Zombie Macs Launch DoS Attack 757
Cludge writes "ZDNet has a story (and several related articles) about how Symantec has discovered evidence of an all-Mac based botnet that is actively involved in a DOS attack. Apparently, security on the exploited Macs (call them iBots?) was compromised when unwary users bit-torrented pirated copies of iWork 09 and Photoshop CS4 that contained malware. From the article: 'They describe this as the "first real attempt to create a Mac botnet" and note that the zombie Macs are already being used for nefarious purposes.'"
Are you sure... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Are you sure... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Are you sure... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Are you sure... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Are you sure... (Score:5, Funny)
1337 Ninja Haxor vs. Pwnzilla
Instant Karma... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the funny part is that the users who torrented and installed pirated copies of iWork 09 and Photoshop CS4 got exactly what they deserved. Instant karma.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, the funny part is that the users who torrented and installed pirated copies of iWork 09 and Photoshop CS4 got exactly what they deserved. Instant karma.
Instant karma's gonna get you - gonna knock you right on the head.
LOL zombie macs (Score:5, Funny)
Zombie Mac: Braaaaiiiinnnssss
Mac fanboy: Joke's on you, I have none
(I'm going to mod point hell for this one)
Re:Instant Karma... (Score:5, Insightful)
"They" got what they deserved? More like we, the internet public at large that has to suffer through botnet DoS attacks, got what we didn't deserve.
Re:Instant Karma... (Score:4, Insightful)
Except they probably don't even realize it.
And everyone else gets to suffer for it.
Re:Instant Karma... (Score:5, Informative)
I believe you are wrong in this case though, it's not a Mac that caught a virus, it may or may not be a virus, but it was installed onto the computer by the participating user on purpose. Except the user got a bit more functionality than he 'paid' for.
Re:Instant Karma... (Score:5, Informative)
vs something that floats around the internet for any 'innocent' networked Mac to catch.
Re:Instant Karma... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Instant Karma... (Score:5, Informative)
Fine so it's a Trojan.
Re:Instant Karma... (Score:4, Informative)
Not according to the guy who won the Pwn2own contest.
Why Safari? Why didn't you go after IE or Safari?
It's really simple. Safari on the Mac is easier to exploit. The things that Windows do to make it harder (for an exploit to work), Macs don't do. Hacking into Macs is so much easier. You don't have to jump through hoops and deal with all the anti-exploit mitigations you'd find in Windows.
It's more about the operating system than the (target) program. Firefox on Mac is pretty easy too. The underlying OS doesn't have anti-exploit stuff built into it.
Re:Instant Karma... (Score:5, Informative)
I loved that article. My entire family is made up fo mac minions, and keep tellign me this kind of thing, despite the fact that I have never had a virus, never had to reformat except when I rebuilt the whole computer, get way more performance and paid one third as much as they did.
Here's the article, btw.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2941 [zdnet.com]
Re:Instant Karma... (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you know what OS the creator of that attack uses himself? He runs OSX on a MacBook Pro. It puts a rather interesting spin on the conclusion you want to draw.
Re:Instant Karma... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the same story for most Windows malware.
Re:Instant Karma... (Score:4, Insightful)
Certainly for a lot of it, but I wouldn't say most. Just from my own experience cleaning up people's PCs, a lot of it is IE-targeting drive-by malware. Obviously the number of Mac trojans like this one in the wild is much smaller than the number of similar Windows ones. That's a practical difference, not any kind of baked-in protection. You can call it security by obscurity if you want. But that situation isn't going to change for a long time, if ever.
As to whether MacOS is *theoretically* safer than Vista with UAC turned on and Firefox as default browser, I don't know. Probably not. I do enjoy not having to put up with two or three dialogs and a screen dimming every time I delete a shortcut from the start menu. If you can handle running an XP box and keeping it clean, there's your Windows solution. For people who can't be trusted to do so, as well as people who can't stand constantly being interrupted when doing mundane things like enabling Wi-Fi, there's OS X.
Re:Instant Karma... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Instant Karma... (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone who says Macs are virus-proof doesn't have a clue as to what they're talking about.
Macs ARE harder to inject viruses into because the limited privilege escalation system used by Macs (and Linux) reduces the opportunities to run processes as root.
