AppleCare Reps Told To Skirt Malware Questions

Dominare writes with this bit from ZDnet: "'A confidential internal Apple document tells the company's front-line support people how to handle customers who call about malware infections: Don't confirm or deny that an infection exists, and whatever you do, don't try to remove it.' So basically, now that Macs have their own equivalent to XP Antivirus the best you can hope for is to be pointed at the store where you can buy something that may or may not fix your problem ... nice."

Comments

OSX

[BmlA]

To be fair, I have never had any malware with OSX and I'm certain I will not. OSX by its roots (BSD) means it doesn't get the kind of malware that plagues all those M$ Windows computers. I feel safe with OSX and have no need for antivirus. If you give our your root password to a random program, well, you're stupid. But if you use Windows you get infected just by connecting to the internet. I've never had such experience with my Mac.

Re:OSX

[Anonymous Coward]

You, sir, are an idiot.

Re:OSX

[Anonymous Coward]

Privilege escalation?

Re:OSX

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because root privilege escalation bugs don't exist in OSX.

Fan boy tool.

Re:OSX

[mrnobo1024]

If you think Apple software is inherently secure, read up on some of the past Pwn2Own contests.

Don't kid yourself - the only reason OS X doesn't have much malware (yet) is that Windows is used by far more people and is therefore a juicier target.

Re:OSX

[d1verse]

oh just you wait.

Re:OSX

[Kitkoan]

if you use Windows you get infected just by connecting to the internet. I've never had such experience with my Mac.

I've never had such experience with my Windows box nor have millions of other Windows users. If they did, they would leave Windows by the millions a day looking to either OSX or word of Linux would spread like wildfire (like Facebook did for millions of people).

Re:OSX

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. And Linux's dominant market share in the server space means that it's an even juicier target. Which is why you hear about so many pwnt Linux boxes on the web.

Re:OSX

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, I have never had any malware with OSX and I'm certain I will not. OSX by its roots (BSD) means it doesn't get the kind of malware that plagues all those M$ Windows computers. I feel safe with OSX and have no need for antivirus. If you give our your root password to a random program, well, you're stupid. But if you use Windows you get infected just by connecting to the internet. I've never had such experience with my Mac.

It's a new thing for Apple. They haven't had to deal with this much at all before, and a lot less than in the Mac OS 9 days and before. So there's some growing pains while they get their procedures worked out.

Meanwhile, if you get a rootkit or malware on Linux, well, you'll get a lot less support than Apple is giving right now, unless you have a contract with Red hat or someone ... and maybe not even then. So it's not like this kind of support is easy to provide by default.

Remember that EULA what you got with your software? Software provided "AS-IS"? The GPL has that clause, too. It's the state of the industry. It's not an easy problem to deal with, like unplugged power cords or using the wrong mouse button.

Re:OSX

[Anonymous Coward]

I have. The original XP did not spin up its firewall by default, and also started it after networking. I've seen people reinstall XP to get rid of some malware, only to have software popping up ads on their box before they finish the first boot.

Re:OSX

[hjf]

But if you use Windows you get infected just by connecting to the internet. I've never had such experience with my Mac.

Well, better get used to it, fanboy.

Re:OSX

[0123456]

I've never had such experience with my Windows box nor have millions of other Windows users.

Weird. I remember a co-worker doing a clean install of Windows XP on a PC a few years ago and it had been remotely infected by a worm before it even managed to install all the security updates from Windows Update.

And yes, giving it an unfirewalled network connection was probably a bad idea.

Re:OSX

[MaskedSlacker]

To be fair, poorly configured linux servers are pwned all the time.

Re:OSX

[Anonymous Coward]

But if you use Windows you get infected just by connecting to the internet.

What utter nonsense. Any version of Windows from XP SP2 onwards has a built in firewall. For earlier versions of Windows a program like ZoneAlarm will do an exceptionally good job (arguably better than the built in Windows Firewall, depending upon what you want). Modern browsers have anti-phishing and anti-malware stuff built in. You have to go out of your way to get infected these days.

Since I started using Windows in 1994 (after being an ignorant Unix using Windows hater) I have not had one virus/trojan/rootkit infection. Not one, in 17 years. Sure if you go to the wrong sites and download the wrong stuff, or download stuff you know has been hacked/cracked/pirated then you open yourself up to problems (as my brother in law did and ruined his PC, but that was his own fault, nothing to do with connecting to the internet, everything to do with his behaviour).

I still use Linux and Windows. Both are great. I don't use a Mac as I don't see the point paying a huge premium to have incompatible hardware that performs no better than a decent x86 PC that can run Windows or Linux.

Re:OSX

[hjf]

Yes, because, as a lazy sysadmin *I* never had a box "pwnt". Guess what: I had. Never leave a Linux box running for over 1 year with no patches, on the public net, with WWW and SSH running in default ports. Get real, anonymous fag: linux is open source, and its release cycle is much faster than the other OS's. It's a moving target.
That, and no fanboy geek will ever admit he had a Linux box owned.

Re:OSX

[thegarbz]

OSX by its roots (BSD) means it doesn't get the kind of malware that plagues all those M$ Windows computers.

Security by association? Many windows holes aren't a direct attack on the kernel either. Most expose vulnerabilities in network services or commonly used apps. If you think that OSX is immune from infection due to some mystic link to an OS written by bearded folk you're delusional. Every programmer at some point leaves a bug that could be exploited in a network attached program. Even programs like OpenSSH (with your precious BSD heritage) have had their fair share of vulnerabilities in the past.

Malware is a money making industry. If it becomes profitable to attack OSX, and if OSX becomes common enough to allow viruses to spread (if a certain percentage of a population is immune viruses are often prevented from spreading) you can kiss you sweet security by link to bearded men goodbye, as well as security by lack of motivation.

Heck there was a denial of service attack that could be performed on Windows as a result of the Bonjour service. What is Bonjour service? Something written by Apple installed with iTunes.

Re:OSX

[Bobfrankly1]

To be fair, I have never had any malware with OSX and I'm certain I will not. OSX by its roots (BSD) means it doesn't get the kind of malware that plagues all those M$ Windows computers. I feel safe with OSX and have no need for antivirus. If you give our your root password to a random program, well, you're stupid. But if you use Windows you get infected just by connecting to the internet. I've never had such experience with my Mac.

...and the Steve was God, amen.

Re:OSX

[Kalidor]

Yep, people seem to forget how much "Hackers looooooooooooooooove noodles". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramen_worm

Re:OSX

[commodore6502]

>>>OSX by its roots (BSD) means it doesn't get the kind of malware

NICE SARCASM.

(You were being sarcastic right? Every OS gets malware, because no machine is perfect. There are always loopholes to exploit.)

Re:OSX

[Bobfrankly1]

He's referring to XP Service Pack 1 and before, and most likely the blaster worm. Before MS got their crap together. Real techies know to stay away from any new OS until the second major round of patches come through. That applies equally to Windows and OSX.

Re:OSX

[AliasMarlowe]

I've never had such experience with my Windows box nor have millions of other Windows users.

Weird. I remember a co-worker doing a clean install of Windows XP on a PC a few years ago and it had been remotely infected by a worm before it even managed to install all the security updates from Windows Update.

And yes, giving it an unfirewalled network connection was probably a bad idea.

The final straw for me was the nice Microsoft support person (in India, from the accent) telling me that I'd have to disable my firewall in order to install XP SP1. This was despite me telling her that my cable link was getting several intrusion attempts per second (bad route requests, login attempts, etc.), and I doubted that an unprotected Windows could survive the hour or so that the upgrade would take. AFAIR this was back in 2003-ish, in response to my email complaints that the XP SP1 install failed on my laptop with rather unhelpful messages.
Instead of installing XP SP1, I installed SuSE linux, which later got supplanted by Warty Warthog.

Re:OSX

[Anonymous Coward]

And Linux's dominant market share in the server space means that it's an even juicier target. Which is why you hear about so many pwnt Linux boxes on the web.

Sure, see for example how Sony got their PSN servers rooted and cored. Serves them right for running Windows in the server space. Now if only they had run an inherently safe OS, like Linux...

Re:OSX

[Bobfrankly1]

OSX by its roots (BSD) means it doesn't get the kind of malware that plagues all those M$ Windows computers.

Security by association? Many windows holes aren't a direct attack on the kernel either. Most expose vulnerabilities in network services or commonly used apps..

Among those: Norton's Antivirus.

Re:OSX

[Osgeld]

to be fair, linux isnt sold to soccer moms in mass

Re:OSX

[morari]

If you give our your root password to a random program, well, you're stupid.

Isn't being stupid a qualifier for owning Apple products though? I mean, who else would pay such inflated prices for mediocre hardware and locked down software?

Re:OSX

[DurendalMac]

Most malware relies on stupid users clicking on, surfing to, and installing crap, something that generally doesn't happen on a modern server of any OS unless the admin is an idiot.

Re:OSX

[exomondo]

To be fair, I have never had any malware with OSX and I'm certain I will not. OSX by its roots (BSD) means it doesn't get the kind of malware that plagues all those M$ Windows computers. I feel safe with OSX and have no need for antivirus. If you give our your root password to a random program, well, you're stupid. But if you use Windows you get infected just by connecting to the internet. I've never had such experience with my Mac.

This is the problem Apple is going to have when it gains a respectable marketshare, the masses seem to think OSX is magically safe from viruses and malware, when in actuality it's just too tiny of a target.

Re:OSX

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason Sony got bent over backwards was they were running out-dated, unpatched apache web servers with no firewall, not really because of the OS they were using.

Re:OSX

[Riceballsan]

I do agree, a correctly configured and updated linux server is a great moving target, and a non-updated one that just sits there, is a marvelous broad side of a barn target.

Re:OSX

[RoFLKOPTr]

To be fair, I have never had any malware with OSX and I'm certain I will not. OSX by its roots (BSD) means it doesn't get the kind of malware that plagues all those M$ Windows computers.

To be fair, I have never had any malware with Windows and I'm certain I will not. All (read that again, "all") operating systems are vulnerable to malice, and all (once again, "all") operating systems can be made mostly impervious to malice. All it takes is a little proactive prevention. In a system like Linux, it's configuring your security and permission settings properly and modifying software settings so they're not running on default ports, etc. And keeping everything up to date at all times. On Windows where things aren't so customizable, you are usually best off behind a hardware and/or software firewall with realtime and scheduled-scan antivirus software running. On Macs you haven't really needed to worry much because Macs have never been a target for widespread malice. On all systems, user incompetence can completely outdo even the strongest security configurations because all you need to do is download miley_cyrus_real_nude_pic.jpg.exe, run it, enter your root password, and hit Allow Forever on every antivirus popup that opens.

As the Mac market share increases, Mac malware will become more and more widespread. Just you wait. The only reason they have the least viruses (note that they DON'T have NO viruses) is because the market share has been so small that Windows has been a much more profitable target.

Re:OSX

[RoFLKOPTr]

To be fair, I have never had any malware with OSX and I'm certain I will not. OSX by its roots (BSD) means it doesn't get the kind of malware that plagues all those M$ Windows computers.

To be fair, I have never had any malware with Windows and I'm certain I will not. All (read that again, "all") operating systems are vulnerable to malice, and all (once again, "all") operating systems can be made mostly impervious to malice. All it takes is a little proactive prevention. In a system like Linux, it's configuring your security and permission settings properly and modifying software settings so they're not running on default ports, etc. And keeping everything up to date at all times. On Windows where things aren't so customizable, you are usually best off behind a hardware and/or software firewall with realtime and scheduled-scan antivirus software running. On Macs you haven't really needed to worry much because Macs have never been a target for widespread malice. On all systems, user incompetence can completely outdo even the strongest security configurations because all you need to do is download miley_cyrus_real_nude_pic.jpg.exe, run it, enter your root password, and hit Allow Forever on every antivirus popup that opens.

As the Mac market share increases, Mac malware will become more and more widespread. Just you wait. The only reason they have the least viruses (note that they DON'T have NO viruses) is because the market share has been so small that Windows has been a much more profitable target.

I forgot to add that the above steps will mostly protect you from automated attacks. A dedicated, knowledgeable, and well-versed individual trying to manually break your box can probably do so given enough time and just one slip-up on the victim's part.

Re:OSX

[jc42]

If you give our your root password to a random program, well, you're stupid.

Actually, you no longer have to give out the root password. The unix security model has long since been replaced on linux and OSX systems with a scheme that accepts your personal password, and "escalates" it to root permission. If you use the sudo(8) command, you may have noticed that it now asks for your password rather than root's, and that suffices to get root permission. This means that if you've given your own password to any of those popup windows that request it, you have given them "root" access to everything on your machine. Unless you have the source code and have compiled it yourself, you don't know what that program did with your password. You also don't know how many databases scattered around the Net also now contain your login id and password, allowing their owners to do the same any time they like.

Yes, this capability can be disabled. But this privilege escalation is enabled by default. Do you know how to disable it? (Without looking it up; be honest now. ;-) I've found that hardly any linux or OSX users can answer this when I ask them.

Really, the only remaining vestige of actual security on linux or OSX is the local custom of asking your permission to do something, rather than just using its cached copy of your password that you don't know about. But we can expect that software is being developed that, once it's tricked you into divulging your password, never asks for it again, but just uses it to get root permission thereafter. And note that none of this requires knowing your root password.

Of course, this is still somewhat more secure than the Windows scheme of doing "system" updates without asking permission, even if you've disabled automatic updates. MS has admitted that this feature has been in Windows since XP. So all it takes is greasing the right palms at MS to get access to this, and you can "upgrade" any part of a Windows box's "system" to include your code any time you can reach it from the Net.

Anyway, lest someone thing I'm kidding, I just opened my handy Macbook Pro, fired up a Terminal window, and typed:

gavving:/Users/jc: id
uid=501(jc) gid=20(staff) groups=20(staff),98(_lpadmin),81(_appserveradm),79(_appserverusr),80(admin),101(com.apple.sharepoint.group.1)
gavving:/Users/jc: sudo csh
Password:
gavving:/Users/jc: id
uid=0(root) gid=0(wheel) groups=0(wheel),1(daemon),2(kmem),8(procview),29(certusers),3(sys),9(procmod),4(tty),5(operator),80(admin),20(staff),101(com.apple.sharepoint.group.1) gavving:/Users/jc:

I typed my own password to the Password: prompt, not root's (and they're different). Note that I became root when I did this. This also works on my two linux boxes.

(Bonus points if you can name the SF novel that the machine's name came from ;-)

Re:OSX

[PopeRatzo]

to be fair, linux isnt sold to soccer moms in mass

To be fair, soccer moms aren't putting up web servers.

Re:OSX

[Anonymous Coward]

(Bonus points if you can name the SF novel that the machine's name came from ;-)

The Integral Trees by Larry Niven

Re:OSX

[ifiwereasculptor]

I did, about eight years ago. I was performing my yearly reinstall of Windows and the infamous W32.Blaster managed to infiltrate my system. It required no user interaction whatsoever and I couldn't even keep the damn computer on for more than 60 seconds to download the necessary patches or removal tool. I had to download them from a second, patched machine. So it's not the norm, but it has actually happened at least once. And I still kept on using Windows for quite some time after that, before switching to Linux, mostly because I had never heard of any alternatives to Microsoft's jewel.

Re:OSX

[immaterial]

Your group is "staff". You are running as a user with administration privileges, which is close to, but not the same as, root. You may want to make your everyday account a normal user, and keep a separate administration account for times when you need it.

Re:OSX

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when is Linux sold by the Church? You may have been thinking of "en masse".

Re:OSX

[Culture20]

Remember those botnets that were attempting to distributively brute force ssh, targeting only machines that used OSX? I had machines running Linux and Windows with Cygwin's sshd, and they weren't touched. I heard the botnet members were infected with a Trojan from an Adobe CS crack.

Re:OSX

[memyselfandeye]

to be fair, linux isnt sold to soccer moms in mass

To be fair, soccer moms aren't putting up web servers.

to be fair, soccer moms are putting up web cams all the time.

Re:OSX

[masshuu]

I'll admit I had a box pwned.

Setup a VPS with a bunch of software and forgot about it for a few months so it never got updated. Logged on and one of the daemon users had a bunch of stuff running on it(Chinese spam going to Chinese boxes, so no real damage occurred) It wasn't rooted or anything but i wiped the machine anyways.

Re:OSX

[Anonymous Coward]

That was caused by a single exploit - the one MSBlaster became known for using. A firewall, NAT, or security update blocks it - but not everyone has a NAT, and XP SP0 (and SP1?) does not have a firewall, and obviously lacks the needed security update.

Re:OSX

[Osgeld]

woot

Re:OSX

[jc42]

Yup. Now you might be able to also guess the names of my two nearby linux boxes, one of them the gateway to the outside world. ;-)

Actually, there are lots of other usable names in those two novels. Niven seems to have decided to make up names that aren't quite the same as any in use by the major cultures on our planet right now, and not many geeks have noticed this. So we get lots of machines named after HHGttG, Star Wars and Dune characters, but none from The Integral Trees.

OTOH, there are also lots of other works of fiction that are rich sources of machine names. I've been surprised that there are so few Tolkien-Ring-themed (Token Ring?) sites around. We've all read that series, right? For that matter, where are all the Harry Potter groups of machines?

But this is sorta OT ...

Re:OSX

[jc42]

No, I don't think so. I did it again, typed "id -r -u" and "id -r -g" command, and both gave me 0. My real and effective uids and gids are all 0; I have full root permissions. And I didn't need to type the root password, just my login's password.

Granted, I did this as an admin user. That's also the default setup for OSX, and very few Mac users (and not many more linux users) would have any idea how to correctly set up an account that can't be escalated to root this way.

Re:OSX

[Anonymous Coward]

to be fair, linux isnt sold to soccer moms in mass

To be fair, I don't know of any OS that is being sold during Catholic religious services.

Oh! Did you mean "en masse"?

Re:OSX

[GameboyRMH]

Do you know how to disable it? (Without looking it up; be honest now. ;-) I've found that hardly any linux or OSX users can answer this when I ask them.

visudo or Gnome's user control panel. But how many things do you know how to do off the top of your head? Are we going back to the days of the ancient Greek philosophers where having to looking up a piece of information was considered a mental weakness?

Re:OSX

[2.7182]

Have you heard of Jesux?

Re:OSX

[bill_mcgonigle]

You make some good points, but:

Unless you have the source code and have compiled it yourself, you don't know what that program did with your password.

this one isn't correct. The app doesn't get your password, the system gets your password and give the app permissions.

Unless it throws up a dialog that just happens to look like the system's dialog, of course.

Re:OSX

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know those 'soccer moms' on those porn sites with the webcams are fake soccer moms?

Re:OSX

[zoloto]

Granted, I did this as an admin user...

That right there is why I stopped listening to you. If you follow what the grandparent poster said about giving yourself and regular users LIMITED ACCOUNTS and leave the administration separate you won't run into so many of these problems. (as if they're very prevalent anyways).

Re:OSX

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Yup. And Linux's dominant market share in the server space means that it's an even juicier target. Which is why you hear about so many pwnt Linux boxes on the web.

http://www.zone-h.org/news/id/4737

Last year the Zone-H archived a sad record number, we archived 1.419.203 websites defacements. Why and how this is happening? [...] Since many years ago, Linux became the most used OS for webservers and of course the preferred target for the defacers. Last year we archived 1.126.987 attacks against websites running on the Linux systems. The most used exploit by the defacers is the CVE-2010–3301, that was fixed in 2007 and was mysteriously reintroduced in 2008, in a large pile of kernel versions x86_64.

You are obviously right - 80% of website defacements last year all dues to rooted Linux servers - and you don't hear about it, so it must not have happened.

Re:OSX

[Bert64]

If the Apache server was meant to be public facing, how would a firewall have helped?
It would have had rules to allow access to the Apache server, so it would still have been exploited... Infact, if they'd been using a firewall then an attack like that would have got you a foothold behind it, where there would probably be far more easily exploitable holes hidden behind the firewall.

Re:OSX

[Bert64]

A properly configured linux server simply won't have a browser installed for stupid users to do that with...
Windows does by default which is difficult to remove, and sooner or later it ends up being used, either by accident in an rdesktop session or to perform some troubleshooting. It's quite a common vector for exploitation really.
You quite often get cases where people use the default browser on a windows "server" in a corporate dmz to bypass the web filtering policy of that company...

Re:OSX

[jimicus]

More to the point - the Apple malware right now is still social-engineering based. It requires you to actively give it your admin password so it can install.

Linux on the server isn't particularly vulnerable to this because nobody in their right mind is surfing the web from their webserver.

