Apple Snubs Security Firm That Spotted Mac Botnet

Sparrowvsrevolution writes "Now that it's being increasingly targeted by botnet herders, Apple has a thing or two to learn about cooperating with friendly security researchers. Boris Sharov, the CEO of Dr. Web, the Russian security company that first reported more than half a million Macs were infected with Flashback malware last week, says when his company alerted Apple to the botnet, it never responded to him. Worse yet, on Monday Apple asked a Russian registrar to take down a domain it said was being used to host a command and control server for Flashback, but in fact was a 'sinkhole' that Dr. Web had set up to observe and analyze the botnet. Sharov describes the lack of communication and cooperation as a symptom of a company that has never before had to work closely with the security industry. 'For Microsoft, we have all the security response team's addresses,' he says. 'We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple.'"

Comments

Mac's don't get malware

[crazyjj]

Why would they communicate with a supposed security researcher who doesn't even know that?

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[jesseck]

Can you please provide any links to folks that have claimed that Macs dont' get malware?

Here you go:

Mac Commercial (produced by Apple) and Apple's own webpage

And yes, "viruses" are not the only kind of malware out there- most people on /. know that. But no one else in my family does, and neither do the vast majority of people those two examples target for marketing. Apple's claim that Mac's don't get "viruses", in my mom's mind, equate to "Apple's don't have malware".

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Dunbal]

Can you please provide any links to folks that have claimed that Macs dont' get malware?

PC's get viruses..., the implication that Macs don't. There are plenty more examples although I am sure Apple has never been foolish enough to state outright that Mac's don't get malware the implication is clear often enough. And do your own fucking homework.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you please provide any links to folks that have claimed that Macs dont' get malware?

Here you go.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.apple.com/why-mac/better-os/#viruses

Safeguard your data. By doing nothing. With virtually no effort on your part, OS X defends against viruses and other malicious applications, or malware. For example, it thwarts hackers through a technique called “sandboxing” — restricting what actions programs can perform on your Mac, what files they can access, and what other programs they can launch. With FileVault 2, your data is safe and secure — even if it falls into the wrong hands. FileVault 2 encrypts the entire drive on your Mac, protecting your data with XTS-AESW 128 encryption. Initial encryption is fast and unobtrusive. It can also encrypt any removable drive, helping you secure Time Machine backups or other external drives with ease. Other automatic security features include Library Randomization, which prevents malicious commands from finding their targets, and Execute Disable, which protects the memory in your Mac from attacks. Download with peace of mind. Innocent-looking files downloaded over the Internet may contain dangerous malware in disguise. That’s why files you download using Safari, Mail, and iChat are screened to determine if they contain applications. If they do, OS X alerts you, then warns you the first time you open one.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

Here you go

Jesus, this was posted by the guy in the very next thread. Did you not even try before regurgitating Apple's trope?

"but this is a TROJAN! still no viruses!

Go read that Apple page again. Notice how it mixes the terms "viruses" and "malware" liberally throughout the text? That's designed to allow idiots like you to technically claim this isn't a virus but for an OS that's designed to "just work" and be for the less computer savvy, do you really think laypeople will care about the difference?

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[realitycheckplease]

I first used apple macs at the start of the 90's, they had a-v software back then (although afair it was generally pd developed and bbs distributed) ... but it was signature based a-v detection so I'd guess that apple macs had viruses in the wild 20+ years ago ....

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[CharmElCheikh]

Well in all "honesty" apple's own webpage says "it doesn't get PC viruses". Technically, it doesn't; it gets Mac malware. But I know, it isn't honest, hence my first quotes, and to most people that does mean that "it doesn't get anything bad, unlike that stupid windows thingy".

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[SJHillman]

From Mac's website: "A Mac isn’t susceptible to the thousands of viruses plaguing Windows-based computers. That’s thanks to built-in defenses in OS X Lion that keep you safe, without any work on your part."

1) No shit a Mac isn't susceptible to PC viruses. PC's aren't susceptible to Mac-only malware either
2) In this case, my car isn't susceptible to Windows-based viruses thanks to built-in defenses of it's windshield. Viruses weren't written for my windshield, so that counts as a built-in defense, right?

