Slashdot Mirror
Apple Acknowledges MacDefender
Trailrunner7 writes with an article in threatpost "Apple is planning to release an update specifically designed to protect users against the MacDefender malware that has been circulating for the last couple of weeks. The update for Mac OS X will automatically find and remove the malware on an infected machine and also will warn users if another infection attempt is detected.
I figured I would finally get my mom a computer that even *she* couldn't get infected, so guess what I got her for Mother's Day?
Bloody hell.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
IMHO, Apple is taking the bull by the horns and not only fixing the problem personally but also not charging an annual fee for the privilege of cleaning your system. Well done.
But retards will call it such ("virus", to the layman, is "any software what breaks my computer", regardless of distribution method). And thus, all the retards claiming "macs don't get viruses" will now be countered.
But hey, at least we still have Linux. No viruses (by either definition) on that, right?
This specific patch should work just fine and dandy against Mac Defender, until new malware shows up. All they have to do is release a patch each time new malware appears. Again, and again, and again...
"Hey you there, you look like you might have STUPAIDS. Quick! Inject yourself with this hypodermic needle who's contents are unknown to you!"
That might work?
Invaders must die
"Apple is planning to release an update specifically designed to protect users against the MacDefender malware that has been circulating for the last couple of weeks. The update for Mac OS X will automatically find and remove the malware on an infected machine and also will warn users if another infection attempt is detected"
What defence is there against the end users downloading and running MacDefender and giving up the Admin password?
There are worms for Linux. Not sure about OSX. Certainly "CLICK HERE!! EMERGENCY!!"-type malware can exist for any platform.
Trolling is a art,
What happen to my perfect magical immortal box? All god Steve help me.
My wife supports a lot of Mac users who literally say stuff like "I don't have to worry about security because I have a Mac." In their minds, they can literally just wash their hands of all security considerations because Apple will do everything for them like a bodyguard from Blackwater. Apple has ridden a wave of anti-Microsoft sentiment in no small part by creating or at least encouraging the impression that if you buy a Mac, you'll never have to think again about taking care of your computer except maybe once a blue moon.
...to figure out how to spin this around on Android and Google ;o)
You can't, but you can release one that tells the user they're stupid if they choose to run this piece of malware.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
When your entire marketing approach is, "Everything we make JUST WORKS!" you really cannot have these kinds of malware floating around, and you certainly cannot try to charge people to fix things. It is not that I am criticizing Apple here, I am just saying that in their position, the only thing they could do is to erase the malware at no cost to their customers, or risk damage to their entire marketing machine.
Palm trees and 8
s/who's/whose/
Does Linux do anything (or at least anything more than MacOS) to protect against this type of attack?
Dear Apple security team,
They're just gonna make another variation of this software that will foil the detection routines.
While I'm on the subject, any Mac user who is foolish enough to grant a program they did not install their administrator password deserves whatever happens to their precious Mac.
I wonder why they got involved in this. Now they've set the undue expectation to provide support for malfunctioning/malicious third party software.
We're finally a big enough target to steal from!
We're relevant! We're relevant!
I liked them better when their motto was "proudly going out of business for twenty years"...
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
1) It encourages users to just get software from the repositories which is very unlikely to have malware in it.
2) It discourages people from using it that are likely to fall for these kinds of things.
So it does not have real protection beyond what osx has other then the culture that goes with it. On Windows and OSX it is FAR more common to download and install software from random locations.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
And thus, all the retards claiming "macs don't get viruses" will now be countered.
Would OS X have prevented the malware from propagating itself throughout the system? No? Then OS X does get viruses.
Call it an infection then, using the generic term, instead of viral infection if you really want to, but that's just being pedantic. The "but macs don't get viruses" contingent has always truly meant and implied, if not outright stated, that OSX was not subject to the same malicious software infections that windows was. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. This isn't a presidential impeachment, we're not required to define what "is" means. Everybody knows what "viruses" in this context means.
Just like with humans, be it a viral infection, a bacterial infection, or even a fungal infection, the general layperson doesn't care what is causing the problem. They just want it fixed. The only person who cares exactly what is causing the problem is the person (doctor for humans, technician for computers) who is trying to fix it. The layperson just knows that they are "sick'. Likewise, the mac user just knows that their computer is "sick" and "this sort of thing isn't supposed to happen to macs".
The only platforms where this kind of attack would be extremely difficult are the locked-down ecosystems, like (unjailbroken) iOS or most games consoles. Whilst I'm sure that iOS isn't 100% guaranteed malware free (there's always going to be something exploitable somewhere), it's going to be a whole lot more difficult to do that than simply writing a noddy "Run Me" app that wipes all your data.
