Why You Shouldn't Panic Over Mac Malware

Earlier this week, we discussed reports that Mac malware was finally becoming a significant problem. Now, reader wiredmikey points out an editorial arguing that everyone should slow down and analyze the situation more calmly so the threat can be accurately assessed. Quoting: "According to Apple, the Mac installed base is approximately 50 million users. But according to Gartner, the number of Android handsets sold in 2010 alone exceeded 67 million units, giving it an installed base that is larger, and growing much faster, than the Mac base. If a large numbers of eyeballs is indeed the lure that causes criminals to write malware for a given operating system, surely Android is a more tempting target than Mac OS. ... I predict that the increase in perceived risks to Mac customers will give Apple the excuse it needs to increase its control over the Mac software ecosystem, by moving ISVs to the Mac App Store. It is no accident that the theme of the upcoming Lion desktop operating system is 'Back to the Mac': taking concepts that Apple employed successfully with the mobile version of OS X (iOS) and back-porting them to the desktop OS. One of those features is the introduction of the Mac App Store, an Apple-controlled storefront for selling and distributing applications. ... This provides buyers some assurance that their apps are from known points of origin and that they don’t contain malware, such as the Mac Defender Trojan horse.

Comments

Safari browser exploits

[Robadob]

Safari browser exploits and other app exploits can still lead to installing malware on a machine.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[Lennie]

The solution is obvisous, disconnect all the ethernet connectors, wifi, bluetooth, usb, firewire, cd-/dvd-drives and whatever else you can think of and lock it in a bunker.

While you are at is, remove the user too. :-)

Maybe it will be a bit more secure after that.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[freedumb2000]

Then we will have reached perfection of the modern human. Independent, electronic thought machines acting autarkic shaping and controlling the world we live in. However those machines may decide to start infighting, destroying all infrastructure and/or removing the pesky humans all-together. Maybe stupid humans in front of "dumb" PCs is the best we can hope for ;)

Re:Safari browser exploits

[MoonBuggy]

Is that "in practice", "in theory" or "in the wild now"?

Re:Safari browser exploits

[hedwards]

Um, isn't that the direction Apple has been going lately? First they take the buttons, then they take most of the ability to install apps, all they need to do is require a password to turn the thing on and not give it out for the vision to be complete.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[bleble]

In the wild. That's how you rootkit your phone too. There's no reason why it wouldn't be used to install other crap on your phone.

I also find the comparison to Android funny;

But according to Gartner, the number of Android handsets sold in 2010 alone exceeded 67 million units, giving it an installed base that is larger, and growing much faster, than the Mac base. If a large numbers of eyeballs is indeed the lure that causes criminals to write malware for a given operating system, surely Android is a more tempting target than Mac OS.

Android has malware. And I think iPhone owners are better target money wise - mostly US rich kids.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[gnasher719]

Safari browser exploits and other app exploits can still lead to installing malware on a machine.

The point is that
this is not true. Use of a Safari feature that is very useful for anyone downloading legitimate software allows malware to be downloaded and Apple's installer to be started. But "Installer started" != "malware installed". There is this tiny, tiny little gap that the malware cannot cross if the user has a brain: To install the malware, the user has to willingly enter their administrator password. No administrator password, no malware.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[arisvega]

Ethernet? On a modern MacBook? Think again.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[brusk]

Easier just to disconnect the power. Pro tip: nearly 100% of malware infections occur in machines that are powered up.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[brusk]

Ethernet over USB.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[jmac_the_man]

To install the malware, the user has to willingly enter their administrator password. No administrator password, no malware.

But wait, Macs don't get malware. The hip guy in the commercial was making fun of the old fart for that. So since there's no malware, anything that wants my password must want it for a good reason, right?

Live by the incompetent, die by the incompetent.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[adamstew]

There is an ethernet port on my current generation MacBook Pro. The machine was refreshed about 3 months ago, and they are still including ethernet ports. In fact, the only computer that Apple produces that doesn't have an ethernet port is the MacBook Air. Every other computer has a gigabit ethernet port.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[jo_ham]

Every single Mac released since before the PPC era, and to this day, ships with an ethernet port with the exception of the Macbook Air.

All modern Macbooks and Macbook Pros have a gigabit ethernet port. GigE became standard around the time of the Powermac G4.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[LO0G]

I truely wish that were true. But if it were, there would be no malware for Windows Vista and Windows 7, since they also require that the user acknowledge a prompt before installation. And there would be no malware for Windows XP either (since it prompts users because a program downloaded from the internet might be dangerous).

Unfortunately a UAC prompt (or sudo prompt) doesn't stop the "I really want to see the dancing bunnies" problem - people will bypass any dialog box you put up to run their application. Consider the Bagle family of malware. They use a password protected Zip file for their payload and even though the user needs to enter the zip file's password, they *still* manage to propogate.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Is that "in practice", "in theory" or "in the wild now"?

What do you mean now? http://www.neowin.net/news/macbook-hacked-in-seconds-again

What do you mean "What do you mean now?" - As confirmed by your link: not out in the wild period. You can't win pwn2own with something out in the wild.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[hairyfeet]

This is why I figured it would only be a matter of time before Macs end up nearly as infested as Windows boxes. the last numbers I saw were something like an average income of $100,000 for Mac owners, which means snatching their CC numbers will be worth a hell of a lot more than snatching the CC from the girl that works the checkout at the Wally World who just got her a $400 Dell laptop.

This is something that both Linux and Apple users are simply gonna have to accept, it is simple really all computers are vulnerable period. ALL OSes, I don't care who makes them, are extremely complex piles of code with so many interactions on so many levels nobody can have a full grasp of all the variables anymore, and that is before you add third party code on top.

Can they be made more secure? Of course they can, which is why you see only 4 infections per 1000 on Windows 7 VS 14 per 1000 on WinXP. But no matter how well you harden the OS it always comes down to the user is the weak point which is why here in my shop I've seen Windows malware go from drive bys and exploits to nearly all social engineering based, it is simply easier if you can trick the user to help you.

In the end owning a Mac or running Linux doesn't instantly make you a CS genius or make you invulnerable to social engineering, as we saw with the Mac DNS changer bug or the KDE screensaver malware that went around a couple of years ago. It all comes down to how bad the bad guys want in, and how much working they are willing to do for a target.

What has protected Macs and Linux in the past is that malware writers like all criminals are naturally lazy creatures, and there was plenty of low hanging Windows machines to snatch. Now that Android is popping up everywhere and the malware guys are starting to realize Macs=money I have NO doubt things are gonna change, just as I have seen Windows malware going from exploit based to third party to social engineering. Times change, targets change, and I have a feeling so many have bought the "Macs don't get malware!" meme that until some really nasty bugs hit Mac guys are gonna be easy pickings. I've already seen it myself, with having to argue with a customer who swore up and down his Macs couldn't possibly be infected even as the DNS Changer bug was redirecting everything.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[Draek]

You're silly, and you've obviously never worked in tech support.

Here's the thing: even in the dreadful, woefully unsafe world of Windows '98 and ME, over 80% of malware infections could've been avoided by having the user learn some simple, seemingly obvious security tips such as do not install fucking Bonzi Buddy EVER AGAIN, you piece of useless, ignorant trash!!!, *ehem*. Yeah, like that.

Social Engineering is still the surest method to gain control of another machine, and the user is still in nearly all cases the most vulnerable part of a given system's security. So far, the only thing that has kept Mac users relatively safe so far has been their relative insignificance in the world of computing as a whole, but if black hats start targeting them seriously they'll buckle just as fast as their Windows brethren.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[Anonymous Coward]

And of course the only prevention is to not let the user download and install random software. All current desktop OS's could suffer from this problem, if such malware were ceated for it. You're basically saying a model like iOS is the only real safety.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[camperslo]

While you are at is, remove the user too. :-)

Yes, you'd better, those genetic exploits in the water supply can be a real pain

Re:Safari browser exploits

[kevinmenzel]

There has been, is, and always will be a trade-off when it comes to security. If you want to have the ability to do everything you possibly can with your machine, you have to acknowledge that someone can convince you to do those same things, but to their benefit instead of yours. It's like driving a car vs. riding a driverless subway system. When you drive a car, you have great freedom. You can go almost anywhere. Because of this, some people can be convinced to drive into lakes because their GPS says so. Hell, you can be killed by someone else because they decided to get massively drunk and then go drive their car. The car - generally speaking - doesn't care that you're driving into a lake, or driving into another car, or whatever - the car pretty much just drives. And you can make it beep as it approaches water - but some people will still gun it. A driverless subway system probably won't drive into a lake in normal operation. It's pretty much guarenteed to stay on the rails. As a passenger, you don't have a lot of control. The subway is useful - heck it can get you some places faster than a car, but it won't go everywhere you want it to go, It runs in a restricted environment. When you ride a driverless subway, you ARE protected against some device directing you into a lake if the tracks don't lead the train into a lake. Your route is very much protected against stupidity. It's not a perfect analogy, but the point remains: If you have freedom, you have freedom to be stupid and do bad things to yourself.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[DurendalMac]

Ethernet? On a modern MacBook Air? Think again.

FTFY. The Air is the only Mac without ethernet, and that's due to size limitations. I don't see it disappearing from other models anytime soon.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[DurendalMac]

Um...no, especially with XP. There were an ungodly amount of exploits that could screw your machine simply by loading an ad banner back in the day. There still are, although they are much fewer. I've seen plenty of malware that required no user consent beyond visiting an infected site. Thankfully Macs haven't yet seen this sort of drive-by exploit, but it's only a matter of time.

Then again, most malware would go away if users would install Common Sense 2.0.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[_Sprocket_]

What has protected Macs and Linux in the past is that malware writers like all criminals are naturally lazy creatures, and there was plenty of low hanging Windows machines to snatch. Now that Android is popping up everywhere and the malware guys are starting to realize Macs=money I have NO doubt things are gonna change, just as I have seen Windows malware going from exploit based to third party to social engineering. Times change, targets change, and I have a feeling so many have bought the "Macs don't get malware!" meme that until some really nasty bugs hit Mac guys are gonna be easy pickings. I've already seen it myself, with having to argue with a customer who swore up and down his Macs couldn't possibly be infected even as the DNS Changer bug was redirecting everything.

The problem is, we've heard this same thing for the past 10+ years. The malware is coming. Just you wait. 10 years later, the flood has yet to materialize.

That's not to say that everything not-Windows is immune. Quite the contrary. There has been malware targeting other platforms to include MacOS and Linux. They just don't do well. And thus, those platforms continue to avoid being low-hanging fruit. There has to be a change other than just "oh hey - we CAN target these other platforms!"

Re:Safari browser exploits

[DDLKermit007]

People use Safari on the Mac? I haven't used Safari on any of my Mac machines in YEARS. Last time I've used Safari was to download Firefox or Chrome. Not to mention, Safari isn't integrated into the OS like IE, so the attack isn't going to get you nearly as much. The user will still end up being prompted to enter their password if anything tries to cross that threshold. That kind of thing sets off a MUCH bigger bell in someone's head than "click yes to get awesome ringtones". Next straw man please!

Re:Safari browser exploits

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

They are more subtle than that. Ever tried to use one for development (anything other than obj-C) ? Macs are mostly useless now.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[macs4all]

Safari browser exploits and other app exploits can still lead to installing malware on a machine.

Curiously enough, however; I have never had that dubious "pleasure". And me and my Safari have been to some pretty nefarious sites in the past six or seven years since Safari debuted.

Having said that, I did install ClickToFlash after that hideous Flash exploit scare several months ago. Adobe (IIRC) patched the vulnerability; but I leave ClickToFlash enabled, simply because I thoroughly enjoy not having Flash suck down massive amounts of CPU just to constantly annoy me with advertisements. When I want to see particular Flash content, I simply click on the area that the Flash wants to execute in, and voila!

But that is the only "anti-malware" I have EVER run on my Mac. And it sits bare-nekkid on the internet, 24/7/365, running an ftp server with (read-only) anonymous access (on the standard port), a streaming video server (on port 80), and ssh (on the standard port). So far, lots and lots and LOTS of attempts (some probably being mounted as I type), but, all the time I've had it set up that way, none have successfully broken in.

So, I am just a little smug at this point. But I am not so smug as to not keep an eye out for that situation to eventually change...

Re:Safari browser exploits

[makomk]

To an installer that - fairly convincingly, from what I can tell - masquerades as something that'll leave you exposed to hacking if you don't install it, with not enough contradictory warnings from Apple to make most users think twice about it.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[macs4all]

Ethernet? On a modern MacBook? Think again.

WTF are you talking about?

Only the Macbook Air doesn't have a terrestrial Ethernet port.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Below average trolling this. From my mac :

Mac-mini:~ CharlyFoxtrot$ which ruby
/usr/bin/ruby
Mac-mini:~ CharlyFoxtrot$ which python
/usr/bin/python
Mac-mini:~ CharlyFoxtrot$ which java
/usr/bin/java
Mac-mini:~ CharlyFoxtrot$ which perl
/usr/bin/perl
Mac-mini:~ CharlyFoxtrot$ which cc
/usr/bin/cc
Mac-mini:~ CharlyFoxtrot$ which gcc
/usr/bin/gcc
Mac-mini:bin CharlyFoxtrot$ which nasm
/usr/bin/nasm

What the hell more do you need ?

Re:Safari browser exploits

[macs4all]

I truely wish that were true. But if it were, there would be no malware for Windows Vista and Windows 7, since they also require that the user acknowledge a prompt before installation. And there would be no malware for Windows XP either (since it prompts users because a program downloaded from the internet might be dangerous).

Unfortunately a UAC prompt (or sudo prompt) doesn't stop the "I really want to see the dancing bunnies" problem - people will bypass any dialog box you put up to run their application. Consider the Bagle family of malware. They use a password protected Zip file for their payload and even though the user needs to enter the zip file's password, they *still* manage to propogate.

But propagate at what rate?

One thing about the Mac community: Since there are zero, or nearly zero, malware threats of ANY sort, even the slowest-to-propagate Trojans INSTANTLY make headlines. That means, that within HOURS, the threat is effectively neutralized, because a critical mass of Mac owners are "clued-in" to the threat, and know to avoid it, and to tell their friends and family to avoid it, too.

Couple that with the fact that self-propagating malware seems, so far, impossible on OS X, and there is very little chance that the pleasant situation that Mac users enjoy will be changing anytime soon.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[Kalriath]

IE isn't integrated in Windows, just like Safari isn't integrated into OS X. Safari and IE are merely chrome around their respective HTML renderers - WebKit and Trident. Neither of which is "integrated" into the OS but both are used extensively by first party and third party applications.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[macs4all]

That point is only true if the software uses a builtin installer package. There is nothing that prevents me from creating a piece of malware that is just a .app instead.

Except for that whole "This application was downloaded from the Internet..." Alert on first-run.

Plus, I'm not so sure you could even FORCE an "app" (or ANYTHING) to download through Safari, JUST by visiting a website. PwnwOwn aside.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[macs4all]

People use Safari on the Mac? I haven't used Safari on any of my Mac machines in YEARS. Last time I've used Safari was to download Firefox or Chrome. Not to mention, Safari isn't integrated into the OS like IE, so the attack isn't going to get you nearly as much. The user will still end up being prompted to enter their password if anything tries to cross that threshold. That kind of thing sets off a MUCH bigger bell in someone's head than "click yes to get awesome ringtones". Next straw man please!

I use Safari. In fact, the only time I use Firefox is when some dumbass website refuses to work with Safari (about once or twice a year, and always having something to do with a "form").

Firefox for Mac sucks. It's my preferred browser when I am forced to use Windows; but Safari rocks on OS X. You need to give it another try.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[hairyfeet]

Uhhh when you have one of the Applecare reps saying things are getting worse here and you have Apple actively saying don't say the word or acknowledge malware infections? Then I don't think you have to worry about "its coming" as it is already here friend.

Just cause it hasn't bit you in the ass don't mean others aren't getting pwned. I personally haven't seen a bug on my windows machines since 99 but I wouldn't be foolish enough to say infections aren't rampant, I see them every day. Since there isn't something like MSRT on Mac frankly we have NO idea how badly the infections have already spread, and with Apple in full cover up mode we frankly may not know for months or maybe even a year or more. But just because Apple refuses to say the word doesn't mean it isn't spreading. On the contrary I would argue that the reason Apple refuses to say the word is it is spreading quickly and they are trying to do damage control. For all we know this may be the first mac "Code red" style nasty, we simply won't know until someone gathers the data.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[LO0G]

There's no difference between XP and OSX w.r.t. bugs in imaging codecs (and OSX has had plenty of them). You can 0wn the machine with either.

The original assertion was that the OSX's sudo prompt was some how better than Windows UAC prompt or XP's mark-of-the-web. And realistically they aren't really that different.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[shutdown -p now]

The problem is, we've heard this same thing for the past 10+ years. The malware is coming. Just you wait. 10 years later, the flood has yet to materialize.

10 years later, the market share of Windows on the desktop (= where users are clueless and install random crap) is still 90%. So it's no surprise that not much has changed.

Most malware is written to get money. Even if you can write it for some platform, it may not make economic sense to do so - if the effort of writing it is the same for both platforms, but for one you can hit 10x as many users on average than on the other, why would you target anything but the most popular one?

Re:Safari browser exploits

[thetartanavenger]

The point is that this is not true with this particular piece of malware.

FTFY

If you really think that there are no other exploits that can gain root access or other desired privileges then you are living in a dream world. Whether or not they have been discovered yet is irrelevant. And I can guarantee you that new ones will also be introduced at some point.

If you don't believe me just google "max exploit root" for proof that it has already happened at least once.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[_Sprocket_]

Uhhh when you have one of the Applecare reps saying things are getting worse here and you have Apple actively saying don't say the word or acknowledge malware infections? Then I don't think you have to worry about "its coming" as it is already here friend.

You're acting like this is the first case of MacOS malware. It's not. Another data point is hardly the flood we've been warned of.

It is, however, worth noting. It is worth watching. And it is worth seeing how this plays out. But I would be careful about extrapolating too much from it.