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Lumpy]

Sorry but that says ,"Macs dont get PC viruses" which is 100% correct. It's just like Microsoft saying "everyone loves windows" IT's true just out of context and misleading.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[s.petry]

The AV software for Apple is the same as it was for Unix and Linux. It was not that PC viruses could infect *nix. Microsoft, Norton, and McCaffee, were using propaganda marketing telling people that *nix file servers could not clean up viruses like a NT file server could and were dangerous since they could house viruses causing Windows to become infected. Since most VPs are dumb enough not to understand the unimportance of that marketing ploy, a lot of AV products sprung up for *nix and iOS.

Many of the vendors still produce AV software for OSes that don't really need it for that reason. I'll bet you can still find iOS AV software for a fee, the PT Barnum theory works as well today as it did when he was alive.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[bhcompy]

Macs are PCs. Don't tell me they're mainframes.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[synapse7]

Apple clearly states at http://www.apple.com/why-mac/ that Macs do not get "PC" viruses, they didn't say anything about Mac viruses.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[fustakrakich]

Yes, but debugging your windshield is still necessary every once in a while

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[forkfail]

Unless you happen to be one of the 600,000 who clicked on a bogus/rigged link on a spoofed site and got this Flashback Trojan installed.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Tyr07]

My calculator doesn't get viruses either.
It's similar to a mac in many ways.

My calculator is also fkng useless for most day to day IT needs.
Who cares if it can't get a virus.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Tmann72]

If I had a mod point you would so get one right now.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[pulski]

You're right how dare they, "get infected with BackDoor.Flashback.39 after a user is redirected to a bogus site from a compromised resource or via a traffic distribution system. JavaScript code is used to load a Java-applet containing an exploit."?

"According to some sources, links to more than four million compromised web-pages could be found on a Google SERP at the end of March. In addition, some posts on Apple user forums described cases of infection by BackDoor.Flashback.39 when visiting dlink.com."

Source: http://news.drweb.com/?i=2341&c=5&lng=en&p=0

Gotta be careful downloading all of that "kracked shit" from manufacturer's own websites.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[forkfail]

Also:

As PCMag's Security Watch noted yesterday, Mac users did not have to download or even interact with the malware to become infected. Websites exploited a Java flaw that let Flashback.K download itself onto Macs without warning. It then asked users to supply an administrative password, but even without that password, the malware was already installed.

From here:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2402641,00.asp

So - yes, it required a trojan-esque password entry to fully activate, but it installed and was active even without it. Which means that it was probably ready and waiting for the next legitimate use of a password entry.

Your walled garden has been breached, and instead of putting your head in the sand, perhaps you'd better wake up to the fact that yes, security really is, at the end of the day, the user/owner's responsibility.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[christianT]

+1 funny... Wish I had mod points...

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

I did, and he did. ;)

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

Macs are PCs. Don't tell me they're mainframes.

Ever seen the ads that begin with:
"I'm a Mac"
"I'm a PC"

Apple seems to think that Macs are not PCs

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Cro Magnon]

I guess you don't use Windows Calculator?

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Bobfrankly1]

Macs are PCs. Don't tell me they're mainframes.

Ever seen the ads that begin with: "I'm a Mac" "I'm a PC"

Apple seems to think that Macs are not PCs

Yes, but the Reality Distortion Field has been decreasing in strength as of late. Apple's own moderation of Java updates allowed this one to flourish, the Apple devout can't pass the buck onto another vendor this time. It's foolish to presume that a large installed base of users unconcerned with security would go ignored forever.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Woogiemonger]

1) No shit a Mac isn't susceptible to PC viruses. PC's aren't susceptible to Mac-only malware either?

I'd say the claim does have some merit. Would you choose susceptibility to the mac viruses, or the much larger variety of PC viruses? However, if you flipped the marketshare (http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10444561-245.html), OSX would likely be ill-prepared to deal with the incoming exploits.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Pre OSX MacOS, while it may have gotten raves for friendliness, and was somewhat less bug riddled, was architecturally more or less a toy OS compared to almost anything contemporary. The ecosystem wasn't as large, and the distribution vectors markedly less efficient; but the Mac malware was out there.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[517714]

Unless you happen to be one of the million or more who clicked on a bogus/rigged link on a spoofed site and got this Flashback Trojan installed.

FTFY

The majority of Macs have one of the cheap/free pieces of software that prevented this trojan from installing - Little Snitch, Xcode, VirusBarrier X6, iAntiVirus, avast!, ClamXav, HTTPScoop, Packet Peeper. I said have rather than run as it is sufficient that the path to the application existed, and the application did not need to be running.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

But Macs are PCs.

