Slashdot Mirror


iPods Come Complete With Windows Virus

kaufmanmoore writes "Cnet is reporting that some video Ipods made after September 12th have the RavMonE virus loaded onto it. In Apple's announcement they take a swipe at Windows security and encourage Windows users to install anti virus applications."

672 comments

  1. where's my ketchup by Blurp123456789 · · Score: 0, Funny

    Was is outsourced at McDonald's?

  2. Just goes to show. by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apple's products are made (and to some degree, designed) in China just like everybody else's. I wonder how many other memory products (that is, USB mass storage devices) have similar issues.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
    1. Re:Just goes to show. by Zarniwoop_Editor · · Score: 1

      I find myself wondering if this virus was an accident or was it placed into the production environment by an employee with an axe to grind? Either way, I'm not sure how you would go about QC'ing for this sort of problem, especially if it was done intentionally.

      --
      - F1 NEWS
    2. Re:Just goes to show. by pilgrim23 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Mac Windows blah blah... the REAL question to me is how did it get there? as you point out, made in China. Think this one through in terms of balance of trade, marketing and manufacturing clout, and future product deals. Could this have been a feeler on how to inject another and even more disturbing piece of code into the infustructure? Or, mayhaps I am just too cynical...

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    3. Re:Just goes to show. by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If America and China are in serious economic competition, why wouldn't China try to quietly sabotage a leading American company? Especially as they now own one of the largest PC building companies in the world now... and which is in direct competition with Apple. And also since they are on the verge of being an independent economic power (meaning they can market anywhere and not rely on North America being happy with what they do). We forget that they are still a totalitarian government. I know this may be over the top, but I still have suspicians about them, and wonder why we keep outsourcing so many critical (to national interests) operations there. The fact that they don't care to rein in North Korea as much as their other neighbors (like South Korea or Japan) or the U.S. would like is another indication that they have their own agendas.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    4. Re:Just goes to show. by rriven · · Score: 1

      McDonald's had the QQPass Trojan come preinstalled on 10,000 usb sticks. http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/16/181 1244 It looks like companies should start checking for this type of stuff.

      --
      Dan
    5. Re:Just goes to show. by Blikkie · · Score: 1

      The main reason why they wouldn't sabotage a US company is that they would have far too much to lose from that. The Chinese economy needs to export goods and to be the country that manufacturors outsource to. While the government is working very hard to increase the internal market, export is the only way to go now, and if they were sabotaging other companies, they would sabotage their major source of revenue. I for one do believe that China is not an evil empire. Just a very big country, that is slowly emerging from communism to market capitalism. The government may not be the nicest in the world, but I think it is steadily impoving and it has been much much worse. There are many countries where it is much worse at the moment, I can't tell from the outside, but I doubt it is much better in Russia, or Belorussia. China seems quite aware that it will need to adapt to the world around it to survive, and so far they are doing better than Russia, that has collapsed on itself and is very unattrective to foreign investors because of rampant mafia and corrupt government. I hope they take Singapore as an example. Singapore was, or even still is a totalitarian state, which was necessary after some violent revolutions. Only when the economy grew, they gradually increased personal freedoms. Democracy is a very nice long-term goal, but China has a country to keep together in the meantime.

    6. Re:Just goes to show. by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      Mac Windows blah blah... the REAL question to me is how did it get there? as you point out, made in China.

      Until I found a new job, I worked for a major Western European telecom company in a US subsidiary that many don't know that they own. I fixed email issues on a Unix based email solution we sold. I don't remember how many times we had to request to get off blacklists because some idiot customer in China/Hong Kong/Taiwan got their PC infected with a spamming virus of some kind and started spewing spam through our service. We would have to talk tough with the customer and warn them that if this continued, we would stop sending their email because we couldn't afford to get blacklisted. Despite all the talk about US infected PCs, and I'm sure it's true, I get the impression that nobody in China/Hong Kong/Taiwan takes PC security seriously at all, so I can't say I'm surprised.

    7. Re:Just goes to show. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What?! China has its own agenda? The hell you say.

      And here I thought that China's 1 billion people only existed to serve the interests of 300 million Americans. You're "suspicious" that they're going to try and make things better for their own people instead of forever being subjugated to the interests of western powers?

      This is truly shocking. You should inform the President.

    8. Re:Just goes to show. by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      Nice troll anonymous coward.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    9. Re:Just goes to show. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please tell me this is a joke?

      You are suspicious of China because their agenda is not the same as the USA? Well duh! Of course it's not the same.

      And you think the Chinese government has installed virii on 30 ipods as a secret plot to overthrow USA commercial interests? Get a grip!

      It is heaps more in Chinese interests to be taking money and work off the USA, then to try and stop it!

  3. Good job, Jobs! by eebra82 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now I come to think about the PC guy in the Mac commercials who whines about viruses on Windows systems. Steve Jobs is so keen on pointing out that Mac is free from viruses (and Windows is not), but this blunder has got to shut him up about that for a while.

    1. Re:Good job, Jobs! by sl3xd · · Score: 2, Informative

      You realize that the virus does nothing on a Mac, right? To a mac, it's just a file.

      To Windows, it's a virus.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    2. Re:Good job, Jobs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      its a windows virus you jackass

    3. Re:Good job, Jobs! by Darundal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How should this shut him up? Did you even RTFM? The virus was due to the iPods being processed through a single machine running Windows...nothing about a mac being infected at all, or any flaws in mac security...

    4. Re:Good job, Jobs! by eebra82 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I never stated that either. My point was that he can't complain about viruses on Windows computers now that he's helped spreading it. Excuse me for not being clear enough.

    5. Re:Good job, Jobs! by Salvance · · Score: 4, Funny

      So now Apple needs a commercial where the Mac guy is picking up biohazardous waste while wearing a virus-proof bunny suit and "accidentally" spilling it on the PC guy who's just laying there in his beach clothes enjoying himself.

      --
      Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
    6. Re:Good job, Jobs! by BigBir3d · · Score: 1
      You realize that the virus does nothing on a Mac, right? To a mac, it's just a file.


      How many other unknown files ship on an iPod? OS X is not perfect nor inpenetrable...
    7. Re:Good job, Jobs! by Odin's+Raven · · Score: 5, Funny

      Next PC vs Mac commercial, the Apple version:

      PC is wearing a "boy in the plastic bubble" suit, wandering around with a bottle of Formula 409, obsessively wiping down everything he sees. Mac casually strolls up from behind and taps PC on the shoulder of his bubble suit. PC shrieks and starts spraying and wiping the suit. Mac asks what's up, PC starts babbling "Viruses...viruses are everywhere. Anything I touch might kill me. Never clean enough...never...clean...enough". Mac sadly shakes his head and wanders off.

      Next PC vs Mac commercial, the Microsoft version:

      Mac walks over to PC and offers to let PC listen to Mac's iPod. PC puts on the headset, starts tapping his feet and snapping his fingers, then suddenly flops onto his back, goes into convulsions, and dies. Mac slinks off the stage, looking embarassed and guilty. James Earl Jones voiceover grimly intones "iPods kill - buy a Zune".

      --
      A marriage is always made up of two people who are prepared to swear that only the other one snores.
    8. Re:Good job, Jobs! by skiflyer · · Score: 1

      Typhoid mary... An Apple product (the iPod) is apparently a susceptible vector (duh they're basically just a harddrive) for Windows viruses. Furthermore, Apple did not take appropriate steps to protect its customers from this.

      What's so hard to understand about that being a bad thing? Wait, here's a mental excercise... replace iPod with Zune and see which of the Apple defenders in this thread keep defending.

    9. Re:Good job, Jobs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      How should this shut him up?


      Because he owns a company that is claiming their product superiority over windows based on security, dumbass.

      Just because the virus is found in iPod and not on Mac does not lessen the responsibility on the Apple part.
    10. Re:Good job, Jobs! by Dragon+of+the+Pants · · Score: 0, Troll

      Of course it's not, but that's neither here nor there. Isn't it funny how Windows users seem to always fall back on "OS X ISN'T INVINCIBLE" despite the fact that there are no viruses for it. Not to mention the fact that saying that while using an operating system absolutely inundated with malware.

    11. Re:Good job, Jobs! by BigBir3d · · Score: 1, Informative

      I am both a Mac user (g3 iBook) and a PC user (dude, I got a Dell).

      And there is stuff in the wild against OS X:

      http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/02/20060216005 401.shtml

      http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/02/20060216234 239.shtml

      http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup. jsp?docid=2006-021614-4006-99

      It is rather weak, but out there.

    12. Re:Good job, Jobs! by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      So now the victim of a virus cannot complain about a virus? I'm still not grasping your logic. Doesn't every victim of a virus "help spread it"? I'm not taking any blame away from Apple - they should check for viruses if they support Windows. But Apple is still a victim of the virus, not it's creator, and I think they have every right to complain about it. If I bought an infected iPod, I'd have the right to complain about Apple's QC, the virus, AND Windows.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    13. Re:Good job, Jobs! by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      The iPod is not susceptible to viruses - it's not an iPod virus. It's a Windows virus that was loaded on to the iPod (actually, its hard drive before it was made into an iPod) by a Windows machine. The iPod is no more "susceptible" to viruses than a floppy disk or USB stick. (Actually, that may not be true. For all I know, the iPod could have a security flaw that allows virus writers to exploit it. I mean, you can load any firmware you want on it, so it should be possible to infect it. It has yet to be demonstrated, however.)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    14. Re:Good job, Jobs! by NMerriam · · Score: 1, Troll
      My point was that he can't complain about viruses on Windows computers now that he's helped spreading it.


      It was spread from a Windows machine to another Windows machine via an Apple-branded Windows removable storage device. No Macs were involved anywhere in this process (and indeed if a Mac had been, that would have stopped the virus!).
      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    15. Re:Good job, Jobs! by Vexorian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would worry still cause this also means that they have a really low quality control.

      --

      Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
    16. Re:Good job, Jobs! by fatphil · · Score: 1

      "Doesn't every victim of a virus "help spread it"?"

      Nope, only those that spread it. Apple are spreading it - that *does* make them part of the problem.

      FatPhil

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    17. Re:Good job, Jobs! by Andrew+Kismet · · Score: 1

      The blame train should not stop at the first station it encounters. Nor should it go to the end of the line, where all blame inevitably falls on the species and the planet and Life in general.
      It should go to the heart of the issue, the cause, making only passing stops at secondary effects.

    18. Re:Good job, Jobs! by iamacat · · Score: 1

      Oh well, one "advantage" of switch to Intel processor is that Macs now run Windows viruses. As for future infections, well a buggy spotlight indexer can easily get owned by just mounting an iPod - no autoplay necessary.

    19. Re:Good job, Jobs! by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      It is rather weak, but out there.

      It'll probably remain weak as long as the OS X install base remains small.

      If and when a large OS X monoculture develops, then viruses and malware will begin to appear.

      Meanwhile, members of a subculture can crow about 'inherently superior security models.' Like boys in a tree fort do after they've pulled up the rope ladder.

      The only scenario in which this won't be the case is one where the user has no writable access to anything on his/her computer that he considers important.

    20. Re:Good job, Jobs! by alphakappa · · Score: 1

      You, sir are a genius.. get into advertising when you still have time!

      --
      "When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail." - Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)
    21. Re:Good job, Jobs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that is just because OS X is not an interesting platform to write viruses and malware for.
      There are just too few systems to get good spreading of a virus, too few possible customers for the adware, too few systems to be useful in a botnet.

      Virus and Malware authors prefer to write for a platform that has a reasonable target population.
      Face it, OS X installed base is nothing when compared to Windows. Why spend all the effort (probably more than required for Windows) to expand your target by at most 5%, probably less? No reasonable person would do that, except maybe for the kick of it.

    22. Re:Good job, Jobs! by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I guess there could be a subset of virus victims that catch the virus, yet somehow catch it before it spreads. I didn't say that Apple didn't have something to apologize for, just that they DO have a right to complain about the virus situation on Windows. Their statement needs to say something like: "We take full responsibility for damage done to user's machines. We will pay for cleanup. We are fixing our QC procedures so that this never happens again. Windows sucks."

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    23. Re:Good job, Jobs! by Slovenian6474 · · Score: 1

      That's hilarious! In either one, i so want to see the Mac walk up and "stab" the PC's bubble with a USB cord. I think your score should be at least 6.

  4. Cue the... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ..."reasons why this cannot be anyone's fault at Apple" responses from the fanboys...

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    1. Re:Cue the... by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      It's a Windows virus, and Apple eats their own dogfood; and the article says it happened at a subcontractor.

    2. Re:Cue the... by sl3xd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd prefer to think along the lines of "why you can't get anybody at Apple to care." It doesn't affect Macs, after all.

      Still, it does give food for thought. I can easily see it as an act of malice as much as a QA failure.

      I recall a *brand new* Sandisk flash drive that loaded & installed its own software (including Skype, its own little menu system, utilities, etc.) onto my computer the moment I plugged it in.

      How much would it be worth to a spammer/botnet group to infect the image that gets copied to all these devices? Enough to pay sufficiently large sums of money to subvert employees at the manufacturing plant?

      It's still inexcusably sloppy of Apple, but my real concern isn't in the companies involved: It's that it will likely happen elsewhere as well. Flash drives, DVD's with 'extended' PC content... stuff like that.

      Anywhere media with readable content is replicated can be a vector for viruses.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    3. Re:Cue the... by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because this is Slashdot and everything is China's fault.

    4. Re:Cue the... by Sancho · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Inexcusable? Hardly. It would certainly be inexcusable if they didn't take action here, but for a simple mistake? I think everyone is overstating how big a problem this is.

      And before people start saying, "Well if it was Microsoft, we'd be jumping down their throats about this!" consider that Apple isn't exactly a company with a long history of security flaws.

      I do think that the statement "As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses" is absurd. If there /were/ widespread viruses for Apple, they'd likely be just as problematic. The only thing that 'hardens' Apple against viruses, other than obscurity, is the fact that users don't run as Admin by default, so they have to type in their password for the virus to do any significant damage. Since we're training users to do this, it seems likely that a virus would still be able to wreak havoc on a Mac. We'd just call it a trojan, first.

      I guess Autorun on by default is another flaw in Windows, but I wasn't aware that USB devices would autorun by default. Are iPods presenting themselves as CDRoms now?

      Seriously. People look at a company like Apple and they imagine that there's some middle-aged guy in a turtleneck personally checking every iPod and somehow he slipped up and missed this. Nope. It's some grunt in a factory somewhere trying to meet a quota, and of course they're going to cut corners. Apple hasn't screwed up yet--we'll have to see how they handle this situation to find out whether their actions are "inexcusable."

    5. Re:Cue the... by bcat24 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But in the end, it's an Apple product and Apple is responsible. Sure, mistakes happen, and they did apologize, I'll give you that. The little jab at Microsoft was completely uncalled for, though. It makes Apple look far worse in my eyes than the accident did in the first place.

    6. Re:Cue the... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But look at Apple's response. Something to the effec of 'Its nothing a basic Antivirus software cant handle. Just run it, you will be fine'.

      If it is so simple to be removed, why was it not removed in the first place? It was utter carelessness on Apple's part. This time it was a Windows virus. Next time it could be some spyware.

      Stop passing the blame and own it, Apple.

    7. Re:Cue the... by snuf23 · · Score: 1

      I'd prefer to think along the lines of "why you can't get anybody at Apple to care." It doesn't affect Macs, after all.

      So would you say that the majority of iPod sales are for Mac users? That the amount of iPods sold to be used on Windows represents such an insignificant amount of income to Apple that they don't care?

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
    8. Re:Cue the... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I recall a *brand new* Sandisk flash drive that loaded & installed its own software (including Skype, its own little menu system, utilities, etc.) onto my computer the moment I plugged it in.
      Are you sure? I thought the whole point of U3 was that it runs the software from the flash disk without installing it.
    9. Re:Cue the... by Cryptnotic · · Score: 1

      Autorun is on by default for any drive (floppy disks, cd-rom, dvd-rom, hard drive, Zip or Jaz disks, USB memory sticks, SD cards, CompactFlash, xD) on any interface that supports removable media (IDE/ATAPI, SCSI, USB, Firewire, PCMCIA). That includes iPods, which show up as a disk drive. It's a good idea to turn off Autorun globally.

      --
      My other first post is car post.
    10. Re:Cue the... by Sancho · · Score: 1

      http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/storage/usbfa q.mspx seems to disagree with you.

      --- QUOTE ---
      Q: What must I do to trigger Autorun on my USB storage device?
      The Autorun capabilities are restricted to CD-ROM drives and fixed disk drives. If you need to make a USB storage device perform Autorun, the device must not be marked as a removable media device and the device must contain an Autorun.inf file and a startup application.

      The removable media device setting is a flag contained within the SCSI Inquiry Data response to the SCSI Inquiry command. Bit 7 of byte 1 (indexed from 0) is the Removable Media Bit (RMB). A RMB set to zero indicates that the device is not a removable media device. A RMB of one indicates that the device is a removable media device. Drivers obtain this information by using the StorageDeviceProperty request."
      --- END QUOTE ---

      The content of a number of hits on http://www.google.com/search?q=autorun+usb also imply that USB does not Autorun.

    11. Re:Cue the... by spectral · · Score: 1

      Go buy a sandisk thumb drive and tell me it doesn't autorun. Oh wait, two people in this thread (ok, i was one of them) have already pointed at this example.. perhaps sandisk isn't marking itself as removable, maybe the ipod isn't either, I have no idea. all I know is that I plugged a sandisk thing in my computer, and random shit got installed on to the computer.

    12. Re:Cue the... by Sancho · · Score: 1

      Sandisk is currently promoting technology called "U3" which is intended to act this way. It /should/ say so on the packaging--if it doesn't, blame Sandisk for changing things.

    13. Re:Cue the... by spectral · · Score: 1

      I had no idea what U3 was when I bought it, I certainly would have thought it would be opt-in. There was no information I could find that said "OMG We're installing stuff immediately!!eleven", and I went and looked after it did it. I see the U3 logo all over the place, but no information about its nasty behavior. Anyway, is this why the thumb drive doesn't get the proper removable usb icon when I plug it in to the mac? grr. So, in attempts to intentionally screw over (sorry, "help") the windows users, they screwed up the standards that say they really should be broadcasting this bit saying they're removable, and made it not as pleasant on the mac.

      I've learned something here, it was bothering me why it didn't have the proper icon, now I know.

    14. Re:Cue the... by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      >How much would it be worth to a spammer/botnet group to infect the image that gets copied to all these devices? Enough to pay sufficiently large sums of money to subvert employees at the manufacturing plant?

      Or maybe even executives. One of my pet nightmares is that some anonymous OEM with microtome-thin margins discovers how much money they can make "bundling" "adware".

    15. Re:Cue the... by zoney_ie · · Score: 1

      Windows XP Pro SP2, in my experience of three separate PCs I use (work, home, laptop) will automatically open up an explorer window of the files when I insert a SD card. In fact, if the card has photos only, it offers to start a slideshow of photos.

      That is autorun behaviour. I had not considered the implications, but I presume if an SD card with a valid autorun.inf was inserted, then it would autorun in the conventional fashion.

      On the two desktops I am using a USB SD card reader. The laptop has a built in non-USB memory card adaptor.

      --
      -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
    16. Re:Cue the... by Maestro4k · · Score: 1
      I guess Autorun on by default is another flaw in Windows, but I wasn't aware that USB devices would autorun by default. Are iPods presenting themselves as CDRoms now?

      Windows XP at least, by default, autoruns on ALL removeable drives/media. I have external firewire and USB hard drives, it would try to autorun them too doing a scan of the drive contents to figure out what to run or what options to put into the menu it'll show you if it fails to find an autorun file. I also use Bestcrypt and it did the same thing on the virtual encrypted drives whenever they were mounted. Ditto for my USB flash drives. It really seems that Microsoft thinks everyone needs to have autorun because they're too stupid to figure out what to do with any removeable drive on their own.

      The solution is to install TweakUI and disable autoplay on all drives. Then you don't have to worry about it anymore and it stops annoying the hell out of you. (It's damned annoying with external hard drives.)

  5. Come again?? by bladesjester · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Apple is selling ipods with a virus on them and they're taking it as an opportunity to bash Microsoft??

    I'm sorry, but that just seems ass backwards to me. This one is not Microsoft's fault, and I hope people realize that.

    --
    Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    1. Re:Come again?? by denebian+devil · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not only that, since the problem was "traced to a particular Windows machine in the manufacturing lines of a contract manufacturer that builds the iPods for Apple," I would think that if they're going to talk so high-and-mighty against Windows that they would be smart enough not to use Windows as part of their manufacturing process.

      Seems like just another bad attempt at deflection.

    2. Re:Come again?? by mr_matticus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They didn't blame Microsoft for their failure to stop the iPods from shipping, but there is a certain element to truth to the statement. If you take away the fact that Apple is involved and look at it--a technology product was infected with malware because a Windows PC on the production line was infected and it wasn't caught in time.

      The number of Windows machines on production lines in China is staggering--and if Windows had better security, the spread of viruses and malware wouldn't represent such a massive threat. Simple acts like requesting permission to install new software, etc. would go a long way toward cutting this off. Windows, left to its own devices, happily installs crapware without user intervention or notification, and that makes it harder to KNOW when your computer has been compromised.

      So yeah, Microsoft is dumb in this capacity, but it's still Apple's responsibility.

    3. Re:Come again?? by flithm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree with you, although... I have to wonder, how did it get on the iPod in the first place? If you look at the W32/Rjump worm you can see that it spreads itself by copying itself to mounted removeable storage drives.

      Perhaps someone tested a prototype on an infected windows machine, to make sure some minor manufacturing change didn't bork the device. Then after working on it a bit they got it to work, copied the image over, and all of a sudden you have iPods being pumped out of the factor with a virus on them. Clearly just a guess, but if something similar to that happened and I was Apple I'd sure as hell be pissed that Windows lack of security caused my hardware devices to get factory shipped with a virus on them.

      Note that this scenario is supported by TFA: "Joswiak said it was traced to a particular Windows machine in the manufacturing lines of a contract manufacturer that builds the iPods for Apple."

      In that context, Apple has every right to be irritated. Either way though you're right, it's a pretty stupid PR move to make a comment like that. They should just apologize, fix the problem, and move on.

    4. Re:Come again?? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How can an application running in user space install itself in the system startup without some kind of administrator override or query?

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    5. Re:Come again?? by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, it's kinda funny that Macs are still not certified for use in manufacturing processes.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    6. Re:Come again?? by catwh0re · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I would agree with you, with the exception that I feel that the header article is exaggerating when it suggests that apple are bashing MS over the virus. The actual quote is "As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses, and even more upset with ourselves for not catching it." It's a pretty clear they are apologetic for this problem despite that windows computers are often infected with viruses. I'd find issue with apple here if they were not apologetic, not accepting responsibility, or blaming MS in it's entirety for this.

    7. Re:Come again?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because this demonstrates how safe Windows machines are when involved in a manufacturing process. So who certified a virus-prone, spyware-riddled piece of software as safe for use in a manufacturing process?

    8. Re:Come again?? by GlassHeart · · Score: 1

      Which part of "even more upset with ourselves for not catching it" did you not understand? This one is Microsoft's fault as much as any infection is Microsoft's fault ("not being more hardy against such viruses"), but "even more" so it's Apple's (which includes its factories, subcontracted or otherwise) fault. If this is bashing Microsoft, then you might say it bashes Apple "even more."

      Did I mention "even more"?

    9. Re:Come again?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Apple is really dumb in this capacity. They tell users to use anti-virus software, while they apparently cannot do the same on a machine that is running on their production line. Rather than "if Windows had better security.." it should be "If Apple had better security..". If they really want to try and deflect blame from themselves by spewing crap about Microsoft operating systems being insecure, maybe they shouldn't be using Windows in the first place for their production line systems.

    10. Re:Come again?? by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      Apple is selling ipods with a virus on them and they're taking it as an opportunity to bash Microsoft??

      I'm sorry, but that just seems ass backwards to me. This one is not Microsoft's fault, and I hope people realize that.


      Apple's behaviour is a book example of compensatory reaction against Microsoft.

      For decades now they are screaming out loud how "Microsoft practically delivered Mac OS on PC-s" (starting with Windows 1.0) and at the same time saying how worse their products are, anyway.

      Steve Jobs thinks this is spreading awareness among people and making Apple seem cool. 2% bought the hype. 98% didn't.

    11. Re:Come again?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The reason the MAC is safer on a production line is that viruses usually only target computers...

    12. Re:Come again?? by eclectic4 · · Score: 1

      The point he was "attempting" to make, was that if you were to attach this iPod to a Mac, there would be no issue. He blamed Apple with even more conviction, so I think "bash" may be a little strong. No one was blaming MS, just taking this "opportunity" to point out a fact.

      --

      "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
    13. Re:Come again?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who certifies *any* computer for manufacturing with some way to get a virus on it? That is just madness.

    14. Re:Come again?? by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 1

      I've seen Mac's used on manufacturing lines. My guess is that the factory uses Windows because PCs are less expensive than Macs. That and the applications being run not supporting OSX (or Linux, for that matter).

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
    15. Re:Come again?? by overbaud · · Score: 1

      Microsoft planted it themselves to discredit Apple and to get them to shut their pie hole over how superior the are security wise. Apple found this out when they shook down the spy (gestapo style) and the best they can do is have a small dig in a PR release.
      Microsoft wins this round. Then again maybe they have the same QA company as MacDonalds do for thier 'peripherals'.

      --
      Users... the only thing keeping 1st level support from being the bottom feeders.
    16. Re:Come again?? by denebian+devil · · Score: 1

      Are you trying to say that Apple can make computers, and they can make mp3 players, but they can't make it so their own computers can be used to manufacture their own mp3 players instead of buying someone else's computers to do so? And that the reason for that is because the big bad Windoze-boys made up some sort of rule that says "No Macs Allowed"? No wonder I got modded troll! The Mac fanboys are out tonight!

    17. Re:Come again?? by CastrTroy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Windows can be pretty secure when you take the proper precautions. When you're running it in a production environment, producing media that will be put into the computers of others, then you have to make sure you take the proper precautions. The proper precautions here doesn't even need to be install antivirus. What it needs to be, is don't have the machines hooked up to the internet, and don't hook them up unguarded to the company intranet. Don't turn autorun on, and don't have employees checking their email from this machine. Do not allow physical access to these machines by just anyone, and lock them down as much as possible. I'm sorry but no OS would be safe when result of infection is something so high profile.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    18. Re:Come again?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So some dude with AIDS decides to fuck a chick, and then fuck a cow. AIDS will only infect the chick, so it's the chick's fault.

      Wonderful logic there, fanboi.

    19. Re:Come again?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I agree. When I have sex with many anonymous partners and give them herpes I feel no remorse. If they have no natural immunity it's not my fault.

    20. Re:Come again?? by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not one that's ISO 9000 certified you havn't. Apple has never done the necessary paperwork to get Macs into this market. They don't care about this market. Now they've been bitten on the ass by this stance. That's the irony, aint it sweet.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    21. Re:Come again?? by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Informative

      The rules were made up by those lovely people at the International Standards Organisation. Apple has never gone through the process to get Macs certified as ISO 9000 approved manufacturing components. They focus on the home and small office market, they don't care about this stuff.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    22. Re:Come again?? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1, Troll

      It's only her fault if she can decide to turn into a cow. Since that can't happen in the real world (unless I'm missing something), your analogy is stupid.

    23. Re:Come again?? by Grishnakh · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Just like the last responder, your analogy is stupid. You can't choose to make yourself immune to herpes. But you can choose an OS that is immune to viruses. Choose a crappy OS and suffer the consequences. Face it, you made a stupid choice.

    24. Re:Come again?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Nice comeback.

      I guess mine should be "i'm rubber, you're glue".

      By the way, I don't have a mom. Me and my dad share yours.

      Queer bait.

    25. Re:Come again?? by Mr2001 · · Score: 3, Funny
      My guess is that the factory uses Windows because PCs are less expensive than Macs. That and the applications being run not supporting OSX (or Linux, for that matter).

      Less expensive, maybe a little bit, but a Yugo is less expensive than a Ferrari too! Just look at how much more you get: FireWire! Magnetic power cords! Genius bars! And isn't it worth a few more bucks to make your factory snappier?

      Besides, there are plenty of factory applications for Mac! There's AssemblyLine...

      Super AssemblyLine...

      *whisper* Photoshop...

      </fanboy>
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    26. Re:Come again?? by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      Sometimes you can't isolate a computer fully--the machine may not have even had Internet access and still have gotten infected. It's not a result of any autorun configuration. It's that IE sucks at stopping the installation of malware and the spread of viruses--and that Windows "restricted" security is more of a user annoyance than a real lockdown mode. I've gotten viruses on computers from users logged in with guest privileges, something that absolutely should not happen.

      Linux, BSD, Solaris, and Mac OS are all superior to Windows XP simply as a result of better planning. Unfortunately, the ubiquity of Windows means that it's the only viable option in some cases. Linux embedded systems aren't an ultimate solution, and the company that makes iPods for Apple now has to deal with it.

    27. Re:Come again?? by mr_matticus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Apple is indeed responsible for what happened. But you can't point your finger at Apple's security policies for failing here and wash your hands of it. Apple doesn't own the company that makes the iPods, and it doesn't own the production line. Apple didn't necessarily make the choice to use Windows in the production line--the company probably already had the infrastructure. Windows ubiquity extends to more than the desktop; you say "maybe they shouldn't be using Windows in the first place," but do you have something better in mind? Do you even know what purpose the compromised machine served?

      When you get right down to it, a few simple changes to Windows could have avoided this (and millions of other PC infections annually) if it were more like Linux, BSD, Solaris, or OS X. It's not Microsoft's fault their product isn't perfect, but it *is* their fault that they have some inexcusable and easily fixed faults sitting right out in the open, knowing for years that it's an easy fix on their side and almost impossible from the client side. You can put bars over all the windows in your fort, but it's a lot better just to have fewer windows to start.

    28. Re:Come again?? by snuf23 · · Score: 1

      So why doesn't Apple make require it's contractors to use all Macintosh computers for the assembly line?
      Talk the talk, walk the walk.

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
    29. Re:Come again?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever here of User Access rights. Administrative privlages required to install software or use software. Does windows do that by default. . . .

      Oh thats right your still installing your latest virus.

    30. Re:Come again?? by dangitman · · Score: 0, Troll

      Ummm, it's Windows, so it's full of holes. You may as well ask "why does 2+2 equal 4?"

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    31. Re:Come again?? by quizzicus · · Score: 1
      So who certified a virus-prone, spyware-riddled piece of software as safe for use in a manufacturing process?

      Someone who makes production decisions for Apple, apparently. I'm guessing this would be because a) macs cost twice as much or b) the software involved wouldn't run on a Mac when they bought the machines.

    32. Re:Come again?? by GoChickenFat · · Score: 1
      They didn't blame Microsoft for their failure to stop the iPods from shipping, but there is a certain element to truth to the statement. If you take away the fact that Apple is involved and look at it--a technology product was infected with malware because a Windows PC on the production line was infected and it wasn't caught in time.