Just cause it hasn't bit you in the ass don't mean others aren't getting pwned. I personally haven't seen a bug on my windows machines since 99 but I wouldn't be foolish enough to say infections aren't rampant, I see them every day. Since there isn't something like MSRT on Mac frankly we have NO idea how badly the infections have already spread, and with Apple in full cover up mode we frankly may not know for months or maybe even a year or more.

Amazingly enough - we had some idea of the world of malware before Microsoft introduced MSRT. We don't need official word from Apple to get some insight as to what's going on in the world.

I also find it disingenuous to claim larger numbers due to an attempt to hide those numbers. What you're linking to is Apple not wanting to get engaged in the activity of malware removal. Whether that is appropriate or not on Apple's part could certainly be up to debate. But I find it hard to see this as deceptive on Apple's part. And while there is certainly going to be a surge in MacDefender cases, nothing so far indicates any real numbers much less perspective.

But just because Apple refuses to say the word doesn't mean it isn't spreading. On the contrary I would argue that the reason Apple refuses to say the word is it is spreading quickly and they are trying to do damage control. For all we know this may be the first mac "Code red" style nasty, we simply won't know until someone gathers the data.

Code Red was something entirely different. But at the face of it - could this be the beginning of increased targeting of the MacOS platform? Perhaps. But it is too early to tell.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[_Sprocket_]

10 years later, the market share of Windows on the desktop (= where users are clueless and install random crap) is still 90%. So it's no surprise that not much has changed.

I don't remember the predictions requiring a certain percentage marketshare increase. They simply predicted that Unix(-like) platforms were gaining users and thus malware would be all over them.

Most malware is written to get money. Even if you can write it for some platform, it may not make economic sense to do so - if the effort of writing it is the same for both platforms, but for one you can hit 10x as many users on average than on the other, why would you target anything but the most popular one?

Malware is (mostly) a business. True enough. Market share has to play a part. But the install base of alternative platforms do offer some significant numbers even if those numbers represent a very small slice of market share. The problem is, malware on those platforms do not survive. So yes - there's little return for investment in targeting them.

Of course - this is the same old debate. Just as we've heard doom-and-gloom for 10+ years, we've heard about market share being the sole savior of alternative platforms. Yet here we have another example of malware targeting a platform that is, according to some, too small to worry about. And here we have yet another prediction of doom and gloom. When it fails to appear, we'll hear about market share again.

I'm inclined to believe that the situation is much more complex than it is being portrayed in this thread or in the parent's predictions.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[shutdown -p now]

I don't remember the predictions requiring a certain percentage marketshare increase. They simply predicted that Unix(-like) platforms were gaining users and thus malware would be all over them.

The underlying premise for such predictions was always market share.

Though, frankly, I don't recall any predictions specifying hard terms. What I do recall are predictions such as "if Linux becomes popular, then it will have a lot of malware". If people were saying that it would be in 10 years, then either they had a very optimistic outlook of how Linux would develop, or did not understand the issue.

How much users have Unix(-like) platforms gained since 10 years ago?

Malware is (mostly) a business. True enough. Market share has to play a part. But the install base of alternative platforms do offer some significant numbers even if those numbers represent a very small slice of market share.

The question is still the same: why would you target those machines, even if they are significant, if you can target 10x as much for the same money spent?

The only counterargument is that there is currently a lack of competition for botnets and such on OS X and Linux, so that raises the ROI somewhat. I don't know how it all stakes up, but I'm pretty sure that, given the current ratio, targeting Windows desktops is still way more profitable, and will likely remain so for years to come.

Yet here we have another example of malware targeting a platform that is, according to some, too small to worry about.

The recent OS X malware story has been, frankly, blown out of proportion. This is largely because of a a stark contrast between it and Apple's rosy marketing materials (which strongly imply that there is no threat of malware on OS X, period), so most people focus on that, and there's a lot of downright gloating. But, rationally speaking, the threat of malware on OS X, while non-zero, is still minuscule. A clueless person is much more likely to get infected running Windows than OS X. So, yes, I stand by my assertion that OS X is "too small to worry about".

The doom and gloom will only come if OS X popularity skyrockets. Most likely, Apple will patch it up long before then by making Mac App Store the primary means of installing apps, and blocking non-app installs by default, with a checkbox disabling that buried somewhere deep in settings (or maybe even only settable via command line, like some other "hidden" OS X settings).

Re:Safari browser exploits

[Paul1969]

Kids? I don't know any iPhone owners under 30.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[tlhIngan]

There is this tiny, tiny little gap that the malware cannot cross if the user has a brain: To install the malware, the user has to willingly enter their administrator password. No administrator password, no malware.

The problem is something known as the Dancing Bunnies Problem (or Dancing Pigs)

Users will do even very sophisticated things to do what they want. Even if it involves installing a bunch of malware or opening a bunch of security holes in their PC.

It's how iPhones get jailbroken ("users want apps for FREE"). Or alternative Android Markets are installed (free apps!). Even if they have to install things like OpenSSH and SSH into their phones, they'll do it.

Hell, have you seen some of the Facebook spams these days? "Copy and paste this javascript", etc.

The era where the "Honor System Virus" is now.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[_Sprocket_]

I don't remember the predictions requiring a certain percentage marketshare increase. They simply predicted that Unix(-like) platforms were gaining users and thus malware would be all over them.

The underlying premise for such predictions was always market share.

Though, frankly, I don't recall any predictions specifying hard terms. What I do recall are predictions such as "if Linux becomes popular, then it will have a lot of malware". If people were saying that it would be in 10 years, then either they had a very optimistic outlook of how Linux would develop, or did not understand the issue.

How much users have Unix(-like) platforms gained since 10 years ago?

At the most fundimental level, popularity was a point. But there wasn't a prediction of X% market share being a tipping point. It was always simple increased popularity drawing the attention of malware authors. And indeed, there WAS additional malware. It just didn't bloom in to the predicted plague.

As for increased number of Unix/Unix-like users... good question. Linux has always been hard to track. But Apple posts numbers sales numbers. In May 2010, it was estimated that Mac OS X had a 7.83% market share. Forrester claimed a count of 1.2 billion personal computers in that time period so the Mac user population was about 93.96 million. Those numbers have increased over the last year.

The question is still the same: why would you target those machines, even if they are significant, if you can target 10x as much for the same money spent?

The only counterargument is that there is currently a lack of competition for botnets and such on OS X and Linux, so that raises the ROI somewhat. I don't know how it all stakes up, but I'm pretty sure that, given the current ratio, targeting Windows desktops is still way more profitable, and will likely remain so for years to come.

Why does it have to be either or? Sure - Windows is a nice big target. It's also a well-known target full of other players, anti-malware, dedicated support, etc. If the Unix install base is so ripe for the plucking, a big chunk of a smaller pie would fit nicely in to one's botnet along with all the usual victims.

The recent OS X malware story has been, frankly, blown out of proportion. This is largely because of a a stark contrast between it and Apple's rosy marketing materials (which strongly imply that there is no threat of malware on OS X, period), so most people focus on that, and there's a lot of downright gloating. But, rationally speaking, the threat of malware on OS X, while non-zero, is still minuscule. A clueless person is much more likely to get infected running Windows than OS X. So, yes, I stand by my assertion that OS X is "too small to worry about".

Too small to worry about yet still being targeted - I stll find that an interesting dichotomy. I do agree that the threat is blown out of proportions and so are the continued predictions of doom. Indeed - complacency would help bring about said doom. We should watch carefully. But I don't see any evidence to support that this is any sort of tipping point.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

How about working libraries ? A decent package manager actually containing most of the libraries I use (like all debian variants have, and, to a slightly lesser degree, all redhat variants have too).

Installing such trivialities as NumPy on Mac OS X is about as easy as it is on Windows. It's not that hard (unless there are conflicts), but removing something you installed is all but impossible.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[CharlyFoxtrot]

How about working libraries ? A decent package manager actually containing most of the libraries I use (like all debian variants have, and, to a slightly lesser degree, all redhat variants have too).

You mean package manager like Fink, Macports or Homebrew ? They are useful for installing FOSS stuff. Personally I can't stand package managers the way they work on Linux, nothing like having to update half your DE because you install a new package and it requires a dot update of some library. You don't see that insanity on any other Unix.

Installing such trivialities as NumPy on Mac OS X is about as easy as it is on Windows. It's not that hard (unless there are conflicts), but removing something you installed is all but impossible.

That's really the fault of the person who created the package for not providing an uninstall script, and a bit like complaining doing a "configure; make ; make install" makes it hard to uninstall stuff.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[AmiMoJo]

Newsflash: this is how 90% of malware works.

Also the GP's point is true, in the same way that sometimes flaws in IE or Chrome or Firefox allow privilege escalation to admin level and automatic installation of malware. Check out the pwn2own competitions, every year someone finds a way to do this on a fully patched MacOS system running Safari.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

That's really the fault of the person who created the package for not providing an uninstall script, and a bit like complaining doing a "configure; make ; make install" makes it hard to uninstall stuff.

Exactly. I guess I'm just used to better service.

Besides, that's just the start of the things configure; make; make install; makes hard. Getting stuff into reasonable directories for your specific distribution. Integrating the libraries with ... take your pick ... pkg-config, python, X, kde, the start menu, ... all of it cannot reliably happen with configure make make install ...

Again, I'm not saying it's becoming impossible. I'm just used to have all this stuff solved for me. I really don't want to go back to doing it myself.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[archen]

That was the common hole for the floppy boot sector virus. Granted it didn't spread while the machine was off, but worked based on the assumption that a lot of PCs would boot to the floppy drive first. After which the virus could bypass everything and install itself to the hard drive. Got hit with that one myself when making a recovery disk from another machine ironically.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[DDLKermit007]

Yeah, since like Windows 7 it's not integrated into Windows in the sense it can be "uninstalled" but not really. Yet it still has a ton of privelages even in 7 it has zero buisness having. Safari is just another dumb application as far as OSX is considered. Any exploit to try to get something running outside of it's box is still going to have to interact with the OS, and throw a flag up like asking for the local machine username & password. Worst someone might get in 7 is a UAC prompt which people will outright disable because it's annoying. Everything before 7? Yeah, theres a reason I've had, and still have a large number of infected XP, Vista, and 7 machines to work on that keep me quite busy.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[Coren22]

If you truly believe that Safari isn't integrated into OSX, try to remove it.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[Kalriath]

No, it's not integrated into Windows. It has never been integrated into Windows (though Trident was entrenched a little too deeply in Win2000 and lower, it's certainly never been "in the kernel" like some of the Open Source FUD Movement would have you believe). At all. It's in fact less priviledged than other applications on the system even (on Vista and 7 where such sandboxing is possible) - to run any code outside the user's little space, it needs to call across to an application running outside the sandbox (which requires UAC approval the first time). The only thing that makes this insecure is that Windows allows Adobe software to be installed (Flash's helper has a "run arbitrary executable" and "save arbitrary file" function, defeating the purpose). One could argue that Safari has more priviledges it has zero business having.

And just to point out, Windows 7 can be configured to demand the user password for UAC prompts too. The only difference from Mac OS is that you get to choose how annoying you want it to be or disable it. Arguably, maybe you shouldn't be able to do that.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[DarwinSurvivor]

Not sure, but he may have been talking about the iPhone being one of the first PHONES without buttons.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[DarwinSurvivor]

How did the parent get modded Troll? That is a VERY accurate description of the mentality of 99% of non-slashdot mac owners in my experience.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[Orffen]

You have to open the /Applications folder in Finder (instead of from the dock), but you can drag it into the trash with an admin password. Same with the rest of the iLife apps.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[Coren22]

"This operation cannot be completed because you don't have permission to some of the items" I did delete it before, but it just comes back.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[DDLKermit007]

Yeah, you can, however people won't configure UAC to ask for passwords. The war on that kind of thing has been lost ages ago with Windows users. Not to mention, to run all the legacy crap Windows users want almost always wants escalated privelages. Hell, Skype for instance wants elevated privelages, and it's a current day app. OSX? Theres a model devs either follow, or watch user's complain when their software asks for rights it has zero buisness requesting. Putting an app doesn't need admin access, installing files outside of the regular App-space? Yes, it's my one big gripe with MS-Office & Adobe CS on OSX. Both were coded in the Windows mentality which is a giant heap of crap.

Re:Safari browser exploits

[Kalriath]

Tried Office 2011 for Mac? It actually seems pretty good - all the apps are in /Applications, doesn't seem to install arbitrary extra crap, and no longer runs on top of an emulation layer.

What ? So android will be apple's lighting rod ?

[Anonymous Coward]

These are the most twisted arguments I've ever read to be honest.
It goes like this:
1) hackers, malware makers will not find Apple interesting as they are too busy with android.
2) Apple's further monopoly on the distribution mechanisms for content and applications, creating an unphantomed money making machine, is their antivirus solution.

Now I am _really_ panicked

[minderaser]

"...will give Apple the excuse it needs to increase its control over the Mac software ecosystem, by moving ISVs to the Mac App Store" Really? So, the most insanely controlled software monoculture is getting attacked maliciously and the response is to become MORE anal? Yea, that's gonna work. Move along people ... nothing to see here.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[Anonymous Coward]

It's probably not a popular opinion here, but my experience with the Mac App store is very positive. It works well, no installation hassles, automatic upgrades,... and I have the impression that it drives the price down.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[node 3]

Yeah, this story is complete bullshit. Apple is not going to lock down Mac OS X Lion. There's no way they can use this current trojan as an excuse to do something which makes no damned sense in the first place. Apple will not cripple Mac OS X. The only remotely possible thing is that 10.8 could have a security model that defaults to only allowing signed apps, but the user can toggle a System Preference to enable it. However, even this is of extremely low likelihood. Mac OS X and iOS are not the same OS. What's good for one OS is not necessarily good for the other. That's why there are two OS's in the first place! Tech "writers" need to figure this out.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[sunspot42]

Yeah, this story is complete bullshit. Apple is not going to lock down Mac OS X Lion.

I disagree. I think Apple probably will ship a locked-down version of OS X sometime in the next couple of years, and it'll be the default version of the OS. Yeah, you'll still be able to unlock it, but it may not be particularly easy - indeed, the ability to unlock may only be available in a separate "professional" version of the OS.

And I think given the stupidity of the average user (Mac, PC, Android, whatever), this is probably not a bad thing.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[PopeRatzo]

Apple will not cripple Mac OS X.

It's not "crippling", it's revenue enhancement.

And, yes, they will certainly lock down OSX. You may still be able to buy a Mac Pro with an unlocked OS, but I'm willing to bet that soon all iMacs and MacBooks will be 100% walled garden.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[stewbacca]

And, yes, they will certainly lock down OSX.

Ahh, the inevitably incorrect Apple prediction. The most valuable tech company in the world that was predicted dead in 1997...the company that killed the floppy drive prematurely...the company that adopted USB too early...the company with the lame mp3 player.

You may still be able to buy a Mac Pro with an unlocked OS, but I'm willing to bet that soon all iMacs and MacBooks will be 100% walled garden.

That is possibly the most stupid prediction I've seen. Why would the company who is getting ready to consolidate OSX Server and OSX Home into ONE edition --OSX Lion-- start making different versions of the OS based on the user's hardware?

Keep predicting slashdotters, because my livelihood benefits from your terrible predictions.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[boristhespider]

I'd be willing to take you up on that bet. It would be suicide -- the number of people buying Macbooks (particularly Macbook Pros) would plummet. I use one because I like having a Unix with a tarty windowing system. Take that away and I put Linux on the machine instead and live with KDE or XFCE, and *everyone* working with me will do the same because we need the GNU toolchain to do our work and the ability to install niche software that's unlikely to appear in the App Store.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[DarkXale]

Shipping a locked an non-locked version is trivial. Its the equivalent of "Windows 7 Home Premium" and "Windows 7 Enterprise", or "Ultimate" as its known by most folk. OSX lost the server wars, so thats why its getting consolidated into the main OS.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[dimeglio]

Maybe this part of a strategy to eventually get Macs back into the enterprise.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[Bing Tsher E]

The most valuable tech company in the world that was predicted dead in 1997..

And then it died, and the brand was purchased by NeXT...

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[XManticore]

This is something Apple took the piss out of a couple years back, why would they start doing it with their own products?

To paraphrase SJ when he was introducing Mac OS 10.whateveritwas: "We have a Basic Edition that retails at $99. Moving up from that, you can purchase the Home Edition, also for $99, or the Business Edition for $99. And if you want the luxury of having all the features that we've built into Mac OS X, you can go all out and purchase the Ultimate Edition –at just $99".

They're not going to feature lock. This would just be daft.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[stewbacca]

Apple purchased NeXT in 1996, not the other way around.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[DarkXale]

Not agreeing they may do it - just saying its a trivial thing TO do if Apple does want to. Companies do 180s plenty of times; Apple has made numerous headlines doing so in the past.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[Kral_Blbec]

*Hardware not included

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[FiloEleven]

It's not "crippling", it's revenue enhancement.

I first read that as "reverse enhancement," which strikes me as a great term for such theorized future features!

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[Deathlizard]

To Apple, OS X is dead. Lion is the first push towards killing it.

From everything I'm seeing so far from Apple, They will be betting on iOS in the future for their OS offerings. It's got a huge userbase, has much more apps available, and has proven to scale very well to large format screens and processors.

I mean, when's the last time you saw a Steve Jobs E-mail that said "Sent from my iMac" instead of his iPad?

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[pandrijeczko]

Ahh, the inevitably incorrect Apple prediction. The most valuable tech company in the world that was predicted dead in 1997...the company that killed the floppy drive prematurely...the company that adopted USB too early...the company with the lame mp3 player.

I really like home-made rice pudding. And as a statement that is completely irrelevant to your comment about just like your comment above was completely irrelevant to the statement you picked out. Please try to stay on topic, maybe just wipe some of the spittle off your screen first though.

That is possibly the most stupid prediction I've seen. Why would the company who is getting ready to consolidate OSX Server and OSX Home into ONE edition --OSX Lion-- start making different versions of the OS based on the user's hardware?

It's called "porting" - it's quite common in the software industry, I am led to believe.

