Slashdot Mirror
Mac users 'too smug' Over Security?
wild_berry writes "Bill Thompson, one of the BBC's technology commentators and presenter of Go Digital on the BBC World Service, expresses his concerns that Mac users assume their safety in the face of trojans, worms, keyloggers and other malware. As a Mac user he is most concerned about the lack of herd immunity that is needed to stop a few infections becoming an epidemic, fully explained in his column week for the BBC technology site. Is he right, and what actual products exist for OS X that would protect against infections?"
This article was dead on.
My first ever encounter with this mentality was in high school when my music theory instructor told us that she loved her Mac and when I tried to argue with her about a number of things, she'd repeatedly reply with "No Mac has ever been hacked or had a virus on it."
Now, at the time, I was a young nooblet and probably should have let it slide but instead I snuck into her office and opened up her Macintosh's word editing software with the intent of some lil' bastardry. I found the option to replace a mistyped word with another that the user entered. After that, whenever she typed the word "the", it was replaced with "WARNING! VIRUS DETECTED! PULL PLUG FROM OUTLET AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!" Unfortunately, her son knew enough about computer to fix it so my fun didn't last very long (only one or two lunges at the wall).
Back to the issue--I think it is a grave mistake for anyone to ever feel 100% invulnerable when it comes to computers that are connected to the internet in anyway. I would diagnose this as a standard case of a false sense of security. This is something that has plagued many people throughout history and often led to their downfalls.
What message am I trying to get across to Mac users? First, realize you're not invulnerable. Second, just browse around and look at what's out there for you to use as anti-virus and virus blocking tools. And if you don't want to, read some horror stories, perhaps that will motivate you to become aware of possible worms in your Apple.
My work here is dung.
The retailers who make this claim to those who may not know better.
A local Mac shop practically advertises that a Mac is totally secure and immune to viruses and spyware.
Every time I see one of their commercials I shake my head at the persons obvious lack of understanding of the issues at hand. It's one thing for a Mac fan to say there are secure due to their delusion... it's quite another for them to use their delusion as the basis for a sale.
It's just a shame that for them to be proven wrong, a lot of people and their PC's have to get hurt.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
On the contrary. Linux is open source, therefor more people are looking to find bugs / rewrite code.
If enough eyes are looking, all bugs are shallow, that is the open source mentality. That is precisely the good thing about open source.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
I've been using Linux for nearly a year with no Windows on my PC. After that, I had to use Windows (developed .NET apps) and on the first day got 3 completely different viruses and managed to get my system completely screwed up. Before that I had a huge experience in Windows and never had any real problems with that kind of stuff. However it appears that I've completely lost awareness of the possible dangers of running every app without checking first.
So it appears that Linux and probably Mac users are less aware of malware and do some really careless things because the probability of getting a virus is extremely low.
Bill Thompson is right, but there is a much, much larger problem that's out there: cell phones. Cell phones are always connected to a large network. There are billions of them, And very few cell phones run any kind of anti-viral or anti-trojan software.
Although Bill may be writing to ride on the coat tail's of Apple's recent success, the Macintosh can get infected by a virus or a trojan program. In fact, some of the earliest computer viruses in the wild were found on the Mac. The Mac virus problem isn't as large as the Windows virus problem, but that's because there are many more Windows machines intermingling out there.
Any networked device, from routers to mainframes, from Bluetooth devices to cell phones to the XBox 360, may be vulerable to malware. All need robust security.
I will be adding some extra security to the system. But the average user cannot do what I will be doing.
Why don't you enlighten us oh gifted one?
- Sighuh?
You're not vulnerable if you're not a target. Macs are not targets. And I fix all computers, Windows, Linux, Macs. Mac people are no more or less smug than those other users. Most Windows people don't have a clue about firewalls, virii, trojans, or worms fyi. Computer users are all the same. They just want something that works. BTW I haven't had to remove a virus, trojan, or a worm from a Mac yet. I've done that for Windows machines all the time and make good money doing it. You do the math.