Jobs said so..

http://technologizer.com/2010/12/16/apples-mac-store-is-a-go-and-the-mac-is-a-pc/

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Apple does believe macs are PCs.

http://technologizer.com/2010/12/16/apples-mac-store-is-a-go-and-the-mac-is-a-pc/

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

A mac is a PC. personal Computer. Jesus H Christ.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[mcgrew]

A four legged animal isn't necessarily a horse. Windows is the only platform that can get a virus, but any platform can get a trojan. Both are malware, just different kinds of malware.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[517714]

Claimed and implied are different. They didn't imply anything. Their claims were explicit in that they differentiated PCs from Macs ("I'm a Mac.", "And I'm a PC.") and referred to PC viruses. You haven't done your homework, as there are no examples from Apple of what you claim.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

/.: the only place on the Internet where pedantry gets upmodded.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a tool.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

Bull. You'd never heard of viruses attacking bind? Or to re-define again, Windows doesn't have viruses, trojans, or malware. It merely suffers from occasional executions of unauthorized/unintended software. Unless the software was from Sony, and then it was intended. And you read the EULA! We all saw you.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[mcgrew]

WAY too many people saying what you're saying for this to still be a nerd site.

1. Macs ARE PCs; PC stands for "personal computer".
2. Macs don't get viruses. They do, however, get trojans like any other OS.

Virus == malware, but malware !=virus. I don't expect muggles to understand this, but it saddens me that anybody posting at slashdot would be ignorant about it.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[durrr]

The reason they don't know about Apples antivirus group is that it's the same one as their legal department. Operating on the basis that if people can't see or hear or know about viruses and botnets, then they don't exist.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[spongman]

mac's aren't PCs. they're crystallized mana from heaven.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

Well in all "honesty" apple's own webpage says "it doesn't get PC viruses". Technically, it doesn't.

Technically, it does. PC stands for Personal Computer, not Windows machine. Macs, just like Linux and Windows boxes are PCs. Since Apple are trying to use pedantry to obfuscate, holding them to definition of a PC is only fair, which puts them squarely back in the realm of lying.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree.

Some of us make a distinction, even if we know that PC means Personal Computer and that a Mac is a computer. When you read the requirement for a software and it says "PC", do you assume it runs on a Mac? I certainly don't. Also, I've never heard a Mac user say they have a PC.

Macs are computers. They are not PC. I know it's just a language thing, but it's there.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[VGPowerlord]

I guess you don't use Windows Calculator?

No, because I prefer that the (square root of 4) minus 2 to equal 0, not -8.1648465955514287168521180122928e-39

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Ihmhi]

Honestly, the best way to debug a windshield is a full wipe.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[bhcompy]

Except the GP was arguing semantics, which renders your point moot, since Macs are personal computers.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[toastar]

Wow I just tried this, Why haven't I heard this one before?

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

Once upon a time, the argument was that *nix had a better security model than Windows, as evidenced by the fact that it is not prone to viruses, as they are traditionally defined. There might have been some fanboys out there saying "it's magically secure forever," but the serious people were claiming "our way is better."

If your counter argument is "but you could still get other kinds of malware" then we have a legitimate concern and we should evaluate how well those threats are handled, and compare that to how well Windows handles threats overall. Personally, I'm still confident that the *nixes are actually better, but this is an empirical question.

If your counter argument is "but your marketing confuses my granny about the technical meaning of security" then I would have to respectfully point out that the pot and the kettle are the same color and get back to doing interensting things with my Linux box.

Which could be hacked, but probably won't.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[CharmElCheikh]

Yes, I know. Everyone here does. Still, it doesn't say "it doesn't get viruses"; there ought to be a reason for that. And in most people's mind, a Mac is still not a PC.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[old_kennyp]

Never heard of this one either, but when I try it on my work PC ( Win7) i get -1.068281969439142e-19 LOL

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's nonsense. All platforms can get a virus or a trojan, but a trojan is substantially easier to create (for all platforms).

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[AmiMoJo]

If you want to be picky then Bootcamp is an official Apple product that allows you to run Windows, and by extension Windows viruses. It can also run Linux, and by extension the tiny number of mostly proof-of-concept Linux viruses.