      Here's an idea. Why can't Apple take a different look and say "hmmm...maybe we should have made our OS more accessible and available on cheaper hardware so that our contract factories could afford to use them."

    33. Re:Come again?? by quizzicus · · Score: 1
      Many Windows applications won't run in userspace. This may have been one of them.

      How many people do you know who run their home PCs in limited user mode?

    34. Re:Come again?? by Vexorian · · Score: 1

      Yet they invited the windows users to get an antivirus but their production windows computer didn't have one

      --

      Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
    35. Re:Come again?? by stuboogie · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but macs are not "immune to viruses". Just because macs are not targeted like Windows, does not mean they are immune.

      Just because a rattlesnake has not bitten my leg, that does not mean I am immune to their poison.

      Obviously, I think Macs`are more secure than Windows boxes; however, that may be due more to the fact that they are not targeted like PCs. If there were as many Macs being used by corporations and households as there are PCs, we might find that Macs are not as secure as we think they are.

      Remember, the Titanic was said to be unsinkable until it hit that iceburg. One day, Apple might hit an iceburg of their own.

    36. Re:Come again?? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      It's only her fault if she can decide to turn into a cow.

      I don't know where you live, but I've seen PLENTY of girls turn into cows around here. Guys too. I don't want to brag, but I'm working on the transition myself!

    37. Re:Come again?? by ben+there... · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Imagine a bank saying "Whoops! We lost all your money. It's the Windows ATMs we use. They're to blame for this." Rather than accepting responsibility for their processes and systems being faulty.

      You wouldn't think very highly of that bank that chose an OS that probably wasn't best suited to the job, didn't bother to secure it, then didn't even bother to have the QA processes in place to catch it when something seriously goes wrong. And yet they're blaming the supplier of the OS they chose to use on the production line.

    38. Re:Come again?? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      The only viri I've ever gotten starting in 1999 were e-mail related. That was how the spread (and still do). But it boggles the mind how one could just run into this virus in the wild.

      Yes, I am saying someone specifically looked for this virus, and installed in on a machine that could spread it through every drive immage. Someone did this on purpose for shits and grins!!! I can't imagine it happening any other way.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    39. Re:Come again?? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Oh come on.

      FTFA the virus is only showing up on a minority of iPods. From your own post, the virus jumps to removable storage devices which the iPod is, from windows machines.

      Now, knowing little of the manufacturing process, I can nonetheless guess that they pull one in twenty-five, one in fifty, one in a thousand, whatever, off the line and plug 'em in, to, you know, make sure they work.

      No need to assign to malice, that which is almost certainly the work of quality control.

      Ironic.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    40. Re:Come again?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF? How is this *Windows* lack of security? This is the facilities lack of security. Period.

      Windows, when used correctly, is not less secure than Mac or UNIX. Heck, Mac comes with a turned-off firewall by defauly (yes, I had to turn it on on my Mac). XP SP2 at least has it on by default. And yes, both suck compared to netfiler. But, let's review the facts here,

      1. Apple product
      2. Apple (sub)contractors
      3. Apple QA
      4. Apple problem

      Apple's reaction to #4 is worse PR than Microsoft's patch cycle.

    41. Re:Come again?? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Yep. Those dirty rotten Standards Organizations. Can't we just declare Quicktime a standard and get rid of all that other junk?

    42. Re:Come again?? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Somebody needs to do a little research and testing, to determine if iTunes and Quicktime and any other Apple software that they distribute to the PC/Windows market is written with attention paid to the complex Microsoft security model.

      An out-of-the-box Windows system can easily be secured by managing the rich and powerful security features. This ends quickly when the typical crappy Win32 app is installed (probably not even just third-party apps. Do all the Microsoft offerings embrace the security model?) and requires the user to be 'Administrator' to run it.

      Do Apple's offerings for Windows embrace the security model? Does iTunes force the user to run as Administrator? How about Quicktime? Or is Apple just producing 'regular Windows junk' like those they point fingers at?

    43. Re:Come again?? by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      1. Become Apple.
      2. Start a war with PCs/Windows.
      3. Buy a few windows PCs to put on your line.
      4. Infect them with a virus.
      5. Blame it on windows.
      6. There is no "???"
      7. Profit!

    44. Re:Come again?? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Ummm, it's Windows, so it's full of holes. You may as well ask "why does 2+2 equal 4?"

      As recently as fifteen years ago a similar phrase would have been 'It's UNIX, so it's full of holes....'

      UNIX historically was considered a swiss cheese of security problems.

    45. Re:Come again?? by epee1221 · · Score: 1
      So why doesn't Apple make require it's contractors to use all Macintosh computers for the assembly line?
      Here, this might clear things up for you
      --
      "The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
    46. Re:Come again?? by thedbp · · Score: 1

      Sweet! I haven't heard that since like 1988!

      God I love this site. Its like a little slice of middle school w/out the smell of vomit and sawdust.

    47. Re:Come again?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      How can one certify a manufacturing component to be compliant with ISO 9001:2000?
      I was under an impression that the processes around manufacturing need to be certified, not hardware or software.

    48. Re:Come again?? by mqduck · · Score: 1

      Apple is selling ipods with a virus on them and they're taking it as an opportunity to bash Microsoft??

      This reminds me of this cartoon I saw. The general message was "the war in Iraq/on Terror is going horribly. This is terrible news for the Democrats!"

      --
      Property is theft.
    49. Re:Come again?? by mr_matticus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bingo. Not to mention that most QA/inventory management/asset tracking software systems are written for Windows, and putting Macs on the production line would make them prettier, but they wouldn't be able to run the software.

    50. Re:Come again?? by hritcu · · Score: 1

      Were any Mac users hurt here? If not, then Apple shouldn't give a fuck. Windows users should run their antivirus and firewall and anti-spyware software at any time anyway.

      --
      If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough. (Alan Kay)
    51. Re:Come again?? by bursch-X · · Score: 1

      Hmmm how much cheaper than $599 do you really think would do the trick?

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
    52. Re:Come again?? by bursch-X · · Score: 1

      Before the IBM PC really caught on in people's homes, I guess the Amiga was the one computer with the most exisiting viruses written for. And you know, the Internet while being in existence at the time was nothing mere mortals could use back then.

      The fact that many viruses spread through emails nowadays is just a sign of the time, and an effective way of increasing the potential to do damage, but computer viruses spread very nicely ages before everyone got an email address, simply by copying themselves on storage media and infecting all kinds of files there.

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
    53. Re:Come again?? by bursch-X · · Score: 1

      Nah, I think whoever sent this article to Slashdot did it, so he could finally have HIS STORY (in the double sense) posted on Slashdot.

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
    54. Re:Come again?? by dabraun · · Score: 1

      All of this 'blaming windows security' is absurd. There are a thousand reasons to fault windows security - and this ISN'T one of them. Fault windows for all the remote exploits. Fault windows for autorun. Fault Windows for BSODs if the last version of Windows you ever used was NT4.

      This could have happened of the production machine was running Linux, or was a Mac, or anything - no matter what platform they used a virus running on the machine could have listened for device arrival events and planted itself on the drive. Sure, this was a windows virus - sure, there are more windows viruses than there are for every other platform combined. That fact has nothing to do with how secure or insecure windows.

      There is a difference between a virus and an exploit. I see absolutely no information here claiming that this was an exploit.

    55. Re:Come again?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Factories get certified, not 'computers', further, Macs could easily be involved in ISO 9000 or as the certificaion goes ISO9001:2000 factories without any particular issues. Further still.. ISO9000 is _not about quality_ its about consistency of business processes.

      Even MORE damning of your post, is an example funnily enough from Apple ..
      http://www.apple.com/science/profiles/geodesics/
      and I'll even quote it for you

      "Recognizing the medical importance of a more accurate EEG system, the Electrical Geodesics team implemented a full ISO-9000 quality system to provide the medical grade quality control necessary for both the United States and international medical approval." ...
              "Only the Power Mac has allowed us to continue our emphasis on real-time visualization without compromising the quality of our signal processing."
              -- Dr. Don Tucker, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology at the University of Oregon

      Your post is misleading; full of misinformation and just plain wrong.

    56. Re:Come again?? by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

      That's a good question. Are all pens, shoes, screws, lightbulbs, etc. used in the process of manufacturing iso certified??? No. Iso certification of your quality process does not require that all third party equipment and supplies used in the process ALSO be ISO 9001:2000 certified. That would be an impossibility.

    57. Re:Come again?? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I can understand having the QA machines affecting the data on the iPod, yet I fail to see how inventory management and asset tracking software could affect the data that goes onto the iPod. The problem here, is not that windows was being used, but that so little care was taken with what gets run on something in a production environment. This isn't the first report this week. Remember McDonald's Japan and the Infected USB sticks? All I'm saying is that if you have to have computers on the production line, ensure that they are properly secured. Don't run them in administrator mode, don't check your email or browse the internet on them, and ensure that nothing is being put on the hard drives that shouldn't be there.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    58. Re:Come again?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Simple acts like requesting permission to install new software, etc. would go a long way toward cutting this off."

      Then I imagine you'll be happy to hear that this feature is in Vista. It's called "User Access Control" (formerly "LUA"). Every action that requires administrator privileges give just such a popup. Of course most intelligent users are super annoyed about it. Further, I'm not sure what you mean by "requesting permission to install new software" - what do you mean by "install"? Execution? Adding to the registry? Adding an entry to Add/Remove program files? I can write a batch file along the lines of "rd /q /s %windir%" which requires no installation, but which will really mess with your computer. This is why UAC is good because such a thing would require certain file permissions and under UAC, even when you're logged in to an administrator account, you don't behave like an administrator until you click ok.

    59. Re:Come again?? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Imagine a bank saying "Whoops! We lost all your money. It's the Windows ATMs we use. They're to blame for this." Rather than accepting responsibility for their processes and systems being faulty.

      You're one level of indirection away from being accurate. The bank chooses to buy ATMs running a particular OS and is responsible for choosing a secure one for their customers. Apple chooses a vendor who provides them with manufactured iPods and is responsible for choosing what goes on them, but Apple probably has no idea what tools they use to make those iPods or if the tools run Windows.

      So imagine if your bank ran OS2 ATMs, but the company that made them had a programmer using a Windows machine that had a huge hole in it that let someone modify the software which got put on the ATMs and hence they lost all your money.

      Certainly the bank is responsible in this analogy, and Apple admits they should have done more QA, but it is also justifiable to be upset about the insecure crap used everywhere that allows this problem to be so widespread that even a company that goes out of their way to avoid Windows, still has security problems because one of their suppliers uses it.

    60. Re:Come again?? by hawaiian717 · · Score: 1
      It's the Windows ATMs we use. They're to blame for this.

      You mean like this ATM?
      --
      End of Line.
    61. Re:Come again?? by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      "I fail to see how inventory management and asset tracking software could affect the data that goes onto the iPod"

      It doesn't affect the iPod. It affects the choice of what OS to use on production line PCs--in other words, why Macs or Linux machines don't make effective substitutes in manufacturing.

      You presume that little care was taken on the PC, but as everyone who has worked in the tech sector knows, even good policies and strong security don't stop all infections/compromised machines. What happens when Symantec's AV client stops working, but the service keeps running? It takes a few days of not receiving server updates or someone at the machine discovering first hand that AV is down...and it's not carelessness or bad policy that created that vulnerability, nor can it be blamed on any given individual. There's no proof that the PC was connected to the Internet, used for email, or run in administrator mode. Given the small number of affected iPods, it seems that quite the opposite is the norm (the single compromised system didn't create a cascading failure of other PCs in the facility, indicating sufficiently robust security practices), since hundreds of thousands of iPods are manufactured monthly.

    62. Re:Come again?? by muuh-gnu · · Score: 1

      > 2% bought the hype. 98% didn't.

      The 2% who buy the whole Mac hype and provide the 2% market share are enough to make Apple sustainable.

    63. Re:Come again?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Sometimes you can't isolate a computer fully--the machine may not have even had Internet access and still have gotten infected."

      if the machine is not on the internet, no one can connecta USB drive, no CD/DVD/floppy was inserted into the computer, explain to me how the machine can get infected? With no external communication/access to any foreign media (besides the hard drive(s) inside th box, getting a virus onto the computer is gonna be hard. That is how a production computer should be setup in the forst place no matter the OS. Only approved (read checked, rechecked signed off by a number of people that this software is safe and has been chancked) software AND hardware can be inserted into the computer. This is not the fault of Apple or MS. It is the fault of the company making the Ipods for allowing what should be unauthorized access to assembly line computers.

    64. Re:Come again?? by snuf23 · · Score: 1

      I think the incident also underscores that USB devices have become the "stealth" vector for virus infection. Control over USB device insertion is a lot more uncommon than anti-virus or locked down computers.
      You're right that the computer wouldn't have needed to be connected to the Internet or to have even ever run Internet Explorer. In the old days floppy disks were the key vector for virus infection - I think now that USB devices are so common, we're just seeing the same thing all over again.

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
  6. Uhh, What? by aweraw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not one to try and defend Windows security with a straight face, but this is apples fault for shipping infected ipods. They failed to protect their customers, regardless of windows lack-lustre security

    --
    5468652047616D65
    1. Re:Uhh, What? by linuxmop · · Score: 4, Funny

      Infected is right. These iPods are Apple's smallpox blankets to Microsoft's American Indians.

    2. Re:Uhh, What? by NosTROLLdamus · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      That's the best analogy I've ever heard on slashdot.

    3. Re:Uhh, What? by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nice example. And Apple is laying partial blame on the Indians for not having an immune system capable of fending off smallpox.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    4. Re:Uhh, What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG, funniest post I've read on here in a long time!!

    5. Re:Uhh, What? by ceejayoz · · Score: 1

      And Apple is laying partial blame on the Indians for not having an immune system capable of fending off smallpox.

      Only if said Indians know microbiology and could have immunised against smallpox like the rest of the world already did...

    6. Re:Uhh, What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love argument by metaphor. It's just like ... string beans.

    7. Re:Uhh, What? by rising_hope · · Score: 1

      More like a rat that carries a disease and spreads it without ever feeling the symptoms of the disease itself. Point being, the virus came from windows, and infects windows, but the iPod itself never had a problem - it was only the host. Just like every once in a while, something taints the blood supply and someone ends up with an infectious disease, it's unfortunate, but not out of the realm of expectation. Considering how fast Windows is 0Wn3d out of the box when plugged into an infected network, I don't think it's unreasonable to be upset by the situation. Sure, Apple should have a better quality control method in place, but certainly they have a point in criticizing Windows "security," too. They should appoligize to consumers, and move on to better cloning methods that do *not* involve the use of Windows to ensure this kind of thing doesn't happen again.

    8. Re:Uhh, What? by aweraw · · Score: 1

      Yes, because we all know it completely acceptable to distribute smallpox to any number of people, so long as they are immunised against it...

      Can I get a "yes, yes y'all!"? /sarcasm

      --
      5468652047616D65
    9. Re:Uhh, What? by Absentminded-Artist · · Score: 1

      I think it'd be better if you guys just stuck to car analogies.

      --
      The Splintered Mind - Overcoming
    10. Re:Uhh, What? by Kopretinka · · Score: 1

      Well, Apple is blaming those Indians that made the blankets and infected them with smallpox.

      --
      Yesterday was the time to do it right. Are we having a REVOLUTION yet?
    11. Re:Uhh, What? by Slovenian6474 · · Score: 1

      Bullshit! Apple has the full right to not be happy about the situation, but NOTHING excuses them for releasing a defective product. The customer does not care what you use to produce the product or how you do so, as long as the product is delivered defect free. If the product is defective, the arguement "...Considering how fast Windows is 0Wn3d out of the box when plugged into an infected network..." is inexcuseable. Because Windows can be locked down to prevent this sort of thing, you cannot blame microsoft whatsoever for this chinese company's lack of security concern.

      Sadly, Apple is going to get the brunt of the blame when it was the contracted Chinese company's lack of security and QC that's at fault. Luckily it's not a serious virus and Apple should have no problem cleaning up the mess.

    12. Re:Uhh, What? by d_jedi · · Score: 1

      Uhh.. how is Windows "0Wn3d out of the box"? Out of the box, every Windows machine ships with SP2 (for XP machines, at least) as a bare minimum. Out of the box, you're encouraged to turn on automatic updates. Out of the box, the Windows firewall is turned on (I believe).

      Obviously, you haven't taken a Windows machine out of the box lately..

      --
      I am the maverick of Slashdot
    13. Re:Uhh, What? by rising_hope · · Score: 1

      Um.. isn't that basically what I said? Of course Apple has no excuse, but they still have the right to be pretty pissed off.

    14. Re:Uhh, What? by rising_hope · · Score: 1

      Yes I have. I do desktop support for a living (slight step backwards from my previous role as Network Administrator, but I had to get the hell out of Michigan, so I took what I could find.) Out of the box, if connected to the internet without a router or infected internal network, Windows can and does get owned, even running SP2, even with Automatic Updates Enabled, even with firewall turned on by default. Multiple critical security flaws with Windows, including Windows firewall, have been found since SP2 was released. If you run a pretty tight ship, your other firewalls and routers will keep you safe long enough to get windows patched and safer, but every once in a while, someone finds a critical flaw that has yet to be patched and virii start to proliferate again. Sure, the problem is SIGNIFICANTLY improved since SP1, but a well managed *network* has a lot more in keeping windows safe than anything to do with Microsoft's day late, dollar short patches. I'm even more repulsed by the malware situation that even with EVERY SINGLE UPDATE Microsoft has made available, Windows *STILL* gets owned by just going to a wrong website with Internet Explorer. If I had my way, we'd be running Firefox with with NoScript, but our timecard system relies on ActiveX, and the boys upstairs think it best not to confuse folks. Yes, Windows can be made pretty secure - but *NOT* from Microsoft's solutions.

  7. Windows Security? by AvitarX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If I just distributed a device with a virus on it I would not be throwing stones at the security practices of another company.

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    1. Re:Windows Security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I just distributed a device with a virus on it I would not be throwing stones at the security practices of another company.

      Apple vs. Microsoft is like Democrats vs. Republicans: fanboys abound on all sides, and both overlook their own flaws and rush to fling mud at their opponents.

      It's almost enough to want to get rid of them both, but the customer is best served by a divided marketplace, just as they are by a divided government. The only thing you can do is keep your nose closed, your eyes open, and pick the one best suited for your needs.

    2. Re:Windows Security? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Linux?

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  8. Trying to push the blame to Microsoft by Duk · · Score: 4, Insightful
    From the site (emphasis mine):
    As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses, and even more upset with ourselves for not catching it.

    Wow...trying to deflect some of the blame, huh?

    --
    -Hey! Whatcha lookin' at fool? -The Duk
    1. Re:Trying to push the blame to Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A tacky and cheap shot.

      So, basically, the Mac mentality.

    2. Re:Trying to push the blame to Microsoft by Skippy_kangaroo · · Score: 5, Insightful
      From the site (emphasis mine):

      As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses, and even more upset with ourselves for not catching it.


      Hardly a whitewash.

    3. Re:Trying to push the blame to Microsoft by krakelohm · · Score: 1

      What exactly is the or a Mac mentality?

      --
      You are all a bunch of idots.
    4. Re:Trying to push the blame to Microsoft by PixelScuba · · Score: 1

      "As you might imagine, I am upset at that stupid old lady driving her sedan 30 in a 45, she should never have been on the road, however I am even more upset with myself for talking on my cell phone, eating a burrito and driving with my knee."

      I think the Grandparent's point is that the statement about Microsoft should not have been said in the first place. It was a childish statement to deflect blame from yourself when you were entirely at fault. A statement about Windows security really doesn't belong in a discussion about Apple shipping ipods with viruses.

    5. Re:Trying to push the blame to Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What exactly is the or a Mac mentality?


      A tacky and cheap shot.
    6. Re:Trying to push the blame to Microsoft by toddestan · · Score: 1

      What exactly is the or a Mac mentality?

      See the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" ads. Pretty much designed to appeal straight to the Mac mentality, which is why they greatly annoy people on the other side of the fence.

    7. Re:Trying to push the blame to Microsoft by l0cust · · Score: 1
      As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses, and even more upset with ourselves for not catching it.
      ...
      As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses, and even more upset with ourselves for not catching it.
      So, thats a valuable lesson we have learned today children. Just by using 'bold' tags at different parts of the same fucking line, we can switch from a whining apple fanboy to a whining windows fanboy. Awesome!
      --
      Politicians and Pedophiles: Two groups of exploitive bastards who are most dangerous when they're thinking of children.
    8. Re:Trying to push the blame to Microsoft by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      True, but why be upset at Windows at all? Because they wish someone else would repair their mistakes?
      Not a 100% whitewash, I see no one claimed so either, however, still throwing rocks at a competitor for their mistakes.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    9. Re:Trying to push the blame to Microsoft by KKlaus · · Score: 1

      Actually it is, you just took the PR bait. That statement is akin to me saying "I'm upset that timmy vandalized our gym, but I'm even more upset that I didn't notice it until a weekday when school was in session."

      Am I really taking the blame?

      --
      Relax I just want some peanuts.
    10. Re:Trying to push the blame to Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not be upset? The virus is made for windows, runs on windows and propagates via flaws in the windows system. Yes they should have caught it before it went out the door, but at the same time, if windows didn't allow programs to automaticaly propagate on newly mounted devices in the first place, this wouldn't be an issue.

    11. Re:Trying to push the blame to Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a related note, I seem to recall that O.J. Simpson was "extremely upset" about his wife's murder. Same with Robert Blake.

    12. Re:Trying to push the blame to Microsoft by krakelohm · · Score: 1

      That does not make sense. Why would Apple advertise the the "Mac mentality" or current Mac customers? They are already customers. The commercials are funny lil sketches that do poke jabs but its all in good form.

      --
      You are all a bunch of idots.
  9. Apple Q/C guys caught with their pants down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently, the Apple QC guys were too busy gaming to run a virus scan.

    1. Re:Apple Q/C guys caught with their pants down by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...like, that puzzle game with the apple logo! I beat it, but it's still fun...

  10. Conspiracy Theory by balsy2001 · · Score: 1

    Could this have been on purpose? No, but a what a great way to get people to switch to Macs.

    --
    GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
    1. Re:Conspiracy Theory by westlake · · Score: 1
      Could this have been on purpose? No, but a what a great way to get people to switch to Macs.

      Yes, of course.

      Your first thought is to go out and buy fresh fruit from the same vendor whose vegetables are contaminated with e.Coli.

    2. Re:Conspiracy Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Could this have been on purpose? No, but a what a great way to get people to switch to Macs.

      More like.... a great way to convince me to never go with Apple if they have QA issues like these, and even more so since they're partially trying to pass the blame. Both Microsoft and Apple have eggs on their face because of this, only Apple is also saying "Neener, neener, look at what happened to you."

      If this was intentional, hoooo boy. There's certainly a lot of laws in place against that. That would be even worse for Apple, not to mention collosally stupid.

  11. tell me.. by talaper · · Score: 0, Troll

    what exactly is an "Ipod"? I don't think I've ever heard of that..

    (turn off your MS Word auto-correction, damnit!!)

    1. Re:tell me.. by eosp · · Score: 1

      How about you check your stuff too? Look at the subject line. Yes, there are two periods there. Is that supposed to be a period or an ellipsis (dot-dot-dot)? Turn on your auto-correction, dammit!

  12. secret weapon by wardk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and this is why in the long run, apple wins? Simply because MS can't do anything like this back to Apple.

    those apple people are genius'

    1. Re:secret weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Wait'll the next batch of MS Office 200x for Mac comes out, and the splash screens are all horse porn or goatse

    2. Re:secret weapon by wardk · · Score: 1

      ballmer's secret stash no doubt. (now logging in anonymously?)

      but they still wouln't own the mac.

    3. Re:secret weapon by nwbvt · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Simply because MS can't do anything like this back to Apple."

      Sure they can. Ship a version of MS Word with a virus embedded that targets Macs (yes they do exist, though the small market share makes them much less common). And if they are willing to bring back the Mac Internet Explorer, they can 'accidentally' leave open a security flaw that allows even more viruses in.

      I think MS wins hands down as one of Apple's main selling points is that fewer viruses are written for Macs than for Windows. But the more stories that break that include the words "Apple" and "Virus" in the headline, fewer people will believe that and just stick with Windows (yes we can hold out hope that they will move to Linux, but I wouldn't bet on it).

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    4. Re:secret weapon by Fhqwhgadss · · Score: 1

      Simply because MS can't do anything like this back to Apple.
      Yeah right. It'll catch up with Apple when their fanboys rush out to buy a Zune next month.
      Oh wait...

      --
      How does a 7-person democracy cut a pie? Into 4 pieces.
    5. Re:secret weapon by linguae · · Score: 1

      Sure they could. It's called a script or C application wrapped around a Cocoa GUI that executes rm -rf ~. They don't even have to do that. They can create applications that mail themselves over the Internet and take advantage of address books, just like the viruses of 1999-2000.

      Macs aren't immune to malicious applications. Somebody could create one easily for Unix programs that thrash your home directory, read your Address Book and mass mail themselves, or do other malicious things. It's just that since OS X doesn't have the marketshare, virus writers haven't gotten around to writing Mac viruses. No OS can stop that above code without some annoyances in other areas.

    6. Re:secret weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's the thing. Microsoft doesn't need to do that sort of thing.

    7. Re:secret weapon by despik · · Score: 1
      Ship a version of MS Word with a virus embedded that targets Macs (yes they do exist, though the small market share makes them much less common).

      I'm sick and tired of hearing this tired excuse of an argument. There are no viruses for Mac OS X. There were, however, plenty of viruses in the System 6-7 era, when Internet access was not very common, and the Macintosh marketshare was lower.

      --
      "I seem to have mastered a certain amount of control over physical reality."
    8. Re:secret weapon by GweeDo · · Score: 1

      Right, holes in IE on Mac OS X would be horrible. You know, because IE on the Mac is directly integrated into the Kernel and can run system level code without your permission and all...oh, wait. It can't? Darn, I guess OS's built with real security in mind are actually more secure.

    9. Re:secret weapon by sheldon · · Score: 1

      So deleting user data is not a problem?

      I'm sure grandma willy is going to understand when you tell her the Mac is so super secure, and even though all of her pictures are gone, the OS still boots up and relaunches the virus in user space.

    10. Re:secret weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, they aren't genius'.

      Ultimately, Linux and it's many distributions win, because you don't hear about crap like this all the time. Stupid big business screwing up economy and using sneaky strategies to promote their products... it's all about the profit, for better or for worse.

    11. Re:secret weapon by nwbvt · · Score: 1

      And I'm sick and tired of hearing this myth put out. Of course there are viruses for Mac OS X out there. All it takes is a few minutes on Google to confirm this. For instance OSX/Leap-A, Inqtana, Exploit.OSX.Safari, Exploit.OSX.ScriptEx, etc.

      Here is a question. If it were not possible to write viruses for Mac OS X, why is there anti-virus software out there for it?

      Peddling this "OS X is virus-free" myth is not only wrong, it is dangerous. How many people out there fail to set up their Mac with sufficient security because they have been hearing nothing but "only Windows has viruses"? Once someone does come around with a serious virus for OS X, how many people will be unguarded because they heard this line from people like you?

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    12. Re:secret weapon by nwbvt · · Score: 1

      You don't need direct access to the Kernel to do damage. You really don't think a browser can launch a malicious program? Why don't you look up Exploit.OSX.Safari? Want to guess why it has the word "Safari" in its name? Its not because it shows you pictures of wild animals.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    13. Re:secret weapon by DoorFrame · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the fact that someone is trying to sell anti-virus software to gullible people does not count as proof of viruses for Macs. I don't use a Mac and I have no idea if they have viruses or not, but I do know that it's in the anti-virus company's own self interest to make you think that there are.

    14. Re:secret weapon by nwbvt · · Score: 1

      So you are saying OSX/Leap-A, Inqtana, etc., are all inventions of the evil antivirus companies who are trying to convince poor Mac lovers that their OS is vulernable? Thats a strange thing to do, especially for ClamAV since it is open source...

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    15. Re:secret weapon by toddestan · · Score: 1

      All you pretty much have to do is get the browser fool the system to execute any old code, and you're pretty much set. Local privilege escalation exploits are a lot easier to do than remote ones (what do you think a lot of Apple's security patches address?) Even if you don't go for the Apple equilivent of root, you can still easily mess with the user's account and their data. On a one user machine (in other words, most of them), spyware running in the user's account is pretty the same as letting it have the entire system anyway.

    16. Re:secret weapon by wongaboo · · Score: 1

      It is clearly Apple's responsibility to ensure they do not produce any products that can pass on virus. I do think it is fair for them to mention in their apology that if other companies (MS) had designed their operating systems with security in mind this wouldn't be an issue. Apple's PR is trying to sell macs. It is fair of them to point out that there are no virus' for macs. As to the parent, Yea I would go ahead and say Leap-A is a the invention of antivirus company known as Sophos. Fortunately though as it is says on their press release announcing their "discovery" you can buy their protection. "Sophos's reliably engineered, easy-to-operate products protect more than 35 million users in more than 150 countries." It's the oldest trick in the book: "buy our protection... you wouldn't want to get hurt." I think John Gruber put it best on his site DaringFireball "I, on the other hand, had never been under the impression that the Mac was either magically or technically "immune" or "invulnerable" to viruses, Trojan horses, spyware, adware, malware, and so forth. Rather, I thought it was simply the case that, for whatever reasons, such software isn't a problem for Mac users and hasn't been for the last 15 years or so. I.e. that Macs aren't magically protected, and that in theory, malware could be written to target the Mac, but that the point is that in practice, in the real world, they aren't. On the other hand, Macs do happen to be immune to Windows viruses and spyware and adware and Trojan horses, thousands of which are discovered every month. But why sweat the details?"

      --
      cogito ergo oro
    17. Re:secret weapon by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 1

      What you don't realize is that none of those are viruses. Some are worms, some are trojans, but none are viruses. Even the worst of those require some interaction on the part of the user, and the infection rate is near minimal. I could hook my Mac Pro up to two 1 GB pipes at a Tier 1 ISP, deactivate the firewall and set it on a script to search the entire Internet and download anything sketchy and Mac-compatible. If I walk away and come back a few days later, it's not going to be owned. An unpatched XP machine is owned in less time than it takes to play a game of Solitaire.

    18. Re:secret weapon by nwbvt · · Score: 1

      I don't really care enough about this to get in a long discussion on the semantics of the terms 'virus', 'worm', and 'trojan horse', especially since in the end it really doesn't matter. I am fully aware these are merely proofs of concepts, but all of these exploits could easily have been used by something that would do serious damage. Remember, most early PC viruses (as well as many of the new ones) were proofs of concepts as well. As I said before, Mac usage is still too small for it to be a big target of serious malware, but that is a far cry from it being virus-free (or malware-free if it will avoid a lengthy semantics debate) as the previous poster claimed.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    19. Re:secret weapon by Fulkkari · · Score: 1

      I don't see that one working. In that case, Apple would blame Microsoft for creating bad software for the Mac, and urge customers to switch to Apple's own iWork-suite. It would probably would be far worse for Microsoft than for Apple...