Keep predicting slashdotters, because my livelihood benefits from your terrible predictions.

So you make money based on the bad predictions of others??? What are you, an undertaker or something?

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I disagree. I think Apple probably will ship a locked-down version of OS X sometime in the next couple of years, and it'll be the default version of the OS.

So.. what, they're going to set OSX so that you can no longer have executables unless Apple okays them? You won't be able to run scripts anymore?

Sorry, I can't see this. OSX wasn't designed to support the idea of locking down where the software comes from like the iPhone/iPad has. When they make a laptop that uses iOS, however, then you'll see your 'locked down Mac'.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[Duradin]

The author was probably just pissed because he didn't get raptured and doesn't feel complete without some sort of end-of-days prediction.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[similar_name]

Apple will not cripple Mac OS X.

The immediate response that comes to mind is Apple 'crippled' iOS so why would a locked down Mac not work? Once Photoshop and some audio/video software is signed on would most people even notice? The average user spends most of their time on the web anyway.

That's why there are two OS's in the first place! Tech "writers" need to figure this out.

There are many reasons for having two OS's. (for instance at one point MS offered two fundamentally different lines of Windows before merging them). I personally don't think having a controlled software channel is the reason here. From Apple's standpoint doesn't iOS seem to be much more successful than Mac OS? Why wouldn't they be motivated to make MacOS more like iOS?

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[stewbacca]

No, I make money on Apple technologies. The more your types make bad predictions, the more my salary increases every year.

And my apt examples of previous predictions of Apple doom are relevant to a discussion about how some random guy on slashdot thinks Apple will lock-in their OS. If anything, Apple predictions by the haters are usually the exact opposite of reality, and I expect that to hold true this time as well.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

I think Apple probably will ship a locked-down version of OS X sometime in the next couple of years,

In the same way that one of the next years will be the year of Linux on the Desktop?

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

but I'm willing to bet that soon all iMacs and MacBooks will be 100% walled garden.

Okay. How much?

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[Draek]

Ahh, the inevitably incorrect Apple prediction. The most valuable tech company in the world that was predicted dead in 1997...the company that killed the floppy drive prematurely...the company that adopted USB too early...the company with the lame mp3 player.

The company with the failed PDA, the company that started the idiotic but mercifully short-lived "fruity colors" fad, the company that shouldn't have tried to replace USB with Firewire, the company that should've allowed mice with more than a single button, the company whose closed ecosystem would lead to its cellphone market being overtaken by a competitor's open alternative.

But I guess in your world none of those ever came to pass either, Android died a quick, merciful death just as Windows did due to its confusing idea of having a "right click", and the bright pink iPhones are a hit comparable only to the original Apple Newton. Pity that you somehow got transported to this world, though.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[SomePgmr]

I think it probably is a pretty popular opinion here. The only complication is in calling it "Mac App store" instead of "official repos". ;)

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[stewbacca]

More of a pity is your ability to mold reality to fit your view instead of accepting it for what it is--reality.

Apple never tried to get rid of USB with Firewire. They did, however, get rid of serial ports by being one of the earliest adapters of USB, and took a lot of heat for doing so, only to be right in hindsight.

If Newton is the best flop you can come up with, then you haven't been paying attention.

iPhones don't come in pink, and there's more to life than having the #1 market share. Notice I don't make predictions about Android success, but Apple haters love to make predictions (incorrect ones at that) about Apple.

The one button mouse argument wasn't very good in 1995, let alone at any time during the 2000s. I've had a multiple button mouse ever since OS 7 or so.

Apple didn't become the most valuable tech company in the world with pink iPhones and one-button mice, regardless of how you might want to think that true.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[PopeRatzo]

That is possibly the most stupid prediction I've seen.

Aren't you the guy who said exactly the same thing to me about eight months ago when I said that Apple would bring the App Store to OSX?

Yes, I think that's you. You said something about how Apple would never do that to its development community.

My "predictions about Apple" have been good enough that Apple stock is putting my daughter through a private university. I'll put that up against your fanatical devotion to Apple.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[PopeRatzo]

It would be suicide -- the number of people buying Macbooks (particularly Macbook Pros) would plummet. I use one because I like having a Unix...

I don't think most MacBook buyers care about "having a Unix", nor do they care about the "niche software" that won't appear in the App Store. They care about "the user experience" and as long as Apple provides the same polished and stylish experience, being behind a walled garden wouldn't affect MacBook sales one bit.

The walled garden didn't stop you from buying an iPhone or iPad, and I don't believe that when the day comes it will stop you from buying a MacBook. And maybe Apple will keep the top-of-the line Macbook outside the garden, as I predict they will with the Mac Pro.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[pandrijeczko]

So your salary increases based on other people making bad predictions about Apple? Surely that would be more to do with revenue from canny investments - i.e. taking advantage of share prices when they are low?

Sorry, a bit out of my depth anyway. I'm a techie who fixes stuff, I earn enough money not to be too bothered about the acquisition of more above all else in life.

Why do Apple people always whine on about money?

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[DDLKermit007]

You do realize that's a marketing ploy in itself rite? Signtures are really easy to change. Every email is a marketing tool for Apple. Plus really, I don't see Jobs as a chained to his desk type. Even with his ailing physical state.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[DDLKermit007]

I don't mean to nitpick, but the server edition is actually $499. Ulimited client however, which does make it way cheaper than almost any version of non-home based Windows servers. Simple as hell to setup too.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[node 3]

Nerds like to say this "ooh, I'm afraid Apple will do just this!", but they give NO REASONING WHY Apple would do this other than "I see that's how they are going".

They will never, EVER, make it difficult to install your own software on Mac OS X. This is because MACS AREN'T IPHONES. Something slashdotters have a hard time understanding. Apple's reasoning for locking down iOS make sense for handheld devices. Those very same reasons do not apply to Macs. There is no "the way Apple is headed".

When you say they will lock it down "in the next couple of years", you are saying it will be 10.8 that is locked down. So, you expect Apple to be able to force Adobe and Microsoft and the hundreds of custom and niche ISVs to go through the Mac App Store? And force users to buy all new apps? This quite simply will not, and can not, happen. It makes no technological sense.

Nor will Apple make a "Pro" version of Mac OS X. You are thinking of the other guys. Apple shies away from artificial product distinctions. Mac OS X Lion, for example, will do away with the distinction between a Server and non-server product. Making a "Mac OS X Pro Edition" would be exceptionally non-Apple like. So much so that it's pretty much impossible.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[node 3]

Macs already are in the enterprise, just not on the server side of things. I don't see how a locked-down system will make them more compelling servers.

But in no way would Apple make Macs less compelling to the consumer market simply to target the enterprise.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[node 3]

To Apple, OS X is dead. Lion is the first push towards killing it.

From everything I'm seeing so far from Apple, They will be betting on iOS in the future for their OS offerings. It's got a huge userbase, has much more apps available, and has proven to scale very well to large format screens and processors.

I mean, when's the last time you saw a Steve Jobs E-mail that said "Sent from my iMac" instead of his iPad?

This is absurd. Apple will not stop making Mac OS X until they stop making Macs. Are you trying to say they are going to stop selling Macs any time soon? That's absolutely absurd. As is the claim that a new and improved version of Mac OS X is a push towards killing Mac OS X. They are in the process of upgrading all their Macs to Sandy Bridge CPUs and their newly rolled out Thunderbolt bus.

They are not going to kill the Mac any time this decade, and neither are they going to kill Mac OS X. They would never do something like that while so many people want them.

Sometimes I wonder how nerds can be so smart and so stupid at the exact same time.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[node 3]

Apple will not cripple Mac OS X.

It's not "crippling", it's revenue enhancement.

And, yes, they will certainly lock down OSX. You may still be able to buy a Mac Pro with an unlocked OS, but I'm willing to bet that soon all iMacs and MacBooks will be 100% walled garden.

No, they won't do this. Ratz, you are a fucking idiot who has never had a single one of your Apple "doom" predictions come to pass. What makes you think this, one of the most insanely absurd, will come true?

Define "soon", put it in your sig. Something like "by 2015, all consumer Macs will be locked down" (and 2015 is me being generous with your claim of "soon").

They will never make a "Pro" version of Mac OS X. They will never lock down Mac OS X the way iOS is locked down. MACS AREN'T IPHONES. They will not remove the Unix underpinnings of Mac OS X, they will not remove the ability to compile your own software for Mac OS X. They will NEVER remove the ability to install software from whatever source you wish.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[node 3]

No one ever said it wasn't trivial, just that it's not the sort of thing Apple does.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[node 3]

That is possibly the most stupid prediction I've seen.

Aren't you the guy who said exactly the same thing to me about eight months ago when I said that Apple would bring the App Store to OSX?

You mean long after the rumors that Apple would make a Mac App Store? Wow, how prescient of you!

But no, the stupid prediction wasn't that Apple would make a Mac App Store, but that it would be like iOS, where it's the only way to get Mac apps. Now, *THAT'S* stupid.

Yes, I think that's you. You said something about how Apple would never do that to its development community.

My "predictions about Apple" have been good enough that Apple stock is putting my daughter through a private university. I'll put that up against your fanatical devotion to Apple.

Not a single one of your negative predictions have come true. That you were right in predicting AAPL would continue its decade-long rise is not impressive, and rather contradicts your notion that Apple is going to lock down Mac OS X.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[node 3]

Apple will not cripple Mac OS X.

The immediate response that comes to mind is Apple 'crippled' iOS so why would a locked down Mac not work?

For three very huge reasons:

1. iOS was never *not* locked down.
2. The reasons to lock down a mobile OS do not similarly apply to a PC OS.
3. It will not make Macs more compelling, and in fact do just the opposite.

Quite simply: the Mac is not an iPhone.

Once Photoshop and some audio/video software is signed on would most people even notice? The average user spends most of their time on the web anyway.

If the "average user" won't notice, what would be Apple's motivation? There would be no benefit, and would simply completely alienate everyone who relies on their Macs being a PC.

That's why there are two OS's in the first place! Tech "writers" need to figure this out.

There are many reasons for having two OS's. (for instance at one point MS offered two fundamentally different lines of Windows before merging them). I personally don't think having a controlled software channel is the reason here. From Apple's standpoint doesn't iOS seem to be much more successful than Mac OS? Why wouldn't they be motivated to make MacOS more like iOS?

No one is saying they won't make Mac OS X more like iOS (and vice versa), but that's not the claim being discussed. The claim is that Apple would make the monumentally moronic move of locking down their PC OS. PC's don't take kindly to being locked down. That severely undermines their utility. Of course Apple cross pollenate iOS and Mac OS X (both are, in fact, variants of OS X (note the lack of "Mac") after all), but they won't put things into iOS from Mac OS X that don't make iOS better, and they won't do the reverse.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[betterunixthanunix]

A well functioning app store is not what we object to. We object to the situation Apple has created with the iPhone/iPad/etc. were you are not allowed to install software that is not from the app store.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[PopeRatzo]

You mean long after the rumors that Apple would make a Mac App Store? Wow, how prescient of you!

It's not that I'm so prescient, but that so many people denied that there would be a Mac App Store after the rumors abounded.

But no, the stupid prediction wasn't that Apple would make a Mac App Store, but that it would be like iOS, where it's the only way to get Mac apps. Now, *THAT'S* stupid.

And yet, incrementally, that's exactly what's going to happen. And I agree, it is stupid.

Not a single one of your negative predictions have come true.

Why do you believe they are "negative"? The app store is quite a success for Apple. The locked-down platforms are Apple's biggest successes. Are you suggesting that locked-down platforms are "negative"? Who are you to dare disagree with Apple's business model?

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[PopeRatzo]

MACS AREN'T IPHONES.

Are iPads iPhones? Why are they locked down?

When MacBooks have cellular transceivers built in will they be iPhones then?

The first locked-down Apple laptop will come out before Christmas of 2013.

As long as I'm making predictions, I predict the rest of your hair will fall out before you lose your virginity.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[Deathlizard]

I give it 5 years tops. Lion is not only a step towards that direction, but also a test. If apps on macs start selling faster than expected, kiss the Mac as you know it goodbye and replaced with a desktop sized IPad. As for them updating macs, yes they're upgrading them now. Now how about a year from now? Two Years? throughout their current presentations you keep hearing the "Post PC" era. What do you think that means to Apple. Why do you think there's already rumors of Apple dumping Intel for their own in house Arm Chip? And as for Thunderbolt, there's talk that Thunderbolt is DOA

As for the people wanting Mac's, that easy. You get Steve Jobs on a stage and say that "OSX is dead" and "IDesk" is the future of Apple" and problem solved. The people want what Apple Tells them to want.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[CharlyFoxtrot]

We object to the situation Apple has created with the iPhone/iPad/etc. were you are not allowed to install software that is not from the app store.

It'll never happen. The best evidence for this is that "analysts" keep saying it will, you know the same bunch of "experts" that wrote off Apple for dead a decade ago and have been wrong every step of the way since.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[CharlyFoxtrot]

the ability to unlock may only be available in a separate "professional" version of the OS.

Apple has never done this. They've got exactly 2 version of OSX: client and server and those differ only in a very few extra tools. They are not MS with their myriad confusing versions.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[CharlyFoxtrot]

I don't think most MacBook buyers care about "having a Unix", nor do they care about the "niche software" that won't appear in the App Store. They care about "the user experience" and as long as Apple provides the same polished and stylish experience, being behind a walled garden wouldn't affect MacBook sales one bit.

There are more of us than you think, I see a lot of macs among unix admins. Anecdotal ? Maybe, but then so are your opinions on the matter.

The walled garden didn't stop you from buying an iPhone or iPad, and I don't believe that when the day comes it will stop you from buying a MacBook. And maybe Apple will keep the top-of-the line Macbook outside the garden, as I predict they will with the Mac Pro.

Another anecdote: a lot of people in my experience hold off buying the latest iPhone until there's a jailbreak and a lot more buy in the presumption that there will be a jailbreak in the near future (a pretty safe bet.) You can't say how these people would react in your hypothetical. And sadly we'll never know because it'll never happen :-)

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[macs4all]

I don't like it but it is positive for many other users. However I doubt this one is true in any way.

and I have the impression that it drives the price down

Many apps, especially the numerous simple games are free on every other platform.

Citation, please?

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[shutdown -p now]

my experience with the Mac App store is very positive. It works well, no installation hassles, automatic upgrades

I generally agree, but with one notable exception: Xcode.

Those who have installed it from App Store should know what I mean.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[macs4all]

Yeah, this story is complete bullshit. Apple is not going to lock down Mac OS X Lion. There's no way they can use this current trojan as an excuse to do something which makes no damned sense in the first place.

It would be suicide to do so. Apple did not climb to having the second-highest market cap of ANY corporation by being stupid.

The only remotely possible thing is that 10.8 could have a security model that defaults to only allowing signed apps, but the user can toggle a System Preference to enable it. However, even this is of extremely low likelihood.

And even if they do move to a "signed-only" app model, I would bet my bottom-dollar that the only requirement to get a "signature" would be to package your app with XCode (which would then generate and transmit back to Apple a valid signature for the app), after signing-into your Apple Developer account. IMHO, as a Mac user since they were called Lisas, THAT sounds like an "Apple Approach". Minimally intrusive to the user, maximally-tied to the Developer. Could such an approach be circumvented? Sure. But not often enough to be anything more than a minor annoyance to Mac-users. And, I would be willing to bet that even THAT would do nothing more than throw an Alert on first-run; just like the Internet Downloaded Apps do right now. And in fact, I bet that Apple believes that what they are doing right now, combined with additional things like sandboxing, EX-bit control, and ASLR (which are all much more robust in Lion), is going to obviate the need for draconian app-signing systems.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[stewbacca]

Nope, wasn't me. The App Store was a complete surprise to me the day I downloaded whatever patch it came with.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[macs4all]

To Apple, OS X is dead. Lion is the first push towards killing it.

Citation, please?

You DO realize that Apple has floated, and subsequently REMOVED, a few iOS-like features in Lion?

If they ever even thought that, they certainly got the message from their developers that Lion was NOT to become "iOS-Pro", but was rather to remain much as it has been. See the dialog "Tabs" and scroll-bar changes that were in, then back out, of Developer Previews. (Actually, the scroll-bar thing might still be there as a switchable option). Heck, I can STILL decide whether I want my scroll arrows together at one end of scroll bars, or at each end, and that change was made AGES ago!

Will there be UI changes? Sure. Every major revision of OS X has had some. Some welcomed, some not so much (Translucent Menu Bar, I'm looking at you!). But in Lion, those UI changes seem to be coming mostly in the form of toned-down "Aquafication" of the UI (less blatant eye-candy), and (IMHO, as a result of requests from Windows-switchers who insist on running everything "full-screen", and who can't fathom the difference between Windows' full-screen button and OS X's "Zoom To Content" button) a "single-window mode". But the user is in NO WAY being relegated to the "app-runner" status that they are in iOS.

From everything I'm seeing so far from Apple, They will be betting on iOS in the future for their OS offerings. It's got a huge userbase, has much more apps available, and has proven to scale very well to large format screens and processors.

But the iOS apps are, by and large, not really "desktop quality". Some are certainly getting there; but, in order to make iOS apps run on the Mac, they would either have to: 1)Give up the Intel archtecture. Suicide, and they know it. 2)Make a Classic-Like Virtualization layer for iOS apps. Frankly, I'm not exactly sure why they haven't done that; but I would bet a fair amount that the real reason is that Apple is, first and foremost, a hardware company. There are a certain percentage of Mac-owners who would NOT buy an iOS device if they could simply run iOS apps in a window on their Mac. Plus, there is the fact that, unless they artificially crippled the iOS emulator, the iOS apps would run SO much faster on the typical multi-core Mac (even under a JIT-powered emulation), that those people owning both would start (wrongly) thinking that their iOS devices were "slow". And Apple knows full well what the "pundits" would do with THAT...

And all of this conveniently ignores the fact that iOS and OS X are, in many ways, already much the same under the hood. But, Apple cannot give up the Cocoa API (which is mouse-oriented) for CocoaTouch (which is not). To do so would instantly relegate nearly ALL of the OS X applications to the "non-useable" status. Do you REALLY think Apple is suicidal?