Actually you can run various vulnerable software directly on MacOS, such as older versions of Safari or Apache.

Apple claimed there were no viruses. There are viruses. You are dancing on the head of a pin.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Angostura]

Cast your mind back to the early 1980s, the era of the Commodore PET, the ZX81, the TRS 80. They were all personal computers, known as PCs. Then in 1981 IBM launched the IBM PC and swiftly manufacturers sprung up selling IBM PC compatibles. Within a year the letters PC had developed dual connotations - personal computer and PC compatible - compatible with the IBM PC. This duality of meaning has survived to today, so while you can (correctly) fulminate that the Mac is a PC, others will (correctly) fulminate that it isn't. You'll have to get used to that, I'm afraid.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[marcosdumay]

So, it acts like a scientific calculator and doesn't do rounding. What do you expect it to do, your computer returns that same value if you code that in C.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[flytripper]

Isn't this the calculator using bidmas to calculate and not a real brain?

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[LordLucless]

Except the parent was saying arguing semantics is stupid and counter-productive when it comes to actually communicating.

Declaring his point as "moot" when you don't understand his point is also stupid and counter-productive, BTW.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[StikyPad]

Well in all "honesty" apple's own webpage says "it doesn't get PC viruses". Technically, it doesn't; it gets Mac malware.

Technically Macs are Personal Computers, so yes, they get PC viruses (or malware). They may not be subject to *Windows* viruses (if they're not running Windows in a dual-boot or VM configuration), but Windows isn't a PC anyway, it's an OS.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

Well thanks for the flash back ... I remember the early 1980s and back then the IBM PC came with IBM's Disk Operating System (the predecessor to MS DOS) However it was never really the OS that differentiated the IBM PC and its line of clones, from the other "Personal Computers" available, it was the x86 instruction set that the central processors was based on. This is why the 8080, 286, 386, etc were all PCs even though the OS was evolving away from the original Disk Operating System.

Jumping back into today’s scene: since the Macs are running a RISC based Power PC chip they are OBVIOUSLY not PCs ... oh wait I didn’t jump back far enough....

Moral of the story ... if the CPU in your device is an Intel processor: REGARDLESS of your OS you are as much a PC (using either "interpretation" of the term) as any other system. Except of course if you are actually still running a copy of the original IBM DOS as your primary OS; in which case you are more of a PC than anyone else. (Congrats, you win the interwebs!!! Oh too bad you can’t get on them)

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Genda]

More importantly, no particular hardware or operating environment is going to inherently protect you from making bad choices on the internet, or opening files that contain a whole spectrum malware that can attack from virtually any level of the network stack. Including the most vulnerable part of the stack... the piece sitting in front of the keyboard.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

mac's aren't PCs. they're crystallized mana from heaven.

well lets not beat about the bush here this is exactly what you expect from the tossers at apple they are so superior to everything else on the planet yea right i think the i in the i range stands for iDIOT iNDOCTRINATED .. i dare say there are even more descriptive words but it is late i have had a heavy day and driven almost 700 miles thats enough

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

Well in all "honesty", you seem to have forgotten what PC stands for.

U may categorize Macs differently all you want, they still remain personal computers.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[exomondo]

Sorry but that says ,"Macs dont get PC viruses" which is 100% correct.

Wrong, Macs can get viruses/malware and Macs are PCs:
The App Store revolutionized mobile apps,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “We hope to do the same for PC apps with the Mac App Store by making finding and buying PC apps easy and fun.
Apple’s Mac App Store to Open on January 6

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[exomondo]

Their claims were explicit in that they differentiated PCs from Macs ("I'm a Mac.", "And I'm a PC.") and referred to PC viruses.

But Macs are PCs according to Apple:
The App Store revolutionized mobile apps,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “We hope to do the same for PC apps with the Mac App Store by making finding and buying PC apps easy and fun.
Apple’s Mac App Store to Open on January 6

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

Or just not run Java.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Catbeller]

No, Macs do not get viruses. This type of malware is not a virus; it does not infect, does not travel from mac to mac, and does not install without permission. The malware is installed precisely because someone gives it permission. You can't stop people from installing malware - it's just human nature. If this is a virus, than so is Facebook.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

So, it acts like a scientific calculator and doesn't do rounding. What do you expect it to do, your computer returns that same value if you code that in C.