      --
      I demand the Cone of Silence!
    20. Re:secret weapon by bit01 · · Score: 1

      So deleting user data is not a problem?

      Why are you putting up a strawman? He said it was better, he didn't say it was perfect.

      I'm sure grandma willy is going to understand when you tell her the Mac is so super secure, and even though all of her pictures are gone, the OS still boots up and relaunches the virus in user space.

      ... and the OS can be recovered relatively easily compared to the average home M$ windows restore, doubly so if she's backed up her pictures and documents as most home users are trained to do these days.

      M$ windows security has been a joke for years and they've mainly got themselves to blame. When they finally install user mode by default and remove some of the more egregarious examples of executing data as code then they might be able to claim some moral high ground. Until then it's the usual marketing lies.

      ---

      New game: Spot the lying astroturfer on /.!

    21. Re:secret weapon by MacDork · · Score: 1

      Simply because MS can't do anything like this back to Apple.

      Ahhh, I remember a time when trying to uninstall MS Office 98 would nuke your system folder... Damn I'm gettin' old!

    22. Re:secret weapon by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "So you are saying OSX/Leap-A, Inqtana, etc., are all inventions of the evil antivirus companies who are trying to convince poor Mac lovers that their OS is vulernable?"

      This is pretty much the case for Inqtana. It was written by security researcher Kevin Finesterre as a proof of concept, and only sent to Apple and various Antivirus companies. Apple's response was to plug the vulnerabilities that both variants use in July of 2005 (each exploits a different vulnerability) -- the AV companies on the other hand made lots of noise about it being a "new virus" that proved how necessary their products are.

      Some facts about Inqtana:

      1) Finisterre did not release either variant into the wild, and I'm pretty sure Apple didn't. It doesn't take much imagination to think of who would profit from releasing the thing, though.
      2) Because it was a proof of concept rather than being malicious code, the original (a) did no damage, (b) said what it was, and politely asked the user's permission to install itself irrespective of the attack vector being used.
      3) It had in-built limits to prevent it from spreading very far.
      4) It told people where it was, and how to remove it.

      Despite all the above, the version of Inqtana/B that found its way into the wild lacked Finisterre's safeguards and actually does nasty things, although as seems to be the case with all current OS X "viruses", actually getting infected seems to be something that only a total imbecile can achieve. However, when one considers that (a) he supplied both Apple and the AV companies with full source, (b) it was sent to nobody else, and (c) Apple are the _only_ one of the recipients whose direct interest lies in not propagating such a beast, it doesn't require much in the way of paranoia to suspect at least one of the commercial AV vendors for spreading an altered and malicious variant of the deliberately benign original.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    23. Re:secret weapon by nwbvt · · Score: 1

      There is a world of a difference between a security researcher coming out with a proof of concept exploit (which is what they are paid to do, we want these guys to find the exploits before criminals do), and an anti-virus company making up a fake virus in order to scare gullible customers into buying their product when they were really safe all along.

      And for something like the fifth time, I am aware these were proof of concepts. As I stated in my very first post, yes, no serious attack has been made against Mac OS X. But that is not because it is impossible to find an exploit in the operating system.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    24. Re:secret weapon by nwbvt · · Score: 1

      One of the biggest reasons Linux has had trouble taking off on the desktop market is that Word and friends are the de facto standard of the office world. And probably the biggest reason Mac OS has suddenly jumped in popularity is the fact that it now supports Office. Yes, MS would lose some customers, but Mac's reputation for being virus free would die off. Apple's strategy there wouldn't work much better than MS using this story as a reason to by Zunes instead of iPods.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    25. Re:secret weapon by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "There is a world of a difference between a security researcher coming out with a proof of concept exploit (which is what they are paid to do, we want these guys to find the exploits before criminals do), and an anti-virus company making up a fake virus in order to scare gullible customers into buying their product when they were really safe all along."

      Read my post again. The original proof of concept code was given to Apple and various anti-virus companies. Some time later, a malicious version was released into the wild without any of the safeguards that the original contained, but with new code that does nasty things. Given the fact that the original was _only_ supplied to Apple and certain AV product vendors, the malicious version of the same worm can only have come from one of three sources:

      1) Kevin Finesterre.
      2) Apple.
      3) One of the AV vendors.

      If Finisterre had wanted to release a malicious OS X worm into the wild, then he would not have supplied code demonstrating his attack vectors to Apple so that they could patch them several months before the worm appeared, so we can eliminate him as a source. Apple are equally easy to eliminate because they have nothing to gain by releasing a worm that exploits vulnerabilities in their own products, especially when their patch cost them money to write, but was supplied to end-users at no charge. So we are left with one or more AV product vendors who:

      1) had the full source to Finisterre's proofs of concept, and
      2) stand to gain financially from anything that tarnishes OS X's patina of invulnerability.

      So, as I said before, it is very likely indeed that the malicious variant of Inqtana/B that AV companies were trumpeting about was written and disseminated by one of those AV companies, as nobody else with access to Finisterre's originals before said malicious variant appeared had any motivation for doing it.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    26. Re:secret weapon by nwbvt · · Score: 1

      And again, There is a world of a difference between a security researcher coming out with a proof of concept exploit (which is what they are paid to do, we want these guys to find the exploits before criminals do), and an anti-virus company making up a fake virus (a real one would not be possible if Macs were immune to viruses) in order to scare gullible customers into buying their product when they were really safe all along. And I don't buy your logic ruling out Finisterre and you left out a number of other suspects including any rougue employee/developer at Apple or an anti-virus company/community (clamAV is an open source product) and anyone any of the mentioned parties may have passed this information on to.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    27. Re:secret weapon by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "I don't buy your logic ruling out Finisterre"

      So you are asserting that Finisterre would release a malicious variant of his code _after_ Apple already had produced a patch based on non-malicious examples he'd sent them some time previously? Methinks you are grasping at straws to support your own contention that AV companies don't deliberately release malicious items.

      "you left out a number of other suspects including any rougue employee/developer at Apple"

      Why would a rogue developer at Apple bother propagating such an ineffectual and lame piece of malware _after_ they know the system has already been patched to render it useless? Who would risk the sack plus both criminal prosecution and being sued for an insane amount by one of the most litigious companies out there to propagate something that their own colleagues have already completely castrated, when they could have done far more mischief at less risk by inserting mischievous code that randomly corrupts stuff into one of Apple's product updates, and then claiming it was a programming error?

      "or an [employee of a] anti-virus company/community (clamAV is an open source product)"

      1) The code was only supplied to major AV companies, so we can rule out clamAV and those associated with it.

      2) An employee of any major AV company would have great difficulty altering and propagating the code for a piece of malware without managerial complicity. Such companies are accustomed to dealing with massive collections of very dangerous software that could do severe damage to their own IT infrastructure if one or more of them accidentally got onto a dev. machine or a piece of writable media (not to mention their reputations if company web-servers started spreading one or more infections to customers), so malware is kept in sealed systems that aren't connected to company networks, and which are located in locked rooms that have very strict access policies. They are aware of the fact that disgruntled or simply mischievous employees or ex-employees would welcome the opportunity to damage them by releasing some of the stuff sitting on their test machines into their many local networks and Internet servers, and therefore do everything in their power to ensure that this is as near to impossible as they can make it.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    28. Re:secret weapon by sheldon · · Score: 1
      Why are you putting up a strawman? He said it was better, he didn't say it was perfect.


      Strawman? The main concern users have with regards to viruses or worms is the impact on THEIR WORK. That's what the computer is for, after all, to get work done.

      ... and the OS can be recovered relatively easily compared to the average home M$ windows restore, doubly so if she's backed up her pictures and documents as most home users are trained to do these days.


      Well that's a ridiculous point.

      M$ windows security has been a joke for years and they've mainly got themselves to blame. When they finally install user mode by default and remove some of the more egregarious examples of executing data as code then they might be able to claim some moral high ground. Until then it's the usual marketing lies.


      Right. I'm supposed to take seriously the word of someone who thinks user data is unimportant?

      It'd be nice if you guys would get a clue instead of spouting your preconceived notions all the time.
    29. Re:secret weapon by nwbvt · · Score: 1

      "So you are asserting that Finisterre would release a malicious variant of his code _after_ Apple already had produced a patch based on non-malicious examples he'd sent them some time previously?"

      Sure, if he thought people still were not taking Mac security seriously (like the guys higher up in this thread who think it is impossible to write a virus for a Mac). Or maybe he felt this would make him famous (especially since he could only be directly tied to the safe version). I don't know the man personally so I have no idea what his psychiatric makeup looks like, but I wouldn't be willing to rule him out as a suspect merely because he came up with the first version.

      "Methinks you are grasping at straws to support your own contention that AV companies don't deliberately release malicious items."

      That wasn't my contention. I was merely arguing that your conspiracy theory is deeply flawed. And prior to that, I was contending that Macs are vulnerable to security exploits. It really doesn't matter who distributes them.

      "Why would a rogue developer at Apple bother propagating such an ineffectual and lame piece of malware _after_ they know the system has already been patched to render it useless?"

      Well for one thing, because a patch has already rendered it useless. There are many in the hacker community who believe if you fail to apply security updates you deserve any damages that may come about.

      "Who would risk the sack plus both criminal prosecution and being sued for an insane amount by one of the most litigious companies out there to propagate something that their own colleagues have already completely castrated"

      The exact same argument could be made against your claim that it was the anti-virus companies that came up with it. Why would they risk criminal prosecution or even damage to their reputation (which would actually be a much greater risk since it would be easier to tie the virus to the one they recieved), not to mention the conspiracy theories from people like yourself, to put out a security exploit that has already been fixed by Apple? At least with the rogue employee, they could just be sadistic or a thrillseeker in nature.

      "when they could have done far more mischief at less risk by inserting mischievous code that randomly corrupts stuff into one of Apple's product updates, and then claiming it was a programming error?"

      Maybe they just couldn't do that due to a lack of skills or access to such applications. Maybe they felt there was too much risk involved. Or maybe they did put in some such code and it hasn't been found yet. Or maybe for some other reason. Who knows. Its still much more likely that an AV company.

      "1) The code was only supplied to major AV companies, so we can rule out clamAV and those associated with it."

      Well then since clamAV was the very first AV company I met, that sort of renders your entire point moot. Again. For something like the third time.

      "2) An employee of any major AV company would have great difficulty altering and propagating the code for a piece of malware without managerial complicity. Such companies are accustomed to dealing with massive collections of very dangerous software that could do severe damage to their own IT infrastructure if one or more of them accidentally got onto a dev. machine or a piece of writable media (not to mention their reputations if company web-servers started spreading one or more infections to customers), so malware is kept in sealed systems that aren't connected to company networks, and which are located in locked rooms that have very strict access policies. They are aware of the fact that disgruntled or simply mischievous employees or ex-employees would welcome the opportunity to damage them by releasing some of the stuff sitting on their test machines into their many local networks and Internet servers, and therefore do everything in their power to ensure that this is as near to impossible as

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    30. Re:secret weapon by despik · · Score: 1

      You conveniently ignored the other thing I wrote. So, let me ask again, why were there infinitely more viruses released for the in the System 6-7 era? (Inifinitely, as in 26 versus 0.)

      I can tell you why, but it's not worth my time, since you've already made up your mind.

      --
      "I seem to have mastered a certain amount of control over physical reality."
    31. Re:secret weapon by nwbvt · · Score: 1

      "I can tell you why, but it's not worth my time, since you've already made up your mind."

      Silly me, paying attention to all those annoying facts...

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    32. Re:secret weapon by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "I was contending that Macs are vulnerable to security exploits."

      This was the reason for Finisterre's original worms. I suggest reading his document about them at www.digitalmunition.com/InqTanaThroughTheEyes.txt, because it blows away some of the "invulnerability" myths held by a large number of Mac fans. Finisterre points out that, despite claims to the contrary by some Mac-based publications, none of his original worms came from any source except himself, although this does not of course say anything about later, more malicious variants. We could endlessly debate the potential sources of these, but it eventually becomes pointless because, like most malware, the real authors are likely to remain unknown.

      "like the guys higher up in this thread who think it is impossible to write a virus for a Mac"

      They are fools, just like the people who used to insist that Linux was immune to malware were fools. However, some degree of foolishness can be excused in this case because AV vendors have cried wolf too many times over what they knew were actually innocuous proof-of-concept examples that infected nobody outside the research community (who deliberately infected themselves for test purposes). Add to this a notable penchant for producing false positives for these harmless examples that made people delete files until their OS became unusable (Sophos and Symantec have both done this for Finisterre's original Inqtana variants on Macs quite recently), and you have a situation where the Mac community's level of trust in AV companies is now next to non-existent.

      "Well then since clamAV was the very first AV company I met, that sort of renders your entire point moot."

      I find this claim rather interesting, because ClamAV is neither a company or the product of a company, and AFAIK never has been. It has a trademark which covers both ClamAV and Clam Antivirus (different names for the same thing), but that belongs to Tomasz Kojm, who is the programming project leader, not a CEO, managing director, or anything equivalent, because ClamAV is a non-commercial outfit that doesn't sell anything, but instead uses volountary donations help pay their site operating expenses (hence the fact that it uses a .net domain suffix rather than .com). Some of the project's programmers do offer commercial support in the areas of the world were they live, but this is done independently of the ClamAV project, which gives equal prominence to many other companies that aren't in any way affiliated with the core dev. team. It is thus a pure Stallmanesque FOSS project where the software and its source is given away to anyone who wants it under the GPL, and people (hopefully) make money from it by selling a variety of services, not something like MySQL, JBOSS, or QT, which are controlled by companies who offer fee-based non GPL options for various types of commercial use in addition to their GPL versions.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    33. Re:secret weapon by nwbvt · · Score: 1

      "However, some degree of foolishness can be excused in this case because AV vendors have cried wolf too many times over what they knew were actually innocuous proof-of-concept examples that infected nobody outside the research community (who deliberately infected themselves for test purposes)."

      Its not "crying wolf" when there really are exploits out there that could do damage. "Crying wolf" refers to giving out a warning when there is no danger, here this is a danger that just has yet to manifest itself into actual damage. You want people to pay attention to these kinds of things before they become problems, not after.

      "I find this claim rather interesting, because ClamAV is neither a company or the product of a company, and AFAIK never has been."

      Please don't bicker about semantics like those other guys who are claiming these exploits don't count because they worms, not "true viruses". It is obvious what I meant. It was the first AV product I mentioned, and actually can be classified as a company very easily (there is no requirement that a company be run by a CEO or sell anything).

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    34. Re:secret weapon by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "Its not "crying wolf" when there really are exploits out there that could do damage. "Crying wolf" refers to giving out a warning when there is no danger, here this is a danger that just has yet to manifest itself into actual damage. You want people to pay attention to these kinds of things before they become problems, not after."

      ""Crying wolf" refers to giving out a warning when there is no danger"

      The term "cry wolf" refers to a well-known parable in which a child claims he is _being attacked by wolves_ when he isn't. In the parable, wolves both exist, and are a danger, hence the fact that the entire community drops everything and comes running whenever he yells about being attacked, and their existence and dangerousness is confirmed by the fact that they eventually kill the errant child because the community now assumes that his real cries for help are yet another case of pissing them around.

      NB: the misinformation level in your posts is increasing. If this is accidental (as i hope is the case), I suggest you check things before posting for the sake of your own credibility; if on the other hand it is deliberate, then you have no credibility to defend.

      ""I find this claim rather interesting, because ClamAV is neither a company or the product of a company, and AFAIK never has been.""

      "Please don't bicker about semantics like those other guys who are claiming these exploits don't count because they worms, not "true viruses. it is obvious what I meant"

      It seems to be you who is bickering over semantics in a rather pathetic attempt to pretend that you weren't completely and utterly wrong (which is something you seem to be rather good at lately).

      For obvious meanings, I suggest you check back over your posts, where the context in which you used the term "company" make it quite clear that you (a) were claiming that ClamAv is an AV vendor who would thus have received Finisterre's code and therefore could be the source of a malicious version of Inqtana, and (b) by saying it was the first AV company you met, also claiming to be some sort of "AV industry insider" despite the fact that your posts display a notable ignorance of both malware in general, and the industry that has grown up around it.

      NB: I will let you have the last word, as it appears that this is important to you. I shall not however either read or reply to it, because your increasingly strange "arguments" are embarrassing not only us, but anybody else who may end up reading them.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    35. Re:secret weapon by nwbvt · · Score: 1

      Putting aside for a moment your pointless nitpicking and your gross misinterpretation of Aesop's Boy Who Cried Wolf fable, I have one question for you. Do you honestly believe that security companies (or producers of security products if that makes you happy) should keep their mouths shut about the security problems of an operating system until after a dangerous exploit is released that does serious damage to computers around the world? That any attempt to forewarn people about problems they could face if they do not take action to protect themselves is unethical?

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
  13. Also shows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The class of Apple to complain about Windows being susceptible to viruses that Apple Quality Control fails to catch. Maybe Apple QC should install AV as well when they develop for windows?

    1. Re:Also shows... by udderly · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why is this a troll? I'm a serious Mac fan, but that little "jab at Microsoft" *was* pretty classless.

      WARNING: OBLIGATORY CAR ANALOGY!!!
      When I was a kid we were firing a golf ball out of homemade cannon and broke the neighbor's windshield. Crap, what was I thinking? I should have blamed Ford for not making their windshields stronger!

    2. Re:Also shows... by CaymanIslandCarpedie · · Score: 4, Funny

      But then they'd get sued by security vendors for ruining thier market.

      --
      "reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
    3. Re:Also shows... by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Or Microsoft should just fix their OS so that the file is just a dangerous as a README.txt file.


      You overestimate the harmlessness of Readme files.
      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    4. Re:Also shows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
      "Maybe Apple QC should install AV as well when they develop for windows?"

      I heard (from a reliable source inside Apple) that the virus was preinstalled from the disk manufacturer when they formatted the drives. *shudder* You can see where this can go.

    5. Re:Also shows... by billsoxs · · Score: 4, Funny
      You overestimate the harmlessness of Readme files.

      Yes except you need to READ the readme files for them to be an issue.

      --
      This message was brought to you by "Lack of Sleep."
    6. Re:Also shows... by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem happened, because Apple's assembly contractors used Windows machines in their production process. Clearly, this is not a wise choice from a security standpoint, and I would expect Apple to insist on replacing those machines with Macs or Linux hosts.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    7. Re:Also shows... by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1

      Still not an excuse for selling virus-ridden hardware.

    8. Re:Also shows... by Cr33pybusguy · · Score: 1

      The hell is a readme file? (note: purposeful dumbass comment)

      --
      Hee Hee The drinking bird does all the work!
    9. Re:Also shows... by Foofoobar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This goes back to something I say daily... 'develop on the platform you are releasing for'. If you are releasing something for Windows, Mac and Linux, develop and test on all. I myself do web dev and insisted that I use Linux as my desktop since our server is a LAMP install. This has proven useful since the other developers using Windows have had several problems with end of line characters in Windows causing issues with files as well as our versioning control system. Always develop and test on the platform you are releasing for.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    10. Re:Also shows... by bcat24 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And Apple does no testing on the disk hardware they receive?

    11. Re:Also shows... by Trillan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it really did come on just a few of the blank hard drives, in order to catch this with testing they'd have to test every single freshly formatted drive. Granted, I'm sure they'll do that now, but not doing a virus scan on freshly formatted disks hardly qualifies as "no testing."

    12. Re:Also shows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gotta hand it to the Apple folks...What better way of advertising their OS over MS.

      I do not believe Apple innocence, even when they try to blast MS. I believe that it was an expertly charaded advertisement for Mac OSX and it's safety from viruses. Ohhhhh those sly people....

    13. Re:Also shows... by BaCkBuRn · · Score: 0, Informative

      Ever heard the phrase "The buck stops here"?

      Reguardless of who put the virus on the device; Apple is responsible.

      --
      PRINT "Signature line broken."
      GOTO 1
    14. Re:Also shows... by complete+loony · · Score: 1, Insightful
      If you'd aimed your cannon randomly into the air, you'd be a little closer to an internet analogy. On the internet the assailant can be anywhere in the world, and the attack can be completely automated. You have to treat a barrage of golf balls in the same way you would treat a barrage of hail stones.

      A computer should never trust that any remotely supplied information is correctly formed, and should never deliberately allow software to run without the users knowledge. In some ways the internet is a war zone, cannons are being fired all the time, and we can't track down and neutralise every combatant. So we have to improve our passive defences instead.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    15. Re:Also shows... by Trillan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Honestly, it probably should be an embedded system (running Linux, if you like) without a GUI or any other possible way for people on the line to wreck it.

    16. Re:Also shows... by Slithe · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      (note: purposeful dumbass comment)
      Do you know what a readme file is, and you are speaking rhetorically, or do you not know what a readme file is but know that Slashdoters will consider you a dumbass for not knowing? If you ACTUALLY do not know, then let me enlighten you. A README file is a text file, that comes with many software packages, that contains information that the software authors want to convey to the user. README files usually contain a description of the program, credits, installation instructions, contact information, and any links where the user can find more information about the program. The traditional Readme file is a flat ASCII textfile, located in the main directory of the program, with the name "README"; often the readme file's name will have an extension (such as .txt or .html if the README file uses the HyperText Markup Language), but this is not traditional, since Unix does not place any importance on filename extensions.
      --
      ---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
    17. Re:Also shows... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      This goes back to something I say daily... 'develop on the platform you are releasing for'. If you are releasing something for Windows, Mac and Linux, develop and test on all. I myself do web dev and insisted that I use Linux as my desktop since our server is a LAMP install. This has proven useful since the other developers using Windows have had several problems with end of line characters in Windows causing issues with files as well as our versioning control system. Always develop and test on the platform you are releasing for.

      On the flipside, only doing this dramatically increases the chances your code will rely on a specific implementation rather than the objective specification.

    18. Re:Also shows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A better analogy is if a ford drove by and a piece of flew off and broke the windshield
      then you blamed ford. The problem isn;t the windows machines that get it from the iPod
      the problem is the damn production machines that caught it and distributed it.

    19. Re:Also shows... by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why would you even assume you had to? You'd expect the hard drive manufacturer's QC to catch bad sectors and things and wouldn't even think that there'd be a virus on a pre-formatted drive. I don't know a company on the planet that would even think to check for something like that. I do remember the occasional problem of the same nature with pre-formatted floppies back in the day.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    20. Re:Also shows... by fatphil · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's not how manufacturing works at all in the real world. Most initialisation of such devices is done using Windows machines.

      However, they shouldn't be writing files to a filesystem to initialise the devices, they should be writing a version-controlled quality-controlled filesystem itself. And there's no point blaming the Chinese contractor, I'm sure they were just following the Apple procedure, sloppy as it is.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    21. Re:Also shows... by Cr33pybusguy · · Score: 1

      God I'm hoping that was a sarcastic reply laden with geek speak. If not.... *shakes head*

      --
      Hee Hee The drinking bird does all the work!
    22. Re:Also shows... by Trillan · · Score: 1

      I know it isn't. I'm just saying it probably should be. :)

    23. Re:Also shows... by iluvcapra · · Score: 1
      (such as .txt or .html if the README file uses the HyperText Markup Language)

      Are you reading that HTML readme in Internet Explorer or Firefox? It might change the proposition of READMEs being safe universally. ;)

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    24. Re:Also shows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it says Readme, how can you not read it? The only way it could be any more compelling is if it was called DoNotReadme, then people would be knocking over their own grandmothers in order to read it.

    25. Re:Also shows... by NixLuver · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "And there's no point blaming the Chinese contractor, I'm sure they were just following the Apple procedure, sloppy as it is."

      What do you base this assertion on? How do you know how 'sloppy' the Apple procedure is?

      Many are lambasting Apple because they didn't test every vendor-supplied microdrive for *windows* viruses/virii. They sold 7.7 million ipods, as I understand it. If we grant 'em 10 seconds to hook the drive up and test it - even automated; remember, these drives aren't exactly fast - that's 891 additional days added to that manufacturing model.

      I'm not sure I believe that Apple should necessarily be responsible for a chinese manufacturer's choice of operating system for their production line.

      In fact, in response to the many assertions that Windows is the pre-eminent choice in production line systems... I find it difficult to believe; in my direct experience with seven major production systems and indirect with ten or twelve, only two used Windows, and of them had as their purpose was directly testing production of Windows based computers. A pharmaceutical company I'm familiar with uses HP clusters; a local utility recently switched from SCO to Linux ( I love saying that! ); A PCB assembly machine I dealt with had embedded a BSD variant. A plastics manufacturer I'm familiar with uses Linux and DOS (!) because the hardware manufacturer doesn't want to fix something that's "not broken". I've never even *heard* of Windows being used in production systems anywhere but plants that produce Windows computers.

    26. Re:Also shows... by Jack+Pallance · · Score: 5, Funny
      'develop on the platform you are releasing for'

      They would have, but the developers complained about having to use the IPod's scroll wheel to type all of their code.

    27. Re:Also shows... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'm not so sure I would accept any jab at Microsoft as being "classless". Microsoft can afford to take criticism, and if they don't like it, they could always try doing something about the situation.

      That aside, though, the case seems a bit strange to me. My iPod Mini came with a Mac filesystem by default, which I understand gets overwritten with VFAT when connected to a Windows box running itunes. Last time I looked, windows was unable to read/write HFS+ partitions (and should for that reason, I suppose, be unable to infect the iPod). Is this no longer the case? Or has the default FS on the iPod changed?

    28. Re:Also shows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I once worked on a product, where we had a file on disk called IGNORE.ME. I can't for the life of me remember why.

    29. Re:Also shows... by imemyself · · Score: 1

      At the company I work for (they make firewire and USB enclosures/adapters) we have maybe six computers that we use for production. Two are PowerMacs and the rest are Windows boxes. I think a lot of the apps we use to change the firmware on the units run only on Windows, though I could be wrong.

      --
      Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
    30. Re:Also shows... by Nataku564 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Things coming over the wire, yeah - be very paranoid about. Generally you do trust the devices that plug into the box, though. Otherwise we would constantly be scanning the keyboard for possible viruses, what with all those interrupts it keeps triggering.

      Heck, lets go one step further. Lets not trust the SATA drive - who knows where that thing has been.

    31. Re:Also shows... by pyite · · Score: 2, Informative

      Or has the default FS on the iPod changed?

      Yes, I believe so. My nano (from December 2005) has never been plugged into anything but my Mac and it is Windows formatted. On the other hand, my original 3rd Gen is HFS+. That was real fun when I ran Linux on my PowerBook. Worked better than expected, actually.

      --

      "Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman

    32. Re:Also shows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I've worked for governement agencies, private companies and am now in academia. In ALL environments, the IT indoctrination beat everyone over the head with basic security practices including NEVER ASSUME NEW MEDIA IS FREE OF MALWARE. Just yesterday I had to do UVa's annual IT-user-best-practices-recert and this was one of the questions. It would seem this IS an accepted practice.

    33. Re:Also shows... by spectral · · Score: 4, Informative

      I thought the same thing. Guess what happened when I first plugged in my SanDisk micro thumb drive? Shit got installed on my computer, that I had to specifically uninstall and then format the thumb drive (Conveniently available from the menu it installed, but still).

      NOTHING in the manual about "Oh yeah, if you plug this in to a windows PC we're running shit without telling you."

      I no longer trust "blank" media, but what can one do? Plug the hard drive in to a windows machine and format it? Woops, already fucked your computer over, since Windows will helpfully immediately run and install anything on the disk. This is a failure of Windows with autorun being on by default.

    34. Re:Also shows... by pimpimpim · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      I think it makes sense. They produce such high bulks of devices at pretty low prices that it might be more economical to skip time-intensive testing steps and just trade-in defective devices after sales.

      That said, their reaction is pretty meager. OS X viruses and linux viruses exist as well, so what would they say if it would be loaded with one of those? An iPod is an official apple product that is mostly bought directly from apple, whatever crap is on it is their responsibility only.

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    35. Re:Also shows... by Trillan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Their response was to fix their procedure so the problem could never repeat. What's so meager?

    36. Re:Also shows... by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Interesting
      OS X viruses... exist as well

      Do they? Last I heard there was a "proof of concept," but IIRC even it required user interaction to propagate. I've never heard of a real, self-propagating, OS X virus in the wild.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    37. Re:Also shows... by aichpvee · · Score: 1

      Or maybe apple shouldn't be shipping random crap on their hardware either way?

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    38. Re:Also shows... by EdipisReks · · Score: 1
      OS X viruses... exist
      please cite a single example of an OS X virus that is in the wild.
    39. Re:Also shows... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      my original 3rd Gen is HFS+. That was real fun when I ran Linux on my PowerBook. Worked better than expected, actually.

      Wish I could say the same. I still maintain my gadget was more responsive as HFS+, but I found my Linux box got cranky with it, and disconnected at inopportune moments. I was only able to fix this by reformatting it.

    40. Re:Also shows... by pimpimpim · · Score: 1

      Well, if you're connecting your iPod for the first time to your mac, and some official looking popup would ask you for user interaction (e.g. "iTunes Update required, do you want to continue?"), enough people might do that, I guess. Look, it's just a hypothetical case, so calm down! All I wanted to point out is to say that Apple's claim that windows is not virus-proof enough is still not an excuse to not check if malicious software is present on Apple's products.

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    41. Re:Also shows... by PitaBred · · Score: 4, Informative

      Pisses me off too. That's why I use TweakUI on every install of Windows I have to use and I disable AutoPlay completely. Optical discs, removable media, anything.

    42. Re:Also shows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please cite a single example of where he stated "in the wild" in his post.

    43. Re:Also shows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which reminds me of an old story: microsoft used to employ unix machines for producing and duplicating installation floppies, back in the 80's, to eliminate infection risks when shipping products.

    44. Re:Also shows... by mei_mei_mei · · Score: 0

      Now that Apple allows users to run Windows from the same hard disk as OSX and Windows virus can damage an OSX system, so effectivly any Windows virus _is_ an Apple virus.

    45. Re:Also shows... by frizzantik · · Score: 1

      This has proven useful since the other developers using Windows have had several problems with end of line characters in Windows causing issues with files

      They need a better text editor, not a whole new OS ;)

    46. Re:Also shows... by Mike+Peel · · Score: 4, Funny

      Odds are that more people read it than would have read a READ.ME file in the same folder.

    47. Re:Also shows... by dabraun · · Score: 1

      That has been changed in Vista. Vista will not autorun anything without you saying so (it provides a dialog with options on what to do instead which includes the executable that autorun would have run without asking on XP)

      Certainly this is how it should have always been ... hard to imagine someone failed to see the security risk inherent in automatically running whatever the media asks to run. Maybe if it was a markup language or html document or some other sandboxed content, but an executable ... on a system where everyone was running as admin. Hard to excuse. It's suprising that there were so *few* abuses of this (i.e. the majority of apps set autorun to run the installer which you could almost always cancel out of before it did anything potentially damaging)

    48. Re:Also shows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BRILLIANT!

    49. Re:Also shows... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      Look, it's just a hypothetical case, so calm down!

