New Version of Flashback Trojan Targets Mac Users

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Version of Flashback Trojan Targets Mac Users

Posted by timothy on Saturday February 25, 2012 @03:14PM from the for-more-shiny-enter-password dept.

wiredmikey writes with this extract from Security Week: "On Friday, researchers from security firm Intego reported that a new variant of Flashback is targeting passwords and as a byproduct of infection, Flashback is crashing several notable applications. Flashback was first discovered by Intego in September of 2011. It targets Java vulnerabilities on OS X, two of them to be exact, in order to infect the system. Should Flashback find that Java is fully updated, it will attempt to social engineer the malware's installation, by presenting an applet with a self-signed certificate. The certificate claims to be signed by Apple, but is clearly marked as invalid. However, users are known to skip such warnings, thus allowing the malware to be installed. ... The newest variant will render programs such as Safari and Skype unstable, causing them to crash. Interestingly enough, normally these are stable programs, so if they start suddenly crashing might be a sign of larger issues."

160 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 15:21 · Score: 0, Troll

I thought Macs were completely immune to viruses and worms! Steve Jobs told me so!
1. Re:But I thought... by jo_ham · 2012-02-25 15:30 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I know you're trolling, but no he didn't.
  He did say they were much less likely, but it has never been the case that Macs were immune. There has been a history of malware on the Mac since the pre-OS X days.
  Far fewer viruses in the OS X era though (relative to earlier Mac OSes), but several trojans - usually in pirate software (like the infamous "pretends to be MS Office installer but really destroys your home folder" one).
  Vigilance is necessary on all platforms, especially against trojans, since they tend to exploit the common weak link in computer security - the user of the system.
2. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 15:32 · Score: 0
  
  They are! That's why people let Apple decide whey should be allowed to run on their own hardware, right? ... right????
3. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 15:40 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If you remember the "I'm a PC" and "I'm a Mac" commercials, the gist of several of the ads was that Macs COULDN'T be compromised like PCs.
  While geeks always new better, I think the point the OP was trying to make is that the majority of Mac users, those who "just want it to work", were sold on the idea that they weren't succeptibal to viruses and malware.
4. Re:But I thought... by hal2814 · 2012-02-25 15:51 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Vigilance is very important on all platforms. The worst infection I ever had was on a Solaris 9 box. Some piece of garbage zombie bot took advantage of a weakness in CDE. Who the hell targets CDE?!
5. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 15:52 · Score: 0
  
  that is what the one "I'm a Mac" ad said also.
6. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 15:58 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Susceptible.
  You're obviously on a computing device connected to the Internet so why not take a few seconds to look up a word if you don't know how it's spelled?
7. Re:But I thought... by LordLimecat · 2012-02-25 16:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The "Im a PC ads" certainly made that statement. Youre not going to look at this ad...
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQb_Q8WRL_g ...and tell me that the implication isnt supposed to be that "Macs are immune to viruses".
  I also find it telling that folks who are not very technical and not qualified to comment on the security of an OS somehow have this idea that Macs cant get viruses. Now where do you suppose that assumption comes from?
8. Re:But I thought... by MikeMo · 2012-02-25 16:12 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Regardless, this is neither a virus nor a worm. It's a trojan. You're supposed to know the difference.
9. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 16:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That commercial did not, in fact, make the statement that "Macs are immune to viruses."
  It did say that there were "114,000 known viruses for PCs" to which the Mac replies "PCs. Not Macs."
  It's worded in such a way that your casual listener will likely believe "Oh, Macs don't get PCs", but it's ALSO worded so that Apple could easily argue that they merely meant that there are simply *not* 114,000 viruses for Macs. Maybe there's 100,000. Maybe 150,000. Maybe 0. But they didn't say outright, "Macs don't get viruses."
  It's their fault that everyone heard it that way and that everyone assumes that, but really. They never said Macs don't get viruses.
  And yes, I agree. Fuck Apple and their wordplay.
10. Re:But I thought... by jo_ham · 2012-02-25 16:28 · Score: 0
  
  Look at it carefully. It does not make that statement. As I mentioned in another comment, they lie by omission, because they're talking about the PC.
  The phrase "last year there were 114,000 known viruses for PC... yeah but not Mac..." is accurate. What it doesn't mean is that it's immune. They can't state that (and don't) because it isn't true.
  And the idea that less tech savvy people believing that Macs can't get viruses is probably from personal experience. There have been a handful of viruses for OS X in the decade that it's been the primary OS for the Mac, and most of them were proof of concept efforts.
  Plenty of trojans though, some of which have been quite sophisticated, most of them have simply been installers that claim to be for another program, downloaded from torrent sites.
11. Re:But I thought... by symbolset · 2012-02-25 16:45 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  If you have to deliberately install it, it's neither a virus nor a worm. It's an app.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
12. Re:But I thought... by Taty'sEyes · 2012-02-25 16:47 · Score: 1
  
  You missed his usage of the word "new"...
  
  --
  We show geeks how to get their dream girl at EyesOfOdessa.com
13. Re:But I thought... by Sancho · 2012-02-25 16:49 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I don't think they ever said "couldn't" or "can't", but instead said, "don't."
14. Re:But I thought... by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-02-25 16:58 · Score: 0
  
  You have the option on Windows of not running as Administrator. And starting with Vista, if the user gets infected it is only that user profile that is infected (unless they were running as Administrator) and knowledgeable users will not get the entire system infected.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
15. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 17:35 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The fact that this is even considered a story makes the point that Macs are still less afflicted by this stuff than Win boxes. Can you imagine if Slashdot were to post a story for every new Windows malware variant that appears?
16. Re:But I thought... by LordLimecat · 2012-02-25 17:39 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  On Windows there is a user called System and most programs need to be installed/run as the system user which gives a virus Trojan unlimited access to the full system.
  Thats just plain not accurate on several levels.
  For starters, I have never in my life seen an installer that needed to run as System. Administrator, yes, but thats not the same thing. For another, you need to install system programs on Mac as root, which IS the same thing as "the system user", as it has the highest rights on the system.
  Third, most programs do NOT need to be installed as an admin-- you can install them to the local user's folder. I assume you could pull this off in a Mac, but Im not sure.
  
  If you have a knowledgeable user on a Mac he can run the system securely with out a need for a virus scanner. Unfortunately on Windows you do not have this option.
  
  Baloney. If youre downloading random executables from the net, I suppose you might want that scanner; but if your browser plugins are out of date it wont matter terribly much what OS you use or whether you have a scanner, as each year's Pwn2Own proves (with Mac getting hacked first each time).
17. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 17:55 · Score: 0
  
  Seems to me I remember a CDE vulnerability from way back.
  http://www.iss.net/security_center/reference/vuln/RPC_Cmsd_Overflow.htm
18. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 18:15 · Score: 0
  
  Thank you! I hate the freaking zealots (is why I'm posting AC....you know everyone posting anything besides Apple rhetoric is about to get modded to oblivion).
  It has gotten to the point that I hate seeing a story about the almighty Apple on Slashdot. The fucking zealots spread retarded misinformation and opinion as absolute truth and mod everyone else to hell. They're all sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling 'LALALALALA! IT'S THE BEST! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!'
  It's a fucking tool, people. Just like a Windows workstation or a Linux workstation are tools. Just like a hammer, a screwdriver, an Android phone, an iOS phone, a Windows Mobile phone, or a freaking soldering gun. However, I never hear people talk about how much better hammers are than screwdrivers. Why? They're just fucking tools. Just like the zealots are tools.
19. Re:But I thought... by I(rispee_I(reme · 2012-02-25 18:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That commercial did not, in fact, make the statement that "Macs are immune to viruses."
  It did say that there were "114,000 known viruses for PCs" to which the Mac replies "PCs. Not Macs."
  What about this one?
  It says, "I run Mac OS X, so I don't have to worry about your spyware and viruses."
  I suppose the argument could be made that the commercial meant that the person running OS X didn't have to worry about anyone's spyware and viruses but his own (due to the word "your"), but only someone who was already on guard against Apple's duplicitous salesmanship would interpret the commercial in that way.
  **** BEGIN PEDANTRY DETERRENCE ****
  **** REASONABLE READERS MAY DISREGARD ****
  Also, because the Mac representative has spent the previous entirety of the commercial scoffing at the PC representative's paranoia, there is a much more obvious and likely meaning of "your spyware and viruses", as in, "Take your average virus, for example. It doesn't worry me." This usage of "your" does not convey possession (by the PC representative), and thus does not distinguish between viruses and spyware by platform.
  **** END PEDANTRY DETERRENCE ****
  The commercial clearly suggests that Mac OS X boasts some special resistance or protection (immunity, perhaps?) against spyware and viruses that saves its users the trouble of worrying about same.
20. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 18:45 · Score: 0
  