I have some doubts as to the effectiveness of that Microsoft monthly "malicious software removal tool" they send via Windows Updates though?
They *do* still send it out, but I've actually had infected machines where that ran and didn't appear to accomplish anything useful. (I'm not sure if it actually reports back a status by way of any dialog boxes if it succeeds in finding/clearing anything? It seems like normally, it just runs silently in the background when Windows Update downloads and runs it along with any other updates it grabbed and applied?)
With some of the malware for Windows I've encountered recently, it's far more complicated than simply stopping a few processes and deleting some .DLL files. Some of them actually seem to plant "dummy" files out on the drive that anti-virus packages can detect as "bad" and remove, but they seem to act only as "triggers" that tell other parts of the malware to activate and do more damaging things to the OS and/or data. It's sort of a retaliation mechanism against people who make an effort to clean the thing off ....
Why? That expands to "...who has contents are unknown to you!"
Sounds like standard Lolcat dialect, which fits Mac users down to the ground. (They're a bit simple, like the interface...)
It encourages people to only get software from the repository that The Steve says they should get software from.
But that's not a problem, generally, because Mac users are trained to know they have to pay for every little anything they install on their system.
Eventually some smart malware creator will create a trojan that has some nominal fee the Mac user has to pay to get the malware.
It'll wipe all Macs from the web in short order.
s/who\'s/whose/
FTFY
Lets see: Apple learns about problem, researches possible fixes, determines best fix, and then releases said fix. No histrionics, no stupid hand flailing. I'm failing to see the problem. Hell, I wish other companies did it this well.
"My brand of comfort isn't so much 'There-there' as it is 'There's a boot, pardon me while I connect it with your ass!'"
I'd suggest that operating system security patches should be delivered via ads that utilize security flaws... except a lot of malware programs do upgrade security patches after infecting.
Who the fuck uses Safari?
When you have a stupid user, you don't give them the admin password.
Problem solved
The moment any platform gains more usage/mindshare/marketshare (whatever you want to call it, i.e.-> More people using it), the more it will be attacked for exploits. What else exemplifies this? ANDROID OS, a Linux variant.
Why do you think that mobile phones are being so widely attacked now? They're SO big, they made Carlos Slim & others hugely wealthy... how?? Lots of folks bought into them is how - & the malware makers KNOW it, so they attack them!
All the b.s. Apple spouted in the past of "PC's are virus ridden horrors, Macs are not" is only being illustrated by this attack in MacDefender as well.
(Wake up, & "abres los ojos")
APK
P.S.=> Once a platform gets a decent % of the overall market utilizing it? It will be MORE attacked, period... *NIX variants like ANDROID/Linux &/or MacOS X notwithstanding! Histories shown us ALL this, & very recently too as well (as soon as ANDROID & MacOS X usage went up, so did the exploits on them & they are NOT INVULNERABLE, period)... apk
From The Customer is Not Always Right:
Me: “Good afternoon, [Software Company] Tech Support. How can I help you?”
Customer: “I have a complaint about your software. My employees keep exiting the files without saving. I need you to fix that problem with your software.”
Me: “Sir, when you pick to exit the application, it asks you if you are sure you want to exit without saving.”
Customer: “I know. I think they are just hitting enter at the question.”
Me: “Sir, the default is no.”
Customer: “Well, they must be answering yes.”
Me: “Im not sure how we can change the software to make it easier for your employees to understand.”
Customer: “Can you add a second box after the first box, asking if they are really sure they want to lose what they just entered?”
Me: “I can put that request in, sir. But I doubt that development will change the software.”
Customer: “Why not?! Its a bug in your software! I want it fixed!”
What's this noise about malware on OS X? How can that be?
First, it's not that big a target, so the serious malware vendors won't write for it. Not enough market.
Second, OS X is substantially more secure than other OSs, so it is not only a more formidable target, but is also natively resistant. So infections are either extremely rare, or nonexistent.
Third, Apple users are just plain smarter AND dumber than the rest of us. So they either avoid the infection by not engaging in risky behavior, or never stray into the path of malware at all.
And last, Apple has assured their users that OS X is simply better than that. It doesn't suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune that other OSs do, by design.
I cannot, and refuse to, belive that there is any significant threat in the wild that requires Apple to issue a response and patch against. And you cannot make me, no matter how hard you try. You cannot convince me even if you can refute each of my assertions, because Apple user I know and trust assure me, even this morning, that this is nothing but an overreaction by Apple to appease the mass media and keep Ballmer from more destruction and mayhem. Oh, and if it were important, Mr. Jobs would have addressed it personally.