      When was I anything but calm? Besides, isn't your argument -- that we should be worrying about viruses that don't actually exist -- actually rather less calm?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    50. Re:Also shows... by Jerom · · Score: 1

      Actually it can't. The os x partition is invisible to windows.

      Sorry to dissapoint.

      J.

      PS in fanboy mode right now, typing this on a brand new 24" imac :-P

    51. Re:Also shows... by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

      Buy your drive from Fry's, and it's quite likely to have someone elses shite on it. Some dealers do all sorts of shady things with returns, such as re-shrinkwrapping merchandise and selling it as new.

    52. Re:Also shows... by mei_mei_mei · · Score: 0

      Ah, oh well. I thought it could in at least one of Bootcamp or Parallels. Is there no way then to transfer data betweem the MAc and Windows OS on the same hardware? Does t only go one way i.e. MAc-> Windows?

    53. Re:Also shows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, an even better analogy than that one would be if a car was driving along, and it had a brand new iPod connected up to its stereo. And this iPod had a virus on it. And it would be like "Damn, if Windows was more secure, then this wouldn't have happened!", but then you hit a tree because you're fucking around with the iPod trying to get to the next album or whatever. And the analogy is that the car caught a virus. From the tree. Shiiiiiit.

    54. Re:Also shows... by NoodleSlayer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Heck, lets go one step further. Lets not trust the SATA drive - who knows where that thing has been.

      If you've ever tried installing Windows XP or 2000 onto a SATA drive using the generic retail box CD you'd realize how close to reality this is ;)

    55. Re:Also shows... by shellbeach · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If you'd aimed your cannon randomly into the air, you'd be a little closer to an internet analogy. On the internet the assailant can be anywhere in the world, and the attack can be completely automated. You have to treat a barrage of golf balls in the same way you would treat a barrage of hail stones.

      Yes, but we're not talking about the internet at large here, we're talking about a major manufacturer of electronics, and one which is supposedly reputable. Having a virus on your marketed product is extremely dodgy QC, whichever way you look at it.

      As much as I hate M$, to take a cheap shot at Windows security like that - when you've just demonstrated how insecure your own production line is - must be one of the most ludicrous and childish responses from a major company I've ever heard of. Far better to simply apologise and leave it at that.
    56. Re:Also shows... by Geheimagent · · Score: 1
      I once worked on a product, where we had a file on disk called IGNORE.ME. I can't for the life of me remember why.
      That was to confuse the auditors.
    57. Re:Also shows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was probably accompanied by an MSCREATE.DIR?

    58. Re:Also shows... by cowbutt · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...or even Wordpad!

    59. Re:Also shows... by Shawn+is+an+Asshole · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My 4th gen 60gb iPod came HFS+ formatted and I've kept it that way, even though I rarely use it on my Mac. The only thing I had to do to get Linux to work properly with it was disable journaling on it. No problems at all. I also use it as a USB drive for transferring stuff to/from work or to/from my PowerBook.

      Did you disable journaling? It should work fine after that.

      --
      "It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
    60. Re:Also shows... by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Linux viruses do not exist. To be a virus it has to spread itsself and thats virtually impossible on Linux.

      Exploits yes. Viruses no.

    61. Re:Also shows... by JasonKChapman · · Score: 1
      Look, it's just a hypothetical case, so calm down!
      When was I anything but calm? Besides, isn't your argument -- that we should be worrying about viruses that don't actually exist -- actually rather less calm?

      I beg to differ. Worrying about viruses that don't exist should be SOP. Not worrying about viruses, and other security threats, that "don't exist" is exactly how we got into the mess we're in. It's like not putting a lock on your front door because no active burgler has been reported in your area. When you're considering security, you don't limit your defenses to existing threats. You plan for potential threats.

      --
      Sorry, I'm a writer. That makes you raw material.
    62. Re:Also shows... by AcidLacedPenguiN · · Score: 1

      Yeah, everyone knows the pirated windows CDs work much better!

      --
      disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.
    63. Re:Also shows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last I heard there was a "proof of concept,"

      I'm a little shocked that such phrases are even accepted as anything but scare tactics in the computer industry. Imagine if the CDC released a report telling us about "SuperAIDS". You can catch it by breathing, death is gauranteed in 48 hours, and there's no cure.

      Of course, it doesn't exist in the wild and no one's ever gotten sick with it... but it could happen!

      Imagine how irresponsible that would be.

    64. Re:Also shows... by Mhtsos · · Score: 1

      Well the Autorun feature is a leftover from before the blaster worm, when MS policy regarding novice user usability VS security hole was clear cut towards the former. I expected a fix in SP2 though.

    65. Re:Also shows... by AcidLacedPenguiN · · Score: 1

      I thought the general rule in adding new harddrives is to format them whether or not they came preformatted. . .

      --
      disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.
    66. Re:Also shows... by planetmn · · Score: 1

      This passes for insightful? I'm sorry, but you must not be an engineer, at least one involved in product or system development. You never assume that the previous levels QC provided you with anything more than you yourself have tested for. Sometimes this is done by testing a sample, sometimes by testing each and every one. But nothing goes out the door with my signature unless I am 100% convinced myself that there are no problems with it (either I tested it, somebody that I trust has tested it, or that I have witnessed the testing).

      One of my first assignments at my first job was to witness the vendor's QC testing. Write as good of specification and test as possible, and they will still find ways to wiggle around the intention. If I wasn't there to stop the testing, require changes, and retest the item, it's scary to think what would have gone out the door.

      -dave

      --
      /., where "Apple and Google provide Iran with nukes" will be refuted with "But Microsoft is a convicted monopolist"
    67. Re:Also shows... by splateagle · · Score: 0

      OK, so fewer than 1% of the last month's supply were actually affected. Those that were had one virus that anyone with decent up-to-date anti virus software (an accepted must on Windows boxen) would have been protected from. Do you not think calling this "virus-ridden hardware" is overstating the matter just a bit?

      It'd be interesting to find out if there were in fact *any* instances of this virus getting out into the wild at the customer end? - the CNet article doesn't say but I'm guessing few if any end users were troubled by this since a good number of iPods never see the USB port of a Windows box, and those that do are usually being hooked to newish machines which should all have adequate virus protection installed and running.

    68. Re:Also shows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I hope someone made an obligatory worms in apples joke, but I'm too lazy to look for it.

      Apple accepted responsibility and took a shot at Windows in the same sentence. Which was not the best they could do. The big public service opportunity Apple missed was reminding everyone, Mac and PC users alike, is that the Ipod is a big thumb drive - hence an infection vector.

      And while I don't know how this hard drive manufacturer sets up their network it gives me an opportunity to rant about segmenting manufacturing process control networks.

      rant
      Until we isolate the manufacturing segments, lock 'em down and treat them differently, this will happen frequently. Many folks in the IT world would like to believe we can administer these specialized PCs on manufacturing networks the same way we administer an office network. I believe it is a specialty, requiring a mix of skills (including knowing older technologies) and methodologies that many IT pros simply don't have and their management doesn't encourage them to get. As the devices consumers buy get smarter, this problem will get worse. /rant

    69. Re:Also shows... by paralaxcreations · · Score: 1

      Hey everybody, it's that classic game, "Pass the Buck!"

      Regardless of whether it was "preinstalled" (which I highly doubt to begin with), tell me why a company selling what are basically hard drives by the bazillions (we're talking iPods here) wouldn't A) install AV after receiving the computers, and B) Wouldn't QC their OWN released products?

      Apple screwed up. The sooner the fanbois can accept this, the sooner everyone can get over it.

    70. Re:Also shows... by mdozturk · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I believe that Apple should necessarily be responsible for a chinese manufacturer's choice of operating system for their production line.

      Apple has a responsiblity to make products with NO viruses in them. If they cannot test every single ipod they must ensure that the process is in place so that employees of the manufacturar cannot mess with the product. If this requires that the manufacturar change operating systems, well the manufacturar will have to change operating systems.

      I'm sure Apple is either going to change the manufacturar now or change the process. They are going to fix the problem, however the problem shouldn't have existed in the first place.

      Apple should not blame anyone about this but themselves.

      Apple prides itself of making quality products, this however is a blunder even Microsoft couldn't get away with.

    71. Re:Also shows... by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1, Insightful

      OK, so fewer than 1% of the last month's supply were actually affected. Those that were had one virus that anyone with decent up-to-date anti virus software (an accepted must on Windows boxen) would have been protected from. Do you not think calling this "virus-ridden hardware" is overstating the matter just a bit?

      It doesn't matter. It shouldn't happen AT ALL. It's such a blatant violation of security that it's a joke. I mean really, if this weren't Apple, the company in question would be ridiculed.

      I'm guessing few if any end users were troubled by this since a good number of iPods never see the USB port of a Windows box, and those that do are usually being hooked to newish machines which should all have adequate virus protection installed and running.

      Yeah, I'd say you're guessing all right. I'd say the iPods were also hooked up to newish machines that gave them the virus. Owning a newish machine does not imply that its user has kept virus protection up-to-date. And many iPods - actually, most iPods - are owned by windows users. Also, given usage of AV software being rather low, I'd say *most* iPods will see the USB port of a Windows machine that hasn't seen an AV update for a little while.

      In any event, this result is absolutely unacceptable, and defending it is ridiculous.

    72. Re:Also shows... by lazy_playboy · · Score: 1

      Windows sharing/SMB works fine between virtual machines and os x in parallels.

    73. Re:Also shows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no the problem happened because the assembly contractors management is incompetent. ther is NO REASON for the assemblyline computers to be on anythign but a private network that is protected and locked down, other thant incredibly incompetent management that demands internet access from them or they are busy running "spy" software to watch their employees.

      I know of water filtration plants where the computers are online and net connected.

    74. Re:Also shows... by Monkeyman334 · · Score: 1

      What if the virus was just an executable that didn't use an exploit? What is Microsoft supposed to do about that? Bundle anti-virus software and get slammed by the EU?

    75. Re:Also shows... by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 1

      QC? As in Quality Control? That is the most ironic comment I've ever seen on Slashdot. Trying to say that antivirus is quality control for a computer is like saying that a fire department is quality control for a house.

    76. Re:Also shows... by Monsuco · · Score: 1

      You can't hardly blame windows, nobody ever expects a virus to be preinstalled on their hardware, well, except with some OEMS and their "demos".

    77. Re:Also shows... by Random832 · · Score: 1

      I set up linux with boot camp and it could see the osx partition just fine - now, windows lacks an HFS driver, but surely one could be installed. or a virus could mess up the raw partition itself.

      --
      We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
    78. Re:Also shows... by DanielNS84 · · Score: 1

      Luckily as a Geek Squad employee I have access to some neat toys...GS's unholy union with that U3 bullshit they install means we often have to uninstall it on thumbdrives that cause trouble on customers PC's. Shoot me an e-mail and I'll try and track down the program for you. Side note : U3 uses CDFS on a tiny additional drive and cannot be formatted by regular means.

    79. Re:Also shows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one of the top 10 first things I do with a new windows install? turn off autorun...
      admittedly I do it more to prevent cd's from slowing my computer down whenever I put them in.
      I run a lean machine because a lean machine is a fast one.

      Time and time again, it's proven to also be a more secure one.

      Security commandment I: Thou shalt not run automatic anything
      Security commandment II: Thou shalt not run unnecessary services
      Security commandment III: Thou shalt not connect a pc to an unfirewalled network (even if you have a firewall on the pc)
      Security commandment IV: Thou shalt not use IE

      I've never had a virus, spyware, or malware on windows xp. One of my boxes is xp sp1 because my license got foobarred (OEM and I installed a bigger hard drive. I have better things to do with 3 hours than wait on hold). I've turned it into an experiment to see if you really need to patch at all if you run a secure environment.

      I've survived all the vulnerabilities since sp1 without getting my box pwned. My wife won't use ie on it because she can't 8)

      -AC

    80. Re:Also shows... by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      That still doesn't make it MS's fault that Apple screwed up.

      Very classless, Apple.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    81. Re:Also shows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you'll find he was comparing the retail CD/DVD containing the standard as-released-to-the-general-public setup to OEM dics that have drivers added for the manufacturers range as needed, not to illegal copies (which could have come from either source).

    82. Re:Also shows... by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      For a company to blame its subcontractors for a serious screwup is unacceptable. If I buy a Dell and it shows up with a bad video card, Dell had damn sure better not say "Oh sorry, that's Nvidia's fault, you need to call them" when I call them to get it fixed. If it's got the "Apple" name on it, then Apple has a RESPONSIBILITY to QC test the parts that go into it.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    83. Re:Also shows... by Greyfox · · Score: 1
      Well I do have relatively limited experience, but my 16 years of work experience does include some interaction with hardware guys. Maybe they do things differently at NASA or in the medical industry but most of the companies I've worked for have never thought to question the quality of the components they were getting from their suppliers. At least not while I was around. I imagine the problem would be worse, too, if you were trying to cut corners in any way to keep costs down. That seems to be the name of the game these days.

      Hell even on big engineering projects you see problems of this nature! Look at the Big Dig as a recent example -- damn thing's already falling apart because they were assuming their contractors weren't idiots. Or for that matter CIOs routinely decide their companies should run Windows despite all the security risks with that platform AND underfund the IT departments whose job it is to keep those systems patched for security. Honestly, it's a wonder we manage to build anything at all...

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    84. Re:Also shows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, that phrase doesn't mean what you think it means.

    85. Re:Also shows... by LKM · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Well, if you're connecting your iPod for the first time to your mac, and some official looking popup would ask you for user interaction

      Except that Macs don't auto-run anything, unlike Windows boxes.

    86. Re:Also shows... by ronocdh · · Score: 1

      No kidding. I remember the installation CD for Marathon 2 on PowerPC had a text file called DO NOT EVER READ THIS NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE TELLS YOU. You know what? I read it. ;)

    87. Re:Also shows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Apple, not Microsoft, so they can get away with it.

      A company I worked for had a problem of Dell machines coming pre-loaded with a boot sector virus. It was a problem with image that Dell was using rather then the machine getting infected because of exposure, and I suspect it's the same problem with the iPods. It was harmless, but the security guys couldn't figure out how the virus was getting in.

    88. Re:Also shows... by Slovenian6474 · · Score: 1

      I, for one, would love to see an OSX virus, but i have done a lot of digging on the subject and mrchaotica is right. Techically speaking, there is no virus for OSX. The claim that "Macs" don't have viruses if false due to OS 9 but i'm pretty sure OSX does not have any viruses. ...although Symantec would like you to believe otherwise.

    89. Re:Also shows... by brunascle · · Score: 1
      If we grant 'em 10 seconds to hook the drive up and test it - even automated; remember, these drives aren't exactly fast - that's 891 additional days added to that manufacturing model.
      only if they completely shut down the entire operation while waiting for every one to finish.

      since it's an assebly line, i think it would be more likely that it would just add 10 seconds to the line.
    90. Re:Also shows... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Now that Apple allows users to run Windows from the same hard disk as OSX and Windows virus can damage an OSX system, so effectivly any Windows virus _is_ an Apple virus.

      By this logic, since I can run Windows in a VM on almost any platform all Windows viruses are also Solaris, Linux, OS X, etc. viruses. And since I can also run a Commodore 64 emulator, all viruses are Commodore 64 viruses. Of course this is a completely useless way to define things, but hey, whatever.

    91. Re:Also shows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real men use regedit!

      It's been a while I've been a real man. I'll really have to be one when I install Vista.

    92. Re:Also shows... by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I believe that Apple should necessarily be responsible for a chinese manufacturer's choice of operating system for their production line.

      f t affects their products, then yes, they should!

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    93. Re:Also shows... by jcr · · Score: 0

      the assembly contractors management is incompetent.

      I agree. One should never have a Windows box in a mission-critical role.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    94. Re:Also shows... by silentounce · · Score: 1

      25 out of 7.7 million:
       
      .000325% defective is well within standards for nearly any industry. In fact, that's outstanding.

      This was also in response to, "Apple has a responsiblity to make products with NO viruses in them."

      --
      There are many tongues to talk, and but few heads to think. -Victor Hugo
    95. Re:Also shows... by jvkjvk · · Score: 1

      Marked funny but in the day many of the "slick" installers (wise, install anywhere) could not create empty directories(!). Yes, that's right, you had to have at least one file in any directory created by the installer.

      So, for example, if you have a program that requires a temp or config directory that is utilized and populated at runtime one could either do the "right" thing and put the checks in to create/recreate the directory as needed or ensure the directory was there on install by adding a dummy file to the directory in the installer.

    96. Re:Also shows... by just_another_sean · · Score: 1

      a local utility recently switched from SCO to Linux ( I love saying that! )

      Could you elaborate on this a bit more please? It would really help me with a situation
      I'm dealing with right now!

      Thanks,
      Darl

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    97. Re:Also shows... by vwjeff · · Score: 1

      Yes except you need to READ the readme files for them to be an issue.

      ls

      Readme.sh

      ./Readme.sh

      Where did my stuff go?

    98. Re:Also shows... by nasch · · Score: 1

      Seems to me this is very similar to a car company discovering there's something wrong with a part in a car and issuing a recall. I'm no Apple fanboi, but why are we so much harder on them? I'm sure you can name a few times a car company's reputation has taken a hit from a recall incident, which is notable because of the millions of recalls that happen without any such problems. Everyone knows that when you make a bunch of something, some of them will go wrong, and what we expect is for the manufacturer to set it right. Is this fundamentally different? Do we expect them to be perfect because they're Apple, because they're making electronics, because we hate viruses so much? What is it?

    99. Re:Also shows... by x2A · · Score: 1

      I stuck a DELETE.ME file on a CD-ROM :-D

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    100. Re:Also shows... by Ucklak · · Score: 1

      Absolutely it's Apples fault but that doesn't negate the fact that is still is a Microsoft problem.

      You're not going to buy a car with brakes from Brake-O and seat belts from Pep-Boys. You going to buy a new car as it comes from the factory.
      If you put a new radio in your car and it takes out your brakes, you going to blame the manufacturer of the radio?

      Microsoft doesn't and wont ever take security seriously - except where it means lock-in to their brand - and even then, the customer's security will take the back seat.

      Case in point, I recently had to clean some spyware off 2 machines.
      Both times, I used Microsoft's Defender which used to be a really good product, even better than Spybot S&D, when MS acquired Giant.
      Windows Defender found nothing, Spybot S&D found 206 and 135 cases of activity.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    101. Re:Also shows... by Foofoobar · · Score: 1

      Most IDEs and text editors default to the environment on which they are installed. So the fault isn't so much with the software since that is a sensible default. If they were developing on Linux for Linux, this wouldn't be an issue.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    102. Re:Also shows... by LO0G · · Score: 1

      Btw, if you look up the virus mentioned in the original article, you'll find out that this is exactly the case - it's just a program left on the hard disk.

      Apple's really complaining that Microsoft Windows allows users to run (drumroll) programs (rimshot).

    103. Re:Also shows... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
      The class of Apple to complain about Windows being susceptible to viruses that Apple Quality Control fails to catch. Maybe Apple QC should install AV as well when they develop for windows?
      Great idea, let the iPod rot in AV checking longer than in assembly.
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    104. Re:Also shows... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      What you're failing to take into account is that Mac OS X already has good security. To continue your analogy, this would be like not bothering with a $10,000 security system (complete with a cage that descends from the ceiling and sharks with frickin' lasers) because the hardened-steel deadbolt locks you're already using are good enough.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    105. Re:Also shows... by JasonKChapman · · Score: 1
      What you're failing to take into account is that Mac OS X already has good security. To continue your analogy, this would be like not bothering with a $10,000 security system (complete with a cage that descends from the ceiling and sharks with frickin' lasers) because the hardened-steel deadbolt locks you're already using are good enough.

      No I'm not, really. I know OS X already has good inherent security. I run a Win/OS X/Linux network. I was specifically responding to the implication that worrying about viruses that don't exist was somehow a panicky (less calm) thing to do. My only point is that strictly worrying about known threats is the Microsoft approach to security, where free-roaming horses chuckle at the sound of barn doors being slammed. It's the currently unknown threats that will get you.

      And just to continue the analogy game, it's more like being so complacent with your hardened steel deadbolts that you never check to make sure that the door frame isn't weakened by dry rot; or that you left a window open; or that your kids won't open the door to anyone claiming to be a pizza delivery dude; or, or, or....

      --
      Sorry, I'm a writer. That makes you raw material.
    106. Re:Also shows... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      Did you disable journaling? It should work fine after that.

      Ah-ha. That seems to have done the trick. Many thanks for that.

      Yay! I learned something on Slashdot! ;-)

    107. Re:Also shows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never heard of a real, self-propagating, OS X virus in the wild.

      Neither have I, although a few worms have appeared recently.

      One of the tricky things about viruses (i.e. self-propagating malware) is that they have much more trouble propagating if most of the systems they reach are immune to the attack. If the Windows installed base is estimated at roughly 90% of computers, versus 3% for Macs, you can imagine how much harder it is for a Mac virus to propagate. 97% of the machines it tries to attack will be immune, so the odds are it will fail to spread unless it can directly attack 33 machines or so, and even then, only one of the potential targets will be a Mac. In contrast, if a Windows machine can access even one other machine, odds are that machine will also be running Windows.

      If some users keep their their machines up to date with patches, the situation for minority platforms becomes even safer. E.g. if half of Windows and Mac systems contain patches neutralising a given exploit, that increases the number of machines a Mac virus has to be able to reach before the odds are in favour of it hitting one that isn't immune to about 67, where as for Windows the number only increases to 2.

      The only place that would really provide fertile ground for an OS X virus would be an organisation that primarily uses Macs, and so has a network on which most reachable systems will be running OS X. At the same time, organisations with large numbers of machines are more likely to keep their machines patched than, for example, home users.

      On the whole, Macs are much safer from malware of all kinds than Windows, but this is primarily because of obscurity, not because of any architectural differences between the two OSes. Mac OS is better about restricting user privileges by default, but this typically only matters for attacks that require the user to run something, as opposed to self-propagating viruses. Moreover, you don't need anything beyond normal user privileges to steal user information, act as a zombie, propagate to other machines, etc. (The main reason running as a normal user reduces vulnerability to malware on Windows is simply that most malware authors expect the user will have Administrator privileges, and their poorly-written malware falls over when faced with an unexpected environment.)

    108. Re:Also shows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Last I heard there was a "proof of concept," but IIRC even it required user interaction to propagate.


      Given that the average level of Mac user know how is right about the same level as their Windows counterparts (none whatsoever, for those keeping score), would you really put it beyond a Mac user to click "OK" like most Windows users do no matter what security tools scream "DON'T LET THIS FUCKING INSTALL"?

      As has been suggested before, I move to have all [Yes]/[No] dialogs replaced by [Whatever] in GUIs. It's what we already have with the majority of users, let's just acknowledge it and make it official: People are the weakness. No matter how well you design the security of the system underneath, people still want a bigger p3n1s, still want pr0n, and still don't verify the safety of ANYTHING on their first before just trying to get something done.

      Who gives a damn if a Mac only has viruses that require user interaction. The virus is interacting with a fucking Mac user, who's likely to be less geeky and aware than his Windows using counterpart. How does that suddenly make it reassuring and safe?
    109. Re:Also shows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2.16.2006 News
      Mac OS X Virus Alert - Sophos Anti Virus has found the first 'real virus' for Mac OS X known as OSX/Leap-A or OSX/Oompa-A. The OSX/Leap worm or trojan is spread via instant messenger forwarding itself as a file named 'latestpics.tgz'. When launched the worm attempts to spread via iChat sending itself to the users buddy list. The application will also try to infect the recently used applications.

      Source www.securemac.com

    110. Re:Also shows... by NixLuver · · Score: 1

      A very good point, but it's important to note that it would add another *station* to the assembly line, with the additional requirement of management of that station. So the actuality is probably somewhere between 800+ days and 10 seconds...

    111. Re:Also shows... by NixLuver · · Score: 1

      There's no industry in the world with zero defects; the only ones that have any legal requirement for low defect rates are 'life-saving equipment', AFAIK. If you expect to enforce your 'zero defect' regime on manufacturers other than Apple, as well, you can expect prices of all consumer goods to skyrocket overnight. As someone later in the thread pointed out, the discovered items thus far represent a very respectable 'defect rate' for manufacturing of virtually *anything*.

    112. Re:Also shows... by 2short · · Score: 1



      Many are lambasting Apple because they put out an infected product with their name on it, and blamed someone else. I don't care how the problem came about, when Apple puts their logo on the case, they vouch for what's inside.

      Oh, and in every production line system I'm familiar with, adding a ten second step adds ten seconds.

    113. Re:Also shows... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      Mac user, who's likely to be less geeky and aware than his Windows using counterpart

      On the contrary, the Mac user is likely to be more aware, because he had to have a minimum level of competancy to specifically choose the Mac in the first place. The typical Windows user is too ignorant to realize anything else even exists, much less understand why he'd want to use it.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    114. Re:Also shows... by The+Wicked+Priest · · Score: 1

      Presumably it was placed there by the Grand Galactic Inquisitor.

      --
      Share and Enjoy: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    115. Re:Also shows... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      I was specifically responding to the implication that worrying about viruses that don't exist was somehow a panicky (less calm) thing to do. My only point is that strictly worrying about known threats is the Microsoft approach to security, where free-roaming horses chuckle at the sound of barn doors being slammed. It's the currently unknown threats that will get you.

      And my only point is that they're already finished worrying about those things, and the current security is the result.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    116. Re:Also shows... by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      Yeah, everyone knows the pirated windows CDs work much better!

      It doesn't have to be pirated.

      Learn how to slipstream your own version of XP + SP2 Here

      There's even a wealth of information from Microsoft's own domain...

      It's entirely legal, and, in fact, encouraged (as you now don't have to put an unpatched version of Windows out on the net anymore, not that you should be doing it withouth a firewall to begin with).

    117. Re:Also shows... by 3choTh1s · · Score: 1

      Just a quick note. Your calculation assumes that they do one at a time back to back. But lets get a little more realistic. Lets assume that they aren't completly insane and use 40 machines to do testing with. Keeping the 10 second per drive(automated), and that isn't unreasonable considering these drives are mostly blank, then we come up with 22 days. That's just 3 weeks to make sure that their product isn't causing harm to the rest of the world.

      I'm just saying Apple could enforce simple guidelines to make sure that their drives are are sent out exactly as intended. It's not impossible.

    118. Re:Also shows... by splateagle · · Score: 1

      Relax, I wasn't defending it, I was just suggesting that it isn't actually a big deal. if this weren't Apple, the company in question would be ridiculed. And if this weren't Apple the news would have sunk without comment, rather than being blown out of all proportion.

    119. Re:Also shows... by Trillan · · Score: 1

      I realize you are trying to provide a hypothetical case here, but for the record Macs do not autoplay iPods. So the scenario you describe really is completely impossible on the Mac. There is simply no automatic attack vector on freshly mounted disks like there is on Windows.

      Mind you, if there was an application there labeled "iPod Update" users might double click it. For it to be that specific, though, it would have to be malware that was not common but something written and places specifically for iPod creation. That would make it an inside job and that would put whatever virus checking procedure they might have had at risk as well.

    120. Re:Also shows... by sunspot55 · · Score: 1
      I've never even *heard* of Windows being used in production systems anywhere but plants that produce Windows computers.


      In my industry, the IC manufacturing industry, all of the wafer proccessing machines are moving to Windows. Right now I have some machines in my care that are OS/2 based and some that are SunOS and HP-UX based. All vendors of semiconductor manufacturing equipment that I have personally spoken with have alreay or have plans underway to switch to Windows. That is the case with our OS/2 furnaces as well as some ion implanters I was responsible for. The implanters currently we have run SunOS but the vendor has told me they are moving to windows. These are machines which handle millions of dollars worth of product a month. Like it or not, it's happening.
    121. Re:Also shows... by NixLuver · · Score: 1

      I love it! So what you're telling me is that in the not-too-distant future, a Windows virus could encode itself in the very silicone of the processor? Sweet!

    122. Re:Also shows... by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      If you go out of battery while listening or (worse) syncing without journaling, it may create real problems with filesystem on it.

      http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=107 249

      It is real pain to fix a non journaled filesystem especially if you don't have commercial tools.

    123. Re:Also shows... by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      They don't even need Windows AV, ClamAV which is free/donationware would catch that virus.

      http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/ 24449

      With a userbase marking your post troll, they don't feel the "urge" to QC. See, I post with "karma bonus" only to Apple stories as a Quad G5 Mac owner for same reasons...

    124. Re:Also shows... by ZildjianAVC · · Score: 1

      Loll

    125. Re:Also shows... by Orgazmus · · Score: 1

      You mean like... bird flu?

      --
      The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
    126. Re:Also shows... by aichpvee · · Score: 1

      Agreed. And after superior interface, ease of operation, and fun it's one of the reasons I run Linux.

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    127. Re:Also shows... by mei_mei_mei · · Score: 0

      I made a mistake in my original post.

      Windows viruses _would_ be Mac (Solaris, Linux...) viruses _if_ the version of Windows running on a Mac could access the Mac's files, another slashdotter told me this wasn't possible with VMs.

      Your point about the C64 is incorrect though. It's the other way around, all C64 viruses would be Windows viruses (if there are any and if the emaulated C64 could access the host machine's files).

      It's not a useless way to define things, it's quite practical and should be thought about. If you're running Windows software on top of another OS then any problems with Windows are also (potentially) a problem for the underlying OS.

    128. Re:Also shows... by AcidLacedPenguiN · · Score: 1

      I was simply joking that it seems easier to install from a pirated source than it does from a regular one. My laptop for example didn't even come with a reinstall disc, it asked me to burn a backup of my system to 2 DVDs instead. Hell, they didn't even give me the 2 DVD-Rs to burn it to, the cheap bastards. I'm never going to find those DVDs now, so I may aswell reinstall using a pirated disc if I ever have to.

      --
      disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.
    129. Re:Also shows... by yanyanr2d2 · · Score: 1

      In the immortal words of my friend Tom, "You're flipping FABULOUS darling." And as we all know, the best way to get code onto an iPod is to use a sharpie.

    130. Re:Also shows... by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      Umm the three or four stickers that referenced U3 and or included apps didn't clue you into the fact that the drive was not blank
      (personally i think they should have a way to U3 block a system say in the hardware programs key that says U3Enable= 0 (if it is not there treat as 2 0= disabled 1 = prompt 2 equals run) and on first plugin have a note in the about box referenceing the key.

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    131. Re:Also shows... by spectral · · Score: 1

      U3 could be anything, a hardware technology, or whatever. None of the stickers made me think that just plugging it in was going to make it run something. I didn't get to the included apps, because to get to them, you plug it in and OH SHIT there they are.

      NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER (can I say this enough) run shit without asking the user. EVER. That's what I'm saying. I wouldn't have minded if it was there, and I could run it on my own, but that's not what happened.

    132. Re:Also shows... by fatphil · · Score: 1

      """
      What do you base this assertion on? How do you know how 'sloppy' the Apple procedure is?
      """

      Because I work in the semiconductor industry, and part of my role is to firefight production-related issues in particular regarding the manufacture of handheld devices that contain our technology. Ensuring that all devices ship with a version controlled, quality controlled, file system image is part of that process.