On pre-Vista Windows boxes, most people ran their default account with godlike administrator privileges. It's either that or:
Run a restricted account
Any time you want to install software
DO:
log out of your restricted account
log into the admin account
install the software
then go back to your restricted account.
REPEAT
After doing this about 5 or six times, you get frustrated and switch the "Administrator" flag on your restricted account and thus leave yourself open to attack any time you download something (or navigate to a malware page if you're running IE).
The vector for infection for this botnet was escalating privileges to install CS 3. It only happens once, and only happens briefly, but once is all you need!
Re:Instant Karma... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Instant Karma... (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod this up. The strongest attack vector is the social engineering vector.
Re:Instant Karma... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Instant Karma... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Instant Karma... (Score:5, Insightful)
You make a good point except for the fact that if I just hide malware in the installation file, neither of your tactics are secure. The user is the weakest link in most attacks.
The users is a weak link in many security chains, but a hard one to exploit on a large scale. OS X and Linux do better on security partly because of market share, but largely because most malware is spread by automated worms and the fewer and more hardened services running by default on OS X and Linux machines provide a much harder target.
For trojans such as we're discussing, no OS has a good solution in place, excepting maybe SELinux or the like which is fairly limited and hard to use because it really isn't in high demand so developers don't target it.
Re:Instant Karma... (Score:5, Informative)
Any time you want to install software
DO:
log out of your restricted account
log into the admin account
install the software
then go back to your restricted account.
There's no need to log out. You can use the "runas" command to run the installer with the proper credentials from your restricted account.
Re:Instant Karma... (Score:4, Informative)
The solution? Log in as admin and fix it.
Nope.
runas /user:administrator cmd
cacls <filename> /E /G Everyone:W
Re:Instant Karma... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Instant Karma... (Score:5, Insightful)
You have a point, but most malware doesn't need to run as root to do its job, so really getting access at all is "game over". Protecting root doesn't mean much when root isn't the target . . .
Re:Instant Karma... (Score:5, Informative)
On pre-Vista Windows boxes, most people ran their default account with godlike administrator privileges. It's either that or:
Run a restricted account
Any time you want to install software
DO:
log out of your restricted account
log into the admin account
install the software
then go back to your restricted account.
REPEAT
You forgot the other option.
Any time you want to install software
DO:
right-click
select RUN AS administrator
install the software
Not really much harder than typing 'sudo' before installing things.
Re:Instant Karma... (Score:5, Insightful)
This ain't a virus. This is a program, just like any other that you download and run.
Not to say that Macs are "virus-proof" - they aren't. But short of downloading pirated software and running it, there haven't been any attacks so your friends here on Slashdot are still giving you good advice.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Instant Karma... (Score:4, Funny)
And voila, a virus laden PC ready to infect the unsuspecting.
Sigh (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
What the hell are you talking about?
Malware ie: trojans have been around for ages. This has nothing to do with the overall security of the OS and everything with the security threat the user is to themselves.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, I'd say there is a difference between a software package that is a trojan from the very start and one that, by running with administrative privileges all the time, can also be exploited later at runtime into i
Re:Sigh (Score:4, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
I've got your denial right here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Purposefully installing malicious software does not indicate a vulnerability. The user intentionally installed a piece of software that is doing exactly what it is designed to do.
There isn't an operating system on the planet that can protect you (or itself) from fraudulent user activity.
Re:I've got your denial right here. (Score:4, Insightful)
They didnt purposefully install the malicious software
That would be like saying IE is safe, and its the users fault for purposefully clicking the "Install ActiveX" button that happened to install malware.
If the operating system was as safe as the crazy fanboys claim, it wouldnt have been able to install malware in the first place.
Not that im claiming that *any* OS is safer than any other, im justing saying OSX did NOT protect the user.
Re:I've got your denial right here. (Score:5, Insightful)
They totally intentionally installed the software. You can't make a machine Malware proof without also making it software proof.
The whole notion of "Malicious Software" is a marketing creation for the sole purpose of making money off people who would rather spend money on software to watch their back than learn (bother) to help themselves.
Anyone who tells you different is confusing the issue. OS X has plenty of problems, this isn't one of them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Regardless of what operating system you're on, there's this little feature called code signing.
