crawl through. Oh wait, I guess that does make it more secure.
Re:They just don't get it (Score:3)
Several Open source OS Like Linux, NetBSB and FreeBSD works on a even wider range of hardware. I don't think that make them more insecure, if anything it makes them more secure because the hacker / virii writer can't assume x86.
Re:They just don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, this is a moot point as we're discussing consumer electronics meant for people who don't want to do the maintanence that goes into getting any of the linuxces to work.
Re:They just don't get it (Score:2)
Re:They just don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
I think that's the exact reason why we should maintain a strong difference between our data and our programs. DirectX and Excel macros are probably good examples of this going wrong.
Re:They just don't get it (Score:2, Insightful)
That's not to say having Sub-cultures is bad. Having small groups of Consistent culture in an enviroment of diverse cultures isn't going to offer a greater threat level. Indeed it maybe useful, allowing the sub-cultures to develop strong Imune systems, as they will be tried and tested, and will develop in ways that may make them incompable with threats from other sub-cultures.
So relating that to a computer perspective. Apple build Mac's and control the hardware and OS, then build in other def
x86 / intel vulnerabilities (Score:3, Interesting)
My only security concern comes from not knowing how many threats out there are based on CPU vulnerabilities that don't affect PPCs but do affect x86 based CPUs.
Will it soon be as easy to port over viruses, trojans and worms to OS X as it will be to port games and other apps?
Otherwise I have no worries... Apple stays on top of security issues and doesn't have the back log of known vulns that windows has. In addition, many of the vulns that could affect OS X would also affect Linux/BSD so OS X gets the benefits of those communities watching for problems/patching problems as well.
Re:x86 / intel vulnerabilities (Score:4, Insightful)
A virus that hurts Windows will be ineffective against Linux, even though they run on potentially the exact same hardware.
OS X will have the same weaknesses and strengths on x86 as it does on PPC, so you can rest a bit easier. If you're still not sure, get the final PPC revision Macs, and wait for a year or two before going to x86 Macs. You'll know all about any issues by then.
Re:x86 / intel vulnerabilities (Score:2)
Re:x86 / intel vulnerabilities (Score:2)
They Want To Sell Something... (Score:5, Informative)
Just like drug companies that release a cure for a disease you'd never heard of, just after 'credible' reports appear in the media showing that most of the poopulation suffer from it.
It's a scare tactic, pure and simple.
However, there is a small sting in the tail - Mac users have little to nothing to worry about today. Tomorrow may be another story entirely.
Just because a virus hasn't been written doesn't necessarily mean it's impossible to write one. There's a creeping feeling in the Mac world that we can't be touched by malware just because we're using Macs. That's a dangerous attitude in the long run.
Mac users need only take advantage of the built-in security, plus enable a few options.
The Firewall should be on by default, but clicking the 'Advanced' button reveals an option for stealth mode. That's always a good idea. In fact, while you're there, turn firewall logging on and come back to read the log in a week or two. That'll highlight any attempts at breaking in.
Keep the administrative account around, but use a non-admin one for day to day tasks. There's no reason not to, and it forces a password check before any files outside the user's directory are altered.
Turn off the option to open 'safe' files after downloading in Safari.
There's a guide from the US NSA out there somewhere that's heavy going, but shows what good security looks like. Read a site like http://www.securemac.com/ [securemac.com] once in a while to pick up a few tips.
Mac users needn't be as worried as Windows users should be, but a few ounces of prevention still go a long way.
Re:They Want To Sell Something... (Score:2)
More like drug companies trying to sell vaccinations for a disease that doesn't exist yet.
of course (Score:1, Interesting)
One Day it will Hit the Fan (Score:3, Interesting)
That being said, one day it will hit the fan. Someone will write a really bad virus or find a big exploit and keep it on the down-low until they release it on a large scale. It will hit us, it will hit us hard.
It will be like a family living in a gated community where there's no crime. Feeling safe they never bother will any security system or guard dog. Then one day they all wake up to find their 1st floor completely raided of all valuables. The initial shock to Mac users will be the same (all-be-it less devastating than seeing your tv and stereo gone) . After being safe for so long and not having to worry about it will hit us really hard.