I distinctly remember my first virus way when the computer was still a bit of a novelty and the 200MB disk was considered godly (I distinctly remember my Day saying that we'd never fill it up in our lifetime). When my family got our first Mac Plus, I thought I was in heaven - I could draw using MacDraw and write up reports, but most importantly I could play all sorts of cool games like Dark Castle and Dungeon of Doom. Of course it didn't take me long to figure out that my friends and I could swap games, stretching our very limited allowance. Everything was great, until one day I accidentally infected our computer with one of the nVIR viruses. That was an experience I'll never forget - my dad feared for his computer, I feared for my life. The computer survived, and so did I (barely), but it's safe to say that I've been paranoid about viruses ever since.
There have been HUNDREDS of articles like this over the last few years, especially since Apple moved to OS X. And every time the tone is, that Mac users have no idea how dangerous computing is, and have too much trust in Apple and OS X to be inherently virus/malware/spyware/trojan proof.
The problem for me is, that I see nothing to shake that trust in OS X.
I switched to OS X machines after years of administrating a collection of around 100 PCs in two internet cafes, and 100 PCs running Windows being used by thousands of clueless users entails massive amounts of work and hardship to keep them virus/malware/spyware/trojan free. We had a few Mac machines, and all they ever needed was to have 'software update' run once in a while.
There's no point telling people that they have too much faith in OS X's powers to keep out the hackers and viruses, when there are STILL no viruses for Macs, still no malware apps, still no trojans, still no worms. What can they expect articles like this to make users do? Run anti-virus software everyday? What the hell would it be looking for?
Because most weren't critical vulnerabilities and there are no exploits. Show me an exploit for a Mac OS X vulnerability. Now, show me one in the wild. Can't? The only thing you have to do to wipe the smug look of a Mac users face is to release an exploit in to the wild. Go ahead. What are you waiting for?
If just one person who thinks Macs are just as vulnerable as PCs would just write a worm/trojan/virus, we could end these f*@&!#g trolls and all agree that security is hard. Really, please, someone write an OS X exploit and spread it. Make it benign if you're uncomfortable with writing viruses. Just get something out there.
I'd like to see it just so people will stop using the lame "there are more Windows PCs" arguments. I'm sorry but this whole issue has gotten so blown out of proportion that the first person to show a really bad Mac vulnerability with an exploit would be on every geek blog and quite possible the NYT. You'd be f*@&!#g famous.
I get regular security vulnerability email alerts all the time. Just today there was a long list of potential problems with 10 different flavors of Linux, HP-UX, Cisco, OS/400, Z/OS and of course Windows.
Now the issue is, how bad is that? And the other question is what is the cost - benefit of fixing it?
Many of the vulnerabilities in the alert I alluded have the potential to be serious enough to warrant your attention but this assumes that you already have NOTHING in place to protect yourself, that you've effectively not implemented any security infratrature whatsoever. The probability of this is quite low.
But - and this is the big issue with Windows, your exposures surface out of EVERY SINGLE ordinary everyday common task you employ the machine to do. It would be as if every Cisco vulnerability surfaced specifically and only when it routed packets and only because it routed packets.
Therein lies the difference.
In the Mac world, no one is seriously suggesting that their BSD based OS is defacto immune from problems. What they're arguing convincingly is that those problems when they arise will arise out of non common tasks and obscure problems that typically stem from operating your machines in a very nonstandard way to begin with. For instance the ordinary Mac user could, if they were motivated, run as root all day everyday. But why would they? That's a nonstandard operation mode. Moreover the common problems you do see in the Mac world won't ordinarily occur because of executing common tasks that ordinary users employ their machines to do. You won't see many vulnerabilities exploited the same way that simply using AOLIM or Limewire or reading a rich email or any of the other innumerable problems in Windows stems from.
My dad bought my niece an HP laptop for Christmas. The next day, I was installing some software (Firefox, AdAware) and got a pop up for "cheap mortgages". She was fiddling with it for all of three hours on Christmas day and got spyware.
Yes, I realize that these are anecdotal stories, but they're pretty typical of the experiences most tech people have in their families.
But, as someone posted earlier, if Macs are 5% of the computer market, why aren't 5% of the viruses and spyware on Macs? That would be tens of thousands, not a few dozen.