  I know you're trolling, but no he didn't.
  He did say they were much less likely, but it has never been the case that Macs were immune. There has been a history of malware on the Mac since the pre-OS X days.
  Jobs was in fact responsible for a good part of their marketing campaign. They did not actually use those exact words, but did a very good job of spreading the idea to the general public that Macs are immune to all Malware.
  The point is that what most average users got out of the marketing is that their system is 100% safe and secure, not just from malicious software but from targeted hacking attempts as well. And this is about as far from the truth as you can get. The point is, Apple (under the direction of Jobs) spent a lot of money to get this idea to the masses, and has made a ton of cash as a result. The marketing is at the very least misleading, and frankly I find it to be somewhat unethical.
  
  Far fewer viruses in the OS X era though (relative to earlier Mac OSes), but several trojans
  Same for Windows, Linux, and all other OS's. It's because in the early days most malware was released out of curiosity or a desire to cause mischief. These days the authors don't want to trash a system or take down a network... they want to use it and/or harvest information from it so using worms and viruses is counterproductive.
21. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 18:58 · Score: 0
  
  That commercial did not, in fact, make the statement that "Macs are immune to viruses."
  It's their fault that everyone heard it that way and that everyone assumes that, but really. They never said Macs don't get viruses.
  They never uttered that phrase, but that was exactly the message the ads were intended to deliver.
  There is more than one definition of the word "statement", it can be a literal phrase or the general idea which is conveyed. So it is not entirely incorrect to say that Apple did in fact make such a statement or claim... just not verbatim.
  But the end is the same- most Mac users really do think they have some special kind of protection. To the point where they often refuse to accept that an internet connection with a Mac on one end can fall victim to any sort of attack at all.
22. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 19:37 · Score: 0
  
  >It says, "I run Mac OS X, so I don't have to worry about your spyware and viruses."
  And I don't. Yours, as in Windows, or yours, as in generally. This is a TROJAN. Do you even understand the difference?
23. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 19:43 · Score: 0
  
  Ryobi, Bosch or Dewalt?
24. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 20:31 · Score: 0
  
  On a Mac and a typical UNIX system the apps are run in a sandbox with limited permissions keeping them tied to the user. If the user gets compromised the system is not affected. On Windows there is a user called System and most programs need to be installed/run as the system user which gives a virus Trojan unlimited access to the full system.
  Macs can get viruses but they will be limited to the user. If you have a knowledgeable user on a Mac he can run the system securely with out a need for a virus scanner. Unfortunately on Windows you do not have this option. Yes Windows has improved considerably but most applications will not install unless Administrator installs them and they then can be run as system. This is only one simple example of how the two systems are different but it makes a big difference. There are many others.
  You can have stupid users on Mac who install everything from everywhere and run their system as root or the main user but once burnt they learn and have a means to protect themselves. Now I've never ran an anti-virus on an UNIX system I own, including my Macs, but I would never run a Windows system without it. The stupid users may grow but the knowledgeable users will not be affected.
  Speaking of stupid users....
25. Re:But I thought... by drsmithy · 2012-02-25 20:39 · Score: 1
  
  And starting with Vista, if the user gets infected it is only that user profile that is infected (unless they were running as Administrator) and knowledgeable users will not get the entire system infected.
  No, this has been true for every version of Windows NT.
26. Re:But I thought... by Arrepiadd · 2012-02-25 21:12 · Score: 0
  
  If you have a knowledgeable user on a Mac he can run the system securely with out a need for a virus scanner. Unfortunately on Windows you do not have this option.
  
  Now I've never ran an anti-virus on an UNIX system I own, including my Macs, but I would never run a Windows system without it.
  Stop spreading FUD, please.
  When I used Windows XP I didn't have an antivirus for extensive periods. When I did, I kept it off all the time. I must certainly have had periods of over between 6 months between scans. And I never found viruses, adware, spyware and so on.
  I didn't install random crap I found on the internet. I used an account without privileges. I had the standard firewall on. I updated my software. That's all there is!
  And before you say it was impossible to have a standard privilege account back then, I never had usability problems. It made installing software slightly harder but nothing that a knowledgeable user can't do. And that's less than 1% of a typical user's time in front of the computer anyway.
  Is Windows immune to viruses? No.
  Is Windows going to get destroyed with viruses no matter what you do so that you need antivirus, antispyware, antiadware and so no? Hell, no!
  I know this is all anecdotal evidence, but one case should be more than enough to disprove that "awesome" theory you had there...
  What you should have said is "I'm not knowledgeable enough to run a Windows without an antivirus." But that's not really a Windows problem, is it?
  Disclaimer (to avoid being called a fanboi): Nowadays I use Linux all the time, I haven't had a computer with Windows (except on VMs) for several years now.
27. Re:But I thought... by Barsteward · 2012-02-25 21:13 · Score: 0
  
  they should have been a lot more specific and say "Windows PC" as the Mac is a Personal Computer as well.
  
  --
  "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
28. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 21:15 · Score: 0
  
  Shut the fuck up.
29. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 21:22 · Score: 0
  
  This is a SPYWARE TROJAN. Do you even understand what spyware means?
  QED, Mac users don't know shit about security, they know that "it just works" and "don't have to worry about spyware and viruses".
30. Re:But I thought... by stephanruby · 2012-02-25 22:00 · Score: 1
  
  Who the hell targets CDE?!
  Blind people?
31. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 22:05 · Score: 0
  
  potaeto, potato
32. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 22:28 · Score: 0
  
  Third, most programs do NOT need to be installed as an admin-- you can install them to the local user's folder. I assume you could pull this off in a Mac, but Im not sure.
  WTF are you talking about, on macs applications by default are installed on the Applications folder which is in the home folder, they don't even have installers, you just drug the self-contained excecutable to the Applications folder or wherever else in your system you like, no root password or anything else is needed.
  
  If you have a knowledgeable user on a Mac he can run the system securely with out a need for a virus scanner. Unfortunately on Windows you do not have this option.
  Baloney. If youre downloading random executables from the net, I suppose you might want that scanner; but if your browser plugins are out of date it wont matter terribly much what OS you use or whether you have a scanner, as each year's Pwn2Own proves (with Mac getting hacked first each time).
  Well, OS X already has built-in antivirus since Snow Leopard IIRC. Just google XProtect.
33. Re:But I thought... by mikael_j · 2012-02-25 23:12 · Score: 1
  
  Spyware is software, the SPIES on you. A virus is a self-propagating program. A trojan is a piece of malware disquised as something else. Ergo, spyware trojan is not the same as a spyware virus. Semantics, yes, but it's better than calling everything a virus.
  