Re:OSX

[jimicus]

The post you're replying to is using 8 year old experiences as a reference.

Back then, many ISPs didn't give you a router, they gave you a USB modem. Your PC connected, got a public IP address your ISPs own support desk told you not to use a firewall of any description because they wouldn't support it. Windows XP didn't get its own built-in firewall until service pack 2, released in 2004 - by then it was sorely needed. There were so many portscanners and Microsoft took such a laissez-faire approach to security that the average time between plugging a Windows PC into the public Internet without a firewall and finding it utterly pwned was about 15-20 minutes - and you didn't even need to bring up a web browser.

Re:OSX

[Bert64]

There is nothing to say the servers defaced were rooted, just that they were defaced... It's quite possible to deface a website with only access to the user account that owns or runs that site.

It also goes on to say that most of those defacements were due to bugs in web applications like remote file includes, now if you write buggy code and put it on a public facing webserver it will be vulnerable regardless what type of webserver you deploy it on.

Also, what type of sites are being defaced? Are they important corporate sites with a significant budget behind them for security hardening, or are they small single person blogs etc?

Similarly, with poorly configured shared hosting exploiting one user's site may get you an increased level of access to another site, for instance in many shared hosting environments the web server process runs as the same userid for all sites, meaning if you exploit one you will have the ability to read files and possibly write to some areas.
Then of course, if you do root the system you instantly gain the capability to deface all the sites hosted on it.
It seems mass defacements are not uncommon, and will naturally skew the stats towards linux as its far more common to host a larger number of sites on a single linux box. Such hosting is also generally the cheapest kind available, and therefore more likely to be used by less savvy users and operated by less competent sysadmins.

Also if you look at the stats, it's only in 2010 that linux defacements have become proportional to market share... In previous years, windows has accounted for a far higher proportion of defacements than its overall webserver marketshare would dictate, especially in 2000-2002 where windows defacements actually outnumbered linux despite having a minority market share.

Re:OSX

[Bert64]

I have encountered many windows users who have become infected with all sorts, often repeatedly despite paying significant amounts of money both to have infections removed and for ineffective "protection"...

Most of them don't realise that anything other than windows exists, and simply accept the risk and cost of malware as an inherent part of using a computer...

Re:OSX

[Bert64]

The windows (NT) kernel is not really the problem anyway, the problems lie further up the stack because of all the extra complexity, much of which has been inherited from the win9x series.

Re:OSX

[Bert64]

Yes, this capability can be disabled. But this privilege escalation is enabled by default. Do you know how to disable it? (Without looking it up; be honest now. ;-) I've found that hardly any linux or OSX users can answer this when I ask them.

Sure, just run things as a user who isn't in the sudoers file (by default on most distros sudoers has a group added, with anyone in that group allowed to sudo rather than adding individual users to sudoers)...

Note that you still need a valid password in order to elevate privileges, and just exploiting a userland application such as a browser will not give you that password.

Re:OSX

[jgagnon]

Suspension of disbelief?

Re:OSX

[geminidomino]

Yeah. I wouldn't use it on a production box, though. Damn OS keeps crashing and taking 3 days to reboot...

Re:OSX

[oh_my_080980980]

Hello, Pot, this is Kettle, you're black....

Re:OSX

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

There is nothing to say the servers defaced were rooted, just that they were defaced...

Yes, it says exactly that - learn to read. "The most used exploit by the defacers is the CVE-2010–3301" - a Local Privilege Escalation Vulnerability in the Linux Kernel. Are you telling me they only bothered to escalate to web-admin and not to root?

Damn Linux apologists who think Linux is soooo safe from malware unlike other OSes, and feel they need to tell everybody about it and then can't accept it when shown wrong. Gee, I wonder if the next article by Mr. MS sponsored journalist for ZDNet will be about them - wouldn't that be fun?

Re:OSX

[silverglade00]

But while it's up, it sure keeps the daemons running!

Re:OSX

[silverglade00]

Are we going back to the days of the ancient Greek philosophers where having to looking up a piece of information was considered a mental weakness?

To be fair, there was only around twelve pieces of information in the world back then.

Re:OSX

[PopeRatzo]

You do know those 'soccer moms' on those porn sites with the webcams are fake soccer moms?

I choose to believe they are real soccer moms, thank you very much.

Some see the cream-pie as half empty, I choose to see it as half-full.

Re:OSX

[jc42]

If you follow what the grandparent poster said about giving yourself and regular users LIMITED ACCOUNTS and leave the administration separate you won't run into so many of these problems.

Well, yeah; I've done that, when I was working inside corporate networks. But note that I was talking about the large number of personally-owned Mac and linux systems, whose "admins" are their individual owners. How do you propose we go about forcing them to use limited accounts on their own personal machines? With the exception of a very few owned by knowledgeable geeks, those machines will continue to default to a single login that has admin access, and that login's password will continue to allow the software to automatically escalate to root permissions.

(It's also my experience that companies that allow non-MS machines at work usually also allow this default setup. The IT drones that handle such things usually can't be bothered to learn how to handle unix-like security setups. They all have their MSCE certificates, and they know all they need to know about security. If a real problem comes up, they simply ban the non-MS systems. ;-)

Re:OSX

[Bert64]

How would zone-h know what exploits were used? All they see is the defaced site, it's unlikely most victims of defacement are going to go around telling defacement mirrors how they were hacked, and its unlikely most of the hackers will talk about what it is they used.

Also you can't use a local privilege escalation exploit until *AFTER* you have obtained user level access. How was this level of access obtained?

Re:OSX

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

How would zone-h know what exploits were used? All they see is the defaced site, it's unlikely most victims of defacement are going to go around telling defacement mirrors how they were hacked, and its unlikely most of the hackers will talk about what it is they used.

Also you can't use a local privilege escalation exploit until *AFTER* you have obtained user level access. How was this level of access obtained?

Mostly the defacers tell them. But yeah, those people will lie about rooting a Linux box, they actually just defaced a Windows box. Thanks for proving my point about people like you.

Re:OSX

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Also you can't use a local privilege escalation exploit until *AFTER* you have obtained user level access. How was this level of access obtained?

PS: you can tell by just looking at the time the server was defaced and the kernel version you can get from the info the server returns (as well as the sheer increase in numbers) : If it was after mid-September, and the kernel wasn't the one with the fix (or something really old), no hacker would have not used the sure way to root the machine.

And who fucking cares what they used to go into the machines: they did - and rooted them. Because all it takes is a vulnerability in some much-used gadget-add-on for Apache and one of the ever increasing number of local priv. escalation bugs. And if you look at previous stats, you'll be able to see how wrong the "Insightful" claims about the unpwnability of Linux boxes are. Well, you probably won't. Which was my fucking point about you hopeless cases - who feel the need to paint all Mac users in a similar brush. That's first rate irony.

Re:OSX

[Bert64]

Actually, i am a regular user of both Mac and Linux (and other unixes, but less so these days)... Using a macbook pro to type this.

OSX is not immune to local privilege escalation vulnerabilities, take for example http://www.digit-labs.org/files/exploits/xnu-hfs-fcntl-v2.c and there are

Similarly a webapp level bug would yield user level access just the same on OSX as Linux or any other platform (and probably give you instant root equivalent on windows, since apache runs as SYSTEM by default there).

I am in no doubt that hackers would try to root OSX machines if they found vulnerable webapps running on one.

in other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

apple buries their heads in the sand just like most of their computer users....

Re:in other words...

[hedwards]

Most likely yes, but without knowing to what extent Apple has looked into the issue or what the status with that is, it might be a legitimate policy when they don't have firm answers. Bad information can definitely be worse than no information.

Re:in other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

As was aptly demonstrated by the post above this one.

Re:in other words...

[hedwards]

No, it was a reasonably observation. I don't own any Apple products, never have and likely never will, but you have to recognize that if they haven't finished whatever investigation they need to do, they can easily make things worse by making the wrong recommendation.

Re:in other words...

[Samantha Wright]

Actually, it's finely-ground silica glass, imported from Tibet, verified to contain no particles thicker than 9.3 mm.

Re:in other words...

[Khyber]

Your fucking system is infected.

Not making a recommendation while the user likely CONTINUES TO USE THE INFECTED SYSTEM is IRRESPONSIBLE.

How the hell is this a difficult concept to understand?

Re:in other words...

[cheeks5965]

Actually, it's finely-ground silica glass, imported from Tibet, verified to contain no particles thicker than 9.3 mm.

umm... 9.3mm is like 3/8th of an inch. if you have chunks like this in your "finely-ground glass", then you should return it for a refund.

Re:in other words...

[Samantha Wright]

Dimensions
115.2 mm (4.54 in) (h)
58.66 mm (2.309 in) (w)
9.3 mm (0.37 in) (d)


Can I get a "woosh"?

Re:in other words...

[Macgrrl]

9.3mm? That's not sand, that's coarse gravel or possibly crushed rock.

Re:in other words...

[Samantha Wright]

It depends on what side of the reality distortion field you stand on. Maybe it's crushed glass, maybe it's the new and beautiful iSafetySand! Who can say?

(I was actually going for a crushed iPhone 4. 'Thicker', not 'larger'. Yes? Maybe? I dunno.)

Re:in other words...

[gutnor]

That sounds exactly like modern advertising actually.

Free(*), unlimited(**) 20Gb/s(***) internet with XYZ telecom.
(*)When you subscribe to our 300$/month newsletter.
(**)Maximum 5 GB transfer per month.
(***)In selected area

Re:in other words...

[TheLink]

Feel like a stand up comedian telling jokes to an ostrich?

It's easier for jokes to woosh over heads that are below ground level...

Re:in other words...

[BasilBrush]

No matter how much you shout, there is no infection. This isn't a virus. It's a application which a user has downloaded and installed from the internet. It does 2 things:

1) Pops up messages asking for money on false pretenses.
2) Pops up browser windows with porn.

Continued use of a system with this application installed will not "infect" other systems. It's not a virus.

Continued use of a system with this application installed won't do any damage to the computer or it's data.

Apple care isn't a malware advice, diagnosis or removal service. If a user (who has installed this application) is too clueless to find the solution to his problem on the internet, then he needs to pay a techie who does offer that service.

Re:in other words...

[Samantha Wright]

Yes. An ostrich that didn't learn the metric system until high school and has yet to come to terms with it.

Re:in other words...

[Khyber]

And yet you totally ignore the possibility of hidden payloads.

Bravo on the major cognitive dissonance.

Re:in other words...

[BasilBrush]

Every application has the possibility of hidden payloads. It still doesn't make it the responsibility of AppleCare.

And don't use phrases like "cognitive dissonance" when you don't know what they mean. It makes you look stupid, not more intelligent.

Re:in other words...

[cheeks5965]

I still don't get it. By your link I see that you were referring to the iphone, but how were you making an iphone joke in your tibetan comment? Is there a connection?

Re:in other words...

[cheeks5965]

I don't get this one either. I apparently missed an iphone reference, but my unit conversion is correct. harsh much?

Re:in other words...

[Samantha Wright]

It is commonly portrayed to be a stereotype about Apple users that they are superficially concerned with a connection to nature and the mysticism of East Asia. Whether this stereotype applies is outside of the scope of this joke, and comedians in general. More specifically, "crystal salt imported from Tibet" is a common snake-oil cure-all sold by fraudsters purporting to be connected to secrets of ancient Chinese and Indian religions. This also plays into the recent concern over Chinese involvement in Tibet, which was particularly popular with the Left in the United States, often regarded as the primary market of Apple products, and the office of the Dalai Lama, which is located in Tibet, thus tying the location again to the mysticism of East Asia through its significance to Buddhism.

Re:in other words...

[Samantha Wright]

The answer to your question to my answer is a question: why didn't you assume I was being silly?

My interpretation was that you assumed I don't use metric regularly, and that it was an error. Since you glossed 9.3 mm in inches, this is a pretty safe guess, as inches are most commonly used in the United States, where there is a notorious absence of common knowledge about the size of a millimetre. However, most people who are comfortable with the metric system and use it regularly wouldn't even think twice about it, and even lacking an obscene knowledge of the iPhone 4's dimensions, would assume parody from context, particularly given Apple's prolonged emphasis on thinner hardware.

Re:in other words...

[Khyber]

"And don't use phrases like "cognitive dissonance" when you don't know what they mean"

Implying a research director doesn't know what your very condition is and what it is called.

Nice one.

Re:in other words...

[BasilBrush]

I'm not implying anything. I'm stating absolutely that at the time you made that comment, you didn't know what cognitive dissonance was. But you thought using the phrase would make you look intelligent.

And trying to argue differently using a idiots idea of an impressive job title is just making you look even stupider.

Re:in other words...

[cheeks5965]

It is commonly portrayed to be a stereotype about Apple users that they are superficially concerned with a connection to nature and the mysticism of East Asia.

[citation needed]

More specifically, "crystal salt imported from Tibet" is a common snake-oil cure-all sold by fraudsters purporting to be connected to secrets of ancient Chinese and Indian religions.

[citation needed]

This also plays into the recent concern over Chinese involvement in Tibet, which was particularly popular with the Left in the United States, often regarded as the primary market of Apple products.

factually true I guess, but not sure how it's relevant. non-sequeter.

Let's see...
1) made up fact
2) made up fact
3) irrelevant statement
4)...
5) funny!

Re:in other words...

[cheeks5965]

True, I assumed that you didn't use metric correctly, and I was pointing out your error by converting it into inches. Since in your comment you obv didn't understand metric i figured inches would be better FOR YOU.

I guess I just assumed stupidity from context, and tried to nudge you in the right direction. btw if your parody is indistinguishable from stupidity, then you're doing it wrong.

Re:in other words...

[Samantha Wright]

1) http://www.minyanville.com/special-features/articles/steve-jobs-apple-buddhism-beginners-mind/5/19/2010/id/28278
2) http://www.bluejaguarmedicinearts.com/himalayan-crystal-salt/
3) ... you know what? You really just don't have a sense of humour.

Re:in other words...

[Samantha Wright]

At least two other people got the joke, as evidenced by the Funny moderation and TheLink's comment—and humour is always hit-and-miss anyway. You should really just give it a rest. I guess the take-home message is that trying to explain a joke based on inherently derogatory stereotypes rarely works out.

Here's a hint to remember in the future: between Canada, the UK, and Australia, there are 118 million English speakers, most of whom were raised with metric as their native measuring system. If all of those countries contribute the same percentage of their population to Slashdot as the United States does, you could have as much as 27% of Slashdot users who don't make mistakes in metric. That should be a sufficient enough fraction to make you think twice about assuming fault, particularly when there are other clues present (e.g. the "thickness" of sand/glass grains instead of the size) that the statement is meant to be absurd.

And if all else fails, check the comment history! Maybe they're not a native English speaker and you can't trust them to know the difference between "thickness" and "length" or "size"—but maybe, conversely, that will clear everything up. I don't think that's a disproportionate amount of effort if it avoids a protracted and uncomfortable dialogue about the semantics of a tasteless joke.

religion

[Anonymous Coward]

I have faith that Apple will remove any malware from my Macs. I believe this with all my heart and I pray that Apple will deliver me from temptations.

Re:religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Jobs 3:16 For in this way Apple loved the world: that he gave the unique OS, so that all the ones trusting in Apple would not perish, but have eternal life.

So?

[NiceGeek]

Microsoft doesn't support removal of the hordes of malware on it's platform either.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft doesn't support removal of the hordes of malware on it's platform either.

Microsoft sells computers now?

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is, I don't pay Microsoft $300 extra when I buy my computer for higher class support.

Re:So?

[Megor1]

From the article: "Microsoft provides free telephone support for security issues to all customers, regardless of whether the software was purchased at retail or as part of a new PC. Microsoft Support Article 129972 (last updated May 17, 2011) contains these instructions:"

Re:So?

[Urd.Yggdrasil]

Microsoft Malicious Software Removal Tool? Microsoft Security Essentials?

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Support my ass, give me an example where apple's support was more than simply "Macs form dummies" training for confused great-grandparents.

Re:So?

[Kitkoan]

Yeah, for a while now.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft doesn't support removal of the hordes of malware on it's platform either.

There's Microsoft Security Essentials.

At least they try. Apple's ethos is "deny everything".

Re:So?

[paradox11]

And you actually click on a link, and it goes to a page featuring HP/Toshiba/Samsung/Sony laptops (and Asus netbooks)

Re:So?

[jo_ham]

They gave me a free GigE card (at their suggestion) when I had problems with the built in ethernet on the logic board on a Powermac G5 and didn't have the time to take it in for repair because it was an edit machine.

They replaced my brother's iBook, 3 days out of warranty, because it was close to the expiry date and it was unfortunate.

They shipped a fresh set of Universal Binary Final Cut Studio disks to me for postage cost when the Intel switch came about, so we wouldn't have to buy the newer version of the suite to be able to run it natively.

Oh I'm sure I have a few more.

They also do "Macs form [sic] dummies" for those who yank their power cord from the wall socket by the cable and wonder why it frays and catches fire, or who throw their laptop in a bag with no case and wonder why the surface gets all scratched and so on.

They also deal with regular people who have hardware and software problems.

Re:So?

[Hatta]

I agree. If you read the memo, installation of the "malware" requires authorization from the user. If you choose to do that, the OS vendors hands are clean. Apple isn't responsible for removing software you installed.

Re:So?

[DurendalMac]

And if you RTFA, you'll find that Apple and MS do the same damned thing: Tell the user to get some antimalware software to get it out.

Re:So?

[Kitkoan]

All sold by Microsoft.

Its like when you buy office software from an Apple Store and they showing you Microsoft Office. They didn't program it, but they will happily sell it to you, thus the the Apple store does sell office programs. And games, music, movies on iTunes but they didn't make any of them.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft doesn't support removal of the hordes of malware on it's platform either.

True, but Windows users are accustomed to the idea that they will have to deal with their own problems. This is a real bubble-bursting, there-ain't-no-unicorns sort of message for Mac users ;p

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you reading the article on Zdnet, because that is the opposite of what it says. It says that Microsoft wants you to install antimalware software BEFORE you call them. " 1.Before you contact a support engineer, make sure that you run updated antivirus software and updated spyware removal software on the infected computer.For more information about how to obtain a free computer safety scan, visit the following Microsoft Web site: http://www.microsoft.com/security/scanner/(http://www.microsoft.com/security/scanner/) For more information about antispyware software, visit the following Microsoft Web site:http://www.microsoft.com/protect/computer/spyware/as.mspx(http://www.microsoft.com/protect/computer/spyware/as.mspx) 2.Call 1-866-PCSAFETY or call 1-866-727-2338 to contact security support."

Re:So?

[mlts]

Apple's CS by itself, is a big sell in its favor. Bought a Mac, bad RAM... they did a machine exchange on the spot. iPhone had some bad flash storage... 10 minutes, the SIM card was swapped and I was good to go with a replacement unit.

For nontechnical people, being able to call one number for a problem, be it hardware, OS, or even the app makes the Apple Tax worth it, especially if they make their living from the computer.

PC makers also offer good support, but you have to buy their business line of machines (Precisions, Optiplexes), and their top tier support contracts. This is the par for companies, but for individuals, Apple has the best CS for the large computer makers.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but why leave those users who call in for support in the dark? Apple won't even confirm or deny that the user might have a malware problem. What are they, the frickin' CIA? How hard would it be for the Apple Care rep to ask some basic questions and then say, "Base on the answers you've given me, it does sound like you may have a malware problem. Please go to so and so site to get malware removaltron etc., etc." This fiasco just smacks of Apple trying to maintain the illusion their software isn't vulnerable to malware. As shareholder I would be pissed that Apple is passing up a golden opportunity to sell their own anti-malware software to the worshipful users. They could call it AppleCrate or iCrate , you know.. to box in those nasty malware wormy doodle-hickeys.

Re:So?

[DJRumpy]

Well if you count the cost of the OS, then yes, you did.

The difference is, I don't pay Microsoft $300 extra when I buy my computer for higher class support.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

They replaced the mainboard on my PowerMac G5 in *5 hours* when the FireWire ports died on it because I needed it for work.

They repaired my Aunt's TimeCapsule even though it was out of warranty.

They replaced both of my Powerbook G3's (Pismo) Batteries when the power daughtercard fried them, even though they were well beyond their charge cycle lifetime and were not covered under warranty at that point.

Re:So?

[Khyber]

"Microsoft doesn't support removal of the hordes of malware on it's platform either."

Bullshit. Microsoft Security Essentials.

Re:So?