I expect it to provide a correct result, not expose me to the complexities and inaccuracies of preforming math on a computer. Although C might produce an incorrect result, Perl does not, proving that it's not impossible to get the correct result for this problem.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

PC's don't get Mac Viruses either. In fact, neither do wolves and egrets.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[stewbacca]

Not to be pedantic, but the Apple's own webpage link does specifically say Macs don't get "PC Viruses", which make sense, unless you are running Windows in BootCamp, that is. That is also only if you accept the generic sense of PC = Windows and not "personal computer".

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[stewbacca]

Yeah because the most successful tech company on the planet doesn't use any Macs at all. And by doesn't use any Macs at all I mean only uses Macs.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[BasilBrush]

Really? Are we still doing this dumb claim?

Is a peanut a nut? No.
Is a tomato a fruit? Yes.

If you ask for nuts, peanuts will be one of the things expects.
If you ask for fruit, you're probably not after a tomato.

PC stands for Personal Computer not personal computer. As in IBM PC stands for IBM Personal Computer, not IBM personal computer. Proper noun versus adjective/noun.

When people say PC, they don't mean Mac. Unless they are dumb slashdotters who think misinformed pedantry is clever.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[BasilBrush]

Technically, it does. PC stands for Personal Computer, not Windows machine.

Note that you used capitals for Personal Computer. That's because they are proper nouns. IBM Personal Computer, not the generic adjective/noun personal computer. And PC has followed the evolutionary line from clones through all the subsequent machines that have been created to run Microsoft's operating systems.

Some people include Macs when they say PC. Most people don't.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[toddestan]

The AV software for Apple is the same as it was for Unix and Linux. It was not that PC viruses could infect *nix. Microsoft, Norton, and McCaffee, were using propaganda marketing telling people that *nix file servers could not clean up viruses like a NT file server could and were dangerous since they could house viruses causing Windows to become infected. Since most VPs are dumb enough not to understand the unimportance of that marketing ploy, a lot of AV products sprung up for *nix and iOS.

To be fair, for a while the only real solution to making sure your corporate Samba server wasn't serving up viruses to your Windows clients was to have a Windows box (slowly) scan the server with whatever Windows-based AV program was popular at the time over the network. Luckily those days are over.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad that even as a small, more-technology-savvy group than average, my Linux bretheren always take security concerns seriously, investigate all problems, and spread support quickly, analyse which solutions are optimal, which need to be applied immediately to prevent data hemorrhage, etc.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[toddestan]

Seems you have forgotten. It's short for "IBM-PC compatible".

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[BasilBrush]

OSX's calculator gets it right even in scientific calculator mode. There's no excuses for getting it wrong as Windows does.

How does Linux fare?

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[BasilBrush]

What rounding? The square root of 4 is 2. There's no fractional part. Subtract to and the answer is 0. Again, no fractional part.

I haven't tried it in C, but if a particular implementation also returns something other than zero, then it is also defective.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[BasilBrush]

Macs ARE PCs; PC stands for "personal computer".

No it stands for Personal Computer as in IBM Personal Computer. And PC has been retained for the evolutionary line descended from them.

Fact is some people include Macs when they say PC, others don't, still others vary, depending on context.

In the statement "Macs don't get PC viruses", clearly the PC intended is a set not including Macs. And there is nothing incorrect about that usage.

Anyone who wants to be clear should call them, Windows PCs. And then ignore the protests from the Linux crowd.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[toddestan]

I was about to say "Welcome to floating point math." but I can't figure out exactly how they it manages to get that result.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[murdocj]

As defective as a Mac that's part of a botnet?

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[grege1]

My Debian machine running Gnome 3 gives the expected answer = 0

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Fjandr]

Just for kicks:

"The App Store revolutionized mobile apps. We hope to do the same for PC apps with the Mac App Store by making finding and buying PC apps easy and fun. We can’t wait to get started on January 6."
--Steve Jobs

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Kielistic]

And PC has been retained for the evolutionary line descended from them.

Like Intel Macs?

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

Does windows calculator really do that? It doesn't look plausible. sqrt(4) is exactly representable in all common floating point formats so there is no reason why it shouldn't get the exact answer 2.0. But even if there is a rounding problem, there are around 16 decimal places available in a 64-bit floating point number so the result of sqrt(4), if it is different from 2.0, it MUST differ by at least O(1E-16). Not even a 128-bit floating point format would have 39 significant digits!