  --
  Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
34. Re:But I thought... by Lumpy · 2012-02-26 01:08 · Score: 2
  
  " you remember the "I'm a PC" and "I'm a Mac" commercials, the gist of several of the ads was that Macs COULDN'T be compromised like PCs."
  And at that time it was 100% correct.
  Pc's would get a virus just by letting it sit on the internet without a firewall. MAC's would not do this as they actually had a firewall in the BSD underpinnings.
  I know that MS fanbois hate that this was a fact and most try like hell to ignore it, but it's also the reason why Linux is far more secure than Windows. Ms is getting better 10 years later, but they still have a long way to go.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
35. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 01:21 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think they ever said "couldn't" or "can't", but instead said, "don't."
  Well I'm no English expert but this also seems like a flawed remark seeing how they "do" actually get infected and there is clear history they "have" before this for awhile. Seems to be a clear cut case of false advertising to me.
  If i bought a car and they say it "doesn't" break down and it breaks I'll be mad, however if they say it lasts longer than any other car and it breaks years later then I might give them the benefit of a doubt.
  I don't think "we don't get hacked as much because we're not as popular yet" would have worked as well in a commercial and they instead sold the we don't break or get infected line to everyone which is clearly flawed. Hell just last week a coworker of mine had a drive failure one morning that sounded like a sand grinder inside an airplane taking off. Of course it isn't a simple act of replace the hard drive because it's crammed inside a the monitor. O yeah once they replaced that apparently what ever the drive was doing damaged the CPU so he lost an expensive hard drive, a computer and a monitor in one fail swoop.
36. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 01:25 · Score: 0
  
  Apple's the best...
  at the moment
37. Re:But I thought... by thetoadwarrior · 2012-02-26 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  It never made that statement because it would have been false. It did have PC talk about 14,000+ Windows viruses which are harmless to Mac so, at best, it implied, Mac is immune to Window's viruses but that's about it.
  
  And the fact is Macs aren't as insecure. Is that because they're unix based or because they're not as popular? It doesn't really, matter, they are generally more secure and generally require user stupidity which no system is invulnerable against and that is why they would never say the Mac is immune to virus threats.
38. Re:But I thought... by DJRumpy · 2012-02-26 03:11 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Not only that, but this isn't a virus. It's a trojan, and there is no secure system free of trojans unless no human ever interacts with it. As far as I know, as of right now, there are no viruses in the wild for a Mac, as opposed to the 100K plus that are there for a PC. In that respect, the chances that a user will be duped into installing a bit of code with this specific trojan are pretty limited.
  Why is it that when we hear about the 1 or 2 trojans for Mac that come out each year, the anti-apple folks come out of the woodwork claiming they are all 'viruses' and that Mac users think they are immune, etc. Of course slashdot extremists will pander to this and mark such posts insightful. The very fact that we're talking about a trojan on a Mac and that it is 'news' speaks volumes. The vector of infection for a trojan has nothing to do with the OS, and unless you need to turn in your geek card, everyone here damn well knows that.
  Is a Mac immune? Of course not. No user system is immune from Trojans. Are you less likely to be infected on a Mac? Certainly, and claims to the contrary are patently false. Will that change in one year? Ten years? Who knows. That doesn't change the fact that the gist of the I"m a Mac commercials is still valid, even today.
39. Re:But I thought... by Anne+Thwacks · 2012-02-26 03:15 · Score: 2
  
  You just drug the self-contained executable
  You really mean all those apps on my Mum's Apple are drugged? Don't tell her she might 'frique out!
  
  --
  Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
40. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 03:23 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, to me, it suggests that Macs are not vulnerable to the current crop of PC viruses.
  
  It says, "I run Mac OS X, so I don't have to worry about your spyware and viruses."
  
  The commercial clearly suggests that Mac OS X boasts some special resistance or protection (immunity, perhaps?)
41. Re:But I thought... by garyoa1 · 2012-02-26 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  But no one told you that Jobs was a marketing genius. ;)
  
  --
  Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
42. Re:But I thought... by Ol+Olsoc · 2012-02-26 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  Why is it that when we hear about the 1 or 2 trojans for Mac that come out each year, the anti-apple folks come out of the woodwork claiming they are all 'viruses' and that Mac users think they are immune, etc. Of course slashdot extremists will pander to this and mark such posts insightful. The very fact that we're talking about a trojan on a Mac and that it is 'news' speaks volumes.
  It makes the PC fans feel better about themselves. But I can't actually explain the logic.
  One of my favorite in person trolling games is to get together with friends, and since we're all techies, I'll bring up something about say, a virus on the PC, and invariably, most will brag about how "I've never gotten a virus". Then in the next breath, they tell their story of how their machine was infected so badly that they almost had to or had to reformat their computer because of some virus they picked up. Same with updates hosing the computer. "Well, you must be doing something wrong - I've never had that problem". And yup, the next thing out of their mouth is how after an update, their laptop wouldn't play some animation or other at an important meeting. It's all part of the weird Ford versus Chevy mindset, where your favorite car or platform can do no wrong, even if you have to lie about it.
  It's a fact that OSX is more resistant to virus infection. It's a fact as you note, that a Trojan being big news just is proof of that fact, as the exception proves the rule.
  But it's also a fact that for folks who have issues with the system will chime in with silliness like there are less viruses because there are less computers, or inanity like "See? See? Told you so, OSX is as vulnerable as anything else!". Whatever geets them through the night.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
43. Re:But I thought... by makomk · 2012-02-26 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Not only that, but this isn't a virus. It's a trojan, and there is no secure system free of trojans unless no human ever interacts with it.
  Strictly speaking, most of the Windows users they were targetting with that ad would probably have been infected by trojans rather than viruses too - Apple kind of relied on users not making that distinction.
44. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 11:42 · Score: 0
  
  For starters, I have never in my life seen an installer that needed to run as System. Administrator, yes, but thats not the same thing. For another, you need to install system programs on Mac as root, which IS the same thing as "the system user", as it has the highest rights on the system.
  This is wrong. You need elevated privileges to install kernel extensions and a few other things. Elevated privileges may or may not mean the same thing as root access, depending on what the installer asks for from the API. Some badly written installers may ask for elevated privileges even if they don't need them.
  However, you install most applications by dragging them to Applications directory as a normal user. This doesn't require any elevated privileges, root or otherwise.
  
  If you have a knowledgeable user on a Mac he can run the system securely with out a need for a virus scanner. Unfortunately on Windows you do not have this option.
  Baloney. If youre downloading random executables from the net, I suppose you might want that scanner; but if your browser plugins are out of date it wont matter terribly much what OS you use or whether you have a scanner, as each year's Pwn2Own proves (with Mac getting hacked first each time).
  It's true that if you're system is out of date, you're screwed no matter what. However, you completely ignore GP's assertion that you don't need to install a virus scanner on OS X, which is true. OS X includes built-in virus/trojan protection with definitions that update daily, and has since Snow Leopard. Windows doesn't (yet).
45. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 14:21 · Score: 0
  
  Vigilance is very important on all platforms. The worst infection I ever had was on a Solaris 9 box. Some piece of garbage zombie bot took advantage of a weakness in CDE. Who the hell targets CDE?!
  Crab people
46. Re:But I thought... by LordLimecat · 2012-02-26 16:19 · Score: 1
  
  The applications folder, last I checked, resided on the root of the OSX filesystem (/Applications). That is a system directory which a non-admin will not have rights to.
  Many OSX apps do have "installers", even though as you point out they are just disk-images that request you to drag the .app over to /Applications. Arguing whether that is an "installer" isnt terribly relevenat.
  