If Apple actually signed everything they make, including the Setup/Installer packages, and drummed just that one little piece of security into their users then this type of malware-embedded-in-Apple-software attack just wouldn't be possible.
Re:I've got your denial right here. (Score:4, Insightful)
So wait, let me get this straight ... You think that if a user installs an ActiveX, and clicks through the three or four warnings and clicks it takes to get it installed, that the OS is the problem? Please tell me thats not the case, cause if it is, you are an idiot.
The are only two choices here:
1) Let people install software from wherever they want, just like most OSes do it.
2) Only let users install apps approved by the OS vendor, like the iPhone.
So in case 1, the OS is the problem because the user did something stupid even after several warnings.
And in 2, the vender is a complete and total prick who you hate because you can't install any random shitty app that creates the situation in #1.
You know, either way, you're still an idiot.
What OS do you know of that the user can't install malware in? Linux? Nope, can install malware there too.
Get a clue.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They didnt purposefully install the malicious software. That would be like saying IE is safe, and its the users fault for purposefully clicking the "Install ActiveX" button that happened to install malware. If the operating system was as safe as the crazy fanboys claim, it wouldnt have been able to install malware in the first place.
No, because in most cases that means the ActiveX applet exceeded the security permissions it was given through some exploit. Whether it's an ActiveX sandbox, Java applet, a privilege escalation exploit, circumventing file system/SELinux permissions and so on isn't really relevant, that's not the user's fault. If they run without permission by playing a video/music file, opening a document with macros, looking at the mail in Outlook and so on, that's not the user's fault. But imagine the two following situat
Re:I've got your denial right here. (Score:5, Interesting)
That post also included:
If the operating system was as safe as the crazy fanboys claim, it wouldnt have been able to install malware in the first place.
Which is disingenuous.
Furthermore, the activex part is true only if the user did, in fact, allow them. IE has had many, many vulnerabilities which allowed a malicious site to install ActiveX controls without user intervention (just like Safari has had remote execution flaws which allowed it to be compromised.)
Re:I've got your denial right here. (Score:4, Informative)
Unless you consider TPM to be an operating system implemented in hardware...
But...
"anyone who trades X for security deserves neither, and shall lose both".
Education is the only way to resolve this, really. But find me a user who is patient enough not to veto such an education with his wallet.
The company that caters to the user's whims the best wins, and to hell with wisdom with a slow but steady ROI.
Re:I've got your denial right here. (Score:5, Funny)
"anyone who trades X for security deserves neither, and shall lose both".
You're talking about the X Window System here, right?
Re:I've got your denial right here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I've got your denial right here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I've got your denial right here. (Score:5, Funny)
To summarize: PEBKAC (Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair).
Though I'm sure some would rather update that to be PEBMAC (...Mouse And Chair).
Re:I've got your denial right here. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
what about one that warns you when "photoshop" starts accessing the internet or schedules itself to start regularly, the tech is already there in UAC,apparmour,SELINUX,etc. Sure when many programs insist on updating themselves it gets more complicated, but surely pirates aren't going to want thier photoshop phoning home anyway.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Funny)
If your intention is to create a large botnet, you are of course going to target the most popular operating system.
Not exactly. You're going to target the lowest hanging fruit. Which (no pun intended) is steadily becoming an Apple.
...uneducated Mac fanboyism... (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect that this botnet has been created by a geek that is sick to death of uneducated Mac fanboyism, and in a small way, I have respect for that.
No, it wasn't. This botnet was created by a computer criminal who saw an opportunity to capitalize on people who install pirated software either because they are to clueless to know the risks or because they have deluded them selves into thinking it is riskless act. The lesson we can all learn from this is the following:
"If you download pirated software off the internet and install it on your computer you run the risk of installing along with it carefully crafted malware that your security software or whatever other precautions you are taking may not be able to protect you against."
Note that this basic lesson is true on all incarnations of Mac OS X, Windows, Linux or any other network enabled operating system you can download pirated software for.
Now please crawl back under your rock and learn to write better trolls...