[DurendalMac]

And Apple also recommends several antimalware products on their website as well. As OS X never had a petri-dish era like the earlier days of XP, they don't recommend using the antimalware before calling as it wasn't deemed necessary. We may see some changes to that procedure before long.

Re:So?

[MDillenbeck]

Microsoft provides free telephone support for security issues to all customers, regardless of whether the software was purchased at retail or as part of a new PC.

The top post of the article linked to also has a poster making this same comment, and the article details Microsoft's policy on assistance for malware removal.

Also, as has been stated, Apple is not just the OS but the system manufacturer. I don't know to what extent HP, Dell, or other system manufacturers support malware removal, but for the premium price I would have thought they would have better support. Oh well, I guess Apple will just stick to blocking you loading 3rd party apps and porn on your smartphone...

Re:So?

[mjwx]

Microsoft doesn't support removal of the hordes of malware on it's platform either.

But Microsoft wont deny malware's existence. In fact they publish several free tools to help you remove it. The fact that they aren't as good as free alternatives not withstanding.

Re:So?

[NiceGeek]

A Mac is a bog standard Intel PC with a different OS. So I really don't see your point.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which Microsoft provides for free

Re:So?

[Dr. Hellno]

They replaced the keyboard in my laptop after I got coffee on a key and it wouldn't work. On the other hand, when the back-light in that computer's monitor died, the only thing they could offer was to replace the entire top half of the laptop. A little goggling found me an independent operator who replaced the back-light for a tenth of the price.

Re:So?

[gumbi west]

Last time I called, the first level guy was having me do stuff with the CLI to deal with a legit, confusing, problem--and he figured it out. Every other place I call, only the third level guy can even comprehend that the basic fixes did not work and that is why I'm calling.

Re:So?

[Medevilae]

Duh? And it isn't Apple's responsibility to support those, either.

Re:So?

[Billly Gates]

If you have a contract with Microsoft Support they are obligated to help. Individuals do not have these contracts.

Now AppleCare covers this so yes they need to provide support or turn into another IE. My parents would still use IE if it were not in the daily news for constant infections and security hazards. They chose to switch without my help.

If I were a malware writer I would take notice and then port there malware, simply because geeks on slashdot and other techno wizards said Macs never get infected. How many times have you heard that you never need anti virus products for the mac. Apple has 15% of the market now! Sure it is not 85% but the vast majority of that 85% have malware and anti virus protection. Macs have nill! Wow, I do not have to even worry if my methods will be detected because their users simply do not run any protection at all. Just release and WAM! Much easier and I could probably have a much higher rate of infection than trying to dodge security software installed with Windows.

Apple is going to be scorned like IE is now if they do address this fast

Re:So?

[Gaygirlie]

Microsoft doesn't support removal of the hordes of malware on it's platform either.

Not true. Microsoft-certified stores in fact do offer cleaning of virus and malware, and offer general help and tips against such infections. Not to mention that MSE is at the moment one of the best antivirus tools available for Windows, if not even the best.

Re:So?

[pckl300]

Actually, they have an entire software devoted to it. That's more than Apple can say.

Re:So?

[hitmark]

Also, if MS try to really be effective they may get a antitrust lawsuit from Symantec and the rest.

Re:So?

[bemymonkey]

But is one of Microsoft's big selling points, "We don't have viruses, bro! You're safe with us!" ?

I think not :P

Re:So?

[abhi_beckert]

That simply is not true. Microsoft regularly releases updates to MSRT (malicious software removal tool) which is built into windows, and uninstalls software like Mac Defender.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the same thing. MS provides antimalware software for free.

Re:So?

[bloodhawk]

Actually yes they do, they provide both free tools and a free support line for dealing with malware. Not only that but you would have seen it if you had even bothered to look at the article as the information for it was part of the article.

Re:So?

[Xest]

I'm not sure what country you're in but here in the UK and much of Europe due to strong consumer protection laws none of those things would be classed as a company going out of it's way, but in fact sensible solutions to fulfil their obligations under those laws.

In the first case, they will have sent you an ethernet card simply because they have an obligation to repair, replace, or refund for the system, and sending you the card is undoubtedly the cheapest option for them if you're happy with it. They haven't gone out their way here- it'd be more expensive for them to spend engineer time fixing it, more expensive to replace the whole system, and more expensive to refund you for the system. They did what was best for them.

Similarly replacing an iBook 3 days out of warranty is something they'd realistically have to do in the UK/Europe too, under the consumer protection act in the UK for example for the first 6 months from purchase a firm has to provide a refund, a repair, or a replacement for a faulty product and if they do not wish to honour this must prove the fault was caused by misuse by the user. After the 6 months the obligation switches to the user to prove the fault occured through normal usage and this applies for the reasonable lifetime of the product, which, for products such as expensive laptops has been deemed to be as much as 5 years. Most companies wont contest this and force the user to prove otherwise because something as simple as a written letter by a qualified electrician at a repair shop confirming no user damage would be enough to make them lose their case at more expense to them.

It's a sad example of the state of customer service when you see the things you state as examples of good customer service, when frankly they're the bare minimum a company should do. Good customer service is going above and beyond to show the customer you're actually sorry something went wrong, like not just replacing a laptop that failed as early as 3 days post-warranty, but then giving you some money, store vouchers, or free additional item or similar to make up for the fact the product failed so early when frankly it should not have.

It's also sad that you dismiss issues of the likes of Magsafe power adapters or whatever catching fire as users yanking them out the wall when it's well documented that this is not the case, and similarly dismiss scratches on products that shouldn't scratch so easily as a user issue.

Whether it's Apple or any other company, it's people like you accepting such a low bar of customer service that allows companies to get away with things like this, get away with initially telling users they're holding it wrong and issuing of a free case eventually, and get away with such a low bar of customer service in general. When people like you put up with such crap responses companies are bound to be happy to get away with it- realistically when the iPhone 4 attenna issue came around Apple should've replaced each and every affected handset for free and should've reached out to users to do so, because it was a brand new product with a clear defect but with fanboys refusing to accept fault with their new shiny again, the bar of customer service was once again lowered.

Re:So?

[AmiMoJo]

MS includes a monthly malware detection scan in Windows Update. The also supply the free Security Essentials and support for using it.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh? And it isn't Apple's responsibility to support those, either.

I think you missed the point. Buyers of Windows laptops do get malware support (as also mentioned in TFA), buyers of Macs don't.

Re:So?

[jo_ham]

On the GigE card front, I am aware they needed to fix the issue - my post was a reply to the OP who was challenging someone to provide any positive Apple CS response - I simply listed the ones I could think of. They sent me the GigE card, but then they also replaced the logic board at a time that was convenient to me - the Gig card was simply to keep me up and running until we were past a heavy edit deadline. They could have been inflexible and said "sure we can fix it under warranty, but you have to send it in or take it to an authorised repair shop". They chose an option that worked well for me, that they didn't have to take. Given that they should be providing good CS, it's nice to see that they do.

I wasn't talking about the magsafe end of the connector, I was referencing a situation with someone I know who complained that he had to "berate" Apple to get them to replace the wall-socket end of his power supply because his normal method of removal was to pull it out of the wall via the cord and it eventually frayed and stopped working.

As far as magsafe goes (and the previous generation of the connector with the pin and ring), there was clearly a design flaw in a part that sees such frequent connection and disconnection and cable movement - the cord was too flimsy at the point where the cable boot meets the cable itself, so it could kink and gradually cause it to get damaged and short out. Apple has covered this with an out-of-warranty free replacement, which is clearly the least they need to do.

Where do you get the impression that I "demand a low bar" from customer service? Talking about my positive experiences at the times I've needed it is far from the conclusive proof necessary to draw that conclusion. You try to downplay Apple's actions in each of my stories, pushing the bar higher, or stating that what they did was standard procedure and thus not exceptional, but I have to wonder - what else are they meant to do? The laptop warranty replacement outside of the time was painless. Didn;t need to argue with them, didn;t need to try to convince them, didn't need multiple calls; they simply arranged to replace it and it was seamless and painless, leaving my brother very happy. Other than throwing themselves on their sword, what else do you think they should do? Making the process smooth and genial, as all customer service should be, as well as giving a satisfactory outcome is the whole goal I thought?

And now you jump into the antenna issue again. The "design flaw" that causes the phone to lose signal if you detune the antenna and are standing in a signal area that the previous iPhone would never have been able to get reception in the first place.
Ok, so the external antenna is more susceptible to detuning than other phones (but it's not unique to the iPhone 4, or even the iPhone in general, just more extreme due to external antenna), and you claim they should have taken every single iPhone back and replaced it.... with what? The iPhone 4 design hasn;t changed at all, so what should they send out in return? Another "broken" iPhone 4? What about the millions of people who aren't having any reception issues? They investigated and determined that the bumpers cured the problem (well, they reduced the detuning - you can't eliminate it) and offered free bumpers to all iPhone 4 users to fix the issue for those who were having issues. From the number of complaints about it, the bumpers were clearly adequate to solve the problem. For the millions of others who didn;t see an issue, they got a free case out of it. The antenna is better than the iPhone 3G's one, and picks up signal in much lower reception areas, but it does have a weakness when the signal is that low. I suspect the iPhone 5 will address that.
I hardly think they're "lowering the bar" of customer service by giving out free cases that cure the problem, as opposed to totally redesigning, manufacturing and shipping out new phones - how long do you think that would take, especially for these customers who are apparently seriously struggling with the phone and need it fixed zomg right nao! Especially when it can be fixed in 5 minutes with a case.

I think you're just looking for excuses to trash them.

Re:So?

[theolein]

What won't change will be arrogant, clueless Mac users lecturing users of other platforms on how superior Mac users are to the rest of the human race, and I say that as a Mac user myself.

Re:So?

[Xest]

"Where do you get the impression that I "demand a low bar" from customer service?"

As I say, simply the fact that a company fixed a fault with your product. I'm not saying you're particularly out of the ordinary in being happy with this service- I'm saying this lowers the bar because they've simply done the bare minimum required of them when not only should they be resolving an issue, but should be compensating you for having to suffer the inconvenience of facing an issue you shouldn't have had to in the first place.

"Ok, so the external antenna is more susceptible to detuning than other phones (but it's not unique to the iPhone 4, or even the iPhone in general, just more extreme due to external antenna), and you claim they should have taken every single iPhone back and replaced it.... with what?"

Oh come off it, let's not stupid to the level of denial. It's been demonstrated time and time again that the iPhone 4 had a design fault, Apple muddied the waters with their official announcement, but there's no dispute here so stop trying to pretend that's the case, it's established fact that the iPhone 4 had a design fault. Note how car manufacturers deal with a similar thing- Toyota stuck car mats were replaced when Toyota could've simply said that happens with all cars (It certainly used to happen with my old Vauxhall corsa). Apple muddied the waters here and you may be right, new iPhone 4s still have the issue, but the solution should've been a redesign to eliminate the fault and issuing of fixed products to consumers.

"I think you're just looking for excuses to trash them."

Please, let's not stoop to fanboyism, it's just pathetic. My view is that consumers should be treated better than they are, and that by expecting the bare minimum you're letting corporations get away with things they shouldn't. Look, I know you're a big fan of Apple, but if you bought a product from someone like I don't know, say, HP, would you really be content if it had a flaw? Would you be content with a case for it that covered up the flaw? These devices are expensive and when you pay what you do for them you should be able to expect a product that has no flaws, and Apple makes enough profit that they should've had the courage to accept that they fucked up, and pay for replacement handsets for everyone.

As much as I'm not keen on praising Microsoft, and know it's almost like asking for a death sentence here, I think the latest news story posted here on Slashdot about some XBox 360s having a flaw from an update that prevents those consoles affected from playing new titles coming out from now on demonstrates my point- Microsoft are not only offering to replace the console, which is the bare minimum they should really do, but are giving a years free live subscription as compensation for the inconvenience- it's that extra step that is the difference between fulfilling your obligations as a firm and saying "Here, we fixed the problem", and saying "Sorry, we fucked up, let us make it up to you with compensation for inconveniencing you with our mistake".

Consumers deserve better, especially with the cost of many IT gadgets, if companies aren't pressured into compensating for mistakes and mistakes aren't costly for them, they'll make them more and more and care less about making sure products are perfect right out the door. Whether you're a fan of Apple, Google, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, or whoever, this should still be the case.

Re:So?

[jo_ham]

As I say, simply the fact that a company fixed a fault with your product. I'm not saying you're particularly out of the ordinary in being happy with this service- I'm saying this lowers the bar because they've simply done the bare minimum required of them when not only should they be resolving an issue, but should be compensating you for having to suffer the inconvenience of facing an issue you shouldn't have had to in the first place.

There's another name for that: being an entitled ass. Setting out with the mindset that the world owes you something for... being you, leads to that sort of attitude.

Why should Apple "compensate you for your inconvenience"? They fixed the product, as they should do but the world isn;t always perfect and smooth. Sometimes things break, sometimes things don;t go 100% to plan. This doesn't mean the world owes you if unexpected things happen.

Apple (and microsoft, in the case of broken 360s, replaced with newer ones) have done exactly what they are meant to when faced with a CS issue. To have it resolved effectively and then saying "right, now what else are you going to do to make me happy?" is going beyond CS and into the realm of "the customer is always right, even when they're wrong".

It reminds me of Tuesday maintenance on the WoW servers, with frothing demands for compensation and free game time if the servers don;t come back up at precisely the time in the original estimate, or even that they go down *at all* for maintenance.

****

Re: iPhone 4 antenna - note that I am not arguing the lack of a design issue. Clearly an external metal antenna that is easy to detune is a flaw in the antenna design. My point is that it affected a very small number of people in very specific circumstances (and in areas where the older iPhone that the 4 replaced couldn't even receive a signal in perfect conditions). Apple addressed the media hype engine that is wasn't a phenomenon unique to the iPhone, and then fixed it by offering free bumpers which eliminate the problem. The other solution offered was to return the phone for a full refund and no penalty for early contract termination, due to phone fault. For the vast majority of people though, there was no issue, and they got a free case out of it.

I buy lots of things from lots of vendors, but I don;t have an entitled attitude. I've had a number of repairs and warranty situations and in general they have been very positive - it's not unique to Apple. I expect that things be put right, but I'm also not going to chase them down for some sense that I "deserve" something because I was the victim of circumstance.

So, in "karma burning" territory, I have had positive CS from Sony, Microsoft, Apple, Maxtor, Citroen, Virgin, United Airlines and several others.

I had negative CS from Sky, AoL and Freeserve.

I consider the CS received from the first batch to be excellent, and I didn't feel like they should be "going out of their way to make me feel special". They fixed my issues and did it graciously and effortlessly on my part. The second set though... not so good.

Re:So?

[Nyder]

They gave me a free GigE card (at their suggestion) when I had problems with the built in ethernet on the logic board on a Powermac G5 and didn't have the time to take it in for repair because it was an edit machine.

They replaced my brother's iBook, 3 days out of warranty, because it was close to the expiry date and it was unfortunate.

They shipped a fresh set of Universal Binary Final Cut Studio disks to me for postage cost when the Intel switch came about, so we wouldn't have to buy the newer version of the suite to be able to run it natively.

Oh I'm sure I have a few more.

They also do "Macs form [sic] dummies" for those who yank their power cord from the wall socket by the cable and wonder why it frays and catches fire, or who throw their laptop in a bag with no case and wonder why the surface gets all scratched and so on.

They also deal with regular people who have hardware and software problems.

Your last line there, "They also deal with regular people".

So, your not a regular person? Your what, part of a big company that does hundred of thousands of dollars in business with apple, so if you dropped your mouse, they are there picking it up for you?

Re:So?

[jo_ham]

So, your [sic] not a regular person? Your [sic] what, part of a big company that does hundred of thousands of dollars in business with apple, so if you dropped your mouse, they are there picking it up for you?

My closing sentence was a circular connection back to my initial paragraphs about myself; I realise on second reading I could have dropped one of the "alsos" from either that line or the penultimate paragraph to make it more clear, although in my first story the Applecare was for a business, and in the second one it was for a home user.

The point was to challenge the anonymous OP's assertion that Apple's customer support is merely "Macs for dummies".

Also, might I suggest this oatmeal comic: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/misspelling
It might help your future posts on message boards involving text.

Re:So?

[Xest]

"There's another name for that: being an entitled ass. Setting out with the mindset that the world owes you something for... being you, leads to that sort of attitude."

What the fuck are you on about? When you pay for a product you're entitled to that product, or are you really such a batshit crazy irrational Apple fanboy that you'd be willing to pay Apple £500 for a phone in a box only to find the phone wasn't in the box because nevermind, it's not like you're owed anything are you?

No, in the real world, when you get out of fanboy land, a purchase is a contract between you and the seller, the seller sells you a product with the understanding that it should meet certain expectations, if the product does not meet those expectations then yes, the seller certainly does fucking owe you.

Apple should compensate your for your inconvenience because it's their fault you were inconvenienced in selling you a product that simply did not meet the level of expectation any rational customer would have (hence why so many people did return their iPhone 4s once the antenna design fault was clear).

You can't claim Apple and Microsoft have done exactly what they are meant to do- Apple hasn't, it's done the bear minimum, in contrast Microsoft has done exactly what I suggested- compensated the customer for a mistake not of the customer's making.

It's really a sad reflection how badly fanboys like yourself are willing to throw away long established principles of good customer service to a company to which you owe nothing because they are merely there to make money off of you. The level of irrationality fanboys like yourself stoop to the point you're willing to actually lose out for the sake of defending your pet company is insane.

It's always been the case that the customer should get what they pay for- and that's a fault free product, and if it's not fault free, the company should rectify that and compensate for the customer having to go out their way. Stop being a 'tard and letting companies get away with trying to change that, when they fuck up the onus is on them to fix it and make it up to you. Just to illustrate another example and how irrational your argument is, consider you only have £25 in your bank, and you buy something for £20 but get double charged putting you £15 in the red, all many bad companies will do is refund you the £20 overcharge, but if you incur £25 fees for going overdrawn by your bank would you really not claim the £25 fees off them for forcing you overdrawn? would you really just foot the bill of inconvenience for their mistake because you "don't have a sense of entitlement" right?

"Oh but that's different". No, it's not. People like you are rational consumers worst enemy.

Re:So?

[jo_ham]

You are intentionally (probably, but I haven't ruled out general cluelessness) misreading my intent. You seem to suggest that I think it's ok if the product isn't working right, but that's not what I'm saying at all. You buy a product and you are entitled to have that product in full working order. If it's not, then the company needs to make sure that it is, but beyond repairing it and restoring the product to the way it would be if you purchased it new and didn't have any problems they have no obligations to you at all. You're not entitled to have them bend over and kiss your ass purely because of accidental circumstances - it's not the company's fault that the product broke, since it is impossible to provide a 100% perfect run of products in a mass production environment, or even in a short-run hand-built setting. What the company is obligated to do is put it right, so you're at the same level as someone who got a working one off the bat.

Whether they then decide to do anything else for you is entirely up to them, and many often will compensate their nice customers (and do the bare minimum for those who berate their staff and F-and-blind their way up the CS tree like a douchebag - you catch more flies with honey, etc). However, don't think for one millisecond that you are *entitled* to them giving you anything extra than what is available to you when you purchased the product. The money is in exchange for the product, and everything advertised therein. It does not entitle you to anything else beyond that.

This is the case for *all* companies and products, not just Apple.

Re:So?

[Xest]

And I don't think you're reading what I'm saying:

"but beyond repairing it and restoring the product to the way it would be if you purchased it new and didn't have any problems they have no obligations to you at all."

This isn't entirely true, of for example you have to pay for postage to send a faulty product back that was faulty through no fault of your own and the company is deemed liable then by you can claim this back- the same goes for phone calls to premium rate lines and so forth they may require you to phone. But beyond that, most people value their time and whether there is an obligation or not the point is that it's good customer service that customers are compensated for lost time and inconvenience if a product failed through no fault of their own- that is, ignoring their obligations, it's still something they should do.

It absolutely is the company's fault the product broke, it is their responsibility to ensure they provide a product that is fit for purpose, and yes you're right, it's impossible to ensure this will always be the case but that's irrelevant, it's something they have to price into their product- dealing with knowing that there will at least be some faults.

This assertion:

"What the company is obligated to do is put it right, so you're at the same level as someone who got a working one off the bat."

Is completely wrong. Someone who got a working one off the bat didn't have to waste their time getting a repair/replacement, didn't have to waste their fuel driving to get a replacement, didn't have to waste money on a non-free support line phoning the firm up, and this is the fundamental point behind the concept of compensation as good customer service practice.