      What Apple did was have a procedure where they were not in complete control of every bit that is shipped in the device. That's sloppy. So I called it sloppy. That anyone would question me calling it so is frankly bizarre.

      You appear to think that every hard disk isn't already being hooked up and tested. I conclude that either -
      1) you actually know nothing about the modern electronics production environment, or
      2) Apple's procedure is even sloppier than it first appears

      FatPhil

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    133. Re:Also shows... by fatphil · · Score: 1

      """
      the only ones that have any legal requirement for low defect rates are 'life-saving equipment', AFAIK.
      """

      Automotive. Not just that, but automotive qualification requires
      the electronics to work between -40C and 105C - both extremes
      are very hard to achieve.

      FatPhil

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    134. Re:Also shows... by Shawn+is+an+Asshole · · Score: 1

      It's not like an iPod has irreplaceable data on it. You should still have the media files on your computer, making it more like a backup. If you really do keep the only copy of your music on your iPod, then losing it is the risk you take.

      I use my iPod also as a jump drive, but anything on it is either on my home computers, work computer, or laptop. If it got damaged, it's still somewhere.

      --
      "It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
  14. The conspiracy theorist in me suggests.... by Hamster+Lover · · Score: 1

    The conspiracy theorist in me suggests that this was not "accidental" and is simply Apple's way of grandstanding on the topic of Windows security.

    While I realize this was just an accident, there are probably conspiracy theorist wack jobs out there that are formulating a hypothesis that the second gunman in the grassy knoll was programed to kill JFK through a virus implanted on his iPod that induces hypnontic suggestion and time travel.

    1. Re:The conspiracy theorist in me suggests.... by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Everyone should know it was an angry gazebo on a grassy knoll that killed JFK.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  15. Companies should be liable by munrom · · Score: 1

    I personally think companies should be liable if they release a product with a virus on it. Virus are so common these days that you'd think one of the final checks on any device with a FS is a virus scan.

    1. Re:Companies should be liable by Grishnakh · · Score: 0

      Sure, we'll start doing that just as soon as we make OS vendors liable for the poor security in their products that make them susceptible to viruses in the first place.

      (Honestly, I don't know why I even bother pluralizing "vendors", since there's only one OS susceptible to viruses.)

    2. Re:Companies should be liable by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 1

      Sorry to say this, but there are viruses for OSX and Linux, as well.

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
    3. Re:Companies should be liable by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No, there aren't. At least not for Linux. Unless you count that fake one that has to be run as an executable and has a command-line option to uninstall itself.

    4. Re:Companies should be liable by aweraw · · Score: 1

      I'm a big fan of Linux, but I'm not so naive to believe it is impervious to viruses. All you need is one exploitable application running on your box, and you have a vector by which a virus can potentially infect your system.

      The same can be said of EVERY OTHER OPERATING SYSTEM IN EXISTENCE!

      --
      5468652047616D65
    5. Re:Companies should be liable by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Right, but you're talking about application exploits which are uncommon and quickly fixed. I'm talking about things like ActiveX and Outlook where you can run foreign code either automatically or with a single mouse click. These aren't fixable vulnerabilities, these are part of the system design.

    6. Re:Companies should be liable by quizzicus · · Score: 1

      Even if the software were perfect, a virus with a good dictionary attack would still do quite well.

  16. Looks like I'm getting a Zune by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least Microsoft doesn't laugh in your face when your computer gets infected with Virii from their products. They, you know, feel sorry for you and all that stuff.

    I expect to enjoy the videoshop of the Apple commercial where the PC user falls sick with a cold to be replaced with a PC user vs. an iPod shortly...

  17. Cheap shots while they're down by Salvance · · Score: 1

    Seems rather cheap of Apple to use their blunder as an 'opportunity' to throw stones at Microsoft. Their quote was "As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses, and even more upset with ourselves for not catching it."

    Wouldn't someone at Apple have at least run a quick MS virus scan for a device that is intended for use by PCs as well? I wouldn't be surprised if an engineer or two 'overlooked' the virus before shipping ... but then, I've been accused of being a conspiracy theorist before.

    --
    Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
    1. Re:Cheap shots while they're down by foamrotreturns · · Score: 1

      Not only was it cheap, it didn't even make sense. How can you be upset at an operating system? (I'll admit that I have been upset with a particular installation of Windows on a particular PC from time to time, and I'm continually pissed at MS for peddling its crappy product to my unsuspecting relatives and friends, but never in my life have I ever been upset with Windows itself.)
      I'll re-phrase his quote the way it should have been made:
      "Naturally, we are disappointed in ourselves for missing this. Perhaps this can teach the whole tech industry a lesson - if you are an operating system vendor, make your operating systems secure so that they don't succumb to viruses, and if you manufacture anything with onboard storage, always do thorough QA with emphasis on virus sweeps on your outgoing products."

    2. Re:Cheap shots while they're down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but then, I've been accused of being a conspiracy theorist before.

      Take it easy on yourself there fella, just because you've been accused like that doesn't mean there ISN'T a conspiracy. Whats your tinfoil hat size, BTW? I've got a basement full of spares...

    3. Re:Cheap shots while they're down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't someone at Apple have at least run a quick MS virus scan for a device that is intended for use by PCs as well? I wouldn't be surprised if an engineer or two 'overlooked' the virus before shipping ... but then, I've been accused of being a conspiracy theorist before.

      No, that makes no sense. Why should someone at Apple run a quick MS virus check? These things are made in China and shipped directly to distributors and customers. Why should all the iPod sent back to Cupertino for virus check? All systems should be checked at the manufacturing sites. That makes the people at manufacturing sites responsible for this blunder. However, since Apple contracts them to produce iPods and slap Apple's brand on it and since its QA teams failed to catch this, that makes it Apple's responsibility as well.

  18. This sounds a bit suspicious... by msauve · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "it was traced to a particular Windows machine in the manufacturing lines of a contract manufacturer " and "Very few units actually went through that particular station"

    Why is a Windows machine ever connected to an iPod during manufacturing? I'd think for a high volume product like the iPod, there would be dedicated disk duplicators to format/populate the drives, and testing would likewise be done with purpose-designed hardware. Using a Windows PC to do either seems like a crude, inefficient way to do things.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:This sounds a bit suspicious... by The+Warlock · · Score: 1

      Some Windows PC needs to make the initial disk image for Windows-formatted iPods. This one was either compromized or deliberately planted the virus. I'm betting on the former, but this is in China, after all.

      --
      I've upped my standards, so up yours.
    2. Re:This sounds a bit suspicious... by kilgortrout · · Score: 1

      Labor saving devices like you describe mean nothing in a country where you can pay someone 5 cents an hour to do the grunt work of duplicating and checking disks.

    3. Re:This sounds a bit suspicious... by Adam9 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      QA?

    4. Re:This sounds a bit suspicious... by wetpantsclub · · Score: 4, Funny

      They would use Macs but they are too expensive. ;)

    5. Re:This sounds a bit suspicious... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      I have a crazy idea about this. It's possible-- and this is a looong shot, you understand-- but it's just possible that Apple might have their employers test the product before putting it in a box.

      Nah, that's just crazy talk.

    6. Re:This sounds a bit suspicious... by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      Why is a Windows machine ever connected to an iPod during manufacturing? I'd think for a high volume product like the iPod, there would be dedicated disk duplicators to format/populate the drives, and testing would likewise be done with purpose-designed hardware. Using a Windows PC to do either seems like a crude, inefficient way to do things.

      This is China and you would be surprised how much this happens. In many cases its only because of QA imposed by the international clients that any of this gets sorted.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    7. Re:This sounds a bit suspicious... by morcheeba · · Score: 1

      For a high volume product, they've got lots of machines running in parallel. Lots of machines means they buy cheap generic PCs. One breaks & a zillion people can fix it.

      Plus, who would want to write USB drivers for a custom machine? And a network driver to connect to the backend production database?

    8. Re:This sounds a bit suspicious... by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Some of my clients are manufacturers of electronic control devices. Nearly all of the testing machines are run by commodity PCs, either Windows or Linux - usually Windows. Years ago, they did use purpose built computers, however, the price of PCs has plunged relative to the alternatives.

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
    9. Re:This sounds a bit suspicious... by Fengpost · · Score: 1

      I am pretty sure that they use a dedicated disk duplcator which can format 8, 16, or 64 hard drives at once. However, the iPod is probably connected to a PC in the final function testing process post assembly before packaging. It is also possible that they use PC for that purpose since PC's are cheaper to maintain and buy. However, why does a testing PC even has virus is the question! It should be a clean system without connection to the internet.

      --
      The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity....Calvin
    10. Re:This sounds a bit suspicious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The master image itself got infected.

    11. Re:This sounds a bit suspicious... by wbean · · Score: 1

      PCs are cheap. Purpose-built hardware is expensive. Why not use the PC? (Apart from the stray virus, I mean.)

    12. Re:This sounds a bit suspicious... by ben+there... · · Score: 1

      You'd think if they bothered to take all that time to hook it up and test it on a Windows PC, they'd at least include in their process hash verification of the contents of the disk, to verify that it was written correctly, that the drive doesn't have errors, and that no viruses are installed on it.

    13. Re:This sounds a bit suspicious... by epee1221 · · Score: 1

      Of course they do. Anything that increases productivity that much matters, no matter how much workers get paid.
      Hint: money isn't the only limited resource here -- there's time as well.

      --
      "The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
    14. Re:This sounds a bit suspicious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "MADE IN CHINA."

      Land of cheap manufacturing.

      Welcome to outsourcing to the lowest bid folks, there is nothing Apple could have done about this, and if I was apple -- I would have said the same thing about the situation they did. Essentially, this would have never happened if Windows wasn't as easy to infect. But then, we all know that no OS is immune, it's the amount of attack being done.

      That and my own theory as to why linux is consider more immune than others. Basically, if someone found a hole and exploited it with a nasty virus on linux, instead of patching the hole...imagine what the linux community would do to you if you were ever found out. I imagine it would be not unlike what happened to SCO's website after word got out they were entering litigation. I also imagine that resentment would follow the person off the web and into their real life.

    15. Re:This sounds a bit suspicious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AFAIK, the industry as a whole considers that the job of the disk manufacturer and thus considers it quite reasonable to expect the disk manufacturer to do it.

    16. Re:This sounds a bit suspicious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are wrong. We dont speak of just men or hours but instead of man-hours. Buying man-hours can be cheaper than improving the efficiency of your men.

    17. Re:This sounds a bit suspicious... by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      Why is a Windows machine ever connected to an iPod during manufacturing? Probably has to do with units that are refurbished.

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    18. Re:This sounds a bit suspicious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect that the 'station' in question was used to spot-check that the iPods would be recognized by a windows box when they were plugged in. In that case, a Windows PC *is* "purpose-designed hardware".

  19. Upset with Windows? by entrylevel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses, and even more upset with ourselves for not catching it.

    I own an iBook. The Apple IIe was my first computer (unless you count a breadboard, some dip switches, and two numeric LED displays). I own Apple stock. I think Mac OS X is the bees knees.

    That said, Apple needs to take their collective heads out of their asses. If an executable shell script was "accidentally" included as simple as:

    #!/bin/sh
    rm -rf /

    You need to make it autorun (I won't tell you how, but it can be done, and is quite handy for non-malicious uses). No antivirus software would detect this, no Windows machines would be affected, and every Mac you plugged that iPod into would be royally fucked, even if not run as root.

    --
    Karma: Incomprehensible (Mostly affected by posting at +5, reading at -1, and metamoderating everything unfair.)
    1. Re:Upset with Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is no such thing as autorun on OS X. If you really have managed to get a script to run automatically as soon as the volume that contains it is mounted, you are exploting a bug somewhere. Please file a bug report.

    2. Re:Upset with Windows? by Slithe · · Score: 1
      Would it, perchance, be by using chmod?
      chmod 755 filename
      --
      ---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
    3. Re:Upset with Windows? by mincognito · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your script will not propogate itself; will not use up my computer's resources; will not open a backdoor to allow others access to my information, bandwidth and/or processor cycles. How come people always cite an unintended "rm -rf /" as the most terrifying and catostrophic event ever? I backup my data. I'd rather suffer your script than have an undetected MS virus, worm or rootkit.

    4. Re:Upset with Windows? by linguae · · Score: 1

      Most people do not back up their data, so a simple rm -rf command at the root directory (or, in OS X, their home directory, since user files are stored there) is much more catastrophic to most users than a worm that just sits in the background and hogs resources.

    5. Re:Upset with Windows? by mincognito · · Score: 1
      Most people do not back up their data, so a simple rm -rf command at the root directory (or, in OS X, their home directory, since user files are stored there) is much more catastrophic to most users than a worm that just sits in the background and hogs resources.
      You may have missed my point. I know most users consider data loss to be most catastrophic. However they *should* be more worried about unintended data sharing and system compromise. In other words, my point is that it is in the long-term best interest of computer users (and people generally) to be more concerned than they are about securing their privacy (including the privacy of their information and resources).
    6. Re:Upset with Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are also very old the way you make it sounds.

    7. Re:Upset with Windows? by atmurray · · Score: 1

      and people (read: windows users) *should* use a virus scanner, but generally they don't so your argument is flawed. And for what it's worth, I personally value my data more than my privacy, after all if you really live and breath the GPL paradigm shouldn't you publish all data you product? :P

    8. Re:Upset with Windows? by entrylevel · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm sorry, you are absolutely correct. I had this set up for so long I forgot what I did: Folder Actions. My face is red!

      I still think the thinly-veiled insult is uncalled for when Apple directly creates a security risk.

      --
      Karma: Incomprehensible (Mostly affected by posting at +5, reading at -1, and metamoderating everything unfair.)
    9. Re:Upset with Windows? by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      If you don't back up your data, you don't have your data.

      This may help explain why.

      Heat can never pass spontaneously from a colder to a hotter body. As a result of this fact, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible. This law also predicts that the entropy of an isolated system always increases with time. Entropy is the measure of the disorder or randomness of energy and matter in a system. Because of the second law of thermodynamics both energy and matter in the Universe are becoming less useful as time goes on. Perfect order in the Universe occurred the instance after the Big Bang when energy and matter and all of the forces of the Universe were unified.

    10. Re:Upset with Windows? by entrylevel · · Score: 1

      26 is now very old? Was it the "bees knees" thing? I've just been dying to work that into a conversation for the longest time. I promise I won't say it again! Or have I been trolled?

      --
      Karma: Incomprehensible (Mostly affected by posting at +5, reading at -1, and metamoderating everything unfair.)
    11. Re:Upset with Windows? by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      How come people always cite an unintended "rm -rf /" as the most terrifying and catostrophic event ever?

      Because it's short, succint and to the point.

      Also because posting a few pages of code to do more interesting things probably wouldn't get past the lameness filter.

    12. Re:Upset with Windows? by DarkFencer · · Score: 1

      What always scares me (in terms of the support nightmare it will make for many) is a virus which does its normal worm propagation, but after two weeks of being installed and running on a single machine it does something like rm -rf, or half flashing the bios or something nasty like that.

    13. Re:Upset with Windows? by prockcore · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Your script will not propogate itself


      His wont, but there's nothing special about the MachO file format that prevents viruses from hooking themselves onto the front of an application.

      Let me put it this way, every single application inside your Applications folder can be modified by the primary user without any password dialogs or anything.

      It is very possible to write a virus, attach to some shareware program, and when you ran it, it would infect every OSX application you have installed. Then everytime you ran iTunes, for example, it could do a lot of damage.
    14. Re:Upset with Windows? by Anubis350 · · Score: 1

      Also, if you're there, you can probably stop it (by pulling the plug if no other way) before it hits /home or /Users which is where the important data is, I can always reinstall the system...

      --
      "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
    15. Re:Upset with Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >How come people always cite an unintended "rm -rf /" as the most terrifying
      >and catostrophic event ever?
      They don't. They cite it as something which is clearly bad, since the consequences are well-known (and easily discoverable for the three people who care but don't know). If something *can* do rm -rf / , there's nothing stopping it from, for example, tarring up your home dir, ftping it somewhere, causing ' :() { :|: };: ' and a password-less root access sshd to run at startup, and then removing all trace of this from the logs.

    16. Re:Upset with Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "I personally value my data more than my privacy,"

      I doubt it. Your privacy includes all your passwords to all the sites you connect (including webmail password), all your instant messaging passwords, and of course all the sites you connect to (paypall, your bank, social security, ...). Actually all your passwords you ever use on your computer.

      Second, your disk drive WILL fail one day. It is a 100% sure event. Only the date is unknown. So you MUST have backups for all data you want to keep.

    17. Re:Upset with Windows? by MacDork · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is no such thing as autorun on OS X

      Actually, there is, but only if you run classic in OS X. It's called Autostart in QuickTime. If you have Classic installed *and* running, it will still work. This page mentions it, and there used to be a test exploit page located at http://www.u-struct.com/diary/img/20020131_OSissue _E/ but it seems that link is no longer active. It's an exploit that has been known about for years, but it's very low risk now. You're only at risk if you run the Classic environment, and then it can be disabled in your classic QuickTime preferences. More information about disabling QuickTime's autostart can be found here.

  20. And also cue the... by twoallbeefpatties · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...anti-Apple hateboys taking preemptive strikes at Apple apologists that haven't even spoken up yet. Welcome to another fun-filled Apple thread at Slashdot.

    --
    Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
  21. Worst...apology...ever by BeeBeard · · Score: 4, Insightful
    From the article:

    "As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses, and even more upset with ourselves for not catching it," Apple said on its site.
    (emphasis added)

    It's nice that they're "upset with themselves for not catching it" in the last part of that statement, but what's that first part in bold all about? Oh yeah, it's the part where they shirk complete responsibility for this by half-blaming Microsoft for the virus Apple introduced in its own hardware. It's the most half-assed way of apologizing imaginable.

    In other news, rapists who blame their victims will now be in charge of issuing Apple's PR statements on their website.
    1. Re:Worst...apology...ever by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1

      Hey, the Windows machine was wearing a tight skirt and coming onto me. I got horny, what did you expect me to do?

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    2. Re:Worst...apology...ever by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1
      I just realized that last statement makes me sound like the stereotypical /.'er. Sorry if I offended anyone's "date" for the night.

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    3. Re:Worst...apology...ever by BeeBeard · · Score: 1

      There might be a future for you at Apple! Just kidding :)

    4. Re:Worst...apology...ever by KKlaus · · Score: 1

      Ah thankyou. Someone defended Apple's statement earlier (and got a +5 insightful), saying that they were clearly taking the blame.

      "We're sorry Microsoft shat all over the floor in the lounge, but it happened on our watch so we take full responsibility"

      Yeah thanks apple. You're such a big man.

      --
      Relax I just want some peanuts.
    5. Re:Worst...apology...ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like I rape a girl, infect her with AIDS and then blame partly her for not having a femidom readily inserted.

  22. Sorry, but its Still Microsoft's Fault by mlwmohawk · · Score: 0, Troll

    Sorry, as much as it would be fun to bash Apple about this, and they do deserve more than a bit of bashing, the fundimental problem is that Windows has the security of a screen door. If Windows was 1/10 as secure as Mac OS/X, FreeBSD, and yes, even Linux, this sort of mischief would go unnoticed.

    1. Re:Sorry, but its Still Microsoft's Fault by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No. There is no defense against an executable installed by a trusted vendor. If a virus gets installed due to user action - connecting an iPod, for example - and the user agrees to whatever official-looking prompts the installation creates, there is no reasonable security model on earth that can prevent the malicious code from running.

      The "rm -rf /" example above is a straightfoward example.

      Apple is completely, unilaterally responsible, just like Sony was responsible for the CD rootkit cock-up.

    2. Re:Sorry, but its Still Microsoft's Fault by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, We are not talking about an install procedure, but the disasterous "autorun" with the ever so common "Administrator" privilages.

    3. Re:Sorry, but its Still Microsoft's Fault by brkello · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Then why is Apple using it? Your OS is as secure or insecure as you make it. If Apple knows what they are doing, why weren't they more secure? They are just trying to spin it. Just like Republicans trying to spin Foley's attraction to pages as something the Democrats kept secret to release during election time....only people with heavy bias will fall for it. If you make a mistake, admit it and do what you can to rectify the situation.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    4. Re:Sorry, but its Still Microsoft's Fault by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      Mac OS X does not have a straightfoward AutoRun function, but that is beside the point. (Safari does, and apparently there are ways to do the equivalent of Autorun in Mac OS X, but I don't know what it is, so we'll leave that aside.)

      The distinction is irrelevant. If, on a Mac, you get an application on a CD from a trusted vendor and that application asks for administrative rights, you'll do it - just like a Windows user will trust the AutoRun (or at least the Setup.exe) from a trusted vendor. If that vendor screws the pooch, it is not the OS' fault.

    5. Re:Sorry, but its Still Microsoft's Fault by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

      The iPod is probably tested at Apple, using Apples, how could they know that a Windows box would be at risk?

      If Windows wasn't so brain dead, this wouldn't even be a problem.

    6. Re:Sorry, but its Still Microsoft's Fault by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

      You are wrong, it is not on the install CD, it is on the memory system of the unit. Which should not be a "trusted" source of binary programs.

      Windows is STUPID in that (1) It autoruns any new storage device and (2) To use Windows effectively you have to have administrator privilages. This is the biggest and most bogus security lapse in the history of computers.

      Apple probably didn't even know this virus was there because they probably do QA on Macintoshes and not Windoze machines.

    7. Re:Sorry, but its Still Microsoft's Fault by dedazo · · Score: 1

      "I'm sorry I ran into that guy back there officer, but this car is brain dead. Can you believe it? Wow. Can I go now?"

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
    8. Re:Sorry, but its Still Microsoft's Fault by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1

      As stupid as Windows is(I'm not a fanboy by any means), most of the semi-smart users will simply turn autorun off and that solves that dilemma. And last I recall, it will ask you the first time you insert a disk if you want Windows to autorun it.

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    9. Re:Sorry, but its Still Microsoft's Fault by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1

      "If Windows wasn't so brain dead, this wouldn't even be a problem."

      The same could be said of Apple in this situation, don't you think.

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    10. Re:Sorry, but its Still Microsoft's Fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "To use Windows effectively you have to have administrator privilages."

      This is not a true statement. The only reason a user needs admin privs is if the programer failed to follow proper guidelines and used HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE to store settings that must be modified during run time by a non-admin. If HKEY_CURRENT_USER is used for these settings there should be no issues. I have thousands of users who use Windows systems daily with no admin privs and have no problems.

    11. Re:Sorry, but its Still Microsoft's Fault by Slithe · · Score: 1

      Uhh. Maybe they should do QA on Windows (in addition to Macs) since the majority of iPod owners run it? If they want to instill the image that the iPod is for Macs only, then their marketshare will take a serious hit.

      --
      ---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
    12. Re:Sorry, but its Still Microsoft's Fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that it was Apple's fault. It's important to note that Sony, unlike Apple, put the spyware on their CDs on purpose. In fact, Sony paid to have someone put their spyware on there. Sony also refused to apologize until the public outcry got too large. Sony's cock-up was in getting caught (which only happened because of Mark Russinovich).

    13. Re:Sorry, but its Still Microsoft's Fault by Toby_Tyke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Congratulations. That's the most ignorant comment I've read in this thread so far, and let me tell you, it's up against some pretty stiff competition.

      From the McAfee site linked to in TFA:

      Infection occurs when a removable storage device or a mapped drive hosting a copy of W32/Rjump.worm is accessed and the user agrees to the auto run prompt for execution of the worm.

      Yes, that's right, you have to agree to install the dammed thing. Now, if you plug an MP3 player into your computer and it prompts you to ok a software installation, there are only two reasons to agree to do it:

      1) You trust the vendor in question, and are happy to install their software, even if you aren't too sure exactly what it is.

      2)You really have no idea what this prompt is, you're not too interested either, and you just blindly click ok because you think if you don't you're new toy won't work.

      Now, just supposing you were using Linux, and the phrase "click ok" was replaced with "enter root password", what would happen? I'll tell you what would happen. The same people who clicked OK would just tap in their passwords.

      The problem here is not windows insecurity. The problem is that a trusted vendor was shipping infected hardware. End of story.

      --
      "I realise this is not a very popular opinion but it's the truth, and there for needs to be said" -Bill Hicks
    14. Re:Sorry, but its Still Microsoft's Fault by Vexorian · · Score: 1

      I always configure windows boxes as part of my job and I can ensure you that it does ask you the first time.

      --

      Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
    15. Re:Sorry, but its Still Microsoft's Fault by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1


      Infection occurs when a removable storage device or a mapped drive hosting a copy of W32/Rjump.worm is accessed and the user agrees to the auto run prompt for execution of the worm.


      *if* that is enabled.

    16. Re:Sorry, but its Still Microsoft's Fault by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1

      There ya go then, it's confirmed. I don't bring much new software into my collection via CDROM so I only see it maybe twice a year. I could only remember that when I put in my DVDR's it would ask if I wanted it to play the mp3's etc. and was pretty sure it did the same for autorun.

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
  23. Manufacturing and Quality control by sivartis · · Score: 1

    I'm amazed that Apple doesn't have more of a hand in the manufacturing of iPods, even by third party vendors. I'd think they'd provide Macs for them to use for whatever steps require home computers (of the type that might be susceptible to viruses), rather than let them use Windows machines. If only for the reason that Macs are less likely to transmit HIV (Hidden iPod Visuses) to their customers.

    --
    "Even pirates like chocolate chip cookies." www.youtube.com/musecast5
    1. Re:Manufacturing and Quality control by WallaceAndGromit · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't that be HiV?

      --
      Name: Mr. Anon E Mouse; SSN: 555-55-5555
    2. Re:Manufacturing and Quality control by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      Hardware testing/QA software/inventory tracking software/etc. is often written for Windows. The contractor that Apple uses to build iPods likely already has this infrastructure in place. I doubt that Windows really has anything to do with the actual manufacturing of iPods. Giving them Macs won't change their infrastructure, especially since most of that software doesn't exist for the Mac platform. Apple could recreate an entire Mac-based production environment and infrastructure, but it would be stupidly expensive to create and then to convert facilities.

  24. Exploiting process weaknesses... by mithran8 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What I find interesting is the potential for this type of distribution to be the vector for a zero-day exploit.

    Imagine the scenario: an unscrupulous individual happens across an unannounced vulnerability, and develops an exploit. Rather than building it into a worm/botnet replication mechanism, he finds a way to load it onto a consumer electronics device (mp3 player, flash drive, camera, etc) and lets the well-established merchandise distribution network take it from there. Weeks/months later, at a predetermined time, an attack can be launched simultaneously from hundreds/thousands of locations, and we have a nasty problem on our hands.

    --
    An object at rest cannot be stopped!
    1. Re:Exploiting process weaknesses... by Fhqwhgadss · · Score: 1

      People running botnets are too greedy to do this.

      First, it would require access to the manufacturing process of an insanely popular consumer product. I can't think of anything other than iPod specifically that has nearly the same penetration, so that narrows it down. It takes some effort to get such access. Introducing the exploit over the Internet from Eastern European Country X requires much less effort. It also exposes the individual to a high level of risk that either the individual will get caught or the exploit will simply be discovered and removed prior to product shipment. Again releasing over the Internet from Eastern European Country X does not pose such risk.

      Second, unless the botherd discovered the exploit themselves, then it was baught in some shady IRC channel. It is unlikey that they can get exclusive rights to the code from the author for a period of months. After exposing themselves to the risk of getting caught and patiently waiting for months for the manufacturer to finish production, they discover to their horror that another botherd had released the exploit into the wild over the Internet from Eastern European Country X. Fuck.

      So the only potential that this has as a distribution mechanism for a zero-day exploit is when a botherd discovers the exploit themselves and already has access to the manufacturing process of a product that has deeper market penetration than the Internet.

      --
      How does a 7-person democracy cut a pie? Into 4 pieces.
    2. Re:Exploiting process weaknesses... by MacDork · · Score: 1

      Imagine the scenario: an unscrupulous individual

      Yeah? What about an unscrupulous communist government? They might actually design a backdoor in your network card. Imagine Sony's XCP... China style.

  25. load of crap by Bonewalker · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Jeez, Apple does things so much better and so much more secure than Windows.

    Cue the wavy-dream-sequence-announcing-television animation....

    Somehow, in an economic fluke, the Apple II flourishes and paves the way for a GUI operating system code-named..OS I. Incredibly, as years go by, Microsoft remains a niche player in the market, known mostly for its creative pieces of software, and Apple owns 98% of the desktop scene.

    Even more incredible is how much smarter the Apple devs are than any alternate universe where, say, Microsoft would be in their position, and despite the efforts of all the l33t haxxors out there, Apple's products, now up to OS X, remain completely virus free. Who'd a thunk it?

    /wavy-dream sequence

    I'd like to see Apple own even 75% of the market share and not have major issues with viruses and those who write them. It is easy to sit back and take pot shots at the leader when you are a very distant, distant second place runner in the game. If only those devs at Apple had been smart enough to create something better than Windoze back in the early 90's, they might find themselves in a similar situation.

    Bad form, Apple, or should we change your name to Sour Grapes?

    1. Re:load of crap by Grishnakh · · Score: 0

      Oh please. Everyone knows Windows got to its current place because of a multitude of factors, and software quality wasn't one of them. (In case you don't know, MS-DOS compatibility, and compatibility with inexpensive generic PC hardware were two of the big ones.) Apple certainly had something better than Windows back in the early 90s, but they also had stupid management and their OS only worked on their overpriced hardware.

      Obviously, you know little about software if you really think OS X or any other OS would be nearly as susceptible to viruses if they had more marketshare. It's not about marketshare, it's about designing security into the system as a required feature instead of tacking a fake illusion of security on later after too many problems are discovered.

    2. Re:load of crap by Bonewalker · · Score: 2

      Of course its about designing security into the system, but if you don't think that Windows gets hacked the most because of marketshare, you are naive. There is a reason that Macs and Linux have little to no virus activity and it ain't because their developers are so superior. They have had the example of Microsoft's experience to learn from and attempt to prevent. But, I guarantee you if some judge forced Microsoft to shut it doors, and the world turned wholesale to Macs or whatever else, those new operating systems would get beat down just the same way Windows has. The only possible reason they might be more successful is, again, because of what they might have learned from the M$ experience. Hindsight is 20-20, as you know.

    3. Re:load of crap by dedazo · · Score: 1
      Since the vast majority of Windows mal/crap/zombie|ware infections are caused by user intervention your theory of the quality of code being a factor in malicious code taking over a machine is more than a little dumb. If you let the user do anything on a computer, they will make sure they do the worst possible things to it. It's going to be more difficult on OS X and Linux, but it won't be impossible. Or do you think Joe "hey this attachment looks cool, I'll open it" Blow's IQ is going to suddenly shoot up to 180 the moment they install Ubuntu?

      Windows has more vectors, sure. OSX has more safeguards, sure. But if it's the same users, the eventual result is also the same. Unless you know of a way to allow people to use their computers without actuall interacting with them.

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
    4. Re:load of crap by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Obviously you've never even used a non-Windows system.