I mean, when's the last time you saw a Steve Jobs E-mail that said "Sent from my iMac" instead of his iPad?

So, you really think that SJ doesn't use his Macs every single day? The reason that you see these emails is that SJ probably DOES use his iPad for email (and likely browsing), because he can kick-back in his armchair and do so; rather than being chained to a desk (as I am right now)... But I would imagine that he spends as much, if not more, time on his MacBook Pro and his Mac Pro (do you really think he messes with an iMac?) when he needs his desktop apps and/or huge amounts of screen real estate.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[macs4all]

Shipping a locked an non-locked version is trivial. Its the equivalent of "Windows 7 Home Premium" and "Windows 7 Enterprise", or "Ultimate" as its known by most folk. OSX lost the server wars, so thats why its getting consolidated into the main OS.

Apple has actually figured out that, for every mega-corporation with racks and racks of blinking server lights, there are 10,000 small businesses and homes that need a few "server-y" functions; but without the baggage of a full-blown, rackmount server. That, and it is infinitely less expensive for Apple to package, inventory, and maintain ONE OS, than it is TWO (or in the case of MS, what is it? EIGHT, including the Server versions?). Especially when one of those versions (OS X Server) sells (and would, even if Apple had "won" the "server wars") but a fraction of the number of units as their "desktop" OS.

Apple is thinking in an efficient, non-customer-screwing way. Heck, except for the management tools, nearly all of the functionality of OS X Server was ALWAYS in the "desktop" OS, anyway, just not as easily configurable. This was pretty much a no-brainer for Apple, and I am really glad to see it!

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[PopeRatzo]

a lot of people in my experience hold off buying the latest iPhone until there's a jailbreak

Define "a lot". How big a percentage do you think use jailbroken iPhones?

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[mario_grgic]

I think you have bought into too many rumors, half stories and speculations. Post PC era is already here and everyone but Microsoft sees it. It's all about using smart devices to "touch" the cloud. I think you should watch Kevin Kelly's talk from 4 years ago http://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_kelly_on_the_next_5_000_days_of_the_web.html. It's really insightful and he describes this post PC (PC = central small scale non-connected computing) really well which is all about increasing connections, and intelligence of things around us. But someone still has to program all those devices. In fact programming is going to be more popular than ever before (either you program or you will be programmed).

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[PopeRatzo]

The App Store was a complete surprise to me the day I downloaded whatever patch it came with.

It was no surprise to me.

Yet you say I'm the one with bad predictions regarding Apple's direction.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[node 3]

I give it 5 years tops. Lion is not only a step towards that direction, but also a test. If apps on macs start selling faster than expected, kiss the Mac as you know it goodbye and replaced with a desktop sized IPad.

What possible reason could they have to do any of that?

Every single person who says Apple is going to lock down the Macs *ALWAYS* cites one or more of the following:

1. That's "the direction" they are going.
2. iOS outsells Mac OS X.
3. They will replace Macs with iPads.

And yet not a SINGLE one of those "reasons" make a compelling case for Apple to lock down Mac OS X. Why would Apple make the Mac *WORSE*? It makes absolutely no sense.

Apple will do whatever they think makes Macs better. There is absolutely *ZERO* indication that they think locking down Mac OS X, or replacing it with iOS, will make Macs better.

As for them updating macs, yes they're upgrading them now. Now how about a year from now? Two Years? throughout their current presentations you keep hearing the "Post PC" era. What do you think that means to Apple.

It means exactly this:

People will want the "post PC" devices more and more, until eventually that's the default consumer choice. But people will still want PCs, and Apple will continue to sell them. Until Moore's Law and other technological advances completely obsolete the notion of a PC, Apple will sell PCs. Apple has absolutely *NO PLANS* to replace the Mac with iPads. Absolutely none.

They will stop selling Macs when people stop buying them.

Why do you think there's already rumors of Apple dumping Intel for their own in house Arm Chip?

Why do I think there are such rumors? Because some people are fucking idiots.

And as for Thunderbolt, there's talk that Thunderbolt is DOA

Yes, talk by said fucking idiots. I wouldn't throw your hat in with them. MS actually is porting Windows to ARM, do you think that means MS is going to lock down Windows and abandon Intel too?

It's mildly possible Apple would make a MacBook Air style computer based on ARM, if they can make a chip fast enough and with low enough power requirements to justify it, but they won't be abandoning Intel any time soon.

As for the people wanting Mac's, that easy. You get Steve Jobs on a stage and say that "OSX is dead" and "IDesk" is the future of Apple" and problem solved. The people want what Apple Tells them to want.

Rubbish. Apple makes things people want. If they didn't, people wouldn't buy them. The only thing Apple "tells" people is what *APPLE* will make. It's up to the consumer to decide whether Apple is right or not.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[node 3]

MACS AREN'T IPHONES.

Are iPads iPhones? Why are they locked down?

They are all iOS devices. That's how iOS works. That's NOT how Mac OS X works.

When MacBooks have cellular transceivers built in will they be iPhones then?

My god you are stupid. I can't believe I'm answering this, but no, a MacBook with a cell transceiver will not be an iPhone.

The first locked-down Apple laptop will come out before Christmas of 2013.

And when that doesn't come to pass, then what? You will still simply make up more stupid shit with no basis in reality.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[node 3]

You mean long after the rumors that Apple would make a Mac App Store? Wow, how prescient of you!

It's not that I'm so prescient, but that so many people denied that there would be a Mac App Store after the rumors abounded.

NO THEY DIDN'T. They said Apple wouldn't make a LOCKED DOWN Mac App Store. And they haven't.

But no, the stupid prediction wasn't that Apple would make a Mac App Store, but that it would be like iOS, where it's the only way to get Mac apps. Now, *THAT'S* stupid.

And yet, incrementally, that's exactly what's going to happen. And I agree, it is stupid.

What's stupid is thinking that incrementalism means whatever those increments can lead to is where it's going. That's not how the world works. Things continue for only as long as the people in charge think it makes sense. If you think it's a stupid ends, why do you think Apple wouldn't also think that?

If someone starts walking down the street, do you think they just keep on walking until they get hit by a car, fall off a cliff, or drown in the ocean? It's the exact same nonsensical "logic".

Not a single one of your negative predictions have come true.

Why do you believe they are "negative"? The app store is quite a success for Apple. The locked-down platforms are Apple's biggest successes. Are you suggesting that locked-down platforms are "negative"? Who are you to dare disagree with Apple's business model?

Fucking idiot, I never said a locked down platform is negative. But a locked down PC (in the same way iOS is locked down) *IS* negative. It can't work, and Apple isn't so stupid to think otherwise.

Do you honestly think that Apple thinks that if they make Mac OS X as much like iOS as technically possible, that Mac sales will soar? They're already selling better than ever. What possible reason would Apple have to fuck that up?

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Nearly all geeks but they are probably disproportionately represented among my friends. I think probably among "normal" people the jailbreak rate isn't that high in my country because we can buy the iPhone unlocked, there's a lot more jailbreaking going on in neighbouring countries as a prerequisite to unlocking. It'd actually be interesting to see some kind of survey on the amount of jailbroken and/or unlocked iPhones in circulation by country.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[jarlsberg71]

My kingdom for a mod point.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[Draek]

Apple never tried to get rid of USB with Firewire.

They did, they failed, and like so many of their failures the loyalists just try to pretend it never happened.

If Newton is the best flop you can come up with, then you haven't been paying attention.

No, I don't waste my time following every single Apple product ever released, why? do you?

Don't worry, that's purely rhetorical.

iPhones don't come in pink, and there's more to life than having the #1 market share. Notice I don't make predictions about Android success, but Apple haters love to make predictions (incorrect ones at that) about Apple.

iPhones do not, at least not yet, but eMacs did in the most garish colors imaginable. They initiated a fad that the Apple loyalists loved to praise as the final nail in the coffin of the "ugly, brown box", only to die a quick, merciful death a few years later. Just as the "haters" predicted, huh, who would've thought.

The one button mouse argument wasn't very good in 1995, let alone at any time during the 2000s. I've had a multiple button mouse ever since OS 7 or so.

Good for you, but I practically grew up with Apple idiots calling more than one button "too complicated for non-geeks to use". Until Apple released its own, official model and finally, *FINALLY*, the loyalists... admitted they were wrong? hell no, they just stopped talking about it and started bringing up some obscure third-party accessory produced for a year in the '90s to "prove" how Apple had always been in support of multi-button mice and we'd always been at war with Eurasia.

Apple didn't become the most valuable tech company in the world with pink iPhones and one-button mice, regardless of how you might want to think that true.

No, it became so the same way Scientology gained such momentum: a personality cult built around their leader, a massive propaganda campaign to make their members look part of a "distinguished elite" merely for being members, and the insane profits that come from selling new trash to your followers every month.

Face it, the zealots love to parade things like CmdrTaco's infamous comment on the iPod as "proof" of how "haters" always get it wrong but the fact is, they get it wrong just as often as they get it completely right, Steve Jobs isn't a divine, flawless being that can make no mistake and every word of his mouth is the absolute truth, and just because it's got an Apple logo doesn't mean it's the golden standard which all competing products must be measured against.

Still, fat chance of you ever admitting *that*, you're way too invested into the company (both emotionally as well as economically, judging from your initial post) to admit any flaw in your reasoning. Psychology is a bitch, isn't it?

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[stewbacca]

Apple never tried to get rid of USB with Firewire.

They did, they failed, and like so many of their failures the loyalists just try to pretend it never happened.

NO. NO they didn't. They ADDED Firewire in addition to the USB ports already there. The even REPLACED firewire iPods with USB only. Show me one Apple product that tried to get rid of USB in favor of firewire only. You can't, because it never happened. Apple adopted USB much earlier than most Wintel mobos at the time. This is not disputable. You are a moron if you think so.

iPhones don't come in pink, and there's more to life than having the #1 market share. Notice I don't make predictions about Android success, but Apple haters love to make predictions (incorrect ones at that) about Apple.

iPhones do not, at least not yet, but eMacs did in the most garish colors imaginable. They initiated a fad that the Apple loyalists loved to praise as the final nail in the coffin of the "ugly, brown box", only to die a quick, merciful death a few years later. Just as the "haters" predicted, huh, who would've thought.

Uh, no, eMacs came only in white. And if you don't think the rest of the industry has followed suit in getting rid of "ugly brown boxes" you obviously don't get out much.

The one button mouse argument wasn't very good in 1995, let alone at any time during the 2000s. I've had a multiple button mouse ever since OS 7 or so.

Good for you, but I practically grew up with Apple idiots calling more than one button "too complicated for non-geeks to use".

Yep, that was the idea...in 1984. They even had an ad campaign "a computer for the rest of us" with a single finger pushing a single mouse button. It's actually cited as really good advertising for that time. In the context of 1984 personal computing, the one-button mouse was a good idea. People who claim it is still a good idea, or worse yet, people who think macs only have one mouse button, are stupid.

Apple didn't become the most valuable tech company in the world with pink iPhones and one-button mice, regardless of how you might want to think that true.

No, it became so the same way Scientology gained such momentum: a personality cult built around their leader, a massive propaganda campaign to make their members look part of a "distinguished elite" merely for being members, and the insane profits that come from selling new trash to your followers every month.

That says more about you than anything else.

Steve Jobs isn't a divine, flawless being that can make no mistake and every word of his mouth is the absolute truth, and just because it's got an Apple logo doesn't mean it's the golden standard which all competing products must be measured against.

Still, fat chance of you ever admitting *that*, you're way too invested into the company (both emotionally as well as economically, judging from your initial post) to admit any flaw in your reasoning. Psychology is a bitch, isn't it?

I never said such. I merely said people who hate Apple and like to make predictions about them usually end up on the wrong side of history. Lame.

Re:Now I am _really_ panicked

[jarlsberg71]

Depends, that's for certain values of "soon".
Example: "Soon, the sun will asplode."

Apple steals...EVERYTHING!

[Deus.1.01]

Now they even stole microsofts excuses.

Logic fail.

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's not a significant problem because another platform might have a bigger problem.

Right.

Qubes OS

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll admit I bought a macbook in 2009 with likelihood of system vulnerabilities in mind. I *did* consider a number of other things, so I'm not a bad person, I swear.

Some say it's a case of going to a FOSS operating system... or specifically a BSD family kernel... or even of going to OpenBSD exclusively. Some say it's a case of knowing our OpenBSD software inside out and testing thouroughly *and* putting various in safeguards.

However, they're all missing a piece of the puzzle. Qubes OS should be on everyone's radar, especially since it's starting to progress. Sadly, it's one of those things that unless you give it some time to read up about you'll only hear bits and pieces about and then sadly ignore it.

Qubes, with Joanna Rutkowska at the helm no less, is a solid framework of ideas that results in the security we should all expect of an operating system. Fear that you'll have input sniffed or root compromised? Have your system disconnected from the internet - "what?", you say, before you read on and realise how silly it is in the first place.

Everything is in a VM instance, each VM instance can boot from the same image and run a (single, if you feel like it) program. The data that instance *thinks* was written to disk was instead pushed to a copy-on-write block device which can be thrown away when you're done.want files between different VMs? Message dom0 with the request from inside the VM and then accept the dialogue box that your isolated dom0 greets you with.

Sadly, I'm not the best ambassador. Sadly, I'm in a rush and haven't supplied my best effort in communicating how significant Qubes will be. Sadly, it's taken until now to have decent security on a desktop. But now I can be confident.

The universe is smiling down on me for this post with a captcha of "secure", and rightly so if you hop aboard.

Re:Qubes OS

[obarthelemy]

It's not about the OS, it's about the user. Don't run in admin mode, install an antivirus and OS/Apps updates, don't install crap from just anywhere, avoid Flash, IE, Firefox.

Been doing that in Windows for me and my parents for years, got a virus once, when an ex called bout a failing hard drive and I dumbly just connected it to my spare PC to try and salvage the files.

Re:Qubes OS

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know whether your post is serious or a reference to some meme I am unfamiliar with, but anyway.

Everything is in a VM instance

If this is the (only) reason why it is "secure", and the official website seems to say so, you may want to go with OpenBSD anyway. To quote Theo de Raadt:

You are absolutely deluded, if not stupid, if you think that a
worldwide collection of software engineers who can't write operating
systems or applications without security holes, can then turn around
and suddenly write virtualization layers without security holes.

Rutkowska definitely has an impressive resume, but I don't think that even someone like her can make a system secure just by using virtualization. However, I will make sure to keep an eye on that project, it looks quite interesting even though it won't replace my current setup.

Re:Qubes OS

[zippthorne]

Indeed.

Although one annoying thing about OS X is that if your main user isn't an admin, software update doesn't check for updates periodically: you won't know there are updates to install if you don't check manually and/or log in as an admin.

Re:Qubes OS

[w0mprat]

Qubes OS seems to be another excercise in paranoia. It looks like a cool project, but I don't think it will catch on.

Security in a contemporary OS is rather easy to fix. I'll provide a hint. It's always been a bad idea to have two security levels basically "root" with unrestricted access to everything and "users" not enough access to be useful yet enough access to be able to destroy steral or tamper with a users entire collection of data. Oh and ten times a day you'll have to elevate to root to get anything done. You'll type your password like a reflex or set up visudo/UAC etc so you don't have to enter it.

So on a contemporary OS it's not even necessary to gain administrator priveledges to do a whole lot of damage.

Why do I need to hand over an admin password (either admin/root or a sudo password) every time an application wants to install or change anything? Why do applications have to dip so deep into a low level parts of the OS just to do something basic?

As a thought experiment: ponder how trivially easy it would be to phish for a users sudo password in linux. This would catch out a mom & pop style 'user' who would punch in the password as they do like a reflex in good faith.

Nope. I don't worry at all, and I guess that few d

[Khenke]

"Why You Shouldn't Panic Over Mac Malware"

Nope. I don't worry at all, and I guess that few do.
Because I and most other don't own a mac. That must be the obvious answer...

(Too lazy/not interested to read the summery or the article)

What a load of crap

[Flipao]

There's no need to deflect attention,, this is not about Android, this is about Apple computers having the type of issues for which PCs have always been made fun of.

The reason Mac users are now targetted is because they are less computer savvy, have deep pockets and have been educated to open their wallet on command.

Re:What a load of crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Mac users less computer savvy? Not really I've seen a lot of IT- and multimedia-pros using them. I've never understood why geeks don't appreciate useability...

For me the Mac is Unix + hardware support + hot souce!

But I'd have to thank Linux as it made me fall in love with *nix-systems.

And exploits? I only get my software from trusted sources, no remote services are on, never connect to public wifi. On the other hand, if you follow this advice you are very unlikely to get infected, even on windows. But I just prefer the Mac. No need for bashing and fanboyism.

Re:What a load of crap

[dr.Flake]

Sort of the same for me.

For me the route was also windows -> linux -> OSX.

However, during my linux period i grew accustomed to finding great software doing almost everything i could wish for within a few clicks/google searches.

For OSX its the opposite. For every small task that i want to accomplish, i seem to need to pony up. Every small time programmer tries to make a buck with his little program. Nothing wrong with that, but where are the Free/Libre alternatives?

For now, after long searches i end up installing untrustworthy programs, because i'm used to get it all for "free" (he, i am Dutch). My problem, sure. But a lot of people like me would fall into these kind of traps.

Re:What a load of crap

[Anonymous Coward]

as have been demonstrated time and again at hacking conventions/contests, OSX is the least secure of the major operating systems. Geeks that use it are just blind fanbois.

Re:What a load of crap

[Gaygirlie]

Mac users less computer savvy? Not really I've seen a lot of IT- and multimedia-pros using them.

Yes, and I've seen plenty of IT- and multimedia-pros using Windows PCs, yet majority of Windows users are still not too computer savvy. Similarly, from what I've seen the majority of Mac users are equally non-computer-savvy.

And that's the whole issue. These scams and such aren't targeting the pros, they are targeting the people who don't really understand what they're doing. Macs are also more costly than the average Windows PCs and thus it's likely that a person owning a Mac is wealthy enough to make an excellent target for these things.