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
I think you would find all three levels of "smug" amongst Mac users, amongst Linux users, and even amongst Windows users, seeing as how we have plenty of issues in the wild that target Microsoft desktops and laptops. OSX is not particularly "good" against malware; it's more like Windows is particularly "bad", and 99% of the Bad Windows is due entirely to Bill's Favorite OS being configured as vulnerable in a default install. This is a problem in the attitude and practice of the OS vendor, not the OS itself.
Were Windows to be more like UNIX, Linux, or OSX in only that one area, we'd all be more secure, and we could all be worrying about more serious vulnerabilities that go beyond attachments, nasty pictures and Active-X agents of doom.
Now, "too smug" about security, I'm not so sure. It definitely depends on who you talk to (and you obviously haven't been talking to any Mac users I've tutored on the subject; they know security is ongoing and requires vigilance on any platform).
Apple themselves are, and always have been, very reluctant to suggest Macs are immune to malware, and even with Windows nearing 100K in virus/worm/trojan instances, they are remarkably silent about what many feel is a significant competitive advantage. OS9 was (and still is) a much more secure OS than OSX; it may well be amongst the most secure ever widely deployed by anyone. Yet, that would be news to a majority of users on any platform, including OS9 users themselves.
Are men "too smug" about Breast Cancer? Certainly they don't "worry" about it, but they too can be victims (not sure about the actual instances, but perhaps 1-10 ratio would be in the ballpark. You could look it up if it's important to you). Yet, it's not on top of their radar, and I don't think you should be insisting that's somehow wrong. There are other things to worry about, plain and simple.
How many copies of Mac AntiVirus software gets sold? By the parent post, it should be none, since the smug would obviously prefer to spend their money on further whitening of their annoyingly bright smiles. Yet, it's widely deployed on home computers (not just corporate boxes) running OSX. I don't know about you, but putting out $50 for what the smug would find to be useless software doesn't jive with the assertion. I also find it hard to believe that Windows users would voluntarily deploy any software at all that cost them money to protect Linux, UNIX or Mac users were the shoe on the other foot.
I wonder if all this smugness is related to former Windows users or to people actually comparing the two platforms while shopping and who chose a different path than they otherwise would have a few years ago? If Linux boxes were available to average consumers (a real problem, still not addressed) would Linux geeks be outnumbered by clueless Linux Lusers, smug about security?
I've seen this problem on our university's campus more than a half dozen times (oh, the horror!).
-User reads something about "SSH" to access his machine.
-User turns on SSH
-User also has no imagination with password--uses common dictionary spellings
-User is cracked into with dictionary attack
-Security team shuts down port or blocks MAC after a bank calls to report attacks
-User calls helpdesk
-Consultant re-installs MacOS X and smacks the user about the head and shoulders because they had no business enabling SSH
-User has admin privileges stripped
-Problem solved--for now.
So, the biggest "problem" is, indeed, user ignorance. But, out of the box, I'd say Macs are in pretty good shape against attacks and malware given the current lack (and history) of Mac spyware, trojans, or viruses (none that I know of).
Macs are not impervious, but they enjoy 2 major benefits:
1) There aren't enough of them for a worm to spread quickly or effectively (which is what I'd want if I were in the black arts).
2) They don't come with giant holes from the complacent company who wrote the OS--why work when you can pick the low-hanging fruit from MS?
With the new Intel chips, executeables might find new life in the Mac...but we'll see.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
Uh, buddy, you're making stuff up.
3 75,39155837,00.htm
In the last five years, there's been several reports of in-principle exploits, around 5 or so. I.e. someone has theoretically demonstrated a vulnerability, and created a program and shown how it can infect a machine.
But none of these have ever been found "in the wild" and infecting other peoples' machines. None. Not one. That's what we mean.
Really, none uh?
In Wild, known Infections:
http://www.macintouch.com/opener.html
Exploit, unknown level of infections:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/security/0,39020
Thanks for the intellectual response, it is what I would expect from an 'informed' user like yourself.