So the answer is no.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
This is the idea behind the walled garden approach they've taken to the iPhone and iPad. All the software they run has to be approved by apple first. They seem to be heading this direction with their desktops as well.
You missed the point. This is not Apple addressing a weakness in OSX. And Apple is not patching a security vulnerability. Apple clearly explained that they are "releasing an update specifically designed to protect users". It's just Apple going above and beyond what the user expects and automatically giving Mac users everywhere some added OSX functionality for free. Only Apple would be so amazing. I can't wait for the next MacDefender so we can get more free goodies from Apple.
Yay!
Apple does not have a setting that automatically downloads files when visiting a website. There is a setting that automatically opens downloaded files, but it's debatable whether they should turn it off or not, since you usually want to open something once you've downloaded it. As others have said before, installing software (any software) on a mac requires your administrator password. You discription can't get much farther from the truth than that You are pretty much completely wrong about everything you've said.
"Does Linux do anything (or at least anything more than MacOS) to protect against this type of attack?"
It doesn't as far as I am aware of which is one of the few things I do not like about Linux. There is ClamAntivus but it is just a scanner and does not offer a shield or active protection.
To be fair, as much as Cannical wants to make Ubuntu a friendly consumer OS, Linux remains a server OS where it mostly sits on servers in a computer room in a rack somewhere or run from a VM on a developers machine. MacOSX is a consumer OS run by average Joe's and artists who are not I.T. professionals mostly.
Also, most MacOSX users became users because they were lied too as MacOSX is sooo secure and will never get viruses etc. So these same people click thinking they were safe. That is more harm than good as MacOSX has no active protection unlike Windows. Windows was terrible but they at least addressing it and the tools are far ahead. All users need protection these days.
http://saveie6.com/
This is certainly true to an extent but another thing is that while no OS is 100% secure, the whole security model of UNIX/Linux/OS X (which is derived from UNIX) is generally better than Windows. Now to be honest, it is my understanding Windows 7 is much better (I jumped ship after XP) but classically, Windows being Windows was a problem and not just Windows being a majority, if I am not mistaken.
When a Mac virus comes out (and that's using the word "virus" very loosely) it makes headlines. Very rare occurrence. When a Windows virus comes out, no one notices. What's one more out of hundreds of thousands?
That's not to mention that this requires user intervention to work. Even my Windows users know better than to install something that says "OMG u has a virusz!! Instal our L33t anitvirus!!!!!!!1!!1!1111111oneoneone"
That's not true. One of the thing that throws users for a loop is that it opens up a dialog box that says "scan" instead of download. They could change the settings so that any window is obviously a website (so that users can't get confused about whether they are seeing a webpage, or a dialogue box from their computer). The users trust their computer, but they wouldn't trust some random website. The trick is presenting information to the user so that they can understand what is going on. It's not like they're trusting some random website to install shit on their computer. They think MacDefender is a security feature on their own computer and trust if tor that reason. As with anything, the man thing that causes the stupid behavior is a lack of information. So the solution is providing the user with the right information.
Yeah. It's difficult enough to use that you actually need both brain cells working, and a basic grasp of the English language. Linux is idiot-proof by virtue of being impenetrable to idiots.
with fedora this won't happen... it is open source and therefore cannot 'lock' someone into paying
I don't see how one implies the other. Android is open source, yet AT&T locks out installing applications from "Unknown sources" and requires registration as a developer before handing out the drivers needed for adb install.
My wife supports a lot of Mac users who literally say stuff like "I don't have to worry about security because I have a Mac." In their minds, they can literally just wash their hands of all security considerations because Apple will do everything for them like a bodyguard from Blackwater. Apple has ridden a wave of anti-Microsoft sentiment in no small part by creating or at least encouraging the impression that if you buy a Mac, you'll never have to think again about taking care of your computer except maybe once a blue moon.
Except that "Mac Defender" is a rogue "security" program. It relies on fooling people who believe their computers are (or will become) infected without it.
"Oh, I have a Mac, I don't have to worry about anything." "Oooh, I'd better install this to keep my Mac safe!"
Two totally different groups, each with their own distinct problems.
This simply does not happen on Mac.