Re:What a load of crap

[Anonymous Coward]

You have pretty much that, if you want your GUI application to run under X11 (well, some things are a bit different, but not that much).

But if you want native OS X applications, then the free alternatives are usually outnumbered by the shareware ones. Shareware has been strong in the Mac ecosystem since before OS X whereas it has been mostly non-existent in the Linux ecosystem.

Re:What a load of crap

[popo]

Actually, it's all about Android.

Any hacker will tell you that the smartphone is the juiciest target of them all. Loaded with credit card and direct billing capacity, and with manufacturer-customized OS's that are rarely updated or patched, and thrown together under tight deadlines.

Smartphones are the low hanging fruit of the decade. And of that fruit, Android is the juiciest because of it's relative lack of manufacturer updates.

Re:What a load of crap

[boristhespider]

Wait, you mean.... the majority of people aren't computer savvy????? STOP THE PRESSES!

I'm not sure why people find this so hard to understand. Most people in this world
a) Don't understand computers
b) Don't really give a shit about understanding computers
c) Simply just don't care

That goes whether they're running Windows or Mac -- and for those who use a Linux their more computer-savvy relatives installed on their computer. And these days I strongly expect more and more Linux users to be computer un-savvy. That's the whole point behind Canonical's ethos is to grow beyond people who enjoy recompiling kernels, after all.

Re:What a load of crap

[Tom]

However, during my linux period i grew accustomed to finding great software doing almost everything i could wish for within a few clicks/google searches.

For OSX its the opposite. For every small task that i want to accomplish, i seem to need to pony up. Every small time programmer tries to make a buck with his little program. Nothing wrong with that, but where are the Free/Libre alternatives?

Not learnt anything during your Linux period? Ok, I'll help out. The answer to your question is: Are you writing them? No? See, that's why they're not there.

Re:What a load of crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Around CS and math departments at universities, it seems to me that macs are becoming almost universally adopted. Same is true for the best back-end oriented tech companies (e.g., google). I think it's likely that there are two peaks for computer skill for mac users-- very competent folks who are willing to pay more for an easy-to-use unix laptop, and those less savvy folks that you seem to have more experience with.

Re:What a load of crap

[UncHellMatt]

I don't know if I would entirely agree with this. As someone who services both Macs and PCs, across the board I would put the percentage of ignorance as roughly the same. Consider how many PC users willingly click on the popups that say "Your computer is at risk! Click here to clean" or "Your computer has detected spyware. Click to clean". As well, consider how many PC users visit video sites which claim that in order to view this video of Lindsey Lohan and a great dane getting freaky, you need this "special" video plugin. On both sides of the home computing world, there is at least as many gullible people on Windows as on Mac, it's just that Fruit Heads seem to have this foolish idea that they're somehow immune. As noted by many, the Safari exploit alone is an issue, but there are decidedly more.

Frankly what goes up my nose sideways is this statement: "One of those features is the introduction of the Mac App Store, an Apple-controlled storefront for selling and distributing applications"

So allowing Apple to have final say on what I do and don't get to install on my computer is somehow better? This is precisely what will make me jump ship again; I've used them since the mid 80s, jumped ship with system 7.5 ("Error type 11 has just occurred, please kiss your ass goodbye") then came back at around system 10.2, and while I really enjoyed the OS, this idea that somehow putting all my "trust" in Apple's hands, that somehow Mr. Jobs and crew must know what's best for me, that boggles my mind. Again, as noted by others perhaps not in this thread, Apple has become the Big Brother their ads once suggested they broke away from. If, now don't get me wrong I do mean "if", Apple decides that they want to make the app store the singular method to install apps as it is on the iPad and iPod, that'll be the end of it for me. Which is a pity, because it is a rather nice desktop OS.

Re:What a load of crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are the free apps for OSX? Seriously?
http://sourceforge.net/directory/desktop/mac

Re:What a load of crap

[stewbacca]

The reason Mac users are now targetted is because they are less computer savvy,

*citation needed

have deep pockets

Probably because they have jobs and moved out of their mothers' basements.

and have been shown to be more educated than Windows users.

FTFY, which probably explains your second point as well
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20056815-71.html

Re:What a load of crap

[stewbacca]

I've never understood why geeks don't appreciate useability..

I'm design oriented and can flip this around...I've never understood why I can't get a good grasp on basic programming logic. It seems it's a mindset of WYSIWYG vs. I'm-super-logical-and-need-to-do-this-myself.

I'm married to a programmer, so I live this dichotomy every day ;-)

Mind you neither are better than the other, just different. Of course, "design mode" IS better...for me...because I can get faster nicer looking results...FOR ME...but my wife can knock out 100 times the functionality in half the time, and change it in 1/10th of the time. It just doesn't look as nice.

Re:What a load of crap

[stewbacca]

Unpossible. Haven't you read the comments? Only people who are STUPID and have DEEP POCKETS use Macs. Neither of these describes college students.

Re:What a load of crap

[aardwolf64]

What "type of issues" would that be? It's an OS that will let you install software, and there are people that are writing software to do bad things. How is that a fault of the OS?

Re:What a load of crap

[hedwards]

That might be, but what precisely does that have to do with malware that affects an OS which can't be made to run on a handset?

Re:What a load of crap

[TheLink]

In this world looking nice is more than half the battle.

Most CxOs don't care how it works or whether it really works at all, as long as it seems to work, looks good, and the colours agree with them.

Re:What a load of crap

[mjwalshe]

re multimedia pros - I had a multimedia grad say "oh 3db isn't that much" err actualy it is :-)

Re:What a load of crap

[Anonymous Coward]

this is not about Android, this is about Apple computers having the type of issues for which PCs have always been made fun of.

It's not really though. It's about the anti-Apple crew reveling in the potential for Mac users to have the type of issues that Windows users have had. Even this current round of "fast-spreading OSX malware" is nothing in comparison to the malware that Windows users confront. From what I've read, it's basically a trojan that asks you for your credit card number. If you don't choose to install it, don't put in your administrative password, and don't actually type in your credit card number, then you're safe for the time being.

If anything, the attack preys on they fact that a lot of Mac users are ex-Windows-users who expect to get infected with viruses, and are used to dealing with crappy programs constantly popping up telling them to click things, enter passwords, and buy antivirus updates. I've only even heard of a couple of people encountering this malware (as opposed to the millionth Windows virus that I've had to clean up in the past month), and in the case where it was a long-term Mac user, he immediately called for help because he was like, "I've never had to deal with this before, so why is this happening now?"

The reason Mac users are now targetted is because they are less computer savvy

What, were they more computer savvy up until now? That doesn't make any sense. For years and years, Mac users were arguably the least computer-savvy users out there, but they weren't a target. Now that Apple is winning converts from within IT departments, they've become a target right *now* because they're "less computer savvy"?

Re:What a load of crap

[Bing Tsher E]

For OSX its the opposite. For every small task that i want to accomplish, i seem to need to pony up. Every small time programmer tries to make a buck with his little program.

You might want to look into using the NetBSD Package system, called pkgsrc, on on OSX. The NetBSD community is used to porting things around, and the NetBSD package system itself has been ported to run on a lot of different OSes. It's a very source-based packaging system with a robust dependency chain.

Re:What a load of crap

[Kral_Blbec]

I have far far more people ask me for help with their iphones/ipads/ipods than any other piece of technology. I thought they were so easy to use?
I always tell them I boycott apple and refuse to even try to learn, which I'm sure I could.

Re:What a load of crap

[BrokenHalo]

Nonsense. There is a thriving trade in second-hand MacBooks and iBooks, both of which are well suited to the penurious student, especially if they have any reason to want/need access to standard command-line tools underlying any *nix system.

Since my original computing background was in big-iron mainframes, I used to be dismissive of any machine that could fit on or under a desk, but that prejudice no longer holds true. Furthermore, one could argue that the users who are STUPID [sic] are those who unquestioningly follow the rest of the sheep and pay good money for products that are so inherently leaky that they can't even be trusted to be connected to the internet without compromising your security.

Re:What a load of crap

[swillden]

How does pkgsrc compare to ports?

Re:What a load of crap

[stewbacca]

You don't have to tell me that. I'm just perpetuating the myth that Macs are a) expensive, b) elite, c) not used in CS programs. I guess you missed my sarcasm.

Re:What a load of crap

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Smartphones are good for grabbing data, but no good for DDOS attacks. There's no need to have a zombie smartphone, as it's unlikely to be able to pass significant data before the carrier kills it. So while an Android trojan may be likely, a MacOS virus would be able to do more over a longer term for the virus writer.

Yeah, and people shouldn't worry about somebody stealing their wallet, because you can't use it to spray graffiti - and that's where the real money is, right?

Re:What a load of crap

[kvvbassboy]

Nonsense. There is a thriving trade in second-hand MacBooks and iBooks, both of which are well suited to the penurious student, especially if they have any reason to want/need access to standard command-line tools underlying any *nix system.

As opposed to buying a $500 laptop, installing Ubuntu or Cygwin to get a *nix system? Your logic is flawed. The reason why macbooks are popular among students is that they get discounts or freebies, and they believe (whether true or not, not sure) that it won't break during their four years at school.

The *nix system is just an icing, which can be obtained on most computers, it's not the main reason.

Re:What a load of crap

[olivebridge]

Mac users less computer savvy? Not really I've seen a lot of IT- and multimedia-pros using them

at work i use Windows and Redhat, and at home i use Windows, Ubuntu and Android. i've had several bad experiences with Apple so i stopped using their products.

my Apple-using friends are a really interesting group. i know a graphic designer and movie director who both have Macbooks and iPhones. i know librarians and schoolteachers who use Macs and iPods. i also know a few computer scientists who use Macs and feature phones.

the designer & director are expert at multimedia software but that's it. the computer scientists like the Mac for easy command-line access. the librarian and schoolteacher know the least in the group about computers. they parrot the "i'm a Mac" ads and even sometimes try to shame me into dumping Windows, because Macs are "cooler" and "no one uses Windows". i'm not saying that Windows is cool or perfect, but this is how they think.

i've never seen the librarian and schoolteacher do anything computer-related other than check email and Facebook. when i explained how Adblock works, the librarian responded "Mac users don't have those problems".

out of all my friends, i would say that only the computer scientists are knowledgeable enough to recognize and avoid security threats. i wouldn't be surprised if the others fell victim to phishing schemes or worse. everyone (except the computer scientists) uses Safari because it was preinstalled, i suppose.

so yeah, i have a bunch of friends who use Macs, and that's where the similarities end.

Re:What a load of crap

[Osgeld]

I have yet to find this usability that gets touted so much, how is a system finder and a icon wheel o fortune that much better than just having shit where you can see it?

Re:What a load of crap

[Mr Bubble]

We are not less savvy. Macs are inherently more secure and there has been a plenty big target to aim for for a long time. Are they invulnerable - of course not. Most exploits are trojan horses - which means they are easily avoided.

Re:What a load of crap

[Kral_Blbec]

I am the "computer-guy" for a rather large volunteer-service organization. In an average week I probably get more "how do I do this" questions from that alone (ie, not including coworkers or family) than you likely do in a year.
Note my actual position isn't supposed to be tech support. I'm just the web admin running schedules and membership rosters.

Re:What a load of crap

[knappe duivel]

you sure have a way of connecting to your costumers. i wish i could afford to be so arrogant. sadly, i can only afford boycotting windows

Re:What a load of crap

[PsychoSlashDot]

For every small task that i want to accomplish, i seem to need to pony up. Every small time programmer tries to make a buck with his little program. Nothing wrong with that, but where are the Free/Libre alternatives?

I hear your pain. I believe there's something philosophically wrong about the software ecosystem's shape these days. I stumbled upon an announcement for a Blackberry release for a "app" that literally doesn't do anything. Its sole purpose is to have no icon, so you can install it and move it on your home screen to create a gap in your icons. It comes in three versions; 4 non-icons, 12 non-icons and 24 non-icons. Something like $2.99 then $3.99 then $4.99 respectively.

I understand capitalism. I understand the desire to extract maximum monetary benefit from least labour incurred. What I don't understand is how the author of the "app" in question doesn't off himself in shame for asking for money in the first place. This isn't a matter of "the market will establish fair value" and the author will get the message when there are zero sales. It's like offering someone a bottle of air, for profit. It's... sleazy.

In conclusion, I blame the Apple ecosystem especially. In the day of Palm PDAs and their ilk, most software was free, and that which wasn't went far beyond today's "app" doo-dad. Paid software was feature-rich. The advent of the iPhone and iTunes' has convinced micro-devs that their latest turd is worth a buck. And now that mentality is spreading to other mobile devices and even desktop platforms.

Re:What a load of crap

[boristhespider]

Yeah I know but I last used Linux much in 2006, and that was Gentoo. I was exaggerating for emphasis or something. I've got an Ubuntu installation dual-booting a Vista machine but I never really use it.

Re:What a load of crap

[shutdown -p now]

There's already a crapload of malware in Android Market, by the way. Generally disguised as porn apps.

Re:What a load of crap

[Macrat]

Mac users less computer savvy? Not really I've seen a lot of IT- and multimedia-pros using them.

I've met a lot of "IT and multimedia-pros" that I wouldn't consider computer savvy.

Many of them can't operate outside of the apps they trained in.

Re:What a load of crap

[macs4all]

The reason Mac users are now targetted is because they are less computer savvy, have deep pockets and have been educated to open their wallet on command.

Not only am I an embedded dev. with over three decades of paid experience, and an Mac user by choice (although I have certainly been forced to use other OSes by employers); but I am finding in the past few years (notably after the switch to Intel), that the more a person ACTUALLY knows about computers and IT (rather than how much they hate Apple reflexively), the MORE likely they are to switch to OS X completely, or at least use OS X as their primary OS.

And, considering that I am typing this on my six-year-old G5 PowerMac (the only Mac I have ever bought "new"), I would say that, if it does exist, Apple's "education" to "open [my] wallet on command" has been pretty unsuccessful.

Re:What a load of crap

[macs4all]

For OSX its the opposite. For every small task that i want to accomplish, i seem to need to pony up. Every small time programmer tries to make a buck with his little program. Nothing wrong with that, but where are the Free/Libre alternatives?

What "small tasks" are you trying to accomplish, that you can't find several Free (or nearly so) alternatives? I'm not being nasty, I'm just curious; because, with very few exceptions (decent scanning software being the one I can think of), most of the apps on my Mac are Freeware.

I have a few shareware apps that I have considered good enough to purchase (and/or couldn't find a suitable free app in the time I had to search), but (other than VueScan at $40), none have been more than $25, and most have been in the $5-20 world.

Plus, there are many, many projects on Sourceforge, MacPorts, and Fink that are simply OS X versions of Linux F/OSS projects that offer precompiled, installable binaries for OS X. OpenOffice/LibreOffice/NeoOffice, the Gimp, Audacity, XBMC, Azereus/Vuze, Adium, Eclipse, gcc, all come immediately to mind. And there are many, many more.

In fact, Sourceforge alone lists 12,616 results under the "Mac" platform. All free. All Open Source.

In addition, you might check out the highly popular Mac software aggregator, Macupdate.com. They have all types of software, including free apps and inexpensive shareware (as well as "commercial"), and the "license type" is clearly listed in the "search results", so you don't have to look through dozens of apps individually, just to find the "free" ones. I have no affilation with MacUpdate, but highly recommend it. C|Net also has a variety of Mac software, some free, some not. And there are others. Many others. I don't know about these sites, but Google-ing for free mac software, the following sites came up in the first few hits: http://www.freemacware.com/, http://opensourcemac.org/, http://www.applemacfreeware.com/, http://web.mac.com/simon_elliott/simon_elliott@mac.com/Software.html. And that was just a few that looked interesting on the first search result page

Bottom line: If you can't find FREE OS X apps, you either have some severely corner-case application-needs; or are just not looking. ;-)

Re:What a load of crap

[macs4all]

re multimedia pros - I had a multimedia grad say "oh 3db isn't that much" err actualy it is :-)

Actually, it is YOU that fails.

Not to get too far off topic; but, dB, deciBels, is a COMPLETELY USELESS MEASUREMENT by itself, until accompanied by additional nomenclature.

For example: dBm, dbV, dBW, dBSPL ("A" weighted, or "C" weighted) all are different.

What I believe you are referring to is the engineering axiom "A change of 3dB means a doubling (or halving) of power." While that is true, the EFFECT of that power change is not the same to the human observer.

For example, even a trained audio engineer would be hard-pressed to accurately QUANTIFY a 3dBm or 3dBSPL (A or C) change in level. They would be able to DETECT it; but most wouldn't say "Yes, that's a BIG difference." You're at a rock concert: The average level is 110dBSPL ("A" weighted). The next song is 113dBSPL on average (A weighted). People MIGHT notice; but NONE would not go from boogie-ing in the aisles to covering their ears and running. Therefore, perceptively, to the HUMANS, that 3dBSPL change "isn't that much."

But, as I pointed out, your entire argument is mooted by the fact that YOU were too stupid to include the "units", rather than simply a baseless quantity.

Re:What a load of crap

[mjwx]

Mac users less computer savvy? Not really I've seen a lot of IT- and multimedia-pros using them.

Yes, Mac uses are significantly less savvy.

The only IT "pro's" I've seen with Macs are PHB's who don't have a clue about computers and the odd programmer who bought the marketing (ergo, didn't have a clue about computers).

As a network engineer, a Mac is a giant "stay away from me" sign as Mac's are marketed towards people who don't understand, nor want to understand how their computers work and this marketing has been quite successful in enticing people who aren't computer savvy.

Re:What a load of crap

[macs4all]

As noted by many, the Safari exploit alone is an issue, but there are decidedly more.

Please name an OS that is over 2000 lines of code that doesn't have an exploit.

[Crickets]

jumped ship with system 7.5 ("Error type 11 has just occurred, please kiss your ass goodbye")

Boy did that make me shudder! I agree with you on the Error 11 bit (did you have a Performa 6400, or another system with a PPC 603e perchance? I nearly threw the Performa 6400 I had to maintain out of the window for the constant Error 11 issues). IIRC, it was an unfortunate motherboard memory bus-timing problem, as much as it was the OS. But, it's a shame you didn't hang on one more minor rev. System 7.6 pretty much eliminated the Error 11 problem. Oh, well...

