Slashdot Mirror
Apple Quietly Recommends Antivirus Software For Macs
Barence writes "After years of boasting about the Mac's near invincibility, Apple is now advising its customers to install security software on their computers. Apple — which has continually played on Windows' vulnerability to viruses in its advertising campaigns — issued the advice in a low-key message on its support forums. 'Apple encourages the widespread use of multiple antivirus utilities so that virus programmers have more than one application to circumvent, thus making the whole virus writing process more difficult.' It goes on to recommend a handful of products." Reader wild_berry points out the BBC's story on the unexpected recommendation.
I've been running Sophos on both my Macs for a year or so... Not so much because I felt I needed them... but because I come from the PC world and felt nekked without an AV program... and my work covers the license costs which made the decision a no brainer.
Interestingly enough... to date, they have only detected MS based viruses.
No Nyarlathotep, No Chaos
Know Nyarlathotep, Know Chaos
Yes Apples can get malware (general term) if you are a complete dumb ass. Until self-propagating zero-interaction attacks appear, leave me alone.
Conservative, mod down for violating
I have Quicktime.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Don't those AV programs mostly scan for Windows viruses on the Mac so you don't pass around those viruses to Windows users?
This story is just wrong. That document is several years old. Apple advises to install security software since years. They just added new names for recommended software products and therefore updated the issue date on the document.
Maybe the Mac has starting to reach that point where virus writers and security aficionados have enough a base to target their efforts?
Perhaps, but I am still waiting to see a real "virus" that hits MacOS. There's been a few trojans (such as the one mentioned in TFA), but nothing that qualifies as a virus yet as far as I know. It is likely much harder to write a real virus (rather than a trojan) for MacOS than Windows as you'll need to find a privilege escalation exploit (need I say, without local access) in one of the standard services first, all of which tend to be pretty robust and having a core that comes from the open source and Unix worlds... as far as I know, there aren't any such exploits known right now.
Trojans can of course still be fairly nasty, as there's a lot of stupid users in the world (of any OS)
Disclosure: I do use MacOS X as my primary OS at home, but I'm definitely not a "fanboy" (I also have Linux systems at home and use primarily Windows at work - I consider myself "OS agnostic").
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
Having multiple products deployed mean that the virus programmers have different applications to circumvent. But that's multiple products on different machines-- you wouldn't expect one user to run all of the anti virus products on one machine.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Well, duh... With the Apple CEO engaging in the unhygienic practice of peeing on all the hardware before it ships, no wonder users are being advised to get some sort of protection against pathogens.
Or was that the Mapple CEO... meh, they probably all do it.
I wish people would stop parroting this fallacy all the time. Market share has nothing to do with how easy it is to break into a system.
If you have something like windows where security is bolted on after the fact, and OS that was never meant to be a multi-user OS connected to the internet (all these were added as features later on and done poorly) then you will have a system that is much harder to keep secure.
UNIX on the other hand was designed from day one to be networked multi-user OS, and security and separation of concerns was there from beginning.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
Indeed. Just look at Linux. It had a great security record up until the start of this decade. Then, once it gained a lot of popularity on servers, we started to see millions of infected Linux servers, linked together in botn...
Oh. Well damn. It seems that despite being the near ideal target for virus-writers (always on, very fast links, powerful hardware), the most popular server platform on earth doesn't have a major virus problem. Huh. Maybe an OSs security record isn't directly linked to its popularity...
The real litigious bastards...
Hell they even gave it away with old .mac accounts. And apple support always had lines saying to use protection. How is it all of a sudden new? They have been saying to use protection for YEARS now.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Macs definitely are susceptible to malware, as the recent DNS trojan has demonstrated. Any app that asks for and gets your admin password is going to play with your computer, that's pretty hard to beat.
Viruses, and worms in particular, do covert, automated spreading. Worms are able to exploit on-by-default network services remotely in the background. (we just had a new one announced yesterday! affects xp AND vista, good lord you'd think they'd learn by now!) Viruses require the ability to circumvent LOCAL security, and get their hooks in the system and replicate locally without user interaction/permission. OS X (and unix in general) are designed from the ground up with this in mind, and have always been far less vulnerable to these two issues.
I don't see this changing anytime soon, just due to the differing design philosophies inside the two systems. From the start of OS X, apps didn't just have free access to do as they pleased, they were restricted by a security model, and learned to develop in OS X under these restrictions, being forced to learn good coding practice. Windows started in the wide open, and their devs got used to it, before they realize the scope of their mistake and tried to close the doors. The devs refused to stop writing apps that just "oh lets just assume we have full write access to the entire hard drive" etc. and so MS has had to go very slowly to avoid completely destroying their established software market. That's hard to overcome.
Even today I can count on one hand all the mac apps I've ran into that either (1) have to be installed while logged in as an admin, or (2) will only run properly (or completely) when logged in as an admin. And I count those developers as idiots for not knowing what they're doing and just assuming they have privs. Until Windows software approaches these numbers, I don't think we can call the Windows security model "fixed".
There are two things that most interest me here. First, Norton has been considered anything from "bad" to "poison" to OS X from the get-go. It's been known to create a wide variety of system problems, and in most cases, when OS X is misbehaving, and they admit they are running norton, the first advice they get is to remove it. (and "good luck removing it" to boot) Symantec has been of little help there, their first "removal tool" was 300+ lines of terminal commands, and still didn't completely uproot it. Their current removal tools are more effective and user-friendly though. So to see Apple RECOMMEND norton is something of a shock. I don't know of a single person in any of the mac support forums that recommends anything for Norton besides uninstalling it.
