http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/117188 (http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/117188)
For years, Mac users have long been rightfully smug about their platform's relative immunity to virus and malware attacks, but it's inevitable that those days will eventually come to an end. (As the Mac gains in popularity, it also earns more attention from malware developers, and it's this lack of malware being actively developed, not some special, inherent security, that have really kept the Mac a "safe" platform for the time being.)
What I was saying all along.
Sorry, some what of a troll thread but if feel justified by this article.
I think most Mac users know the reason they have fewer virus' is lack of effort. Why write a virus for less than 10% of the possible computing population right?
Though, since this is a Bit Torrent malware thing, I'm going to think of it more as a "Social Disease" than a post-apocalyptic electronic pandemic. [laugh]
Quote from: superjohn on January 27, 2009, 04:23:25 AM
Though, since this is a Bit Torrent malware thing, I'm going to think of it more as a "Social Disease" than a post-apocalyptic electronic pandemic. [laugh]
(http://www.fototime.com/33957BC24A35B75/standard.jpg)
Quote from: OwnyTony on January 27, 2009, 03:34:18 AM
Mac infected by a virus trojan.
fixed that for ya, cause there is a huge difference.
fwiw, i wouldn't really consider an application installer that requires the user to authenticate in order to deploy a trojan payload a vulnerability. that's an "idiot user" vulnerability.
still, this is a far cry from connecting a windows box to the internet and have it compromised, with no user interaction (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/15/unpatched_pc_survival_drops/), before you can even finish downloading security patches from windows update.
Quote from: superjohn on January 27, 2009, 04:23:25 AM
I think most Mac users know the reason they have fewer virus' is lack of effort. Why write a virus for less than 10% of the possible computing population right?
Though, since this is a Bit Torrent malware thing, I'm going to think of it more as a "Social Disease" than a post-apocalyptic electronic pandemic. [laugh]
try telling this to my dad, or two younger brothers... their macs
are superior to any windows based machine.
steve has them brainwashed..[bow_down]
Quote from: derby on January 27, 2009, 06:24:56 AM
fixed that for ya, cause there is a huge difference.
fwiw, i wouldn't really consider an application installer that requires the user to authenticate in order to deploy a trojan payload a vulnerability. that's an "idiot user" vulnerability.
still, this is a far cry from connecting a windows box to the internet and have it compromised, with no user interaction (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/15/unpatched_pc_survival_drops/), before you can even finish downloading security patches from windows update.
You're right, to change the title, I just copied and pasted the yahoo title. But if you remember from TOB, i stated that apples are not compromised (mal ware or virus) because the population is small (relative to pc).
As the Mac gains in popularity, it also earns more attention from malware developers, and it's this lack of malware being actively developed, not some special, inherent security, that have really kept the Mac a "safe" platform for the time being.
summarizes what i was saying.
EDIT: compromised does not mean virus either. Makes a huge difference from a compromise from virus compared to malware.
Quote from: herm on January 27, 2009, 12:16:38 PM
try telling this to my dad, or two younger brothers... their macs are superior to any windows based machine.
steve has them brainwashed..[bow_down]
Oh, don't get me wrong. My Mac is vastly superior to any Windows machine I have ever worked on, but not just because of virus immunity.
It's just better. ;D
Quote from: superjohn on January 27, 2009, 01:26:48 PM
Oh, don't get me wrong. My Mac is vastly superior to any Windows machine I have ever worked on, but not just because of virus immunity.
It's just better. ;D
+1, having switched a few mos back. Now, I acknowledge that I'm a little tech-phobic (just now got an Ipod and Dig Camera finally), but I find the Mac to be way more intuitive and reliable.
apple flavored sheep...
Quote from: herm on January 27, 2009, 02:28:33 PM
apple flavored sheep...
[laugh] My mama says I'm the black sheep of the family so you may be right
Maybe the real reason Macs have not been affected by mal-ware is that mal-ware and viruses are being created by diabolical Mac owners trying to over through the PC world. It's a hard life when no one accepts you for who you are. ;D
So you're saying what? OSX is bad, and some other OS is good? Or just that OSX is bad? On the basis of a *handful* of confirmed viruses, malware and exploits in the *eight years* it has been out?
You know, I had this long thing written out comparing the amount of viruses on Windows-based machines, TCO on the inherently more vulnerable pre-vista loads, etc. But make the beast with two backs it. I am tired of trying to convince people that the sky is blue and water is wet. So, go ahead and run your shitty, buggy, bloated, expensive, virus-riddled, slow OS and be happy. I'll be over here, minding my own business.
Quote from: il d00d on January 27, 2009, 03:30:39 PM
So you're saying what? OSX is bad, and some other OS is good? Or just that OSX is bad? On the basis of a *handful* of confirmed viruses, malware and exploits in the *eight years* it has been out?