Apple has become the Big Brother their ads once suggested they broke away from.

Let me say this: OS X is not iOS. The Mac is not the iPhone/iPad. Apple has some damned good reasons for their decisions with iOS. One only has to sample the constant parade of Android exploits to come to the realization that Apple really did make the right choice there.

However, no such pressure exists for OS X. Completely different markets, with completely different security needs. And Apple is quite smart enough to recognize that, and act accordingly.

So, stand down from Red Alert (or even Yellow Alert) : On OS X, Apple is tightening up their security quite a bit in Lion, and all so that Mac users can continue to enjoy the wide variety of software sources that they always have. The Mac App Store is "training wheels" for Apple Switchers; who, by and large, have no idea where to look for Mac applications, particularly those by small ISVs. It is NOT intended to be an "App Jail".

Re:What a load of crap

[macs4all]

Need I remind people that a flashlight application with a hidden tethering subsystem went through the store?

First, that was malware, how?

Second, that was ONE. Name three others on a NON jailbroken iOS device. I think the only other one was waaaay back when, and it managed to change the wallpaper on Springboard. w00t.

[Crickets]

Now, let's talk about Android's track record...

Re:What a load of crap

[cerberusss]

The reason Mac users are now targetted is because they are less computer savvy, have deep pockets and have been educated to open their wallet on command.

That's a great post! Can I pay you for this post?

Re:What a load of crap

[Trashman]

No one is putting a gun to your head and telling you to use the App store, or else. You don't like it, don't use it. I have plenty of SW on my Mac that didn't come from the app store. And there's no reason to think that this will ever change.

The app store is just one more way to get software. If in the future, apple says mandates that *the only way* to get software for mac is through the app store then I'll agree w/ you that it's time to jump ship. Although, I highly doubt they would do that.

Why Shouldn't I Panic Over Mac Malware?

[Anonymous Coward]

because I don't own one...

App store as a preventative? On a Mac?

[Altanar]

Unless Apple makes it mandatory for all applications on Macs be installed using the new app store, then it doesn't prevent anything. It's not like Mac users are going to immediately stop installing stand-alone programs the moment the store comes out. And if they're installing standalone programs, then the people who get tricked into installing fake anti-virus software won't give it a second thought about installing what that fake system message pop-up told them.

Re:App store as a preventative? On a Mac?

[nzac]

Yes its not fool proof but a preventative only has to (significantly) reduce the chance. If people (clueless mac owners) can be encouraged to go to the app store instead of goggling for a program to meet their needs then this will help to reduce virus.

Of course i think only having one app store controlled to produce profit is bad but it should at least have less viruses than the internet.

Re:App store as a preventative? On a Mac?

[mwvdlee]

It'd be hard for Apple to make it mandatory, but at the very least they could simply alter their warranty terms to exclude any system using software installed outside their Mac app store. They could cripple the OS for "security" reasons. They could lock you out of online services. They could do a number of things which may not make it mandatory, but pretty much force you to do as they say anyway.

Re:App store as a preventative? On a Mac?

[drinkypoo]

It'd be hard for Apple to make it mandatory, but at the very least they could simply alter their warranty terms to exclude any system using software installed outside their Mac app store.

Then they're going to have to stop claiming POSIX compliance, et cetera. In the USA, the Magnuson-Moss warranty act prohibits any such shenanigans; if you follow the API then your programs meet specifications and therefore the warranty cannot be voided for running them.

Re:App store as a preventative? On a Mac?

[QuasiSteve]

I don't know why it would

be hard for Apple to make it mandatory

given that all they have to do is make it so.

They might catch a lot of flak from existing developers (the ones that weren't secretly let in on this change and thus already have their Apps for Mac ready to go on launch date) but those will readily adopt the Apps for Mac Store rather than see their software have zero market.

They have little to fear from the end-users, though:
On iOS people are already defending Apple's subscription framework due to the convenience it offers them.
Even users of Linux' most prominent distributions scold e.g. Windows installation of applications as being necessary to first hunt down the software you'd like, then find the download location, probably have to enter a bunch of details first, then download, then install - and they all use such complicated different installers! - make sure you disable all the toolbar and homepage junk, then find out where it actually installed itself to, etc. and hope it's not actually a piece of malware. It's so much easier to just use "sudo apt-get install thing" (or via a GUI) and it downloads and installs with the greatest of ease and the 'thing' is vetted for.

Nah.. if Apple wanted to make it so that only Apple-approved apps would be installed under some new version of their hardware/OS combination, they'd have very little trouble doing so in terms of public perception.
In terms of technology.. that's what the whole Trusted Computing thing is for.

Re:App store as a preventative? On a Mac?

[w0mprat]

Any protection is purely illusory. Apple could not possibly review every single line of code for malicious behaviour and vulnerabilities. Also the slow and drawn out review process means users will be using outdated and unpatched software for longer. Apple can only check for obvious malicious behaviour, exploits will still be discovered.

Apple's Killswitch only offers some protection from badly behaved applications.

It's worse in the iOS App Store because Objective C is such an obscure language.

Re:App store as a preventative? On a Mac?

[macs4all]

It'd be hard for Apple to make it mandatory, but at the very least they could simply alter their warranty terms to exclude any system using software installed outside their Mac app store. They could cripple the OS for "security" reasons. They could lock you out of online services. They could do a number of things which may not make it mandatory, but pretty much force you to do as they say anyway.

And in the immortal words of the late, great George Carlin:

I might have brought my arrowhead collection... But I didn't!

Why You Shouldn't Panic Over Mac Malware

[AliasMarlowe]

...because you don't have a Mac?
That covers most people - many of whom actually should panic over Windows malware. But nobody should be too smug, not even Linux-only or BSD-only users, since every compromised machine (Windows or Mac or whatever) pollutes the internet commons.

Re:Why You Shouldn't Panic Over Mac Malware

[Gamer_2k4]

My Etch-a-Sketch is malware proof, and reboots in seconds!

Perhaps, but I hear its app store isn't very extensive. Security and functionality is a tradeoff.

Re:Why You Shouldn't Panic Over Mac Malware

[camperslo]

My Etch-a-Sketch is malware proof, and reboots in seconds!

There's a new breed of silverfish with your name on it

Re:Why You Shouldn't Panic Over Mac Malware

[Noitatsidem]

Who cares about an app store when you can write an app in literally seconds?

Re:Why You Shouldn't Panic Over Mac Malware

[DarwinSurvivor]

Yeah, but the frame-rate is atrocious!

Re:What ? So android will be apple's lighting rod

[node 3]

The funny thing is, iOS outnumbers Android by well over 2:1. There are over 200 million iOS devices out there now, over 100 million of which are iPhones alone. Android might be a lightning rod for malware, but it's not because of its numbers.

Astroturf.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice bit of Astroturf there.

So, we shouldn't worry about malware on the Mac because Oh LOOK here's some speculation about a completely different OS so don't pay attention to this story anymore!!!

And then the inevitable push from Apple to have total control over you system by the eventual restriction of apps to Apple market-approved programs only. Well that's sure a nice idea, too bad some of the Official apps like Safari also contain security weaknesses. So much for the safety of the walled garden approach. But it's not stopping them from trying, apparently.

No, I don't panic over Malware on my Mac. It has nothing to do with Android, or any other OS, or the App Market, or anything else this shit-for-an-article is talking about.

No need to panic, merely be more careful.

[MROD]

The story has the correct title but rather misses the point. Yes, it's not time to panic. There is a set of malicious tojan horse programs out there for MacOS. The current crop require the user to authorise their installation. i.e. the security weakest link (at the moment) being exploited is the one behind the keyboard. Very often this is the places where security is the weakest, just watch WarGames if you doubt this. MacOS is by design, with a greater degree of privilege and OS/Application separation, more resistant to attack than Microsoft Windows has been. However, this is not to say that it is not vulnerable. All systems are, be it design flaws or merely implementation flaws. Yes, I'm looking at you Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris, HP/UX and AIX. No-one can rest on their laurels.

Re:No need to panic, merely be more careful.

[euyis]

Ever heard of UAC?

Re:No need to panic, merely be more careful.

[cheros]

Correct, and this supports the one statement I always make when someone tells me that "their" OS is safe: prove it.

I run the 3 major ones (Linux, OSX and -now only occasionally- Windows), and only the Linux setup does not have any anti-virus and anti-trojan on it as it runs off read-only media. But on the Mac I have Kaspersky too. Not that it runs permanently, but I test anything that I'm interested in installing, and every so often I do a full check from an account with admin risks (my work account has no admin rights).

That leaves some residual risk, but I'm happy with that. Oh, and I have Hands Off configured to stop the Adobe Updater getting out onto the Net - when I find time I'll throw the Adobe Reader off the box and restore the default. It updates so often it makes the Mac look like a Windows box :-).

Pet hate: applications installing extra, separate update agents you have no control over. Adobe is far from the only offender, and OSX doesn't have a decent uninstall mechanism. I wish they sorted that out before doing any App shop crap which mainly represents a rise in software prices without benefitting the actual software writers..

Re:No need to panic, merely be more careful.

[Paradise Pete]

But on the Mac I have Kaspersky too. Not that it runs permanently, but I test anything that I'm interested in installing, and every so often I do a full check from an account with admin risks

Have you ever found anything?

Re:No need to panic, merely be more careful.

[AHuxley]

Try http://www.intego.com/, it runs in the background, updates in the background and is not too expensive.
Little Snitch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Snitch (a software outgoing firewall for Mac OS X) is good too.
Have you ever found anything? - only Trojan.OSX.RSPlug. (changes Domain Name System (DNS) settings)

Re:No need to panic, merely be more careful.

[benjymouse]

Yes I have, and it's an attempt to retro-fit a useful security model to a system not designed to have such security from the beginning.

No, UAC uses the already user and process tokens which were in Windows NT from the get-go to strip any token of certain rights. Compared to OS X and unix whic were borne with 12 bits of security, the Windows model is much more granular. The fact that Windows model is built to secure any OS object - not just filesystem objects - makes it more suitable in this exact scenario. The *nix idea of allowing setuid or setgid "servers" to "drop from root" is thoroughly broken and has been the source of numerous vulnerabilities and exploits. Setuid is necessary because *nix does not have sufficiently granular privileges.

UAC is using capabilities which were already there, thanks to the initial design using tokens and handles.

Re:No need to panic, merely be more careful.

[benjymouse]

MacOS is by design, with a greater degree of privilege and OS/Application separation, more resistant to attack than Microsoft Windows has been.

Could you describe that "design", please? I mean a few more specifics beyond the "it builds upon Unix" as if that is in itself a design. What separation are you referring to?

Re:No need to panic, merely be more careful.

[hedwards]

Nice trolling. You do realize that even before MAC that security was more involved than that, right? Perhaps you might want to do some research before you post that kind of BS here. Setuid is necessary because some applications aren't properly programmed.

I can't help but notice that you're ignoring the fact that MAC came out before Windows got any sort of granular permissions and that up until Vista came out in 2006 that Windows effectively didn't have any ability to set permissions on the machines average users were using.

Re:No need to panic, merely be more careful.

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh.. don't hold your breath. You will get the usual handwaving and some random anecdote about windows security from the 90s. I think the number of people who actually understand NT design is about 0.0001% of the supposed "geeks" here. I'd say the majority of this websites users are "barely technical". They can install and configure applications and run a few scripts but beyond that, theres no hope of a highly technical conversation without the trolls jumping in.

Re:No need to panic, merely be more careful.

[makomk]

I think the number of people who actually understand NT design is about 0.0001% of the supposed "geeks" here.

Very few people understand NT's security model. That's one of its big issues actually: it's very powerful, but it's just too complex. For example, there was an entire wave of nearly identical security flaws because unless applications that installed Windows services set the right ACLs on them they opened up a trivially-exploitable local privilege escalation hole - and nearly none of them did get it right. In fact, I think someone created a tool to automatically analyze sets of security restrictions to check for things like this and found several more issues...

Re:No need to panic, merely be more careful.

[macs4all]

Ever heard of UAC?

I have encountered both UAC and OS X's "GUI sudo" security measures. There is no comparison.

They might attempt to reach the same goals (user authentication); but there is a BIG difference in the "mental impact" between the two methods. With UAC, I never even GLANCE at the text in the dialog; I (and I am sure 99.99999999999% of other users) can't find the "Allow" button fast enough. It is processed as yet-another annoyance in an OS that CONSTANTLY generates annoyances. Quick! Click it! Make it Go Away! That is the only thing that "registers".

However, with OS X, even if you are running as an Administrator, you STILL have to TYPE IN your password. And, no matter how many times I have seen that dialog (I use OS X every day), it STILL makes me pause a second and think "Why?" Even when I'm expecting it, it still raises a question in my mind. And THAT is the biggest difference. That, and the fact that OS X doesn't constantly bombard the user with popups, bubbles, and other what-not. If you use Growl heavily, it can get annoying (which I why I don't use it); but even those don't REQUIRE attention (they go away after a few seconds). So, when that sudo dialog pops up, you know it is something that requires your attention, rather than your ire.

Another case-in-point as to why UAC is completely laughable. I was working on a laptop that a friend's relative had purchased at a pawn shop. It had Vista with UAC enabled. I thought: "Great! How am I going to change some of the system settings she wanted to change." No problem! When challenged by UAC, all I had to do was click "Allow", and Vista was MORE THAN HAPPY to let me do ANYTHING "secure". I couldn't change the password; but who gives a shit? Since I could do ANYTHING else, just by clicking that "Allow" button!

Wotta joke!

So, don't even try to compare OS X's sudo system with UAC. They aren't even in the same universe, security-wise!

Re:No need to panic, merely be more careful.

[macs4all]

I run the 3 major ones (Linux, OSX and -now only occasionally- Windows), and only the Linux setup does not have any anti-virus and anti-trojan on it as it runs off read-only media. But on the Mac I have Kaspersky too. Not that it runs permanently, but I test anything that I'm interested in installing, and every so often I do a full check from an account with admin risks (my work account has no admin rights).

So, has Kaspersky ever found a MAC threat?

OSX doesn't have a decent uninstall mechanism.

Sure it does: Drag the Application to the Trash. Empty Trash. Done. That does it for all but the most instrusive of apps. Unless you are really that worried about an orphaned file or two hanging around in /Library/Preferences/ or /Library/Application Support/. Then the SAVVY Mac-users KNOWS where to look for, and TRASH those, too. Not that they can do anything, anyway. It's not like the DLL-Hell system of Windows "Do you want to remove [some DLL name you've never heard of]? It appears to be used by more than one program." That simply DOESN'T happen on OS X. Never did; never will.

Or, you can just use this. Found it in five seconds. Wotta whiner. SInce OS X "packages" have a BOM, uninstalling is a snap. There is also a command-line way to do it; but since this is FREE...

Re:No need to panic, merely be more careful.

[cheros]

I use Metakine's Hands Off which also monitors disk writes. I have used many products over the years, and I found Kaspersky consistently OK on the PC, which drove my decision to use the Mac version. It works OK, but whoever decided to create that interface ought to be made editing his code with EDLIN for a few weeks.

I had a few people say "did you ever find anything" and the answer is no, also because I know what I'm doing. But that misses the point: I KNOW I don't have a problem, whereas many ASSUME. My job requires facts - always.

So I am not a fan of OSX because I'm an Apple fan - I am happy with it because I know how much less effort I have to put in every day to keep a safe and functional computing platform. I am a fan of stuff that works - no more, no less..

Re:No need to panic, merely be more careful.

[cheros]

"So, has Kaspersky ever found a MAC threat?"

No, but you're missing the point. You assume you have a safe platform, I can prove it (well, to the extent that I have to trust Kaspersky, but that's a different discussion). I am not a fanboy who takes everything from Apple as a message from God. As a matter of fact, being associated with Apple fanboys was one of the main barriers to using the platform..

"Unless you are really that worried about an orphaned file or two hanging around in /Library/Preferences/ or /Library/Application Support/"

Actually, no - it's worse. A radio application I once installed left residue ("rfx-server") that I manually had to dig out of the system. Growl is used by many apps - will that just uninstall without any warning then (not that I want to uninstall it, but I hope you see what I mean)? You *assume* the BOM to be correct.. Yes, it's better than Windows, but that's hardly difficult, is it? Just don't give me this 100% perfection rubbish because it isn't true (for any platform) - there are plenty applications that don't quite hold themselves to the rules.

"Or, you can just use this. Found it in five seconds."

Plenty of them. App Remover, App Zapper and other creatively named applications. But again you miss the point - it's not there by default.

Sorry I kicked your precious OS - but you have proven exactly what I meant when I said I hesitated to be associated with the platform. Ditto for Linux, and I have been using it since Slackware came on floppies..

Re:No need to panic, merely be more careful.

[cheros]

Not on the Mac as such, no, which re-enforces my confidence in the platform, but still doesn't persuade me to be become careless.

Ironically, I do sometimes get a hit on email when I forgot to clean out the spam filter - which is ALWAYS a Windows virus :-)

Re:No need to panic, merely be more careful.

[macs4all]

"So, has Kaspersky ever found a MAC threat?"

No, but you're missing the point. You assume you have a safe platform, I can prove it (well, to the extent that I have to trust Kaspersky, but that's a different discussion).

Actually, it's not. If you assume that OS X can have a threat, then you must also assume that Kaspersky can fail to find the threat. The point being, there is no such thing as 100% assurance of security. And no, that this not just an academic point. It is THE point.

I am not a fanboy who takes everything from Apple as a message from God.

I take nothing as a message from God. Even messages from so-called God(s). I listen to my own experience. And in my decades of experience with Macs, and since running OS X since it was called Rhapsody, I have yet to have even the first inkling of a threat. I am not inexperienced in these matters, and I am here to tell you that, AFAICT, OS X seems impervious to internet attack. On the very box I am typing this on (which is also my main computer) I run an ftp server (with anonymous, read-only access that is published on a well-publicized website, and several private user accounts with R/W access). all running on the standard ftp ports, plus a streaming video server running on Port 80 (also linked-to from the same website), as well as ssh running on the standard port. My machine sits bare nekkid on the internet, on, 24/7/365, running those services since April, 2005. It gets attacked on a daily basis. In fact, it is probably getting attacked right now. None shall pass.