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

Shh.. You'll pop n00b brains.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

A) PC stands for "personal computer";
B) A Mac is a personal computer;
and
C) A Mac is susceptible to viruses;

Thus, in fact, yes shit; Mac is susceptible to PC viruses.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[BasilBrush]

More so. All OSs that accept third party applications are vulnerable to malware. Most calculators don't make mistakes in simple calculations.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[oztiks]

No Macs would be categorised as PC Clones. Never really as good as the original thing though.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

That explains why they're terrible computers. Everyone knows crystallized mana can't pass the turing test.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

architecturally more or less a toy OS compared to almost anything contemporary

But the only other "contemporary" consumer OS that really mattered were MS-DOS and Windows 3.x, which were worse than Mac OS. It was not until 1995 that Microsoft had anything resembling a modern OS on the desktop. (No, NT 3.x doesn't count. And if you insist on mentioning it, I get to mention A/UX in return.)

The only other contemporary consumer OS that could be called "better" was AmigaOS--I hear it was far ahead of its time; too bad the company was run by a bunch or morons. OS/2 was a nice OS, but 2.0 (the first one with a graphic shell) didn't come out until 1991, some seven years after Mac OS.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

Well in all "honesty" apple's own webpage says "it doesn't get PC viruses". Technically, it doesn't; it gets Mac malware

PC stands for "Personal Computer". Macs are PC's. They are not Windows PC's.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they communicate with a "security researcher" who gives the following recommendations:

"BackDoor.Flashback.39" in virus library:

        BackDoor.Flashback.39

System recover recommendations

        Reboot Windows in Safe Mode.

        Use Dr.Web® scanner of free curing utility Dr.Web® CureIT! to scan local drives. The “Cure” action should be applied for all infected files.

        Restore registry from the backup copy.

Important! Before following these recommendations you should set up the mail client you use so that it stores attachments as separate files and not in the body of the database. For example, such storage in TheBat! is enabled as follows: Account — Properties — Files & Directories — Keep attachment files — Separately in a special directory.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

Macs are PCs. Don't tell me they're mainframes.

Ever seen the ads that begin with:
"I'm a Mac"
"I'm a PC"

Apple seems to think that Macs are not PCs

On their website they say specifically that "Macs don't get PC Viruses". They are using the layman's definition of "PC" (i.e. a Windows computer) but follow it immediately with a technical definition of Virus (i.e. not Malware, but the specific type of Malware called a Virus as opposed to a Trojan, Worm, etc.). This is intentionally misleading.

They know damn well that 99% of the general public equate the word "Virus" to the word "Malware". It's intentionally setup to make people think that their systems cannot be infected at all, by any type of malicious software, but done in a fashion where they have a legal loophole if someone sues them after getting infected by a Trojan.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

Well in all "honesty" apple's own webpage says "it doesn't get PC viruses". Technically, it doesn't.

Technically, it does. PC stands for Personal Computer, not Windows machine. Macs, just like Linux and Windows boxes are PCs. Since Apple are trying to use pedantry to obfuscate, holding them to definition of a PC is only fair, which puts them squarely back in the realm of lying.

For years Apple haters claimed the PC moniker for Windows. Now all of a sudden they don't. Fuck them.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

So, it acts like a scientific calculator and doesn't do rounding. What do you expect it to do, your computer returns that same value if you code that in C.

That's because it uses Base-2 IEEE floating point to do its calculations (As you say, that's what you get if you used a double in C).

Real physical calculators though, they use Base-10 IEEE floating point instead of Base-2 which uses more memory and is somewhat less efficient but also produces answers that make more sense to human users with less weird rounding.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

1) No shit a Mac isn't susceptible to PC viruses. PC's aren't susceptible to Mac-only malware either

Yeah Windows desperately needs the Flashback Trojan even more than the Apple Haters do. Because they don't have any of their own.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

it's not defective, it's floating point.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

So the apple ads claiming that they are PCs were all lies?

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Xest]

It's not a mistake, it's just a result of floating point math.

You're assuming it's a mistake because humans aren't brought up to do floating point math, so it's not what you're used to.

I don't disagree that it's still stupid though precisely for this reason, but that makes it a usability failing rather than an invalid calculation IMO. It should make it more clear that it's using floating point math, hence the results you get may not be what you expect.