  Well, OS X already has built-in antivirus since Snow Leopard IIRC. Just google XProtect.
  And Windows has Windows Defender. Both are absolutely worthless, because anyone developing a virus will at the get-go ensure it gets around that built-in antivirus. Makes it easy to test against when every single target machine has the same defense on it, doesnt it?
47. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 17:48 · Score: 0
  
  Susceptible.
  You're obviously on a computing device connected to the Internet so why not take a few seconds to look up a word if you don't know how it's spelled?
  Because you obviously knew what he meant anyway.
48. Re:But I thought... by exomondo · 2012-02-26 18:02 · Score: 1
  
  Of course slashdot extremists will pander to this and mark such posts insightful.
  I don't get who these 'slashdot extremists' are, or what their point of view is, could you explain it? In just about every story it's some idiot referring to the 'slashdot crew' or 'slashdot extremists' or just 'slashdot' as the people who don't share their point of view, as though they have such a unique - but correct - perspective that the entire community cannot or refuses to see, the result is that said groups are defined as both both bashing and defending Microsoft and Google and Apple and GPL and FOSS and every other entity mentioned in a story yet no-one seems to know who these people are.
  
  This really is the best way to describe such things, though it should be obvious for 2 reasons:
  1. The extensive discussion and contrary points of view in such stories.
  2. The fact that your post was modded 'informative'.
49. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 18:09 · Score: 0
  
  One of my favorite in person trolling games is to get together with friends, and since we're all techies, I'll bring up something about say, a virus on the PC, and invariably, most will brag about how "I've never gotten a virus". Then in the next breath, they tell their story of how their machine was infected so badly that they almost had to or had to reformat their computer because of some virus they picked up.
  So your friends are liars and idiots, i think you need a new social group...or perhaps you're a perfect fit for such a group.
50. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 22:17 · Score: 0
  
  On Mac, which hardly gets more than 1 new malware each month if at all, the built in protection is not worthless. It might not give any protection against new threats in the short term, but at least it ensures you won't be running your mac forever with the malware, without ever realizing it.
51. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 23:06 · Score: 0
  
  I don't. Shoot me.
52. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 23:35 · Score: 0
  
  "Why is it that when we hear about the 1 or 2 trojans for Mac that come out each year, the anti-apple folks come out of the woodwork claiming they are all 'viruses' and that Mac users think they are immune, "
  Mostly because the MS fanboys are all very poorly educated and they can't tell the difference between a virus, a trojan or even spyware.
  It seems that MS fanboys are the Alabama Redneck of the internet.
  Ooooh, that mouse of yours has a real purdy port on it!
53. Re:But I thought... by bryan1945 · 2012-02-27 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  You don't need to be root to install a program. Some programs need an Adminstrator-like account, but it's not root. In OS X's security pane you can essentially shut off root from user access. Non-admins, i.e. normal users, can install most programs.
  
  --
  Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
54. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-27 02:23 · Score: 0
  
  Oh? Than why do the majority of hardline Mac pseudo techie fanboys get up in arms every time there is an article about a virus on their favorite closed garden machine?
  How about when anytime there is a semblance of a real virus, they try to claim that by some vague technicality it really isn't a virus? Despite, of course, it being fully classified as a virus everywhere else.
55. Re:But I thought... by Gilmoure · 2012-02-27 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  Bosch of course. And don't even bring up Rigid. Unless you're dealing with tools to work on a septic system, they're just rebadged (colored) Ryobi. Sad to see.
  
  --
  I drank what? -- Socrates
56. Re:But I thought... by Gilmoure · 2012-02-27 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  And they can always install apps into their home directory.
  
  --
  I drank what? -- Socrates
57. Re:But I thought... by heroid1a · 2012-02-27 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  MAC != Mac Capisce?
58. Re:But I thought... by jo_ham · 2012-02-27 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  So you're saying this trojan is a virus?
  Mhmmmhmmmm.
  Try harder next time.
59. Re:But I thought... by scot4875 · 2012-02-27 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  Do you also correct every mistaken article and post about Windows 'viruses' that are actually trojans? Or are you just here to white knight for Apple?
  --Jeremy
  
  --
  Jesus was a liberal
60. Re:But I thought... by jo_ham · 2012-02-27 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  Of course I do. This isn't about Apple or Microsoft, it's about the definitions used to describe security threats and the distinction is important.
  The more the anti-Apple brigade run around wailing about what they perceive Apple users think about "viruses" in a story about a trojan the less the discussion is about the actual threat in question.
  I also make the distinction on Windows, especially when educating users (generally family members) whose machines I occasionally look after.
  It may seem pedantic, but the intentional muddying of the terms to score cheap jabs at Apple users and then claiming "pff, viruses, malware... it's all the same, you know what I meant" isn't helpful to anyone.
  As far as "why I'm here"... I'm here because this is a discussion site I've been on for 12 years. Sorry if I didn't justify my existence, I forget myself sometimes.
61. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-27 22:16 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, the Mac Store attendants aren't too much better. When I bought Anti-Virus the guy in the Apple store said, 'Why do you need this?' and I told him that I didn't trust the hype. Mac's might be a bit safer than PC's but you can still get viruses, trojans etc. He was amused by my attitude.
The shield is lost by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 15:34 · Score: 0

For the immortal Jobs has passed onto a blessed plane, for he sorrowed with the plight of this world, and could no more withstand the call of Paradise.
All hail the Turtleneck!
What's Java? by fostware · 2012-02-25 15:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Java was an optional extra on 10.6 and is a separate download on 10.7.

--
"We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over." - Aneurin Bevan
1. Re:What's Java? by SuperSlacker64 · 2012-02-25 15:45 · Score: 2
  
  Answered your own question, eh?
2. Re:What's Java? by DigiShaman · 2012-02-25 16:55 · Score: 1
  
  My MacBook came preloaded with Leopard. Does that version of OSX come with Java already installed? I'm concerned that Java (if it exists) may have gotten carried over from my previous upgrades of Snow Leopard and now Lion.
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
3. Re:What's Java? by fostware · 2012-02-25 18:28 · Score: 1
  
  Honestly, I wouldn't know... :)
  We only perform a "time machine/re-image or reinstall/restore user" when a user gets a hardware or software upgrade. Java is left to the user to request, Casper self-service, or install themselves (all owners are local admins of their own machines).
  It's a little harsh, but that's the result of managing Macbooks for 1800 staff and students.
  BTW, I get the distinct impression that Java is the next "blight" to purge now that Apple has made a concerted effort to make sure Flash isn't as prolific on the Mac OS X platform.
  
  --
  "We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over." - Aneurin Bevan
4. Re:What's Java? by DigiShaman · 2012-02-25 20:02 · Score: 1
  
  Java, Acrobat, and Flash are all vectors by which a Windows machine can get infected via drive-by web surfing. And this can happen even if your PC is cought up with the latest updates available.
  JRE scares the hell out of me. As a sysadmin, I've see the damage it can do through one of those FakeAV malware programs. Unless Java is needed for a specific application, it should never be installed. Unfortunately I'm not a Mac expert...yet. The whole corporate BYOD policy is making my life difficult in maintaining security and cross compatibility.
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
5. Re:What's Java? by Trillan · 2012-02-25 23:19 · Score: 1
  
  Use Sun's site to check:
  http://java.com/en/download/testjava.jsp
  I doubt it's still installed after an upgrade, though.
6. Re:What's Java? by stesch · 2012-02-25 23:59 · Score: 1
  
  It's the Minecraft runtime.
7. Re:What's Java? by TheRaven64 · 2012-02-26 00:33 · Score: 1
  
  Open a terminal. Type 'java'. Does it say command not found, or does it give you the help info for Java? I have Java installed for a couple of local apps, but you can disable it in Safari easily (preferences, security, uncheck enable java).
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
8. Re:What's Java? by Rosyna · 2012-02-26 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Silly Adobe Applications (like Photoshop) require Java be installed or else they won't work.
  If you want to blame anyone for Flashback, blame Adobe. Since without them, Java would never be installed on most Macs running Mac OS X 10.6 or higher.
9. Re:What's Java? by Pope · 2012-02-27 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  It's that thing that should always be turned OFF in Safari's preferences since 10.4.
  