Second, I thought AV products don't "stack" well? Our PC tech here is constantly having problems with computers that come in and are running 2-4 AV software, and they're fighting like cats and dogs and crippling the system to where only a fresh install will fix it. From what I read on that Apple post, it sounds like Apple is encouraging you to install multiple AV software. And OS X already runs ClamAV doesn't it? Although I have yet to see such a thing get pushed out, I assume Clam can get updates via SoftwareUpdate? I seriously question where they're going by recommending you install additional (or possibly multiple) AV software.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Except the GP didn't say that it was easier to break into the system - he said that more people are going to try. I think he neglects to mention an underlying assumption that no software is perfect, and given enough time and effort, the chances of finding a security flaw that can be exploited is greater than zero in ANY piece of software. While this assumption won't always be true, it's completely reasonable for us to make it when considering the security of our systems - for we don't really have any way of disproving it for any particular piece of software.
Look at AROS! It has no security whatsoever, not even memory management between processes, so despite only having a hundred or so users, it must have zillions of virusses. But, of course, it DOESN'T. So far as I'm aware, nobody's bothered to write one, and it's unlikely any AROS virus would actually be effective.
All viruses require a reasonable level of market share to operate, because one of the principles they rely upon is a network effect, and you just plain cannot get a network effect without a decent market share. So marketshare is, very much, a pre-requisite for a successful virus. It's not the only one, but when people say "Mac OS X hasn't been attacked yet because it doesn't have enough marketshare", they're right. That's one fundamental reason. And unless you can show that any other reasons apply, it's likely to be the only reason.
It's frankly hilarious that Unix, on which the first worms operated, can be held up as some system that had security built-in from the start. It's also untrue that Windows, that is, the operating system known as Windows today, was "never meant to be a multi-user OS connected to the internet". Unless you're talking about Windows Me and its predecessors (98, 95, 3.1, et al), then that's completely false. Current versions of Windows (XP, Vista, 2003, et al) are derived from Windows NT, which was designed, from the beginning, to be "a multi-user OS connected to the internet".
In fact, Windows NT and its successors have a more advanced security model than Unix, allowing more than a separation of users and groups.
The issue with Windows is two fold. First, marketshare. And second, an over complex user-environment where too much functionality is available on the "user" side of the security wall. Both of these issues affected Unix up until the mid nineties, where its disproportionate share of Internet nodes and the amount of stuff running as the default user (which in Unix was root, which also happened to be the account with the most rights.)
There's little reason to believe that Mac OS X is protected from viruses by anything other than its low market share at this point. There's not a large enough group of users for network effects to take over. It is not an inherently secure operating system. The default user is generally set up with administration privileges, and it just takes a buffer overflow or other ordinary vulnerability in a client application like a web browser plug-in for a virus or worm to have complete access to the user's files, and enough access to be able to modify many of the applications the user is likely to run.
Fundamentally, Mac OS X has the same problem as Windows, and the same problem the "run-everything-as-root" Unixes did in the eighties and early nineties: too much functionality available to the default user. To fix this, you need to change the model somewhat. The very least Apple could do is set Mac OS X up so that the installer actively discourages setting up the default user as an administrator.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I don't see this changing anytime soon, just due to the differing design philosophies inside the two systems. From the start of OS X, apps didn't just have free access to do as they pleased, they were restricted by a security model, and learned to develop in OS X under these restrictions, being forced to learn good coding practice.
There is another common stupidity that many Mac developers seem to have that still persists from the Classic days. Many OS X devs still act as though the user installing the app is the only one on the system. A good example is Adobe Reader. EVERY user that runs Reader for the first time will be pestered to enter an administrator password the first time the software is run. The only workaround is to copy some preference files into every home directory on the system and if there is an update to Reader then that has to be done again. Yeah, yeah, I know just use Preview but things like that happening are common. It isn't OS X' fault. There is provision for system wide app settings; it's just that OS X devs tend not to use them the way Windows devs assume everyone is an administrator.
I recall people saying just the opposite when DOS for PCs was starting to become popular. Back then, people were writing worms for Unix systems, and there wasn't much "in the wild" for DOS. But no need to change your strategy as things obviously never change in the technology realm...
"But this one goes to 11!"
Good points all, but I think you forgot one major aspect of the "market share" argument.
There hasn't been a true "virus" out there in the wild for years (to me, a true virus means self propogating malware - malware that modifies existing binaries and relies on those modified binaries being distributed). Instead there's a TON of malware intended on converting machines into botnet clients.
The vast majority of malware (maybe as much as 95% or higher) these days is really "crimeware" - software intended to aid in criminal activity (identity theft, click fraud,etc).
As a criminal, let's say that it's going to cost me $10,000 to hire some eastern european hacker to develop malware for my criminal enterprise (number totally made up). I get to chose which platform I have the hacker target - I can target Windows with 90% of the market, I can target OSX with 8% of the market or I can target Linux with 2% of the market (market share numbers also made up, but probably in the right ballpark).
That means that if I'm interested in profit (and this IS a criminal enterprise, so profit is the primary motive), I want to have my hacker target the platform with the highest ROI. That means that the hacker's going to go after Windows and ignore OSX and Linux.
As the Mac's market share increases, it is going to be an increasingly more attractive target for hackers, because the ROI is higher.
Real virus writers are more concerned with making gobs of money with as little investment as possible. Mac doesn't play into that role yet, as the aforementioned marketshare is still small by comparison.
Also, virus writers are likely to stick to Windows for the same reason many users do, they already know it. Why spend the extra time learning a new OS to infect the minority when you can target the majority in much less time? That leaves you with so much more time to spend your pilfered moneys.