"However, don't think for one millisecond that you are *entitled* to them giving you anything extra than what is available to you when you purchased the product."

In many cases the courts would disagree, plenty of people who have really felt the need have compensated users for their time and money spent on getting a product fixed. The issue is that if people continue to accept that yeah, they're going to have to put up with having their time wasted with shitty products then it weakens this age old precedent and this is the problem we're facing nowadays, people like yourself willing to spend your own time and money getting something fixed.

"The money is in exchange for the product"

Herein lies the fundamental point, the money is in exchange for the product which, by law (in most countries at least) must be fit for purpose, if it has a design fault or fails within an unreasonable time period then it is not fit for purpose and while the customer has fulfilled his obligation in paying the money, the other party has not.

I guess it somewhat comes down to whether you value your time or not, personally I do because I have a lot of things to do, but if you've got more time than you know what to do with and don't value your time at all, then perhaps it's understandable you don't mind screwing around wasting time and potentially money getting a product you were sold that was faulty fixed. Obviously at least in the latest case, Microsoft understands that people do value their time, hence the compensation for the inconvenience of needing a console replacement.

You may not have noticed...

[Anonymous Coward]

but windows do have millions of PCs infected with various malware.

Re:You may not have noticed...

[Skidborg]

That's irrelevant. The only reason a Windows computer get malware on it is because the user does something stupid. The number of stupid users doesn't make the product itself inherently infected with malware.

Re:You may not have noticed...

[AliasMarlowe]

That's irrelevant. The only reason a Windows computer get malware on it is because the user does something stupid.

Like connect to the internet without first spending some money on one or more anti-virus packages? Windows is the only current OS which connects to the internet with its legs wide open.

Re:You may not have noticed...

[Kitkoan]

Like connect to the internet without first spending some money on one or more anti-virus packages? Windows is the only current OS which connects to the internet with its legs wide open.

Every Windows OS since XP SP2 has had the Firewall built in and turned on by default.... Nice try though

Re:You may not have noticed...

[uniquename72]

Avant? Antivir? If you don't know what you're talking about, it's probably best to say nothing at all.

Re:You may not have noticed...

[RazzleFrog]

I'll never understand why people like you spread so much FUD. I mean if you don't like Windows - don't use it. Why make stuff up? And if you make stuff up at least make it logical.

Re:You may not have noticed...

[Jon.Laslow]

Which is funny, because the last install of OS X I did (10.6.7, I think) didn't have it's firewall turned on out-of-box. If you connect your machine -- doesn't matter the OS -- without some form of hardware or software firewall to the internet, you're asking for trouble.

Re:You may not have noticed...

[jo_ham]

Welcome to our world. I agree that the OP is spreading Windows FUD like it's going out of style, but I guess you just got a taste for what it;s like to be a Mac/iOS user for a few minutes on slashdot. You just have to roll with it - some people just get set in a "xxx sucks/is evil!" mindset and you can't really argue with it.

FTR, I am ambivalent about other people's operating system choice: use what works for you. I do find though, that I have to defend my own choice of OS far more often than I ever give a negative opinion of any other OS out there, especially on slashdot. It does get wearisome.

Re:You may not have noticed...

[jo_ham]

You are correct, the OS X software firewall is off by default, and it should be on. However, it is mitigated somewhat because all the remote services (file sharing, ftp, ssh, remote login etc) are all off by default. This doesn't excuse the lack of default on, however.

Re:You may not have noticed...

[exomondo]

Like connect to the internet without first spending some money on one or more anti-virus packages?

You're obviously doing it wrong, if you're getting viruses or malware by simply connecting to the internet then you're an idiot.

Re:You may not have noticed...

[mark-t]

No... I've seen windows systems compromised by the MS antivirus scareware on non-administrative accounts, where the users did not ever install a single piece of software... the only thing they used the internet for was surfing the web, checking facebook, and reading email. At no point were the users cautioned that a program was going to be installed on the computer.

Re:You may not have noticed...

[ifiwereasculptor]

Why would you have to defend your choice of OS? It's not like a rabid slashdotter can confiscate your machine or swap it for a Windows/Linux/Solaris/"Os/2" box unless you make your case. Can't you just read a critique of your OS of choice, analyze it and, if you find it to be valid, then wonder if it makes any difference for you? It's really simple, usually takes less than a second and does not require feeding trolls. If it takes more time than that or demands a certain amount of research, then you're learning something, which is a plus. Works for me.

Re:You may not have noticed...

[hairyfeet]

As someone who fixes said boxes 6 days a week, allow me to shed some light on why that is. I have found a good 90% of viruses on machines can be traced back to one of four attack vectors. 1.- The "you want teh hot lesbos? you need to run our Iz_not_Viruz_iz_codec.exe to play teh vidz!" 2.- The "ZOMg you got teh viruz! To fix run our Iz_not_Viruz_iz_cleanerz.exe to get rid of it ZOMG!" 3.-The "Use the new Limewire (Iz_not_Viruz_iz_Limewirez) to download teh latest Titney_Spearz.mp3.exe tunez today!" and 4.-"Hey my BFF sent me a funny cat video! It says I should run Iz_not_Viruz_iz_LOLCatz to see teh kittiez!"

Notice how in NONE of those attacks did the underlying OS make a difference in any way, shape, or form, because it was the USER actively helping the malware? The last real security issue in Windows, the "hey lets have everyone run as admin!" died when Vista came out. That is why you're seeing more third party like flash exploits and a shitload of social engineering, because the malware writers know the best way to get around security is have the user help you and frankly it is beyond easy.

Trust me Linux guys, you ever get the numbers OSX now has? you'll be seeing Iz_not_Viruz_iz_screensaver.sh and the users WILL run it. Look up "KDE screensaver bug" to see it HAS happened in the past and it WILL happen again in the future. The reason why you're not a target now is the numbers simply aren't there and like most criminals malware writers are lazy and go for the lowest hanging fruit, and that is the Iz_not_Viruz_iz_(fill in the blank).exe by a HUGE margin.

Re:You may not have noticed...

[jo_ham]

What I mean, and I think you know, is the constant stream that Apple users are "sheep" or "worship at the altar of jobs" or that "OS X is a toy OS" or "Apple users have been duped into using Apple products because there are absolutely no redeeming features or other thought processes, it's all marketing". You know, the usual stuff, all very common on slashdot.

Surprisingly there's very little critique of users who use other OSes, certainly not to this extent.

It reaches a point that you need to fill your post with disclaimers and very specific language, lest someone harp on you for some perceived misstep - for example, any time Apple's contributions to Webkit are mentioned you have to point out that yes, I know it's GPL and Apple *have* to release changes, and that *yes* I know it was an open source project beforehand that was adopted by them and that not everything was magically created by them. You get the idea. This is what I mean in defending my choice of OS - you simply cannot say "I use OS X and am happy with it, because it fit my needs better than the alternatives" without someone coming in and *telling* you (often with quite colourful language) that you're wrong.

Re:You may not have noticed...

[Culture20]

Add to that: last I checked, the firewall GUI only exists in OSX Server, not the desktop version of OSX. Sure, there's ipfw, but what home user want to use ipfw on the command line?

Re:You may not have noticed...

[ifiwereasculptor]

You'd be surprised. I think you may be perceiving more anti-Apple rants because you're a OSX/iOS user. Granted Linux is somewhat less vilified here on /., but Windows suffers the same kind of prejudice. Actually Apple is for the technologically illiterate gay yuppie with more money than sense. Windows is for the 14-year-old irresponsible brat who only cares about gaaaaamez or using facebook to publish his or her egoshots, his or her grandparents and for subordinates of the many shady executives that Microsoft has bribed. Linux is for the 30-year-old unemployed virgin who live in their mom's basement, uses an obsolete machine and rants on Slashdot and/or 4chan between prolongued sessions of angry masturbation. So we all have to deal with trolling. What I'm saying is that not only it's easier to just ignore the obviously stupid comments, but it also makes for a less cluttered /.. And if a critique is obviously stupid, a) no reasonably intelligent person will take it seriously and b) no matter what you say, you will not change your interlocutor's opinion about Apple, Google, Mozilla, FSF or whatever subject is heatedly being discussed, so you may as well just let it be. It's also less stressful.

TL;DR version: don't feed the trolls.

Re:You may not have noticed...

[Culture20]

The last real security issue in Windows, the "hey lets have everyone run as admin!" died when Vista came out.

Not entirely true. For most single user systems, the first account that windows has you set up is an admin account. There is not sufficient guidance during setup telling people to create and use a non admin account for every day use.

Re:You may not have noticed...

[GameboyRMH]

Something stupid like browsing a reputable website with an up-to-date browser and even an up-to-date AV? That's how the last three infections I've seen started.

Re:You may not have noticed...

[Culture20]

Apple is for the technologically illiterate gay yuppie with more money than sense. Windows is for the 14-year-old irresponsible brat who only cares about gaaaaamez or using facebook to publish his or her egoshots, his or her grandparents and for subordinates of the many shady executives that Microsoft has bribed. Linux is for the 30-year-old unemployed virgin who live in their mom's basement, uses an obsolete machine and rants on Slashdot and/or 4chan between prolongued sessions of angry masturbation.

I'm a 37-year-old employed heterosexual virgin who only cares about gaaaaamez and ranting on Slashdot. I use all three OSes, and more besides! You can't pin us all down with your fancy categorizations. P.S. I know you weren't trolling P.P.S. I never lived in the basement.

Re:You may not have noticed...

[ifiwereasculptor]

I'm a 37-year-old employed heterosexual virgin with more money than sense who only cares about gaaaaamez and ranting on Slashdot. I use all three OSes, and more besides! You can't pin us all down with your fancy categorizations. P.S. I know you weren't trolling P.P.S. I never lived in the basement.

Fixed that for you, otherwise I'd have to confiscate your Apple gear.

Re:You may not have noticed...

[k2r]

> last I checked, the firewall GUI only exists in OSX Server

The firewall switch is in "System Preferences -> Security -> Firewall".
There's a button that reads "Start" and it is accompanied by a label that reads "Click Start to turn the firewall on".

I agree that this may be hard to find for some, especially if they can't read AND hear.

Re:You may not have noticed...

[amliebsch]

Technically, that account has the ability to elevate (like sudo) to admin, but during normal use it is a standard user.

Re:You may not have noticed...

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

You'd be surprised. I think you may be perceiving more anti-Apple rants because you're a OSX/iOS user.

Ehh? This article is an even dumber follow-up to an already stupid troll article from yesterday - and still it was accepted here. Hard not to notice that.

Re:You may not have noticed...

[rylin]

The XP firewall is a joke.
Notice how you can start an FTP client, connect to a server and continue having the connection open and transfer files while the firewall dialogue box waits for you to press allow or block?

Re:You may not have noticed...

[makomk]

Presumably the first thing most users do is turn some of those remote services on...

Re:You may not have noticed...

[makomk]

For most single user systems, the first account that windows has you set up is an admin account. There is not sufficient guidance during setup telling people to create and use a non admin account for every day use.

Just like on Mac OS X and the more user friendly Linux distros like Ubuntu, yes.

Re:You may not have noticed...

[Bert64]

A firewall is a crutch to protect an otherwise insecure machine against the big bad network...
The fact that OSX systems ship with it off by default, and yet do not get remotely rooted is a testament to that.
It's far better to have no services running, than to have services running and then hiding behind a firewall... If you actually needed to offer services remotely then you'd have to open up a firewall rule to allow them, if you don't need to offer them then they have no business running at all.

If a service is inaccessible due to a firewall, then just what purpose does that service serve? The answer obviously is "none", so why then should it be running at all? It's wasting resources, and sitting there just waiting for a firewall failure to occur so the service can be exploited.

Re:You may not have noticed...

[Bert64]

So what your basically saying is:

1, no currently available OS is actually suitable for end users...

2, windows in 2007 implemented normal user accounts by default, something apple implemented in 2001 (or whenever the first version of osx came out) and other unixes implemented much much earlier.

Amusing also that you add ".exe" to the end of every malware filename you quote, since its only windows that determines if a file can be executed based on something so arbitrary as the file name. On linux at least, you would have an additional step of marking the file executable first.

Also, while windows is finally getting users used to normal user accounts, apple is moving towards an app store model... Such a model is, for the average user, an answer to the social engineering problem. Educate users that software only comes from the app store or trusted repositories, and prevent (or preferably just make it very difficult) them from executing arbitrary binaries. This would virtually eliminate the attacks you describe, and it seems as usual that apple and linux are years ahead of microsoft.

Compare the level of malware for ipad and iphones, the only malware i'm aware of was only applicable to jailbroken devices, and relied upon the user not changing the default password... I'm not aware of any social engineering attacks which result in execution of arbitrary code.

Re:You may not have noticed...

[intheshelter]

Agreed. I've noticed it too. In the end you have to shrug it off when they resort to the name calling nonsense you mentioned, but it's also become sort of the new cool. I've noticed a lot of posters that seem to be trying to sound cool by hating anything Apple (and trotting out fanboi and sheep labels) and ironically the method they use is accusing Apple users of just trying to look cool.

Re:You may not have noticed...

[Culture20]

An on/off switch is not a GUI for ipfw.

Re:You may not have noticed...

[Culture20]

Technically, that account is a member of the administrators group and is prevented from doing some things due to UAC. It's closer to a user edited to be UID 0, and prevented from doing stuff due to selinux. There are things an administrator user can do without authenticating via UAC that ordinary users can't do.

Re:You may not have noticed...

[oh_my_080980980]

How's the Zune working out for you.....

Re:You may not have noticed...

[Hijacked Public]

This is because Apple is the current FOSS type boogeyman. 10 years ago it was M$ or Windoze or Winblows or whatever else, and people using Apple software were barely noticed unless someone wanted to start a BSD versus Linux flamewar.

You should feel no need to defend your OS choice, I don't. I use what works best for me, with my eyes wide open and having tred the available alternatives. I dont know any of the people here from a can of paint, and they don't know me, so pretending that they would somehow know better than me what operating system I need is a dumb premise on which to base a debate. No one knows what I want better than I do. I likewise extend similar courtesy to others in that I don't recount pairwise feature comparisons or evoke dark, usually sex themed, dreamworld scenarios where the principal personality associated with a given operating system dominates those who use it.

Except for people who use vi instead of emacs, they are idiots.

Re:You may not have noticed...

[jo_ham]

I was with you all the way up to vi vs emacs. Now you are my sworn enemy! I will not sit at the same table as you.

Re:You may not have noticed...

[overlordofmu]

And Microsoft's FUD about Linux is logical?

If Microsoft would quit spreading FUD about Linux, we would quit returning the favor. If Microsoft doesn't like Linux, they should just not use it. But instead they make stuff up about it.

There are some major differences however. I have never been found guilty of violating monopoly law (I am too sneaky when I do it) and I am not a patent troll (more of a patent ogre). I never installed a backdoor in my OS for the NSA (I did it for the former KGB once, but I was only a child at the time). I never paid a huge Microsoft supporter to drop all future support for Microsoft OSes (I did threaten to touch them with a piece of poop on a stick if they didn't, but poo threats a bribes at horses of a different color).

If you cannot tell, we Linux Lovers feel wronged by the convicted criminal organization know as Microsoft (let's not mince words, they broke the law and were found guilty of it). Microsoft fucked with us, continues to fuck with us and will fuck with us in the future. All because we offer for free what it sells as a premium. Well, that and they are fools holding onto the old ideal of pyramidal power structures. Distributed peers for the WIN!

Re:You may not have noticed...

[improfane]

It's inbound not outbound.

Re:You may not have noticed...

[improfane]

I imagine it was caused by compromised ad servers. I disable Flash and PDF BHOs on computers that aren't mine for the duration that I use it. It's a good reason block advertisements too.

Re:You may not have noticed...

[GameboyRMH]

No compromised servers needed. They just distribute ads with exploit code in them.

Re:You may not have noticed...

[improfane]

That's so true. I really wouldn't be surprised. There are so many adservers around, I imagine many accept payouts...

Re:You may not have noticed...

[Culture20]

For most single user systems, the first account that windows has you set up is an admin account. There is not sufficient guidance during setup telling people to create and use a non admin account for every day use.

Just like on Mac OS X and the more user friendly Linux distros like Ubuntu, yes.

~$ cat /etc/shadow
cat: /etc/shadow: Permission denied

Hmm, not just like... On Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows Server 2008, ".\Administrator" is disabled, and the first user account created is given admin rights by making it part of "BUILTIN\Administrators" group. This gives it a lot more power than it should have, especially since there is no further admonition to create a non-admin account and use the admin account sparingly (I remember at least 8 years ago, Suse used to make root's KDE desktop background image a splash of red with a giant cartoon bomb and a warning about not using root for anything but system maintenance). It was so visible that I made it Windows' Administrator background for our desktops.

Re:OSX "Yawn"

[mrwolf007]

To be fair, I have never had any malware with OSX and I'm certain I will not..

Welcome to relevant market share.

We Linux guys got the problems long enough, i also had to reinstall a VM because i forgot to change a default password.

You think XServe is dead because it was better?

Ignorance is strength

[mirix]

Certainly the best way to deal with a problem is to deny that it exists altogether. I guess so long as people have faith that a mac is somehow immune (be it to actual virii or user error induced malware installs), and they keep selling, that's all that matters.

Steve must have been taking lessons from some govn't agencies.

Re:Ignorance is strength

[PhxBlue]

Certainly the best way to deal with a problem is to deny that it exists altogether.

Seems to have worked well enough for Arnold Schwarzenegger and for Sony. :)

Re:Ignorance is strength

[gordguide]

Apple has NEVER denied that any computer, including it's own, is potentially vulnerable to exploits. Their position is the same as it's always been ... users should take appropriate precautions. At times in the past they've offered for free commercial anti-virus apps as part of AppleCare and DotMac. Current users should download Sophos Antivirus for Mac. It's free.

Re:Ignorance is strength

[LynnwoodRooster]

It worked for the iPhone 4 antenna problem... Deny, deny, deny until you have enough bumpers to give a free one to everyone, and the problem goes away...

Re:Ignorance is strength

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow... Ignorance "really" defends itself too. Let's see how you lie yourself out of that little contradiction:

1. You: "Apple has NEVER denied that any computer, including it's own, is potentially vulnerable to exploits."
2. TFS: "Don't confirm or deny that an infection exists, and whatever you do, don't try to remove it."

Re:Ignorance is strength

[mjwx]

Apple has NEVER denied that any computer, including it's own, is potentially vulnerable to exploits. Their position is the same as it's always been ... users should take appropriate precautions. At times in the past they've offered for free commercial anti-virus apps as part of AppleCare and DotMac. Current users should download Sophos Antivirus for Mac. It's free.

So Apple have never said Mac's don't get viruses.

Even if that is true, they've inferred it plenty of times. I remember these ad's where they had one guy acting as a Mac and the other acting as a PC when only the PC got sick...

That is pretty much saying Mac's don't get viruses.

Re:Ignorance is strength

[fermion]

This is really the question of when is it practical to tell the masses that a huge problem exists, especially when the huge problem is not currently causing any significant economic damage and the fix would be a huge economic problem, Yes the government makes certain decisions that keeps information from the public, but that is everyone. I think that any of us that has worked in any job where physical stuff is created has had to keep secrets from people who were effected, usually minimally, to prevent unnecessary panic.

To date, none of my Mac computers has had a debilitating infection. Back in the day, we could expect a PC to be dead every few months due to infection. So Apple is going to validate a threat that does not exist in quantity so that users can be conned by "your computer is infected" scam and the legitimate anti-virus maker scare tactics.

I am not saying that Apple is not playing security by obscurity, just that it may not yet be time to panic the users. It may be time, I don't know. We will have to wait and see what develops.

Re:Ignorance is strength

[blackraven14250]

One is a global statement about whether or not a Mac can get a virus, while the other is about whether or not a machine is infected. They're two separate issues.

Re:Ignorance is strength

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't even see this post before I went to youtube and grabbed the URL... So, basically... THIS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQb_Q8WRL_g

Re:Ignorance is strength

[Just Some Guy]

Are you, like, 12? Or one of those people who explains to everyone at parties that they don't own a TV? I couldn't turn the thing on without seeing that commercial a few years ago.

Re:Ignorance is strength

[pckl300]

Here's your source

Re:Ignorance is strength

[hcmtnbiker]

Apple has NEVER denied that any computer, including it's own, is potentially vulnerable to exploits. Their position is the same as it's always been ... users should take appropriate precautions. At times in the past they've offered for free commercial anti-virus apps as part of AppleCare and DotMac. Current users should download Sophos Antivirus for Mac. It's free.

http://www.apple.com/why-mac/

Bottom left of the reasons to get a Mac, "It doesn't get PC viruses." Now this isn't saying it doesn't get any viruses, but it's sure as hell implying it.