      Or do you think Joe "hey this attachment looks cool, I'll open it" Blow's IQ is going to suddenly shoot up to 180 the moment they install Ubuntu?

      Show me ONE email application for Linux that allows you to open and run executable attachments. No, not PDFs and the like, but actual executable files. There aren't any, because it's a stupid idea. Only in the MS-world does such a thing exist.

      The vast majority of Windows malware is because of people clicking on things and automatically installing and running them. None of this exists in Mac and Linux, because the people developing email and browser applications on these platforms know enough to not allow this. MS doesn't care about security, so it does.

    5. Re:load of crap by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      Exactly. It's not like the classic Mac OS, or even OS X is a bastion of security. For that matter, neither are most Linux distributions.

      That's not saying that none of them are any better than Windows (You can never be sure about that. Try devising an experiment that compares security of two systems, then try to eliminate all possible bias. It can't be done), it's just saying that other systems have issues, too.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    6. Re:load of crap by dedazo · · Score: 1
      Obviously you've never even used a non-Windows system.

      Wow, you've got me all figured out.

      Show me ONE email application for Linux

      I don't have to. Please go look on Wikipedia and come back after you've figured out the infection vector for the most endemic and fastest-spreading Windows worms in history and then we'll talk. Actually, I'll save you the trouble - it's user-executed attachments. In some cases, attachments inside ZIP files. Some of them with passwords.

      because of people clicking on things and automatically installing and running them

      So if I send you a TAR file with a Python script with the exec bit set and instructions in really broken english as to how to run it, you won't do it? Probably not because you're '1337' and run "non-Windows systems", but the people whose boxes are 0wned by malware will. Right after they download and run that REALLY COOL SCREENSAVER after clicking on the warning that they shouldn't, and right after that they'll open and run the REALLY FUNNY JOKE they got from 'osaoid90lsad@sdjunjasuj.net'. And just for shits and giggles they'll click 'Yes' on that ActiveX warning dialog because, well, they just had to look at that REALLY COOL WEBPAGE someone told them about.

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
    7. Re:load of crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only those devs at Apple had been smart enough to create something better than Windoze back in the early 90's, they might find themselves in a similar situation.

      Yeah, too bad for them them they did it back in 1984.

    8. Re:load of crap by Shados · · Score: 1

      Correct. Even in Linux, if you run in root 24/7, you could get eaten alive (assuming high market share). Users all running in root is half Microsoft's fault, half its market share's fault (more market share -> more easy tools to develop on the platform -> more idiot developers -> more softwares that don't work the way they should, aka: don't require root, and this is just 1 example amongst millions). Microsoft did some seriously stupid shit, but if any other OS company was in their position, they'd have a large chunk (not all, as again, Microsoft DID do some pretty stupid stuff) of Microsoft's problems.

    9. Re:load of crap by the_humeister · · Score: 1

      You're still not quite getting the point. Malicious malware writers are targeting Windows because of marketshare. How exactly do you make an effective botnet by exploiting a system that has less than 5% marketshare (or even less worldwide)? The answer is: you don't. You target the system that >95% of the people are using because there's an economic incentive to: DDos extortion of other sites, keystroke logging, installation of adware, etc. What economic incentive is there to target the minor players?

    10. Re:load of crap by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'll save you the trouble - it's user-executed attachments.

      What, like ones that appear in their email inbox? Again, show me one email application for Linux that allows you to execute attachments. There aren't any. If someone got one, they'd have to save it to disk, then use their file browser or whatever to find the file, open it if it's compressed, and then execute it. It's not like the "click here to run this great program!" you'll see in Outlook.

      So if I send you a TAR file with a Python script with the exec bit set and instructions in really broken english as to how to run it, you won't do it?

      To my knowledge, most Windows attacks do not require anywhere near this level of user interaction. At most, you just click on something and you're hosed. More frequently, you just browse a bad web page and you're hosed (because of IE and ActiveX). Or at worse, you just have your machine running and you're hosed (like the Slapper worm).

      And just for shits and giggles they'll click 'Yes' on that ActiveX warning dialog because, well, they just had to look at that REALLY COOL WEBPAGE someone told them about.

      Again, Linux and Mac do not have ActiveX, which is just a fancy name for "run random executable files from other places on your system". There's no way to arbitrarily and usually automatically execute code just by surfing to a web page on these OSes. That's the problem with MS-ware.

    11. Re:load of crap by dedazo · · Score: 1
      Applications that require admin rights to run should be driven out of the market now that Vista will make it a pain in the ass to run them, but it will take time. It's the legacy that results in going from Windows 9x "hello ma, no security" to the NT-based systems.

      And besides, it's not like you need root access in Linux or OS X to turn a machine into a zombie.

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
    12. Re:load of crap by TrancePhreak · · Score: 1

      You could take advantage of a buffer overflow that existed in PDFs and use that to launch your attack program.

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
    13. Re:load of crap by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, considering that Linux has the majority of web sites according to Netcraft, it's certainly not a "minor player".

      But even so, you and your cohorts still haven't addressed the fact that there are NO viable viruses or other serious malware for the Linux or Mac platforms. With 10% marketshare between them, you'd think someone would bother to make one, just to prove it can be done. I haven't seen it yet. Your argument is all about "marketshare", but you have yet to name a single attack vector that can be used on non-MS systems, and has been proven to be vulnerable.

    14. Re:load of crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, how about this comparison. Neither Windows nor Linux has a monopoly on the server side. How many dangerous viruses are there for Windows vs. Linux servers? Discuss.

      A system can be broken by design. Windows is such a system.

    15. Re:load of crap by merreborn · · Score: 1

      If only those devs at Apple had been smart enough to create something better than Windoze back in the early 90's

      Back in the days of windows 3.11 and earlier, there was no question about it. Mac OS *was* better than windows, by a long shot. However, in 1995, Microsoft released Windows 95, which finally, was Good Enough. It was notoriously unstable, but PCs were cheap.

    16. Re:load of crap by dedazo · · Score: 1
      To my knowledge, most Windows attacks do not require anywhere near this level of user interaction.

      Your knowledge is wrong. Obviously you don't run any Windows-based systems then I gather? Outlook does not allow you to run executables directly anymore unless you hack the registry, and the physical action of running an attachment is still the user's responsibility. There was one short-lived exploit about six years ago that would run an executable just by opening a message in OE. That's it.

      you're hosed

      If you have a patched box (even Linux needs patching, correct?) you get "hosed" if you do something stupid, which is unfortunately very common. So you've never gotten spyware for Linux by mail? I wonder why that is. No one is writing it because it can't be done, or because there's no point on doing it because there are so very few desktop machines that run it?

      MS-ware.

      This "let me tell you how it is" FUD about Windows that involves nothing more than touching the mouse or breathing hard to get infected really gets old, you know.

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
    17. Re:load of crap by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Obviously, you know little about software if you really think OS X or any other OS would be nearly as susceptible to viruses if they had more marketshare. It's not about marketshare, it's about designing security into the system as a required feature instead of tacking a fake illusion of security on later after too many problems are discovered.

      Windows has _more_ security "designed into" it than OS X (eg: Windows has no superuser, Windows has a much finer-grained and pervasive permissions system). This is objective, verifiable fact, and any examination of the internals of both OSes can show it.

      Ergo, OS-level security features (or lack thereof) are not a significant contributor towards the disparity of malicious code on both platforms.

      (Supporting evidence is that a significant proportion of malware requires user intervention of some sort to get started.)

    18. Re:load of crap by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 1

      At leaset with OSX/Linux, you probably are not running with root or even "power user" priviledges, so the amount of damage you can do is, by default, very limited.

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
    19. Re:load of crap by dedazo · · Score: 1
      considering that Linux has the majority of web sites according to Netcraft

      Those boxes are not run by clueless users, they're run by sysadmins in data centers. Do you begin to understand the difference?

      With 10% marketshare between them, you'd think someone would bother to make one, just to prove it can be done.

      Huh? There's pleny of POC code out there. The problem (if one can call it that I guess) for you "and your cohorts" is that worms have gone from a being a hacker's experiment to extremely big business. Rest assured that when OS X becomes a juicy enough target someone will write malware for it. And by "juicy target" here I mean it's being run by half a billion computer illiterate people. Don't worry, one day maybe you'll get your own.

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
    20. Re:load of crap by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Right, except that that requires that you know about this buffer overflow, that it affects whichever PDF viewer the user is using (which is it? acroread, kpdf, gpdf, evince, xpdf?), and that this overflow vulnerability is still there. Security problems like this are common with all platforms, and they're usually fixed very quickly (usually before an exploit is found in the wild). Since most Linux systems are set to provide warnings about security fixes for things like this, an attacker would have a very short amount of time to use this vector.

      I'm not faulting Windows for problems like this. Again, this is common to all systems. As long as they're fixed quickly, they're not a big problem.

      Windows' problem is problems that it refuses to fix, such as ActiveX, and any other vulnerability that is part of the system's actual design. Being able to execute attachments with a single click or even worse, automatically, is a prime example of this. There should never be a way for you to browse a web site and your browser automatically download and execute native code, for instance (this is ActiveX). That's why we have stuff like Java and Java(ECMA)Script, which run in secure sandboxes, to prevent bad code from causing any damage. MS pushes ActiveX instead because it requires Windows (and Intel architecture) and they don't like Sun.

    21. Re:load of crap by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      If you have a patched box (even Linux needs patching, correct?) you get "hosed" if you do something stupid, which is unfortunately very common.

      I agree, typing "rm -rf /" will certainly screw things up, at least in my user directory.

      So you've never gotten spyware for Linux by mail? I wonder why that is. No one is writing it because it can't be done, or because there's no point on doing it because there are so very few desktop machines that run it?

      No, it's because there's no way to easily install it. You seriously think people would start sending RPM files in the mail if Linux were popular? And if they did, that the email programs would actually allow you to install software with a mouse click from an unknown email source? That's retarded. The only way spyware would spread to a Linux machine through email would be if the user had to save the file somewhere, then execute that file separately with an appropriate command (like "rpm -i", or an RPM front-end program).

      Even worse, you'd have to contend with the fact that so many people now use webmail instead of native email clients. Which is why the email attack vectors hit corporations so hard and don't bother most other people, since the corps are all addicted to Outlook.

      This "let me tell you how it is" FUD about Windows that involves nothing more than touching the mouse or breathing hard to get infected really gets old, you know.

      According to what I've recently read, your newly-installed Windows XP system will still get infected within minutes of being connected to the internet, before you have a chance to download the updates from microsoft.com.

    22. Re:load of crap by dedazo · · Score: 1
      See, you guys are completely disconnected from reality. There have been very few malicious worms, so I don't know what you mean by "damage". If you mean a malicious worm can nuke my data, then it's a hell of a lot bigger problem for Joe Blow at home, because he doesn't give a shit about the operating system or the /etc/ folder, he cares about the family photos and his porn.

      And since you don't need root access to turn a machine into a zombie or an adbot (which is what the VAST majority of malware does these days) and join it up to a botnet, the "well I'm not running as root" argument is pointless.

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
    23. Re:load of crap by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 1

      Even though an OSX/Linux user is unlikely to be running with root or "power user" priviledges, so can not damage the system itself (or directly affect other users of the same system), there is still room for damage. The user's files could be deleted or corrupted - including the user's personal webpages. Emails could be sent from the user's account. Malware could even schedule recuring tasks under the user's account. However, all those actions are far easier to detect and mitigate.

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
    24. Re:load of crap by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The "fine grained" security isn't used in desktop installations of Windows, only servers. On most desktops, it's not only customary to run as "Administrator", it's required because most applications won't run right otherwise. Is that the application developers' fault? Maybe, but back in the Win95/98/Me days, multiple users didn't exist, so MS has made this normal and only recently tried to change it. Of course, they could add code to their newest OSes to cause applications like this to simply not run at all, but MS won't do anything to hurt its monopoly position which requires that it be compatible with all this software.

      Ergo, OS-level security features (or lack thereof) are not a significant contributor towards the disparity of malicious code on both platforms.

      (Supporting evidence is that a significant proportion of malware requires user intervention of some sort to get started.)


      As we've discussed, most malware takes advantage of the ease with which executable code can be run from email attachments or web pages. With the latter, this is an OS-level problem since the internet browser is indeed a component of the operating system, as declared by MS in court. With the former, Outlook and OE are usually bundled with Windows as well, so it's still all part of the same ball of wax.

    25. Re:load of crap by dedazo · · Score: 1
      you seriously think people would start sending RPM files in the mail if Linux were popular?

      ROFL. You seriously think that won't happen?

      had to save the file somewhere, then execute that file separately

      What part of "a TAR file with a Python script and the exec bit, plus instructions in bad english" or "ZIP files with passwords" did you miss? Further, the popularity of Linux will inevitably lead to an increase in the number of distros and applications, some of which surely won't be as secure as your stock Debian, to say the least.

      since the corps are all addicted to Outlook

      What part of "does not let you execute attachments" did we miss? And funny, my company has 30,000 desktops and not a piece of spyware in sight. We must have created a rip in the space-time continuum!

      will still get infected within minutes

      Yeah, except there's a $25 rinky Linksys router between my cable modem and teh interwebs so I can patch at my lesiure.

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
    26. Re:load of crap by westlake · · Score: 1
      Microsoft remains a niche player in the market.

      Microsoft was not a niche player in the era of the eight bit micro.

      That said. The alternate reality probably looks like this. Digital Research gets the contract for the 16 bit IBM PC. IBM with its broad experience in office machines delivers an easily upgradeable, very solid product.

      Apple's embyronic GUI looks promising. But price and performance issues take it out of the running.

      Microsoft is very strong in development tools for the new micro and is agressively pursuing opportunites in applications like word processing. There are no PC clones. But there is a commercially successful PCJr with color graphics and sound. There is Commander Keen, King's Quest, Wolfenstein and, ultimately, Doom.

      In short, this alternate reality begins to look very much like our reality. The IBM PC becomes solidly anchored in the business and instutional markets and quickly becomes competitive even in the home.

    27. Re:load of crap by radish · · Score: 1
      Again, Linux and Mac do not have ActiveX, which is just a fancy name for "run random executable files from other places on your system". There's no way to arbitrarily and usually automatically execute code just by surfing to a web page on these OSes. That's the problem with MS-ware.

      Are you sure? There are a number of technologies available for Linux & Mac which could easily be (and in many cases have been) attack vectors of the "download and run arbitrary code" type.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    28. Re:load of crap by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      The "fine grained" security isn't used in desktop installations of Windows, only servers.

      False.

      A configuration semantic (default user is an Administrator) does not change the inherent attributes of the platform.

      That the default user in OS X is an "Admin" does not make all the file permissions stopping "non-Admin" users from easily causing damage to the system to disappear.

      On most desktops, it's not only customary to run as "Administrator", it's required because most applications won't run right otherwise. Is that the application developers' fault? Maybe, but back in the Win95/98/Me days, multiple users didn't exist, so MS has made this normal and only recently tried to change it.

      Not maybe, definitely.

      Microsoft have been telling developers to write *mainstream* software that works on multiuser systems since ca. 1997. They put significant effort into making writing software for NT-based and DOS-based Windows similar, with regards to isolating variable data to user-specific areas (per-user profiles, Registry hives, etc). While DOS-based Windows certainly can't _enforce_ system/user/user separation, they have the capabilities for developers to write their software to _respect_ it.

      For developers who actually did this, their software works fine on multiuser versions of Windows, in unpriveleged accounts, without modification, even if it was never meant to run on anything except Windows 98.

      No developer, anywhere, has had any excuse for writing an application that needlessly requires elevated privileges to run for *at least* the last 5-6 years. Considering that multiuser Window has existed since 1993 and has always been promoted as eventually replacing single-user Windows, I'd argue that timeframe is closer to 9 - 10 years.

      Of course, they could add code to their newest OSes to cause applications like this to simply not run at all, but MS won't do anything to hurt its monopoly position which requires that it be compatible with all this software.

      Microsoft would get into _vastly_ more trouble from an anti-trust perspective if they started deliberately breaking applications, even if those applications were already broken.

      This is before even taking into account customer backlash. Heck, just look at how much press XP's SP2 generated, despite breaking only a handful of applications that were already broken to start with.

      As we've discussed, most malware takes advantage of the ease with which executable code can be run from email attachments or web pages.

      Running executables directly from modern, up to date email clients is damn near impossible in my experience - and it's _always_ been discouraged (even in the earliest versions of Outlook). The problem has never been that the security risk wasn't understood, but that consumers value convenience significantly higher than security and, since the two are inversely related, convenience took the higher precedence at the cost of making it easier for the user to shoot themselves in the foot.

      With the latter, this is an OS-level problem since the internet browser is indeed a component of the operating system, as declared by MS in court. With the former, Outlook and OE are usually bundled with Windows as well, so it's still all part of the same ball of wax.

      Bad things that happen in user space at the deliberate behest of end users, are not flaws in OS-level security, unless they circumvent permissions.

      Or, on other words, IE (and Outlook Express and Outlook) don't do anything any other application can't do. That they arguably do the wrong thing, does not represent a flaw in, or lack of, OS-level security infrastructure.

    29. Re:load of crap by Zonnald · · Score: 1

      Minor point, but the good guys use Active X for useful and responsible reasons. So should ban ActiveX because some arsehole wants to score points against Microsoft?

    30. Re:load of crap by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Huh? There's pleny of POC code out there.

      I've never seen or heard of any which exploits any unpatchable flaws, only things that exploit the typical security flaws that many applications (and the kernel) have, but get patched as soon as they're discovered.

      If you actually know of any POC code that actually works on a typical, up-to-date, fully-patched Linux box, I'll be happy to try it out. But I don't think any exists.

      (And no, code that requires me to download it, open an xterm, chmod 755 it, and then execute it doesn't count.)

    31. Re:load of crap by dedazo · · Score: 1
      If you actually know of any POC code that actually works on a typical, up-to-date, fully-patched Linux box

      Um, if you know of any POC code that works on an up to date fully patched Server 2003 box I'll be happy to try it out as well. I don't see your point.

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
    32. Re:load of crap by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I thought we were talking about desktop machines here. How many people run Server 2003 at home?
      Isn't there POC code that works on fully-patched XP machines? All you have to do is use IE and leave ActiveX enabled.

    33. Re:load of crap by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I'm not a Java web app developer, but my understanding is that Java (when executed in a web browser) intentionally runs in a sandbox to prevent wayward programs from causing any damage. Same goes for Flash.

    34. Re:load of crap by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      >you seriously think people would start sending RPM files in the mail if Linux were popular?

      ROFL. You seriously think that won't happen?


      No, I really don't think Evolution and Kmail are going to change their code so that people can click-and-install RPMs received in their inboxes. If you really think that, I think you're naive.

    35. Re:load of crap by dedazo · · Score: 1
      How many people run Server 2003 at home?

      Well, yes. It's really no different than XP though. But that's what I use. Ultimately it's largely the same OS underneath (if we're talking about XPSP2).

      Isn't there POC code that works on fully-patched XP machines?

      No, unless you can point me to evidence showing otherwise. That's what patching is for, eh? What you are asserting is that I'm unsafe even if I patch. That's not the case. Now, patching does not cure stupidity so if the user still installs crap or clicks 'yes' on that ActiveX warning dialog then all bets are off anyway. But that's my point.

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
    36. Re:load of crap by dedazo · · Score: 1
      Again, you're missing the point. People are getting infected because they go to great lengths to execute untrusted code. For Evolution and KMail and Thunderbird to be immune to this they would have to simply delete all incoming attachments. And of course that would make them useless.

      They're not getting infected by simply clicking on attachments as you claim, and again, I don't know of a Windows mail client that will let you do that nowadays anyway. They are getting infected because they download crap, install crap, click 'yes' instead of 'no' and so on.

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
    37. Re:load of crap by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Um, because it's a bad idea?

      Just because it can be used for useful purposes doesn't mean it should be kept around.

      It's useful to leave your house's door unlocked, so that you don't have to fumble around with keys when you go inside. Would you leave your doors unlocked then, just because some arsehole might go in and steal your stuff (and shoot you, in my city)? Of course not; you lock your doors since it isn't possible to get rid of all the arseholes.

      That's why they came up with something called "Java". You can write web applications/applets in that too, they run on the client computer, but they run in a sandbox so that they can't hurt anything. Even better, you don't have to be running Windows or using an Intel chip; you can visit the same website on a Mac running Safari, or a DEC Alpha workstation running Linux.

      This isn't even a question of losing functionality, it's making the choice for the superior technology before writing your application.

    38. Re:load of crap by Zonnald · · Score: 1

      I find it useful to leave the doors unlocked so when the ahole comes around he just takes my Stereo and TV and leaves my doors and windows intact.

  26. How is it Possible to be Elitest AND Stupid? by Einstein_101 · · Score: 1
    From the Article:

    "As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses, and even more upset with ourselves for not catching it," Apple said on its site.

    That's like MacDonald's importing meat infected with Mad Cow Diease, then blaming the FDA for not catching it.

    Apple Vice President Greg Joswiak told CNET News.com that the virus was discovered last week and said the company has been working around the clock since then to discover the root cause of the problem. Joswiak said it was traced to a particular Windows machine in the manufacturing lines of a contract manufacturer that builds the iPods for Apple.

    So Apple tells us that Wiindows isn't safe enough for basic home users to run, but they use it on a computer that's responsible for mass producing their products? You can't be serious.
    1. Re:How is it Possible to be Elitest AND Stupid? by tgd · · Score: 1

      McDonalds.

      and it IS the FDA's job to catch it.

      So what was your point again?

    2. Re:How is it Possible to be Elitest AND Stupid? by vancondo · · Score: 1
      That's like MacDonald's importing meat infected with Mad Cow Diease, then blaming the FDA for not catching it.


      No, its more like McDonalds importing infected meat and then blaming the consumer that dies from it because they don't have a more robust immune system.

      --
      Vancouver Housing Sucks
      --
      -
    3. Re:How is it Possible to be Elitest AND Stupid? by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's like MacDonald's importing meat infected with Mad Cow Diease, then blaming the FDA for not catching it.

      Bad analogy. It's like McDonald's (no a) selling burgers infected with MCD, and then blaming the humans for being vulnerable to it. Except that unlike humans in the real world (who are all susceptible to MCD), the humans in this crazy analogy universe have a choice between different bodies: one that's not only vulnerable to MCD, but every other disease out there, and has to be constantly immunized against them, and even then performs terribly, stops breathing and loses conscienceness occasionally, and is ugly to boot; and a few other bodies that are naturally immune to every known disease, are stronger and live much longer, don't need sleep, and are very attractive. Only the idiots who chose the ugly, disease-infested bodies get MCD so McDonald's justifiably tries to assign them some of the blame for making a bad choice.

    4. Re:How is it Possible to be Elitest AND Stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To complete the analogy, McDonalds makes body model 2.

      In Soviet McDonalds, people is Soylent Green!

    5. Re:How is it Possible to be Elitest AND Stupid? by Einstein_101 · · Score: 1

      I used the FDA Analogy in reference to their ability to protect the consumer from the disease, just like Microsoft is capable of protecting it's end users from viruses (via security updates, or being more secure by design). Apple blames someone else when they could have caught it in house. That's where I was trying to go with it.

      Your analogy was still better though.

    6. Re:How is it Possible to be Elitest AND Stupid? by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      . It's like McDonald's (no a) selling burgers infected with MCD, and then blaming the humans for being vulnerable to it. Except that unlike humans in the real world (who are all susceptible to MCD), the humans in this crazy analogy universe have a choice between different bodies: one that's not only vulnerable to MCD, but every other disease out there, and has to be constantly immunized against them, and even then performs terribly, stops breathing and loses conscienceness occasionally, and is ugly to boot; and a few other bodies that are naturally immune to every known disease, are stronger and live much longer, don't need sleep, and are very attractive.

      No. Bad analogy.

      It's like McDonald's selling shakes that are cold and sweet, with lots of little crumbled up oreo cookies in there, with some mind-altering drug that changes your tastes and perceptions of the English language, so that we have to choose our lifestyle as one of two options: those who know how to write a coherent sentence and get the idea across in just a few, meaningful words with analogies that have some kind of logic to them, or those who write entire paragraphs, nay, I say, even full pages of meaningless drivel that don't seem to make any sense and go on and on while being immune to any form of logic or comprehension.

      Or something like that.

      So don't eat (drink?) McDonald's shakes - they might have mind-altering chemicals in them, such as those ingested by Parent Poster....

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    7. Re:How is it Possible to be Elitest AND Stupid? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Good point. The problem here is that people don't have a choice between different FDAs. There's only one, and if they don't catch the Mad Cow, we're all screwed. In the computer world, we do have a choice.

    8. Re:How is it Possible to be Elitest AND Stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it's exactly like like McD's distributing virus ladden MP3 players. http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/archive-10 2006.html#00000997

    9. Re:How is it Possible to be Elitest AND Stupid? by Tesla+Tank · · Score: 1

      Analogy is like a vacuum, it sucks.

    10. Re:How is it Possible to be Elitest AND Stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until you read the fine print and find out that the "Super Elite Model" cannot be used at the park or without parental consent, is only available in white and doesn't come with reproductive organs; thus rendering it completely useless.

    11. Re:How is it Possible to be Elitest AND Stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but the ugly body knows English and can talk to most people in most places. It can also learn most other languages if the owner decides to put in the time and effort. There is one limit: It can never learn Swahili.

      The nice body knows only Swahili. It can learn most other languages as well, but as English grows more complex, learning it causes it to develop the ugly features of the other body, and it has a limit to how much of the other languages it can learn.

      Now which to choose...

    12. Re:How is it Possible to be Elitest AND Stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only one problem with those otherwise perfect bodies: no Sex.

    13. Re:How is it Possible to be Elitest AND Stupid? by stile99 · · Score: 1

      Of course, this 'superior' body can't seem to actually DO anything other than sit there looking smug and claiming its own superiority, so few choose it.

    14. Re:How is it Possible to be Elitest AND Stupid? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Except that everything is much better in Swahili-land; the people are nicer and much smarter, and there's lots of great stuff to do and it's all free. Whereas in English-land everyone is ugly and everything you try to do, from playing games to eating to going to the bathroom, all costs a lot. There's also police everywhere you look, stopping you constantly and checking to make sure your papers are in order. There's a few things you can do in English-land that you can't do in Swahili-land, such as some hyped-up games you can play, but when you look closely, you find out that these things really aren't very important anyway (and many times don't work very well).

      So who cares if the nice body can't speak English?

    15. Re:How is it Possible to be Elitest AND Stupid? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No, the superior body can't play a bunch of games like the ugly body, but it can do a lot of important scientific and engineering work that's very cumbersome on the ugly body, so most scientists and engineers have chosen it after deciding it was more important to design CPUs and perform Mars exploration missions than to play yet another first-person-shooter video game.

    16. Re:How is it Possible to be Elitest AND Stupid? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      That's why I got the alternative "Super Free Model" which comes in any color I choose, requires no parental or governmental consent, reproduces easily and effortlessly, and basically lets me do as I please.

    17. Re:How is it Possible to be Elitest AND Stupid? by Ricwot · · Score: 1

      Except that CJD is a form of Kuru, and about half of the human population are immune to it, due to our ancetors being cannibals.

    18. Re:How is it Possible to be Elitest AND Stupid? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      According to Wikipedia, CJD and Mad Cow (BSE) aren't the same disease.

      Anyway, I thought that people couldn't be immune to prion diseases, since it doesn't involve a virus or bacteria. The Wikipedia article on "prion", however, does briefly mention an immunization for mice, although it doesn't give any details whatsoever.

  27. nah, this has happened before by User+956 · · Score: 2, Informative

    iPods Come Complete With Windows Virus

    It's not an outsourcing problem, because a lot of people are also reporting this "Windows" virus showing up on their mac when they run the BootCamp installer.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:nah, this has happened before by technicalandsocial · · Score: 1

      There hasn't been similar news since well, yesterday when it was announced McDonalds Japan had to do a recall:
      http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2006/10/16/mcd_sp yware_mp3_recall/

    2. Re:nah, this has happened before by buswolley · · Score: 5, Funny

      ITs great. Apple blames Windows for the Virus...but who put it on th ipod?

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    3. Re:nah, this has happened before by Sillygates · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Maybe the macs that are loading the firmware on these ipods were *compromised*

      --
      I fear the Y2038 bug
    4. Re:nah, this has happened before by Barny · · Score: 2

      Yes, much of the problems associated with protecting a windows machine can be fixed by "trusting" and "not trusting" (well duh), firewall and not running any old downloaded code or plugging anyones storage in negates the need for a virus scanner, the problem here is that apple, a "trusted" source, has failed to protect themselves and us.

      I say buy one, find the virus, install it on all your PCs (make sure you have lots of "important documents"... read: porn) and then sue sue sue their excuse makeing arses off the market ^_^

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    5. Re:nah, this has happened before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Authorities cannot yet comment but be on the lookout for a penguin in a tuxedo as he is currently the primary suspect.

      If you have any information as to the whereabouts of this high class avian call 1-800-BirdStoppers immediately, the call is toll-free, monitored, and may reward you if information recieved leads to the capture of the suspect in question - that's 1-800-BirdStoppers.

    6. Re:nah, this has happened before by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2, Funny

      Personally, I think the main suspect would be a platypus in a devil suit. Someone like that is _bound_ to be up to no good....

  28. The announcement by Mard · · Score: 1

    The last line in their official announcement takes the swipe, and I agree it's wholly inappropriate when this is their fault.

    "As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses, and even more upset with ourselves for not catching it." http://www.apple.com/support/windowsvirus/

    --
    DRM = Digitally Restricted Media. This is a viral sig, pass it on.
    1. Re:The announcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses, and even more upset with ourselves for not catching it." http://www.apple.com/support/windowsvirus/ [apple.com]

      BFD -- this is just the same old bullshit as the "We accept full responsibility for ...." canard.

      Uusually that means nothing more than, "Phew! I'm sure glad this isn't Japan where responsibility means resignation, if not seppuku)" Responsibility in the US means nothing more than, "Shit, I got caught, so I have to publicly use the "R" word. No loss of job or pay. No compensation to users who got their systems fucked over. Just my next fat, happy paycheck."

      How often have we heard our buttfucker-in-chief accept responsibility? It doesn't mean shit to him (especially) or to anyone else in money-lust-ridden corporate US.

  29. Umm... by Poromenos1 · · Score: 1

    *Guy 1 sends letter with anthrax*
    *Guy 2 opens said letter*
    Guy 2: Oh no! Now I have anthrax!
    Guy 1: HAHA IF U WERE A ROBOT THIS WULDNT HAPPEN. UR LAME.

    --
    Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
    1. Re:Umm... by mlwmohawk · · Score: 0

      Hardly the same thing. It is more like...

      Store sells fruit grown in Mexico
      Guy 1 buys fruit
      Guy 1 eats fruit without washing it.
      Guy 1 gets sick.

      Mexico is guilty? No, guy1 is a fool for not washing his food.

    2. Re:Umm... by NosTROLLdamus · · Score: 1

      You fail it. That analogy sucked.