You know, I had this long thing written out comparing the amount of viruses on Windows-based machines, TCO on the inherently more vulnerable pre-vista loads, etc. But make the beast with two backs it. I am tired of trying to convince people that the sky is blue and water is wet. So, go ahead and run your shitty, buggy, bloated, expensive, virus-riddled, slow OS and be happy. I'll be over here, minding my own business.
i didnt see anyone claim that OSX (or any other OS) was good, bad, or indifferent.
i just see others who are tired of hearing that mac is
so much safer than another OS, like it has more to do with how the OS is designed, as opposed to it being such a marginal percentage of the overall number of OS out there.
Quote from: herm on January 27, 2009, 05:17:33 PM
like it has more to do with how the OS is designed...
on some levels, this isn't far from the truth.
unix/osx and windows handle security and permissions in completely different ways.
prior to vista, all windows users basically ran w/ full control over the whole operating system. any virus/malware that was invoked as that user would effectively have complete access to the machine. windows uac answers some of that, but many users find it annoying and just disable it.
unix/osx on the other hand, has you normally run with non-root/admin privileges so the only thing you really have "full" control over is your own profile. in order to affect the operating system outside of your profile, you must authenticate as a user with elevated permissions.
this isn't the only thing, either.... we could talk for days about the actual operating system (kernel) design, driver system, DLLs, shared libraries, etc...
Quote from: derby on January 27, 2009, 05:41:10 PM
on some levels, this isn't far from the truth.
i think that is a disingenuous statement.
IMO, hackers dont spend time on mac bugs because its not worth their time, because of the numbers of Macs out there compared to PC's, not because the Mac OS is inherently a more secure system.
Quote from: herm on January 27, 2009, 06:15:01 PM
i think that is a disingenuous statement.
IMO, hackers dont spend time on mac bugs because its not worth their time, because of the numbers of Macs out there compared to PC's, not because the Mac OS is inherently a more secure system.
one could also postulate that osx would be a "prestige" hack that would be worth the effort just to be famous (like dvd jon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Lech_Johansen)).
i'm not being disingenuous here... macs aren't impenetrable. in fact, at last year's "pwn to own" competition, the mac fell first (using a vulnerability in adobe flash, iirc):
http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/pwn-2-own-over-macbook-air-gets-seized-in-2-minutes-flat/ (http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/pwn-2-own-over-macbook-air-gets-seized-in-2-minutes-flat/)
of course, that exploit did require user interaction.
Quote from: derby on January 27, 2009, 06:31:50 PM
one could also postulate that osx would be a "prestige" hack that would be worth the effort just to be famous (like dvd jon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Lech_Johansen)).
i'm not being disingenuous here... macs aren't impenetrable. in fact, at last year's "pwn to own" competition, the mac fell first (using a vulnerability in adobe flash, iirc):
http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/pwn-2-own-over-macbook-air-gets-seized-in-2-minutes-flat/ (http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/pwn-2-own-over-macbook-air-gets-seized-in-2-minutes-flat/)
of course, that exploit did require user interaction.
fair enough. that was all i was trying to say.
most of my family are apple fan-boys, and i get tired of the sermons... [thumbsup]
i do like not having to fix my computer. in the 8 years since I switched, I've had one issue ever and rebooting fixed it. I'm on my third mac now and all of them (including the 8 yr old one) are still fully operational and running problem free.
my windows machine lasted 18 months and I had the case apart at least once a month during its "lifetime" (it was an Acer - more a hardware thing than a software thing, but then again apple doesn't sublet their OS to third party manufacturers).
Quote from: redxblack on January 27, 2009, 08:57:40 PM
i do like not having to fix my computer. in the 8 years since I switched, I've had one issue ever and rebooting fixed it. I'm on my third mac now and all of them (including the 8 yr old one) are still fully operational and running problem free.
my windows machine lasted 18 months and I had the case apart at least once a month during its "lifetime" (it was an Acer - more a hardware thing than a software thing, but then again apple doesn't sublet their OS to third party manufacturers).
i always felt that if apple had done this, they might have taken over as the #1 OS
OTOH, then their OS would be worth the hackers time to make the beast with two backs with...
Quote from: herm on January 28, 2009, 05:51:32 AM
OTOH, then their OS would be worth the hackers time to make the beast with two backs with...
it's not like there haven't been people trying to poke holes in unix for the last 40 years.
Quote from: derby on January 28, 2009, 06:45:07 AM
it's not like there haven't been people trying to poke holes in unix for the last 40 years.
sure they have, but when your new virus is only going to make the beast with two backs with 10% of the computers out there, and few business systems, why spend the time?
you get a much bigger splash by going after the bigger OS