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Funny)
It does work that way, in general.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm just guessing, but I think when he said "Technologically Uneducated Users" he was talking about Mac users, not developers. You might have missed the last 25 years where Macs claim to be more user friendly and cater to a less technologically inclined user-base, lending significant support to his suggestion. In short, not all Mac users fit that profile, but the ones that do are contributing to the negative image that OSX and Macs in general enjoy among a significant portion of the populace. Think "AOL", except replace the service itself with something worthwhile, and decrease the percentage of "Technologically Uninclined/Uneducated" users in the user-base from >99% down to about 80% or less.
More importantly, however, I think that he was implying that the users that claim that Macs are completely impervious to malware and that therefore Mac users need not take any precautions against infection are making the Mac community, and by extension the Mac OS, a laughing stock of the computer technology community. In short, the OS is technologically impressive in many ways, but a vocal portion of the users frequently make claims about it that are factually impossible and socially irresponsible. Not that this is exclusive to Mac, just better advertised and frequently sanctioned by the manufacturer.
re: Macs and claims of "no viruses" (Score:5, Interesting)
As a long-time Mac (and PC) user myself, I've been known to give someone a "simplified version" of the truth, telling them "you won't have any virus or spyware problems on a Mac".
It's not that I'm some clueless user who doesn't know better. It's that I have a pretty good idea of what the individual does with and expects from their computer. Judging by that, and knowing they're not a very "technical" user to begin with, I know that practically speaking, they really aren't going to need to worry about infections on their Mac.
(So far, just about all of the trojan horses and viruses people mentioned for OS X involved downloading files of unknown origins, or running something you received in an unsolicited email. When you have a user who is already scared to open any email at all from people he/she doesn't know, they're hopefully in good shape there. They're certainly not savvy enough to fire up bittorrent and start seeking out pirated software, either.)
Re:Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that "IBM clone" pretty much a meaningless term, these days, don't you? Especially since Macs have switched from PowerPC (actually made by IBM, as I'm sure you know) to Intel (whose chips no longer bear much resemblance to the IBM chips of the past). Hell, Macs don't even use BIOS's anymore. Hell, IBM doesn't even make desktop pc's anymore. Anyway, sorry, this is way too persnickety, but these mac/pc/secure/insecure flamewars get my hackles up.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Interesting)
Why only desktops? Unix servers have sat on the internet open to the world since well before Windows even had a TCP/IP stack built in. And there are still plenty of them out there sitting on very fat pipes just ripe for bot nets. So why is it that Windows has had far more security hardships then any Unix based OS?
It's not just market share that plays a factor. There have been plenty of exploits for IIS, MSSQL and Windows Server even though those products don't command a 50% market share.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Interesting)
Culture. Windows grew up on the desktop and moved into the server. Unix grew up on the server and is trying to make inroads on the desktop. "Normal users" will force unix systems to compromise some of their security to make life easier. Windows has had to compromise by removing the "everybody is an admin--free love for all" that existed all the way up to XP. By default, Vista users aren't running as root and the only way to become root is either a UAC dialog or a privilege escalation exploit.
That doesn't account for the server-end though. And why earlier versions of said products had so many holes I will attribute to culture.
Of course, Linux grew out of a culture that detested any kind of authority. Thus you find gems like this in early Linux documentation [freebsd.org]:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Until you see *UNIX widely deployed as a "desktop" OS, all claims that UNIX is inherently more secure than Windows are nothing but untested theories.
Dammit, I was going to utterly avoid these threads, but here goes anyhow.
Your statement is totally incorrect. Any OS may in fact be much safer than the others without being as widely distributed. It's not fair to claim that only xx,xxx PC's with xyxyxyxyx OS were infect this year as compared to xx,xxx,xxx,xxx with Windows. It is CERTAINLY valid to say that y% of PC's with xyxyxyxyx OS were infected compared to xx% with Windows.
Windows does make itself a bigger target by having a larger user base, an
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's one reason I love the new Die Hard movie - other movies have the whiz kid "hack the network" using a subnotebook running Movie OS with a big "hack it NAOW" button. In this one he triggers the car's emergency phone and bullshits the lady who answers into remotely sta
A matter of time (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A matter of time (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In my experience, it's less common for them to pass a virus in an actual software installer; instead, they slip it into the corresponding keygen. By the time someone has spent an hour installing Photoshop, they usually don't think twice about double-clicking a little keygen.
Wait, did I say that out loud?