I don't bother running Virex, nor do most people I know. But I know one of these days I'm gonna pay for it.
Re:One Day it will Hit the Fan (Score:4, Insightful)
Eh, I think it will hit a few people hard. But (unless Mac marketshare magically soars to 30%+ or something) by the time it manages to propagate very far, Apple will have had plenty of time to release a patch. I mean, I only know of a couple other people I email with Macs. Assuming I even used Mail.app (I use webmail, so it would be hard for the virus to send itself through me), that means that if I got the virus from one of them, I would probably only infect one or two more people - not like the dozens at a time that a Windows virus is sent to. Until/unless Macs become *way* more popular, any virus will move so slowly that it will be caught before it manages to infect the majority of Macs.
Though, yes, it will suck for those of us who are hit early.
Re:One Day it will Hit the Fan (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One Day it will Hit the Fan (Score:3, Insightful)
It already hit hard over fifteen years ago. Mac OSX is based on UNIX. UNIX had its security crisis a long time ago. That's why Mac OSX is more stable, and less vulnerable to attacks that take advantage of ownership and permissions problems that are par for course in microsoft operating systems.
Re:One Day it will Hit the Fan (Score:2)
And even if Mac's share got up to 50% if the difference is still Brick vs. Straw then it will still be more profitable and easier to just go after Windows users.
Re:One Day it will Hit the Fan (Score:2)
And that inbuil
Symantec = Trojan (Score:4, Informative)
It was the worst crap I have ever encountered in my life, including Windows 2.x! The stupidity and uglyness of it is so enormous that the United Nations should ban it because it could easily pass as a crime against humanity. You would'nt believe it until you saw it... messing up a whole filesystem, bringing system performance to a grinding halt, fucking up the *nix part of OSX so badly that it is absolutely unusable. Oh, and of course you need a third party patch to uninstall it, and even with that patch it's a pain to go through and it still leaves some parts of OSX broken.
What kind of person must one be to program such a huge pile of shit? Compared to the braindead molluscs at Symantec, Microsoft looks like a Mensa con. There is only one Malware for the Mac and its name is Symantec. Works like a classical trojan: You install it because the programmer makes you believe it does something useful. But once you've done so, it begins to weak havoc all over the place and there is no way you can get rid of it except for major system surgery. Oh man, only thinking about that my HD was once infested with that dreck makes me puke!
The real danger for the Mac world is that these imbecile wankers are successful with their bloody scare tactics and get some ignorant management to believe their dirty, fucking lies. If then that management forces their employees to install Symantec "antivirus" dirt all over their Mac network, they might get stability and usability down to a point where they could just as well run Win95 on overclocked Pentium I Boxes with 16 MB of RAM.
Re:Symantec = Trojan (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Symantec = Trojan (Score:2, Interesting)
The biggest risk for Mac OS X is the admin dialog (Score:5, Insightful)
There are so many application installers out there that make the user type in the admin password that users are in the habit of providing it whenever the dialog box appears.
This opens the door for a socially engineered virus/trojan horse - one that politely asks the user for permission to infect the system.
Really. Why do developers insist on providing windows-style installers when all you have to do is drag the app to the right folder and let go?
Re:The biggest risk for Mac OS X is the admin dial (Score:5, Informative)
Because you can't just drag some Applications over. Those installers put files in directories a normal user can't touch.
Re:The biggest risk for Mac OS X is the admin dial (Score:2)
Re:The biggest risk for Mac OS X is the admin dial (Score:2)
I can think of one. (Score:4, Informative)
It actually is installed via a drag and drop into
Microsoft Office does it that way, too, drag and drop install followed by supplemental stuff (fonts, etc) installing itself on initial launch.
~Philly
Speaking of bloated crud. (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:Speaking of bloated crud. (Score:2)
For me, no. For my clients, who do design work and need more robust PDF creation and editing capabilities, Acrobat is the only way to fly. But thanks for speaking to me as if I were a noob, I really appreciate it.