Yet year after year security researchers continue to demonstrate the non-existent nature of OSX "security". Safari has a worse record on drive by install exploits than the latest IE. Infact the latest Windows kernel has had LESS exploits than the Linux kernel. Sad but true. Something you wont hear on this site thanks to all the linux cheerleaders promoting anti-ms stories to the front page ;)
But hey, who am I to interfere with your reality distortion field. I wish I was ignorant too. The world would be such a wonderful place :(
This malware needs to be deliberately installed by the user. Repeat: deliberately installed. Deliberately. D-E-L-I-B...
You do understand the difference, don't you? If the virus program was able to propagate itself automatically, then you'd actually have something to spout off about. But it doesn't do that at all. The user needs to explicitly install it, and that makes it 100% the user's fault, not the OS vendor's fault. It works the same on any OS.
Is it also asshat to set Automatic Updates to download updates automatically and ask me when I'm ready to install them? Because I've had unsaved changes destroyed by automatic installation of updates and automatic restart of the computer under Windows XP, and I'm considering buying a computer with Windows 7.
Win 7 is pretty good about that; while there is a nag dialog, it can be dismissed for up to 4 hours (select from drop down, dismiss), and the nag dialog doesn't count down and reboot automatically.
I frankly don't see how Linux (or any OS for that matter) can protect from this, as it is a classic social engineered 'ZOMG! You HAVE to run this RIGHT NOW or you will die ZOMG!" style infection, which we Windows repair guys have seen quite often through the "Security Tool" and Antivirus 20xxx variants.
Since Vista I have noticed less and less malware are going after the OS anymore, and instead are either going after third party software with serious flaws (such as anything Adobe along with Java, both of which rarely gets updated on a machine) along with social engineering. on the social engineering front they can usually be divided into these categories. the 'ZOMG! You got teh virus! Run Iz_Not_Viruz_Iz_Fixer.exe to kill it ZOMG!' the 'Want teh hot lesboz? We give u teh hot lezboz for teh free! Jusr run Iz_Not_Viruz_Iz_Codex.exe' so you can play teh moviez!' and the ever popular "My BFF Kim sent me a (insert screensaver,LOLCat Video,zip full of pictures) and it says I need to click this email link and run Iz_Not_Viruz_Iz_Goodie.exe to enjoy them!"
Notice how in NONE of the above does the underlying OS have a damned thing to do with making the attack successful? I've found a good 90%+ of new malware I'm finding on machines are using social engineering because it is easier to pwn a machine if the user helps and by appealing to their greed, desire, gullibility, or fear, one can easily solicit their aid in infecting their machine.
So frankly I don't see how anyone can expect Apple, Canonical, MSFT, or anybody else for that matter to magically stop the user without taking away the rights of ownership ala sticking them in a walled sandbox where someone else decides what they can and can't have. Now what you CAN do is to pop up warnings like UAC or in this case like Apple asking for the password, and if they are foolish enough to give it have a cleaning tool for after the fact like MSRT.
But unfortunately there simply isn't a way to patch stupid, and most of us I'm sure wouldn't like to give up our rights to control our machines just to keep the Forest Gumps out there from doing dumb shit. Hell just a couple of weeks ago I had to deal with an angry customer who was infected less than a week after I handed him his new machine. did I miss an attack vector? Nope he ignored every word I said and went so far as to disable his AV because it wouldn't let him install "the new Limewire" (Iz_Not_Viruz_Iz_New_Limewirez.exe) and then got pissed because there wasn't some way for the box to magically protect him from his own stupidity. I finally just told him "You ignored everything I said, you disabled your AV, all because you didn't want to pay for some cheap pop crap. Well TNSTAAFL and if you walk out in front of a truck after everyone has warned you it is coming? Well then you deserve to be hit, sorry". Sometimes you just have to be blunt with the stupid, otherwise they are just too dumb to fucking get it.
I'm sure the tidal wave of new malware coming to Macs thanks to the success of MacDefender will weed out the retarded soon enough. The question will be just how much does Apple's business model depend on the stupid, and how many of them will end up going to Windows when they find out Macs can't magically protect them from being total dumbasses. Frankly after dealing with some of the braintrusts that argued up and down with me that "Macs can NOT get infected!" while the DNSChanger bug was happily sending all their machines to porn sites? If the ones I have dealt with are typical you are looking at a minimum of 30% of mac users being dumb as stumps. Whether they will get pissed and leave or stay because Macs are more expensive (and yes I've seen plenty of folks buy Macs because they have money and wish to show it off. How do you think that "I am rich" app was able to sell?) is anybody's guess.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
The update for Mac OS X will automatically find and remove the malware on an infected machine and also will warn users if another infection attempt is detected.
