Slashdot Mirror
Mac Users Blast Symantec ... Again
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?"
Do you think Apple should start following Microsoft's model by rating vulnerabilities and patches?"
Apple would be retarded if it followed any of MSFT's security policy.
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
Comment removed based on user account deletion
- 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.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
Malware targets weaknesses in an operating system, not a processor.
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.
So long as there's no real threat out there, I'm not going to worry about it.
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 magical shampoo from a shaman who promises it will protect you from evil current and future.
It's true that OS X is more secure than XP normally, but there's one thing that worries me - stupid developers who make users type in their admin password for no good reason.
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?
Clear, Dark Skies
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 .
/' command or running an applescript that formats the drive. It could ship with tighter default security settings, but allow fine tuning like "I know what I'm doing on the commandline" or the like.
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.
...spike
Ewwwwww, coconut...
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.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
Do Mac users think they are immune to security problems
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.
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. The problem with Virex, as with all Virus scanners is that in the nightmare scenario you describe Virex isn't gonna know about it until you already have the virus. And if someone does do all that stuff, and does screw your Mac...they will likely also find a way to disable your recovery and virus downloads anyway. Against a fast moving virus, yesterday's definitions are useless. So if the virus protection can't help you, why bother paying for it? Most of the major problems on windows are worms now anyway. Following the guidelines of someone like securemac.com should be plenty.
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
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.
"Do you think Apple should start following Microsoft's model by rating vulnerabilities and patches?"
Yes, because when I think "secure software," I immediately think of Microsoft.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
Something a few other people have mentioned, I believe, that is quite important to the idea of Mac's and virii is the number of Mac's in use. See with Windows there simply are sheer numbers of machines to replicate and distribute any bug and in more then 9 out of 10 cases, the next machine it finds is running Windows and the worst of M$'s problems extend throughout multiple operating systems.
The problem for a virus with a Mac is the lack of replicating fodder. There just simply are not enough machines to find in order to properly replicate the virus. It would have to be somehow cross platform in order to guarantee its own survival. There is also the 'ego' side of virus writing, which if it truly exists, means that anyone writing a widespread virus is doing it to show off. It is their idea of a thrill to watch millions of computers crippled and tons of news coverage. The problem is a Mac virus would be little more then a blip on the radar.
Yes, Symantec is probably seeking some revenue; however, I really doubt they need to fear anything M$ 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...
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
It will hit us, it will hit us hard.
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.
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
Detailed is NOT what I'd call the kbase articles. These are the briefest of descriptions on what is actually wrong and being fixed.
2 413
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=30
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Pretty much every Windows PC i've got to repair was filled with Ad/Spyware that caused the problems
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.
There is one problem I see. Regardless of what may come in the future, Symantec are currently using deceptive tactics to lure people into buying their software. They are lying to Mac users. Shouldn't they be trying to earn our trust? On Windows computers, I won't use Symantec products because I don't trust the company.
It's that simple.
The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
I was laughing ay Symantec's ad in one of the Apple magazines only this weekend, as it does indeed use scare tactics. Given the lack (i.e. zero) of OS/X viruses, who actually knows if it will do it's job if the time comes? I think there is a perfectly legitimate market for AV tools on Mac (and Linux) - simply being a good citizen and not passing on infected mails (even if they could not infect your machine) helps everyone. It would be far better to focus on that angle (a solution to a problem that exists) than the FUD. In the meantime, Mac users could do themselves a favour. They (we, as I'm typing this on a Mac) are often perceived as blind Apple fans. Instead we should be playing down the Apple part, and citing the Unix foundations of OS/X as the part that makes it secure - allying ourselves with our similarly virus free BSD, commercial Unix and Linux brethren. (And yes, I am aware exploits exist on Linux but still no wild viruses). Unfortunately, people's eyes glaze over when you start trying to explain why a user executable can't install a boot process, thus they continue to believe that all systems are as bad as Windows, it's just that no one uses the other stuff. I usually go for the simpler point of saying 'it's what ebay, Amazon, Google and all the banks use'. Then again, I have a hard enough time trying to persuade relatives and in-laws to even practice safe IT with their Windows machines. Every time I visit I find myself having to remove spyware and worse - usual culprit, the P2P programs the kids are installing. Second culprit - some of the sites I'm guessing the older male relatives are visiting. I've installed AVG and found it turned back off (probably because it blocked a file someone wanted to download). I've installed AdAware and shown how to run it and found, 6 months later, I was the last person to run it. My wife periodically blocks her laptop's internet access by hitting 'No' when the firewall detects an executable has changed following a Windows update - I've watched her in action and she simply hits the default without reading the text. (In fact, she did the same the other day to the Apple auto-update on my Mac - denied the download). Despite being more IT savvy that 95% of the population, I think she does have a very typical attitude towards computer security - it shouldn't be her problem. Another poster did make the excellent point that far from being less security aware and acting on faith in Apple's virus free status, an increasing number of Mac users are actually security aware Unix geeks, rather than the flaky graphic designers of stereotype. Hell, some of us even know there are far worse threats to security than virus protection.
'Capitalists of the world, unite! Oh