Next time you juggle the 'reality or belief' concept, don't give in to what you want, but try facts instead.
When looking at theories stating that if OS X had larger market share than windows we would see many more OS X viruses one might thing this is a reasonable assumption. The problem with thinking in this way is that it uses Windows as it's case example. With windows as the only data set for comparison there is no evidence to support that with similar market share we would see a dramatic increase of viruses on OS X.
/" and I might listen.
You can definitely argue that there might be more ATTEMPTS at writing more viruses/malware/ect due to a percieved increase in the target market size, but the differences between windows and OS X are such that you really can't say that because with X product Y happened, so with A product Y will also happen.
Show me ONE...just ONE OS X VIRUS...not UNIX worm, not 10 year old Office VB script, or somebody just writing a shell script with "sudo rm -rf
Until I see one in the wild everything else is conjecture.
First, I wouldn't characterize user views concerning s/w security regarding OS X as "smugness." That's a myth. Second, it should be more than telling, that after article after article regarding OS X security from pundits and software security vendors alike, the best argument they can make is a pure hypothetical. Third, any discussion of software security must, I repeat, must involve not only the software design of the OS platform as it pertains to security, but also the OS vendor (i.e., Apple, Microsoft, etc.), insomuch as the vendor plays a key role in maintaining security on it's platform. The vendor's role as it pertains to software security is intrinsic and inseparable in any meaningful discussion of platform security.
.wmf incident. On the other hand, Apple has been proactive in maintaining security on it's platform, constantly updating it's system for potential vulnerabilities even though nothing has ever existed in the wild. The most recent version of OS X ("Tiger") featured a raft of new, preventative security features. That's quite a clear departure from Microsoft. Apple, as a company, through it's behavior pertaining to OS security maintenance, has made it clear that if anyone tries to exploit the system, you may find a way but it won't be easy. And if you somehow manage to exploit it, we will shut you down quickly.
In the case of Microsoft, they have been incontestably less than vigilant regarding addressing security lapses in Windows, as recently as the
As an example, the "evil widget" issue that the author of the parent article refers to is a little more telling then he lets on. The issue arose not long after the release of 10.4, but nothing was ever delivered in the wild. Nevertheless, Apple addressed the issue in it's next update to OS X, which at the time was 10.4.2. And this is an example where Apple users do have a right to be smug, as Apple OS X 10.4 users know just how far above and beyond the call of duty Apple's solution was to the theoretical "evil widget."
Make no mistake, when you talk about OS security, the company that makes the OS matters, and in the case of Apple, users would have every reason to be smug.
Here's what I want to know. Now, analyzing a multivariable problem is always harder. When we compare Windows and Mac, for instance, the two platforms have (a) vastly different market shares and (b) significantly if not vastly different security models. Which factor accounts for the vastly different level of malware threat? We don't know for sure.
BUT, to all the Windows apologists who are always saying it's not Windows's fault that there is so much malware for it, who are suggesting that it's all the malware writer's fault, who are implying it's unfair to criticize Windows for its popularity, I want to say: are you sure that the difference in security models doesn't account for any of the difference? Why are you (or, rather, why is Microsoft) so reluctant to try any of those "different" security techniques that Macs (and Unix and linux machines) use?
(But I guess I know what they'd say. "No system is 100% secure. There are vulnerabilities in the Mac, Unix, and Linux models, too...")
Yes it is a rootkit, but you missed the point of how it GOT on the Macs without someone installing it, that is where the problem is, it doesn't matter what rootkit or trojan was being dropped in using the exploit it used.
Exactly. In order for the rootkit/trojan to get onto the Mac, one of four things must have happened:
A) The Mac had an unsafe network configuration (firewall off, services enabled, weak password, possibly an unpatched remote vulnerability)
B) A malicious user had physical access to the machine
C) A malicious user was authorized to use the machine (special case of B, really)
D) The machine's owner deliberately installed the rootkit, and forgot about it.
No antivirus application yet devised would have protected the user against any of these scenarios, regardless of OS. The idea that the Opener/Renepo rootkit somehow validates antivirus software on OS X is laughable.
The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.