The cat and mouse game with malware developers begins. Within a few days there will be another version of Mac Defender that is not detected or removed. What will Apple do then? Make another patch?
Software is too easy to change for Apple's approach to be feasible in the long run.
"Only download software from repositories" is a very flaky solution-- all you're doing is translating your trust from a website to a repo maintainer. The repo maintainer obviously is a good third-party that has a strong incentive to only provide clean software, but what if he gets hacked? It's no better or worse than a top-down App Store then, with the added complication that there are no repos for any Linux distro I'm aware of that allow for developers to charge money for installation, which drives away a lot of commercial retail development.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
This article submission, based on words from Eugene Kaspersky tends to disagree with you, as do I (see my p.s. below later, where I ask you a VERY pertinent question based on YOUR STATEMENTS quoted there) where he even states Windows is as secure as Linux or moreso:
http://slashdot.org/submission/1568086/Windows-not-less-secure-than-LinuxOS-X
That was put up as a story for submission here, in the "recent section", but it never was put onto the main page... totally "blown off" & we ALL know why!
(The /. "Pro-*NIX slant" around here & the trolls that help promote it, knowing most folks are "sheeple" that 'follow the crowd' because they don't know enough about a tech topic to know better!)...
Yes - I've even had it to my posts here, & it's happened SO many times on security data I've put up in this regards that it's NOT funny!
E.G. #1 on ANDROID problems (a LINUX variant) ->
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2148646&cid=36106332
E.G. #2 on LINUX unpatched security vulnerabilities currently, having 3.5x as many as not only Windows 7 alone, but vs. nearly the ENTIRE suite of MS products for business & development as a platform ->
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2077414&cid=35776848
(Not even a technical justification was given for the "mod down", just off topic trolling b.s. & the -1 rating, even though I used VALID data from a REPUTABLE SITE for security vulnerabilities remaining unpatched in both Linux latest & Windows 7 + all of MS' latest wares!)
APK
P.S.=> And, do I have experience in this area? Yes, & since 1997 or so, on how to secure Windows variants (& yes, it CAN be done):
http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE
QUESTION, vs. this statement from you quoted next:
the whole security model of UNIX/Linux/OS X (which is derived from UNIX) is generally better than Windows. - by insertwackynamehere (891357) on Wednesday May 25, @11:52AM (#36239684)
Question: Does ANY shipping version of MacOS X have ASRL (address space randomization) ? Not afaik... not yet, & it's omitted having it for YEARS now!
So much for your statement then!
... apk
Yes, since OS 8.6, actually. I ran OS X 10.0, back when most Mac users today didn't even know what the heck it was. Not that that makes me an expert on OS X security, but I'm hardly a neophyte Mac user.
And this is how a significant amount of Windows viruses are spread as well. In fact, how many Windows viruses are spread strictly because of Windows security flaws rather than because of IE, Flash and other apps?
You've managed to completely miss the point, just like King_TJ below you in this thread. The problem with their attitude is that it is a license to be stupid. They treat their Mac like it's a rubber-padded room where they can't hurt themselves. Even if it is safer, and I never said it wasn't safer, that is no license to say blatantly stupid things like "I don't have to worry about security because I have a Mac."
Yeah? And how is your Mac going to protect you against a phishing attack? How is it going to protect you when you think you're invincible, download a trojan and run it? These people don't understand that when they enter their password to install an app, they're doing a GUI version of "sudo" to do it. So yes, the ability to get infected by trojans is lessened, but the attitude makes it more likely that they'll confidently run one thinking it's ok because some magic property of their Mac will stop it from hurting them.
Traditionally mainframes are very secure from this type, or any type, of malware. The administrators are generally competent and have good controls on what get installed. Also, mainframe admins are used to paying for software have very high expectations on the quality.You never hear about virus on IBM system Z10's
Not sure who's been doing the lying about MacOS being 100% secure (it clearly isn't), but it it far, far safer for the average user than Windows is. The "running random application you've downloaded and typing in your password" threat is pretty much the same for any OS out there (except for the IOS-style walled gardens), and is only smaller on MacOS and Linux due to there being less users to target, and potentially the level of intelligence of the average user. The virus/drive-by malware threat, OTOH, is much lower on MacOS and Linx than on Windows - both due to the smaller target, but also due to there being far less exploitable holes - or at least far less that have ever been discovered.
http://www.apple.com/support/security/guides/
Because that's VERY much like the guides for Windows I have done since 1997 for Windows NT-based OS users:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE
That Apple version follows the same "generic guidelines", using "layered security techniques"...
