It's you turn Mac

[Blues]

I want to clear up my initial comment some people seem to have misread. What I was saying is that as the user base increases the number of users who are moronic, or at least prone to making poor computer choices, are most likely to increase as well. I did not mean to imply that the whole of the new users would be as such but there most likely will be and already are people who these types of attacks work on.

 

[MrUnknown]

I don't really want to continue this thread, but I just ran across this and believe it is relevant to the original intent of this thread.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/06/skype_for_mac_critical_vulnerability/
Mac Skype critical vulnerability. Gives root access, and only affects Macs. Skype claims they will have a patch next week.

 

[vdub12]

I like how this discussion about how secure MAC's are started with a post about a bunch of MAC users getting infected with malware. Its obviously affective there are a bunch of MAC users on Apples own support site complaining about this infection on there machines. https://discussions.apple.com/message/15104905

It comes down to this. In all of my network security classes the first lesson was always security by obscurity is NOT security. This is the basis of MAC security.

I here people making comments that MAC's are more secure because they don't ever see them with infections and honestly I find that to be a very uneducated response. OSX in general is secure because of its core. If it wasn't for *nix MAC's would be in the same place as Windows is. If in business at all because its my opinion that BSD saved Apples a$$. However, *nix is not without its vulnerabilities. Many of witch are not even OS related but third party. Flash, Java, etc.

It comes down to this if these malware writers targeted MAC's full bore tomorrow the number of infected MAC's would skyrocket. MAC's are less likely to be infected because there is less malware written for them and this is because there are less users, not because they are more secure. As Apples market share grows they are going to have the same problems as Windows guarantied. Its this snobby MAC attitude that I think I find the most laughable. "My MAC can't get infected because its a MAC (Insert light from heaven here)". I personally hope that the MAC market share stays low and that they continue to get lucky by not being a malware target because I am a Linux user and I am sure once MAC's start getting hit *nix is just right around the corner. Because MAC's may not have significant market share but MAC and *nix combined does.

I think when the day comes that MAC gets hit it may in fact be worse then Windows because of that MAC attitude that they are invincible.

 

[wimwauters]

Before we continue this conversation, do you have any clue what /sbin/login does and how it is called?

Errr... I've been using BSD since 4.4BSD-lite. So yes, I has clue

Actually it's a part of PAE as implemented by AMD, DEP is really just the NX Bit being set (No eXecute bit). Microsoft wouldn't have even implented PAE in their desktop OS if it wasn't for NX Bit benefit, with PAE you can have more than 4GB of ram addressable in a 32bit system, however Microsoft didn't implement this portion of PAE.

Neat. The point being made was about DEP and ASLR, and PAE is something else.

For more correct information about PAE, check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension

Notice there's nothing about DEP on that page, because the 2 are completely different things.

 

[gunslinger]

It comes down to this if these malware writers targeted MAC's full bore tomorrow the number of infected MAC's would skyrocket. MAC's are less likely to be infected because there is less malware written for them and this is because there are less users, not because they are more secure. As Apples market share grows they are going to have the same problems as Windows guarantied. Its this snobby MAC attitude that I think I find the most laughable. "My MAC can't get infected because its a MAC (Insert light from heaven here)". I personally hope that the MAC market share stays low and that they continue to get lucky by not being a malware target because I am a Linux user and I am sure once MAC's start getting hit *nix is just right around the corner. Because MAC's may not have significant market share but MAC and *nix combined does

No, it comes down to this simply being your opinion. Its not a fact, its a theory until proven.

Call it a snobby MAC attitude if you like but its still a fact you are far less likely to be infected using a Mac. If you drive a Ford and most people drive a Chevy and you seen Chevy breaking down left and right but almost never a Ford wouldn't you be a proud Ford owner? Sure you would. The fact they also have much better resell value and look better would just be icing on the cake for you. Its this same line of thinking for most PC users who don't own a Mac. With them its like the guy who drives the beat up Ford Taurus, then sees a BMW broke down on the road. "AH HA!" the Ford owner shouts, "See, see, they do break down, I knew it!" "This must mean they are no better than my car".

 

[vdub12]

No, it comes down to this simply being your opinion. Its not a fact, its a theory until proven.

Call it a snobby MAC attitude if you like but its still a fact you are far less likely to be infected using a Mac. If you drive a Ford and most people drive a Chevy and you seen Chevy breaking down left and right but almost never a Ford wouldn't you be a proud Ford owner? Sure you would. The fact they also have much better resell value and look better would just be icing on the cake for you. Its this same line of thinking for most PC users who don't own a Mac. With them its like the guy who drives the beat up Ford Taurus, then sees a BMW broke down on the road. "AH HA!" the Ford owner shouts, "See, see, they do break down, I knew it!" "This must mean they are no better than my car".

