Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 18th Apr 2009 09:27 UTC
Mac OS X Remember the Mac trojan that we reported about earlier this year? A trojan was found piggybacking on the back of copies of iWork and Photoshop CS4 found on warez sites and networks, and it would install itself after the user had entered his or her administrator password during the software's installation. This trojan didn't seem like much of a threat back then, but as it turns out, it's now in use in the first Macintosh botnet.
Thread beginning with comment 359230
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: hmm
by FealDorf on Sat 18th Apr 2009 13:14 UTC in reply to "hmm"
FealDorf
Member since:
2008-01-07

No offense, but what you said seems like a fanboy remark. If you look at the security model of Leopard vs Vista; Vista is a lot more secure in design. The reason mac didn't have till date is the same as before -- it wasn't a lucrative target for virus-makers till now. Not cuz "apple is ahead of the curve". If that were the case they could have done some justice by including atleast a simple paint-software (iPhoto is *NOT* what I want).
As for being "cheap", even World of Goo at $20 is pirated at 90% --- it's about getting things for free; and those two are *quite* different. IMHO.

However; I don't think antivirus softwares are as needed as customer awareness and education . There was this incident where my friend complained that his (pirated) copy of Symantec was outdated. When I gave him Avira; he COMPLAINED that it showed a lot of virus warnings; so removed it...

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: hmm
by sbenitezb on Sat 18th Apr 2009 13:23 in reply to "RE: hmm"
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

You are wrong. All major Windows virus and worms get in without the need for the user downloading and executing them.

This is just a case for user stupidity.

People like analogies, so here goes one:
A guy is worried about his house safety. So he buys the best door and a good security system. It works fine. Only he is able to get in and out. One day he meets another guy in a party, they talk and seem to become good friends. He invites his new friend home and lets him in. He got robbed.

Edit: after re reading that "vista is more secure in design", come on. What design?

Edited 2009-04-18 13:25 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: hmm
by kaiwai on Sat 18th Apr 2009 14:05 in reply to "RE[2]: hmm"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

You are wrong. All major Windows virus and worms get in without the need for the user downloading and executing them.

This is just a case for user stupidity.

People like analogies, so here goes one:
A guy is worried about his house safety. So he buys the best door and a good security system. It works fine. Only he is able to get in and out. One day he meets another guy in a party, they talk and seem to become good friends. He invites his new friend home and lets him in. He got robbed.

Edit: after re reading that "vista is more secure in design", come on. What design?


About the only thing that Microsoft actually provides is Defender which protects one against spyware/adware/etc.

What I don't understand is why it is the operating systems responsibility to protect people from installing things they downloaded off the internet. What one needs to do is separate (as you did in your analogy) between a user downloading and choosing to install something from a non-reputable source and a worm which makes its way into a computer through a security hole in the operating system - that is, an outside attack on the operating system and not an infection bought into the system by the end user him or herself.

The simple fact of the matter, people downloaded pirated software, they knew the risks, they were also shown how to remove this nasty from their system the moment it was found - and yet they failed to take any step. To me, those who are infected are just as guilty as those who failed to update their copy of Windows and have become infected by the conflicker worm.

Edited 2009-04-18 14:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: hmm
by FealDorf on Sat 18th Apr 2009 14:24 in reply to "RE[2]: hmm"
FealDorf Member since:
2008-01-07

Whoops, was away a bit too long.

@sbenitezb
Virii get in without users' need? Besides Conficker I can't recall a good case. XP's security sucks; no doubt. But I'm not referring to XP. Even in XP; avoiding IE + Autoplay was all it took for me to skip any virii ending up on my laptop for over 2 years.

Your analogy applies just as good for Vista. Nevertheless I don't like analogies to prove a point, they're generally good for teaching only.. IMO

As for the security; take a look at the Miller's interview. Whether you think he's a scumbag or not; the precautions he mentions taken by vista are much superior. There you have it, your "design". On the other hand; how is "leopard's design" any better?

@kaiwai: Seconded.

Edited 2009-04-18 14:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: hmm
by google_ninja on Sat 18th Apr 2009 17:32 in reply to "RE[2]: hmm"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

this is from an interview with the guy who cracked safari in a matter of seconds in the last pwn2own

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.

[ SEE: 10 questions for MacBook hacker Dino Dai Zovi ]

With my Safari exploit, I put the code into a process and I know exactly where it’s going to be. There’s no randomization. I know when I jump there, the code is there and I can execute it there. On Windows, the code might show up but I don’t know where it is. Even if I get to the code, it’s not executable. Those are two hurdles that Macs don’t have.

It’s clear that all three browsers (Safari, IE and Firefox) have bugs. Code execution holes everywhere. But that’s only half the equation. The other half is exploiting it. There’s almost no hurdle to jump through on Mac OS X.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2941

Apple has a long, distinguished history of completely ignoring security, and that hasn't changed in osx

Reply Parent Score: 9

RE[2]: hmm
by lqsh on Sat 18th Apr 2009 13:26 in reply to "RE: hmm"
lqsh Member since:
2007-01-01

I honestly don't know/understand what makes an OS secure or not. All I know is that I know of no OS X/Linux users with a virus and with Windows.....

This article is not talking about a virus, it's talking about installing custom software that normal OS X users would be at risk of, and that can't even spread.

What we're talking about is users that intentionally download illegal software and ignorantly trusting the sources.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: hmm
by FealDorf on Sat 18th Apr 2009 14:26 in reply to "RE[2]: hmm"
FealDorf Member since:
2008-01-07

@lqsh: In majority of those "windows...." cases it's through cracked software; and not updating their OSes...

Edited 2009-04-18 14:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: hmm
by werpu on Sat 18th Apr 2009 17:58 in reply to "RE: hmm"
werpu Member since:
2006-01-18

No offense, but what you said seems like a fanboy remark. If you look at the security model of Leopard vs Vista; Vista is a lot more secure in design. The reason mac didn't have till date is the same as before -- it wasn't a lucrative target for virus-makers till now. Not cuz "apple is ahead of the curve". If that were the case they could have done some justice by including atleast a simple paint-software (iPhoto is *NOT* what I want).
As for being "cheap", even World of Goo at $20 is pirated at 90% --- it's about getting things for free; and those two are *quite* different. IMHO.

However; I don't think antivirus softwares are as needed as customer awareness and education . There was this incident where my friend complained that his (pirated) copy of Symantec was outdated. When I gave him Avira; he COMPLAINED that it showed a lot of virus warnings; so removed it...


Actually Vista is not really that much more secure by design, the system security measures are pretty much up to par trying to put the user into a sanxbox model and trying to enforce userland on everything.
(Which vista failes utterly with UAC popping up every five seconds instead of trying to sandbox root access programs, but neither does osx, but the programs mostly behave better with their possible user land install for 90% of them)

The main difference is that vista comes with a trimmed down antivirus program, windows defender...
The rest is propaganda by Microsoft, sorry!

Reply Parent Score: 1