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
Real threats will only occur once Apples market share has risen significantly and even then I dont think there will be many. Putting it into perspective, i've used macs since I was 8 (1991) and i've never had a virus on any of them, or at least never knowingly had a virus as i've never had to buy a virus scanner. I don't think it's time to worry.. yet.
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
i've used macs since I was 8 (1991) and i've never had a virus on any of them
I think I saw an nVir infection, and maybe Scores as well. That was back in, umm, I think ’89 or so.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
With their crystal ball are managing to see some ghosts in the machine , I don't believe in ghosts .Show me hard evidence or flutter off
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.
Security has also not been a problem , It automatically runs the system update regularly if you don't do it yourself . The worst that could happen is someone passes you a dodgy installer which runs some sort of server but that's not OS X's fault .
OS X is up there with the best *NIXs in these regards .
Symantec I believe has been using classic mac OSs (someone should tell them that 10 is a bigger number than 8) , They were buggy and full of holes .
OS X is not perfect by any means and has had its fair share of patches , But I could say with confidence that it could go toe to toe with linux in these areas .
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
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!
I'll be getting some x86 Powermacs this coming summer.
My only security concern comes from not knowing how many threats out there are based on CPU vulnerabilities that don't affect PPCs but do affect x86 based CPUs.
Will it soon be as easy to port over viruses, trojans and worms to OS X as it will be to port games and other apps?
Otherwise I have no worries... Apple stays on top of security issues and doesn't have the back log of known vulns that windows has. In addition, many of the vulns that could affect OS X would also affect Linux/BSD so OS X gets the benefits of those communities watching for problems/patching problems as well.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
... so they need to convince us there's a market.
Just like drug companies that release a cure for a disease you'd never heard of, just after 'credible' reports appear in the media showing that most of the poopulation suffer from it.
It's a scare tactic, pure and simple.
However, there is a small sting in the tail - Mac users have little to nothing to worry about today. Tomorrow may be another story entirely.
Just because a virus hasn't been written doesn't necessarily mean it's impossible to write one. There's a creeping feeling in the Mac world that we can't be touched by malware just because we're using Macs. That's a dangerous attitude in the long run.
Mac users need only take advantage of the built-in security, plus enable a few options.
The Firewall should be on by default, but clicking the 'Advanced' button reveals an option for stealth mode. That's always a good idea. In fact, while you're there, turn firewall logging on and come back to read the log in a week or two. That'll highlight any attempts at breaking in.
Keep the administrative account around, but use a non-admin one for day to day tasks. There's no reason not to, and it forces a password check before any files outside the user's directory are altered.
Turn off the option to open 'safe' files after downloading in Safari.
There's a guide from the US NSA out there somewhere that's heavy going, but shows what good security looks like. Read a site like http://www.securemac.com/ once in a while to pick up a few tips.
Mac users needn't be as worried as Windows users should be, but a few ounces of prevention still go a long way.
OS X is by far my OS of choice. Sure I use Windows and Linux for different things, but when it comes to ordinary stuff as well as some cross-platform development I love my Powerbook. It's more stable and secure than my windows box and more pleasant to use than my Linux box.
That being said, one day it will hit the fan. Someone will write a really bad virus or find a big exploit and keep it on the down-low until they release it on a large scale. It will hit us, it will hit us hard.
It will be like a family living in a gated community where there's no crime. Feeling safe they never bother will any security system or guard dog. Then one day they all wake up to find their 1st floor completely raided of all valuables. The initial shock to Mac users will be the same (all-be-it less devastating than seeing your tv and stereo gone) . After being safe for so long and not having to worry about it will hit us really hard.
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.
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.
I once bought a used Mac with pre-installed Symantec Software...
It was the worst crap I have ever encountered in my life, including Windows 2.x! The stupidity and uglyness of it is so enormous that the United Nations should ban it because it could easily pass as a crime against humanity. You would'nt believe it until you saw it... messing up a whole filesystem, bringing system performance to a grinding halt, fucking up the *nix part of OSX so badly that it is absolutely unusable. Oh, and of course you need a third party patch to uninstall it, and even with that patch it's a pain to go through and it still leaves some parts of OSX broken.