  --
  It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
10. Re:What's Java? by DigiShaman · 2012-02-27 17:38 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks! That command did the trick. Currently no Java is installed. Just the way I like it.
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
More malware by meerling · 2012-02-25 15:35 · Score: 2

Since it's causing instabilities, it's a poorly written piece of malware.
The standard generic symptom of being infected by malware is there are no apparent symptoms. It's just that when people start having problems is when they start looking, but you can bet they were infected LONG before they had those unrelated problems. Obviously that doesn't apply to this one, since it's new and it does cause problems. And yes, you can find others that have recognizable symptoms, but most don't.

Wonder how long until Mac users start claiming the don't have malware again. (Will it be Months, Weeks, Days, or Hours...) :)

No offense meant to Mac users, but find a way to escape the reality distortion field if you are still in it.
1. Re:More malware by jo_ham · 2012-02-25 15:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Who says Mac users claim they don't get malware? It seems to be oft-repeated here on Slashdot, but whenever the topic of Mac security comes up actual Mac users post in the threads that they're well aware that OS X is not invulnerable, and in fact posting examples of trojans and malware that they remember hearing about.
  It comes up every time, so the only people who seem to perpetuate the myth of the technology-literate Apple user who claims immunity from security threats are the ones seeking to mock the Reality Distortion Field and the users of Apple software as clueless.
  Incidentally, this malware does have some relatively sneaky features - it allegedly avoids trying to install itself if it detects AV software, to attempt to avoid early detection. Crashing browsers is not a good start though. Not very subtle, since Safari doesn't really crash any more - it tends to be the helper process that crashes and that is restarted almost transparently to the user.
2. Re:More malware by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 16:01 · Score: 0
  
  i don't know any Mac users who claim Macs don't have ANY malware. but this is hardly comparable to the torrent of malware that Windows is subject to.
3. Re:More malware by I(rispee_I(reme · 2012-02-25 16:04 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Who says Mac users claim they don't get malware? ...
  It comes up every time, so the only people who seem to perpetuate the myth of the technology-literate Apple user who claims immunity from security threats are the ones seeking to mock the Reality Distortion Field and the users of Apple software as clueless.
  Here is an Apple commercial that claims that Macintoshes don't get viruses. It is part of a series of commercials that make it seem as though there is some special feature of Apple hardware that makes it less susceptible to viruses.
  I would say that the "people perpetuating the myth of the technology-literate Apple user who claims immunity from security threats" are... Apple.
4. Re:More malware by paiute · 2012-02-25 16:10 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Here is an Apple commercial that claims that Macintoshes don't get viruses.
  Flashback Trojan. Not a virus.
  
  --
  If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
5. Re:More malware by Ethanol-fueled · 2012-02-25 16:16 · Score: 0
  
  >2012
  
  Who the hell here uses Windows as their primary internet-facing OS? As a secondary OS for gaming or all the other shit Linux can't handle, it's fine, but home users who continue to use Windows as their primary internet-facing OS should be smacked in their mouths with a rolled-up newspaper.
  
  It's funny how the curmudgeons will quickly adapt with smiling faces to OSX from Windows because they paid a lot of money for the pretty device it runs on, but will bitch and moan after a Linux install because the icon is on the wrong side or the start menu is now at the top.
  
  I'm not totally knockin' Windows, my employer is a Microsoft-friendly shop and has the staff and budget to deploy real security solutions. That means I get Office and Visual Studio, both of which let me get shit done quick, even if I'm stupid enough to click on the duck and the monkey.
6. Re:More malware by jo_ham · 2012-02-25 16:21 · Score: 1
  
  So again, where does it say that Apple computers are immune?
  It states that Windows PC are clearly not, but it doesn't actually say that OS X *doesn't* have malware - it actually lies by omission in that respect (the PC gives up and the Mac wins by default, not because it has no viruses).
  The reason that they never state that they're immune is because, quite simply, they're not.
  Apple can certainly say they're more secure than Windows though, which is what they did.
  (this relates to both viruses and trojans, although the former are *much* less common on the Mac than the latter, although the same is likely true for Windows too).
7. Re:More malware by I(rispee_I(reme · 2012-02-25 16:23 · Score: 2
  
  You are as correct here as you are irrelevant, since I was replying to a post that only mentioned "malware".
  Since you have decided to play the pedant, I might also point out that the target audience for the Apple advertisement is unlikely to make the fine distinction between trojans and viruses.
8. Re:More malware by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 16:28 · Score: 0
  
  > the myth of the technology-literate Apple user who claims immunity from security threats
  Where did "technology-literate" come from? Really, all Apple users are automagically technology-literate?
  Sure, technology-literate won't make such claims, but they're in minority for any platform.
9. Re:More malware by jo_ham · 2012-02-25 16:31 · Score: 1
  
  You are misreading it - I mean the exact opposite; that not all Apple users (or computer users in general) are technology-literate.
  In other words, I'm talking about the sort of people who frequent technology websites such as Slashdot.
10. Re:More malware by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 16:36 · Score: 0
  
  In other words, you're narrowing "Mac users don't claim they don't get malware" to "Technology-literate Mac users who frequent technology websites such as Slashdot don't claim they don't get malware". Got it.
11. Re:More malware by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 16:39 · Score: 0
  
  I do and haven't seen a virus on my machine for a least a decade. None. If you are too big of an idiot to keep your Windows box malware free, you are too big of an idiot to install Linux.
12. Re:More malware by artor3 · 2012-02-25 17:08 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Apple, and their fans, have long insinuated that Macs don't get malware. It's a major part of their advertising campaign. Walk up to ten technically illiterate people and ask what the advantages are of Macs over PCs, and I'd wager at least half would say that they don't get viruses. I know that's why my sister bought one, as she flat out told me so (this was during the Vista era, so it wasn't worth correcting her). This belief didn't come from nowhere. Apple and their fans have carefully built it up over the years. Of course, whenever they're called out on this, they turn around and protest, "But we never actually said that it was immune."
  It's dishonest marketing in the first place, but the real astounding dishonesty is to then deny it after the fact.
13. Re:More malware by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 18:27 · Score: 0
  
  Who says Mac users claim they don't get malware?
  Here is an Apple commercial that claims that Macintoshes don't get viruses
  
  Flashback Trojan. Not a virus.
  You are as correct here as you are irrelevant, since I was replying to a post that only mentioned "malware".
  Since you have decided to play the pedant, I might also point out that the target audience for the Apple advertisement is unlikely to make the fine distinction between trojans and viruses.
  Believe it or not, there is a meaningful difference between a virus and a trojan. You can get a virus from opening an infected file that comes from a trusted source without any intervention on your part. In this case, you can't get the trojan unless your system isn't up-to-date or you don't pay attention to what's appearing on your screen.
14. Re:More malware by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 18:44 · Score: 0
  
  Walk up to ten technically illiterate people and ask what the advantages are of Macs over PCs, and I'd wager at least half would say that they don't get viruses.
  Walk up to several technically illiterate people who use PCs and ask them if they have had viruses. Walk up to several technically illiterate people who use Macs and ask them if they have had viruses. How many orders of magnitude more PC users than Mac users do you think will say yes?
  Just because Macs can get malware and PCs can get malware does not mean that Macs are as likely to get malware as PCs. Just like people are willing to get a flu vaccine even though it doesn't protect against all kinds of flu, I think the plenty of people would still buy a Mac even if they knew it was only immune to nearly all viruses.
15. Re:More malware by UnknowingFool · 2012-02-25 18:47 · Score: 1
  
  No they have said there are not as many viruses for Macs as there are PCs and thus users are safer from viruses. Viruses. This is a trojan which requires intervention by the user.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
16. Re:More malware by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 23:41 · Score: 0
  