For what it's worth, most high end maths packages like Maple give you the option as to how certain calculations are performed- computer scientists for example obviously want floating point math for the most part because that's what they're working with. I suspect Windows Calculator was originally developed with precisely this application in mind, and just hasn't changed from a functionality standpoint in the decades since.

So as I say it's not wrong, and not a mistake, it just assumes you want to do floating point math, it's that assumption that's the real problem, because most people don't.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[noodler]

Apple is just agnostic about the whole deal.
MACs may and/or may not be PC's, period.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

No Macs would be categorised as PC Clones. Never really as good as the original thing though.

Yeah, because no real PC is complete without the cassette tape interface. All others are merely imitations.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Mattsson]

Also, just because it runs Windows, Linux or OS X doesn't mean that it's a PC either. =)
A server usually isn't considered a personal computer for instance, and there are lots of servers running Windows, Linux or OS X.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It is true that all consumer OSes of the period were pretty dire; but 'the period' didn't end for MacOS classic until 10.0(March, 2001) or 10.1(September, 2001)(earlier previews exist; but are rough techie stuff). This resulted in the somewhat embarassing period where NT4 and 2000 had things like actual multitasking, memory protection, and ACLs and Classic Mac OS didn't. In fairness, of course, NT4, in particular, was pretty rough, and fully-consumerized NT didn't happen until mid-late 2001.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear that whooshing sound, that was the point he was making whizzing past your head. Please take some more meds for your ADHD as you failed to read the rest of the comment before you went flying off foaming at the mouth.

Oh and you need to wipe, you still have foam there in the corner of your mouth.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

On Ubuntu 10.04 with gcalctool the result is 0.
A simple C program that uses printf ("%f", sqrt(4)-2) also returns 0.000000

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[VGPowerlord]

Does windows calculator really do that? It doesn't look plausible. sqrt(4) is exactly representable in all common floating point formats so there is no reason why it shouldn't get the exact answer 2.0. But even if there is a rounding problem, there are around 16 decimal places available in a 64-bit floating point number so the result of sqrt(4), if it is different from 2.0, it MUST differ by at least O(1E-16). Not even a 128-bit floating point format would have 39 significant digits!

Yes, Windows Calculator does that. I actually tried it on my Windows XP Professional computer at work and copied the results to my clipboard and pasted it into my post.

Here, I'll try it on my home Windows 7 Professional 64-bit computer... it gives me -1.068281969439142e-19.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[dskzero]

Apparently, you don't know how companies use marketing to sway public opinion.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[thegarbz]

So, it acts like a scientific calculator and doesn't do rounding. What do you expect it to do, your computer returns that same value if you code that in C.

I expect it to give the correct answer which is now what it produces. Incidentally I don't know of any scientific calculators which work the same was as floating point calculations in C.

Just because there's a famous programming language which sucks at maths on floats doesn't mean that replicating the bugs elsewhere makes it correct. Calculators can and should work around these faults.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[mcgrew]

No it stands for Personal Computer as in IBM Personal Computer.

Nope, they were PCs before IBM manufactured them. The IIe was considered a PC, as was the Osbourne and Commodore and even Tandy. And since now that Apple is intel-based, the only difference between a Mac PC, a Windows PC, and a Linux PC is its OS.

Macs don't get ANY viruses. They can, of course, get malware; any OS can be trojaned. But I never heard of anyone but a Windows user getting infected without actually installing a program.

Even trojans are harder to get with Unix-like OSes becuase of the way MS set up how a file is determined to be executable or not. That's not to say that other OSes can't be trojaned; it's that with Windows you can install a trojan without realizing it. Take WMA files, for example. A sound file should be 100% data, and MP3 and Ogg are. But WMA has "active content". You can embed a virus in a WMA file and rename virus.wma to virus.mp3, and WiMP will happily play it and its payload, while any other sound program I know of won't.

MS hides file extensions by default, even though that's how the OS determines whether a file is executable. So you can rename virus.exe to virus.jpg.exe and the user will see virus.jpg, double click it, and be infected just from trying to view a file that by rights should be data-only and incapable of infecting a machine.