~Philly
Re:Speaking of bloated crud. (Score:4, Interesting)
But please explain why it need to have the admin password to install it. Is there anything in Acrobat that is system wide, moreso than something like Office would provide? I really don't think so, but would love to be enlightened.
More likely, it's Adobe being lazy with programming and making things easier on themselves rather than proper and secure programming techniques. Remember, if there's a bug in their application at a system level, it could represent a real security hole because of the way the installer works.
Re:*ahem* (Score:2)
Re:*ahem* (Score:2)
Re:I can think of one. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I can think of one. (Score:3, Informative)
Adobe Reader has better zoom modes and stuff like that; I use "Fit Width" a lot, and Preview.app just doesn't cut the mustard.
PDF Forms don't work in Preview.app either. Not that they work all that well in Reader for Macintosh. Some PDFs don't render correctly in Preview, but they're fine in Adobe Reader, and so on. (Shading and blending I think were the main areas of trouble.)
On the gen
Re:I can think of one. (Score:2)
Re:I can think of one. (Score:2)
Nonsense. (Score:1)
For example:
* why does a screen blanker like Freefall come as a
* why does a game like diablo II use a special installer app?
And those are just two examples laying around in my archives directory.
Re:Nonsense. (Score:3, Informative)
I do agree that too many applications seem to need a special password, I wish there was an easy way to expose in a decipherable manner exactly what it does that claims to need it.
Interesting. (Score:2)
But even so, frameworks don't have to be installed in
Re:Interesting. (Score:2)
If the library is not being installed as a framwork, then it should be part of the application bundle. In fact, you can even make it so that a framework is part of application bundle.
The nice thing about frameworks is that they can include multiple versions of the same library and generally include the necessary C headers, so that d
Yes. Sorry. (Score:2)
Re:Nonsense. (Score:2)
I think any game that uses SDL, because the SDL framework needs to be installed to /Library/Frameworks.
machine-name-deleted:~ dg$ ls -lddrwxrwxr-x 5 root admin 170 Aug 30 09:53
So... uh... no. Anyone in the admin group should have the ability to add contents to /Library/Frameworks.
Re:The biggest risk for Mac OS X is the admin dial (Score:2)
Why do they need to be put in those directories then? OS X is pretty standard. Why can't the devs just work around that and keep all the files in the drag and drop executable. I'm not looking at it as just a security issue, but if I wanted to uninstall a OS X app, I just expect to trash it and then delete the prefs and I've removed all traces of it. When an installer puts files willy nilly all over the system it's rather hard to clean up af
Re:The biggest risk for Mac OS X is the admin dial (Score:2)
Someone mentioned Acrobat. Ok, I can understand Acrobat installs a virtual printer, but why do the rest of Adobe's apps need an installer? In my
Re:The biggest risk for Mac OS X is the admin dial (Score:2)
It's not about immunity, it's about vulnerability (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not saying Viri and Worms don't or couldn't exist on a *nix platform. What I am saying is that security patches are released within the same timeframes as virus updates, so why not just set your box to auto-update those patches and skip the Anti-virus software route all together?
On other vendor's [microsoft.com] platforms, there are both a greater frequency of attacks and longer delays between patches (probably due to the shear number) so Anti-virus software serves a market there.
So it isn't hubris that the Linux and OS X are imune, it is that the OSS community and Apple work quickly to patch any vulnerability ASAP.
Re:Plural of virus is NOT viri (Score:2)
Enough with the straw men! (Score:5, Insightful)
Many may, but in general... no more than Windows users, many of whom think that because they have antivirus software they don't need to worry about security.
Really, this is a straw man. It's like someone in California chiding someone in Darwin for not being prepared for an earthquake or mudslides.
Question for the crowd (Score:1, Interesting)
"It is easier to secure OSX against malicious intrusion at least partly because administrators have more extensive control over the OS and the applications that run on it."