  Wonder how long until Mac users start claiming the don't have malware again. (Will it be Months, Weeks, Days, or Hours...) :)
  No offense meant to Mac users, but find a way to escape the reality distortion field if you are still in it.
  Let me use my own personal experience here versus scientific data :)
  I, under duress, administer my family's computers. My mother, son and wife's Windows machines and my daughter's mac. My daughter used to have a Windows machine.
  Around every six months I need to wipe the three windows machines and reinstall due to some malfeasant program or another (virus / malware / spyware - who knows?). I don't even bother trying to repair the damage as it is usually very difficult, unsuccessful, and very time consuming. My daughter used to be in this boat also. She got a Mac three years ago. She is still running 10.5 as she isn't interested in upgrading etc... I have not had to touch her Mac in these three years, but HAVE had to reinstall windows vista and yes even windows 7 on the other still windows PCs.
  Not scientific, but still my experience.
  PS: my daughter was the worst of the infected folks as she seemingly knows absolutely nothing about computer security and doesn't care to learn.
17. Re:More malware by dbet · 2012-02-26 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  Walk up to a bunch of pet owners and ask them the advantage of a cat over a bear. They'll claim cats don't maul you. But we all know cats can theoretically maul you, so by your logic, I have just proven that cats and bears are equally dangerous pets.
  
  For a large majority of Mac users, the only malware they've seen in the last 10 years is extra search bars in Firefox, and you don't even have to run AV software.
  
  Windows still allows changes to the registry without your immediate consent if you're running in admin mode (which some apps inexplicably require).
18. Re:More malware by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 01:55 · Score: 0
  
  "Who says Mac users claim they don't get malware? "
  Everyone I know in real life that asks me for my advice on a computer/laptop purchase, seem to have the impression apple might be better cause there are no viruses or malware.
19. Re:More malware by UnknowingFool · 2012-02-26 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  And I would say that a person on a tech forum not knowing the difference between a virus and a trojan is perpetuating bad information. That's like saying that vaccines are ineffective because you still have a chance to get food poisoning from salmonella, listeria, and botulism no matter how many vaccines you take.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
20. Re:More malware by gnasher719 · 2012-02-26 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  Apple, and their fans, have long insinuated that Macs don't get malware.
  Fact: Macs used by reasonable intelligent users don't get malware. Fact: There are no known viruses for the Macintosh in the wild. Fact: There is malware in the form of Trojans and scareware trying to attack Macs or Mac users; such malware relies on user stupidity.
  
  Here in the UK, people get phone calls from a company claiming that their computer is infected by malware, and they should pay this company money to clean up the infection. Does having a Mac protect you from these calls? Of course not. I got three of them, an only Macs in my house. Now does a strong believe that Macs cannot get malware protect you? Interestingly, yes. A Mac user who doesn't know anything about computers but believes very strongly that Macs can't get malware would then identify these calls as the scam that they are.
21. Re:More malware by makomk · 2012-02-26 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  What proportion of the users that Apple was targeting in that advertising campaign do you think would know or care about the difference between a virus and a trojan?
22. Re:More malware by gl4ss · 2012-02-26 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  *Who says Mac users claim they don't get malware?*
  fucking real life mac users. all the fucking time. get out sometime 'eh? they got the idea from adverts. you know, people who wouldn't know what you were talking about if you joked about the RDF. people who bought macs in recent years because "they just work"(they're not techno literate).
  (disclaimer, my other pc is a mac)
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
23. Re:More malware by UnknowingFool · 2012-02-26 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  The flu vaccine protects you against a strain of the flu virus. It does not protect you against other strains, other viruses, or other pathogens. Someone not understanding/not caring about this presents a challenge to health professionals. The only that can be done is to inform them. If they are determined not to learn, there 's not much that can be done.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
24. Re:More malware by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 12:55 · Score: 0
  
  Did you read what he said? He acknowledged there was a difference. He simply called it irrelevant since the target demographic of those ads likely don't know the difference. Educate them, not him.
25. Re:More malware by VisceralLogic · 2012-02-27 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  As a Mac user, I don't claim there is no Mac malware, but I do claim that I don't get any. I got one virus on OS 7, but never anything on OS X.
  
  --
  Stop! Dremel time!
26. Re:More malware by jo_ham · 2012-02-27 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  I'm exactly the same. I didn't even get any malware on OS 8.6/9, but that was because we isolated the machine and it really only edited video. I've never been infected on any of my OS X machines, in the 10 years since I've been using it.
Apple knows the solution by wannabgeek · 2012-02-25 15:43 · Score: 5, Funny

From now on, all Macs will have a firewall and any download will only happen after being approved by Apple. Like the AppStore makes your computer safe from third-party apps, this will make your computer safe from Web.

--
I'm much more funny, interesting and insightful than the moderators think
1. Re:Apple knows the solution by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 16:06 · Score: 0
  
  It was funny until it happened.
Got my hopes up... by hal2814 · 2012-02-25 15:56 · Score: 1

The first words of this post were "New Version of Flashback..." It all went downhill from there. But at least Delphine Software isn't going to bastardize a classic by turning it into yet another FPS.
1. Re:Got my hopes up... by Osgeld · 2012-02-25 16:46 · Score: 1
  
  FLashback .... one of my all time favorites, at one point I would have told you that was the only game my sega could play
Java version? by RockMFR · 2012-02-25 15:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

Which versions of Java are vulnerable? Basic details are nice to have...
I am so tired.. by Higgins_Boson · 2012-02-25 16:20 · Score: 1

I am so tired of these April Fool's jokes when it isn't even April yet.

Everyone knows Macs don't get trojans or viruses and that this story originated from The Onion!
"not immune" != "just as bad as a PC" by Brannon · 2012-02-25 16:21 · Score: 1

Security has always been and will always be a question of reducing the frequency and impact of escapes--anyone who thinks otherwise is "not very technical and not qualified to comment."
Macs are safer than Windows PCs. IOS is safer than Android.
1. Re:"not immune" != "just as bad as a PC" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 16:55 · Score: 0
  
  Since the moment that opening a PDF can gain total control of your phone... I would rethink that statement
2. Re:"not immune" != "just as bad as a PC" by EdIII · 2012-02-25 16:55 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  I'm sorry, with all due respect, that is bullshit.
  The only reason why Macs are perceived as more secure is because they have less market share, and therefore less interest to those who make the malware. Period.
  So if I go out in the middle of nowhere in the desert and build a house, it is kind of stupid for me to claim that my house is safer just because nobody tried to rob it in 15 years.
  Sony was thought of as impenetrable with their PS3. Pissed the wrong people off when they removed the OtherOS support... and lo and behooooold.... security was destroyed. I can download over 200 PS3 games right now with all sorts of firmware and methods to "pwn" the PS3. I hate Sony so I have no interest in giving them money for that POS.
  It's about interest and if the "right" people have an interest in compromising security on an operating system, it gets compromised.
  You can sit there all you want and "think" FreeBSD, and specifically Apple's variant, is more secure by design... but just wait and see what happens. Success will be Apple's greatest enemy on that front.
  No operating system is without flaws and no operating system can withstand a sustained attack from millions of people looking for one. All you can do is best practices, pay attention to critical updates, and actually pay attention to logs. Basically don't treat security as something passive that requires no work on your part.
  P.S - Look up the PwnToOwn contest and try telling us again that Macs are safer than Windows. Based on what??
3. Re:"not immune" != "just as bad as a PC" by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2012-02-25 17:28 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The only reason why Macs are perceived as more secure is because they have less market share, and therefore less interest to those who make the malware.
  -1, Security Through Obscurity.
  I'll remind you yet again that in the pre-OS X era, there was quite a bit of Mac malware floating around; never as much for DOS/Windows PCs, to be sure, but still a lot of it. At a rough guess, it existed about in proportion to the relative market share of the Mac OS ... which kind of gives credence to the market share argument, except that when OS X became the standard, the number dropped to damn near zero, and stayed there for many years. There's more OS X malware out there than there used to be, now, but the proportion is still nowhere near the market share of OS X relative to Windows. And the vast majority of exploits are, like this one, browser-based, rather than targeting the OS itself.
  In short, the market share argument is just as much bullshit as security-through-obscurity arguments always are.
  