Now - Because, without doing THAT guide's points? You're not as secured as possible vs. attack as you could be on MacOS X!
(Also/Additionally: Until MacOS X ships with ASRL too, which yes, Windows has? It's not as secured as Windows is, because MacOS X lacks that!).
APK
P.S.=> Same with Linux folks too, even with SeLinux bearing distros: They're NOT as secured as possible either, until SeLinux settings are "tightened"!
... apk
The difference for me is that MacOS/Linux look to be far less susceptable to the virus/drive-by issues that Windows has been plagued with over the years. There's a big difference between running a random app from the internet to get infected, and happening to stumble across a dodgy site exploiting a buffer overrun in IE. It's certainly getting a lot better with Win7, but things like MS's desire to support the huge range of legacy apps on Windows mean that there's likely to be many more security holes to come in the Windows space.
Cannot tell if trolling or just very stupid.
I don't think you know what a security model is.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
What defence is there against the end users downloading and running MacDefender and giving up the Admin password?
A big part of the problem is Safari's default settings. Safari will automatically download and run the MacDefender installer. This, in itself, is harmless (you can quit the installer), but that default behavior in Safari makes it that much easier for malware authors.
Apple needs to acknowledge that Safari's default setting to automatically download "safe content" needs to be disabled.
Bingo. I remember when they included "safe content" auto-run in Safari, and thinking to myself... this is just begging for an exploit (OSX does have layers of security, but this was a barn-door through an important security layer).
They need to do a bit more thinking about that whole concept and produce their equivalent of "iPhone cut and paste" that solves major dilemmas (usability vs. security) while also being default secure (and optionally allowing lockdown for the paranoid).
Gruber aside (he posed Mac App Store as the "solution" to these kind of trojans), Apple needs to acknowledge that 90% of users download potentially-executable stuff from the internet, and OSX needs to get savvy security-wise on that... growing pains and all.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Otherwise, let the OS do what it needs to do and complain to your software vendors for their buggy software.
To what Microsoft support channel should I complain that Windows Notepad (or any other application included with Windows) doesn't automatically save and restore an unsaved document across a restart?
Then I will stop buying from those computer makers [who lock down the owner of a computer from installing software].
Let me guess: You've stopped buying from [all the console makers].
Yeah, is that so hard to believe?
It is when there are entire genres of games that are underrepresented on PCs and Macs compared to consoles. Statistically nobody wants to connect a PC or Mac to a television to play a video game, so very few games for PC or Mac support a use case with multiple gamepads.
ObMac: And how long until Apple starts using lockdown on new APIs in Mac OS X so that only applications in the Mac App Store and applications built with a $99/year Mac App Store developer program certificate can access them?
Password no longer needed: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9217061/Newest_MacDefender_scareware_installs_without_a_password?taxonomyId=89
You never, ever hear people say, "I have a Mac, but if it had viruses, I'd switch to a PC". NEVER. That's a fantasy that people who sell PCs tell themselves. What you are calling "stupid" is simply a lack of knowledge and a lack of either desire or enthusiasm for getting to know technology the way nerds do. This is not "stupidity", it's just being a person with different interests than you.
You also keep building the same old straw man, that Mac users think Macs somehow magically can't possibly get viruses. When people say this, they all but universally mean that they don't have to worry about viruses, not that they are impossible. Any time a Mac user talks about this online, they *ALWAYS* point out some variation of "but it's not impossible", to appease PC nerds like yourself who are so quick with a bag of straw.
Right now, even with MacDefender, Mac users don't have to worry about viruses. This may change. This is really the first somewhat interesting malware for the Mac, and only time will tell how this is going to pan out, but even assuming this is the beginning of a virus "tidal wave", people aren't going to all of a sudden switch to Windows. Why would they? It's not like the virus situation there is any better. In fact, even if this is the start of a "tidal wave" (which has been predicted for a decade now, and is not something you can reliably predict anyway), it would have to be a tidal wave of a *PHENOMENALLY IMPOSSIBLE* magnitude for it to be worse than on Windows.
More and more people are buying Macs at an ever increasing rate. Lack of viruses is just one part of their reasoning.
There is ClamAntivus but it is just a scanner and does not offer a shield or active protection.
BitDefender for Linux...
will scan mounted Windows partitions as well.
very nice to have on a live CD. While you are
disinfecting your (insert relationship here)'s
computer you can also show them the benefits
of using Linux.
-AI
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
Just a friendly FYI for anyone who doesn't know...