Re:Ignorance is strength

[Anonymous Coward]

Who says "viri?" We speak English not Latin. It's viruses.

Re:Ignorance is strength

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean "implied", not "inferred".

Re:Ignorance is strength

[mjwx]

I think you mean "implied", not "inferred".

Implied would have been better but inferred is also applicable.

Re:Ignorance is strength

[AmiMoJo]

Denial is standard Apple operating procedure. iPhone 4 antenna problems? Na, there is no problem, but hay, have a free bumper... Remember the MacBook 16 bit LCD panel lawsuits?

To be fair to them Apple do fix or compensate for these things eventually, it is just that rather than saying "we will look into it" they flat out deny the problem immediately.

Re:Ignorance is strength

[TheLink]

"It doesn't get PC viruses." Now this isn't saying it doesn't get any viruses, but it's sure as hell implying it.

It gets Mac viruses, which are way cooler, rarer and more exclusive.

Re:Ignorance is strength

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe English isn't your native language. "Don't confirm or deny" is *not* denying, it means do not confirm and do not deny.

Re:Ignorance is strength

[Combatso]

Yep, the company definately implied they dont get infected... and Fanboi's have been shouting that for years.

Re:Ignorance is strength

[fishthegeek]

Apple has certainly made some claims regarding its virus free nature. For evidence I present. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3Z386vXrt4

Re:Ignorance is strength

[pyrr]

Well, that article is technically correct-- Apple systems running OS X *don't* get infected with the thousands of "PC viruses". That's technically true. It's also just more of the same, carefully-crafted, non-committal language that Apple uses to bamboozle the Macolytes into believing most of Apple's ridiculous claims on any number of things.

Re:Ignorance is strength

[TangoMargarine]

Apple has NEVER denied

Don't confirm or deny

Wow, did you even read that before you posted? Saying nothing != Denying.

Re:Ignorance is strength

[Nyder]

Apple has NEVER denied that any computer, including it's own, is potentially vulnerable to exploits. Their position is the same as it's always been ... users should take appropriate precautions. At times in the past they've offered for free commercial anti-virus apps as part of AppleCare and DotMac.

Current users should download Sophos Antivirus for Mac. It's free.

So Apple have never said Mac's don't get viruses.

Inferring, mainly in commercials, is part of the game dude.

Do you think drinking the right beer is suddenly going to make hot chicks appear?

Do you understand? I think not.

Even if that is true, they've inferred it plenty of times. I remember these ad's where they had one guy acting as a Mac and the other acting as a PC when only the PC got sick...

That is pretty much saying Mac's don't get viruses.

Re:Ignorance is strength

[Nyder]

I can't stand slashdot web interface anymore. It totally fucked up my reply above, and then it made all the shit i just typed in to fix it disappear.

so fuck you slashdot, you suck.

Now i have to redo the fucking reply

Re:Ignorance is strength

[Nyder]

Apple has NEVER denied that any computer, including it's own, is potentially vulnerable to exploits. Their position is the same as it's always been ... users should take appropriate precautions. At times in the past they've offered for free commercial anti-virus apps as part of AppleCare and DotMac.

Current users should download Sophos Antivirus for Mac. It's free.

So Apple have never said Mac's don't get viruses.

Even if that is true, they've inferred it plenty of times. I remember these ad's where they had one guy acting as a Mac and the other acting as a PC when only the PC got sick...

That is pretty much saying Mac's don't get viruses.

Okay, inferring stuff, mainly during commericals, is how it has been.

Do you think drinking the right bear will make all the hot girls show up?
Do you think if you were Axe angels will fall out of the sky and throw their halo's at your feet?

If you do, I have some stuff to sell you.

Re:Ignorance is strength

[intheshelter]

I think you need to understand the difference between apples and oranges before you make the comparison. Yours is a forest/trees comparison.

Re:Ignorance is strength

[intheshelter]

They made an accurate (and carefully crafted) statement that there were x number of viruses that affected PCs, and there were none that affected the Mac. Accurate, and while you want to try and make them out to be saying one thing, they didn't actually say it. I'm sorry if that blows your argument, but they can only be responsible for what they actually said, not what you THINK they were saying.

Re:Ignorance is strength

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you really THAT blindly ignorant?

The whole point of not confirming that infections exist, is to keep up the delusion that Apple PCs can't get infections!

Re:Ignorance is strength

[Khyber]

One is a global statement that hasn't been POSSIBLE for nearly a decade, the other deals with something so similar as to be virtually indistinguishable to a lay user.

Infection = SOME PATHOGEN IS IN YOUR SYSTEM CAUSING ISSUES.

Perhaps you should do some basic medical research to understand which sense the stated terms are being utilized.

Re:Ignorance is strength

[oik]

Pedant mode / oblig Wilt quote:
Inspector Flint: Are you inferring we're all stupid?
Henry Wilt: No. I'm implying you're all stupid; you're inferring it

Re:Ignorance is strength

[Anonymous Coward]

PC = personal computer. So it's saying it doesn't get personal computer viruses. A Mac in the office might be a work computer, but the one at home seems like a personal computer to me. So it's saying it doesn't get viruses.

primates more valuable than humans now?

[Anonymous Coward]

they must think so, evidenced by they don't massacre each other. of course if they had secret deals to buy (on credit) billions of WMDs, then they might have to kill each other off, just to get out of debt. we're smarter than that?

Apple: "Fuck it, we're evil"

[David Gerard]

Apple declares: Fuck it, we're evil

"But our stuff is sooo good. You’ll keep taking our abuse. You love it, you worm. Because our stuff is great. It’s shiny and it’s pretty and it’s cool and it works. It’s not like you’ll go back to a Windows Mobile phone. Ha! Ha!"

Re:Apple: "Fuck it, we're evil"

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple malware - because it just works

Re:Apple: "Fuck it, we're evil"

[dicobalt]

Fascinating, so abuse is what people want? This reminds me of that recent article talking about how Apple shows up like religion on an MRI scan. http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/gaming.gadgets/05/19/apple.religion/

Re:Apple: "Fuck it, we're evil"

[IrrepressibleMonkey]

Thanks for your insight, but I'm pretty sure everyone has seen that link before. If you study the URL really carefully, you can see it's actually more than two and a half years old.

Re:Apple: "Fuck it, we're evil"

[Anonymous Coward]

He knows that. It's his site that he's linking to.

Re:Apple: "Fuck it, we're evil"

[Anonymous Coward]

The OP owns that site. He's using Slashdot to pimp his own site and drive up clicks.

Re:Apple: "Fuck it, we're evil"

[yodleboy]

thanks for your sarcasm, but this was front page of /. this morning : http://apple.slashdot.org/story/11/05/19/1410245/Apple-Causes-Religious-Reaction-In-Brains-of-Fans?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashdot+(Slashdot)

so try not to be so smug when someone references it

Re:Apple: "Fuck it, we're evil"

[Anonymous Coward]

You're just holding it wrong.

What Problem?

[tropgeek]

I hear that Sony has some "recently available" security engineers, maybe Apple should hire them to work the phones.

Front-line support

[CannonballHead]

Shouldn't front-line support people actually know if it's actual bad malware or not? If it is, this is remarkably stupid to neither confirm nor deny that it even exists. That seems like it came from marketing, not tech support. sigh.

Re:Front-line support

[IrrepressibleMonkey]

Shouldn't front-line support people actually know if it's actual bad malware or not? If it is, this is remarkably stupid to neither confirm nor deny that it even exists. That seems like it came from marketing, not tech support. sigh.

You should probably read the article. Apple is not telling its staff to deny that the malware exists, it is directing that the support staff should not confirm or deny that the software is installed on a specific Mac and should not try to remove it. Instead Apple is directing the customer to a specified documentation providing general information about malware. Apple is declining to remove software, which the customer has installed and subsequently changed their mind about. Sigh.

Re:Front-line support

[Bobfrankly1]

Shouldn't front-line support people actually know if it's actual bad malware or not? If it is, this is remarkably stupid to neither confirm nor deny that it even exists. That seems like it came from marketing, not tech support. sigh.

You act like they're separate divisions. =D

Re:Front-line support

[CannonballHead]

You should probably read the article.

That ruins the fun of arguing in ignorance though! :P :)

Apple is not telling its staff to deny that the malware exists, it is directing that the support staff should not confirm or deny that the software is installed on a specific Mac

I will go read the article, but this is confusing. Neither confirming nor denying that a given piece of software is installed seems odd. Even if they are going to say "but you installed it, so we can't help you," why should they not be allowed to say "Yes, that software is installed." ... ?

Re:Front-line support

[CannonballHead]

Ok, so I read it.

Apple is declining to remove software, which the customer has installed and subsequently changed their mind about. Sigh.

So here's what I don't understand. The user installed it. The user apparently figures out that's a problem and calls AppleCare. What's AppleCare there for? Only to answer questions/help users if there is an actual bug in an Apple product? I guess what I don't understand is this: I would have expected, at least eventually, to be helped even if it IS my mistake. Even Verizon does that. Mess up your wireless settings? They walk you through that. In fact, they walk you through that whether or not that is your problem ;)

To me, this is like saying the following: We know this software is bad and you were tricked into installing it; however, since we don't want to go down the path of having to hire enough people to help clean their system from their own mistakes, we'll just point you to some documentation and let you figure it out.

At least, reading the article, that's what it sounds like to me. That doesn't sound like much in the way of customer/tech support. It sounds more like what I would consider the general attitude of Linux techies to be ;) (it's probably just a select few that come off that way; it does give us a bad name though.)

Re:Front-line support

[CannonballHead]

You act like they're separate divisions. =D

Oops. For a minute, I bypassed reality. Sorry about that. ;)

Re:Front-line support

[Anonymous Coward]

On the flip side, shouldnt you have actually read the article before commenting on it? If not, its remarkably brash of you to criticize them for something theyre not even doing.

PROTIP-- RTFA.

Re:Front-line support

[Culture20]

I will go read the article, but this is confusing. Neither confirming nor denying that a given piece of software is installed seems odd. Even if they are going to say "but you installed it, so we can't help you," why should they not be allowed to say "Yes, that software is installed." ... ?

The software might be installed via a privilege escalation exploit, and Apple doesn't want to say "but you installed it" if that's not true. They'd rather just say "we can't help you".

Re:Front-line support

[MartinSchou]

The problems with helping to uninstall the malware are multiple.

* While this piece of malware appears to be extremely easy to remove, the next version might not, and manually removing it without a wipe might not work.
* People will expect that they can just call AppleCare instead of acquiring the proper tools - i.e. Antivirus software, and they'll be pissed that suddenly they'll have to pay for phone support
* Apple isn't an expert in malware removal, nor do they provide any software that helps with it. At most they provide the tools to completely nuke the hard drive, and people probably won't like that idea
* Even IF Apple helped remove the program, that is after the fact. It won't stop another malware infection, and that could easily result in the customer being upset, because they thought Apple removed this for them

Re:Front-line support

[Khyber]

"Apple isn't an expert in malware removal, nor do they provide any software that helps with it"

BUT THEY *ADVERTISE* THEMSELVES AS BEING GENIUSES, WHICH IMPLIES THEY KNOW HOW TO FIX THE FUCKING PROBLEM.

It's a flat-out LIE Apple is selling and they need to be stopped.

Re:Front-line support

[Jonner]

Shouldn't front-line support people actually know if it's actual bad malware or not? If it is, this is remarkably stupid to neither confirm nor deny that it even exists. That seems like it came from marketing, not tech support. sigh.

Perhaps you don't realize that Apple is run by their marketing department.

Ed Bott "unbiased" article.

[jo_ham]

Enough said, although the internal memo from Apple smacks of "cover our ass" legal hot footing - they pretty much say "go look this up on the internet", which is not a great response, although this isn't actually a public response. No doubt there will be something forthcoming soon.

AppleCare techs *have* responded to people about how to remove it, although I guess that's not policy now, although given that it's still "an issue in progress" I expect these are temporary policies while they hammer something out - like a malware tool, or some specific legal thing. No doubt it will be trotted out every time a security issue comes up, along with the trolls saying things like "it takes years for apple to respond to any security vulnerability" (+5 insightful). mmm. Tasty truthiness!

Re:Ed Bott "unbiased" article.

[Anonymous Coward]

And apple fanbois finally started throwing toys out of their prams. whiny assholes.

Re:Ed Bott "unbiased" article.

[jcombel]

not sure what the /. issue with the guy is

ed bott makes a living writing privately (for news sites and publishing his own books) on technology topics, mostly about windows - he likes windows, he writes about it, and publishes his work. getting paid to do what you like in a field that you like doesn't make you a shill. it makes you happy. it's a pretty cynical worldview, to assume that people aren't doing honest things because they like them, but instead dishonest things because a MegaCorp is paying them BIG BUX

on TFA, i don't see what "bias" you want to find in facts - the document exists. apple documents have an anti-apple bias, is what you are trying to say? facts have an anti-apple bias? of course not, that's silly.

Re:Ed Bott "unbiased" article.

[jo_ham]

Not at all, but look at the headline, and compare it to the actual content. While he does indicate in the article itself that Apple's stance on this is "ongoing investigation", he jumps right to the punchline and cherry picks some nice juicy bits out.

If he "likes windows and writes about it" then he sure does like his negative Apple stories too. Funny that - pro MS, anti-Apple... Now, I'm not accusing him of being a shill - I think the word is thrown around far too frequently and cynically around here (and note, I did not call him so in my OP), but there's not much positive coming from him on OS X, and plenty negative. One might suggest if he's that unhappy with OS X that he simply stop using it, or reporting on it, but those ad impressions are all important for the people who pay him I guess.

I've got no problem with positive MS writers, goodness I even know people who work for the small, Redmond-based software startup, but there's lately been an undertow of "sensationalise anything negative about Apple" in the tech press of late, this being one of those occasions (of course, alongside the usual tiresome Apple gadget hype, but when is that new?).

Re:Ed Bott "unbiased" article.

[Anonymous Coward]

(Posting anonymously because I just moderated some messages)

If you think that he "jumps right to the punchline and cherry picks some nice juicy bits out", what did he skip over? If you look at the article he quotes Apple's document right from the very first paragraph of the resolution section. There is nothing skipped at all.

If you have a problem with Ed Bott because he posts pro-MS and anti-Apple stories, then what is your solution? Should we just ignore the anti-Apple articles on slashdot? Wouldn't filtering the articles that you don't want to see just make slashdot a pro-Apple, anti-MS website? That would be no different from your allegations of Bott's blog.

The best solution is to take articles from all sources that post real, verifiable stories (and not just blind fanboyisms). If some less-than-factual articles get through the system, then you should point out the problem parts in the comments, but describing an article as sensationalism just because you don't like anti-Apple stories is not good enough.

Re:Ed Bott "unbiased" article.

[jo_ham]

No, I don;t think it's sensationalism just because it's anti-Apple - more because of the way the article is portrayed. I agree that this memo paints Apple poorly (but then, it is an internal memo and part of an ongoing issue, so we ultimately don;t know what Apple's policy will be, we can only go by this email), but the claim is the nicely cherry picked "don;t remove the malware" headline.

It would be more accurate to lead with "Apple internal memo urges customers to deal with their own problems" or something - the memo does also go into some detail on educating customers about malware and so on.

This is not just an Apple thing - the way MS gets treated in sensationalist journalism is equally bad, and it lowers the standard of the site overall to be running with stuff like thins, since it polarises the user base and turns into an echo chamber, so you end up with laughably false statements being modded up +5, and calm and considered discourse that runs counter to the prevailing trends gets modded troll or offtopic.

I'm not aiming to give Apple a free pass - if this is their ultimate policy on malware then it's stupid, but I expect a higher standard of journalism when covering stories - I expect I'm wishing for a train that will never come on that front though.

Re:Ed Bott "unbiased" article.

[pyrr]

I can only speak for myself, but I just ignore Ed Bott because he's a rabid Microsoft fanboy-apologist who has defended the indefensible (Windows Vista, need I say more?), and he only "covers" other operating systems to badmouth them. That's so tired, and why he's irrelevant whenever he speaks of something other than a Microsoft product. He might as well stick to just extolling the praises of the almighty Microsoft, because otherwise, he's just another overly-sensational troll in the Mac-vs-Windows-vs-Linux fanboy-fest. Yeah, he does have good thoughts about getting the most out of Windows sometimes, but his pretenses are pathetic and transparent, like when he "evaluated" Ubuntu a couple of years ago.

It's not that hard to remove..........

[FullMetalJester]

All you have to do is go into Safe Mode. http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1455 Then go into the Applications Folder > Choose MacDefender.app > Move to Trash. (in Safe Mode) Reboot normally and reset Safari.

Re:It's not that hard to remove..........

[jo_ham]

Don;t even need to do that - just pop open the terminal and kill the process then trash the app, or use Activity Monitor to kill it. Don;t even need to reboot. Reset Safari to kill any porn links or malware bookmarks it added and job done.

Re:It's not that hard to remove..........

[FullMetalJester]

yeah i posted the simplest way since it seems the average mac user is too freaked out to do anything remotely complicated....

Re:It's not that hard to remove..........

[Anonymous Coward]

And only a complete moron would install it in the first place. There is only so much you can do to save people from themselves.

If someone turned up at your door with the sales pitch "there are criminals hiding in your house, give me some money and I'll send some people round to fix it," there are very few people who would fall for it. As far as I am concerned, spotting malware like this and knowing what is going on on your computer are now important life skills, which some people are amazingly reluctant to adopt.

Re:It's not that hard to remove..........

[Jonner]

All you have to do is go into Safe Mode. http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1455

Then go into the Applications Folder > Choose MacDefender.app > Move to Trash. (in Safe Mode)

Reboot normally and reset Safari.

Bizarrely, AppleCare won't give you those simple instructions even if you ask. I see that as an excellent example of marketing trumping customer support.

White Boxes on FC1. I rest my case.

[Jon.Laslow]

Seriously, if you knew how many websites were running on un-patched Fedora Core 1 installs you'd shit your pants. And the thing is, they don't usually make the news because the 'sysadmins' (often web developers who know just enough to be dangerous) have no idea their boxen have been rooted.

Fool proof way to hack nearly any system.

[Roskolnikov]

hey, this is a web page claiming that your infected, click ok!!
umm, you clicked cancel, you really want to click ok, ok??
you know, it doesn't matter which button you push, both result
in the continuation of this racter like discussion.

wow, you clicked ok, wait while I install some software to 'help' you.
oh, while installing I noticed that I will need your password to continue....

wow, you gave me your password, can you google pwn3d ?

works on PC, works on Mac, likely works on every other modern OS.

this isn't an exploit via bug, its an exploit via user, if you drop your pants in front of a glory hole......
that said Apple isn't really helping by avoiding the topic.

Re:Fool proof way to hack nearly any system.

[Relayman]

"racter-like discussion:" Click here if you don't understand this reference.

Re:Fool proof way to hack nearly any system.

[LWATCDR]

Yea I read the article and you freaking have to install the software! This is a User IQ error. I would never get infected by it.

Re:Fool proof way to hack nearly any system.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's an exploit via browser. Why should a browser even have permission to ask the user to escalate to root privileges? Updates should be taken care of through the package management system.

Wow

[pudge]

Apple employees are directed to not help you fix a problem with a bad application you chose to install AND chose to give root privs to.

And ... ?

Re:Wow

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Please refrain from using logic, it interferes with the Two Minutes Hate.

Re:Wow

[yodleboy]

you guys are great. Mac folks praise the hand holding and the fact that a Mac just won't let you do anything bad. Then in the same breath they say, well you're just stupid, it's your fault the hand holding, infallible Mac didn't stop you.

Mac, the computer any stupid user can use, but don't come crying when you do something stupid. Despite the fact that we reassured you constantly that your own stupidity wasn't a problem, of course...

Can you guys just make up your minds? Is it the computer for everyman or just the tool of a bunch of elitist trend followers whose idea of "choice" is a locked down platform?

Re:Wow

[pudge]

you guys are great.

Thanks!

Mac folks praise the hand holding and the fact that a Mac just won't let you do anything bad.

Dude, I live on the command line in my Mac. Won't let me do anything bad? On what planet?

Then in the same breath they say, well you're just stupid, it's your fault the hand holding, infallible Mac didn't stop you.

Nope: I say that on any platform that DOES give you the freedom Mac OS X gives you, this is literally unavoidable (well, except by being knowledgable enough to not do stupid things like installing rogue software and giving it root privs).