What kind of person must one be to program such a huge pile of shit? Compared to the braindead molluscs at Symantec, Microsoft looks like a Mensa con. There is only one Malware for the Mac and its name is Symantec. Works like a classical trojan: You install it because the programmer makes you believe it does something useful. But once you've done so, it begins to weak havoc all over the place and there is no way you can get rid of it except for major system surgery. Oh man, only thinking about that my HD was once infested with that dreck makes me puke!
The real danger for the Mac world is that these imbecile wankers are successful with their bloody scare tactics and get some ignorant management to believe their dirty, fucking lies. If then that management forces their employees to install Symantec "antivirus" dirt all over their Mac network, they might get stability and usability down to a point where they could just as well run Win95 on overclocked Pentium I Boxes with 16 MB of RAM.
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
Symantec is trying to sell a product that doesn't really apply in the Linux/OS X environments.
I'm not saying Viri and Worms don't or couldn't exist on a *nix platform. What I am saying is that security patches are released within the same timeframes as virus updates, so why not just set your box to auto-update those patches and skip the Anti-virus software route all together?
On other vendor's platforms, there are both a greater frequency of attacks and longer delays between patches (probably due to the shear number) so Anti-virus software serves a market there.
So it isn't hubris that the Linux and OS X are imune, it is that the OSS community and Apple work quickly to patch any vulnerability ASAP.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
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.
Because you can't just drag some Applications over. Those installers put files in directories a normal user can't touch.
After all, I am strangely colored.
Symantec, does indeed need to create fear of threats where there aren't any. They sell an anti-virus for Palm OS even though most Palms don't connect to anything. They cite an actual TWO threats discovered in the wild in 2000.
Symantec's business smodel is to get US$29 or so per year from EVERY computer on the planet. They can't let any platforms go "un-taxed."
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.
Acrobat.
/Applications. On its initial launch, it asks for a password because it puts other stuff elsewhere in the system, the files necessary for the "Adobe PDF" printer to be created, for one.
It actually is installed via a drag and drop into
Microsoft Office does it that way, too, drag and drop install followed by supplemental stuff (fonts, etc) installing itself on initial launch.
~Philly
Does anyone else believe there are only so many "real" viruses out there? The rest are engineered by the virus scan companies?
For example you install Symantec norton antivirus. It detects something as a virus. Let's say you DON'T clean or quarantine it, and just install norton.
Now install McAfee antivirus. It may not even detect that same virus at all. Assuming both scanners are all updated, how can a virus count in one software and not the other.
So, really, they have a rating system, but it's not dumbed-down. If you know enough ( or *think* you know enough ) to read through all of this and decide "hey, none of that really matters for me, I don't need this update", then you at least have a detailed idea of what you're passing on. Otherwise, you should probably apply all of these updates and patches anyway... maybe waiting a few days to see if anyone reports serious issues with it if you're extra paranoid about stability.
Since we all have different operating environments and practices, a strict rating scheme is a little meaningless. If you don't use Mail, a "Severe" rated patch that only patches Mail might not matter to you... really, you need to look at the description if you care about such stuff.
And what's this talk of OS X stability issues? Pu-leeeze. Maybe if you're running 10.1. Anything past 10.2.3... any instability is likely to be hardware ( likely memory) in cause.
%uptime
10:20 up 133 days
If it weren't for updates this thing would never get shut down...
No OS is immune from exploits.
Symantec shouldn't just be pointing out how many exploits have come to their attention, they should be providing evidence to support their position. Things like, how many exploits became full blown threats to the security of OS X. None.
They should be providing details about how their NAV(Norton Anti-Virus) software has changed over the past several iterations to deal with this pervasive threat. It hasn't.
Currently Symantec is using the same software, without any significant changes, since the release of OS X, that's no significant changes or enhancements, zero, zilch, nada, for over three years, but they're still happy to sell you a new version for $70+ and come out and make wild claims about how you too are unsafe. When what the consumers are really unsafe from is bad business practices and corporations that are willing to try and scare you out of your hard earned cash.