  --
  The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
4. Re:"not immune" != "just as bad as a PC" by philip.paradis · 2012-02-25 18:08 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  So if I go out in the middle of nowhere in the desert and build a house, it is kind of stupid for me to claim that my house is safer just because nobody tried to rob it in 15 years.
  You might want to pick a better analogy. Many criminals have specifically targeted houses built in remote/rural locations, because of a perceived lessening of the odds that neighbors will notice their activities (there aren't any neighbors, or they're half a mile down a dirt road), coupled with greatly increased police response times.
  The understood risk with such plans is the somewhat increased likelihood that the residents will own firearms and know how to use them, but rural homes getting assaulted, the inhabitants being raped and murdered, and the homes getting burned to the ground afterward aren't exactly unheard of.
  Side note: Yes, there's a dirt road in front of my residence. There's also a rifle ten feet away from me.
  
  --
  Write failed: Broken pipe
5. Re:"not immune" != "just as bad as a PC" by Ameryll · 2012-02-25 18:39 · Score: 2
  
  "The only reason why Macs are perceived as more secure is because they have less market share, and therefore less interest to those who make the malware."
  That may be why techies believe it, but then they tell their non-techie friends who just spread the word that macs are immune to viruses. I know a lot of people who tell others that they're immune to viruses without knowing why that might be.
  Worst I had a teacher, whom I was a TA for, telling freshmen that macs couldn't get viruses. If I recall correctly his logic was they they were unix and therefore the open source nature had eliminated all bugs.
6. Re:"not immune" != "just as bad as a PC" by optimism · 2012-02-25 23:18 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  The only reason why Macs are perceived as more secure is because they have less market share, and therefore less interest to those who make the malware. Period.
  Nah. Macs are perceived as more secure because Apple ~advertises~ them that way.
  PCs are perceived as less secure because the mainstream (Windows/PC) software ecosystem, including FUD miscreants like Symantec, McAfee, and Trend Micro, market their products and maintain their control via scare tactics. They make malware sound more pervasive and damaging than it is. Ironically, most of the damage comes from their products.
  The reality is that Macs and PCs are of approximately equal value to malware authors. PCs, because there are more of them. Macs, because they are generally higher-value targets.
  Don't kid yourself based on the advertising and marketing.
  fwiw I supported hundreds of Macs in the late 80s/early 90s, and viruses were a huge issue even then. We spent almost as much time removing viruses, as we did recovering files from corrupted floppies. :)
7. Re:"not immune" != "just as bad as a PC" by UnknowingFool · 2012-02-26 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  Technically they are all correct. Macs are safer from viruses as viruses have a difficult time self-replicating. The nature of unix makes it hard for them to do so. Now I would caution that Macs are not immune from all forms of malware. Trojans rely on the user accepting the programs and some users will load and run anything.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
8. Re:"not immune" != "just as bad as a PC" by ewanm89 · 2012-02-26 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly, in any targeted attack (think pwn2own) MacOSX usually comes of worse, but attacks of opportunity are much less rare, it's easier to go to the estate and just find one without an alarm than the middle of the desert.
9. Re:"not immune" != "just as bad as a PC" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 04:16 · Score: 0
  
  So your argument is that changing the core operating system will get rid of viruses, and make the virus makers to start from scratch? I bet if I switch to a new OS, like WebOS, and a catch up quickly, it will take some time for viruses to show up. so your argument doesn't disprove anything.
10. Re:"not immune" != "just as bad as a PC" by Ol+Olsoc · 2012-02-26 05:13 · Score: 2
  
  The only reason why Macs are perceived as more secure is because they have less market share, and therefore less interest to those who make the malware. Period.
  Bullshit yourself. Do you think there is like only three Macs out there?
  If they were vulnerable, the millions of Macs out there would make them a nice platform to use and distribute. After all, you can ask PC fans, Mac users are depicted as computer illiterate idiots. A vulnerable platform plus stupid users is an almost irresistible target and ideal distribution network.
  But believe as you wish. A good story helps some folks believe that they made the right choice.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
11. Re:"not immune" != "just as bad as a PC" by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2012-02-26 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  So your argument is that changing the core operating system will get rid of viruses, and make the virus makers to start from scratch? I bet if I switch to a new OS, like WebOS, and a catch up quickly, it will take some time for viruses to show up. so your argument doesn't disprove anything.
  OS X has been around for thirteen years, and has been the default OS on all new Macs for ten years. And Windows viruses still outnumber Mac viruses by well over a thousand to one. Are virus writers really that slow? I don't think so.
  
  --
  The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
12. Re:"not immune" != "just as bad as a PC" by mjwx · 2012-02-26 13:06 · Score: 1
  
  Sony was thought of as impenetrable with their PS3. Pissed the wrong people off when they removed the OtherOS support... and lo and behooooold.... security was destroyed. I can download over 200 PS3 games right now with all sorts of firmware and methods to "pwn" the PS3. I hate Sony so I have no interest in giving them money for that POS.
  This, it's the same with the Xbox and Wii.
  
  Consoles are extremely popular, look how quickly they get hacked. A hack to give the user more functionality is a hack never the less.
  
  Macs are considerably less popular then Windows and less powerful then Linux, if you were a malware author who's malware depends on the largest number of infections would you target 1 in 20 systems or 19 in 20 systems? Even Linux Malware is more popular considering the power of the hardware Linux is normally installed on and the fact most Linux servers are internet facing.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
13. Re:"not immune" != "just as bad as a PC" by LordLimecat · 2012-02-26 16:15 · Score: 0
  
  Any reason Mac OSX (fully patched) has been the first to fall in the yearly Pwn2Own since its inception, if what youre saying is accurate?
14. Re:"not immune" != "just as bad as a PC" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-27 09:01 · Score: 0
  
  The only reason why Macs are perceived as more secure is because they have less market share, and therefore less interest to those who make the malware. Period.
  "B...b...but," the Mac fanboi stutters, "Mac owners are more affluent, so owning their machines would be more lucrative than owning a Windows PC!"
Gross! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 16:36 · Score: 0

I would never buy an Apple product! They just don't ever seem to take security seriously.
The real story by Rootkit · 2012-02-25 16:40 · Score: 1

is that Skype is known to be stable. That is certainly news to me.
1. Re:The real story by Samantha+Wright · 2012-02-25 16:50 · Score: 1
  
  Came here to say more or less the same thing. It must be a Mac-only feature?
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
2. Re:The real story by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 17:18 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, it's a Mac-only feature... I have never had it crash on me.
3. Re:The real story by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 18:02 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe other stuff crashes so often on Macs that skype is seen as stable?
Just in time by koan · 2012-02-25 16:42 · Score: 1

For this...
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/02/25/2327214/quicktime-creator-brings-flash-and-office-to-the-ipad-by-subscription

--
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Even worse by formfeed · 2012-02-25 16:50 · Score: 2

It is a "new variant of Flashback"
A new variant??
something made with parts that have been used previously?
maybe even on a PC?
code parts that could run on any grey unspectacular computer?
a modified version of something coded for the masses?
Please tell me, they at least improved it so it would use functions only genuine apple hardware could provide.
If you want to lose all your accounts' credentials by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 17:09 · Score: 1

... there's an app for that.
We said there was none - now there is... by SuperKendall · 2012-02-25 17:43 · Score: 1

Who says Mac users claim they don't get malware?
They said that because it was true for a while, there was no malware to get.
Now, correctly, we will say "be careful you don't get the malware".
The malware that requires people to download Java by the way, which does not ship with macs now...