Can you guys just make up your minds?

Can you stop shooting down straw men?

Re:Wow

[makomk]

Errm... you know where most Windows malware infections come from these days, right?

Re:Wow

[pudge]

Errm... you know where most Windows malware infections come from these days, right?

Not really, no. Nor do I care, and neither do my comments have anything to do with Windows. :-)

If you're trying to make the argument that "these days" Windows is about as secure as a Mac, I'd doubt it, because I know people who still get lots of viruses ... but whatever, I really don't care. I wasn't making a comparison to other platforms.

Re:Wow

[yodleboy]

see that's the deal. guys like you are in love with an Apple computer that doesn't exist anymore. The mass market shinies they sell to the rest of the planet are advertised as electronic miracles that never fail and let even an idiot use them. That's great you're a command line wizard, but Macs are not really targeting you and in fact Apple makes a point of telling people they don't need to be like you to use one. In the mind of most of the Mac users I know, you'd look like the PC guy in an Apple commercial.

It's sad, you can see the denial starts at Apple and flows right on down to the fanboy level. Iphone4, mac hardware issues, malware, it's always the same song: deny, deny, deny, blame user if that doesn't work. some good kool-aid i guess.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

For an everyday tool that just works, and I want to keep it that way, mac is great.
I like it locked down. I want it locked down. I only want paid, signed, tested, certified apps running on it.

If I want to try a "play" operating system, I use vmware.
If there's a "must have" app only available on Windows. I use vmware.
Linux? vmware.
"Special" websurfing? vmware appliance.

Any problems? Blow away the vmware clone and copy a fresh one.
Meanwhile, my "locked-down" mac works fine, clean from crappy downloaded trojan vectors.

I have much more choice than I could possibly ever use.

Re:Wow

[pudge]

see that's the deal.

What? I clearly demonstrated that what you said is, in fact, not true, and you say, "see that's the deal" as if it somehow proved your point (which, again, I clearly demonstrated is not true)?

Really?

guys like you are in love with an Apple computer that doesn't exist anymore.

Well, no ... I am using it right now.

The mass market shinies they sell to the rest of the planet are advertised as electronic miracles that never fail and let even an idiot use them.

Are you really, seriously, here to whine about the mass media? That's your point, that Macs suck because of what people say about them?

That's great you're a command line wizard, but Macs are not really targeting you

Yes, they are. You're ignorant.

... and in fact Apple makes a point of telling people they don't need to be like you to use one.

Yes ... different types of users can use the same type of computer. And?

In the mind of most of the Mac users I know, you'd look like the PC guy in an Apple commercial.

Again, how does that reflect on the computer itself? (psssst: it doesn't.)

It's sad, you can see the denial starts at Apple and flows right on down to the fanboy level.

Um ... the only thing I've "denied" was your false statements about how I see and use the computer, and that what people say about the computer actually reflects on the computer itself. You've said nothing of substance about the computer that even COULD be denied.

Iphone4, mac hardware issues, malware, it's always the same song: deny, deny, deny, blame user if that doesn't work. some good kool-aid i guess.

You're a great big fucking douchebag.

Re:Wow

[makomk]

It's interesting, is all - nearly all Windows malware these days is "a bad application you chose to install AND chose to give root privs to", and yet the amount of malware on Windows is still seen as a good reason for switching to a Mac. Also Microsoft support don't as far as I know care about whether it was your fault that your computer got infected, and neither do the press. Arguably they shouldn't because it's Microsoft and Apples' fault that it's so hard for users to make an informed decision.

If you're trying to make the argument that "these days" Windows is about as secure as a Mac, I'd doubt it, because I know people who still get lots of viruses ... but whatever, I really don't care.

That's the other odd thing. Mac OS X isn't very secure - as this demonstrates, it's nearly as easy for a website to install software as it was on Windows when Microsoft still thought ActiveX was a good idea - but no-one seems to take advantage of this in a widespread manner.

Re:Wow

[pudge]

It's interesting, is all - nearly all Windows malware these days is "a bad application you chose to install AND chose to give root privs to", and yet the amount of malware on Windows is still seen as a good reason for switching to a Mac.

You keep using this passive language attacking some other. I've NEVER heard someone saying that a reason to switch from Windows is that you might purposely install an app designed to hurt you. Maybe some people say that, but I never hear it, and I could not possibly care less, as it has no bearing on the actual computers.

Also Microsoft support don't as far as I know care about whether it was your fault that your computer got infected, and neither do the press.

And I don't care about the press.

As far as MS support goes, well, presumably that is because it IS so pervasive a problem, they have no choice but to address it. This obviously isn't the case with Mac OS X, where I can count the number of people I know who have been infected on my fist (that is, zero). This isn't to say one is better than the other, obviously: it's just to say that it is not a big problem on the Mac at this time.

Arguably they shouldn't because it's Microsoft and Apples' fault that it's so hard for users to make an informed decision.

It's not hard: don't install something without researching it first, and knowing what you're installing. This is not hard at all. Google the app name, find reviews from trusted sources, get your downloads from trusted sources. Very easy.

That's the other odd thing. Mac OS X isn't very secure - as this demonstrates

False. In fact, this case has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with security. If Mac OS X is not "secure" in this case, then neither is any operating system ever that allows you to install software of your choice on it, and allows you, the user, access to have something similar to root privileges.

You're being stupid.

it's nearly as easy for a website to install software as it was on Windows when Microsoft still thought ActiveX was a good idea

You're lying. A "web site" installed nothing at all: a user did it, with purpose, intention, and full knowledge.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

you guys are great. Mac folks praise the hand holding and the fact that a Mac just won't let you do anything bad. Then in the same breath they say, well you're just stupid, it's your fault the hand holding, infallible Mac didn't stop you.

Sounds like Linux users, if you want to generalize.

Mac, the computer any stupid user can use, but don't come crying when you do something stupid. Despite the fact that we reassured you constantly that your own stupidity wasn't a problem, of course...

"We"? Who's "we"? Who's high and mighty enough to 'reassure' the masses about so-called stupidity?

Can you guys just make up your minds? Is it the computer for everyman or just the tool of a bunch of elitist trend followers whose idea of "choice" is a locked down platform?

Again, sounds just like the Linux heads here on Slashdot...that's if you want to generalize, of course.

Re:Wow

[TangoMargarine]

Dude, I live on the command line in my Mac. Won't let me do anything bad? On what planet?

Can you stop shooting down straw men?

Yeah, because you're obviously an average Mac user...

Re:Wow

[makomk]

I've NEVER heard someone saying that a reason to switch from Windows is that you might purposely install an app designed to hurt you.

That's an interesting choice of wording because I doubt the users intended to install an application that would hurt them. In any case, while that's not how they put it, it is one thing that sells Macs - it's advertised as a way of avoiding "viruses", and everyone knows that Windows is full of viruses, not realising that about 97% of Windows malware infections happen because users "purposely install an app" that's malicious.

If Mac OS X is not "secure" in this case, then neither is any operating system ever that allows you to install software of your choice on it

There's a difference between allowing users to install software of their choice and making it easy for random malicious websites to trick users into installing malware. Windows and Linux have both put a fair bit of effort into making the latter difficult.

You're lying. A "web site" installed nothing at all: a user did it, with purpose, intention, and full knowledge.

No they didn't. Aside from a few security researchers, the users didn't seek out and download this malware with the intention of compromising their PCs and they certainly didn't know that it was going to spam them with porn popups and scam them for credit card details if they agreed to install it. The malicious websites downloaded the program to the users' Macs, which then launched the installer, usually with no user interaction beyond visiting the site. It then tried to convince them to allow them to install it, at which point they did have to choose to do so - but lacked the information required to make a sensible decision! (I think it may even have been able to bypass the "this software is from the internet" warning...)

Even in the bad old days of widespread ActiveX malware on Windows, you had to agree to install most of it. This didn't stop Microsoft totally discontinuing ActiveX as unsafe, because effective security is about more than just technical details, it's also about helping users to make good security decisions.

Re:Wow

[pudge]

Dude, I live on the command line in my Mac. Won't let me do anything bad? On what planet?

Can you stop shooting down straw men?

Yeah, because you're obviously an average Mac user...

You're not making any sense. What he said was to me. I pointed out the fact that what he said to me was false. Where's your disconnect?

Re:Wow

[pudge]

I've NEVER heard someone saying that a reason to switch from Windows is that you might purposely install an app designed to hurt you.

That's an interesting choice of wording because I doubt the users intended to install an application that would hurt them.

You didn't explain what was interesting about the wording. Instead you talked about something else.

In any case, while that's not how they put it

I have no idea who this "they" is you keep referring to. Seriously, you're a fool. You're living in a world of make-believe where you can not only make up words people say, but make up the people who say them. Your world is a fantasy.

it's advertised ...

FUCK advertising, and FUCK you. This isn't about advertising. Get it through your damned thick skull.

There's a difference between allowing users to install software of their choice and making it easy for random malicious websites to trick users into installing malware.

The latter never happened in this case. The users chose to install it, period. And it was completely and totally an explicit choice. They may not have understood that choice, but I don't care.

No they didn't.

You're lying.

the users didn't seek out and download this malware with the intention of compromising their PCs

I never said they did. I said the purposely and intentionally installed the software. That they didn't know what it was going to do is not the fault of the OS, it is THEIR fault, period. And no, in fact, despite your bald-faced lie, this is not different on Windows or Linux or any other similar operating system that gives the user the ability to have root privileges AND allows them to install whatever software they wish. It's exactly the same everywhere.

The malicious websites downloaded the program to the users' Macs, which then launched the installer, usually with no user interaction beyond visiting the site.

And then the user intentionally and purposefully and explicitly installed it. (That's not to take away from the obvious fact that it's idiotic to launch an installer without user direction, but even if that happens, the user has full and complete choice.)

It then tried to convince them to allow them to install it, at which point they did have to choose to do so - but lacked the information required to make a sensible decision!

You're lying. The sensible decision when you don't know what something is, is to deny installation. They had, literally, all the information necessary to make the sensible and right decision, whether they knew anything about this software or not.

(I think it may even have been able to bypass the "this software is from the internet" warning...)

I don't care. That's a stupid warning that helps no one and is ignored by everyone. It doesn't matter where it came from.

Even in the bad old days of widespread ActiveX malware on Windows, you had to agree to install most of it. This didn't stop Microsoft totally discontinuing ActiveX as unsafe, because effective security is about more than just technical details, it's also about helping users to make good security decisions.

If you cannot be trusted to know when to give something root privileges, you SHOULD NOT HAVE root privileges. This is the only "problem" here. What happened is absolutely unavoidable in a system where people have freedom, and don't know how to use it. The only solution is to take away freedom or educate the users, which is why Mac OS X can have non-admin accounts, and why eventually you'll probably be able to flip a bit to make installing software only possible (for a given user, or whole computer) through the App Store.

Re:Wow

[TangoMargarine]

I posit that "You guys" is not in fact directed at you specifically, but at the general Mac ecosystem, and your command line use is a pretty good indicator that you're an "above average" Mac user (yes, we're on Slashdot, so it's not surprising...). Ergo, the argument could be made that the statement was not directed at you at all. In which case, thank you for your personal experience, but I've had my share of "oh look, I'm an atypical J Random Thing user" comments that don't offer any actual insight. And I do so love the idea that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't know what he's talking about (not specifically this instance, but throwing around the terms "strawman" and "hypocritical" are usually good indicators) or is crazy. At least your freedom comment was halfway useful.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

But people thought this was a "virus", so how can you be so sure that the people you know who still get lots of viruses aren't just idiot users?

Re:Wow

[pudge]

I posit that "You guys" is not in fact directed at you specifically ...

He said it to me, in reply to my comment. If he had meant something different, he could have responded that way, but in his several comments he did not, so I posit that he has tacitly conceded he was speaking to me specifically.

I do so love the idea that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't know what he's talking about ... or is crazy

You're a liar, and thanks for pointing that out to me. I love intellectual disagreement from sane and well-informed people.

Re:Wow

[TangoMargarine]

You're a liar, and thanks for pointing that out to me. I love intellectual disagreement from sane and well-informed people.

Q.E.D.

Re:Wow

[pudge]

You're a liar, and thanks for pointing that out to me. I love intellectual disagreement from sane and well-informed people.

Q.E.D.

So, when I said well-informed, I meant people who -- for example -- know what QED means, and how to use it.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

FUCK advertising, and FUCK you. This isn't about advertising. Get it through your damned thick skull.

I see you've run out of real material and have now diverted to Ad Hominems. Interesting....

Re:Wow

[makomk]

You didn't explain what was interesting about the wording. Instead you talked about something else.

You say they "purposefully install an app designed to hurt you", but they don't because the purpose for which they allowed the installation wasn't to install an app that would hurt them, or even to install software from an untrusted source full stop.

The sensible decision when you don't know what something is, is to deny installation. They had, literally, all the information necessary to make the sensible and right decision, whether they knew anything about this software or not.

Why? Suppose you're surfing the web and get a random pop-up prompt not obviously related to your web browser asking you to permit the installation of, say security fixes for Mac OS X. If it's a genuine prompt, clicking No is likely to lead to your computer getting hacked. If you click Yes and it's actually malware, your computer will definitely get hacked. Sure, you can use clues like the apperance of the window (unless Apple have redesigned it again), but most people aren't that paranoid. Alternatively, the OS UI designer could be more careful about how descriptions from untrusted sources are used in security-related prompts, which is what most other OSes and software has done.

For example, take a look at how the Firefox HTTP authentication prompt is worded sometime.

I don't care. That's a stupid warning that helps no one and is ignored by everyone. It doesn't matter where it came from.

See above. It matters very much whether the software that's unexpectedly trying to install came from some random site off the Internet or is something official like an Apple automatic software updater. The warning helps to prevent one from disguising itself as the other.

If you cannot be trusted to know when to give something root privileges, you SHOULD NOT HAVE root privileges. This is the only "problem" here.

If your OS doesn't provide enough information to tell you clearly why you're giving something root privileges and where it came from, that's kind of a problem too. Like it or not, computer security has to deal with humans that aren't perfect or all-knowing.

Re:Wow

[MoldySpore]

You're a great big fucking douchebag.

Typical Apple Fanboi response to a statement they can't defend against.

Fact is Apple products can get Malware. Regardless if it is user intervention or some kind of bug in the OS code that enables it, it can still get installed. So what do they do? They release a memo to have their reps be wholly unhelpful to their customers, neither confirming or denying anything, and instead pointing them towards the AppStore, to spend more $. The MAJORITY of the people calling in for tech support are just everyday mom and pop users that bought Apple products because they were told how they are "simple to use", "secure", and "With virtually no effort on your part" defends against viruses and malware. How is this fair to them?

At least Microsoft offers in-house solutions for Malware. And while they may not be THE BEST options, they help. If you have a legit copy of windows they will point you in the right direction on the phone as to how to remove the Malware or virus. They won't do it for you. But they won't DENY IT and send you to a web store to spend $. They send you a link to Microsoft Malicious Software Removal Tool and suggest some free programs to use. Apple's own website claims "A Mac isn’t susceptible to the thousands of viruses plaguing Windows-based computers. That’s thanks to built-in defenses in Mac OS X that keep you safe, without any work on your part." Those "built-in defenses" aren't defenses at all. They are relying on the fact that nobody had created much Malware for Apple products until recently. That is not defense. That is lack of caring.

Just because you have the technical skills to remove the malware easily and to understand that it isn't a big deal and that you don't need to call, other's don't. If Apple is so customer friendly and easy to use, they should have handled this situation better. And they should immediately start rolling out or starting to develop an in-house anti-virus and malware removal tool like Microsoft has.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

"FUCK advertising, and FUCK you. This isn't about advertising."

Sounds like the guy I want marketing my small business: http://www.marchex.com/ (from his profile page)

MS finally released Mac malware 3.0?

[AmazinglySmooth]

I was waiting for MS to release such malware. Initially, I was surprised that it took so long, but it had to get to 3.0 before being adopted.

This submission is a troll.

[Galactic Dominator]

No manufacturer covers malware as part of their warranty. Fun to see all the righteous indignation of this topic, but getting upset about it is utter nonsense. You put it on there, it didn't ship that way. If you run a red light and get smashed into, are you going to expect Ford to cover the costs of it? No, most rational people wouldn't that why there's insurance. If you infect your computer with some malware, well there's anti-malware for that. Guess what, you have to pay for it just like you do insurance.

Re:This submission is a troll.

[mysidia]

If you run a red light and get smashed into, are you going to expect Ford to cover the costs of it? No, most rational people wouldn't that why there's insurance.

How about, if someone came to your house and said they're concerned your bank account might be infected, and he offers to "re-secure your account" with a free security scan; so, at his request, you hand him your ATM card to swipe for a security scan, and PIN number. Do you think the bank is going to restore your $0 account balance to its original amount, for you? You think the insurance company is going to help you?

Is supporting/fixing your issue the bank's problem, even though someone else did it to you, and you facilitated it in a negligent way the bank cannot prevent? Nope. End user has to be prepared to pay (or buy suitable protection/agreement that specifically covers that type of situation).

Similar deal with MacOS... some random stranger says they think you might be compromised, and convince you to type in your PIN# (Admin user password).

If some stranger arrives at your house one day, and asks to borrow your car, so you go to the keybox, get the key, and he gives you a paper to sign saying "He can do whatever the hell he wants with your car"

Do you think the insurance company will help you, when he takes off, and uses your signed paper as an authorization to sell it to some dealer?

Re:This submission is a troll.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking fanboys.

Re:This submission is a troll.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that fixing this particular problem is trivial. The malware in question can be easily deleted (just drag it's folder to the trash!) however Apple will not let their support people tell you this! They are only allowed to point you at a paid solution, which is pretty disgusting for such a simple fix.

Re:This submission is a troll.

[Anonymous Coward]

Similar deal with MacOS... some random stranger says they think you might be compromised, and convince you to type in your PIN# (Admin user password).

If some stranger arrives at your house one day, and asks to borrow your car,
so you go to the keybox, get the key, and he gives you a paper to sign saying
"He can do whatever the hell he wants with your car"

Do you think the insurance company will help you, when he takes off, and
uses your signed paper as an authorization to sell it to some dealer?

Bingo. The problem is the user and as the Mac is now taking more of the "people who do not know computers" market .... .

Call any of them

[Anonymous Coward]

Dell, HP, Microsoft, take your pick. They will say the same thing, not our problem. Why are you people defending idiots who allow malware in their system? Or can't figure out how to remove it, or rebuild their computer? Calling a CSR asking for help is about as good a solution as banging your head on a brick wall, and feels worse.

Could have fixed it over a year ago

[JoeCommodore]

The crux of the current problem is a setting in Safari that allows the computer to open"safe" documents automatically. The issue with that checkbox has been known for over a year and its one of the things I remember to do is to uncheck it (as it has been defaulted to checked, open those documents.)

Apple could have done an update to uncheck that box, or better yet remove the feature, but it sadly remained and now they are going to have to pay for thier ignorance of the issue.

Re:Could have fixed it over a year ago

[Anonymous Coward]

The crux of the current problem is a setting in Safari that allows the computer to open"safe" documents automatically. The issue with that checkbox has been known for over a year and its one of the things I remember to do is to uncheck it (as it has been defaulted to checked, open those documents.)

Apple could have done an update to uncheck that box, or better yet remove the feature, but it sadly remained and now they are going to have to pay for thier ignorance of the issue.

You're holding it wrong. Right?

Re:Could have fixed it over a year ago

[Wovel]

This would slow some own, but those bent on infecting their computers would still find a way...

Re:Could have fixed it over a year ago

[DJRumpy]

You do realize this malware trojan still cannot infect you unless you give it your admin password? The fact that Safari opens up attachments that are considered safe is bad enough, yes but it does not expose a user to this issue. The user does that themselves by offering up their admin password.

Re:Could have fixed it over a year ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you fill the god filled hole in your heart with apple? Is your closest apple store more of a cathedral than a outlet for designer tat for idiots who hate computers? Please enlighten us on these questions.

Re:Could have fixed it over a year ago

[ArsonSmith]

Because I keep all my most important stuff stored in the admin home directory and there is nothing in my home directory that a trojan could steal or use to my disadvantage.

Re:Could have fixed it over a year ago

[Anonymous Coward]

The user still has to enter an admin password to allow the install.

Re:Could have fixed it over a year ago

[JoeCommodore]

yeah, but instead of popping up a misleading screen, the user would have to be misled further to take advantage of them, top open the document on their own.