A file extension is just part of the filename and does not necessarily say anything about the actual contents of the file. By default, Windows treats any file with any of the following extensions as a Portable Executable (PE): cpl, dll, drv, exe, ocx, scr, sys. A scr file is literally just renamed from exe after it is compiled.
However, scr is also used as a generic extension for scripts, especially on UNIX (and UNIX-like) platforms. There are also dozens of programs out there that happen to use scr as an extension for their internal use (temporary files, game saves, etc). To be fair, though, if any website is trying to shove a file in your face with the scr extension, it's going to be a PE file, not a script.
So where's the app that allows you to protect yourself from buying an overpriced i7 or a tablet with an inferior amount of hardware features compared to Android pads?
If you were any more full of shit I could squeeze you and solve the energy crisis! You accuse me of building straw men while you desperately jump through logic hoops and split hairs with a fucking laser! I don't give a wet fart whether you call it malware, trojan, fucking STD and you know what? i'll let you in on a little secret...here it comes...to the user it is ALL viruses all the way down, kay?
And whether you stick your head in the sand and go "tra la la" ain't no concern of mine friend, if you want to think all mac owners are Harvard educated CS grads, go right ahead. i'll tell you you're completely full of shit,. but don't let me stop your delusions none. Whether you refuse to accept it or not many believe Macs are immune to ALL viruses and Yes Virginia they consider this a virus. Get your panties in a twist if you want, but folks decided anything nasty is a bug a while back, right around when they decided there wasn't a difference between "hacker and cracker'. And I have seen sales guys in Worst Buy feed that very same lie to sell Macbooks.
So whether you choose to see that this is a bug, or that many Mac owners believe they can do whatever they want on the net is YOUR business, but as a guy that has been in the trenches for damned near 25 years I can tell you its a fact. I'm betting right now there is a shitload of VERY pissed off mac owners who had their little bubble burst on Macs being immune. Will that get them to switch to Linux or Windows? Who knows, but I doubt it. People are lazy and stick with what they know and nobody markets boutique slick like old Jobs. But what I CAN tell you is the malware writers are gonna have a field day, because they already have seen blood in the water, and they know the Macs are like sheep waiting for the wolves to descend. so many have convinced themselves they have no reason to ever worry they don't even think.
How else do YOU explain a trojan that needs a password spreading like wildfire? Were all those Mac owners just bored and wanted the "fun" of dealing with malware? Give me a break! .
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
First off, you're engaging in another straw man, I never played the "it's not a virus" word game. And no one says viruses are impossible on the Mac. They say you don't have to worry about them, which is true. When one of your victims says, "I don't need antivirus, I have a Mac, Macs can't get viruses," they don't mean it's impossible, they mean it's not possible right now, and although there are a very small handful of trojans (which I'm including as viruses, you idiot), it's still true in the way people mean it, which is that they don't need AV software.
There isn't a single Mac user who will tell you that Macs will never need antivirus software.
Second, it's not "spreading like wildfire". It's the most successful Mac malware to date, but it's still insignificant.
And finally, you may have been "in the trenches" for 25 years, but that clearly hasn't imparted any actual knowledge beyond the PC. You are too set in your ways to understand how different things might work differently. To, it's already a foregone conclusion that Mac malware is going to explode... Funny, jackasses like yourself have been claiming that for a DECADE now, to no avail. Sure, it's *possible* that it will happen, but it's not necessarily coming any time soon.
Will that get them to switch to Linux or Windows? Who knows, but I doubt it.
That was YOUR point. This is a perfect example of PC jackasses making up bullshit claims. You pose a question that you don't even think is likely? That's an extremely dishonest way to try to bolster your point.
You also try to pain Mac users as stupid and arrogant rich people. That is just another example of your pathetic inability to understand people who aren't just like you.
The user still needs to click through dialogs, but doesn't have to give admin password in the new version: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9217061/Newest_MacDefender_scareware_installs_without_a_password?taxonomyId=89
HOT OFF THE PRESSES:
---
Mac malware authors release a new, more dangerous version:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/mac-malware-authors-release-a-new-more-dangerous-version/3385
---
So, the MacOS X security guide Apple puts out that I told you that you ought to look into & apply in my initial reply to you here:
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2184872&cid=36240972
?
That now holds even more true NOW, than it did before.
APK
P.S.=> Face it Mac Folks: Your time enjoying "security-by-obscurity" that MOST *NIX variants enjoy, is probably over - no more 'resting on your laurels' (not that they ever were, it was only lack of largescale usage that protected you)...
So, NOW?