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
UAC Virtualization also (by user) by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 18:02 · Score: 0

It's doable by application/processes running in taskmgr.exe with the "UAC Virtualization" column selected & visible there (isolating ANY contact with the registry into a single profile only, 'sandboxed'):
http://sourcedaddy.com/windows-7/uac-virtualization.html
* Interesting stuff... I use it here with webbrowsers the most.
APK
P.S.=> Now, if Microsoft would/could only go a bit further, and do what SandBoxie does!
(Even if it meant buying them out for the idea, because it's not an 'unimaginably difficult' one to create when it comes right down to it with a filtering driver intercepting & redirecting I/O for various inputs/outputs of a program)... -
So, it's NOT like "the techs not there", it is, just a matter of incorporating it into the OS, literally!
Yes, one COULD say "but it's there already", as there's VM tech in Windows via its own hypervisor type tech, & those of 3rd parties too, so in a way, it's native, but... not like how Sandboxie has the 'chroot jail" type effect that it has, which *NIX's have had for ages!
Also - yes, there's tools that can get further along than SandBoxie, like pstools' psexec that help process isolation/sandboxing (but that's beyond the scope of the std. oem tools in the OS already)
It'd be nice to see Sandboxie type tech native to Windows is what I am saying...
Now, I've actually got SandBoxie running pretty fast (not usually off std. HDD's @ least), via running it and the sandboxes up off a TRUE SSD with their incredible low-latency & seek/access (based on 4gb DDR2 RAM, Gigabyte IRAM)...
Performance now, in SandBoxie? Hey - setup like THAT?? Truthfully it's not bad, + much better than on std. HDDs & with FLASH based SSD's picking up write speeds, & size? Doable & decent enough performance as well...
... apk
Re:First by jjjhs · 2012-02-25 18:17 · Score: 0

You can surely fit that sentence in 48-bits. Or help you send that message. Mandatory Access Controls wont prevent you from saying that either. In Biology we learned about the Membrane Attack Complex. Mid Air Collisions aren't very common.
Why is this a trojan horse and not a virus? by evilsofa · 2012-02-25 19:25 · Score: 1

From the Intego article about the new variant: "This malware is particularly insidious, as users don’t download anything or double-click any file to launch an installer." Yet Intego repeatedly refers to as a Trojan horse. All of the other articles I can find only reference the Intego report, and don't call it a virus either, including those who would know better, such as Ars Technica and the ISC Diary.

But if it requires no interaction from the user, then why is it not the first true Mac OS X virus?
1. Re:Why is this a trojan horse and not a virus? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 19:42 · Score: 0
  
  Because it doesn't replicate. Virus attaches to other executables on target system, worm spreads to others from infected computer, trojan does neither.
  Virus/worm/trojan classifies by propagation behavior after initial infection, not installation method.
2. Re:Why is this a trojan horse and not a virus? by JimboFBX · 2012-02-25 22:20 · Score: 1
  
  close, a trojan doesn't have a replication method classification, a trojan is just a piece of malware that provides a backdoor to your computer. A trojan could be a worm or a virus or just malware.
  Come to think of it, viruses in their "true" form are pretty rare now-a-days. Pretty much everything is just straight-up malware/adware or worms. I wonder if it has to do with the fact all programs are at least 32-bit now and don't run machine code directly.
3. Re:Why is this a trojan horse and not a virus? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 22:30 · Score: 0
  
  Backdoor is a backdoor. Trojans can have any payload - backdoor, keylogger, locking system for ransom or just injecting ads - whatever, just like any other malware.
Safari stable? Since when? by dragisha · 2012-02-25 20:23 · Score: 2

First thing to stop using when you get an OSX machine, in my book.
When I first got MBP, fall 2010, I had few hard freezes. They stopped as soon as I stopped using Safari.
It may be a coincidence, but my MBP is definitely more stable without. A lot more stable!
As for users ignoring warnings... It looks like good case for Apple to close OSX as they closed iOS - force us to use single app store. Good thing gnome-shell is really nice env, so current OSX users have upgrade, errr, escape path available.

--
http://opencm3.net, http://www.nongnu.org/gm2/
1. Re:Safari stable? Since when? by Lumpy · 2012-02-26 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  I know a LOT of mac users and none of them use safari, They all use Chrome or Firefox, mostly because of what you experienced. Safari causing the system to crash. Running Lion helps, mostly because they eliminated the PPC code completely, but that adds in new issues installing older software that was universal and written by dummies that did not make the installer universal.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
2. Re:Safari stable? Since when? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 01:55 · Score: 0
  
  First thing to stop using when you get an OSX machine, in my book.
  When I first got MBP, fall 2010, I had few hard freezes. They stopped as soon as I stopped using Safari.
  I switched back to Safari during the Safari 4 era, haven't looked back. It's way faster than Firefox, though Chrome seems to be pretty solid nowadays, its viable.
  
  It may be a coincidence, but my MBP is definitely more stable without. A lot more stable!
  Such deep troubleshooting! You must be in IT...
  
  As for users ignoring warnings... It looks like good case for Apple to close OSX as they closed iOS - force us to use single app store. Good thing gnome-shell is really nice env, so current OSX users have upgrade, errr, escape path available.
  lol...
3. Re:Safari stable? Since when? by dbialac · 2012-02-27 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  Since early on but not since the 3.x days. I found it funny to watch Steve talk about how unstable flash was and how it caused most of Safari's crashes. I never had issues with flash once I dumped Safari. Oddly, I don't have issues with flash on Chrome -- and it's the same rendering engine!
Re:First by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 20:44 · Score: 0

You do realize the irony right?
Well maybe.
But the Trojans were actually from Troy, which is in Turkey, not France, though apparently they didn't mind it Greek style occasionally.
Coincidentally, Mac users are also the group most likely to be familiar with Trojans in their back ends, so it's more a lifestyle choice than malware for them.
Re:First by TheRaven64 · 2012-02-26 00:30 · Score: 1

But the Trojans were actually from Troy, which is in Turkey, not France, though apparently they didn't mind it Greek style occasionally.
Way off topic, but the Greeks actually refer to that as 'Turkish style'...

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Inside job? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 01:08 · Score: 0

This would make a great casus belli to make the App Store mandatory in Mountain Lion or its feline successor.
*ANY* platform can get infected by Hamsterdan · 2012-02-26 01:09 · Score: 1

Even if the platform doesn't have any security holes, never underestimate the USER
Download free Natali Portman naked .img would do that on OS X

--
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
1. Re:*ANY* platform can get infected by Hamsterdan · 2012-02-26 01:11 · Score: 1
  
  WTF?
  meant .dmg
  Why doesn't /. have a way to edit posts? it's not like we're stuck in 1995...
  
  --
  I've got better things to do tonight than die.
2. Re:*ANY* platform can get infected by gl4ss · 2012-02-26 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  WTF?
  meant .dmg
  Why doesn't /. have a way to edit posts? it's not like we're stuck in 1995...
  it would radically alter the atmosphere and feel of the site to have edits.
  you know all those shitty sites which have comments sections that flame up with some troll or another.. and then there's half of the discussion totally vaporized.
  for the same reason modding slashdot doesn't erase the comments.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Solution Found!!!! by Nyder · 2012-02-26 02:22 · Score: 1

You need to hold your mac by the corners.

--
Be seeing you...
Where do I click? by microphage · 2012-02-26 05:14 · Score: 2

I'm on a Mac, where do I click for a working example?
linux by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 09:56 · Score: 0

windows and apple computer gets viruses, Linux don't, it safe. :)
Re:First by exomondo · 2012-02-26 17:33 · Score: 1

Then what's 'Turkish delight'?
Re:First by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-27 15:33 · Score: 0

It's YOUR karma that will be negative now, well done.