The problem is that popup screen that was allowed through the setting looks a lot like a normal Apple software update window, and Mac users are accustomed to install such updates.

Re:Could have fixed it over a year ago

[Teckla]

You do realize this malware trojan still cannot infect you unless you give it your admin password? The fact that Safari opens up attachments that are considered safe is bad enough, yes but it does not expose a user to this issue. The user does that themselves by offering up their admin password.

Apple should make this even easier for Mac users. Safari should just pop up a window that says:

Install malware? [ Yes ] - [ No ]

Even then, I'm sure many of the denizens of Slashdot would defend Apple. "It's not Apple's fault! The users are clicking Yes! They would be perfectly safe if they'd just click No! Haha, stupid users!"

We need to not forget that Apple/Safari includes a very dangerous option whose default setting is "help the malware authors and screw the users".

Re:Could have fixed it over a year ago

[iMouse]

The crux of the current problem is a setting in Safari that allows the computer to open"safe" documents automatically. The issue with that checkbox has been known for over a year and its one of the things I remember to do is to uncheck it (as it has been defaulted to checked, open those documents.)

Apple could have done an update to uncheck that box, or better yet remove the feature, but it sadly remained and now they are going to have to pay for thier ignorance of the issue.

Except that "open safe documents" has little to do with the issue. Who cares if it mounts the .dmg? The user is not only downloading it, they're launching the installer and progressing through the installation process, including the entry of their system username and password. If they've gotten this far, then they were certainly going to mount the .dmg in the first place.

The Mac (or any other OS for that matter) doesn't know the difference between a Trojan Horse and a copy of Photoshop. The point of a Trojan Horse is to be something that it isn't....to pretend to be safe and in reality, be malicious.

Apple's stance that Macs don't have viruses is still true (based on a technicality that Mac Defender is not a file infector). I'll be convinced that this is an issue if and when drive-by attacks begin, similar to what we see with IE and outdated plugins from Adobe and Sun on the Windows side.

Re:Could have fixed it over a year ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Really?

The crux of the problem?

You're telling me that Mac's only security flaw is a checkbox in a browser?

It will be swept under the xprotect rug...

[Thaidog]

Little know that OS X comes wit built in virus protect with the Xprotect.plist... Not advertised because Apple want to keep the impression that Mac's don't get infected.

Re:It will be swept under the xprotect rug...

[DJRumpy]

You should probably tell Apple to take down that particular part of their website then...

http://www.apple.com/macosx/security/

Little know that OS X comes wit built in virus protect with the Xprotect.plist... Not advertised because Apple want to keep the impression that Mac's don't get infected.

Re:It will be swept under the xprotect rug...

[Thaidog]

"Mac OS X doesn’t get PC viruses. And its built-in defenses help keep you safe from other malware without the hassle of constant alerts and sweeps."

*Doesn't get viruses as in it doesn't get *PC* viruess - it gets Mac viruses.

*Constant alerts and sweeps in that it sweeps them under the xprotect rug. Is there anywhere in the mac to scan manually? No. Because mac don't need virus protection right?

I like / have Macs but I'm not blind to the fact it's just more code on x64 that can be exploited just the same. Don't even try to convince me they don't try the we don't get viruses sales pitch... the url you pointed to and this article is proof enough.

Re:It will be swept under the xprotect rug...

[DJRumpy]

Except this isn't a virus. It's a Trojan. It cannot spread/replicate itself, and it cannot infect a Mac unless you willingly install it by giving it your admin password. If you don't know the difference between the two, then you probably shouldn't be posting here.

Re:It will be swept under the xprotect rug...

[Thaidog]

Ok so you're saying Macs don't get viruses... but they get trojans just fine? You know I'm pretty sure I want my virus protection to catch trojans also.... lucky for me most good virus protection does. I don't care if it's a virus, torjan, spyware, potato or tomato.... if it's not supposed to be there it should not be there.... kind of like location tracking data... it's not a virus but I'd rather it not be on my system either.

Re:It will be swept under the xprotect rug...

[jedidiah]

If it is a real Trojan than it is infact supposed to be there.

That's what distinguishes a Trojan.

That's why it's more difficult to guard against. On the other hand, you could simply avoid trusting Greeks.

Windows is the cesspit it is because it's an environment that encourages running random sh*t automatically and without the user's knowledge and consent. You get rid of that mentality and a lot of problems go away and malware has a much more hostile environment to try and thrive in.

Re:It will be swept under the xprotect rug...

[DJRumpy]

No, what I'm saying is there are currently NO viruses in the wild for Mac. How you came away with "Mac is invulnerable" from my statement above is a bit odd. Since I never mentioned any other malware but this one trojan. As far as real viruses, contrast that with 100,000+ viruses for Windows OS and you begin to see a bit of a difference between the two OS's. Saying that a trojan is a virus is nonsense. A virus attacks via vulnerabilities in the OS which should be addressed and closed. A trojan can only attack via the user (socially engineered). Any OS can be infected by a trojan if they are able to dupe the user into giving up the admin password. No OS is secure from user exploits.

Re:It will be swept under the xprotect rug...

[Thaidog]

What you are saying is not provable. This is because viruses don't have to give off signs you've got it... that is, in fact, the whole point behind virus protection. Tell me what's better.... being under the impression that your OS can't get a virus while having one and not knowing your OS can indeed get a virus, get a virus, find out you've got it, and then get it fixed. I never said you said "Mac is invulnerable". What I will say is the Mac has had viruses, they have been added to the Xprotext plist (which is NOT mentioned in the link you gave, go figure) and the Mac will get more viruses in the future. That's something to anticipate and count on rather than sit back in a false state of comfort.

Re:It will be swept under the xprotect rug...

[mjwx]

Except this isn't a virus. It's a Trojan.

But it's not AIDS, it's just Leprosy.

The difference is trivial, both are oftem malicious. The most common transmission method for malware these days is user intervention and yes, that is a valid transmission method.

Re:It will be swept under the xprotect rug...

[martinX]

My employer has about 60 000 people, a corporate standard operating environment and local tech support. Our work PCs get all sorts of weird ?viruses?trojans on them in spite of having corporately approved and installed AV software. I am usually the first to spot new things in my work area because I see strange .exe files appearing on my USB stick when I put it back into my Mac.

Re:It will be swept under the xprotect rug...

[black3d]

From a comment on the article, which is probably relevant to this conversation as well:

I understand what you're saying about Mac has "no viruses", as you don't consider trojans as virii. The user had to install them. Great, no problem.

Except then you go on to say that Windows gets "thousands of new viruses every day". No, it doesn't. By the same criteria you're judging Mac to have "no viruses", there are almost no viruses that will infect Windows 7 either.

In fact, I'd be surprised if you could name a single one. It's all trojans and non-replicating 0-day exploits in installed sofware - same as Mac. (And before you claim there's no 0-day exploitable privelege holes in commonly installed Mac software, review any Pwn2Own contest).

Re:It will be swept under the xprotect rug...

[DJRumpy]

So your theory is that thousands of researchers are blithly unaware that there are Mac viruses in the wild, and no one has managed to detect them?

As to the built in protection, it warns you against known trojans like the hacked adobe software, which also requires an admin password and social engineering.

http://www.cultofmac.com/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-apples-new-anti-virus-spotter/15475

If you are going to try to use an example of xprotect.plist, you should probably look at what it actually scans for. Guess what? It scans for trojan's, not viruses.

Re:It will be swept under the xprotect rug...

[pyrr]

There's kind of a fine line between trojans and spyware. Both are really just malware that offers the user a handjob, and some users really like getting a handjob without considering the consequence that the handjob is really just a reach-around, and the malware is gonna pound them hard in ways that will probably be a bit uncomfortable; the level of potential discomfort (with or without lube and/or condom?) is the fundamental difference between spyware and trojans. The difference between those and a virus is that the virus doesn't ask, and it doesn't offer a reach-around. It also doesn't use lube or condoms, ever. That's why it's important to wear a digital chastity belt.

Some things that *I* would consider unacceptable malware that needed to be removed, such as shopping toolbar spyware, Weatherbug, Comet Cursor, and Gator, were crapplications that users wanted. I think this is the line that Apple is treading, just as I had to tread it with users who were willing to turn over their computer for smileys. Some would practically get offended at the suggestion that their cute cursors were malware, and contributing to their computer problems. If only I was morally bankrupt, and there was some value to soul contracts..I encountered so many users who I probably could've convinced to part with their eternal souls in exchange for stupid digital folderol.

But if a malware detection agent is telling the user that their precious trojan is malware, that's a more convincing argument than an Apple tech could make that it needs to go away.

Re:It will be swept under the xprotect rug...

[intheshelter]

Come on man, don't mess up his lack of understanding with facts.

Re:It will be swept under the xprotect rug...

[intheshelter]

The are both malicious and the difference is HUGE. If you want to talk viruses then talk viruses, if you want to talk trojans then talk trojans, if you want to talk malware as a whole then talk about malware as a whole. Know what you are talking about. A virus is NOT a trojan and vice versa.

Re:It will be swept under the xprotect rug...

[Akzo]

No? The difference between a trojan and a virus is one provides remote access while the other is automated, it has nothing to do with the attack vector.

It isn't exactly some sort of computing secret
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_horse_(computing)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_virus

Re:It will be swept under the xprotect rug...

[DJRumpy]

You do realize that both links you just posted contradict what you just stated?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_horse_(computing)

A Trojan horse, or Trojan, is a destructive program that masquerades as a benign application. The software initially appears to perform a desirable function for the user prior to installation and/or execution, but (perhaps in addition to the expected function) steals information or harms the system.[1] Unlike viruses or worms, Trojan horses do not replicate themselves, but they can be just as destructive.
The term is derived from the Greek myth of the Trojan War, in which the Greeks give a giant wooden horse to their foes, the Trojans, ostensibly as a peace offering. However, after the Trojans drag the horse inside their city walls, Greek soldiers sneak out of the horse's hollow belly and open the city gates, allowing their compatriots to pour in and capture Troy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_virus

A computer virus is a computer program that can copy itself[1] and infect a computer. The term "virus" is also commonly but erroneously used to refer to other types of malware, including but not limited to adware and spyware programs that do not have the reproductive ability.

It has everything to do with attack vector. A virus may provide remote access, or it may not. That depends entirely on the purpose of the virus. The same is true for a trojan. Some viruses simply replicate, some just trash local files, some display annoying messages, some change your start page in the OS browser, and some provide remote access but that alone is not the 'definition' of a virus or a Trojan.

A Trojan is named as such for historical reasons. The trojan horse was used to launch an attack on the city of Troy which was unassailable otherwise (hence the social engineering aspect of a Trojan).

How about reading the f***in article?

[Anonymous Coward]

It clearly says "don't help remove". It does not say anything about not admitting that there is a problem, but obviously people read what they want to read. By the way - it's not an internal document, but an anonymous employee being cited. This article was also posted here earlier today....

Re:How about reading the f***in article?

[black3d]

It does not say anything about not admitting that there is a problem

You should not confirm or deny whether the customer’s Mac is infected or not.

Ummm..

Re:How about reading the f***in article?

[black3d]

Also..

By the way - it's not an internal document, but an anonymous employee being cited.

http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/apple-macdefender-investigation-may-16-2011.png

(click the image in the article, if this doesn't work for you).

Umm..

Sorry buddy, you were wrong on both counts. Seems like you need to read the article again, zealot.

Yes but Dell does

[Sycraft-fu]

The problem is Apple is NOT an OS maker, they are a system maker. In particular they make a unified system where they do it all. If you talk to a Mac head this is one of the things they talk about being so great, that Apple creates a "unified experience" and supports everything. They push the model of "Just bring it to the Mac store," as how you handle support and all that.

Fine but that means that you are going to get questions about malware and the like. They can't play it off with "But MS doesn't help!" They are selling the "We are the company that takes care of you and makes everything," they get to deal with the support calls.

Also, MS DOES in fact help with that shit. If nothing else they publish the malicious software removal tool (which Windows get automatically) and make Microsoft Security Essentials available for free. While they don't do everything, they do provide free tools to help.

Re:Yes but Dell does

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow - there seems to be a lot of anti-apple hostility around here. Well- whatever your opinion on Apple as a company, I sincerely hope we can all wish the best for Steve Jobs, especially given today's sad news that he is apparently much closer to meeting his maker than we'd all thought. It's worth noting that his demise will not in actual fact be that sad, if you're an advocate for freedom on the internet and don't like evil firms. Please f'ing croak Steve and do us all a big favor!

Re:Yes but Dell does

[Anonymous Coward]

If you took it to an Apple store they would help. AppleCare "technicians", generally speaking, are Tier I support. Mac Genii are considered tiers II and III. There's a whole lot of stuff AppleCare techs aren't given permission to do, that a Mac Genius will. Not to mention, I'm sure any reputable Apple authorized service provider would be more than willing to help and put it on Apple's dime. I've personally never drank anyone's Kool-Aid, I prefer Macs for home (for simplicity and ease of use), and was a Mac Genius for about 3 1/2 years. I now support about 1000 Windows 7 machines, and a couple dozen windows 2008 servers. They're all infernal machines to me :). The truth is there have been virii for Macs for a long time. One of the big reasons people don't get infected is, you have to authenticate for there very installation. If you're typing your password in to install a package, and don't know what it is, that's the problem, not the operating system.

Re:Yes but Dell does

[atomicbutterfly]

Wow - there seems to be a lot of anti-apple hostility around here

A lot of it comes not just from Apple's actions, but also the actions from Apple fanbois. Zealots are some of the most annoying people you'll ever meet, and it's natural to have a certainly level of schadenfreude when something happens which upsets the zealots. They brought it upon themselves for getting in everyone's faces after all.

Re:Yes but Dell does

[williamhb]

The problem is Apple is NOT an OS maker, they are a system maker. In particular they make a unified system where they do it all. If you talk to a Mac head this is one of the things they talk about being so great, that Apple creates a "unified experience" and supports everything. They push the model of "Just bring it to the Mac store," as how you handle support and all that.

Fine but that means that you are going to get questions about malware and the like. They can't play it off with "But MS doesn't help!" They are selling the "We are the company that takes care of you and makes everything," they get to deal with the support calls.

Also, MS DOES in fact help with that shit. If nothing else they publish the malicious software removal tool (which Windows get automatically) and make Microsoft Security Essentials available for free. While they don't do everything, they do provide free tools to help.

And I suspect they'd do a darn sight more if there wasn't an anti-trust "bundling" lawsuit from McAfee and the like waiting in the wings for the moment they do.

Re:Yes but Dell does

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is Apple is NOT an OS maker, they are a system maker.

You do know that OS stands for Operating System, right?

Re:Yes but Dell does

[Nyder]

The problem is Apple is NOT an OS maker, they are a system maker. ...

Really? And who makes the OS that is on the computers that Apple sells?

Microsoft? Sony? Joe Schmoe?

Yes, Apple is an OS maker, they make their own fucking OS for their own fucking computers.

Can we try to change the truth a little more, please!

My first 3rd party experience

[Anonymous Coward]

A customer of mine had some trouble over the weekend and the genius fixed it no-charge

The headline is bogus, I don't read it that way.

[Timmy D Programmer]

The headline implies Apple is skirting questions about the existence of malware. This is not true. They are telling their support people they must not confirm or deny that the callers particular machine is infected, because they don't do antivirus malware cleaning support, (Neither does MS).

hmm

[buddyglass]

I don't see a problem. I'm guessing the vast majority of infections aren't the fault of the OS or hardware. So why should Apple be on the hook to repair some guy's machine who infected himself by running a porn dialer or some app he grabbed off a torrent site?

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Simply because Apple has created and heavily marketed their solutions as "safe haven" computing for well over a decade now. Turning their back on their clients now seems extremely foolish considering the simplicity of the issue. As for the guy "who infected himself by running a porn dialer or some app he grabbed off a torrent site", a staggering majority of Mac users have little concept of computer security - which brings me back to my original point, since this is the very clientele Apple targets. Why shouldn't they be helped? They're already paying heavy premiums for Apple wares by industry standards, then keep being told that what they bought was safe.

Re:hmm

[buddyglass]

If I market my Volvo cars as safe and durable, then someone buys one who doesn't know how to drive and runs it into a tree, in the process breaking a rib, should I feel any obligation to cover their repair costs and hospital bills? I mean, I did tell them the car was safe and durable. Then again, they decided to get behind the wheel without actually knowing how to drive. We'll assume for the sake of argument those claims are actually true, i.e. that Volvos are safer than other options (but not safe enough to protect you from any injury if you decide to plow into a tree.)

"saw him good" celebrity software

[epine]

Even programs like OpenSSH (with your precious BSD heritage) have had their fair share of vulnerabilities in the past.

Clue me in, what is the "fair share" for a program such as OpenSSH? A zero-day on OpenSSH is the rough equivalent of raising the Libyan flag at the center of the Pentagon.

I can't stand the thinking that buffer overflows are a fact of life. Only if you believe that shoddy workmanship is a fact of life. Subtle edge cases in a tricky protocol account for maybe 1% of the buffer overflows out there. The majority are copy first, ask questions later. There are plenty of these people out there programming computers; very few of these people are accepted into med school. The root cause of most buffer overflows in commercially important applications with large, well-resourced development teams is the network effect. There's a hideous pressure to be first, rather than right, or solid and tight.

Imagine if PC Magazine back in the fat 1980s had a penetration testing department that stamped "did not qualify" on every beta software product tested where any serious failure mode was tripped. But no, if the software could do one important function correctly 10% faster than the next piece of software (by hook or by crook), it was stamped "editor's choice".

In sports forums where there is serious discussion about prospects, this is ridiculed as "saw him good". There's always a contingent out there drooling over the next hockey jesus with the flashy stick move who leaks the puck in his own end ten times per shift, and wailing with incomprehension over why the professional hockey minds have his ass stapled to the bench or racking up demotion miles to a lower league.

The only difference is that in software, your pimply hockey jesus is referred to as the next "killer app". A certain type of consumer is busy drooling over the 30 second highlight reel without any real concern over whether the kid is willing to learn how to play a two-way game for sixty minutes.

Moral of the story: you get what you drool over.

Re:"saw him good" celebrity software

[thegarbz]

Subtle edge cases in a tricky protocol account for maybe 1% of the buffer overflows out there. The majority are copy first, ask questions later. There are plenty of these people out there programming computers; very few of these people are accepted into med school.

And that is exactly why buffer overflows are a fact of life. This isn't a problem with Microsoft it's a problem with the industry and bugs are here to stay. My point was if BSD is so damn secure then surely there wouldn't be a need for any security enhancements on the platform the likes of which each successive version clearly advertises.

Yet bug fixes happen continuously. On one platform it's a race between the vendor and man malware writers, and on another there's a lot less competition.

What's the big deal?

[OffbeatAdam]

Apple is trying to protect themselves from becoming a helpdesk, which is something they are not. They are very clear about this. The Genius Bar is also, very clear about this. They are not a help desk, and in advanced cases support comes at a price. Just as apple is not on the other side of the phone to teach you what each keyboard shortcut does, they're not there to fix every little computer problem you have. You can't call apple if you delete a photo, and all the same you can't call apple if you clicked a link and had your system violated.

The major problem is that we now have to recognize exactly what this means. This does not mean that the mac is more or less vulnerable, because it's not - it is exactly as vulnerable as it was before. The problem is that as the total users of Apple computers grows, the ratio of of (minority) secure users to (majority) vulnerable users grows in distance. As the Apple becomes more popular, the chance of the user interacting with the system is likely to follow a malicious link, open a malicious email, or fall for a malicious ad, is greater; there is a higher chance that this user is the type of user interacting with the system, as these are the most common users on the internet.

This is a trend that was not witnessed with PCs, as by the time Malware became a heavy component of the PC/Internet world, PCs had penetrated every aspect of the general public. Mom and little brother would follow any link to their hearts content, would want to help the Nigerian Prince, and would feel obligated to save the Penguins of North Africa. Apple has now begun penetrating this market as well, and it can only be assumed that the same ignorance will also affect the Apple community.

You can secure a computer all you want, it's very difficult to keep most people from clicking the latest joke link and falling for any one of the thousands of ads they'll see in a 5 minute time period. The only perfect solution, is to not let them on the computer at all.

Re:What's the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

The big deal is "Microsoft Bob" (aka Ed Bott) likes writing hatchet blogs on Apple/Google/Whoever isn't Microsoft. It's all clickbait, smoke and mirrors. Basically one useless tosser who is after page hits. He's probably jealous of the slashdot effect, or something more pathetic.

Re:What's the big deal?