Which is why most smart TPB users run the keygens in a virtual Windows instance they keep around just for the occasion. I know viruses, trojans and other malware has been a feature of the Warez scene almost since the beginning but I find it strange if it is true that actually integrating malware into installation packages is something botnet constructors rarely. By the time you have been so clever as to take all that trouble to set up a VM to run you keygen do you think twice about the malware being integra
it just... (Score:5, Funny)
it just... BBRRRAAAIINNNNSSS
But the iZombies have .... (Score:4, Funny)
Hey, what a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
If a user is tricked into installing malware on a machine, the machine is infected with malware.
It's a shame people think Macs are somehow magically protected against viruses and other nasty computer stuff, merely by virtue of the manufacturer and operating system. It's probably more of a shame that Apple has, in the past at least, marketed Macs as being (more?) immune to viruses than PCs - something which somewhat true, but only for statistical reasons.
It's like STDs - if you're careless and go sticking your junk everywhere without taking precautions, you'll probably catch something cruel, eventually.
Re:Hey, what a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a trojan doesn't qualify as a "security issue" on the part of the OS. If a trojan succeeds in compromising the system, it's the fault of the user, not the OS.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes that's correct - by definition a trojan is malicious software disguised as legitimate software. But what's your point? Who said there was a "security issue" with Mac?
90% of the problems on Windows are attributed to users installing malicious software. This is what Mac users go about claiming they are immune to, which is ridiculous.
Claiming to be immune to trojans is like claiming your OS is incapable of running software that can send an e-mail, afterall, that is all some trojans do (ie spam bots).
Re:Hey, what a surprise (Score:5, Funny)
It's like STDs - if you're careless and go sticking your junk everywhere without taking precautions, you'll probably catch something cruel, eventually.
That's why I run Linux. Running Linux pretty much rules out any possibility of having sex, and hence any chance of contracting an STD.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'd tend to agree that mac's are protected against viruses, provided they don't download pirated software that contains viruses.
Also, like all linux distros, in order to do any real damage on a mac, you need to enter an admin password.. simply opening a virus infected app wont do it.
Re:Hey, what a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, like all linux distros, in order to do any real damage on a mac, you need to enter an admin password
Please stop repeating this fallacy! First, on a single-user system (e.g. the vast majority of home computers), the end user has rights to all the interesting data files (songs, pictures, documents, etc.), so anything running as the user can do significant local damage. Sure, the OS and apps may be protected, but that isn't really what the end user cares about (since that's all easily replaced). However, since the goal of most viruses/worms/trojans is to control the computer for distributed and untraceable nefarious purposes (and not have the owner notice), they don't do that anymore. They cause the computer to join botnets, connect to master control servers, and wait for instructions. Sending spam, scanning other systems for vulnerabilities, hosting fast-flux phishing sites, etc. don't require elevated privilege.
Um (Score:5, Funny)
So does this mean that Macs are finally Enterprise Ready?
Somebody cue up the Mac commercial... (Score:3, Funny)
Mac: Hi, I'm a mac!
PC: Im a.. *cough* PC...
Mac: Oh, you must be sick? Well I can't get sick.
PC: really?
Mac: (whispers) "Nobody knows I got HIV"
PC: Ahhhh... I just got a cold
Mac: See! I don't even have a cold!
Linux. (Score:4, Funny)
The obvious solution is to switch to Linux, because everyone knows it has no viruses and never will.
I SAID NEVER WILL.
Re:Linux. (Score:5, Insightful)
Except this isn't a Virus. It is a Trojan.
Any OS can be infected with a Trojan even Linux.
I find it anoying that under Linux most software really expects to be installed as root.
Maybe there needs to be a new level called app for applications but then you have to problem of libraries.
iZombies (Score:5, Funny)
Re:iZombies (Score:5, Funny)
Attack Different.
Time to Celabrate! (Score:3, Funny)
Quality of posts (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a shame that the level of intelligence and knowledge of the posters to Slashdot seems to still be in decline.
I would think that anyone who wants to use this "revelation" as some kind of troll against OSX would at least be able to differentiate between a virus and a trojan.
There's a decent chance there will be some kind of unpatched OSX vuln that will be exploited ala what you see on a Windows machine, but until then you should just stew in silence and wait for your opportunity to post your "See OSX is no better than Windows" messages and then you wont look like such ignorant fools.