    3. Re:Umm... by ianejames · · Score: 1

      Lemme get this straight: Is Mexico supposed to be Apple or Microsoft?

      And what kind of fruit is this... an apple?

  30. OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm expecting an extremely verbose and repetitive post from daveschroeder about how this is everyone but apple's fault because apple never does anything that isn't 100% perfect. Don't dissapoint me Daveyboy.

  31. Apples owns up to their mistake too! by codeonezero · · Score: 1
    For those who didn't bother to read the article if you follow the link to Apple's website they state the following:
    As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses, and even more upset with ourselves for not catching it.
    This is a clarification for the short summary given. Yeah Apple blames MS, it's their competitor, I don't think anyone else would expect differently. However, they also admit to their own mistake. And in truth Apple should have made sure their windows production machines were not infected. Apple could just as easily turned around and said 'hey! it's windows what do we know! we're not even going to bother acknowledging the problem!' Instead they choose to let people know.
    --

    ....
    int main (void) { ... }

    1. Re:Apples owns up to their mistake too! by dedazo · · Score: 1
      they state the following

      Yeah... and?

      Yeah Apple blames MS, it's their competitor, I don't think anyone else would expect differently

      I'm sorry, I feel like that Dilbert strip where the apathy fairy runs into Wally and is shocked that he's not just a legend they teach at Apathy Fairy School. You must be that quintessential apple fanboy I keep hearing about but never really ran into fully until now. Please elaborate as to what you mean by "anyone would expect differently" here - I would expect Apple to apologize and maybe recall instead of taking an infantile potshot at Microsoft. Correct?

      And in truth Apple should have made sure their windows production machines were not infected.

      No shit?

      Apple could just as easily turned around and said

      Please tell me this whole post is actually a joke. Please.

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
    2. Re:Apples owns up to their mistake too! by Salsaman · · Score: 1
      As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses, and even more upset with ourselves for not catching it.

      Therefore, we suggest everyone in the world switch to Linux or BSD.

    3. Re:Apples owns up to their mistake too! by codeonezero · · Score: 1

      Well I'm bored I dont expect you to read my reply anyway so let me exercise my writing while we're on this subtopic.

      You must be that quintessential apple fanboy I keep hearing about but never really ran into fully until now.

      Ok, here you are going to insult the original poster, by making an assumption because you hope to gain support from readership who thinks anyone who presents a slightly different view in cases like this must be a delusional fanboy. And then present your own opinion. Nice.

      Good trolling.

      Please stop assuming 'apple fanboys are after me and cover after Apple."

      Now to clarify.

      What you read is my cynicism. Corporations use dirty tactics much like politicians. It's called the blame game. You might have seen this if you worked at an office too.

      Apple as a member of the corporate world isn't doing anything that any of their competitors wouldn't do.

      However, I did not once say it was right.

      Please elaborate as to what you mean by "anyone would expect differently" here - I would expect Apple to apologize and maybe recall instead of taking an infantile potshot at Microsoft. Correct?

      For the non-bolded part read my above statement. For the bolded part, well they did apologize. Not sure if they're doing a recall, my guess probably not.

      However, the next best step is that they offer ways to fix the problem. In fact some of these ways to fix the problem link to Microsoft's own Microsoft Live OneCare Safety Scanner.

      I would also expect them to offer information to customers at their local Apple Stores.

      And in truth Apple should have made sure their windows production machines were not infected.
      No shit?

      Again another cheap shot. Thanks. I'm simply stating for clarification that I agree Apple is at fault for not taking care of their stuff. Quoting something that clarifies my comment and adding the phrase 'no shit?' doesn't really contribute anything. Obviously at this point your bias (based on the assumption you originally made) doesn't let you see what I'm really saying.

      Please tell me this whole post is actually a joke. Please.

      Please tell me when you stop being condescending. Thank you.

      Anyway good day to you.

      p.s. Oh and just because you see mac in my e-mail and homepage field doesn't mean I wear Apple-brand glasses.

      --

      ....
      int main (void) { ... }

    4. Re:Apples owns up to their mistake too! by dedazo · · Score: 1
      you hope to gain support from readership

      I hope to gain nothing other than point out you are completely insane if you are actually serious.

      What you read is my cynicism

      OK, you were not serious I gather? Very good. Please don't feel offended by what I said - it's obviously all a big misunderstanding and you were making a joke. Cheers.

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
    5. Re:Apples owns up to their mistake too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses, and even more upset with ourselves for not catching it.

      Don't mean horseshit -- Apple lit the match and are unwilling to take any real responsibility for putting out the fire. They should be required to pay for restoration of each system affected by their carelessness.

      But they won't.

    6. Re:Apples owns up to their mistake too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you seem to be a bit confused between cynicism and sarcasm.

  32. Taking a shot at MS security? by jorghis · · Score: 1

    Wow, hes taking a shot at windows security? Microsoft may have released some pretty insecure code in the past, but it looks like Apple is the first to actually ship a product with a virus preinstalled.

    1. Re:Taking a shot at MS security? by photomonkey · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. Dell and Gateway shipped millions of computers with Windows ME installed.

      Ok, mod me down now.

      --
      Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
    2. Re:Taking a shot at MS security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, McDonnalds beat them to it.

    3. Re:Taking a shot at MS security? by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      product with a virus preinstalled.

      Mom, I think I've figured out what zero-day means.
       

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    4. Re:Taking a shot at MS security? by Darth · · Score: 1

      actually, Microsoft shipped a run of windows 95 cds with a virus on them. When it comes to virus infections, Microsoft is truly an innovative industry leader.

      --
      Darth --
      Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
    5. Re:Taking a shot at MS security? by jorghis · · Score: 1

      Oh, I didnt know that. Do you have a source for that information?

    6. Re:Taking a shot at MS security? by chmod+a+x+mojo · · Score: 0

      Actually i think malware is a better title, it doesn't ry to reproduce yet it just doesn't do what it claims it is supposed to. (unless it is SUPPOSED to lock up and / or crash ) At least they fixed the lockup / crashing problem with 2K and XP, they ae NOWHERE near as bad as my old ME machines where. ME was a nightmare.

      --
      To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
    7. Re:Taking a shot at MS security? by Darth · · Score: 1

      Oh, I didnt know that. Do you have a source for that information?

      No, I don't. sorry.

      I remember when it happened, but there are so many pages about windows and viruses that searching for a corroborating source for an event that happened 10 years ago turned out to be futile.

      If i find one, i'll add it as a reply to your request.

      --
      Darth --
      Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
  33. hypocrisy. by gambit3 · · Score: 0

    Pure and simple hypocricy if they keep running those "We are more secure than Windows" commercials.

    --
    Go Where Web Thinkers Gather

    1. Re:hypocrisy. by Llywelyn · · Score: 1

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

      --
      Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
    2. Re:hypocrisy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "More secure than windows" commercials do not exist.
      You must be thinking of the "14,000 viruses on Windows" commercials.
      So where is the hypocrisy is stating fact?

      "As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses, and even more upset with ourselves for not catching it."-Apple

    3. Re:hypocrisy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um... how did this show OS X to be any less secure? if anything it shows "Windows is too insecure to ever be used in production factories."

  34. Apple's response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:Apple's response by wickedsteve · · Score: 1

      Here is the best part from Apple's response:
      "As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses, and even more upset with ourselves for not catching it."
      LOL

    2. Re:Apple's response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Apples Opinion: If you run Windows your obviously a moron and we don't want your money. IPOD's are made for MAC users and we would appreciate it if you lowly Windows users would go somewhere else with you inferior OS and not bother us. We're just too cool to be bothered with checking quality if it will only affect you Windows idiots.

      Thanks, Steve Jobs

  35. Don't be upset Apple by mincognito · · Score: 1
    From the Apple site:
    As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses, and even more upset with ourselves for not catching it.
    No need to get upset. You didn't catch this one, but there will be other opportunites. Just update OS X so that like Windows it automatically executes malicious programs on USB devices upon connection.
    1. Re:Don't be upset Apple by SleepyHappyDoc · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they could implement RFC 3514 to help facilitate that.

      --
      Stasis is death. Embrace change.
    2. Re:Don't be upset Apple by mincognito · · Score: 1

      Scratch "malicious" then. There is no OS X equivalent to Autorun for USB devices.

  36. That might make sense... by msauve · · Score: 1

    if it made sense. The article specifically stated, and I quoted: "Very few units actually went through that particular station"

    If the virus were on a PC used to make a master image, one would expect very many units to be affected.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:That might make sense... by Sancho · · Score: 1

      Who knows how many "very few" is in these terms, or what other spin might be applied here.

  37. the real story... by CDPatten · · Score: 1

    Even apple needs windows to make their products. Appearently they are using windows machines to image their ipod OS. L O (freaking) L!!!!

    "Joswiak said it was traced to a particular Windows machine in the manufacturing lines of a contract manufacturer that builds the iPods for Apple. The company declined to name the maker. "

    Seriosuly, what a bunch of crap they are not taking full responsibility. This is MS's fault.

    ""As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses, and even more upset with ourselves for not catching it," Apple said on its site. "

    1. Re:the real story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hahaha.... i bet OSX uses windows in the factory to be imaged as well..... lol.

    2. Re:the real story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The company declined to name the maker.

      Standard corporate horseshit. They should turn the loathesome bastards out. There is absolutely way too fucking much of this corporate protectionism allowed in this country.

      Sure plaster a sex offender's name all over the internet, but carefully safeguard the names of corporate fuckups.

      If apple thinks this has anything to do with "accepting full responsibility", then they're full of shit to the core.

  38. If they're making products for use with Windows... by ChodeMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If apple are going to make products for use with windows, then it is their responsibility to ensure that those products don't contain virii for windows systems. Suggesting that the virus being present in their product that they're shipping (regardless of the susceptibility of Windows to that virus) is the fault of Microsoft is passing the buck in a most horrible way.

    The simple fact is that they choose to make their device work with Microsoft Windows systems, and they are damned sure responsible for ensuring that their device will not cause problems with those systems, regardless of the flaws or vulnerabilities of Microsoft systems.

    I quite like Mac hardware and software, and have previously been glad that they may be gaining market share, but frankly if they are going to continue to market themselves by making stabs at Microsoft (and no I'm not suggesting the virus was placed intentionally), rather than by marketing their products' strengths and features, I'm not so sure I will continue to feel the same way.

  39. Good thing Apple doesn't do food by ServerIrv · · Score: 2, Funny

    The FDA is reporting that some of Apple's produce shipped after September 12th as having the E. coli bacteria. In Apple's announcement they take a swipe at Intelligent Design, "As you might imagine, we are upset at God for not making human beings more hardy against such bacteria and viruses, and even more upset with ourselves for not catching it."

    1. Re:Good thing Apple doesn't do food by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call shennanigan. Nobody sane will be upset with himself for not "catching" the E. coli bacteria.

  40. Deep Pockets by spywhere · · Score: 1

    If I run into a customer who gets this virus from their new iPod, I look forward to making $75 per hour as an expert witness when they sue Apple.

  41. typical apple RDF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Apple's announcement they take a swipe at Windows security

    that's like me injecting somebody with HIV, then when they die say it's their fault for having an immune system that couldnt beat it

    fucking polo necked retards

  42. Holy appropriate analogies Batman! by Lactoso · · Score: 5, Funny
    "If I just distributed a device with a virus on it I would not be throwing stones at the security practices of another company."

    Especially not when you live here...

    1. Re:Holy appropriate analogies Batman! by Ltar · · Score: 1

      ^^^ this needs to be modded up.

  43. Techically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, already the Apple/Microsoft bashing has begun. Seems like the real culprit here is the subcontractor, after all, they do have some responsibility to keep the computers on their assembly line free from virus'.....

  44. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We should punish the criminals who committed the crime but not cops who were not able to catch it.
    Who is the criminal here?

  45. Reinfection by Frankie70 · · Score: 1

    Will the virus reinfect the Windows PC each & every time the IPod is connected
    to the PC?

    i.e. if the first time I connect the IPod to the PC, I get infected & then I clean
    the PC with some antivirus - is that good enough? Or will that happen everytime?

    1. Re:Reinfection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put your IPod in a condom. Then it should be safe.

  46. Make the switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ipod users should switch to Zune when it comes out, less virus's.

  47. Article Should Be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    iPods Come Complete With Windows Vista

  48. Does it have something to do with previous posts? by guruevi · · Score: 1

    So now you can get a free McVirus when you buy an iPod or a Big Mac Menu?

    As article mentioned, both come from Asia, due to an infected assembly machine running Windows (probably the one that formats the keepers of the data)

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  49. How hard can it be? by elronxenu · · Score: 1
    1. Apple ships verified hard drive image to manufacturers
    2. Manufacturers burn hard drive image to devices.

    It doesn't sound so difficult to get it right.

    1. Re:How hard can it be? by photomonkey · · Score: 1

      You fail to take into account that it could be quite lucrative for a factory employee to accept less-than-genuine code from someone and install it on the manufacturing plant's computers.

      Even cash aside, a lot of people don't particularly heart the Americans anymore. Apple is an American company, and I'd bet dollars to cents that Americans are the largest comsumers of iPods. This is a really nice way for a disgruntled employee to take a shot at his employer/enemy/arch-rival.

      There are all kinds of reasons to assume an inside, malicious job beyond an employee visting a pr0n site or opening an email titled: I Love You.

      --
      Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
    2. Re:How hard can it be? by elronxenu · · Score: 1
      Simple business controls would eliminate that risk. Like ensuring that the person with the ability to set or change the hard drive image cannot be the person who also checks its integrity.

    3. Re:How hard can it be? by hawaiian717 · · Score: 1
      Simple business controls would eliminate that risk. Like ensuring that the person with the ability to set or change the hard drive image cannot be the person who also checks its integrity.

      How does that eliminate the risk? Reduce it, sure, since the bad guy now needs to payoff two people rather than one. There is still risk.
      --
      End of Line.
  50. Check out Apple's wrongdoing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's here: http://malfy.org/

  51. Apple's incompetence by Venik · · Score: 1

    Covering for one's incompetence by blaming the competition is a way of life in business. It's just that in this particular case this widely-accepted practice is likely to backfire. Apple's attempt to blame its lack of quality control and questionable production practices on Microsoft is as hollow as it is ridiculous. I never owned an Apple computer or any other Apple gadgets. They do look nice at the local Microcenter, though. My poor student days are a distant past now, so the issue here is not the cost of Apple toys. I know Apple enjoys a near-religious following from its user base. I see no objective, technical reasons for that. I find Apple users glorifying their overpriced hardware more disturbing then Scientology nuts knocking on my door at ten o'clock at night. It seems that this kind of insanity permeated to the very top of Apple's corporate structure, causing the kind of imbecilic damage control efforts we see today.

  52. Did I spell "pedantic" correctly? by Einstein_101 · · Score: 1
    That's the stupidest shit I've ever heard in my life. First of all, at least be consistant. One minute people are outraged and calling for heads for negligent behavior; the next minute it's all the Government's fault, and companies shouldn't be held responsible for quality control. You can't play both sides of the fence. Secondly, you obviously don't have a clue as to what Mad Cow Disease is. The Mad Cow Disease outbreak came from farmers feeding pigs to the cows, because it was cheaper than importing the soybean supplements that didn't grow well in Europe. Here's a quote for you:

    The use of meat and bone meal as a protein supplement in cattle feed was widespread in Europe prior to about 1987. Worldwide, Soybean meal is the primary plant-based protein supplement fed to cattle. However, soybeans do not grow well in Europe, so cattle raisers throughout Europe turned to the less expensive animal byproduct feeds as an alternative.
    Even ignoring the fact that farmers are directly responsible, it' still insane to blame the FDA. Agencies like the FDA are used as a fail safe - the final safety net to catch problems. The farm that breeds the cows could easily test for illnesses and disease. The slaughter houses or manufacturing plant can catch diseases. McDonald's being the multi-billion corporation that is could easily have the meat inspected when it arrives in the country. The meat passes through all these checkpoints, giving companies like McDonald's several opportunities to catch the problem. Instead, you chose to blame an agency that's responsible for millions of tasks and millions of companies. I really don't see the logic there.
  53. Re:Apple by stunt_penguin · · Score: 1

    Did anyone else read the headline as a Ramone virus and imagine some kind of virus that either deletes all iTunes songs by The Ramones (eep) or brings up a BSOD reading

    I wanna be sedated
    I wanna be sedated
    I wanna be sedated
    I wanna be sedated
    I wanna be sedated
    I wanna be sedated
    I wanna be sedated.................


    Every time you launch iTunes

    --
    When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
  54. CS mirroring Biology by TFer_Atvar · · Score: 1

    Isn't this virtually the same thing as what we'd call an asymptomatic virus carrier in biology? If so, it furthers the notion of computers as an analogy for biological systems and vice-versa.

  55. Utterly inexcusable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's utterly inexcusable for Apple to take potshots at Microsoft when Apple is the one who is completely at fault.

    And regardless of who's fault it is that Windows isn't secure, the question is who's in charge of IT at this factory? Is it normal to allow foreign machines on a production network? I hope not. So how did this virus even get on the network?

    And if Windows isn't secure, then why is Apple using equipment that runs Windows. The last time I checked, they have a fairly decent OS of their own.

    And one last thing, if all that you are doing is uploading an image to flash, then a frickin Sinclair would do the trick. Apple need not rely on Microsoft products at all.

    Apple is coming off as not giving two shits about spreading a virus to their competitors equipment, and that's just wrong.

    And before I get called a Windows whoreboy, I'd like it be known that in actuality I'm a linux whoreboy. I just wanted to clear that up.

  56. Re:I'm Going To Become an Apple Fanboy by jorghis · · Score: 1

    Mistakes happen in commercial software, everyone knows that. I think what galls people on here isnt the mistake so much as it is their attempt to blame it on Microsoft.

    You know that guy who screws something up on his computer and then starts swearing about Microsoft when it was clearly his own fault? Apple is being that guy right now.

  57. Interesting technical aspect... by Trillan · · Score: 1

    Apparently this particular virus makes it impossible to safely remove the iPod. That ought to make it easier to identify -- or would if people didn't just unplug it, anyway.

  58. Fair's fair by Weaselmancer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Microsoft should ship each Zune with a Mac virus.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Fair's fair by Shadyman · · Score: 2, Funny

      Microsoft should ship each Zune with a Mac virus.

      It does. Doesn't it "run Windows"?

    2. Re:Fair's fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea yea thats right, oh wait . . . . you mean youd have to actually escalate your permission to execute the viral code. hmm I wounder why windows dosn't ask you to do that. Maybe because oh I don't know every install create the default user as an administrator . . . oh wait you mean thats a problem, you mean I can run anything and do anything even infect myself Woot, I think Ill take that option plese.

      People on this site must be 2 years old.

    3. Re:Fair's fair by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

      People on this site must be 2 years old.

      It's called sarcasm, my man. Check into it. Like anyone with a Mac would buy a Zune. Here's $200, buy a vowel.

      --
      Weaselmancer
      rediculous.
    4. Re:Fair's fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i thought it ran windows mobile.......

      BALLMER!!!!!!!!!!!!

      -bg

    5. Re:Fair's fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you buy a Zune if you were a Mac user?

  59. First things first... by ursabear · · Score: 1

    First, let your customers know there is an issue.

    Then, reach out to the affected customers. Do what's necessary to help them out. Even if that means giving them free AV software (in this case).

    Then, reach out to all your current and future customers. Help them feel assured that the issue is well in hand, and that real processes are in place to prevent future/similar subsequent events.

    While doing the above, carefully analyze the process, fix it, do a post-mortem on the issue, then test, test, test, test.

    Then, worry about marketing.

  60. Pulling others down on the sinking ship by tlh1005 · · Score: 1

    This is still Apple neglecting to take FULL responsibility for their actions. Jobs knew that grouping Windows in with themselves it would initiate this kind of debate. It's the same as a back-handed compliment. It's you apologizing for stealing money I left out in the open and following with, "but you should have hidden it". One shouldn't leave valuables exposed, and Windows should be more resilient, but the real cause of this is some problem(s) along the way in Apple's development process. I don't care if the virus got there from an assembly plant in China or the PC next door. When I purchased my Ipod I was purchasing from Apple and it's their brand to protect. I'm responsible for the product after it gets on my doorstep but they're responsible for everything in between. That should be my privilege for spending $299.

  61. It's python, portable by microbee · · Score: 1

    The virus is written in Python and converted to Windows executable by standard python tool. I'd imagine it is easy to convert it to a Mac executable as well.

    So it's really not about platform security but about platform popularity. If Mac had the same market share as Windows we'd see a Mac worm in this case now.

    1. Re:It's python, portable by astrosmash · · Score: 2, Informative
      So it's really not about platform security but about platform popularity. If Mac had the same market share as Windows we'd see a Mac worm in this case now.

      Well, not really. OS X doesn't have any sort of Autorun functionality like Windows, so it's far, far easier to write a simple worm like this one on Windows and have it be effective. You could write one for OS X, but it would never get executed automatically; hardly a worm.

      Also, that fact that it's a python script doesn't say anything about its portability. It's obviously using Win32 bindings to read and write to mapped network shares.

      --
      ENDUT! HOCH HECH!
  62. Re:If they're making products for use with Windows by L7_ · · Score: 1

    I think that what you meant to say "If they're making products using Windows...", then they better god damn well police thier Chinese subcontractors every day of every year to make sure that thier test technichans do not have administrator accounts on the production line machines with email access.

  63. Re:If they're making products for use with Windows by dfghjk · · Score: 1

    Exactly. It's a fundamental aspect of manufacturing with PC's and many, many companies do it successfully every day.

    Had it been Dell, they would have been laughed at for the virus and ridiculed for passing the blame (and rightfully so). Apple should be treated no different.

  64. Osx isn't virus/worm free by ad0gg · · Score: 0, Troll

    OSX.Leap.A came out in january. I wonder what would happen if microsofts new music play came with it installed. Would people blame apple's security? Or blame microsoft?

    --

    Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

    1. Re:Osx isn't virus/worm free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The description of OSX.Leap.A.:
      The OSX/Leap-A worm spreads via the iChat instant messaging system, forwarding itself as a file called latestpics.tgz to contacts on the infected users' buddy list. When the latestpics.tgz archive file is opened on a computer it disguises its contents with a JPEG graphic icon in an attempt to fool people into thinking it is harmless.

      This is not a real virus. It's a hybrid between Trojan horse and a worm. The victim must un-tar the software to find an application disguised as a JPG file with the Preview icon. Then it used iChat to try to spread itself. Though Sophos categorized it as a worm on the account that it tried to spread itself, you actually needed to consciously un-tar and double-click the app. Sophos is selling security solution for OS X and it makes less impact to call this a Trojan horse.

    2. Re:Osx isn't virus/worm free by epee1221 · · Score: 1

      I have been looking for the malicious file for quite a while and haven't found it, so I'm still left wondering:
      Does it actually have a .jpg extension?
      The last "mac virus" I saw discussed on slashdot "pretended to be an mp3, but actually ran code." This pretending meant it was called foo.mp3, but it had the .app file extension. Anyone who actually looked at more than the icon would know it was code, not data.

      --
      "The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
    3. Re:Osx isn't virus/worm free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I don't know for sure since this wasn't really spreading. However, I'd not be surprised if it has a .jpg name extension. Mac OS X hides .app name extension from users, so foo.jpg.app will be seen as foo.jpg by users and masking it with a Preview icon is simply a matter of copy and paste in the Get Info window. However, most of Mac OS X applications are in the form of bundles/packages, i.e. directories - where the executables and all resource files are kept - that are represented as single files (that's why it was tar-red and gzip-ped). A right click (or control-click) will show "Show Package Content" option, and an ls -l in the Terminal shows drwxr-xr-x. The final damning evidence is that Finder will identify them as Kind: Application.

      The mp3 trojan was more sophisticated, IIRC. It played fine using MP3 players (no infection), but it hid the payload in the resource fork which got executed when double-clicked. It was a proof of concept, so there was no major infection.

    4. Re:Osx isn't virus/worm free by toadlife · · Score: 1

      Nice semantic monkey dance you did there. In describing that Leap [not-a-real] virus, you also described pretty much every virus that spreads via email/IM on Widnows. By your logic, I guess those aren't real viruses either then?

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    5. Re:Osx isn't virus/worm free by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      They're not. A virus is self replicating, and requires no human interaction to spread (other than sending or giving a potentialy infected file to another or exposing anothers files to your virus). That is, a virus should be able to attach itself to any innocuous file and replicate through the host system. A file specificaly crafted to be malicious and whose purpose is to be malicious which requires a user to actualy attempt to run the file is a Trojan.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    6. Re:Osx isn't virus/worm free by epee1221 · · Score: 1
      The mp3 trojan was more sophisticated, IIRC. It played fine using MP3 players (no infection), but it hid the payload in the resource fork which got executed when double-clicked. It was a proof of concept, so there was no major infection.
      We must be thinking of different things here. I was referring to one that really was an .app, with an mp3's icon (the code opened iTunes and played music through it).
      --
      "The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
  65. Re:If they're making products for use with Windows by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

    ``If apple are going to make products for use with windows, then it is their responsibility to ensure that those products don't contain virii for windows systems''

    Tell that to all the companies that include malware in their software for Windows.

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  66. Apple CAN blame windows for the virus! by tomd123 · · Score: 1

    Don't get me wrong, I'm a Windows fan but I would argue to Microsoft that they should seriously take viruses and security into strong consideration, you can't really blame Apple for this because they don't have viruses hence they don't have anti-viruses, it's just ironic.

    1. Re:Apple CAN blame windows for the virus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also don't have a few other things like a user base of any size, software anyone would want, or a server class OS to name a few.

  67. Coming on the heels of the iTunes 7 debacle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... you have to wonder if Apple is deliberately trying to make themselves look bad to Windows users.

    Doesn't seem like a very smart strategery to me, but then, I don't even own any black turtlenecks.

  68. Re:Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Netcraft confirms it.

  69. Re:If they're making products for use with Windows by ChodeMaster · · Score: 1

    I wish such companies would do so, but it's no defence for Apple.

    Sure, the other companies intend to spread the malware, whereas Apple did not intend to spread the virus, but the other companies don't try and defend their actions by saying 'its not our fault, blame Microsoft for letting us do it' which is what Apple appears to be doing.

  70. It's bad enough... by rwyoder · · Score: 1

    ...that Apple adopted the Intel platform; But to now start supporting functionality in Windows without supporting those same features in Mac OS X, is just unacceptable! :-(

    1. Re:It's bad enough... by Jerry+Rivers · · Score: 1

      What same features? Viruses?

      --
      The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
  71. Lame Mod .... Re:Windows Security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    If I just distributed a device with a virus on it I would not be throwing stones at the security practices of another company.


    Yeah... you might break a Window. =p
  72. Reply: by Gavilan1010 · · Score: 1
  73. wow by ThorGod · · Score: 1

    Now I don't know what I think about them installing the virus on there if they did it knowingly. (Which I'll entertain bets that it was.)

    But I have to give them cudos for managing to appologize AND make an insult all in one go. From their support page:

    "As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses, and even more upset with ourselves for not catching it."

    --
    PS: I don't reply to ACs.
  74. Getting people to care by caitsith01 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'd prefer to think along the lines of "why you can't get anybody at Apple to care." It doesn't affect Macs, after all.

    True enough. They should care though, they like to pitch themselves as the 'good' computer company and this little effort is hardly better than the Sony rootkit debacle writ small.

    I am just wondering how things would go around here if the situation were reversed - like if a Microsoft product came preinstalled with some software that caused damage to OSX systems. Something tells me that the mob with torches, pitchforks and turtlenecks wouldn't be storming Apple's headquarters...

    --
    Read Pynchon.
    1. Re:Getting people to care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean they're storming Microsoft's headquarters on behalf of Apple now?

      You really don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about, do you?

  75. Yes there are by everphilski · · Score: 1

    at least two are listed here, neglecting the worms.

  76. smells fishy by pbjones · · Score: 1

    don't iPods usually come either formatted for Mac? or 'blank? or have those days gone? if not it'll be a manufacturer error, which Apple should be monitoring.

    --
    There was an unknown error in the submission.
    1. Re:smells fishy by cb372 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nope, it's not fishy. It actually happened to my iPod. At the time I just thought my antivirus program was on crack, and it couldn't possibly be a real virus, so this story was quite a shock to me.

    2. Re:smells fishy by pbjones · · Score: 1

      as a side issue, apple had an Adobe demo CD with full versions of their top products on it and it was ONLY to be shipped with the 9600. I came across a copy at a junk sale and installed it. April 1, 2000 the nVIR virus popped up and I tracked it back to that CD. Nice present.

      --
      There was an unknown error in the submission.
  77. Re:If they're making products for use with Windows by cheese-cube · · Score: 1
    [...] they are damned sure responsible for ensuring that their device will not cause problems with those systems [...]

    Obviously you have never heard of a 'waiver of liability'. I think that in actual fact Apple are legally responsible for very little.
  78. Here are some links that may help you. by Slithe · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    --
    ---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
    1. Re:Here are some links that may help you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here are some links that might help you.
      SARCASM
      HUMOR

    2. Re:Here are some links that may help you. by Slithe · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      I was not entirely sure if this guy was being sarcastic or serious. When I read his first post

      I'm a total n00b whatever. But it's the attitude of linux people like you that has held linux back over the years. I've tried linux but i'm a mechanic in life not a CS major I don't have the time to learn how to use it i just want it to work. If there was a windows clone I'd use it. I can't even fathom those who are techinically illiterate trying to use linux. Although I do believe my next machine will be a mac.


      I got the impresion that he might actually be a n00b, so I took it upon myself to waste a few minutes and 'help' him. Hell, I was a total n00b (what is Unix?) when I installed my first Linux distro, Mandrake, so I thought he might ACTUALLY not know what 'flat ASCII textfile' refers to, and that *nix OSs do not place much emphasis on filename extensions.
      --
      ---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
    3. Re:Here are some links that may help you. by Cr33pybusguy · · Score: 1

      Hmmm.... I gave you less credit than due. Seems you searched my name amongst the threads. Slashdotters (sp?) are on top of thingst compare to most forums I've visited. I should clarify I'm a n00b compared to youse guys.
      You want to know how n00b I am read my slash dot profile I'm updating it after posting this.
      Since you were honestly being nice I apologise but the comment was a purposeful dumbass comment with humourous intent. Really who the hell reads the readme files I couldn't care what billion fixes they've done as long as it works.
      (Did I spell humour wrong? NO! Wikipedia spells it wrong. it's the canadian way or the highway!)

      --
      Hee Hee The drinking bird does all the work!
    4. Re:Here are some links that may help you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I must refer you to the links you just published

  79. Apple should be liable. by Asrynachs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's not really acceptable to just say 'hey, go out and buy some antivirus software because the products we sell have viruses'. If I buy a bloody ipod it shouldn't ruin my computer. Though I imagine they have some legal agreement stating that I can't sue for lost data if my ipod destroys my computer...

  80. Viva la ipod by thorkyl · · Score: 1

    or is this their revenge

    --
    -- I am the NRA, enough said...
  81. Its a trap! by Nushio · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I bet the newest "security update" from Windows automatically adds the virus into the iPod, thus creating the illusion that "iPods have virus, Zunes do not"....