Microsoft just doesn't seem to like making security easy to do, without buying something. Heck, I can't turn off popups in IE unless I get a third-party add-on. Safari - no problem. Not trolling, but I am curious - I only use M$ at work and I *hate* it, but I am also not a sysadmin, so I can't
Let no platform go un-taxed (Score:4, Informative)
Symantec, does indeed need to create fear of threats where there aren't any. They sell an anti-virus for Palm OS [symantec.com] even though most Palms don't connect to anything. They cite an actual TWO threats discovered in the wild in 2000.
Symantec's business smodel is to get US$29 or so per year from EVERY computer on the planet. They can't let any platforms go "un-taxed."
Perverse Incentives (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Windows is so pervasive, and because it has some obvious flaws, particularly in the security area, we have a whole "symbiotic" culture that has evolved around MS. That culture includes firms like Symantec and NAI/McAfee, as well as application vendors like Intuit. All of these have a strong vested interest in keeping the near-monopoly status quo, even if something else might ultimately be more in their customers' interest.
You can then have clueless journalists (as well as, of course, the vendors' coin-operated "think tanks" and "research firms") talk about "industry consensus" and similar nonsense.
rating vulnerabilities? Describing is better. (Score:5, Informative)
So, really, they have a rating system, but it's not dumbed-down. If you know enough ( or *think* you know enough ) to read through all of this and decide "hey, none of that really matters for me, I don't need this update", then you at least have a detailed idea of what you're passing on. Otherwise, you should probably apply all of these updates and patches anyway... maybe waiting a few days to see if anyone reports serious issues with it if you're extra paranoid about stability.
Since we all have different operating environments and practices, a strict rating scheme is a little meaningless. If you don't use Mail, a "Severe" rated patch that only patches Mail might not matter to you... really, you need to look at the description if you care about such stuff.
And what's this talk of OS X stability issues? Pu-leeeze. Maybe if you're running 10.1. Anything past 10.2.3... any instability is likely to be hardware ( likely memory) in cause.
%uptime
10:20 up 133 days
If it weren't for updates this thing would never get shut down...
Re:rating vulnerabilities? Describing is better. (Score:3, Insightful)
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=30
Re:rating vulnerabilities? Describing is better. (Score:2)
That is certainly a valid complaint. Perhaps I should have said "more detailed". In general, they are enough information to know what the problem is, though. The real problem with them is that there doesn't appear to be a standard- I've seen some pretty detailed problem descriptions, complete with links, and I've seen one-line descriptions that were completely worthless. Still
Symantec is selling fear based upon lies. (Score:4, Interesting)
Symantec shouldn't just be pointing out how many exploits have come to their attention, they should be providing evidence to support their position. Things like, how many exploits became full blown threats to the security of OS X. None.
They should be providing details about how their NAV(Norton Anti-Virus) software has changed over the past several iterations to deal with this pervasive threat. It hasn't.
Currently Symantec is using the same software, without any significant changes, since the release of OS X, that's no significant changes or enhancements, zero, zilch, nada, for over three years, but they're still happy to sell you a new version for $70+ and come out and make wild claims about how you too are unsafe. When what the consumers are really unsafe from is bad business practices and corporations that are willing to try and scare you out of your hard earned cash.
Why is this happening? Money, greed, avarice and lying.
Re:Symantec is selling fear based upon lies. (Score:2)
Currently Symantec is using the same software, without any significant changes, since the release of OS X, that's no significant changes or enhancements, zero, zilch, nada, for over three years,
Yeah, and Symantec used to offer Systemworks for Macs but I just checked in Apple's store and couldn't find it so I then went to Norton's website and it wasn't listed there either.
FalconRe:Symantec is selling fear based upon lies. (Score:4, Informative)
They actually had a version 3 at one point, it's still on their site [symantec.com]. And they even have the nerve to sell it with NUM, which they discontinued for the Mac, what, last year...
To be used at the owner's expense...