[DysenteryInTheRanks]

Apple is trying to protect themselves from becoming a helpdesk, which is something they are not. They are very clear about this

Yes, the giant "We're here to help" headline on top of the Apple retail home page really slams that point home. http://www.apple.com/retail/

"We’re here to help.... Geniuses provide hands-on technical support... Our Specialists help you get to know our products and answer your questions...."

"If you have technical questions about your Mac, iPad, iPod, Apple TV, or iPhone, the Genius Bar is the place for free advice, insight, and friendly, hands-on technical support. Geniuses use their impressive knowledge to answer technical questions, troubleshoot problems, and perform repairs — right in your neighborhood store.... If you have technical questions about your Mac, iPad, iPod, Apple TV, or iPhone, the Genius Bar is the place for free advice, insight, and friendly, hands-on technical support. Geniuses use their impressive knowledge to answer technical questions, troubleshoot problems, and perform repairs — right in your neighborhood store."

They're a help desk. Otherwise, the claim above is fraud.

Re:What's the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are not a help desk, and in advanced cases support comes at a price.

I thought you pay that when you give them $4000 for your Mac Pro, when you can build a similar PC for $1500.

Re:What's the big deal?

[numbski]

I would argue that it's worse now. Apple users are trained to hand over their sudo password on command. Ubuntu users aren't much better.

Re:What's the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only perfect solution, is to not let them on the computer at all.

Which is why Apple's solution is the iPad.

It's a 'computer' to protect the masses from themselves. This is what the Android crowd does not understand.

Re:What's the big deal?

[intheshelter]

Yes, of course, similar in the same way that both a Pinto and a Mercedes have tires.

Re:What's the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

True they're a help desk... but In my experience they don't really get involved with software problems aside from usage. They will help you use software or even recommend it, but every time I've had software conflicts I've had to spend the time to resolve them myself. If you go to Apple they'll just tell you to reinstall everything.

If you have a hard disk failure, they can check your hardware and get you hooked up with a new drive, but they will not perform data recovery on the damaged volume.

There's a lot they won't do and it usually comes down to them not willing to be liable for damaging your data. Fair enough -- there are lots of people you can contract that will be perfectly happy to optimize your system, help you solve conflicts, recover your data, and get rid of malware. Just look em up and give em a call.

Re:What's the big deal?

[sabt-pestnu]

> You can secure a computer all you want, it's very difficult to keep most people from clicking the latest joke link and falling for any one of the thousands of ads they'll see in a 5 minute time period. The only perfect solution, is to not let them on the computer at all.

The thing you don't point out is, it doesn't take an ignoramus to fall prey to these vulnerabilities. Quite intelligent, well informed people are subject to the same problem.

This includes people who use computers for a living. ... and includes those who secure, maintain, and repair computers. And those who post on slashdot about how secure their computers are.

The advantage these professionals have is that they can secure their computers better, and recognize problems faster. (Too bad that computers are faster still, but they would not be useful if they were slower.)

Re:What's the big deal?

[toddestan]

Then why are you then required to maintain a computer running iTunes for your iPad?

Confidentiality fail

[drb226]

A confidential internal Apple document

Speaking of security...

Even more reason not to buy Apple.......

[Anonymous Coward]

As if the 3x inflated price vs the same hardware in the PC world, with more limitations wasn't reason enough...............

Nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like my father used to say,

"You got a herpe, son? Now you are a man. Don't admit anything."

Oops, you put your foot in it

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason they have the least viruses (note that they DON'T have NO viruses) is because the market share has been so small that Windows has been a much more profitable target.

(Emphasis mine.) No, that's a reason, in a long list of reasons. Seriously, you just have not thought about security, if you think that Windows is only attacked because it's common. Windows is fucked up in a way that most other platforms aren't. Wake me up when you have to turn on an .exe file's executable bit before you can run it, like you can on every Unix and Unix-like OS. Wake me up when Windows doesn't come out-of-the-box with something even half-as-silly as ActiveX enabled. And I don't know if this is still the case (I think it might not be) but Windows used to have something on by default, where merely inserting media (e.g. a CD) would cause the OS to immediately load and execute code.

Then, on top of all that, most machine that have Windows, come with borderline malware preinstalled by the hardware vendor. Hey, I'm not saying this is Microsoft's fault; it's not. But it is the reality of the situation and the installed base of machines out there. And it is part of the culture; if someone is willing to settle for Windows, they really are willing to settle for their "ware" being more "mal." That's how they vote with their wallets.

Seriously, Windows is just plain bad. It's below average when it comes to security. MacOS, like Linux, is pretty average. And then there are the good OSes (which nobody likes to use). With equal marketshares, Windows is still going to have more malware than anything else.

Bad product = delighted customer

[klubar]

Even better is building it right in the first place. There's really no excuse for bad RAM (expeically at the prices Apple charges). Diagnosing bad ram can be extremely time consuming and the symptoms aren't easy to spot (unless it's really DOA). You've drunk the Apple-aide on the iPhone. Rather than complaining a crappy, poorly manufactured product, you're proud that you bought a defective item and then when you identified the customer they fixed it. How much time did you spend going to the ARS, waiting in line, talking to someone to get a defective product fixed.

If you had bought a Dell and it came with defective RAM or flash, you would complain about the crappy quality of PCs. With Apple, a bad product is a way of delighting the customer.

I have to say that in purchasing close to 100 Dells for my company I've never gotten a DOA device or bad RAM.

Re:Bad product = delighted customer

[Osgeld]

I have never owned a apple product which was not defective, its also why I stopped buying them a long while ago and only keep one around so I can can test software, but its far from my main machine (512meg G4)

Re:Bad product = delighted customer

[jhoegl]

100 Dells huh?

Wait a year... HDs will start dropping like flies.
In My experience, perhaps 50% will fail.

Re:Bad product = delighted customer

[gumbi west]

The industry DOA rate is about 20%. The p-value for your claim is 2.037036e-10. I'm going to call BS.

Re:Bad product = delighted customer

[f16c]

Our company bought a batch of desktops from Dell. One had a bad main-board. I called and had a tech on-site with the replacement hardware the next day. They have made some cheap hardware over the years but, as far as I can tell, they support their products pretty well. I've actually had better luck with their hardware than with similar HP products in recent memory.

Re:Bad product = delighted customer

[Splab]

Really?

Early Apply laptops had bad design that would cause cracks in the motherboard - Apple flatly denied the problem and would not replace broken laptops until they got their ass handed to them in court. (Denmark)

Even to this day Humac (local apple stores) are *often* in the searchlights of consumer protection agency because they refuse to honor warranty - reason being, Apple gave them a list of "allowed" fixes.

Stop claiming Apple is a nice company.

Re:Bad product = delighted customer

[qpqp]

Oh those geometry problems. Holding the Powerbook by it's sides and twisting it around the center a bit helped sometimes. ;)

Re:Bad product = delighted customer

[klubar]

Actually the 100 Dells are over a 12 year period. Our problem with the Dells isn't HD, but bad caps on the motherboards. THe Optiplexes 280 series had some serious problems. Also, we've lost a few power supplies. Everyone's HDs are pretty much the same as they all come from the same few OEMs. Generally, the Dell never fail in the first 3 years, 10% in years 3 to 4 and another 10% there after. We generally recycle the machines after 6 years (although we have a 10+ machine running as a linux server--originally W2000).

Re:Bad product = delighted customer

[klubar]

What is the source for your 20% DOA stat? That seems alarmingly high as the repair cost probably eats up the entire profit on the sale. The last time I got a DOA electronic product was a cheap kitchen timer. If QA is designing their processes to produce 20% DOA, it's time to find another contract manufacturer.

Re:Bad product = delighted customer

[gumbi west]

The DOA numbers usually come out every year or so. I can't find anything but 2003 numbers now.

Here is another link stating 15% of Apple and Dell laptops require repair.

BTW, 20 percent is the industry average (IIRC), I think you meant to say, "it's time to find another industry." but then people would have toasters on their desks.

Re:Bad product = delighted customer

[mlts]

I have seen hardware failure in every offering, given enough of them. Name the computer maker, given enough time and enough machines, some will have problems. However, this is why a company purchases premium support and business-grade machines so a DOA box is minimized.

A consumer doesn't have that luxury of buying enterprise level 24/7/365 support. So, if something goes TU, being able to take it to a physical location (or have someone come onsite) and get it taken care of (versus having to package it up and sent it to a depot for 6-8 weeks) is a big difference. Especially for computers that people depend on for daily income.

Re:Bad product = delighted customer

[klubar]

There is a big difference between 15% and 20%, and you're quoting 8 year old stats. Also, your original comment was 20% DOA (dead on arrival) which is a huge difference than ever needing repair.

Show users how to secure OS X = better!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.apple.com/support/security/guides/

For starters, @ least. That's CERTAINLY better than doing nothing, which avoiding questions basically, is.

However - doing that guide's points/tips/tricks/techniques?

That's up to the user, or a family member OR pal/friend perhaps, to help them with possibly.

I figure it THIS way:

Sometimes? If you want help, you HAVE to help yourself! It's not like Apple's "not helping" here, either... it's just that like with Microsoft Windows, and yes, EVEN LINUX SeLinux bearing distros?? They do NOT, by default, ship them as "security hardened" as is possible.

Which, imo @ least, speaking "seller to buyer", makes sense: However, guides like this one & others like it??

Sometimes "turns off" things some users want on by default, or wouldn't KNOW how to turn back on themself... from a seller to customer perspective @ least!

Personally, were I ANY of these OS vendors??

I'd ship the OS' "super-hardened" & secured by default ( & let the user assume responsibility for opening up any doors after that, themself!)

(Personally? I think that IF you want to do a job right?? Educate yourself, thoroughly & from reputable sources FIRST, & DO IT YOURSELF! That guide above's a great starting point for Mac freaks imo!)

APK

P.S.=> I've been doing guides like this for Windows since 1997, & yes, they do help/work! See here:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE [bing.com]

The MacOS X guide's pretty good, & pretty much fairly along the same "generic lines" as what MY guides for Windows espouse (layered security techniques)

... apk

So, Apple is evil because of this?

[hsmith]

So, Apple allows you to install any software you want, by giving it the root password... So a user action. Yet, Apple rolls out the App Store on OS X to avoid this issue, and /. lambastes them because they are making the OS less "free" - so which do you want - the ability to totally fuck your computer up - or a guardian angel?

Re:So, Apple is evil because of this?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just their wishy-washy attitudes that often clash with the marketing.

The Genius Bar is a helpdesk, but they don't want to do all the things a helpdesk does. Instead of being pro-active to bend over backwards for customers (as their customer satisfaction scores show and Apple repeatedly suggests in its marketing), they chide them away by pointing to a document. It's not that great customer service that the people have come to expect (where Apple normally excels at).

Re:..Not one, in 17 years.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you ment to write 17 minutes, and not years.

$8/hr employee is interviewed about technology.

[prodigal_phreak]

If you took it to an Apple store they would help. AppleCare "technicians", generally speaking, are Tier I support. Mac Genii are considered tiers II and III. There's a whole lot of stuff AppleCare techs aren't given permission to do, that a Mac Genius will. Not to mention, I'm sure any reputable Apple authorized service provider would be more than willing to help and put it on Apple's dime. I've personally never drank anyone's Kool-Aid, I prefer Macs for home (for simplicity and ease of use), and was a Mac Genius for about 3 1/2 years. I now support about 1000 Windows 7 machines, and a couple dozen windows 2008 servers. They're all infernal machines to me :). The truth is there have been virii for Macs for a long time. One of the big reasons people don't get infected is, you have to authenticate for there very installation. If you're typing your password in to install a package, and don't know what it is, that's the problem, not the operating system.

Malware _Cannot_ be removed

[vijayiyer]

Are people so idiotic to think malware could be removed with any assurance, or that Apple would want to warranty its removal?
Once malware is installed, the machine, the drive needs to be wiped from a clean machine and restored from a backup prior to the installation of malware. I bet that that's all Apple would sign up to do too.

Re:Malware _Cannot_ be removed

[Relayman]

Wrong. This malware is easily removed. There are no hidden parts. Please don't confuse Mac OSX with Windows.

Re:Malware _Cannot_ be removed

[iMouse]

Remove it every day. Even take the time to reverse changes to group policies, driver injection/infection, hijacked services and MBR (TDSS.tdl4 is the bomb!) and other fun stuff common with today's malware on the Windows platform.

Technicians that call themselves "malware experts" that rely on Spybot S&D, MalwareBytes Anti-Malware, etc to do their malware removal are NOT the experts and are simply a bunch of script kiddies looking to make a buck.

Re:Malware _Cannot_ be removed

[Tim C]

This malware is easily removed; the next one may not be. You give it your admin password and you can't be sure what it's done, whatever OS you're on.

Re:Malware _Cannot_ be removed

[improfane]

You are absolutely right. It does annoy me when people charge for using freeware software to remove malicious software. It's just disrespectful to the author, using use freeware for commercial use is something most developers would rather you did not because if you are profiting from freeware, you have a means of earning, you should pay.

Confirmation of malware

[Anonymous Coward]

Customer support should never, ever confirm or deny the possibility of malware on a device. It presents a huge liability issue, especially if there is malware and a chat/phone technician starts snooping around and tries to remove it. Accidental data loss by techs is a huge problem. Security issues should always be escalated to senior technicians. My company has a policy that forbids anyone to remove _any_ data on customer equipment. We've been sued for it before.

Ed Bott

[bonch]

Does anyone not notice that this is from Ed Bott's Microsoft blog, just like yesterday's Mac "malware explosion" article was also from Ed Bott's Microsoft blog?

Windows 7 malware up 30%

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to install a virus intentionally, or should I say Stupidly! Most come from torrent copies of pre infected versions of Mac software. Those people with infections deserve it!

When the system asks for your admin password, there's a reason.

Pirates!

so they are the same level as geek squad?

[Joe The Dragon]

so they are the same level as geek squad?

as most geek squad reps just hook up systems to a remote link to get them fixed.

Why should Apple support 3rd party software?

[Cogneato]

By definition, this malware is 3rd party software. Users have to enter their admin password to install it. Just like any other third party software, I am not sure why people think that Apple should provide any support for it. For example, if I install some 3rd party shareware program that turns my pointer into a naked girl with bouncy boobs and it causes conflicts with other software or eats up system resources or sends out emails on my behalf, then I have zero expectation for Apple to supply support for the situation I got myself into.

Just because Apple sells both the hardware and OS doesn't mean they have to provide support for or have their staff trained to deal with every piece of software that could possibly run on that machine. The same is true of any computer with any OS. If you are typing in your password to install something, know what you are installing first. Duh.

Re:Why should Apple support 3rd party software?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep well put. This is akin to putting diesel into your petrol car and expecting
the automotive manufacturer to take the blame for your own silliness.

They should perhaps direct users to download both Sophos and AVG Linkscanner
(Both Free) but further than that Apple shouldn't support any 3rd party software that
has not gone through the official channels.

There is no cleaning

[symbolset]

Once malware has run on your box, it's a wipe and reinstall issue. And if it is a business machine then there are potential legal issues with disclosures and so on. In that environment there is no safe guidance a technician can give.

Apples and oranges.

[mosb1000]

The Zdnet article compares an internal apple memo relating to a brand new piece of malware that they're still figuring out how to deal with to Microsoft's stated policy which can be found on their website. It's not exactly a fair or meaningfull comparison, since what Apple will end up doing in the end is not yet known. The Apple memo is just a stop gap measure.

Applecare does not cover Malware

[cbytes]

There is a reason for this that most people eager to hate will conveniently overlook, Applecare does not cover malware. Apple is not bound by any agreement to diagnose or remove malware or repair problems caused by an an infected program or file. Also, if a Apple employee were to remove a file from an end user's computer and the computer stopped functioning in any way, Apple would be liable. They don't do it. Don't confuse their unwillingness to do stupid shit that leaves them at risk of a lawsuit as them "skirting" an issue.

Shouldn't they be...

[denzacar]

...instructing users to perform rituals which include special attire, dance-like moves and chanting in strange forgotten languages?
You know... the usual for such an "institution".

Re:..Not one, in 17 years.

[Fjandr]

No, not necessarily. I've run a lot of Windows boxes, and the ones that other people do not touch do not get infected. I've had to remove exactly one malware infestation on a machine that only I use, but plenty of them for friends, family, and work. This is distinct from servers, which are public, stationary targets.

And no, I'm not a Windows apologist. I dislike almost everything Microsoft stands for, but I dislike ignorant haters who decide to spout nonsense simply for the sake of seeing their words on a screen just as much.

This is not the virus you are looking for.

[Arancaytar]

It was swamp gas from a weather balloon that got trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus. Your Macintosh is fine. Trust Our Father Saint Jobs.

Re:This is not the virus you are looking for.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a virus at all, it's a trojan. It didn't even break through security to install itself, it just asked nicely that the user do it. This isn't a Mac-specific issue, it's a problem with user education.

Do a factory reset.

[leuk_he]

If you ever got support for some PC, you would know that after 3 minutes of tinkering they would default to the Factory reset, procedure. Something that might solve the problem (and remove alll custormer data... but hey... you got a backup not?).

Most helpdesks do not support 3th party software anyway, even if that software was installed via a exploit. You could call malware 3th party software. And then, there is software that is not clearly malware (like browser bars), that are installed with a question, but only make clear what they do if you manage the 10 page TOS.

So it's Apple's fault? Eh?

[pond0123]

So the consensus seems to be that Apple has convinced its users that they can't get viruses and don't need anti-virus, which is bad.

In fact, these users are apparently so convinced that they don't need anti-virus and can't get a virus, that the minute a web page tells them they do have a virus (which they believe they can't get), they download the fake anti-virus package (possibly paying for it first even though they believe they don't need it), double-click on the installer, click on "OK" to get past the "this may be malware" warning, click through the installer prompts and finally type in the administrator account user name and password to allow installation to proceed. You know, proceed to install that anti-virus package that Apple, being evil, convinced them they didn't need to install.

Seriously, is this some kind of new low? Asserting that people are convinced they don't need anti-virus and that's why they're installing anti-virus? :-)

Apple are indeed *so* desperate to deny that anti-virus is needed that they allow Intego AntiVirus to be sold through the Mac App Store of all places. That app's description even has headlines warning about this particular trojan, so it's up to date.

http://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/virusbarrier-plus/id430337549

Two obvious suggestions:

• (1) Snow Leopard includes a crude trojan detector ever since that pirate iWork installer trojan. Its recogniser patterns should have been updated by now via Software Update. If Apple are going to include such a feature, they should keep it up to date. IMHO this is the area where they should be receiving the most criticism and pressure, not all this useless hot air about internal memos to support staff.
  
  http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/apple-adds-malware-blocker-in-snow-leopard/4104
• (2) It would be useful if administrators could lock down non-adminstrator accounts so that only Mac App Store applications could be installed (in practice you'd probably widen this to insist that only *certificate signed* applications could be installed). That might even be a sensible default, provided of course that there was an option to override it. Similar to the Android store security model AIUI.

What antivirus?

[Anonymous Coward]

That so called OS X integrated antivirus is just a basic tool that can discover... hold your pants on... 4 viruses. FOUR!!!

Oh come in, it's right in the article!

[kurokaze]

For United States and Canada
The computer safety team is available for computer virus and for other security-related support 24 hours a day in the United States and in Canada.

To obtain computer virus and security-related support, follow these steps:

1.Before you contact a support engineer, make sure that you run updated antivirus software and updated spyware removal software on the infected computer.For more information about how to obtain a free computer safety scan, visit the following Microsoft Web site: http://www.microsoft.com/security/scanner/(http://www.microsoft.com/security/scanner/) For more information about antispyware software, visit the following Microsoft Web site:http://www.microsoft.com/protect/computer/spyware/as.mspx(http://www.microsoft.com/protect/computer/spyware/as.mspx)
2.Call 1-866-PCSAFETY or call 1-866-727-2338 to contact security support.

Apple 100% useless - regular repair tech fixes it

[Khyber]

http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/hfydw/macdefender_just_had_a_mac_checked_in_for_it_will/

Any further questions, Applefags?

That guy has ZERO certifications *I know him personally* and he just owned your entire paid-for support team.

Enjoy buying useless services that Apple can *NEVER* live up to.

Well this is like

[Anonymous Coward]

A car manufacturer being held responsible and having to find a solution to someone
who fills their petrol car with diesel..It's not their fault that people do silly things.

3rd party problems (Malware or not) issues affecting users are not Apples problem.
If it is an OS / Hardware issue then yes they need to attend to their customers technical
issues. They didn't create the problem - they are trying to deal with it best they can.