If you can install software on a computer, you can install software that is malware as well. I doubt anyone can fault Apple for allowing end users to install software that they choose to install.
It should be noted (Score:5, Informative)
that a lot of "pirated" Bit Torrent software contains malware. Not just the Windows versions, but the Mac and Linux and BSD Unix versions as well.
When you download pirated software you take a risk that it contains a trojan.
I've even seen PDF files that had HTML exploits in it that got detected by antivirus. Read the comments on most Bit Torrent web sites the users will complain that it contains a virus. You don't have to download it to test it, the people who already downloaded it will give feedback that it contains a trojan or malware.
When you download pirated software you are taking a big chance, it isn't worth it when a majority of things are infected. That is why I look towards Free and Open Source Software as alternatives to commercial products.
Re:It should be noted (Score:4, Insightful)
That is very true, Free and Open Source from signed repositories is the safest way of getting software.
Besides, you must behave different if you are going to install some weird binary from the Internet (which is not the case with Windows or Mac). That will scare off the newbies and more advanced users will know of dangers anyway. So the impact from similar malware in Linux will be limited, not to mention various distributions, DE's and suchlike.
iBot, same malware at an outrageous price (Score:4, Funny)
iBot, same malware at an outrageous price
Here is the download for the fix (Score:5, Funny)
Botnet is a botnet (Score:5, Insightful)
Social Engineering (Score:4, Insightful)
An Ounce of Prevention (Score:4, Interesting)
Why guys insist on downloading questionable things without some preventive measures in place, first, is beyond the scope of my tired head. But dumping Apple's default 5-minute "grace period" on sudo (or admin passwords, in other words) will kill third-party attempts to piggyback on any password that is being used by the legit user for privilege escalation.
In a console (Terminal):
[hit return, enter password]
scroll to: #Defaults specification, hit the letter 'o' to get a new line, and type:
then hit [Escape] to end the editing session, then ':w' plus [Enter] to write the file to disk, and finally ':q' plus [Enter] to quit visudo.
Done. I get tired of vi, of course, and will usually use BBEdit to open /private/etc/sudoers and enter the admin password once to 'unlock' sudoers, then scroll down and add the new default line, and save the file. Done, quicker.
A nefarious app or script can poll the system asking if there's escalation until kingdom come and it will never get an affirmative. End of story; end of file
Re:May I be the first to laugh (Score:5, Interesting)
From what we know so far, apparently the botnet was created by a trojan and does not spread.
I'm a Mac user who doesn't run applications downloaded from completely untrustworthy sources like pirate p2p networks and you're correct -- I don't need a virus or malware checker.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a user who doesn't run applications downloaded from completely untrustworthy sources like pirate p2p networks and you're correct -- I don't need a virus or malware checker.
Fixed that for you.
Re:May I be the first to laugh (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, how does conficker spread again?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Witchcraft, demons, and bad karma.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
May I be the first to laugh...
Not if you're a Linux user.
... and laugh and laugh... Oh, we're Mac users - we don't need stuff like virus and malware checkers! Now, let the explanations begin about how this is a wonderful intuitive "feature" and not a flaw.
Mac users aren't the only ones living in glass houses, here. There's something to be learned for everybody here. If Mac user humility here is your highest concern with this article then you are turning into what you despise.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Man, I run Vista and I don't have any of that (built-ins are disabled). I only have virus scanning done on a weekly basis, and somehow despite not having forty pieces of software dedicated to second-guessing me I still don't have any viruses or malware.
Simplest thing anyone can do is train the thing between the chair and the keyboard.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How would they even know what to learn in the first place?
And rightfully so. If the damn thing needs that much care and feeding, it is defective and should be returned!
Re:I'm on a Mac (Score:5, Funny)
Re:FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like someone has their panties in a twist. You might forget that strict permission levels don't imply security when the person behind the keyboard is an idiot.
Re:unlikely (Score:5, Funny)
What do you expect? It had to find a black turtleneck, offer some snide, unasked for criticism of your iTunes playlist, and order a double-whip, half-caf, non-fat latte before deciding which port was cool enough to grace with its packets. It may not be very effective, but it looks FABULOOOOOOOOOOOOUS!