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?"

Comments

Errrr

[scenestar]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Semantec Panicing

[TheRaven64]

Semantec, I would imagine, has three nightmares:

1. Users all switch to platforms without security problems.
2. Microsoft makes Windows Vista secure.
3. 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.

They just don't get it

[Deanasc]

I think the fact that both the hardware and OS come from one vendor makes the Mac far more stable hence secure. Microsoft has to get windows to work with Intel and AMD chipsets that are jammed into boxes made by hundreds of different manufacturers. Add into the mix a backwards compatability problem where software written in the 1970's is expected to still work and you've got a recipe for buffer overruns and all the demons they bring forth.

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.

Re:x86 / intel vulnerabilities

[GaryPatterson]

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.

The biggest risk for Mac OS X is the admin dialog

[porkchop_d_clown]

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?

Re:psymantec

[MyDixieWrecked]

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 .
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 /' 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.

i don't understand why they didn't do that already.

Re:One Day it will Hit the Fan

[porcupine8]

It will hit us, it will hit us hard.

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.

Enough with the straw men!

[argent]

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.

Re:One Day it will Hit the Fan

[razmaspaz]

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.

Perverse Incentives

[richg74]

Although I don't use a Mac / OS-X, and therefore can't really comment on the technical issues here, I do think this brings up something about Microsoft's near-monopoly that isn't always sufficiently understood.

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.

Re:There are no threats...now

[spir0]

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.