    --
    Check out Unsealed: Whispers of Wisdom! http://unsealed.k3rnel.net It's an action-RPG about Open Sourcerers.
  82. Just great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    For years my systems have been virus free. Now I plug in my NEW Ipod and I looked into the file system on it and yup there is the virus and yup it has installed itself on one of the non development boxes. Now im forced to check the other boxes to see if damage has been done. It looks like a host of multiple visrses took over the box i hooked up to on the first night when i installed i-tunes and transfered over my old IPod files.
    Way to go apple
    Who do I send the bill for the clean up to ? Please post it in this thread I'll be happy to send the serial number of my ipod to you for proof.

  83. Are you REMOTELY serious!???????? by WinBreak · · Score: 0, Troll

    Apple screws up and they take a stab at MICROSOFT????? BECAUSE THEIR Egnineers are too DUMB to run a virus scan on a final product before it ships? ARE YOU SERIOUS???? How can they even THINK FOR A SPLIT SECOND about doing that? Blame Windows because your "engineers" are too friggin STUPID to update their virus def's? Call Windows insecure, but at least the majority of Windows' USERS are smarter than Apples engineers!!!!!

    1. Re:Are you REMOTELY serious!???????? by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 1

      Im sorry, but 'knowing to run a virus scan' isn't a qualification I would look for when hiring, well, anyone. I would instead look for 'knows to use an OS/platform that isn't inherently vulnerable to these "viruses" you refer to'. Why would anyone using an OSX machine (or in fact anything not made by MS) consider 'viruses' to be a signifigant concern?

      And if you think that 'recognizing that a particular OS/platform is an insecure piece of shit, but thinking that the proper solution is that they need to pay for extra "security" software just to keep it from imploding, instead of CHOOSING A DIFFERENT PLATFORM', well, I've got this bridge for sale, cheap. And I would seriously doubt that a majority of Windows users recognize that in the first place.

      Personally, I think Windows viruses are evolution in action. The weak getting taken down by disease, while the strong continue on. The more Windows viruses there are the better! And while I would seriously doubt it, I wouldnt blame them a bit if it was intentional.

    2. Re:Are you REMOTELY serious!???????? by Mijion · · Score: 0

      I don't think Apple thinks it is important to run virus scans on hard drives. How many Viruses do they run into? Before you get all anal about a virus ending up on a hard drive think about what I just said.

    3. Re:Are you REMOTELY serious!???????? by chmod+a+x+mojo · · Score: 0

      Why would anyone using an OSX machine (or in fact anything not made by MS) consider 'viruses' to be a signifigant concern?

      Please, please, don't tell me you don't think that virii (or viruses for you anal people) are important to catch NO MATTER WHAT PLATFORM they are for. My mail servers (linux) run AV programs, as do my web servers, file servers (yep still linux) and guess what, it ain't gonna change. Remember, every rooted linux | mac | windows box out there could e used for a DDoS attack against you or a service provider you need. And dont tell me that macOS can't be rooted, a user is a user and still the weakest link in security.

      --
      To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
    4. Re:Are you REMOTELY serious!???????? by WinBreak · · Score: 1

      I can (somewhat) understand the handful of moronic users out there that believe in Security through Obscurity - but if the parent company REALLY believes that!???? Some day there will be a MASSIVE wake up call for mac users - and, apparantly, Apple. Nu

    5. Re:Are you REMOTELY serious!???????? by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 1

      Good for you. But recognize that your linux mailservers are running AV scans on email, to ensure that email is safe for *Windows* users. If absolutely no one that used your mail server used Windows, it wouldnt be remotely necesarry. (Well, ignoring for a moment that the people they sent email to or received it from might be running Windows). Try this - if no one anywhere used MS applications/platforms for email, scanning email for viruses would be unheard of.

  84. Huh? by rm69990 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Apple ships viruses with their products, somehow managed to push them through all their testers, and then complains about Microsoft's security record? Pot, meet kettle

  85. And to think! by Nanpa · · Score: 0

    If microsoft released the Zune with a virus that that exploited macs, thinking of the flame wars and massive litigation that could ensue!

    1. Re:And to think! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that would be a real disaster... if Zunes worked on Macs and stood any chance of being bought by Mac users. But Zune doesn't work on Macs, and doesn't stand much of a chance of being bought by Windows users!

  86. See follow up correction and MOD accordingly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The incorrect parent post is modded higher than the correction. WTF folks?

  87. mod parent up by ben+there... · · Score: 1

    Heh, the last post listed at my threshold, and it's the first one to clearly explain the situation. gj

  88. Will GWB Learn From Apple? by bky1701 · · Score: 0, Troll

    "Well yes we nuked a defenceless nation, but it's their problem for not having any type of missile shielding. Now that they have been wiped out, anyone who lived can come live with us! Well... kindof."

  89. Apple's statement by pixelguru · · Score: 1
    As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses, and even more upset with ourselves for not catching it.

    I would think that Apple would be the absolute last group of people on earth to be pissed about Microsoft's shoddy security model. If Apple is upset about it, I guess that means we've finally reached totality.

  90. Coming Zune...mp3 player with OS X virus... by Arathon · · Score: 0

    Here's betting that Microsoft's Zune is ported to the Macintosh soon after launch, and a special new Mac OS X virus is written specifically for the occasion. Press release: "We're embarrassed that such a thing could possibly slip by our Q&A department, but Apple keeps telling us that there are no viruses for Macs, so we just took them at their word and didn't check!"

  91. Re:If they're making products for use with Windows by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1

    The plural of 'virus' is 'viruses'. 'virus' is a neuter noun, so its plural is 'vira', not 'viri'. Besides, 'viri' is already taken. It's the plural of 'man', 'vir'.

  92. maybe that's why they blame themselves... by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 2, Informative

    "As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses, and even more upset with ourselves for not catching it."

    They blame Windows, but they blame themselves more.

    How is this passing the buck?

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
  93. Makes no sense to blame MS by BRUTICUS · · Score: 0, Troll

    for APPLE's mistake. When hardware contains a virus thats the fault of the HARDWARE distributing it. Dont try and pass blame on the OS. Very bad form. Wow it appears Apple are as ignorant as their userbase.

  94. twitter, please read this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful
    twitter, please read this carefully. Following this advice will make Slashdot a better place for everyone, including yourself.

    • As a representative of the Linux community, participate in mailing list and newsgroup discussions in a professional manner. Refrain from name-calling and use of vulgar language. Consider yourself a member of a virtual corporation with Mr. Torvalds as your Chief Executive Officer. Your words will either enhance or degrade the image the reader has of the Linux community.
    • Avoid hyperbole and unsubstantiated claims at all costs. It's unprofessional and will result in unproductive discussions.
    • A thoughtful, well-reasoned response to a posting will not only provide insight for your readers, but will also increase their respect for your knowledge and abilities.
    • Always remember that if you insult or are disrespectful to someone, their negative experience may be shared with many others. If you do offend someone, please try to make amends.
    • Focus on what Linux has to offer. There is no need to bash the competition. Linux is a good, solid product that stands on its own.
    • Respect the use of other operating systems. While Linux is a wonderful platform, it does not meet everyone's needs.
    • Refer to another product by its proper name. There's nothing to be gained by attempting to ridicule a company or its products by using "creative spelling". If we expect respect for Linux, we must respect other products.
    • Give credit where credit is due. Linux is just the kernel. Without the efforts of people involved with the GNU project , MIT, Berkeley and others too numerous to mention, the Linux kernel would not be very useful to most people.
    • Don't insist that Linux is the only answer for a particular application. Just as the Linux community cherishes the freedom that Linux provides them, Linux only solutions would deprive others of their freedom.
    • There will be cases where Linux is not the answer. Be the first to recognize this and offer another solution.

    From http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/docs/HOWTO/Advoca cy

    1. Re:twitter, please read this by Fordiman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Still, this is a case in which the use of a non Microsoft system for pre-loading the iPods would be the appropriate solution at the manufacturing end. Since all that's needed is the ability to create and write to a FAT32 filesystem, I don't see why Linux isn't used; it can even be done automatically on a headless machine that does the loading upon USB insertion.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    2. Re:twitter, please read this by skarphace · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Still, this is a case in which the use of a non Microsoft system for pre-loading the iPods would be the appropriate solution at the manufacturing end. Since all that's needed is the ability to create and write to a FAT32 filesystem, I don't see why Linux isn't used; it can even be done automatically on a headless machine that does the loading upon USB insertion.
      How do you know this is what the machine was used for? Maybe it was used as a QA/Testing machine to make sure the iPod works with all systems. Fact is, you don't know.
      --
      Bullish Machine Tzar
    3. Re:twitter, please read this by empaler · · Score: 1

      Thank you for posting this. This is needed every so often in /. debates.
      Scratch that, all the time.

      First time I've seen it though.

    4. Re:twitter, please read this by x2A · · Score: 1

      Here's an interesting idea... perhaps the computer has --- *drum roll* --- more than one use!!!

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  95. How did it get infected? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    If the machine has a virus that writes itself to every mounted device, then the damage might have been done after the initialization.

    A production machine that's doing the same thing indefinitely doesn't have much reason to go any place it could catch a virus.

  96. Re:Article says, the usual. Avoid Like Plague. by dknj · · Score: 2, Insightful

    please note it was a contract manufacturer. which means apple probably didn't regularly (if they even did) audit them. which means this COULD have been deliberate along with the possible theory of a random infection

  97. Disk images, that's why by Moraelin · · Score: 2, Informative

    Dunno about Apple, but if I were mass producing those things, I would _not_ build the thing empty, connect it to a Mac by hand, transfer the stuff to it slowly via Firewire, etc. That kind of "let's connect a cable, launch this handy application and click here to transfer the files" is ok for a mom-and-pop shop, but when you're mass producing stuff you just want to shave the last penny off the manufacturing costs.

    So the way it's done is you take the working prototype, make an image of its hard drive, and write that on every hard drive before it's even assembled into the iPods.

    Think, basically, how your IT department doesn't come with a suicase full of install CDs for Windows, Word, etc, for each PC. They just make an image off one workstation and then install that on all others. Much faster.

    Same thing here, only more automated.

    So if that image was made from a HDD with the virus on it, the assembly line will mindlessly churn thousands of copies of that.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Disk images, that's why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that wasn't how it happened or they would all be infected not just 1% of them.

  98. Doesn't that make more sense? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I thought it was silly of Apple to poke at Microsoft on this one - until I read that a Windows computer in manufacturing was the cause.

    Open season as far as I'm concerned when a computer in a manufacturing plant can get corrupted and then spread a virus via hard drives it is manufacturing. Shouldn't the reaction be to pull all Windows computer from hard drive manufacturing anywhere? Apple is being gentle as far as I can tell.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  99. Re: 2006 a Cyberspace journey by bursch-X · · Score: 1

    2006... It's Windows... "My God, it's full of holes!"

    --
    There are two rules for success:
    1. Never tell everything you know.
  100. So they make an Apple product with Windows? by LunarStudio · · Score: 0, Redundant

    "Joswiak said it was traced to a particular Windows machine in the manufacturing lines of a contract manufacturer that builds the iPods for Apple." Go figure.

  101. you've got the analogy all wrong! by rabiddeity · · Score: 2, Funny

    No no no, it's like McDonald's giving out USB devices with a trojan on them and... wait a second.

    1. Re:you've got the analogy all wrong! by The_Mr_Flibble · · Score: 1

      And you could say it's like selling a cd with a root kit on it.

  102. Microsoft Bashing by MickDownUnder · · Score: 1

    Well to start with...

    They didn't blame Microsoft for their failure ....

    Aaah yes they did, to quote their statement...

    As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses, and even more upset with ourselves for not catching it.

    As for the rest of what you said I suppose you'll back flip and rant about DRM when the next article comes out about how evil Microsoft has been for locking down Vista. What the majority of linux community fail to understand is the ability of the average person to administrate a PC.

    System security is always going to be at the expense of useability and openness. If you have a highly secure, easy to use system, is likely you are going to sacrifice openess. Conversely if you have an a very open, highly secure system it is likely you are going to sacrifice useability. In the case of windows, it's extremely easy to use, with a very open development architecture, the end result is....?

    1. Re:Microsoft Bashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to truncate a quote there, buddy. Where's the rest of the sentence...you know, the part that says "to prevent the iPods from shipping" (paraphrased). They didn't say, "it's Microsoft's fault that we didn't catch the bad iPods!!!111one."

    2. Re:Microsoft Bashing by MickDownUnder · · Score: 1

      Did you actually even read the link to full statement.

      I don't think I've misrepresented what they've said at all. The quote I gave is a complete sentence from their statement. So what's your point?

      I think their statement is completely unprofessional and is their quality control. For a company like Apple both things are unforgiveable. They have absolutely no credibility to be making comment on anyone elses quality control at this point in time.

  103. rubbish by RMH101 · · Score: 1

    Apple contract out manufacturing to an external contractor. They will specify everything: allowable percentage of defects, the finish on the plastics, quality control levels, acceptable losses in production etc. In essence, the level of quality of manufacture is specified, and the contractor will quote a price that reflects this.
    The contract between Apple and the manufacturers should (and almost certainly does, but we'll never see it as it'll be under an NDA) also specify what the disks used in the ipods should contain - viz, the "OS" for the ipod in the form of the data Apple supply as the load - and bugger-all else.
    This would seem to be a clear cut case of contractor negligence.
    I cannot imagine how lax a manufacturer's process must be if they can allow stuff like this to happen. It's so 90s. When was the last time a gold master of a major application or OS came with a malicious payload included? It doesn't happen very often for big companies.
    Note that I am aware that it happens sometimes and am not looking for a slashdotter to prove me wrong for points!

    1. Re:rubbish by fatphil · · Score: 1

      All the customers I am aware of define their master as a file system image, not simply a set of files to be added to some untrusted file system image. We'd laugh in the face of any customer who wanted to do anything else.

      Regarding you last paragraph, the last one I actually witnessed first hand was MS shipping a virus with their MSDN CDs back in the late 90s, but I'm sure there have been others since. I've only taken deliverables from more reliable suppliers in the last half decade or so.

      Which reminds me of this:

      "I heard if you play the NT-4.0 CD backwards, you get a satanic message"
      "That's nothing - If you play it forwards, it installs NT-4.0"

      FatPhil

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
  104. Read for content. by argent · · Score: 1

    Apple (like just about everyone) contracts out production. One of their contractors did all of the above.

  105. EVERYONE READ BEFORE POSTING DAMNIT by argent · · Score: 1

    Ipod production is contracted out, like much other consumer electronics. There are multiple such contractors. That's why the iPod packaging reads "designed by Apple".

    One of these contractors used Windows and infected some number of the iPods during the production process.

    All the "Apple's using Windows *snicker*" messages from people who can't read for content just reinforce the "slashdork" meme.

  106. Well just turn off autoplay by goldcd · · Score: 1

    I personally can't stand it - but it does help retards who buy software on a CD, shove it in the drive and sit there wondering why nothing is happening.
    Seeing as I'm more capable of turning autoplay off, than my parents are to turn it on - I can see why it defaults to on.
    I think I'm basically just making fun of you posting on slashdot that you can't work out how to turn it off.

    1. Re:Well just turn off autoplay by spectral · · Score: 1

      I know how to turn it off, I shouldn't have to. The vista method someone else responded with works well. Pop up a dialog before running anything untrusted, and I'm sorry.. random disc goes in my computer, I don't automatically give anything and everything on it the same privileges my user has.

      People only expect something to happen when they put that CD in their computer because it has always happened that way in their mind (well, anyone who started using CDs with Windows 95+). Floppies didn't usually do this. DOS didn't do this. MacOS X doesn't do this (it'll pop up a finder window, but that's about it).

      Your parents are capable of following instructions, I'm sure? "Put the CD in the drive, wait 5 seconds. Double click the "My Computer" icon on the desktop (I hope you didn't rename it), then double click the CD icon, double click the program that says Install " isn't much harder than "Put the CD in the drive, wait 5 seconds. Depending on how your computer is set up, it might pop up automatically, or you might have to double click the "My Computer" icon (I hope you didn't rename it), then double click the CD icon, then double click the program that says Install ".

      *shrug*.

    2. Re:Well just turn off autoplay by iabervon · · Score: 1

      People confuse the CD containing software with the program on the CD. But they expect anything usb-storage to be a place they can put stuff, not a program. If anything, connecting an iPod should run iTunes (or some other appropriate program for manipulating the inert contents of the iPod), not anything on the iPod.

  107. I beg your pardon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People don't generally turn into bovines or poultry, honest! Manimal was just a TV series.

    You probably can't fuck a chick without it splitting. It would probably be a duct tape job to hold it together whilst copulating. However, people have been known to shag chickens.

    Cattle shouldn't be too much of a problem, if you're into that sort of thing.

    It's fairly doubtful that you could infect either animal with HIV.

  108. but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    iTunes always came with the 'Quicktime' virus

  109. It all makes sense, by msauve · · Score: 1

    except what you say simply doesn't match the facts given. You apparently didn't read either the article or the post to which you were responding.

    If the virus were present on some kind of master disk image, that image would have been used by multiple stations on the production line. The article specifically references a single station. The only thing that fits that claim is that iPods were being mounted as drives on Windows PCs during production, and one of those stations got a virus. It sounds like, instead of using a high speed disk duplicator, they are connecting iPods to Windows PCs and running some program.

    I'm not sure how current iPods are shipped, but it used to be that they all came formatted for the Mac (HFS), and iPods to be used with Windows had to be reformatted for FAT (the process was made somewhat invisible to the user by iTunes, though). If that's still the case, using Windows PCs in production makes even less sense. And how does a Windows virus end up on an HFS volume, and how could that possibly infect an end user's Windows computer, since Windows can't (natively) mount an HFS disk?

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  110. Microsoft would love to copycat. by DrYak · · Score: 2, Funny
    I've never heard of a real, self-propagating, OS X virus in the wild.


    Yeah, it's a real shame that Microsoft's Zune Player is windows-only.
    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Microsoft would love to copycat. by apeeira · · Score: 1

      give them time......

  111. Depends on what software you're running by brokeninside · · Score: 1

    There is a good deal of software (Quickbooks is the pre-eminent example) which are practically impossible to install and use without Admin privs. Technically, you can do it by granting permission to each of the obscure registry keys that QB needs access to, but unless you've got an extremely knowledgable and patient IT guru willing to blow hours on each workstation that needs the software, it ain't going to happen. If only Quickbooks were the only piece of software like this!

    1. Re:Depends on what software you're running by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, my folks have spent many hours doing exactly what you describe but I place the blame for this squarely on the coder who did not take the time to do it right. I have seen the same type of issues on our Linux systems as well. If a coder writes the software on his test machine as root it creates problems during implementation.

  112. My favorite part by LeedsSideStreets · · Score: 1
    As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows...

    My favorite part is the "As you might imagine..." bit. Actually I wasn't imagining that at all. When Apple puts viruses on Windows, I don't imagine that Apple will be the one that's upset. Why does Apple think we are all feeling bad for them whenever THEY mess up and get some bad press?

    C'mon guys, you do a lot of things right, but you can make some mistakes and have some class/balls about it.
  113. not really secure..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    while not a virus, how about the zip expoit in Safari.

    Auto run any code from viewing a website.

    That sounds pretty bad to me.

    Just becuase nobody bothered to turn it into a virus via applescript does not mena that macs are secure, simply obscure in the eyes of the botnet masters.

  114. Everything does come to an end by brokeninside · · Score: 1
    It may be a fact that my disk driver will eventually fail. But whether or not my disk will fail while it is still in use by me is an unknown. Which is why risk management strategies (of which data backups are a portion) should be implemented based on the probability and cost of various classes of failure.

    Saying that all data you want to keep must be backed up is a vast (and harmful) oversimplification. It's the type of simplification that makes a person come off as a raving lunatic and tends to drive people away. A much better approach is simply to get people to think about the factors involved. How much time would it take you to rebuild all of the data on your hard disk? Given that x% of hard disks fail over n years, what is the likelihood that you will need to rebuild your data in the expected lifetime of your computer? Give most people a hard number and they can judge for themselves whether or not backing up is worth it to them.

  115. Manifests as iTunes Issue by Flamesplash · · Score: 1

    This actually happened to me. I had iTunes 6 loaded, plugged in my brand new video ipod and it told me I had to update to iTunes 7. I reluctantly download and start installing iTunes 7 when my virus software kicks in! I killed the download, tried redownloading iTunes but the apple site was down. After finding a md5 for the installer and verifying it, I try to reinstall from the original download and no problem. So from my point of view it was some sort of randnom virus. I'll definetely be reporting my encounter.

    --
    "Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
  116. PCs on ipod assembly line... by xo0m · · Score: 1

    "...Joswiak said it was traced to a particular Windows machine in the manufacturing lines of a contract manufacturer that builds the iPods for Apple..." Why on Earth would there be a Windows machine anywhere near the ipod assembly line? (and no - it shouldnt have anything to do with the fact that ipods are PC compatible now)

  117. RaymondE Virus? by ajlitt · · Score: 1

    That's bazaar. Maybe it's an assault on Apple's DRM?

  118. USB Keys by bahwi · · Score: 1

    Great, I wonder how many future USB keys this will be a problem with. I just bought a set of 3 keys with some U3 crapola on it and it doesn't let me format it, comes with 2 partitions, on with auto-start, and the only way to remove them(because I have a usb hard drive and a usb cd drive) is to disconnect EVERYTHING usb except the key and run the format on it. Yeah, totally kills my day since a lot of my usb periphs are hooked up to the back of the comp and there's a mess of wires down there. If this had a virus on a write-protected overriding windows-formatting stuff, that'd be just great too.

  119. Is this a new trend? by kinglink · · Score: 1

    Buy software/hardware get a virus?

    We have spyware in video games, malware protecting them, Viruses on new handheld devices, rootkits on CDs. This is total bs.

    I do have to admit apple's stance takes the cake, blaming PC users. A true low.

  120. Re:If they're making products for use with Windows by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

    If apple are going to make products for use with windows, then it is their responsibility to ensure that those products don't contain virii for windows systems. Suggesting that the virus being present in their product that they're shipping (regardless of the susceptibility of Windows to that virus) is the fault of Microsoft is passing the buck in a most horrible way.

    Your two statements are not mutually exclusive. More than one party can be responsible for some result. Apple accepts blame for the incident and admits they are at fault. They also point out that this type of thing happens a lot due to flaws in Windows. I'm sorry but the fact that Windows viruses are so common (common enough that lots of random manufacturers have them on their drives) and yet MS has done very little harden Windows (so little that a major manufacturer did not easily detect it) is MS's fault.

    ...if they are going to continue to market themselves by making stabs at Microsoft (and no I'm not suggesting the virus was placed intentionally), rather than by marketing their products' strengths and features, I'm not so sure I will continue to feel the same way.

    I wish they mad more jabs at the weaknesses of Windows, maybe it would motivate MS to fix the problems. More than that, I wish the OS market were a competitive, free market instead of a monopolized one so MS would have real, financial incentive to fix the problems of their customers.

  121. Re:Article says, the usual. Avoid Like Plague. by buswolley · · Score: 1

    sure, it may be a windows user at the Ipod factory. But, it is Apples responsibility to test ipods, maintain quality etc.. No, it is Apple's fault.

    --

    A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

  122. Is it that indefensible? by daviddennis · · Score: 1

    I work under the, perhaps naive, assumption that if virus code is not actually executed, it is harmless.

    If infected files are lying on an iPod, which does not execute any Windows code itself, then wouldn't it be harmless to have the virus there?

    The last time I configured an iPod I don't remember seeing any files on it other than a basic directory structure, and certainly no executable files.

    This worm would be entirely harmless unless:

    * Someone mounted the iPod as a disk, as opposed to its more common media player use.
    --AND--
    * Someone clicked on an executable file that was on the iPod

    It seems to me that this would very rarely happen. I would assume that the virus was caught by virus scanning software running on the host PC, which would of course detect and remove it. However, if someone with this virus on the iPod had no virus scanning software, the odds are extremely high that it would just sit on the disk and never be triggered.

    This is a stupid and embarassing thing to happen, but I'm not convinced it's dangerous. I'm open to having my mind changed, though, so go ahead and see what scenerios you can devise that would make this truly dangerous to more than a handful of people.

    D

    1. Re:Is it that indefensible? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      If the iPod mounts as a disk, Windows has this annoying DEFAULT habit of auto executing files that are flagged for auto execution. If this virus does such a thing, the simple act of mounting the iPod is enough to infect the host.

    2. Re:Is it that indefensible? by daviddennis · · Score: 1

      A good point, but none of the descriptions of this specific virus make me think it's set up to spread that way, so I still think the real threat is minimal at worst.

      D

  123. Buy AV software?!? by quarmar · · Score: 1

    I can't believe that Apple recommended that infected customers should *buy* AV software! Apple infected their computers, Apple should supply the software to remove the virus.

  124. Tested on a windows machine???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone else see the irony here. The Ipod was built and tested by a contractor using a "Windoze" machine. Wouldn't it be to Apple's advantage to insist their contractor use Macs on their production line, or is Apple too cheap to insist that their own products be uses to manufacture their products?

    This is not intended to be slam on Apple, I just find it ironic.

  125. Enlightenment is key by empaler · · Score: 1

    Points for taking time trying to enlighten another person. :-)

  126. Re:Article says, the usual. Avoid Like Plague. by dedazo · · Score: 1

    Way to go twitter, nothing like an opportunity to do your "M$ windoze" routine. Are they letting you post again after all your troll and flamebait moderations? And why are you back on it again?

    --
    Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
  127. iTunes by Jeebos · · Score: 3, Funny

    I know iTunes is a crappy application (on Windows), but I don't know if I'd go so far as to call it a virus...

  128. Rotten Apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MS is to blame because Apple shipped rotten apples?

  129. Nobody gives a crap... by toadlife · · Score: 1

    ...whether technically it fits the classic/correct defenition of a computer 'virus'. It's malware. The parent was replying to a post that didn't even call it a virus, so I don't understand the point other than to try and minimize the issue.

    If you go by strict definition, there are no "viruses" for computers any more for Windows or Mac.. There are worms, trojans, and hybrids of the two.

    --
    I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
  130. Apple being friendly.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple is just being friendly by making Windoze users feel right at home and not feel like some stranger in a virus-free land.

  131. Blame is inconsequential by brokeninside · · Score: 1

    Operating systems are appliances for running other programs. If those other programs require the operating system to be logged in as root, then for all practical purposes the operating system must be running as root. If the operating system is insecure when running as root, that is the fault of the operating system vendor, not the application vendor. Further, the operating system vendor can put a good deal of pressure on applications vendors to avoid this behavior. I dunno if Quickbook qualifies for the Designed for Windows XP logo, but if it does and it still exhibits such bad behavior, this is Microsoft's fault and is illustrative of the quality of their standards.

  132. Re:Article says, the usual. Avoid Like Plague. by twitter · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Way to go twitter, nothing like an opportunity to do your "M$ windoze" routine. Are they letting you post again after all your troll and flamebait moderations? And why are you back on it again?

    Someone blamed Apple for the M$ virus ecology, why not read the article and see that it had nothing to do with anything other than Genuine M$ software?

    Of course, I'm not going to let a loser like you run me off with insults or mod bombs. Now go fuck yourself.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  133. Re:Article says, the usual. Avoid Like Plague. by dedazo · · Score: 1
    Oh yes twitter, I run a "Windoze" botnet specifically designed to collect Slashdot mod points and then apply them to anything you post. And with my Taco-like powers I can also post in a discussion without causing those mods to revert. I work for "M$" and I'm all powerful.

    And as long as we're linking to each other's posting history, here's my contribution. I guess you're still "laughing" at me, eh?

    I suppose you can only post once a day now? Well, if you stop trolling maybe they'll let you post more. Bwahahaha. Run along now.

    --
    Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
  134. Re:Article says, the usual. Avoid Like Plague. by jb.hl.com · · Score: 1

    Hint: it WAS Apple's fault for not properly maintaining their systems, and allowing a virus to propagate. Yes, you can run Windows systems without viruses: for some reason, I would have assumed such a system would be far better maintained than it was.

    --
    By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
  135. Re: 2006 a Cyberspace journey by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    "you're soaking your fingers in it."

  136. Article says contractor. The usual infection. by twitter · · Score: 1

    Apple blames Windows for the Virus...but who put it on th ipod?

    Some windoze user at the factory, of course. Isn't that the normal way W32 filth propagates? If you had read the article, you would have seen:

    Joswiak said it was traced to a particular Windows machine in the manufacturing lines of a contract manufacturer that builds the iPods for Apple.

    So, unless Apple is lying to cover up, this was not some targeted attack but just the usual Windoze born disease propagation. M$ is like a plague, and it should avoided as such. Apple should be embarrassing to admit needing it in any part of the process outside developing W32 iTunes. The only way to keep W32 infestations away is to never use it or let a M$ machine touch a filesystem of yours that it can read.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  137. Re:Article says contractor. The usual infection. by buswolley · · Score: 1

    bah humbug.

    --

    A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

  138. Re:Article says contractor. The usual infection. by dedazo · · Score: 1

    Why are you posting the same thing again ?

    --
    Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
  139. Re:Article says contractor. The usual infection. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    twitter, please read this carefully. Following this advice will make Slashdot a better place for everyone, including yourself.

    • As a representative of the Linux community, participate in mailing list and newsgroup discussions in a professional manner. Refrain from name-calling and use of vulgar language. Consider yourself a member of a virtual corporation with Mr. Torvalds as your Chief Executive Officer. Your words will either enhance or degrade the image the reader has of the Linux community.
    • Avoid hyperbole and unsubstantiated claims at all costs. It's unprofessional and will result in unproductive discussions.
    • A thoughtful, well-reasoned response to a posting will not only provide insight for your readers, but will also increase their respect for your knowledge and abilities.
    • Always remember that if you insult or are disrespectful to someone, their negative experience may be shared with many others. If you do offend someone, please try to make amends.
    • Focus on what Linux has to offer. There is no need to bash the competition. Linux is a good, solid product that stands on its own.
    • Respect the use of other operating systems. While Linux is a wonderful platform, it does not meet everyone's needs.
    • Refer to another product by its proper name. There's nothing to be gained by attempting to ridicule a company or its products by using "creative spelling". If we expect respect for Linux, we must respect other products.
    • Give credit where credit is due. Linux is just the kernel. Without the efforts of people involved with the GNU project , MIT, Berkeley and others too numerous to mention, the Linux kernel would not be very useful to most people.
    • Don't insist that Linux is the only answer for a particular application. Just as the Linux community cherishes the freedom that Linux provides them, Linux only solutions would deprive others of their freedom.
    • There will be cases where Linux is not the answer. Be the first to recognize this and offer another solution.

    From http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/docs/HOWTO/Advoca cy

  140. ATTENTION MODS by jb.hl.com · · Score: 1

    Twitter posted this exact same post elsewhere in this discussion, got modded down to -1 for it and is now reposting it to try and get some karma. Please don't indulge him.

    --
    By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --