Report That OS X Snow Leopard May Include Antivirus

File this firmly in the "rumor" category for now. the JoshMeister writes (in the third person) "Mac antivirus company Intego broke the story this morning that Apple is apparently including antivirus functionality in its upcoming operating system, Snow Leopard. But which antivirus engine is Apple using? Security researcher Joshua Long discusses the likely candidates."

Comments

Virus on MAC ?

[Anonymous Coward]

bah, what respectful virus author targets anything but the Microsoft OS ?

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Anonymous Coward]

A few highlights from TFA:
 

• The submitter is a pompous queer.
• Apple users are pompous queers.
• Snow leopard uses the Symantec A/V engine, so it is 200% slower.
• Macs do get viruses, so Steve Jobs is a goddamn liar
• Steve Jobs tried to have me killed so he could get my liver
• Snow leopard is to regular leopard as Vista is to XP.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[gad_zuki!]

>It's a trojan that only installs if you're stupid enough to download a program from a dodgy source

Err, thats pretty much the biggest vector for malware. Pick any popular app for Windows, go to pirate bay, download it, run it, and guess what? You have an infection.

Storm botnet was built by people double-clicking greetingcard.exe.

Dont underestimate people's abilities to go out of their way to find malware to run. You'll find tha you dont need to exploit any vulnerability other than ignorant on the user's part to root the machine.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[EkriirkE]

Bingo. Except for your parenthesized commend, you got it.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Captain Splendid]

Pick any popular app for Windows, go to pirate bay, download it, run it, and guess what? You have an infection.

Really? I must not be trying hard enough then. And I thought my ratio was bad now...

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D]

In that light, anti-virus software seems like a losing battle. I was going to suggest we build an OS for people to stupid to close their own mouths, but I think that's really missing the mark. That's just dealing with passive stupidity. Active stupidity is a much harder problem to tackle....

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[dyingtolive]

Pick any popular app for Windows, go to pirate bay, download it, run it, and guess what? You have an infection. Really? I must not be trying hard enough then. And I thought my ratio was bad now...

Its not quite THAT bad, but I do agree that this is the number one way of getting the nasties on your computer. The thing that bothers me is when I start to wonder what percentage of mac users there are out there that will pompously go to whatever sites they feel like, downloading and installing whatever software they feel like, on the basis that "Mac's don't get viruses." This is a step in the right direction. I applaud the idea of the built-in virus protection. Hopefully it comes out more useful than the Windows Malicious File removal tool.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[eldavojohn]

The "virus"mentioned in the screen shot isn't much of a virus. It's a trojan that only installs if you're stupid enough ...

I could put Ubuntu on a netbook and give it to my sister and she'd have no clue how to use it. But you can bet every last cent that if the source code to a virus was presented to her she would have it compiled (with all the right flags set to target her correct OSX version) and installed in a few minutes. It's borderline magic. Did you know they have LimeWire on Macs now? She managed to find that, install it and learn how to use it on her own but didn't have a clue as to how to move pictures from her old Windows machine to her MacBook. If only curing cancer compromised your computer, she'd have that done in a heart beat.

I knew she would be better off with a mac but your statement of "anybody who uses a Mac knows" makes me cringe. Bottom line: do not underestimate stupidity.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Psyborgue]

>It's a trojan that only installs if you're stupid enough to download a program from a dodgy source

Err, thats pretty much the biggest vector for malware. Pick any popular app for Windows, go to pirate bay, download it, run it, and guess what? You have an infection.

Sure, but on a mac most installs consist of dragging a piece of software (app folder) to a location of your choice. System files common to all users are only affected if and only if you give an app permission via a password. If you download something from TPB and it asks to run an installer, sure, there's a risk, but most apps are just drag n drop to install. In windows pretty much everything has an installer and it's anybody's guess what it does.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[mcgrew]

A horse is a four legged animal, but a four legged animal is not necessarily a horse, or a cat would be a horse. Trojans and viruses are both malware, but a trojan isn't a virus unless it is self replicating.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Psyborgue]

I knew she would be better off with a mac but your statement of "anybody who uses a Mac knows" makes me cringe. Bottom line: do not underestimate stupidity.

Good point. Apple should probably be more explicit about what it entails when you are asked for your admin password and the risks associated.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[erroneus]

I agree. And MacOSX does not typically market to the technical or sophisticated user. Sure, some are, but that's not what built Apple's reputation for "easy and just works." Technical and sophisticated users know that "easy" and "just works" usually means inflexible and not adaptable. So what portion of Mac users would be likely to fall for tricks and gimmicks to get people to install the software themselves? Not unlike Windows, MOST of them. "Wanna see a Hot or Funny or Sad or Important or Secret video? You gotta install this video player/codec to make it work!"

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Stupendoussteve]

Apple needs to stop marketing itself as immune from viruses. They have never been immune, just not targeted and fortunately better built so that only a true idiot user with correct privileges can take down the whole system. Unfortunately their marketing that Macs are immune leads to user complacency and foolhardiness. The OS security is useless when the users circumvent or ignore it, which is what has happened with Mac malware, as well as a lot of newer Windows stuff. An idiot Mac user with admin privileges is just as dangerous as one in Vista or 7.

What they have largely been immune (not always) to is the worms and remote exploits for which Windows has been vulnerable.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Yvan256]

I thought that Trojans were made to prevent the replication of those huge two-legged viruses.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[IntlHarvester]

I wouldn't put too much faith in "drag to install", because most malware doesn't actually need system privledges.

Also, reportedly websites have figured out how to make Safari automatically download this trojan and then launch the installer program. Users still need to enter their password, but having the dialog automatically popup makes the social engineering step that much easier.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[jocknerd]

Yet, the technical or sophisticated user tends to go with a Mac. Why is that? Don't believe me? Visit a developer's conference.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I.e., "Beware of the Snow Leopard"?

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[geekoid]

really, it asked for the admin password?
But your point is true.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Xtravar]

The thing that bothers me is when I start to wonder what percentage of mac users there are out there that will pompously go to whatever sites they feel like, downloading and installing whatever software they feel like, on the basis that "Mac's don't get viruses."

Hmm, unless you have to clean up their mess, why do you care so much?

Also, from my limited experience with Macs and Mac users, it seems like they aren't the type to be dissatisfied with what they have and go exploring for exciting downloads, but maybe I've gotten the wrong impression. It seems like they buy Macs for the very reason that they don't like 'exploring' and want something that 'just works'.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Psyborgue]

Apple needs to stop marketing itself as immune from viruses. They have never been immune, just not targeted and fortunately better built so that only a true idiot user with correct privileges can take down the whole system.

Which is why my dad, who uses my old powerbook, does not have admin priviliedges. He can still install apps by dragging them to his desktop or elsewhere. He's never had a problem or even called me for support other than advice on where to find a good replacement battery (old one was over 5 years old and barely held a charge). My mom, on the other hand, with her vista box, even without admin privs, is constantly calling me about why it's so slow and so on and so forth. It's a daily tech support thing. Something is always broken. I should start charging.

Unfortunately their marketing that Macs are immune leads to user complacency and foolhardiness. The OS security is useless when the users circumvent or ignore it, which is what has happened with Mac malware, as well as a lot of newer Windows stuff. An idiot Mac user with admin privileges is just as dangerous as one in Vista or 7.

Or in linux for that matter. I agree. You can't fix stupid so I don't think it's fair to say the OS is at fault when it's really the user. So in a sense apple is accurate that Macs don't get viruses. What they do is allow users to install malicious software if they choose to. *snickers*

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Stupendoussteve]

Safari will do this for installer packages and mount .dmg files if "Open safe files after opening" is enabled.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[seandiggity]

Yet, the technical or sophisticated user tends to go with linux. Why is that? Don't believe me? Visit a developer's conference

There, fixed that for ya :P

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[MBGMorden]

Have you seen the obscene amount of Mac shareware out there? Don't get me wrong a lot of stuff does "just work" on the Mac, but a lot of niches aren't filled, and it seems like while on Windows you're likely to find spyware infested free programs, and on Linux you're likely to find reputable OSS programs, on Mac you better be prepared to pay $20 a pop for all those little apps. Maybe I'm just being naive, but it doesn't seem like they'd all be around if some significant chunk of mac users weren't downloading and buying these programs.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[prockcore]

The problem is that you don't need a password to overwrite everything in /Applications.

I can totally see a program that contains a virus that infects iTunes, Safari, whatever. It'll be like the oldschool DOS viruses that infected every .exe on your drive.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[PIBM]

There's been multiple viruses using failures in the system to install themselves on the apple hardware without any user input.

My favorite is the iphone exploit where somebody could root your device & record everything barely by sending an IM :)

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Psyborgue]

I wouldn't put too much faith in "drag to install", because most malware doesn't actually need system privledges.

Sure, but then it's quarantined to the specific user.

Also, reportedly websites have figured out how to make Safari automatically download this trojan and then launch the installer program. Users still need to enter their password, but having the dialog automatically popup makes the social engineering step that much easier.

Source? I think this might have been true with older versions of OSX or Safari but i'm not sure it still works. I use firefox and even still whenever I download something and want to run it it reminds me that it's downloaded from the Internet and might not be safe (even when it's not installed system-wide).

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Anonymous Coward]

So at all the developer's conferences you've been to, they're using Linux laptops?

Oh wait, I just looked at your homepage - that's not the sort of place you'd ever be, is it.

Why do non-programmers seem to think they "understand" if they've taught themselves html in their spare time? You aren't a professional programmer. You have no idea what we do. Now fuck off.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[commodoresloat]

people double-clicking greetingcard.exe.

Oooh, cool, a new greeting card and it's not even November yet! Can anyone send me a copy?

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[xgr3gx]

What they really need is a anti-gettingUserToInstallStupidCrap software. It would be beneficial on every OS platform where a computer lay-person is driving.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[TClevenger]

[QUOTE]The problem is that you don't need a password to overwrite everything in /Applications.[/QUOTE] You must be running as an admin user.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Gizzmonic]

Did you know they have LimeWire on Macs now?

Yeah, only for about the last 10 years, bro. Way to keep up.

She managed to find that, install it and learn how to use it on her own but didn't have a clue as to how to move pictures from her old Windows machine to her MacBook.

Precompiled binaries...they're a hoot. You should learn about them sometime.

I knew she would be better off with a mac but your statement of "anybody who uses a Mac knows" makes me cringe.

Wake me up when someone creates Mac malware able to propagate through security flaws in Mail (a la Outlook Express) or via remote root execution (Nimda/Slammer type). Until that is possible, pwning Macs isn't really worth the trouble.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[TClevenger]

[QUOTE]The problem is that you don't need a password to overwrite everything in /Applications.[/QUOTE] You must be running as an admin user.

Annnnnd.. I fail.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[thedbp]

Jesus that ad was from like 2002 or something. And you didn't do anything to disprove the parent's comment - that technical and sophisticated users are choosing the Mac in droves. Interesting, these same folks are generally less susceptible to marketing drivel and tend to base their purchases on objective assessment.

So yeah, Apple advertising is directed at n00bs. But their technology is squarely aimed at the more educated users out there.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Real programmers write programs for a platform. They write programs for osx, for windows, for linux, for HPUX, for UNIX, for what ever the OS is. Good programmers may prefer to write their code on one platform or another, but the compile them for the target platform. Apple machines are not the top choice for writing that I have seen. After all apple was targeted at artists and creative people (per Steve Jobs) and programmers are not that target audience. Most of the on their own programmers I see use linux or some other free os with a lot of free tools for their own stuff. Or their company pays and they use what is provided to them. Most of the non linux programmers I saw used Sun machines. Last I saw linux or Sun is not OSX.

Still today I see OSX used mostly by, graphic people, heavy photoshop users, musicians, and publishing people (Adobe creative suite people). Not programmers. Maybe the west cost of the US i different but on the east coast, OSX is not the programmers choice that I can see. This is in NY, NJ, DC, PA, MD, VA, NC, and SC.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Khashishi]

You can find reputable OSS programs on Windows and Mac also.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[tagno25]

I thought that Trojans were made to prevent the replication of those huge two-legged viruses.

No, that is condoms made by a company called Trojan. The virus trojans are based off of the wooden horse left outside Troy by the Greeks. It looked legitimate, but it was a trap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_horse_(computing)

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[geekboy642]

The mac "culture" is much more willing to purchase a $20 app that fills a tidy hole in their system. This is both an emergent behavior and a forced behavior. Forced because the ecosystem for macs is a fraction of that for windows, the number of cracking or hacking groups targeting pay-for apps is much lower. Emergent because, the already high barrier to entry (iTax) is locking out a large amount of those who are inclined to buy a $300 PC and fill it with warez. Both of these factors also work to suppress the creation of an equivalent to the spyware-infested freeware app "scene" present on Windows.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Savage-Rabbit]

I knew she would be better off with a mac but your statement of "anybody who uses a Mac knows" makes me cringe. Bottom line: do not underestimate stupidity.

I wouldn't call it stupidity. Just because somebody isn't aware of all possible malware infection routes that doesn't make them stupid, naive is perhaps a better word for it or perhaps just unlucky. Expecting the average user to be aware of every possible way of getting his computer infected is about as realistic as expecting a non-medically educated person to be aware of all possible ways to get a disease. We all know any number of things we can do to avoid getting diseases, some of these behaviors are even hardwired into our DNA but they aren't 100% effective. How many of us are likely to go through life without ever catching a disease like, say, Influenza?

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pity he failed and you got to keep your liver.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[sbeckstead]

No No he's right, you just aren't looking hard enough. Of course I define most windows programs as an infection anyway so what do I know.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[sbeckstead]

This comment is worded exactly as intended. Any application of fantastic "Fixed that for you" jokes will be "aplauded". There fixed that for you!

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I could put Ubuntu on a netbook and give it to my sister and she'd have no clue how to use it. But you can bet every last cent that if the source code to a virus was presented to her she would have it compiled...

Your sister is stupid.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[sbeckstead]

Beware of Geeks bearing gifts.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[0100010001010011]

Almost anything written well for 'Linux' that runs on *BSD or Solaris, can be compiled for OS X.

I just got into GeoTagging my photos. There are 3-4 GUI programs which 'Just Work'. In addition to exiftool and gpsbabel which are can be run from the command line plus BT747 which is OSS but Java. And most of the stuff I can install with MacPorts so everything is managed.

TrailRunner is a VERY well made piece of freeware.

http://macupdate.com/
http://versiontracker.com/

Search both for 'Free' and there are quite a bit of good apps.

I paid for TextMate because it's one of the best programs I've used. Same with Graphic Converter.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[sbeckstead]

Wow, did you know that Limewire originated on macs and they even have it on PCs now.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[redJag]

My experience hasn't been like that on the Mac, but maybe I've just been using it so long I know what I am looking for. I find that there are many high quality, free apps out there to fill the gaps. I do agree that there is a large amount of shareware and a lot of it is quality stuff as well, but I can nearly always find a free app to fill my needs. I have paid for less than a handful of shareware apps over many years of using a Mac. Also, as another poster mentioned, most of the reputable OSS programs have Mac ports.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[sbeckstead]

Actually it is my first choice because the entire tool chain including the nifty IDE and interface designer is free and shipped with the OS out the door. And don't try to kid me the xpress versions of VS have so many limitations that they are useless for anything commercial. I think you just have your head in the sand. There are plenty of programmers on the east coast that use the Mac.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[redJag]

OHHHH. What are condoms for?.. :)

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Knara]

Hm. More accurately, Macs have a good deal of technical/sophisticated users, but only on certain interest groups. There are more technical/sophisticated users on other platforms (particularly Windows) simply because Apple only has ~7-8% of the market.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[sbeckstead]

Yeah if you can find the actual directory that contains the Applications and answer yes to the mass delete question. Yeah I suppose you could remove a user's applications.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I could put Ubuntu on a netbook and give it to my sister and she'd have no clue how to use it. But you can bet every last cent that if the source code to a virus was presented to her she would have it compiled...

Your sister is stupid.

She might be, but is she hot?

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[wstrucke]

funny since there's a grain (or more) of truth in each of those statements

• Snow leopard is to regular leopard as Vista is to XP.

... except with all the additional features for half the disk space and twice the performance

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[mweather]

Err, thats pretty much the biggest vector for malware. Pick any popular app for Windows, go to pirate bay, download it, run it, and guess what? You have an infection.

Have you ever noticed the little skulls by people's names on TPB? Those are there for a reason.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[risk one]

Snow leopard uses the Symantec A/V engine, so it is 200% slower.

Snow leopard? More like slow leopard!

(I had to do it... there was no other way)

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Congratulations, you've made (at least) the second "fixed that for ya" post attached to this story which took a true statement and and "fixed" it into a false one. FTFY is one of those memes that's long overdue for a painful death.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[smartr]

looking at some of the OSS programs on my Mac (disclaimer - many are very cross platform)... Adium (best chat program... ever), Growl, Smultron, Cyberduck, VLC, Firefox, OpenOffice, Eclipse, SquirrelSQL, SynergyKM, a crappy port of the Gimp (ok the GIMP kind of sucks on os x)... Built in support for all kinds of *NIX goodness like DTRace... The built in applications are nice. I'm looking forward to ditching the crap that is Microsoft entourage for the Snow Leopard exchange support at work. There are some nice free (beer) applications... caffeine, Jing, OmniDazzle (which has some interesting OSS libraries)...

Sure plenty of people pay for applications on the Mac, but then again - they've got a pretty organized way of getting users to reputable shareware:
http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[SBrach]

Says the guy who can't figure out the difference between "to" and "too."

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Show me the Apple ad where they've said "Macs are immune to viruses." Please. Find the ad where that statement, or an equally strong statement ("Macs are less likely to get viruses" and "Windows PCs get more viruses than Macs do" don't count) appears, and post a link. I dare you.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[jpmorgan]

To be pedantic, that isn't an emergent behavior. Emergent behavior is many applications of a simple system, or simple rules, leads to complex behavior. For example, flocking.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

I.e., "Beware of the Snow Leopard"?

I RTFA and nowhere in it did it say anything about Apple including IE with Snow Leopard.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Tom]

Dont underestimate people's abilities to go out of their way to find malware to run. You'll find tha you dont need to exploit any vulnerability other than ignorant on the user's part to root the machine.

That's right. Five years ago, while speaking at a security conference, I offered a bet, that I would take a non-malicious but virus-pattern-matching program, call it "evil.exe" or something, put it up for download with a clearly worded webpage saying "this is malware, do not under any circumstances run it", and I'm sure if I could get the link on /. or something, thousands of people would run it.

Nobody took me up on that bet, everyone nodded in agreement.

Three years later, at the same conference, I told everyone that I've come to the conclusion it's not user stupidity. It's a problem of expectations. From the perspective of your average non-geek computer user, he's being told all the time how great the Internet is, and how easy it is to download and install stuff, and every trustworthy source gives him stuff to download - he really can't see much of a difference between nvidia.com and nudevirgins.com - and quite frankly, why should he? That's just a game of awareness vs. camouflage, another arms race.

But why does the computer give a random program full access to the machine? It shouldn't need it. 90% of available software could run in a sandbox, and communication with other software could go over well-defined APIs that are ACL aware at least, MAC at best.

But - we in the computer industry still believe in the "wiz kid" and the "hero programmer", not in processes and procedures, controls and quality assurance. It "limits our freedom".

We'll learn.

Probably the hard way.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[IntlHarvester]

You must be running as an admin user.

The default user is an admin user, so in most cases this does mean any random app can trojan iTunes.

Just because it's unix doesn't mean the permissions are as tight as your linux box.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[sqldr]

"Yet, the technical or sophisticated user"

For the first time in 10 years of using linux at home, I recently installed windows 7 on a laptop. Why? To program something specifically technical and sophisticated. When I've finished, I'll take my platform agnostic personality back to my easy to program KDE4 environment.

Fuck off.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[wazzzup]

He claims to be a web developer, which one can assume that he's writing code (be it PHP, Ruby, ASP or even Javascript.) How is this not programming? Because you don't have to hit "compile" when you want to test code? Because you don't mess with C-type memory pointers or track down potential buffer overflows?

Have you been paying attention to the web lately? The lines between application as an OS-bound executable are being blurred more and more by the web each day and these type of web services all employ object-orientation, design patterns, APIs, unit-tested frameworks, algorithm optimization, security hardening, database design, etc. Proper usage any of these tools and concepts are normally beyond the casual script writer. They require a good understanding of what it takes to make a modern web-app.

Is the code necessary to implement Gmail any less complex than code used to write an email app?

Why do OS app programmers seem to think no one else programs but them and everybody else is a self-taught hack?

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[IntlHarvester]

Sure, but then it's quarantined to the specific user.

Untrue! Anyone in the admin group (including the default user) can overwrite anything in the global /Applications directory with no authentication required. That's how "drag to install" works in the first place!

Given all the misinformation about OS X security being spread in this thread, I can see why Apple felt they had to add a malware checker.

(And sorry I don't have a source onhand, but you can google "Open safe files" or whatever the option is and read about how Safari automagically runs DMG installers)

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Stupendoussteve]

Because they've certainly never implied it.

Does the average viewer see that commercial and think "Oh, Macs get less viruses than Windows." Hell no, they think "Oh, Macs don't get viruses."

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[sexconker]

Define droves.
Then look at PC sales vs. Mac sales.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[prockcore]

There's no searching required. /Applications and anything in it is group-writable by the admin group. The default user (the one practically every mac user runs as) is a member of the admin group.

And I'm not saying mass deleting.. I'm talking about modifying the apps inside.. so you won't even know you're infected.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[zuperduperman]

Developers don't have much choice these days due to Apple's refusal to license OSX for any kind of use other than running on Apple-made silicon.

Which is also the reason I don't support Macs in my software business. While I can fire up and watch 12 virtual machines - one for each version of windows and a couple of variants of linux that I support - in a matter of seconds and initiate an automated test suite that verifies my software works on every single one, to do that with OSX I'd have to have something like 8 physical boxes and monitors sitting on my desk.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[tyrione]

The "virus"mentioned in the screen shot isn't much of a virus. It's a trojan that only installs if you're stupid enough ...

I could put Ubuntu on a netbook and give it to my sister and she'd have no clue how to use it. But you can bet every last cent that if the source code to a virus was presented to her she would have it compiled (with all the right flags set to target her correct OSX version) and installed in a few minutes. It's borderline magic. Did you know they have LimeWire on Macs now? She managed to find that, install it and learn how to use it on her own but didn't have a clue as to how to move pictures from her old Windows machine to her MacBook. If only curing cancer compromised your computer, she'd have that done in a heart beat. I knew she would be better off with a mac but your statement of "anybody who uses a Mac knows" makes me cringe. Bottom line: do not underestimate stupidity.

Or your sister's pension for a free way to find movies, adult movies, music and other stuff illegally.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[ClosedSource]

No problem. Just design a new OS from the ground up for the 21st century. In the 20th century things were slow enough without a sandbox.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[gyrogeerloose]

True, but that option has been disabled by default for several years now.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[ClosedSource]

"Visit a developer's conference."

But I don't develop for the Mac.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Xtravar]

So... why do you use a Mac then? I used to use Windows with mostly OSS software, and then I just gave in and installed Linux because it's easier that way. What's your story?

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

That ad does not say Macs are immune to viruses. Neither does any other Apple ad you will be able to find.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the company is paying for it, might as well get the most expensive thing right? The only time I use Mac's is at work where I don't have to pay for it, would never fork over my own cash for the cost of something I could build for far far less.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[indiechild]

Sounds like you haven't seen the Mac warez scene. There's heaps of warez, cracks, serials out there for Mac applications -- you can get them as readily as you can get Windows ones.

I do think it's true that Mac users are more likely to buy/pay for "shareware" apps though.

Offtopic, but "shareware" seems like the wrong word for it. Doesn't feel quite right.

Also, I dispute the notion that there's not much open source/freeware on Mac OS X. There is, but like a lot of open source stuff, they're often not the best-of-breed. I'd rather pay some money and get the best there is, like Transmit (for FTP) and CSSEdit/Espresso (for editing HTML and CSS).

The open source apps I use the most on OS X are Firefox and VLC.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[anagama]

Perhaps he likes using a Mac because sound doesn't randomly fail. I've been using various linux distros since 2002 (exclusively from 2003-2006) and sound has always been an issue. I still use linux on my desktops, but there is something to be said for my mac laptops when I just want to sit down and watch youtube for a while without having sound suddenly decide it is time for its monthly down time.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[anagama]

So don't run as Admin. It's quite easy to make another user -- even if you use the same password for both because you're lazy, you'll suddenly have to enter it and the admin user name whenever dragging something to and from /Applications.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[seandiggity]

Your anecdote about Macs is now a true statement? Why, because there are more Mac users at conferences you've been to? At least I wouldn't go so far to claim that my FTFY is truth-with-a-capital-T because of my experience.

Oh and thanks for the put-down...guess I'm not technical or sophisticated or a developer, and neither are all the other linux users I've met over the years. Anyway, I'm done with this thread.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Also, you may want to learn to read usernames on the posts you're replying to. You're confusing me with someone else.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[abigor]

Because it has a modern, working gui? Because sound works? Because it interfaces cleanly with a corporate environment (he mentioned Exchange)?

Linux on the desktop is...okay, if you're at home and don't mind not having access to tremendous amount of mainstream desktop software.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[prockcore]

Sure, but then it's quarantined to the specific user.

oh good, so since only one user on the box is now part of a botnet, it must be ok.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Darkness404]

The problem is existing software. Its easy to design a new system, but it won't be functional unless it either A) contains a copy of the OS needed to emulate (easy if you are Microsoft, nearly impossible for anyone else unless they want to pay $XX per copy in licensing fees plus other fees and restrictions) B) Has a functional emulator, while WINE works great for some programs, its by no means complete and it has been worked on since 1993!

Unless you have a small user base, a very devoted userbase (such as Mac users), or have lots of commercial developers, it will go nowhere. I've had users with Windows 98 bogged down with viruses, slowdowns, etc. reject an upgrade to a light Linux distro that is faster and has more default software and newer software because it doesn't have -insert some niche app or MS Office here- that is what keeps us in the "dark ages". Heck, look at Vista, even though it was Windows many programs just flat out didn't run unless you ran it as admin, no rhyme or reason for it, they just weren't programmed for a secure model, and for a lot of people those programs are -very- mission critical.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Mister Whirly]

"This comment is worded exactly as intended. Any application of fantastic "Fixed that for you" jokes will be "applauded". There fixed that for you!"

There fixed that for you!

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[pizzach]

I agreed with you until the last sentence. You do realize that you can install different versions of Mac OS X on different partitions, right? You can then just hold option on boot to switch between them. The most ideal setup might be an external drive to do this with. Having 8 machines would be just silly.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Mister Whirly]

Touché.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Aklyon]

Or Geeks bearing .gif's

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[ahankinson]

...and then look at the number of office workstation sales vs. the number of personal computers. I would bet that removing that segment would narrow the gap significantly.

The GP has a point. Technically savvy folks & University students are getting Macs in far greater numbers. Apple sold 2.6m Macs last quarter, and I would bet that the vast majority of them were to individuals and not to corporate workstations. Sure, the business segment is what makes money now, but the personal segment is what drives the industry in the long run.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[jmerlin]

But you have to admit... token parts of anti-M$ campaigning by fanboys around the world for years have heard the cries of "LOL, your OS gets viruses! You actually have to use an A/V! Ha!". Well let's check the hypocritical quote of the day:

FTA(grammatical errors intact):
"Regardless of whose engine is being used, it's exciting is that Apple may be including anti-virus functionality in its next-gen consumer OS (if you believe the "reports" that Intego claims to have seen)."

It is *EXCITING* that OSX is getting an A/V! EXCITING! WHAT THE FUCK!?

And here I've been told time and time again that's a reason why windows IS BAD... because we NEED an antivirus to protect us.

So there was an amazing post by Anonymous Coward earlier this week that was simply a list of "I hate that... something people hate microsoft/windows/pc's for ... but it's ok when Apple does it".. well here's one to add:

I hate when people ridicule Windows for requiring antiviruses to protect end-users who don't ship with enough common sense not to download everything on the internet and run it with administrative priveleges, claiming that only a bad OS would be susceptible to viruses while claiming that OSX is perfect (same goes for linux fanbois), but it's EXCITING when Apple brings an A/V to OSX to address the same issues.

I'm done here. Fuck you fanboys. Fuck you.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[DJRumpy]

Agreed. I simply feel no need to peddle on warez sites. Open source, freeware as well as low cost payware are abundant enough and fill the gaps for a decently low price. Why take the risk?

http://www.versiontracker.com/macosx/
http://mac.softpedia.com/
http://www.opensourcemac.org/
http://www.macorchard.com/
http://www.macupdate.com/

I've purchased 3 apps since switching to Mac last year. VMWare Fusion, an encoding app, and another to sync my gmail calendars to OS X Mail's calendars. Everything else I've needed has been free via Open Source sites found above. Gimp and OpenOffice handle the other basics. Why would you need warez?

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[fangorious]

I run with admin on my Mac and I'm always prompted for a password.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[spud603]

Untrue! Anyone in the admin group (including the default user) can overwrite anything in the global /Applications directory with no authentication required. That's how "drag to install" works in the first place!

That's right, but to avoid further misinformation, /Applications/ is the only system-wide directory it can hit (also /Developer/ if you have XCode installed). Actual OS files can't be affected.

I think applications are a sort of awkward part of the *nix security/permissions model. On a desktop machine you really want them to be both user-editable, but also accessible across logins.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[quickOnTheUptake]

I believe the word you are looking for is 'penchant'.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[gzipped_tar]

Apple-made silicon

I wouldn't dare to taste the kind of apple used as a silicon source.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[BitZtream]

After all apple was targeted at artists and creative people (per Steve Jobs) and programmers are not that target audience.

As a programmer, I think of my self as extremely creative and my work is in my opinion art.

Having recently purchased a new laptop, a MacBook Pro, so I could do iPhone dev work as well as target windows, I must say, I'm extremely happy that I can now run Netbeans, Visual Studio, and XCode on the same machine at the same time. Visual Studio runs in Coherence mode under Parallels so it feels pretty much like a native OSX app, except the title bar is still using the Windows chrome.

I live in Cary, NC. Work in Research Triangle Park, 'the silicon valley of the east coast'. I only know of one developer here that doesn't use a Mac for something, with the exception of the guys at Redhat, who for obvious reasons, would look bad to use OS X for development. A few of them do use Macs however, I'm not really sure why.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[sqldr]

I wouldn't bother mate. He's so full of himself, he doesn't have time to read your comment between choosing which turtle-neck sweater to wear and thinking he's a journalist.

Apple had to drop their "think different" slogan after discovering that the average iphone user doesn't.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Tom]

Absolutely, I couldn't agree more.

Which is why I said we'll learn the hard way. One of these days, we'll use "billions lost to software bugs" the same way we use "traffic deaths". Then, slowly, a few people will start to realize that that number can come down, if only we want it to and are prepared to pay for it. And then, since business is only in it for the quick buck, laws will be passed.

Today, you can't buy a car without airbags, seat belts and half a dozen other security features that only cost money and do nothing to improve its speed, handling or mpg. But they're there. My hope is that in 10, 20 years you can't buy software without security features, even though they don't improve running speed, download size or graphics. But they'll be there.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Anonymous Coward]

-1 retarded

He didn't say "Mac developer's conference" dumbass.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[ciderVisor]

Or Geeks bearing .gif's

Or geeks bare in .gifs. {shudder}

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Anonymous Coward]

So the only example you can cite is an SMS vulnerability on the iPhone (for which there were parallel exploits on Android and Windows Mobile), which Apple patched within two days of it being made public?
Pathetic.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[FictionPimp]

For everything I've wanted to do with shareware on my mac I have found a better or just as functioning free or open source replacement.

burn, appcleaner, handbrake, cyberduck, firefox, openoffice, adium, virtualbox, microsoft remote desktkop viewer, etc.

Really, I have bought only 3 applications that I can think of. The first was Viscosity (openVPN client) because I think it is really well designed compared to it's free alternative. The second was iWork because I like it compared to open office. The 3rd was textMate, because I really loved using it as a scripting editor (and I hadn't yet discovered xcode).

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[FictionPimp]

Just a FYI, you can now sync your osx calendar to google via calDav for both read and write. I didn't use iCalendar until I found this out because I wasn't going to buy an app to sync them.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[FictionPimp]

Off topic, I found SynergyKM to be very outdated. I wrote my own script to handle synergy graphically (god I love apple script)

You can check it out http://tacticalcoder.com/blog/2009/05/using-synergy-software-kvm-with-osx-and-linux/#more-7

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[FictionPimp]

Simple, I got sick of the state of graphics, gaming, and wireless-N on linux so I moved to mac.

I get to play the games I want (mostly blizzard), wireless N works, and I like the interface. On top of that I can still use all my linux software either osx native or running on X.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[beowulf]

Last quarter in the US, 90% of all computer sales over $1000 were Macs. Enough drove for you?

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[FictionPimp]

Are you sure, because I have bought 3 macs in the last 2 years and it was enabled on everyone of them out of the box.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[DJRumpy]

CalDAV is still a little primitive. It doesn't sync SMS or email reminders, To Do's, or new calendars via the Calendar app, but is shows promise. The app I did buy (BusySync) was only $25 and it does all of those things as well as working as a calendar server (Mac to Mac syncing via IP) if your so inclined to use that functionality.

Still handy to know as I have a few other Macs that can just use basic functionality that could benefit from CalDAV.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[FictionPimp]

I'm a programmer and I use a mac. I develop for iPhone, the web, and osx. Web scripting/programming is huge on mac with most of the people I meet with in my area. I use linux everyday as well, but the core of my work is done on my mac.

We are about to start working on an android application as well. I'm hoping to use my mac there too.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[FictionPimp]

And besides, how many people have to say "Hey, I do that!" before it goes from anecdote to fact that many people do that?

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry about it, youre a slashdot reader. Chances are you'll never need to know.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[mcgrew]

And no-legged virri and bacteria as well.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[FictionPimp]

Yea, I use my phone for making 95% of my appointments in my calendar. I really just wanted it to sync with my mac so that my computer would remind me when I had an appointment. So for me it works out great.

If I needed that more advanced functionality I would probably buy an app.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[10Ghz]

A few of them do use Macs however, I'm not really sure why.

Maybe they like the hardware? I know that even if I didn't use OS X, I would still prefer a Mac to some generic PC-laptop.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[ByOhTek]

Lamest "fixed that for you" joke ever. That, and you didn't even do it right.

*applaud*

Congratulations on your brand new EPIC FAIL.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[JonTurner]

...at 1/10th the cost ($30 vs $300)

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[mario_grgic]

Yes, that's for people who refuse to learn the command line. There is a CLI utility to do pretty much anything that can be done with a computer already built into every OS X installation. But silly users want a $20 GUI tool that wraps the command line call and displays re-formatted output in a GUI text box.

So, OS X and Mac provide great opportunity for even not so great developers to make a buck.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[kyofunikushimi]

Maybe I've just been hardware-lucky, but I haven't had any problems with sound in the last few years. Not sure if this is related to my hardware, kernel updates, or KDE updates. Of course, now I run into framebuffer problems (intel hardware) all the damn time.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[node 3]

There's been multiple viruses using failures in the system to install themselves on the apple hardware without any user input.

Um, not this millennium.

My favorite is the iphone exploit where somebody could root your device & record everything barely by sending an IM :)

Not really. They could crash the iPhone. No one had a way to actually do anything more than that, though.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Maury Markowitz]

> Untrue! Anyone in the admin group (including the default user) can overwrite
> anything in the global /Applications directory with no authentication required.
> That's how "drag to install" works in the first place!

I'm in the admin group. I am asked to authorize 100% of the time.

Maury

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Maury Markowitz]

> Wake me up when someone creates Mac malware able to propagate through security flaws in Mail
> (a la Outlook Express) or via remote root execution (Nimda/Slammer type).
> Until that is possible, pwning Macs isn't really worth the trouble.

Exactly. Which is why everything so far is a PoC. There's no money in it.

Maury

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[PIBM]

2 days of being public, but months discovered.

What about the multiple exploits for adobe product that also existed on mac ? While it's true that they existed for PC also, it does make the macs immune.

There's been multiple PDF exploits, multiple flash apps too.

Recently there's been a java jdk exploit which allowed root control of any computer with the jdk exploited, and multiple releases that were targetting macs.

Also, there's been a botnet build from people installing pirated software on their mac (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=3745), and unless saying that everyone installing pirated software are idiots (there's many other thing we could call them, though), the system can't protect against this either.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[sexconker]

Far greater numbers?
You know you've got to provide the numbers if you're going to say that, and define your populations.

"Technically savvy folks" often build their own PCs, and those sales aren't tracked.
Newegg and the like cater to this crowd, and they're doing pretty fucking well for themselves.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[sexconker]

And the sales for sub $1000 computers were... ?
And the sales for self-built hardware were... ?

You have to look at the entire picture.
If you seriously believe Macs are ahead in market share, well, you're wrong.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[CompMD]

WHHHOOOOOOOSSSSHHHHH

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[trevinlovett]

bah, what respectful virus author targets anything but the Microsoft OS ?

Its possible to write virus's on the Mac. Its like America invading Iceland. Its possible but whats the point or the gain in it..there isn't one.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's been multiple viruses using failures in the system to install themselves on the apple hardware without any user input.

Really? Name three.

Troll.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[alexandre_ganso]

Just go to a scientific or developers' conference. Macs abound, followed by ibms. You see acers and dells being held by the undergrads...

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[alexandre_ganso]

Just look for a picture of some recent gnome developers' conference.. you see the apple glowing all around the room. Interestingly, most of them probably use linux, as gnome in Mac OS sucks..

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[alexandre_ganso]

Tell me when I can build a aluminum-cased notebook by myself for far far less...

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[rawiswar]

you have no idea how to work with either OS or torrents. you read the comments section for the torrents. and don't blame tpb.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[VoltageX]

*cough*Serialbox*cough*

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[jamie(really)]

You just have to do it under OSX. So with OSX, you can run windows, linux. solaris and OSX in VMWare. Basically whatever you can do on linux or windows, you can do that + OSX under OSX.

It kinds sucks, until you realize that unlike Windows it has a proper OS underneath it, and unlike linux, it has a usable gui.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[zuperduperman]

Thanks - I didn't realize that you could virtualize OSX as long as you do it in OSX itself.

I still don't fancy paying money to a company that forces me to do that on principle, but it's nice to know it's possible if I ever end up having to support OSX.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Tom]

Yeah, all that focus on speed, as if that's the only thing that matters.

If we'd design cars that way, your average family car would go 200 km/h within city limits, 300 km/h outside. We certainly do have the technology. We'd also have millions of traffic deaths every years.

Hm, can't see a similarity to computers there. No, definitely not...

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[theanorak]

Erm, that's true but it seems to me that there's comparatively little marketing targeting the "technical or sophisticated user" from hardware manufacturers, with the possible exception of graphics cards. Why? Because if you need an 8-core mac pro, there's a good chance you know you need it.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it interfaces cleanly with a corporate environment (he mentioned Exchange)?

As somebody who has to support Macs in an AD/Exchange environment... that is a dirty, goddamn lie. Linux works /WAY/ better than OS X does in a corporate environment (And both are LIGHT YEARS behind Windows).

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[gyrogeerloose]

Can't speak for you, of course, but just yesterday I put two totally fresh installs of Leopard on two Apple laptops and both had the "open safe files"option disabled by default.

Maybe it's different with Macs straight from Apple?

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[FictionPimp]

I just did a fresh install of snow Leopard. I did a full erase prior to the install. Open safe files was checked.

Re:Virus on MAC ?

[gyrogeerloose]

Weird. I just did the same and "Open safe files" was not checked on either computer. I think we're living in parallel universes or something. Do you have a goatee?

LIES!

[Anonymous Coward]

My Apple is impervious! I don't need no stinkin' antivirus!

Snowing ?

[HW_Hack]

Can we get a weather report from Hell ?

Re:Snowing ?

[langedb]

Unseasonably cool with a 30% chance of flurries. Then becoming warmer.

Re:Snowing ?

[Hurricane78]

Wait, I'll ask Ballmer. He will meet Cheney in his home tonight for some sweet sweet love. He can tell us, if he survives it.

Re:Snowing ?

[Darth_brooks]

81 and partly cloudy just outside my office. That's close enough, right?

Re:Snowing ?

[TeknoHog]

It's snowing leopards (hallelujah!)

Re:Snowing ?

[BollocksToThis]

It's currently "SCO is not dead yet", with a 25% chance of "Microsoft acts with integrity".

Re:Snowing ?

[barzok]

Here you go

Re:Snowing ?

[sexconker]

I don't care what anyone else says, McFlurries are (were? Do they still have them?) good.

Linked Twitter Feed? Reporting in the Third Person

[eldavojohn]

laughing @Slashdot eldavojohn watches the last journalistic integrity ebb #apple #mac #antivirus #snowleopard #security

Scanning

[schmidt349]

At its core a virus scanner is just a wrapper around a multipattern byte matcher, so maybe it's better to ask whether they're using Aho-Corasick or Wu-Manber...

AV for consumers will be free

[ejdmoo]

Microsoft is soon to have free-for-consumers anti-virus and anti-malware software as well:
http://www.microsoft.com/security_essentials/

Re:AV for consumers will be free

[megamerican]

The most effective thing they give users to protect from malware is a hammer to hit the person in the head each time they install or click on something they don't trust.

Re:AV for consumers will be free

[maxume]

I don't think that would help, mad-clickers implicitly trust everything.

Re:AV for consumers will be free

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Though, to make up for it, they are likely to blame virtually any occurrence, from their ISP's technical issues to a full hard drive, on "viruses".

Re:AV for consumers will be free

[gmuslera]

They "should" not trust. What happens when you have pages that contains malware/trojans/spyware or just adware like i.e. winantivirus? Distribution of malware is not in pages saying that it should not be trusted, but the opposite.

In the other hand, if we hit users with a hammer in the head each time they install something that should not be trusted we should start as soon they install Windows.

Re:AV for consumers will be free

[sqldr]

People whine about microsoft lack of security, and yet, the moment microsoft start providing anti-virus protection (preferably on by default, unless you turn it off), you will hear the likes of norton and f-secure complaining about anti-trust.

They can't even release their own browser on their own operating system, and I honestly believe that they would be well capable of reducing the world's viruses by half if it wasn't for the antitrust thing.

I'm not defending microsoft for a second. They can stick their exclusive OEM contracts up their arse, but it shocks me that Beos (the only actual true rival competitor, rather than someone who wrote an app that sits on top of windows) had their part of the antitrust case thrown out at an early stage, while big money heavyweights like netscape complained in court that they should be able to install their software on a microsoft disk.

Apple isn't a monopoly, so they can get away with this, and GOOD.. it's their OS and they can do with it as they please. If that were not the case, debian had better start changing their GPL-only license to start allowing opera in.. that's what just happened in the european courts.

If I'm making my own distro, I don't want opera to force me to put their software on my cd.

I quite like their browser..I wish they would open-source it, but I sure as hell ain't publishing a "secure" distro without sourcecode..

It all boils down to national security. When the Russian Business Network took down the internet of the whole of georgia, they were using botnets. Allow microsoft to do the whole internet a favour and stop 90% of the world's non-computer-experts to avoid viruses, and we can all feel a lot safer about our machines not being part of a game or being used as a vector to distribute child porn.

Let microsoft release anti-virus software. It's their OS.. they know it better than we do..

Re:AV for consumers will be free

[gyrogeerloose]

So that's why I get a headache every time I try to install Windows...

Re:AV for consumers will be free

[mgblst]

Do you know how hard that is to actually get anything done? So i can' trust word documents or even images, because outlook may hide the fact that it is an exe. I can't trust the sender of the email because that maybe spoofed, or someone I know may have been infected. Even if I am expecting a document, it could still be infected. I can't go to a website link that someone sends me, because even just looking could infect IE.

So, the only real way to be sure if not to do my job, not to communicate with people.

I think we need a shotgun for the fucking IT people who designed this useless system.

Re:AV for consumers will be free

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone but me find it odd that Apple will likely have beaten Microsoft to including Anti-Virus functionality with the OS (or at least packaged)? I mean, from a historical threat and impact standpoint, MS should have been doing this five (or more) years ago, no?

Re:AV for consumers will be free

[LordLimecat]

Theyd probably blame the hammer on viruses too.

I use ClamXAV

[Fallen Kell]

Personally I use ClamXAV and always have. Mainly because I have a tripple boot system (not that I use much more than OS X, but every once in a while I need to use Windows or Linux for testing something). Because of the fact that there are other operating systems on my box, I wanted an anti-virus in case somehow it could affect the other instances on the system.

Re:I use ClamXAV

[dltaylor]

For those uses, wouldn't a virtual machine make more sense?

Parallels, at least, supports both Linux and Windows clients.

Re:I use ClamXAV

[v1]

Doesn't OS X already run ClamAV internally? At least as of 10.4, Server does but I haven't heard about client.

Re:I use ClamXAV

[Fallen Kell]

And also unfortunately, Parrallels does not have proper hardware level GPU access from systems running in the virtual machine. So no 3D hardware acceleration or CUDA programming support, which happens to usually be the reason(s) for me to try the other OS's.

Re:I use ClamXAV

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

And also unfortunately, Parrallels does not have proper hardware level GPU access from systems running in the virtual machine. So no 3D hardware acceleration or CUDA programming support, which happens to usually be the reason(s) for me to try the other OS's.

Actually, Parallels does work with BootCamp though, so you can use the VM from within OS X when that is acceptable and roll it back to previous snapshots for security reasons, and still boot from the partition for those instances when you need to access the GPU directly, like for certain games. Of course it also costs money and it the security is not a concern for you, there's not a lot of reason to bother with it.

Re:I use ClamXAV

[Turiko]

Don't you mean instance, without the s? linux doesn't have any viruses, same as mac. Only windows could get a cold :P.

Re:I use ClamXAV

[Anonymous Coward]

ClamAV sucks! This isn't a troll. I run every virus/trojan I find through Clam AV and it hardly detects any of them. I'm not kidding either. I used to think Clam rocked but for the last few years it has absolutely sucked at catching new malware. The built-in Windows 7 anti-malware catches more stuff than Clam.

The malware authors are getting really tricky too. Recently I have seen a ton of malware installers that are just one-off type executables which then download the real malware and install it. They often will disable the Windows anti-malware service as well. These programs are not detected by any anti-virus/anti-malware software I have ever tried. Anti-virus programs will often catch the malware that is downloaded but not the original infection vector (which leaves you open to being infected again).

Nonsense

[TerrenceCoggins]

Virus protection? If Mac vs PC guy has taught me anything, it's that MAC'S DON'T GET VIRUSES! Don't lie to me...

Re:Nonsense

[xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D]

Well yes, that's what the anti-virus is for, to ensure Mac's don't get viruses ;)

Re:Nonsense

[Tibor the Hun]

I don't understand why you people think that any OS can be imprevious to a trojan?

As an OS X user, this is great news.
This way I don't have to wonder if my Apple using friends are downloading Photoshop from TPB and getting infected.

But, no, as of yet, there are still no self-propagating viruses or worms for OS X.
Even though my snide Windows friends keep sending me the sky is falling emails every month about OS X being just as vulnerable as Windows.

Re:Nonsense

[Colonel Korn]

I don't understand why you people think that any OS can be imprevious to a trojan?

As an OS X user, this is great news.
This way I don't have to wonder if my Apple using friends are downloading Photoshop from TPB and getting infected.

But, no, as of yet, there are still no self-propagating viruses or worms for OS X.
Even though my snide Windows friends keep sending me the sky is falling emails every month about OS X being just as vulnerable as Windows.

Remember that OSX takes last place by a huge margin each year in pwn2own. OSX is certainly more vulnerable, but it gets attacked a lot less considering the 3.5% market share.

Re:Nonsense

[BarryJacobsen]

Remember that OSX takes last place by a huge margin each year in pwn2own. OSX is certainly more vulnerable, but it gets attacked a lot less considering the 3.5% market share.

At the same time, the rewards for pwning the OS X machine are greater (in resale value at the least, ignoring personal preferences), too, so you'll have more people going for it in the challenge where as (as you state) in the real world the pay off is actually less than if you pwned a different os.

Re:Nonsense

[Nerdposeur]

Well yes, that's what the anti-virus is for, to ensure Mac's don't get viruses.

Grammar Nazi says: "When your sentences' contain plural's, the plural's do not need apostrophe's. Apostrophe's are for possesive's and contraction's."

Re:Nonsense

[Tibor the Hun]

By a huge margin?

What metrics are you using? Time?

Because it certainly isn't the quantity of exploits.

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Virus protection? If Mac vs PC guy has taught me anything, it's that MAC'S DON'T GET VIRUSES! Don't lie to me...

But Mac's run Windows under virtual machines. And trojans run everywhere. If you are going to include security against trojans, why not include virus definitions as well to protect ALL of your software (XP included)? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Re:Nonsense

[tlhIngan]

Virus protection? If Mac vs PC guy has taught me anything, it's that MAC'S DON'T GET VIRUSES! Don't lie to me...

Heck, maybe it's also why Linux virus scanners exist. Besides the oddball Mac trojan, the Mac AV probably keeps up with PC viruses as well. Not because they can run them, but to avoid being a "carrier". If you use the Windows firesharing, many worms seek out the shares. It's possible those worms may find an open Mac share and infect files in there. The Mac won't get infected, but Windows PCs accessing those shares can become infected. Better the Mac catch it and quarantine...

Re:Nonsense

[seanadams.com]

But my teacher told me it mean's "HERE COMES AN S"!

Re:Nonsense

[dkf]

I don't understand why you people think that any OS can be imprevious to a trojan?

Nobody with half a brain thinks that. The only way to make an OS totally proof against trojans is to stop users from installing new apps, and that's something that general desktop computing hasn't gone down the road of.

What's curious about OSX is that it doesn't have the sort of culture that leads to trojans being a problem. I'm not sure why this is; maybe it is because Mac users are more inclined to buy their software? (Indeed, they buy things that on other platforms would be free...) Accepting (apparently) legitimate payments is not a black hat sort of thing to do, because it is far too easy to trace back to a real identity.

I suppose it also helps that there aren't that many "usability of security" issues in the supplied OSX core apps, so users are less likely to do something catastrophic by accident.

Re:Nonsense

[BenoitRen]

Both of you have a virus already. It's called "apostrophe abuse".

Re:Nonsense

[4D6963]

3.5% market share?!? You mean 9%, right?

Re:Nonsense

[sbeckstead]

My Commodore is completely impervious to trojans. No modem, no net, and even when turned on I would catch the guy trying to get the data off of it before he could get it all written to the slow floppy drive.

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful my ass.
All other OSes have some form of address space randomization, stack canaries and data execution prevention and sand-boxes. Sure, some implementations of the features are half-assed, but at least they try. MacOS X Snow Leopard is the first to include anything at all and it's not much at all.
If Apple can't be bothered to do the most basic prevention for binary attacks(the most common and understood), should we trust them to not have some huge hole in their services?

Re:Nonsense

[ClosedSource]

I assume you mean plurals that aren't also possessives.

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

... or because apple crap is way the hell more desirable than some dell...

-ssp

Re:Nonsense

[mrsquid0]

That has long since been discredited.

Re:Nonsense

[bonch]

Someone in the article made an interesting point. If this is legitimate, why would Apple include an "Open" button if it actually detected malware in the disk image? I would expect them to at least do something extra, like only enabling the button if the Option key was pressed.

I don't dismiss the possibility of Snow Leopard including virus protection, but I'm skeptical.

Re:Nonsense

[noidentity]

Put another way, Mac OS X is anti-virus.

Re:Nonsense

[Ilgaz]

In 1990s, Atari 800XL (8 bit) had a real virus, some hacker friend showed to me in amusement while he didn't write it. BTW, it could be some real elite thing as guy is one of people who could easily make a sound sampler abusing joystick port, 6502 BASIC's inline ASM and a mic.

As poor Atari 800XL was way less popular than C64, perhaps C64 had a virus too? Just guessing, never really been to C64 scene.

Viruses lived their glory while there was no internet/bbs/updates/communities. They got distributed easily with floppies.

Re:Nonsense

[Hucko]

Yet the bloke that did it in under a minute still recommends Mac over Windows units with regard to security. What does he know about security.

Re:Nonsense

[thisisntme]

But my teacher told me it mean's "HERE COME'S AN 'S"!

FTFY

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

It is still practical. I use a Mac and have forwarded Viruses in emails. I never get infected, but it is useful to be able to inform people.

Re:Nonsense

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Funny, I just saw a new MAC commercial today where they said MACs dont get viruses.

Re:Nonsense

[mr100percent]

It's not viruses, it's malware that's an issue. Malware can't get very far in a Unix based OS, but they can do enough damage like erase your home folder, etc.

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, the only person lying to you is Intego. There's no anti-virus in Snow Leopard -- Macs don't have viruses.

There is, on the other hand, some anti-MALWARE detection software.

People who know the difference, know that this is not anti-virus software.

Re:Nonsense

[Rawjava]

Macs do have viruses its just that for every (rougly) 20 mac viruses there are 70,000 Windows viruses. (my figures may be out of date though but it still would be quite small)

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

The sole reason why there is almost no malware for OS X is that the vast majority of malware writers don't own a Mac and aren't very familiar with programming on OS X. Macs are still relatively expensive or at least hard to upgrade, and most malware writers are typical PC guys that build their own ugly machines and waste half of their life accumulating pointless knowledge about Windows.

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand why you people think that any OS can be imprevious to a trojan?

First of all, you earn a big WHOOSH for totally missing the humor. Apparently you haven't seen Apple's marketing campaign, which makes a pretty clear statement that Macs are immune to viruses.
In addition, the majority of Mac users really do think they are completely immune, not just to self-propagating worms but malware of ANY variety. I actually had an acquaintance come unglued and SCREAM at me until he was beet red when I told the reason he couldn't get around to some sites was due to a DNS poisoning in his system cache... and nearly had a heart attack when I gave him the command line instructions to clear it. "Macs don't HAVE a command line" he said, and was literally beginning to froth at the mouth. Terminal, whatever.

I'm not a sky is falling type, don't get me wrong. But any time I see a marketing campaign making grandiose claims which I know are completely invalid, I get a big chuckle when they have to eat their words. And this news begs an answer from Apple to the question "If your product is as safe & secure as you claim, then WHY are you quietly sneaking in a solution to a problem you claim you don't, and more importantly can't, have?".

But I guess humor is lost on some....

Re:Nonsense

[node 3]

Macs do have viruses its just that for every (rougly) 20 mac viruses there are 70,000 Windows viruses. (my figures may be out of date though but it still would be quite small)

Your figures are off, there are zero Mac OS X viruses. There are a handful of trojans, though, but no worms and no viruses.

Re:Nonsense

[sbeckstead]

Virus is completely different animal than a Trojan. Yes C64 had virus programs but they were easy to catch as well. They took so long writing themselves onto the floppy that if you inserted a floppy and the drive started working (hard not to notice they were loud) then you could pretty much assume you had a virus. Pretty bad when the best virus checker you had was your ears.

Linux Foundation announces partnership with McAfee

[billlava]

San Francisco, AP
In response to a sharp rise in popularity in 2014 (the year of the Linux desktop,) the Linux Foundation has announced that antivirus technology from McAffee will be built into all versions of the Linux kernel starting with v 2.6.45. When asked about this latest development, Linus Torvalds said, "I believe that adding 2,476,000 lines of antivirus code in order to protect Linux users is the most effective solution and can only benefit Linux users for years to come."

That'll be the day that hell freezes over.

Re:Linked Twitter Feed? Reporting in the Third Per

[moderatorrater]

In their defense, doesn't the submitter get to choose where their name links to? Seems to me that we should all point and laugh at the submitter who thinks we all want to know what he is doing at all times.

good for Apple

[pak9rabid]

Better to get a head start on the AV game now rather than later. If Apple's dream does in fact come true and the majority of desktop users switch to Macs, I'd expect to see a sruge of malware targeted for the Mac platform. Anyone that thinks Macs (or any other platform) is immune to malware is living one helluva naive pipe dream.

Re:good for Apple

[je ne sais quoi]

I'd expect to see a sruge of malware targeted for the Mac platform.

...For instance AV software itself is often dangerously close to being malware. Ever tried removing Norton antivirus on a Mac? Try it once, you'll figure out why I think that. Moreover, the last time I saw any AV software actually find something on a computer I administered was in back in about 2002 or so and it was on Windows 2000. Even when it does find something, often you just have to reinstall anyway. I have also seen (admittedly underpowered) PCs made nearly unusable by XP and AV software. Meh, thanks but no thanks. I'll be careful to keep my firewall up and not allow Safari to open any programs, "safe" or not and not head over to malware sites, or any social networking site for that matter.

Anyone that thinks Macs (or any other platform) is immune to malware is living one helluva naive pipe dream.

I don't think they're immune, but I have yet to get any (that I know about). I even run windows sometimes. But then, I at least keep my exposure to such things to a minimum. The same cannot be said for everyone, but just so long as I can keep using the computers the way I want to use them, I don't care what others are doing.

Re:good for Apple

[seanadams.com]

Immune? No. Reasonably secure by design, yes.

Re:good for Apple

[SoupIsGood Food]

Dunno. While no platform is 100% secure, design does count for a lot. There are a lot of "proof of concept" hacks out there for the Mac, but very, very, very few "in the wild" 'sploits floating around, especially self-replicating ones like viruses and worms. The installed base of Internet-going Macs is a few dozen million at the least, and mostly personal computers with personal info and used to buy stuff online - prime targets for the big-shop black hats. I doubt very much it's not worth their while... I just think they can't go after a system with even a moderate level of security.

I don't think this says something about Apple (see the part above about "proof of concept" hacks), I think this says a ton about Microsoft.

I really don't buy "ecosystem" arguments - why is IIS and MSSQL pwnd on a regular basis by automated attacks, but Apache and MySQL only once in a blue moon (and Oracle almost never)?

Re:good for Apple

[jmorris42]

> If Apple's dream does in fact come true and the majority of desktop users switch to Macs,

That has never been a dream of Apple's and certainly not of their users.

Apple sees themselves as selling a luxury brand experience. That means it must NEVER become too popular lest it lose it's cache. The success of the iPod and iPhone are already pushing Apple market share to dangerous levels but they are just 'consumer electronics' and not the Mac itself.

To illustrate by analogy, let us consider Harley Davidson. They don't mind the hoi poli buying the branded merch but the actual motorcycles are a status symbol reserved for those willing to part with major coin to own one. If they ever introduced a model that blew away Honda and such, thus gaining major market share, the hard core would quickly adopt another brand since the Harley Davidson emblem would no longer serve to instantly communicate to onlookers the owner's 'serious biker' status.

Same with Apple, to see the gaudy glowing logo instantly communicates one's status as a member of the elite to all who behold it. If Walmart were selling Macs to ordinary folk it just wouldn't be the same. I suspect Apple sees the iPods and iPhones more like Harley sees the branded merc, stuff the wannabees can afford and promote the brand yet they are still not among the select who own actual Macs.

And unless Apple finds a business model that doesn't depend on insanely great margins it is a moot point anyway since they will never be a mass market player.

Re:good for Apple

[IntlHarvester]

Dunno. While no platform is 100% secure, design does count for a lot. There are a lot of "proof of concept" hacks out there for the Mac, but very, very, very few "in the wild" 'sploits floating around, especially self-replicating ones like viruses and worms.

Well, there's apparently enough of them "in the wild" that Snow Leopard beta testers have discovered an unannounced anti-malware feature. Why not try to nip this in the bud?

Re:good for Apple

[AaxelB]

I don't think they're immune, but I have yet to get any (that I know about). I even run windows sometimes. But then, I at least keep my exposure to such things to a minimum. The same cannot be said for everyone, but just so long as I can keep using the computers the way I want to use them, I don't care what others are doing.

There's a lot to be said for supporting herd immunity throughout the internet. In principle, I also don't really give a damn what people do with their own computer (short of sympathetic pain when I see how horrible it is to use some people's bogged-down, (crap|mal|spy)ware-ridden computers), but viruses, worms, etc. take advantage of the vulnerable majority and make the internet a less safe place for everyone, even those of us who can generally take care of ourselves. I suspect (hope?) Apple's goal is to include a not-incredibly-annoying AV program that most of their users won't even know exists, but will prevent them from becoming yet another spam bot or node in a botnet.

As an afterthought, I've never been able to trust AV vendors completely, since their livelihood depends on viruses still being a threat. Apple doesn't have that hangup, so it seems feasible they'll actually have something better.

*shrug* Of course, I have no direct personal interest in this. I run linux!

Re:good for Apple

[pak9rabid]

That has never been a dream of Apple's...

Rubbish. Maximizing profits is the dream of every publicly-held company, whether the founders like it or not. Go out and ask some Apple shareholders...I have a feeling you'll hear a different story.

Apple sees themselves as selling a luxury brand experience. That means it must NEVER become too popular lest it lose it's cache. The success of the iPod and iPhone are already pushing Apple market share to dangerous levels but they are just 'consumer electronics' and not the Mac itself.

The funny thing is that you actually believe that. Yes, Apple is considered a "luxury brand", but to suggest that Apple would prefer not to sell their products that they spend such a large amount of money marketing and advertising in order to preserve their "cache" is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard. Steve Jobs maybe an arrogant elitist, but he's a businessman first and foremost.

Re:good for Apple

[Hurricane78]

and the majority of desktop users switch to Macs

Yeah. Right. In what wet dream involving the great savior did you come up with that? ;)

(P.S.: They should use that sentence instead of "citation needed". Would be much more fun. ^^)

Re:good for Apple

[Anonymous Cowar]

Immune? No. Reasonably secure by obscurity, yes.

There, fixed that for ya!

Re:good for Apple

[Daniel Dvorkin]

There, fixed that for ya!

No, you didn't. You took a statement that was demonstrably true, and changed it to one that is false.

You know, here on /. we spend a fairly enormous amount of time parsing the difference between various pieces of software that perform similar functions. DBMSs, word processors, web browsers, graphics programs ... pretty much everyone understands that different software behaves differently, and that some programs are clearly better than others in certain respects. Yet when it comes to OSs and security, a lot /.ers (and lots of other people, to be sure) seem to have this enormous blind spot; they simply cannot understand (or bring themselves to acknowledge, as the case may be) that there is, indeed, a difference in how well designed different OSs are to repel attacks. Why is this?

Re:good for Apple

[Anonymous Cowar]

dunno, but mac's keep on coming in last in pwn2own, so perhaps you and a lot of /.ers should go have a little chat with the designers of OSX.

Re:good for Apple

[Pharmboy]

Even when it does find something, often you just have to reinstall anyway.

Reinstall because of a single, or even multiple virii? I notice you said "a" computer you administered. If you had to admin a couple dozen computers, you wouldn't be reinstalling everytime someone got a virus, or else that is all you would be doing all day, Mac or Windows.

I agree that Norton (regardless of platform) is borderline malware, however, as it insists on dominating the computer, taking up more resources than many trojans/bots, and refusing to uninstall properly, requiring some hand tweaking. At least the last time I allowed Norton on a computer it did, which was admittedly a few years ago.

Re:good for Apple

[bloodhawk]

really???? you honestly think it is more secure by design? lets take the most common attack vector and you can tell me how a Mac protects you. Stupid User A downloads Free Stuff B that has malware attached, user is prompted for password to install and enters password cause they want Free Stuff B. Now on windows or linux or for that matter any other OS in the world it does what the user said and installed it. How does apple prevent this? after all THIS is how the majority of virus's/trojans/rootkits are installed.

Re:good for Apple

[samkass]

There is a difference between being able to repel a targeted attack against your particular machine and the vulnerabilities in an OS that would allow something to propagate in the wild. Macs often lose pwn2own which only tests for the first case-- often because of unpatched buffer overflows in open source utilities where Apple hasn't kept versions up to date with the latest. The Mac has many features that make it less vulnerable to the latter case, though, and in the rare cases where there has been malware it has required the user to explicitly download, run, and type their password in order to do anything.

Re:good for Apple

[jpmorgan]

when it comes to OSs and security, a lot /.ers (and lots of other people, to be sure) seem to have this enormous blind spot; they simply cannot understand (or bring themselves to acknowledge, as the case may be) that there is, indeed, a difference in how well designed different OSs are to repel attacks. Why is this?

Because a lot of /.ers understand enough about computer security to know that the supposed advantages from Apple's vaunted design are bullshit. Does Apple use a UNIX architecture, with privilege separation and a minimal attack surface. Yes, and that's good. Does that help? Not really. Desktop security is a lot more sophisticated today than it was a decade ago. But so are the attackers.

First, while Apple has cut down on the 'invisible' attack surface of running, internet exposed services, you've still got a web browser and that's turned into a monstrous attack surface in the past few years. Furthermore, Apple has poor defense in depth. ASLR in OS X is broken and Safari isn't sandboxed. That's why Apple has loses pwn2own, badly.

Second, and more important: security features aren't worth a damn when the user opens the door, and user-initiated security breaches are by far the most common. Sure, you can keep the malware out of the system files, but malware doesn't need access to the system files to do its job.

Re:good for Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the main "pwn2own" vector has been Quicktime plugin, which has a security record that makes Adobe Flash look good.

At least SL has a rewritten QT player front-end which may improve things.

Re:good for Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple profits come from the higher profit margins per unit sold. If too many people are buying their products, then the price is too low and it should be raised. It's better to sell 1 Million units with a $500 margin than 5 Million units with an $80 margin.

Re:good for Apple

[Johnny Mnemonic]

I think you're wrong, and that the GP is right. Jobs is actually an arrogant elitist first and foremost, and a businessman second. Look at his history for proof of that. He had many opportunities to make a smart business decision, but instead opted for elitism and control. Basically, he has enough money to live out the rest of his life; if one has $5B, do you really need to sweat to make it $10B? I think Jobs would rather have left what he considers to be a valuable impact on the world of computing that to simply make a(nother) buck.

There are lots of disadvantages to trying to serve a broad market that Apple wants to avoid. While they don't want to be back in the sub-single digits of marketshare, I don't think they want a majority of desktops either.

Re:good for Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably have no idea how much of a fanboi you are..

Keeping up with security vulnerabilities is step #1 in maintaining a secure system. Apple always trails the pack there. And were you trying pass the buck for their vulnerabilities onto the open source software that they chose to incorporate into their proprietary operating system?

All modern OSes have features that make them less vulnerable to exploitation. If you haven't heard of them on other platforms, then you just haven't been paying attention. In case you didn't notice, the "Do you want to proceed" UAC warning in Vista is exactly analogous to OSX's "Enter your password to continue." It's the same thing on every platform: you are either exploited and don't get a warning, or you're dumb enough to allow the malware to run. To reiterate: when your Mac is exploited because Apple didn't keep up with the latest vulnerabilities, you don't get asked to type a password.

From http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2941

Safari on the Mac is easier to exploit. The things that Windows do to make it harder (for an exploit to work), Macs don't do. Hacking into Macs is so much easier. You don't have to jump through hoops and deal with all the anti-exploit mitigations you'd find in Windows.
It's more about the operating system than the (target) program. Firefox on Mac is pretty easy too. The underlying OS doesn't have anti-exploit stuff built into it.

Re:good for Apple

[jmorris42]

> The funny thing is that you actually believe that. Yes, Apple is considered a "luxury brand",
> but to suggest that Apple would prefer not to sell their products that they spend such a
> large amount of money marketing and advertising in order to preserve their "cache" is one
> of the most ridiculous things I've heard.

Why can't it be both? There is a lot of money to be had in luxury brands. Look at the other option, which would be to compete on mass volume. To think they could beat Dell at their core competency is silly. So if that is their upside if they go for volume it is better to be Apple with a permanent single digit market share but a market cap of $150B instead of Dell's 28.47B.

Re:good for Apple

[drinkypoo]

Windows Vista SP1 (and Windows 7, IIRC) has the best implementation of ASLR of the big three desktop operating systems. OSX has a fairly useless one as you say. Linux has a halfway decent one slated to be improved any day now. Of these three operating systems only Linux has support for Capabilities-based security (e.g. SELinux) in the manner of Trusted Solaris or HP's more-secure edition of HP-SUX. (I can only imagine.) We already have antivirus for Linux, but OSX is probably a long way off from having Capabilities.

Re:good for Apple

[drinkypoo]

I like [most of] your comment, but please don't use words you've only heard and never seen, like "hoi polloi" or "cachet". Thank you, and goodnight.

Re:good for Apple

[Giometrix]

Dunno. While no platform is 100% secure, design does count for a lot. There are a lot of "proof of concept" hacks out there for the Mac, but very, very, very few "in the wild" 'sploits floating around, especially self-replicating ones like viruses and worms. The installed base of Internet-going Macs is a few dozen million at the least, and mostly personal computers with personal info and used to buy stuff online - prime targets for the big-shop black hats. I doubt very much it's not worth their while... I just think they can't go after a system with even a moderate level of security.

I don't think this says something about Apple (see the part above about "proof of concept" hacks), I think this says a ton about Microsoft.

I really don't buy "ecosystem" arguments - why is IIS and MSSQL pwnd on a regular basis by automated attacks, but Apache and MySQL only once in a blue moon (and Oracle almost never)?

Not trying to troll here; but have there been any major IIS or SQL Server issues in the past 5 or 7 years? I thought the IIS issues were resolved years ago.

Re:good for Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly what the parent meant. Maximizing profits isn't always equal to maximizing market penetration. Ask Ferrari.

Re:good for Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Better to get a head start on the AV game now rather than later. If Apple's dream does in fact come true and the majority of desktop users switch to Macs, I'd expect to see a sruge of malware targeted for the Mac platform. Anyone that thinks Macs (or any other platform) is immune to malware is living one helluva naive pipe dream.

This is a logical fallacy. If it were just as easy to infect these systems, they would be infected. It's not, and they aren't.

Exciting?

[hodet]

From TFA "Regardless of whose engine is being used, it's exciting is that Apple may be including anti-virus functionality in its next-gen consumer OS..."

Exciting? Not the word I would use...depressing maybe.

Bound to happen

[prof187]

As OS X becomes more popular it's pretty much inevitable that people will *want* AV on their computers. Be it from the paranoid to the clueless who "heard from a friend of a friend that Macs are insecure" -- or just someone playing it safe -- a move like this would make sense to ease consumer fears. Yes, they already sell AV products from third-parties, but in the same way Windows has its own set of security tools this is Apple's way of showing that you don't just have to trust them, they're actively involved in proving the safety of their product.

Re:Bound to happen

[zonky]

So when will they actually implement something genuinely useful against real security threats, like package management?

Re:Bound to happen

[Stupendoussteve]

Because I couldn't code $COOLGAME which also includes a trojan, make a .deb available for download on my site, and infect many Ubuntu users. Make the trojan sneaky and hidden enough and it would not surprise me if you were even able to get it into the repos, at least for a while.

Re:Bound to happen

[Anonymous Coward]

If Apple ever implements something even remotely like Linux's package management, I'm quitting computers forever. That shit is horrible.

Re:Bound to happen

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

So when will they actually implement something genuinely useful against real security threats, like package management?

If you don't think Apple has been adding useful technologies to stop security threats, you haven't been paying attention. Of course most people don't they just assume because Apple doesn't advertise their security technologies to the mainstream public, such technologies they don't exist. You remember that vulnerability in Apple's ZerConf implementation (one of the few enabled by default services on OS X)? No? That's because Apple had sandboxed the entire service in Leopard making the vulnerability impossible to exploit without another exploit for the sandbox, which never materialized. Maybe you remember that said vulnerability did exist on several Linux distros and was exploitable?

Re:Linux Foundation announces partnership with McA

[hodet]

...followed up by

The Linux foundation regrets distributing Mcaffee which is a rootkit whose name looks a lot like McAfee.

McAfee

[SnarfQuest]

Let them run McAfee. Those Macs run too fast as it is, and that should make those shooter games playable by us mere humans.

Re:McAfee

[CannonballHead]

MacAffee?

Re:McAfee

[Hurricane78]

Yeah. Then we Germans could also call it Mac-Affe (Affe = monkey/ape), and state that our Macs now are protected by monkeys. ;)

Our terrible terrible secret...

[Garbad Ropedink]

It's time we came clean. Macs do get viruses. Actually they get a lot of viruses. Really the OS is basically viruses and itunes. We pretend like we can work on these systems but it's just a screen full of viruses all having sex with eachother. The reason you never heard about it because back in ought 3' we took an oath to never reveal that terrible terrible truth. We relied on Windows users hatred of Macs preventing them from finding out. But, now that it's out in the open I suppose we ought to move forward and try to rebuild, maybe accept the situation and try to secure our OS.

So uhh.. Windows users... How do you make a *shudder* bug fix?

Re:Our terrible terrible secret...

[Anonymous Coward]

same way you make a pig fly

Re:Our terrible terrible secret...

[93 Escort Wagon]

same way you make a pig fly

You can write code with a trebuchet?

Re:Our terrible terrible secret...

[CannonballHead]

If you have a text editor that supports variable width fonts, yes; you can write code in Trebuchet!

Re:Our terrible terrible secret...

[yzf750]

same way you make a pig fly

but, the swine flu

Re:Our terrible terrible secret...

[Anonymous Coward]

So uhh.. Windows users... How do you make a *shudder* bug fix?

Do it from the command line interface. You know, the one that most Mac users claim doesn't exist, but lurks in your Applications list labeled as "terminal".

I see plenty of DNS poisoning, trojans, and drive-by downloads on Macs. Usually they bring them to me after spending days on the phone with the "Mac Geniuses" who tell them it's an ISP problem, and then days with the ISP who doesn't have anything wrong. The ones that don't proceed to then simply buy another Mac, bring it to me. I've had quite a few arguments when I've told people "Well, I cleaned off the rootkit and the other malware you installed, and it's fixed". "MACS DON'T GET VIRUSES" they yell at me. Hell, as long as they pay their bill I could care less.

And yes, I do the same with Windows users, but instead of anger at me for telling them what is wrong, they generally want to know how they can prevent it in the future.

Good to see that Apple is starting to change their mindset- the popular misconception that Macs are immune to ALL forms of malware is a greater security threat than anything else, since it leads to recklessness and complacency. And to most of the general public, the words "virus" "trojan" "rootkit" and "malware" all mean the same thing, even though those of us "in the know" are aware they are very different.

but, but, but, but....

[Anonymous Coward]

isn't the Leopard immune to such thing? That's what Steve has been telling us all along, right?

Why not use ClamAV?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's open source and already runs on everything.

Re:Why not use ClamAV?

[Stupendoussteve]

There's a possibility it does run ClamAV. OS X server runs ClamAV out of the box.

Hypocritcal

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's OK for Apple to bundle in anti-virus but when Microsoft toyed with the idea for Windows the AV makers and the MS haters threw a hissy fit.

Security Details

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Apple has been light on details they have made public about Snow Leopard. We know they implemented a CDSA security architecture, expanded use of the sandboxing, and now there is this report of actual malware scanning, but the info on Apple.com is basically nonexistent. I surmise this is intentional. Security people either have developer accounts or will read up on this stuff in technical papers when NDA's expire next week. For regular users, Apple doesn't even want to bring up security as an issue. They will make blanket marketing statements about it, but they would rather leave all the details to more technical venues. This was their policy for Leopard too, with most users having no clue that a full port of TrustedBSD's mandatory access controls was included and being used to sandbox certain potentially vulnerable services.

Good move...

[moredots]

I apologize to the antivirus software industry for what I'm about to say, but AV should be part of the operating system - and it should be a good, solid, constantly updated AV that others can't compete with. If a piece of software is required to keep the operating system in working order, it should be provided by the operating system developer free of charge with the operating system.

Re:Good move...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

AV should be part of the operating system

I agree, but I don't necessarily think that means destroying competition and the existing industry. For the practical reason of encouraging better results through competition and for legal reasons in most jurisdictions, I think OS vendors should be building a plug-in anti-malware architecture that allows end users to subscribe to multiple security feeds, each of which provides whitelists, blacklists, greylists, and potentially ACLs for software.The OS should handle acquiring and verifying the source of the feed and merging the results of multiple feeds as well as the UI and execution. Thus, there is still room for commercial competition on top of what is provided by the OS vendor.

Re:Good move...

[Kenshin]

If it weren't for competition, we'd all be stuck with Norton, which I consistently say does more to bog down your system than an actual virus.

Include the AV, but allow a user to substitute one of their choice. (Or did we forget Internet Explorer all of a sudden?)

Amen

[AlexBirch]

There was a guy who was studying technical writing at my university. He uninstalled his anti-virus software because it was preventing him from installing some free software he wanted.

Re:Amen

[ChoboMog]

There was a guy who was studying technical writing at my university. He uninstalled his anti-virus software because it was preventing him from installing some free software he wanted.

FAIL

Re:Amen

[chrish]

Technical writers are proficient in writing technical documents, they're not necessarily computer power users or systems administrators. Many of them don't even work in the software industry.

Finding a technical writer who knows all about development, operating systems, hardware, etc. is still a very rare occurrence.

Rampant Speculation in TFA!

[Anonymous Coward]

The author doesn't seem to have even done a cursory investigation. Apple didn't license it from any major vendor, it's a simple byte-code scan that can easily be bypassed with simple changes to the malware binary. Also, it is leaving itself open to false positives. Apple, if you're not gonna take security seriously, don't bother releasing anything. This "feature" is garbage.

Re:So..

[bikehorn]

rundll32...let us never forget

Re:Linked Twitter Feed? Reporting in the Third Per

[hodet]

apparently 1325 followers do. :-/

Come the time for rain, it'll pour.

[Aphoxema]

Problem with having a single, unified anti-virus (if ever such a thing is reliably possible), programmers will have an easier time guessing what protections they'll face when creating a virus.

Windows might not be the most... or... almost... close to the most stable series of operating systems, but there sure is a fair bit of variety involved in each installation. A vulnerability that can hit any generic OS X installation hard will be able to hit every other generic OS X installation hard.

This'll end in tears if Apple and friends don't keep vigilant on every threat. A problem with the die-hard proprietary and user friendly nature of Apple products is Apple are now the sole caretaker, the mother and father, the reason and the nonsense to every single computer they've made residency in. End users aren't encouraged to practice personal responsibility, they pay and trust... pay for trust...

Think Different, Indeed.

Re:Come the time for rain, it'll pour.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Problem with having a single, unified anti-virus (if ever such a thing is reliably possible), programmers will have an easier time guessing what protections they'll face when creating a virus.

I agree, to some extent. In terms of attacks on the antivirus system itself a single system may be more vulnerable. In terms of bypassing signatures, however, there is no reason centralized anti-malware cannot draw signatures from disparate feeds, the user subscribes to, be they supplied by Apple, open projects, or commercial companies, for free, or charge.

That said, Apple including malware detection doesn't mean users can't install other malware detection services as well. ClamAV isn't going away just because Apple ships a built in competitor.

End users aren't encouraged to practice personal responsibility, they pay and trust... pay for trust...

From Apple's Snow Leopard Web site:

Security Advice The Mac is designed with built-in technologies that provide protection against malicious software and security threats right out of the box. However, since no system can be 100 percent immune from every threat, antivirus software may offer additional protection. Here are some other ways to help keep your information as safe as possible:

• Download files only from known and trusted websites.
• Use FileVault to encrypt your most important documents.
• Control access to your Mac by locking your screen after a period of inactivity.
• Securely delete outdated sensitive files with the Secure Empty Trash command.

That sounds to me like end users are being encouraged to practice personal responsibility.

Re:Come the time for rain, it'll pour.

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds to me like end users are being encouraged to practice personal responsibility.

Well, yes, except nobody ever reads the documentation, so it doesn't really matter what it says.

Whaaaaat?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought Apple claimed "Macs don't get viruses." in their commercials. Yet, they have anti-virus...

Liars.

- The thoughts of PC.

Re:So..

[geekoid]

hahaha, yeah that command line on the macs is a mere toy~

So Josh

[Anonymous Coward]

you say "will have built-in antivirus functionality."

But the web site you link to says it's only a rumor and they ahve a screen shot.
You start propagating an exaggeration.

Well done.
Like most security experts I have worked with, you are bone head.

Given that we've had the golden master for weeks..

[diamondsw]

...and no such thing exists there, this would seem to be completely made up bullshit.

Re:So..

[93 Escort Wagon]

Who actually cares about macs? Perhaps now their users will go buy a real computer. Not the fisher price toys they play with now.

We really need to start enforcing that minimum age requirement for Slashdot membership...

Hmm.. Speculation on a rumour from unkown source.

[MROD]

So, we have a Slashdot story speculating about the outcome of a story on another site which uses unknown, and not necessarily reliable source, about a possible feature in an unreleased OS.

Can we please wait until there is real evidence before shouting that the sky's falling please.

Oh, sorry, this is Slashdot! ;-)

As for the article: *IF* it is true, fine! Who cares what anti-virus engine it uses as long as it works and is ready for any dangerous malware which does come along for MacOS?

(And for those who wish to gloat, no OS is fully immune, especially from the security hole at the keyboard. Why does Linux need an anti-virus product like ClamAV?! Linux doesn't have any viruses.... ;-))

Unveiling Apple's anti virus solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple unveils its unique antivirus solution - the App Store for Mac.

Apple today announced their antivirus solution for OS X Snow Leopard. With the proven success of the App Store for the iPhone protecting users of their groundbreaking mobile platform from numerous, nefarious virus applications including "Google Voice", "Ninjawords Dictionary", and "Eucalyptus e-book reader", Apple is pleased to announce App Store for Snow Leopard. Mac users upgrading to Snow Leopard can rest assured that Apple's rigorous application screening progress will ensure only "safe" applications will be making it onto their system. As an added bonus, the App Store will help reduce feature redundancy while also shielding users from Apple's competitors, thus reducing potential risks to Apple's exclusive "Feature Creep" (TM) OS X upgrade program.

Antitrust Question

[Anonymous Coward]

I ask this question mainly out of ignorance. But why can Apple bundle anti-virus into their OS but Microsoft would be charged with antitrust violations if they did the same?

Re:So..

[tholomyes]

Not to be confused with the Microsoft Smart Technology-powered Fisher-Price Intelli-Table.

Mac OS X Security Architecture

[Gary W. Longsine]

Although some Snow Leopard details may not be available yet, most components of the Mac OS X security architecture pre-date Snow Leopard, and details are available, in places like this... Mac OS X Security Architecture

Don't underestimate

[Shivetya]

the number of mac users who already reflexively type in their password when prompted.

One thing exposure to user groups does is show you that there is a sizable number of computer novices with poor security habits regardless of popular commercial platform.

He's a Mac!

[Anonymous Coward]

But which antivirus engine is Apple using?

Justin Long personally reviews each of your files.

We have oxygen too!

[SuperKendall]

Did you know they have LimeWire on Macs now?

Did you know I've been running Limewire on a Mac since 10.1?

Re:Hmm.. Speculation on a rumour from unkown sourc

[Turiko]

max isn't an OS that is osed as server. Linux is, hence the AV - you don't want your server distributing infected files to the poor windows boxes :P.

this again!

[Anonymous Coward]

whats the difference between viruses and shoddy programming? Maybe they should just install the same engine they use to reject "device-core" impeding iApps like google voice.

Re:Given that we've had the golden master for week

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you even bothered looking for it?

Re:Hmm.. Speculation on a rumour from unkown sourc

[Anonymous Coward]

max isn't an OS that is osed as server.

http://www.apple.com/xserve/

Oblig...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to save people from Binging for this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3Z386vXrt4

great, I'm safe!

[commodoresloat]

So all you have to do to be safe here is to not actually ever run any of the programs after you download and install them.

Re:Hmm.. Speculation on a rumour from unkown sourc

[Anonymous Coward]

90 % of malware out there targets Windows, and guess what, ClamAV scans mainly for those. And no, Linux does not get many viruses, but it is used a lot as file server / email gateway to Windows clients, so you do need an AV to catch those viruses before passing them internally to potentially vulnerable clients.

Intellectual honesty?

[Anonymous Coward]

Odd that this sort of request for due diligence never is required for Microsoft. Speculation *is* truth when it comes to them.

Just saying.

Re:Hmm.. Speculation on a rumour from unkown sourc

[Anonymous Coward]

Clamav is used by people who run server to avoid spreading infections to clients.
  Booting from an usb stick with sidux or another distro that does hardware detection on startup and persistence is handy to scan pcs countering many (not all) measures that a virus may use to avoid detection

Location of the definitions

[tomasf]

FWIW, the file containing virus definitions is located at: /System/Library/CoreServices/CoreTypes.bundle/Contents/Resources/XProtect.plist

Re:Location of the definitions

[thexile]

I don't get this. Anyone care to explain?

Re:Location of the definitions

[tomasf]

I have no idea why that got modded Funny. I'm serious - the definitions are in that file. :-)

Re:Location of the definitions

[thexile]

I see. The mods are on crack again.