So let me get this right. You say that Fords are more reliable because more people own Chevy's. In that case I have way more blue network cables then white. That must mean the blue ones are not as reliable. With that in mind I only have one purple network cable, it must be the most reliable.

From now on I am not going to sell anything but purple network cables.

 

[gunslinger]

So let me get this right. You say that Fords are more reliable because more people own Chevy's. In that case I have way more blue network cables then white. That must mean the blue ones are not as reliable. With that in mind I only have one purple network cable, it must be the most reliable.

From now on I am not going to sell anything but purple network cables.

No. What I said was if you happened to own one of the Fords that never seem to break down you would be proud of the fact. Just as Mac owners are proud of the fact they almost never get infected. This does not mean they are snobby. It means they paid a little more for great customer service, a quality built machine that looks good and almost never gets infected and they are happy about it.

 

[maclaptech]

It was only matter of time. Hackers didn't create malware for Mac because there wasn't enough of them out there. Now, there are more and more, so they are becoming prime targets...

 

[maclaptech]

With them its like the guy who drives the beat up Ford Taurus, then sees a BMW broke down on the road. "AH HA!" the Ford owner shouts, "See, see, they do break down, I knew it!" "This must mean they are no better than my car".

Your reasoning is off subject. The purpose of this article wasn't about which is better or worse. The way you look at this is, If there are not many BMWs out there, then there is less demand for parts, so not many thief are stealing BMWs for parts. But as more people buy BMWs, then demand for parts become stronger so thieves steal more BMWs for parts.

The more MACs out there, the more demand for hackers to steal the users info and money. Its basic math.

 

[gunslinger]

Your reasoning is off subject. The purpose of this article wasn't about which is better or worse. The way you look at this is, If there are not many BMWs out there, then there is less demand for parts, so not many thief are stealing BMWs for parts. But as more people buy BMWs, then demand for parts become stronger so thieves steal more BMWs for parts.

The more MACs out there, the more demand for hackers to steal the users info and money. Its basic math.

I guess only time will tell. As of right now all that is is speculation. An educated guess at best. Again until the Macs have at least 50% of the market share we will not have a legit answer. You and a few others are acting as if its just a fact.

The purpose of this article wasn't about which is better or worse.

I agree, but it is about the theory that Macs will become a bigger target and therefore be infected more. Lets be clear, I was not the one who started calling users snobby because they happen to own a Mac.

 

[vdub12]

I guess only time will tell. As of right now all that is is speculation. An educated guess at best. Again until the Macs have at least 50% of the market share we will not have a legit answer. You and a few others are acting as if its just a fact.

Actually this is fact. This has been tested and proven in multiple fields, not just computers. With computers I fix more Dell's then HP's but I can say for a fact that Dell makes a better computer then HP. If that is true then why do I fix more Dell's. Its because they sell 3 times more Dell's then HP. Its just simple math, if there is more of something then there is going to be more problems with it. Once market share goes up the demand will go up and Apple will have to make sacrifices in order to keep up with demand. With that in mind what are they going to sacrifice. You can't get much worse then Foxcon. And BTW at MAC's price range they will never hit 50%. The only way they will get any ware close to 50% is if they release the OS as a stand alone product.

Finally the reason I am saying it will be worse with MAC is the fact that people who own MAC's claim to be invincible. When malware begins to take MAC over they will hold on to that denial until its to late. This thread is proof of that. Right off the bat the first few posts where defending that MAC's where not at risk when the article clearly stated they where and many people where infected.

I agree, but it is about the theory that Macs will become a bigger target and therefore be infected more. Lets be clear, I was not the one who started calling users snobby because they happen to own a Mac.

I never said people who own MAC's are snobby. I said the snobby MAC attitude, and that's documented. Its the fan-boy attitude I was referring to. Not all MAC owners have it but a good percentage do. I have a MAC but I am far from a fan-boy. In that since my hackintosh runs better. I see it all the time, I am sure you have all seen the kind I am talking about. The MAC owners that will not even touch a PC without rubber gloves on and a wet-nap. If you even mention the word Windows they get in to an uproar.

 

[anonymous Mac Tech]

I never said people who own MAC's are snobby. I said the snobby MAC attitude, and that's documented. Its the fan-boy attitude I was referring to. Not all MAC owners have it but a good percentage do. I have a MAC but I am far from a fan-boy. In that since my hackintosh runs better. I see it all the time, I am sure you have all seen the kind I am talking about. The MAC owners that will not even touch a PC without rubber gloves on and a wet-nap. If you even mention the word Windows they get in to an uproar.