Me and my Safari browser have gone to some pretty seamy places on the internet. Nothing grabs hold of my browser, subverts its home page, causes pop-ups, or installs stuff. Period.

So, it isn't a matter of believing St. Jobs, it is a matter of believing my own eyes and log files.

I manage a friend's Mac mini that serves as his HTPC and SFTP gateway to his NAS while he's on the road. I checked out his "security" log files, all 16.5 MB of them! A ZILLION attacks on his ssl login. Not one authentication (that wasn't his or mine).

So yes, I am a little bit confident at this point.

As a matter of fact, being associated with Apple fanboys was one of the main barriers to using the platform..

That's a weak excuse, and you know it. You don't have to be "associated with" anyone, just because you choose to use the same OS. What an immature attitude!

"Unless you are really that worried about an orphaned file or two hanging around in /Library/Preferences/ or /Library/Application Support/"

Actually, no - it's worse. A radio application I once installed left residue ("rfx-server") that I manually had to dig out of the system.

As I said, an exception. I agree that the publisher of that app should have included an uninstaller. Most do, if they have stuff that runs as a kernel extension.

Growl is used by many apps - will that just uninstall without any warning then (not that I want to uninstall it, but I hope you see what I mean)?

Actually, I think that Growl HAS an uninstall feature. I must admit that I don't run it; because I hate annoying popups. Far too Windows-like, LOL! It must, though; because I remember having it, and then getting rid of it, and other than the .dmg I downloaded (and didn't bother to delete), it appears no where on my system. Ah, the .dmg has an Applescript that does the uninstall; so I would assume the answer is "yes".

You *assume* the BOM to be correct..

No, the Installer assumes the BOM to be correct. And if it isn't the file(s) that don't appear in the BOM simply don't get installed anyway. And in the case of a "Drag Install", all the dependencies are in the App Package. I agree that the App could then put some into the System, but I have neve

Re:Panic?

[msauve]

Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives. We have created, for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology — where each worker may bloom, secure from the pests purveying contradictory truths. Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death, and we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail!

And you'll see why 2011 will be like "1984."

Comparing Mac install to Android?

[tyrione]

How brain dead is that? The install base of OS X is 50+ Million and climbing. The install base of iOS is 120+ Million and climbing. What's your point?

Re:Comparing Mac install to Android?

[stewbacca]

I read TFA and the point I took from it was that OSX still isn't a juicy enough target, given other, more ubiquitous options. If you search my post history, however, you'll see I think that argument is totally bunk, because if I were a hacker, I'd go after the easiest target that has millions of users...it doesn't matter if one platform had 700,000 million users and the other only had 50 million...if the 50 million were easier to hack, I'd hack it. At some point the argument "there aren't enough Macs to be worth it" has to go away. How many MILLIONS of targets do you need? Does everything in life have to be relative to something else (market share), or isn't 50 million enough?

Re:Panic?

[Hazel Bergeron]

The person who most passionately appears to criticise some ideology in his youth is most likely to follow it in his old age.

(Politicians doubly so.)

What kind of logic is this?

[kenbo11]

" If a large numbers of eyeballs is indeed the lure that causes criminals to write malware " Not very good to base your security practices on an IF! Just because the majority of hackers think this way, doesn't mean they all do. All it takes is one to say "I don't like Macs, I'm gonna hack it." And "boom goes the dynamite!" It's the 'most people think this, So all people think this' mentality that ticks me off

Re:What kind of logic is this?

[stewbacca]

Considering how hardcore anti-Apple haters are, I think it says a lot about OSX security that none of those dorks have ever managed to do any harm.

Doh!

[mkdx]

But of course, none should panic because the usual Apple astroturfing/deflection suggests so...

From the Apple Ministry of Information:

[Dr La]

There are *no* tanks in Bagdad, I repeat: there are *no* tanks in Bagdad....

Re:From the Apple Ministry of Information:

[stewbacca]

Because I'm a Mac user, and therefore more educated, I have to tell you it's spelled "Baghdad".

Re:From the Apple Ministry of Information:

[Dr La]

Because I don't define my identity by means of Operating System (because I find people who do that inherently sad), and hence am less narrow-minded (as well as having a PhD), I have to tell you that it is a name transcribed from another language and alphabet (Arabic), and hence different spellings can be used. You can spell it "Baghdad", "Bagdad" (it is usually spelled the latter in my country) and a number of other ways.

Re:From the Apple Ministry of Information:

[stewbacca]

I guess I should have told you a ride a Vespa and like obscure bands too, since you didn't get it that it was a joke.

IAAAL, btw (I am an Arabic Linguist).

Re:From the Apple Ministry of Information:

[Dr La]

When it comes to discussions with people in the Mac Cult, sadly enough many of the comments of the above type are meant to be serious. I am happy to hear that yours was only a joke.

We Dutch are known for riding bikes rather than Vespa's, but I'll concede that Bettie Serveert may indeed count as an obscure band.....

Re:From the Apple Ministry of Information:

[BrokenHalo]

Since the native alphabet is all squiggles to (most of) us, your argument shows a lack of education.

Re:From the Apple Ministry of Information:

[stewbacca]

My argument is actually, a) meant in jest, and b) factually pretty accurate, since I'm fluent in Arabic and know what those "squiggles" mean. Besides, Baghdad is spelled Baghdad in English.

Re:I have a better reason...

[fluch]

Well, for me -- not being an artist, but a mathematician -- a Mac just perfoms best. Great huge screen, an OS which just works the way it should, a great TeX distribution, and good choice of programs for surfing the web, reading e-mails and organising my BibTeX references. I for myself have used Linux before and it does a great job but by now I feel more comfortable with my iMac...

OS X App Store a disappointment so far

[cerberusss]

So far, the OS X AppStore couldn't be called 'wildly popular' since its inception on January this year. Regularly, I checked my installed apps for availability in the App Store, because it allows for such easy updating. Lo and behold, only fairly trivial apps are there, the following list is not available in the App Store:

• Google software (Chrome, Sketchup)
• Mozilla software (Firefox, Thunderbird)
• Adobe software (Flash, Flash Builder CS5, Photoshop etc)
• Microsoft software (Office, Messenger, Silverlight etc.)
• OpenOffice
• Seashore (painting program)
• Parallels
• VLC
• Skype
• Calibre (an eBook converter)
• XBench (a benchmark for OS X)
• Vuze
• KisMAC

Now I agree that stuff like a bittorrent client (Vuze) and a network sniffing tool (KisMAC) would probably be refused in the App Store. But all in all, the OS X App Store could be called a disappointment so far.

Note that the Opera browser (which contains a bittorrent client) is in the App Store.

Re:OS X App Store a disappointment so far

[rcoxdav]

What, you expect Apple to really even acknowledge VLC?? Don't you know that Quicktime just plays EVERYTHING!! And Firefox, Chrome, come on, Safari is the Shiznit! What could be better than Apple made software!

Re:OS X App Store a disappointment so far

[gnasher719]

Well, someone threatened to sue Apple for having VLC on the iPhone / iPad app store, so Apple removed it. So you can't really blame Apple if VLC is not on the Mac App Store.

Re:OS X App Store a disappointment so far

[cerberusss]

No, they'd rather give in to brick-and-mortar retailer extortion.

Re:OS X App Store a disappointment so far

[jmac_the_man]

Mozilla and Skype give into retail store extortion?

Re:OS X App Store a disappointment so far

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Nice washing list - the more you post it, the more I wonder how many people will believe that you actually uses every single item listed. Like both Chrome and Firefox - but not Opera.

Re:OS X App Store a disappointment so far

[dogmatixpsych]

There are a lot of applications that are not in the App Store but I don't think it's fair to say that there are only fairly trivial apps in there.

iWork
iLife
Aperture
Bento
BBEdit
Xcode
Scrivener
OmniGraffle
Camtasia
Skitch

There are many others - those are just some of the useful paid apps. Yes, there are many missing from the store but they'll start to show up over time. We're only a few months into the Mac App Store; it'll grow exponentially. Yes, many programs will be junk but that's the case anywhere.

Re:OS X App Store a disappointment so far

[cerberusss]

I have to admit I don't give Firefox much daily use. But then again, it's still installed and getting used every now and then.

Re:OS X App Store a disappointment so far

[cerberusss]

That's a very useful list, half of it is Apple stuff, but I have to admit the rest is really professional software.

Re:OS X App Store a disappointment so far

[dogmatixpsych]

Yeah, I weighted it toward Apple stuff but there are a lot of other really professional software titles on the App Store. Where the iOS App Store tends to have a lot of $.99 titles, the Mac App store is simply a nice repository of OS X software at 'normal' prices (and in some cases there is software that is free outside the store but not within the store). The Mac App Store results in more visible competition between applications, which helps consumers by reducing prices; that can also help developers because they have a convenient way to sell their software to a lot of people; the competition also might spur some developers to become better because they have tougher competition. The best apps will rise to the top and the mediocre will get lost in the shuffle. In any case, it's a win for consumers.

Re:OS X App Store a disappointment so far

[robsku]

I have both and no Opera (actually I have Swiftfox *and* Iceweasel but no Firefox to be exact). I also have IE's 5, 5.5, 6 & 7, Galeon, Epiphany, Konqueror, w3, w3m, links2, elinks and some others on my Debian - nothing weird in this although most I use only for testing.

Oh don't worry

[MadeInUSA]

Don't worry, huh? There are more Androids than Apple computers out there... While I believe some people store pretty important information on their phones and "pads", I tend to think that malware in a deskptop is a much more serious threat to people - maybe because most people store their most personal and sensitive information in desktops?

Not quite.

[itsdapead]

There's no need to deflect attention,, this is not about Android, this is about Apple computers having the type of issues for which PCs have always been made fun of.

Except an important aspect of the "type of issues for which PCs have always been made fun of" was the lack of a credible security model in "old" Windows, combined with Windows' huge albatross of "legacy" software. Even after the deficiency was rectified in NT and XP, this leads to users running as "admin" and/or being so bombarded with security warnings that they ignore them.

OSX and Linux use a "sudo" model which is fundamentally more secure than "old" windows or even XP in its typical "all users are superuser" mode. That ought to be becoming less of an issue with Win7.

None of them are immune to "social engineering" that tricks the user into manually installing, authorizing and running malware. The only solution to that, as TFA suggests, is iPad style lock-down. Personally, I can live with that on a phone or tablet, but if Apple try and impose it on "proper" computers, I'm out.

Re:I have a better reason...

[stewbacca]

You fed the troll! Never feed the troll! But yeah, there indeed is "absolutely no reason to own an apple" for sure. Dammit, just feed the troll...

Using A Sledgehammer To Crack A Walnut

[pandrijeczko]

Just an education to those "happy-go-lucky" fanbois who believe their beloved Macs are somehow immune to malware:

1. Malware can appear on any system - yes, even my beloved Linux is not totally immune from the threats.

2. Defending computing devices against malware is as much about your own common sense as it is about someone else's anti-walware software or handing over your responsibilities in their entirety to Lord Jobs The Almighty. That means understanding *how* malware can enter through a web-site, email attachment, etc. and not going to sulubrious websites or opening emails where you don't necessarily trust the source. Yes, fanbois, it may be beneath your designer "pay someone else to do it lifestyles" but it all comes down to not being naive plonkers and learning how a computer works.

3. Apple has become an "evil company" in the eyes of many, just like Microsoft and Sony did. When that's the case, subsets of malware authors who consider themselves to be Internet Robin Hoods will consider that they are doing the world a favour by targetting Apple over and over again. Whether they do that or not is irrespective of how many Macs are out there, it's more on just how big and evil they perceive Apple to be.

4. Apple moving all software under the App Store banner is *precisely* what Apple wants to do because it makes them more money - it has *nothing* to do with anti-malware measures apart from giving them a good excuse to do it amongst the faithful. As that lockdown gets more and more, you will see a recurrence of exactly what has plagued Windows for many years - namely that not every fanboi has millionnaire parents and whilst some will buy every piece of software they use, most will get cracked copies which will be infected with all manner of malware because they won't or can't pay for the software.

5. Yes, Android will also be targetted and non-techie Android users will suffer as a result. But anyone who is tech-savvy knows where the legitimate sources for software are and how to do as many checks as possible before installing anything. I've run Windows XP alongside Linux for years, for about 5 years now I went totally legitimate in the software that I use (I gave up with cracks and warez, I use Open Source programs and legitimately licensed and paid-for software) and I've not seen a piece of malware or virus in years - and that's running freebie virus checkers and anti-malware programs.

6. I've not used Vista or Windows 7 because I've found no good reason to - but as I understand it, in Windows 7 Microsoft have put in much better layered security that takes into account people who don't know what they're doing and, as a result, it's having a positive effect on reducing malware spread on Windows 7. Yet at the same time, Apple leaves a ridiculous amount of unpatched flaws (especially in that Safari garbage) on their systems. The net result is malware creators will ultimately find it easier to target Apple than Microsoft, as Microsoft gets better and better at holding them back. (Nope, I'm not an MS fanboi, I use Linux more than Windows but I tell it like I see it as a security techie in my day job.)

So stop with the defensive posturing, get your heads out of your assholes and READ THE FUCKING MANUALS like the rest of us do.

Re:Using A Sledgehammer To Crack A Walnut

[tgeek]

So stop with the defensive posturing, get your heads out of your assholes and READ THE FUCKING MANUALS like the rest of us do.

My granny used to tell us stories about these "manuals" . . . having never seen one though I just discounted them as old wives tales and myths.

Re:Using A Sledgehammer To Crack A Walnut

[LordRobin]

Just an education to those "happy-go-lucky" fanbois who believe their beloved Macs are somehow immune to malware:

Why don't you educate unicorns and the tooth fairy while you're at it? The "Mac user who thinks his system is invulnerable" is a fictional creature created by Windows apologists. Mac users don't think their systems are perfectly secure. They just think they're more secure than Windows. And they're right.

------RM

Re:Using A Sledgehammer To Crack A Walnut

[ninetyninebottles]

4. Apple moving all software under the App Store banner is *precisely* what Apple wants to do because it makes them more money - it has *nothing* to do with anti-malware measures apart from giving them a good excuse to do it amongst the faithful. As that lockdown gets more and more, you will see a recurrence of exactly what has plagued Windows for many years - namely that not every fanboi has millionnaire parents and whilst some will buy every piece of software they use, most will get cracked copies which will be infected with all manner of malware because they won't or can't pay for the software.

This is an interesting assertion, but it isn't actually backed up with any facts. How lucrative is the Mac app store? Is it even profitable or are they running it at break even or at a loss in order to make Macs more appealing? My point isn't that you are incorrect, necessarily, just that you haven't provided any real reasons to support your hypothesis.

Personally, I think you're ascribing to Apple motives based upon a poor understanding of their business methods and based upon false assumptions about where profit in their model comes from and how they like to create business packages. Apple ran the iTunes Store at a loss for over a year and then at break even rates. They fought the RIAA when it came to policies that would have resulted in more duplicate sales of songs and higher profits on some sales. They didn't do this because they were being altruistic. They did this because profit from the iTunes store was never the purpose of that service. Apple made millions, possibly billions now selling iPods. They created the iTunes application and the iTunes store as a strategic loss designed to sell more of their devices by making those devices more appealing to consumers. That's a good strategy and a solid business model they've since repeated.

When Apple talks about bringing iPhone wins to the Mac platform, I see similar strategies in the background. Apple already develops OS X and all the included apps at a loss as a way to sell Macs. They sell upgrade licenses for some of that software, but not enough to cover the cost of ongoing development. But that's okay because sales of Macs more than make up the difference. So a Mac app store, it's primary purpose is almost certainly going to be to sell more Macs. Then, if it makes some money for Apple as well, great. The idea that they would do things to intentionally make the Mac experience worse, however, in order to gouge users for more money, well it doesn't seem likely to me. And, again, that's not because Apple is altruistic. It's because they have a good, profitable, working business model now and threatening the sales stream that still accounts for close to half of their profits in order to try to pull in some shares on some software sales, well that seems like a foolish business plan. Given the ratio of paid to unpaid software in the Mac store, especially if it is anything like the iTunes store, Apple isn't likely to be pulling in a lot of cash from that particular revenue stream.

Re:Using A Sledgehammer To Crack A Walnut

[flimflammer]

The "Mac user who thinks his system is invulnerable" is a fictional creature created by Windows apologists.

What Internet are you from, mister? I have seen first had the sort of damage Apple advertising has done to the users of its products and can assure you that a large quantity of Mac users do in fact feel they are downright invulnerable to attack. You don't have to look far to see it, either.

The users you are referring to are by large the technically inclined.

Re:Using A Sledgehammer To Crack A Walnut

[tgeek]

How lucrative is the "Mac app store"? No idea, I'm not a Mac user and haven't even seen it. But I doubt they're looking to ultimately create a clone of the iPhone app store for the Mac. More likely they'd want to create the "Mac FULL BLOWN APPLICATIONS Store" where they can extort a percentage of every software sale from every Mac publisher. And if they can convince their userbase the only way to be safe and secure is to purchase their software thru the Mac App Store, it wouldn't be a gold mine, it'd be the freaking mother lode for them!

Re:Using A Sledgehammer To Crack A Walnut

[Macrat]

1. Malware can appear on any system

Only if the user installs it.

Re:Using A Sledgehammer To Crack A Walnut

[ninetyninebottles]

More likely they'd want to create the "Mac FULL BLOWN APPLICATIONS Store" where they can extort a percentage of every software sale from every Mac publisher.

Right. So they create a single store that is a gateway to Mac app developers, then make money off of being the gatekeeper by extorting developers. So fewer people develop for the Mac, there are fewer applications, and Mac sales drop (or don't increase as rapidly) because some people can't find the applications they want and so don't buy Macs. Apple makes money on the service and loses money on hardware sales. That's the business plan you're proposing is their sneaky scheme? Why? Why would they break with their successful and very profitable business plan of using services and availability of applications to drive hardware sales?