AV for Windows, not Mac, Malware

[Anonymous Coward]

No OS is completely immune, but the overall system design in OS X is by far more robust than any version of Windows to date with regards to system vulnerability. Sure, there are design flaws in the OS X code (just like any other piece of software), but as long as you patch regularly and pay attention to any dialogue that asks you to enter your admin password, you are considerably safer than any Windows box running virus protection.

The most important reason to run virus protection on your Mac is to keep your Mac from becoming a carrier for Windows malware. While you Mac may not be vulnerable to nearly all the malware out there, if you forward a virus in an email to an unsuspecting Windows machine, you are just perpetuating the cycle.

Re:AV for Windows, not Mac, Malware

[Anonymous Coward]

The most important reason to run virus protection on your Mac is to keep your Mac from becoming a carrier for Windows malware.

You know what? I'm tired of having to accommodate the Windows-using world. Everything has to be in Microsoft file formats even though Office sucks. When I used floppy drives, if I wanted cross-platform capability the disks had to be Windows-formatted and my Mac had to be able to read and write to them, same with USB drives now.

I put up with stuff like that, but when it comes to spending my money to protect people who choose to use a shitty operating system, that's where I draw the line. If I'm supposed to run software to protect Windows users, then the Windows users can pay for it, or they can go fuck themselves. When I didn't want to deal with malware hassles, I didn't keep using a crap-ass OS and spend my money on bolt-on garbage that consumes my CPU power to protect me, I spent my money on a system that has far, far fewer malware hassles.

If Apple wants to build something into the OS, fine, but I will NEVER pay for malware protection as long as the Mac malware threat remains largely contained in the marketing materials of antivirus software vendors.

why bet on a lame horse?

[Tom]

Antivirus programs aren't a solution, they're a hack to mitigate the worst.

If you can choose, as in you write the OS, then including antivirus isn't the answer. The answer is writing a virus-proof operating system. There's a lot you can do, like sandboxing, MAC, RBAC, or plain simply not having your damn e-mail tool auto-execute attachments.

NO NO NO NO NO!

[argent]

If there's no way to turn this off, like their damn "you just downloaded this file, do you want to open it" dialog, maybe I won't upgrade to Snow Leopard after all.

Re:NO NO NO NO NO!

[Andreas Mayer]

If there's no way to turn this off, like their damn "you just downloaded this file, do you want to open it" dialog, [...]

Try this:

http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=2009081808315511

Re:NO NO NO NO NO!

[argent]

Thanks, I'll try it, but I'm afraid it's a bit more complex than that. The com.apple.quarantine extended attribute will be added to files created by ANY application if apple determines that application doesn't add it, even if that application doesn't support Internet plug-ins, so applications duplicate this functionality independently of Safari to avoid being targeted.

Apple taking security seriously?

[argent]

Apple, if you're not gonna take security seriously, don't bother releasing anything. This "feature" is garbage.

They used to, but they seemed to have decided to fire everyone competent at security when they released Safari.

A letter I wrote in May 2004.

And on their first response to this problem.

A year later.

Oh, just browse my I/O page are about this.

Re:Given that we've had the golden master for week

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Have you even bothered looking for it?

Apple has screenshots of the Security preference pane on their Snow Leopard Web site and it shows no configuration options for malware detection. So maybe this screenshot is fake or maybe it is ClamAV in OS X server or maybe Apple's screenshots are incorrect or maybe they put it somewhere other than security... but is seems pretty doubtful from where I'm sitting.

Re:Linked Twitter Feed? Reporting in the Third Per

[cyphercell]

yea, is there some sort of link exchange though? He's following 1,163.

Re:Hmm.. Speculation on a rumour from unkown sourc

[martin-boundary]

So, we have a Slashdot story speculating about the outcome of a story on another site which uses unknown, and not necessarily reliable source, about a possible feature in an unreleased OS.

Such stuff as dreams are made of...

Esquilax

[sexconker]

Behold the mighty esquilax.
A horse, with the head of a rabbit, and the body, of a rabbit.

mac users are gold

[OrangeTide]

Mac users have a lot of disposable income if they can afford overpriced Apple hardware.

Re:mac users are gold

[anagama]

Windows users must have a lot of disposable time if they wish to choose Dell's junkware.

Re:mac users are gold

[GigaplexNZ]

Most Windows users don't choose Dell.

Can't take up much CPU time.

[Anonymous Coward]

If it only scans for OS X vira, then it can't use much CPU power. Of course if it were to scan for every Windows virus it would take up a lot more power and I would choose not to run it. Don't want to waste resources on something that I don't care about.

Hello, Antitrust anyone?

[DaveWick79]

If this rumor is true, and regardless of what scanning engine they decide to use, isn't Apple toying dangerously close to MS's already trodden antitrust territory? You know if MS included AV as part of an operating installation, the whole tech world would be in an uproar.
IMO Apple would be stupid to do this even though they do fly under the radar. Give it away as a free download but for goodness sake don't repeat Microsoft's sins.

Re:Hello, Antitrust anyone?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

If this rumor is true, and regardless of what scanning engine they decide to use, isn't Apple toying dangerously close to MS's already trodden antitrust territory?

No, since Apple is not in a position where bundling something with their OS is able to undermine said market. Apple would need overwhelming market share in the desktop OS market first.

You know if MS included AV as part of an operating installation, the whole tech world would be in an uproar.

Rightly so. Likewise if the local power distribution monopoly started giving away a free antivirus suite with your monthly electrical service.

Give it away as a free download but for goodness sake don't repeat Microsoft's sins.

I don't think you understand what is illegal and "sinful" about MS's actions.

Re:Hmm.. Speculation on a rumour from unkown sourc

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does Linux need an anti-virus product like ClamAV?

To scan windows boxens in the network.
For example:
- Using squid (web proxy) + clamav.

Lawyers Unite

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it matter what antivirus it decides to include. The lawyers are now salivating at another lawsuit. If they have the "sack" to sue Microsoft over bundling a necessary piece of the operating system (IE), which by the way Apple does but no one seems to say anything, they should have no trouble winning millions more against Apple to level the playing field. Although I bet all the lawyers mysterious have Apple computers at home...think about it.

Re:Given that we've had the golden master for week

[illumin8]

Apple has screenshots of the Security preference pane on their Snow Leopard Web site and it shows no configuration options for malware detection. So maybe this screenshot is fake or maybe it is ClamAV in OS X server or maybe Apple's screenshots are incorrect or maybe they put it somewhere other than security... but is seems pretty doubtful from where I'm sitting.

I think this is simply a signature engine built into the Safari downloader. Mozilla Firefox has the exact same thing in version 3.5. After you download a file, it runs a signature scan on it and warns you if it found a virus sig. Nothing really impressive about it, but it is a nice to have feature in Safari.

Leopard users could just use Mozilla Firefox 3.52 and have the same feature, or I imagine Safari 4 would also do this on older versions of OS X.

Update your content for Snow Leopard

[SuperKendall]

Does Apple use a UNIX architecture, with privilege separation and a minimal attack surface. Yes, and that's good. Does that help? Not really. Desktop security is a lot more sophisticated today than it was a decade ago. But so are the attackers. First, while Apple has cut down on the 'invisible' attack surface of running, internet exposed services, you've still got a web browser and that's turned into a monstrous attack surface in the past few years. Furthermore, Apple has poor defense in depth. ASLR in OS X is broken and Safari isn't sandboxed. That's why Apple has loses pwn2own, badly.

You complain about the UNIX security systems being useless on one hand, but then complain about lack of defense in depth on the browser... pick one please. And frankly the lack of any external services enabled by default is hugely underrated as the primary reason the system does not have any viruses in the wild to date. To an attacker it's not worth the effort to build attacks against any of the built in services because odds are they will not be running, where on Windows there are a number of services it's worth attacking.

There is actually light sandboxing in that the OS warns you before opening any application downloaded via Safari, and of course there's the natural aspect of the browser only writing to the user directory...

And if you're going to bring up ASLR support, since this is a story about Snow Leopard you could acknowledge they fixed that issue.

Second, and more important: security features aren't worth a damn when the user opens the door, and user-initiated security breaches are by far the most common. Sure, you can keep the malware out of the system files, but malware doesn't need access to the system files to do its job.

That is true enough, that's the biggest point of attack - but there again OS X has chosen possibly the best possible way to address these attacks. Mandatory warning before running new executables, along with an extra note if it's infected. I honestly don't think it's going to get much better than that in terms of processes that protect users from trojans.

Re:Given that we've had the golden master for week

[iamagloworm]

precisely. i cannot believe it took so long for anyone to say this. if this rumour was 6 months ago, there might be something to talk about it. there is no magical malware or virus protection included in snow leopard and there are no more surprises. i find it amusing that because apple is 'secretive' people think they're going to come out with secret features. everyone apple does is already known, it's just hard to tell rumour than truth thanks to plenty of apple and non-apple FUD.

approval required

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesnt a hacker have to get approval from Apple first?

no. but I hear you can get a

[vaporland]

glass of ice water from the Apple Store there...

Oh wow.

[rantingkitten]

Unconfirmed things may or may not be included in a minor update of an operating system, according to unknown sources, perhaps. Stop the presses.

indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot users and Windows users both must have a lot of spare time to waste on garbage.

Re:Linux Foundation announces partnership with McA

[wastedlife]

Hah, I read that as

The Linux foundation regrets distributing McAfee which is a rootkit...

and thought that sounded about right.

I don't know about yours; you're wrong about mine

[tlambert]

I don't know about yours; you're wrong about mine:

% ls -le@d /Applications
drwxrwxr-x+ 31 root admin 1054 Jul 30 23:59 /Applications/
  0: group:everyone deny delete

There's an ACL that prevents deletion even by admin users, unless you type a password. It's the application hotel: apps can check in, but they can't check out without escalated privilege to override the ACL there. That includes deleting individual files so you can replace them with Malware.

-- Terry

They already use ClamAV and Spamassassin

[philcolbourn]

ClamAV is listed as one of many Open Source products included in Leopard. http://www.apple.com/opensource/ Spam assassin is also used. I suspect they are both used for Apple's mail app.

Re:Given that we've had the golden master for week

[Anonymous Coward]

Could be in 10.6.1.
Could be in an upcoming Safari build.

MOD PARENT DOWN!!!

[sqldr]

Seriously.. what a pretentious prick.. you're not special, just because you can afford a mac or have a blog

Unlikely

[CrystalX]

I call bullshit on this.

I've been running Macs for 19 years now and have never caught a virus. After running various AV software for about 10 years I decided that it was a waste of CPU cycles and uninstalled them all. I cannot see Apple providing first-party support for a class of products that currently makes little sense for Macs at the moment.

It may not be AV at all...

[Anonymous Coward]

From the pics it doesn't look necessarily like an AV app, so much as malware "fingerprinting."
It's not scanning the filesystem, merely warning about the infection upon invoking the file... it still has the option to open or cancel the operation.
With the few viruses available for OSX it would be really easy to include a database with common malware in the OS.
Either way, it's nice to see a company taking the time to proactively protect their users from a-holes.
MS might include Windows Defender for spyware, but they should have made their LiveOneCare free with the OS as well (even if it is crap).
Linux users should be smart enough to avoid most malware, however, there are stupid users on every platform. Nobody RTFMs unless they are geeks, like the folks here. If you set up your Granny with Ubuntu, she can still screw it up.

As long as I don't have to pay for it

[RogueWarrior65]

I have no problem with this as long as I don't have to keep paying for the damn thing or be constantly pestered that I'm risking the fate of the free world by not renewing. I seriously can't stand being on the consumer side of the monthly fee business model. No,goddammit, I will NOT rent your crappy software!

App Store?

[nerph]

Apple doesn't need anti-virus software, they just need an App Store for macs, where all software is linked to and signed by the author. This makes the author accountable. Apple has already incubated an "App Store Culture" so it wouldn't be a hard sell. OS X could sandbox non-app store apps and locally compiled apps and allow the user to assign a level of trust and or privileges to each. The default security level would allow only app store apps. I haven't really put a lot of thought into this but it seems like a good idea on the surface. There wouldn't be a need to jailbreak a mac - you could just change the security level to allow non app store apps. It would also fit nicely into Apple's control-freak psycho personality. Just a thought.

Woosh

[ClosedSource]

The point is that Macs would only be dominant in a Mac developers conference.