I love it when folks who know little or nothing about Macs or OSX comment on how Macs are more vulnerable than PCs or better yet, stereotype Mac owners. The bottom line is yeah this particular rogue is a vulnerability, but also it is super easy to blow away. Probably less difficult than it is to say, install a browser plug-in. There is no OS that is going to be invincible to vulnerabilities. Also, its already been proven many times over that nobody can ever predict what Apple will do in any situation given any set of circumstances. This same argument has been going on for years with folks saying, wait until Apples market share hit x or y. Well it has it x and y and now folks are saying wait until it hits z. I'll still put my money on Macs being more secure than PCs by just taking a page from history concerning what happened with Microsoft over so many years. That Apple absolutely will not under any circumstances paint themselves into a corner and let a multi-billion dollar industry center around OSX's vulnerabilities. Apple is way too control crazy for something even close to this to ever happen. That's why it always been Apples OS on Apple hardware. Sure there are some successful hackintoshs out there, but they will eventually be bricked like the rest have been.

 

[vdub12]

Apple is way too control crazy for something even close to this to ever happen. That's why it always been Apples OS on Apple hardware. Sure there are some successful hackintoshs out there, but they will eventually be bricked like the rest have been.

And that's why Apple will never have market share.

 

[gunslinger]

And that's why Apple will never have market share.

And by your and a few others logic this is also the reason Macs will never be infected like PCs.

The only way they will get any ware close to 50% is if they release the OS as a stand alone product.

At the end of the day its obvious a lot of PC owners like the Mac OS or they would not make hackintoshes. What they don't like is the way Apple does business pure and simple. They let this carry over to the product. You argue these points not because you believe it, but either because you don't like Mac users, you think Macs are over priced, or you don't like the fact they keep the OS locked down.

Finally the reason I am saying it will be worse with MAC is the fact that people who own MAC's claim to be invincible.

I have never made said Macs were invincible but I have asked people for years to infect my Mac without my typing the root password and have yet to have any takers. Take it for what it is I guess.

 

[Paul Rodgers]

At the end of the day its obvious a lot of PC owners like the Mac OS or they would not make hackintoshes. What they don't like is the way Apple does business pure and simple. They let this carry over to the product. You argue these points not because you believe it, but either because you don't like Mac users, you think Macs are over priced, or you don't like the fact they keep the OS locked down.

I considered doing a hackintosh until I actually used OSX. I didn't like how different the system was. I bet could get used to it over time but for me it wasn't as intuitive as switching from Windows to most GUI based Linux operating systems.

 

[gunslinger]

I considered doing a hackintosh until I actually used OSX. I didn't like how different the system was. I bet could get used to it over time but for me it wasn't as intuitive as switching from Windows to most GUI based Linux operating systems.

It is different. Took me about a month to get used to. Honestly I have a much harder time with Linux. (page long terminal hacks to get wireless to work ect) No consistency in the GUI also bothers me with Linux.

 

[iisjman07]

I have a much harder time with Linux. (page long terminal hacks to get wireless to work ect) No consistency in the GUI also bothers me with Linux.

That's easily solved, just use ethernet, and don't use X and go completely CLI

 

[gunslinger]

That's easily solved, just use ethernet, and don't use X and go completely CLI

I will say certain distros have come a long way, such as Mint.

 

[vdub12]

I considered doing a hackintosh until I actually used OSX. I didn't like how different the system was. I bet could get used to it over time but for me it wasn't as intuitive as switching from Windows to most GUI based Linux operating systems.

I have to agree. I prefer Linux to OSX any day. However, many of the reasons I prefer it is why others don't. I actually like the fact that when something does not work as expected I can just hit Ctrl+F2 and do it in the terminal. I am sure that's possible in OSX also but it was not easily visible to be. In fact root access was not reasonably visible to me ether. Just modifying the boot loader on my hackentosh to make Linux boot as default and not OSX was a nightmare. Then again I am not an OSX pro ether. I bet I have a combined 100 hours using OSX compared to millions of hours in Windows and Linux. With that said I do sometimes use OSX to just surf the web in front of the TV on my netbook but most of the time its just to get more hours using it so I can better support it.

It is different. Took me about a month to get used to. Honestly I have a much harder time with Linux. (page long terminal hacks to get wireless to work ect) No consistency in the GUI also bothers me with Linux.

Most wireless problems are manufacturers fault and not Linux because of driver lockdown. However, more and more hardware is compatible every day. Many of these company's have made deals to open the source of there drivers to just kernel developers under NDA's and that has helped wireless compatibility. I honestly don't remember the last time I fused with a wireless card in Linux. For those cards that do not work there is a windows wireless driver wrapper that Door talked about a month or so ago on Linux for the rest of us. It will allow you to use Windows wireless drivers in Linux.

I will say certain distros have come a long way, such as Mint.

I have been an OpenSUSE use since ver 8.0. I switched from redhad because I liked the polish in SUSE.

 

[ajc196]

I got my first Mac Defender in today. Thankfully it's pretty simple. Just kill the process, delete it from Applications, remove it from Login Items, and clean up the leftover Java exploits with Sophos.

And of course I urge the customer to use Chrome and to keep an eye on Sophos.