Systemworks (Score:2)
Yep. They should've pulled Systemworks on version 2.0, which was simply a repackaged version 1.0 with a couple of extra third party programs to "round it out". Version 1.0 and version 2.0 were identical except that they added Dantz Retrospect Express Backup and Aladdin Spring Cleaning and called it version 2.0. I've boycotted their products ever since. They actually had a version 3 at one point, it's still on their site [symantec.com]. And they even have the nerve to sell it with NUM, which they discontinu
The Microsoft model (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, because when I think "secure software," I immediately think of Microsoft.
symantec is sux0r on Mac (Score:2, Informative)
Wrong question (Score:3, Informative)
That's probably the wrong question. Being such a large company, you have to assume they rate vulnerabilities and patches -- it's almost impossible to produce high-quality software like OS X without rating patches.
The question is whether or not to release the information to the public. I can't imagine that doing so would be practically useful. If you already know what the vulnerability is, without rating it, you have a better leg up on understanding its severity, and you likely have sources of alternative workarounds until the official patch.
Numbers (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem for a virus with a Mac is the lack of replicating fodder. There just simply are not enough machines to find in order to properly replicate the virus. It would have to be somehow cross platform in order to guarantee its own survival. There is also the 'ego' side of virus writing, which if it truly exists, means that anyone writing a widespread virus is doing it to show off. It is their idea of a thrill to watch millions of computers crippled and tons of news coverage. The problem is a Mac virus would be little more then a blip on the radar.
Yes, Symantec is probably seeking some revenue; however, I really doubt they need to fear anything M$ puts out with Vista. I mean we are talking about a company that thus far has been unable to create a very successful Firewall and cannot secure their web browser. Besides, it is M$...how long before someone finds the viscious hole in any virus scanner they write...then your virus program can delete all sorts of fun stuff, all in the name of virus protection...
Re:Numbers (Score:5, Informative)
It's not near as important as Microsoft's astroturfers argue.
Back in 1997 when Microsoft opened up the Active Desktop/Content/whatever security hole, the infection rate I saw on Windows boxes went through the roof in a matter of months. This was not accompanied by anything like the same kind of increase in Windows installations... it was clearly caused by a specific action that Microsoft took, and one that they have yet to undo... and this has a much bigger effect on the prevalence of Windows viruses than the market share of the OS.
The Real Problem is Spyware (Score:3, Insightful)
Those Apps are installed by the user. (well some of them are installed by exploiting IE flaws, but most of them are bundled with apps that a user installed)
Nothing stopps Spyware Authors to write Mac Versions to mess up Mac OS X.
Nothing stopps Spyware Authors (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The Real Problem is Spyware (Score:2)
And the solution is? (Score:5, Interesting)
However, why on earth would one think that Symantec is the solution to the problem? If there is a known problem, Apple will patch it. If it is an unknown problem, Symantec cannot fix it.
Symantec Service on the Mac (Score:2, Interesting)
Look at the source of virus "news" (Score:4, Interesting)
Mac OS X DOES have some security issues... (Score:3, Interesting)
The scenario goes like this: Create a cron task to update Norton AV for Mac from the command line. Log off the system. Unplug the network cable. Wait for the cron task to fire. Norton tosses up an error box indicating that it couldn't update itself. This error message appears OVER the login screen, along with an Apple menu that shows you logged in as the administrator user who setup that cron to update Norton. Even without logging in you have limited access to OS X as AN ADMINISTRATOR!
(I discovered this little "hiccup" when I'd configured Norton to auto-update and found that our network had experienced a problem overnight when the update was scheduled to take place. Imagine my surprise to come in and find a machine with an administrator's Apple menu accessible and no one logged into it!)
Personally, I think applications shouldn't be able to display GUI elements if the user initiating those applications isn't logged in at the moment, and certainly not if NO ONE is logged in.
For slightly more information on how to update Norton AV 8.0 and 9.0 from the command line and via cron, see: http://mikesalsbury.com/mambo/content/view/115/ [mikesalsbury.com]
Re:Mac OS X DOES have some security issues... (Score:2)
To my knowledge the Mac hasn't had a confirmed virus since about 1993 in the Early days of System 7.