And if they can convince their userbase the only way to be safe and secure is to purchase their software thru the Mac App Store, it wouldn't be a gold mine, it'd be the freaking mother lode for them!

How do you figure? Between the cost of running the service and supporting all the free software in the world (where Apple doesn't get a cut but still has to pay the costs) and the reduced incentive to developers that translates into fewer Mac sales (still a huge source of Apple's revenue) how do you figure Apple will be making more money? Do you even have some back of the napkin type figures or is it just a belief you thought was cool so you decided to buy into it?

Re:I have a better reason...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mac OS X gives me a UNIX system with a good quality GUI. Show me any other operating system that comes with apache, ruby, perl, and so on pre-installed, and allows me to run microsoft office, and allows me to play a bit of Star Craft from time to time?

It doesn't exist outside the mac. I would have to buy two PC's, one for windows and one for Linux. Or one PC and run the other OS in a slow/buggy virtual machine.

I paid $2,000 for my mac a few years ago and it's still nice and fast now. I'll probably still be using it in another three years. As someone who earns ~$50,000 per year creating websites, a computer that costs a bit over $1 per day is hardly expensive. Is it the cheapest system available? Probably not, but it's not expensive.

For you, maybe Mac OS X is not a good choice. But you're blind if you honestly think there is no reason at all to use it.

Re:I have a better reason...

[fluch]

Opps ... mea culpa... ;-)

Re:Panic?

[icebraining]

[citation needed].

It's s smaller pond

[itsdapead]

For OSX its the opposite. For every small task that i want to accomplish, i seem to need to pony up. Every small time programmer tries to make a buck with his little program. Nothing wrong with that, but where are the Free/Libre alternatives?

Well, OS X is still a vastly smaller community than Windows, and I suspect that although Linux (desktop) users outnumber OSX users a disproportionate number of Linux users are also programmers. So its not surprising there's less choice. That also means that the money to be made from true "honesty box" shareware is probably smaller, so developers are more likely to require payment. Also, historically, Mac OS "Classic" developer tools and documentation cost an arm and a leg - of course, since OS X they've been free (or very cheap, for iOS), but the early days may have set community expectation. Finally - I don't think OS X is the easiest platform to develop for (however elegant) and OS X users tend to demand nice GUIs on everything.

However - its not all bad: First, OS X is Unix: Install "fink" or "macports" and you'll get access to a huge number of Free/Libre packages from the Linux/Unix world - albeit most of these are command-line or X11. If you don't want to roll your own, lots of major "free" projects offer OSX versions: (off the top of my head and at random: LibreOffice, Eclipse, InkScape, VirtualBox, PostgreSQL, MySQL, Mozilla) not to mention the stuff that is already present in OS X (Apache, PHP, Ruby, Python, Samba, CUPS...) I hope the latter list doesn't diminish too much as projects move to GPLv3.

Re:It's s smaller pond

[Macrat]

Well, OS X is still a vastly smaller community than Windows

Windows "community" or actually a "mob?"

How Far Would Apple Go?

[tgeek]

Let's suppose for a minute that the original author's basic supposition is true: that Apple is looking for a good excuse to herd ISVs into a lucrative [my term, not the original author's] Mac App Store. And that malware would be that good excuse. Where do you suppose that malware could be coming from? Could it be from . . . wait for it, wait for it . . . none other than our beloved Apple Inc.? Before you dismiss this out of hand, consider it wouldn't be the first time a big corporation "invented" a problem for which they just happened to have a solution. (and the mafia has been doing it for countless years!)

Re:What ? So android will be apple's lighting rod

[arisvega]

1) hackers, malware makers will not find Apple interesting as they are too busy with android.

2) Apple's further monopoly on the distribution mechanisms for content and applications, creating an unphantomed money making machine, is their antivirus solution.

3) ...

4) Profit!

That's because of the limits on the AppStore

[itsdapead]

As I understand the current rules, lots of the products you mention can't be delivered in the App Store because they need to be installed system-wide. E.g. you can get TextWrangler on the AppStore, if you want to install the command-line tools you have to download it from the website. Maybe these will go away with OS 10.7 (since the scuttlebutt is that 10.7 itself will be sold over the app store).

Also - GPL software is effectively barred from the App store.

OTOH, the App Store terms - use on any Mac computer you own - might be a bit generous for the likes of Microsoft and Adobe. Plus, until they get a "corporate App Store" and educational discounts sorted out its not much of a solution (I get Office under the "home use program" via my employer's site license, and I'm sure as hell not buying CS5 with my own cash!)

Re:That's because of the limits on the AppStore

[gnasher719]

Also - GPL software is effectively barred from the App store.

GPL software is no problem at all, as long as none of the copyright holders threatens to sue Apple. Any software that has its own license is distributed under that license, and it is trivial on MacOS X to create an application that includes its own source code with every download.

Re:That's because of the limits on the AppStore

[itsdapead]

GPL software is no problem at all, as long as none of the copyright holders threatens to sue Apple.

Well, that happened with VLC on the iOS App Store, and Apple simply pulled it rather than try for some sort of resolution. Some GPL software has multiples of copyright holders, and it only takes one (...and Apple and the "Software Libre" movement aren't exactly best buddies).

Hmmm.

[BrokenHalo]

I'm not really sure how Apple can lock down their systems without actually crippling them. Sure, the App Store will be there in Lion (it's already there in 10.6), but that doesn't mean you have to use it. Unless, of course, Apple plans on canning access to their development tools, which would be stupid.

Given that their current strategy is to include most of the facilities one would expect to find on a typical *nix box (of any stripe), that would be a big step to take. Since my use and support for Macs is based on the fact that I happily use a second-hand MacBook (inherited from my wife) that offers nearly all of the functionality of my Linux machines without having to diddle with it, that would be a marketing mistake. I quite like the compactness and reliability of the hardware, but not so much that I will accept being told how I may or may not use it.

Re:Nope. I don't worry at all, and I guess that fe

[BrokenHalo]

Then why did you waste your time (and ours) with your asinine post?

Have to disagree

[theurge14]

Allow me to match my personal anecdote with yours. Since the Mac App Store opened I have been able to discover several new apps and also pick up a few for a much cheaper price than what was listed before they were posted on the store. I found the following apps I never knew where out there:

BarCalander
Numbers ($12 on the app store, was $70 in a box)
Mixxx
MonsterTrucksNitro
Pangea Arcade
Ringtones (got this for $1.99, was listed as $12.99 on their website)
VVVVVV (a very entertaining retro text-based game)
VirtualDJ Home

True, not everything was a home run but for all the essentials you listed that I think most savvy Mac users already have the App Store allowed me to discover some new things that turned out to be worth my time.

Re:Have to disagree

[cerberusss]

That's a very nice list. I have to admit I found a few nice ones there as well; Time Out (anti-RSI), Blink and Telephone (VoIP), Twitter and Kindle (Amazon's eReader).

Re:I have a better reason...

[icebraining]

andLinux doesn't need a VM to run on Windows. Not that it doesn't make sense to get a Mac (I wouldn't know, almost never touched the thing, it's not even in my price range).

Re:Oh please

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

There are more Android handsets therefore no-one could possibly want to write Mac malware? Nice "logic".

Heh. And they completely forgot about Windows.

iPad

[goombah99]

Information Purification App Devices.

Re:What ? So android will be apple's lighting rod

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Yea that would make sense if there were actually a large number of viruses in the phone market. Compared to traditional viruses mobile viruses are still in the "Hello World!" stage.

Malware. The word you tried to avoid is "malware" - you can get some from the regular Android Marketplace, and a lot more from the open markets.

Re:What ? So android will be apple's lighting rod

[froggymana]

The funny thing is, iOS outnumbers Android by well over 2:1. There are over 200 million iOS devices out there now, over 100 million of which are iPhones alone. Android might be a lightning rod for malware, but it's not because of its numbers.

Citation needed.

Re:What ? So android will be apple's lighting rod

[node 3]

Because somehow a replaced iPod vanishes? Also, it's the exact same way Android devices are tallied. Well, not quite. Android tallies are not directly counted, like iOS device sales, but are estimated from various metrics. Even so, they don't consider those replaced either.

Either way, iOS devices vastly outnumber Android, which is my point. The idea that Android, which outnumbers the Mac, will be a lightning rod because of this, is pure fandroid fantasy. iOS outsells and outnumbers Android.

Don't let facts ruin your fanboy jerkoff session though, I've know you've been working very hard to look even more of an irrational, nonsensical Apple zealot than SuperKendall so I guess you wouldn't want to spoil that.

Which "facts" would this be? The fact that iOS outnumbers Android? The fact that even just iPhones outnumber Android? It would seem you are rather confused.

Re:What ? So android will be apple's lighting rod

[node 3]

Apple sold it's 160 millionth iOS device in January, and sells around 10 million per month. Apple sold their 100 millionth iPhone in February/March.

These numbers come from Apple press releases and quarterly financial reports, all easily found via Google.

Re:What ? So android will be apple's lighting rod

[node 3]

This wasn't my contention, it was the so-called "tech writer's". His claim was, in part, that Android would sap away viruses from Mac OS X, because Android outnumbers the Mac. This conveniently ignores the fact that iOS *vastly* outnumbers Android. Yet somehow Android malware vastly outnumbers iOS malware...

In a strange way it does bolster his argument, but not in a way that flatters Android.

Does the Mac App store charge for free apps?

[Brannon]

Nope? Hmmmm. Guess that makes you an idiot.

Re:Does the Mac App store charge for free apps?

[makomk]

Based on their past performance, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple wanted a cut of Skype's income from calling charges to landlines at some point in the future...

Re:Does the Mac App store charge for free apps?

[jmac_the_man]

No, but brick and mortar retailers don't restrict what the software can do after the end user buys it.

Re:I have a better reason...

[Pentium100]

If you are willing to install the OS, why can't you install "apache, ruby, perl, and so on" on Windows?

Also, VMs are quite good now. In fact they are good (that is, fast and not buggy) enough for servers (that usually need to be more reliable than a desktop PC) and are a real alternative to running multiple physical servers and not just because you save space and power by consolidation.

Re:Panic?

[macs4all]

Yeah, I don't see Adobe giving up 30% of their income to get PS on the mac app store. I also don't see users perceiving Photoshop as dangerous to install. The app store is a vehicle to rape developers. If developers are free to go around it, they will.

They don't have to. They are free to post where/how they please. And that ain't gonna change. The genie is out of that bottle, and has been for decades, and Apple is simply not stupid enough to even attempt to put it back in. And besides, that isn't their goal.

The Mac App Store is simply a way to give the hordes of NEW Mac-Users, many of who's initial exposure to Apple was through the iPod or an iOS device, a "One-Stop-Shop" for applications for their new Macs, in a format that they are familiar with.

Afterall, considering the still-much-higher marketshare of Windows, the average non-computer-savvy user is much more likely to be able to ask a family member, neighbor, or friend where they might go on the internet to find "safe" applications; but, the percentage of Mac users is still low enough that that kind of "word of mouth" advertising doesn't so much drive a NEW Mac user to the likes of Macupdate.com, et al.

Remember, one of the major whines of Windows users were "There's no software for the Mac!" Everyone on slashdot knows that is patently false, as does everyone who has owned a Mac for more than a few months. But in that critical "Did I make a mistake?" period, the Mac App Store helps the NEW Mac User to realize that there is an (often better) equivalent, or even a direct OS X version of, their favorite app(s). The likes of Adobe and Microsoft will never need that kind of marketing help; and so will not be in the App Store. But for every one of those mega-publishers, there are ten-thousand independent software publishers who have (up until now) only two choices: 1) Put up a website, and hope they can drive potential customers to it; and/or, 2) Get listed on a software-aggregator site, like MacUpdate, C|Net, where there is a fairly poor organization, and even poor-er search facilities (the dear, departed VersionTracker.com being particularly bad in that regard). Instead, anyone familiar with the iOS App Store (and that is a LOT of people) now has a familiar-looking (and acting) place to look for their Mac software, too.

It isn't evil. It's just an extension of Apple's former (and very poorly advertised) "MadeForMac" database. As to your ridiculous claim of Apple "raping the developers", the fact that Apple is charging a fee for the VOLUNTARY listing (which is in line with EVERY. SINGLE. CATALOG.) should not be surprising, and is not at all unusual. For example, to be listed in a large U.S. industrial distributor catalog, like Grainger's, McMaster-Carr, etc. typically costs $10,000 PER YEAR, PER PAGE. Apple's deal of 30% of gross sales is quite fair by comparison; particularly because, if YOU price your application at zero dollars; then that is what your fee is... FOREVER, and REGARDLESS OF SALES VOLUME. Even hosting a free app on your own website isn't going to be a better deal. And if you're sales are so massive (think Angry Birds) that that 30% becomes a big number, your remaining 70% is a correspondingly bigger number. So AGAIN it doesn't really matter.

Let's look at a brick-and-mortar distributor for comparison: Most, if not all, b&m distribution chains have a 100% markup PER TIER. In other words, each "hand" that that product falls into along the way from you to the end customer basically DOUBLES the price to that consumer. And what that ends up meaning, is that you have to DEPRESS your "wholesale" price, so that the end product will still sell for what you think the consumer will pay.

In contrast, Apple's deal is pretty sweet. And remember, for the Mac, it is NOT a requirement. And is likely never to be. There are already far too many other ways to acquire Mac software. Apple is in no way stupid enough to think that they wouldn't be in court until the end of time if t

Re:Android DOES have malware.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

It's not that I think my Mac is invulnerable to malware, I just don't see malware authors learning objective-c

Whoops... correction...

[itsdapead]

I suspect that although Linux (desktop) users outnumber OSX users a

Whoops - the backwards virus obviously got to that sentence. I meant the other way round, of course (but probably a much higher proportion of Linux users are also developers).

But it still got +5 so that's OK (can I mod myself down?)

Re:What ? So android will be apple's lighting rod

[macs4all]

Yea that would make sense if there were actually a large number of viruses in the phone market. Compared to traditional viruses mobile viruses are still in the "Hello World!" stage.

Boy, and they call Apple fans "apologists".

They got nothin' on Android fanbois!

Face it: Android's "security" is as broken as iOS' is robust.

That's not flamebait; it's simply a fact. And even a lot of Android owners admit it, right here on slashdot, and as recently as yesterday.

Not your fault; you didn't design the OS. But please don't insult our collective intelligence by claiming that Android isn't the Windows XP (SP 0) of the mobile world, security-wise.

And here's a clue from the clue-box: It ain't got nothin' to do with "marketshare".

Re:What ? So android will be apple's lighting rod

[macs4all]

You seem to have made the god awful mistake of adding up iOS device sales to date (and even there appear to have overshot the mark by about 50mill, possibly more) without taking into account the fact that many iOS devices replaced other iOS devices taking many of those out of the loop as "active" devices. iPod touches, replaced by iPhones, iPhones replaced by iPhone 3G, iPhone 3G replaced by iPhone 3GS and so on. Many people will have the old devices out of use in a cupboard somewhere or in many cases simply binned them, because the lack of easily replaceable battery and the cost of getting it replaced regardless leaves it little more than a brick.

Don't let facts ruin your fanboy jerkoff session though, I've know you've been working very hard to look even more of an irrational, nonsensical Apple zealot than SuperKendall so I guess you wouldn't want to spoil that.

And so, Android devices don't get replaced in the same manner?

So, what was your point, again?

BTW, given the fact that a lot of Android devices are cheap, and cheaply-made, I would submit there are a LOT more of them in the trash than there are iOS devices.

But don't let facts despoil your nonsensical Android fanboi rant. Both platforms have a "replacement" cycle. But you conveniently ignore that fact when it comes to Android. That's what makes your argument nonsensical, and thus you appear to be ignorant, and/or disingenuous. Exactly the qualities you ascribe to "the other side".

Despite the design the implementation is broken

[dbIII]

Yet a user can still browse to a web page on a default install MS Windows 7 and pick up malware without any warning box to click on or any other indication until the scareware starts redirecting them to different parts of the net, asking for money to clean off a virus and blocking access to anything on it's list of tools to help remove it.
There are so many breaks in the chain of security that many machines are getting infected.
Now while you and I know that the main user should not have Admin rights and that there should be third party antivirus in the hope that some poor sucker got infected by the malware and reported it more than a day before your machine ran into it. Some people listened to the fanboys that scream about how perfect it is and that antivirus is no longer required - so then you get exposed to a lot of trouble. Even though I'm a *nix guy the sheer volume of infected machines means that I get to see a few and wade through the malware swamp to attempt to remove it when the sane approach is to nuke it and reinstall - various programs where the user "lost the install disk" and the braindead concept of the registry mean that to give them the same sort of system back I just have to look for unusual stuff and hope I've got it all.

There's really not much point comparing it as a superior security model when it's not actually being used. Yes the *nix model could be better but sadly it's still vastly better than all the little cases where developers on the MS platform decided to completely ignore the NT security model and leave big holes for malware to get in.

Well, that pegs the current state of /.

[Paul1969]

For this bit of Apple-hater BS to get modded up as "insightful" should be deeply embarrassing to anyone who still thought intelligent discussions happened here.

Re:I have a better reason...

[Charliemopps]

Sorry if I messed with your religious experience.

Several ways

[DrYak]

There are several way to install software remotely (instead of re-plugging the storage to some running machine) on a non powered machine :

- various debug ports (like the above mentioned JTAG), which can be used to rewrite firmware, BIOS, etc. (and they are much useful, because the flash chip itself can't be reconnected to another machine, as the once-upon-a-time socketed ROM)

- remote administration tools like wake-on-lan which can turn a machine on, and then subsequently allow remote installation of software.

- more recent remote administration tools like on high end servers and Intel motherboards can even enable some administration on a machine which is powered down (the tools run on a separate chip. The main CPU and GPU don't need to be up).

Note that, these method a most of the time used to install legitimate software on powered off machines. As far as I konw, I haven't heard about them being used by virus to propagate to turned off machines.I guess the parent poster wanted to stay on the sage side of assumption when saying "almost 100%".