Why is this happening? Money, greed, avarice and lying.
"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!
Symantec's products, in my experience, create a lot of instability in Mac OS X and are very difficult to thoroughly remove. They also create a lot of unnecessary conflicts that can disable services you were using if you don't know how to go into all the kernel extension and other system folders to eliminate the software. I know OS X isn't the most secure OS in the world, but I would prefer to go without third party security than use Symantec's products, until and unless they learn how to make their products more effective and less disruptive.
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
That's probably the wrong question. Being such a large company, you have to assume they rate vulnerabilities and patches -- it's almost impossible to produce high-quality software like OS X without rating patches.
The question is whether or not to release the information to the public. I can't imagine that doing so would be practically useful. If you already know what the vulnerability is, without rating it, you have a better leg up on understanding its severity, and you likely have sources of alternative workarounds until the official patch.
-Rob
Biblical fiscal responsibility
I think any game that uses SDL, because the SDL framework needs to be installed to /Library/Frameworks.
I do agree that too many applications seem to need a special password, I wish there was an easy way to expose in a decipherable manner exactly what it does that claims to need it.
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."
Yes, Acrobat is more feature rich than the OS.
But please explain why it need to have the admin password to install it. Is there anything in Acrobat that is system wide, moreso than something like Office would provide? I really don't think so, but would love to be enlightened.
More likely, it's Adobe being lazy with programming and making things easier on themselves rather than proper and secure programming techniques. Remember, if there's a bug in their application at a system level, it could represent a real security hole because of the way the installer works.
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.
Clearly something does stop Spyware authors, otherwise Mac users would be complaining about spyware.
However, why on earth would one think that Symantec is the solution to the problem? If there is a known problem, Apple will patch it. If it is an unknown problem, Symantec cannot fix it.
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
I was a loyal Symantec user and used their product religiously on my PCs and Macs, knowing that sooner or later something ugly would rip through the Mac community. When I renewed a license on the Mac side the license they gave me didn't work. I emailed customer service twice and still received no response. When I read the fine print, the license must be applied within a month of being issued or it does not work. I did that, and followed all of their installation directions, but no luck. The lack of response from their customer support was the last straw, none of my systems run Symantec products now. Their troubles may run deeper than a lack of scary OS X security stories to drive their sales.
Free Adam Smith! (Or best offer.)
There's a big difference in the sources where people get their virus news. On the Windows side, you see it in trade journals, on news sites, even on TV when there's a big virus making Windows machines crap out left and right. Yet...you only hear about Mac viruses from companies (Symantec?) who are trying to make a buck. Maybe when I read about Mac viruses in InfoWorld or some other news source I'll be mildly concerned.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
I found a serious one when I was doing some testing prior to the implementation of Mac OS X 10.3. As far as I know, this issue still exists despite my reporting it to BOTH Symantec and Apple... (I believe Symantec did something about it in their latest version, though I haven't had a chance to test it yet... but I know OS X would still allow the problem in 10.4.)
The scenario goes like this: Create a cron task to update Norton AV for Mac from the command line. Log off the system. Unplug the network cable. Wait for the cron task to fire. Norton tosses up an error box indicating that it couldn't update itself. This error message appears OVER the login screen, along with an Apple menu that shows you logged in as the administrator user who setup that cron to update Norton. Even without logging in you have limited access to OS X as AN ADMINISTRATOR!
(I discovered this little "hiccup" when I'd configured Norton to auto-update and found that our network had experienced a problem overnight when the update was scheduled to take place. Imagine my surprise to come in and find a machine with an administrator's Apple menu accessible and no one logged into it!)
Personally, I think applications shouldn't be able to display GUI elements if the user initiating those applications isn't logged in at the moment, and certainly not if NO ONE is logged in.
For slightly more information on how to update Norton AV 8.0 and 9.0 from the command line and via cron, see: http://mikesalsbury.com/mambo/content/view/115/