NOW, we'll see how "secure & safe" vs. 'malware-in-general' MacOS X really is (it's not, & in fact, less so than Microsoft's Windows 7 is because MS has had decades of experience fighting & patching vs. it, whereas the *NIX camp has not (even though the 1st worm was on *NIX (morris worm))... apk
HOT OFF THE PRESSES, these malware makers "upgraded" this malware apparently:
---
Mac malware authors release a new, more dangerous version:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/mac-malware-authors-release-a-new-more-dangerous-version/3385
---
So, the MacOS X security guide Apple puts out that I told other repliers here to look into & apply in my initial reply to they here:
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2184872&cid=36240972
?
That now holds even more true NOW, than it did before.
---
"Windows being Windows was a problem and not just Windows being a majority" - by insertwackynamehere (891357) on Wednesday May 25, @11:52AM (#36239684)
To an extent, perhaps, because things like DEP, ASR, & UAC were not in place... but, you COULD secure Windows NT-based OS before VISTA, & very well (to the point users told me they had systems keeping going for YEARS after applying what's below that I wrote up since 1997), as long as you applied & followed the guidelines I listed here:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE
Securing Windows better, 2000/XP/Server 2003/VISTA/Win7/Server 2008? It's doable - just like it is for MacOS X, & yes, even SeLinux bearing Linux distros.
(Worth doing & taking 1-2 hours of your time to do yourself, & do right - Because, after all: It's YOUR time & money folks!)
APK
P.S.=> Still, BOTTOM-LINE HERE:
Face it Mac Folks: Your time enjoying "security-by-obscurity" that MOST *NIX variants enjoy, is probably over, for MacOS X (and certainly for ANDROID, a Linux variant) - there'll be no more 'resting on your laurels' (not that they ever were, it was only lack of largescale usage that protected you)...
So, NOW?
NOW, we'll see how "secure & safe" vs. 'malware-in-general' MacOS X really is (it's not, & in fact, less so than Microsoft's Windows 7 is, not only because Win7 has ASRL built in & MacOS X does not in shipping models, but also because MS has had decades of experience fighting & patching vs. it, whereas the *NIX camp has not (even though the 1st worm was on *NIX (morris worm))... apk
1. Virus authors like to pick on the most popular platform, hence Windows (currently, anyway). But you're clueless if you think that's the ONLY reason we don't see more problems with malware on the Mac. Attacking a Windows system has traditionally been like shooting fish in a barrel. All your users could be expected to be running with the equivalent of "root user privileges" at all times, and the design of the OS with a "system registry" made it incredibly easy to secretly run programs at startup. (How many places did they conclude you were able to tell Windows to run a program during bootup by way of registry entries? I believe someone said at least 14?)
2. I was simply writing about the experience from off the top of my head. Yes, .scr is the extension for a Windows screen-saver (often a malware vector though anyway, as they know people can't resist allowing the download of a file that promises to give you a cool new screen-saver of something or other that's pretty/shiny). However, it's ALSO the default for script files in AutoCAD if you have it installed, and it's used in several other ways as well. Substitute "download a script (.vbs extension)" if it pleases you... whatever. The point is, you'll see all sorts of lame attempts to send you filetypes which OS X won't even use when you surf "questionable" web pages.
3. Your "better idea" stinks, and sounds to me more like what I'd hear spouted off by some low-wage Geeksquad loser..... I'm asking people to try using a Mac to do things that typical Windows users do every day, causing them virus infections, so they can learn a little bit about what's going on out there and see for themselves if the Mac really handles itself any better in that scenario (and yes, it does). You're suggesting that for whatever reason, it would somehow be more "useful" for me to ask hackers from all over the world to target my specific IP address, trying to hack into my Mac sitting at that address. Whatever method(s) they'd eventually come up with to hack in, they'd have little to nothing to do with the reasons why it's safer to surf Internet web sites on a Mac than in a browser on a Windows platform! I probably wouldn't even get the opportunity to really see what they were doing either.
This isn't about saying it's IMPOSSIBLE to put a virus on a Mac (or hack into it, which wasn't even the topic of discussion). This is about current REALITY.... what your average user experience really will be if they take home a Mac running OS X and use it tonight to get on the Internet, vs. what it'll be for a Windows user doing the same thing. And yes, if they used a Linux machine to go online, they'd have pretty much an equally "virus/malware resistant" result. That's because BOTH Linux and OS X are versions of Unix.
Eight seconds according to this InformationWeek story. So make sure to have the Service Pack 3 disc handy if you'll be providing PC repair service to someone who might have Windows XP RTM or SP1 discs, so that you can install the service pack before connecting the computer to the Internet.