And, have you ever heard of a Mac or Linux user being infected simply by visiting a web site? I haven't.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[SmurfButcher Bob]

It does NOT yield that answer if you turn off the "BistroMath" option.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[mcgrew]

No, a PC Clone is a computer that copied IBM's PC as closely as possible without infringing patent or copyright. No Apple was ever a PC clone. Dell, Compaq, HP, etc are "pc clones". And the moniker was short lived, as well.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Tyr07]

Correction.

The most successful MARKETING company that is only here because they DID fail and microsoft BAILED THEM OUT.

Then they designed their ipods etc, which apples hardware has always been really nice, and made name for themselves.
Mac desktop flopped, the company was going under. Infact, if it was just desktop sales, they would die again.
It's their mobility products now with their sleek designs that only keep them alive. (Laptops, ipods, iphone etc)

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[stewbacca]

Correction.

The most successful MARKETING company...

Marketing takes you only so far. Apple has outgrown the overall PC market for 23 consecutive quarters in a poor economy. That's nearly six years. Marketing will score you some short term gains, but not SIX YEARS worth. At some point, the product actually has to be kind of decent to maintain.
http://www.macworld.com/article/1164973/apple_reports_record_revenue_profit_for_fiscal_first_quarter.html

...that is only here because they DID fail and microsoft BAILED THEM OUT.

$150 million was welcomed, but hardly saved Apple. Jobs returning to Apple saved Apple.

Then they designed their ipods etc, which apples hardware has always been really nice, and made name for themselves.
Mac desktop flopped,

Flopped is an interesting term. The percentage of revenue overall for Macs compared to all the other Apple devices is lower, but Mac growth is higher year over year. When you add a brand new product like, say, an iPhone that sells millions of units, the overall percentage of revenue all other products becomes lower. Macs are the #3 market share for PC brands. I can't think of any company on the planet that wouldn't be thrilled to be #3 in marketshare for their respective industry. Toshiba is #4. Are they going to be dead, based solely on desktop sales?

But back to my main premise ... it appears that Macs aren't quite as "fckng useless for most day to day IT uses" as you claim, considering Apple uses Macs, and they are doing just fine.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[BasilBrush]

Nope, they were PCs before IBM manufactured them.

Sorry, that's just wrong. It's an anachronism.
They were "personal computers" sometime, not PCs. Though the were more often called microcomputers and home computers.

e.g.
TRS-80 Microscomputer: http://techmisadventures.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/6213180-583-800.jpg
Commodore Pet Home Computer: http://i.techrepublic.com.com/gallery/6213166-568-800.jpg
Apple II Personal Computer: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/09/10/article-2036072-0DD160A800000578-895_468x566.jpg

The rest of your post I agree with.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Tyr07]

You've pointed out that I need to clarify my meanings in a few places here.

Flopped is a relative term. When I say desktops flopped, I mean they were not sufficient enough to keep the company from going under.
Some people love them and still do.

Mac growth I believe is primarily on device integration and the social prestige that came with owning an iphone or ipod. That stigma of other mp3 players being inferior stuck after ipods did so well. So when they came out with iphone, you didn't want to be left out. Social prestige is a huge motivator in human society, although many won't admit it and I'm sure they'd sack me for revealing the secret if they could.

So now that they have their iphone, their ipod, well, they need itunes, and all this "intergrates" so well with Mac. So now they're like, well, I should have a mac! It's more prestige!

Hence growth of market.

I do not believe that if you removed all the external devices that apples has developed, that people would continue to see such increases in mac desktop sales.

Their mac only mac everything phillisophy is working.

Great, apples uses their own hardware/software. That's like the developers of os/2 still using os/2.
Yeah, when you design it, and can have programmers make whatever propieitary software you need for your business, I'm sure
any OS will do.

I'm quite certain that majority of the software that apple uses on macs within apple are not available to the public. I'm sure things like Mac mail, are not in use.

Just as Microsoft doesn't use all of their publicly available software, either.

I'll agree that jobs returning saved apple - but without the bailout, there would be nothing to save. I feel stating that jobs saved apple from tanking /again/ would be an accurate statement.

P.S How many people are running a mac web server with mac office producitivity suites and mac exchange servers with mac everything else in their office space besides apple or anything who deals with graphic/video design etc?

Yea...

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[AK Marc]

There was a worm I don't remember the name of. It would search network shares for all images and replace images with itself and rename the images to image.jpg.vbs. That worm would "infect" Unix file servers with malware that Unix would not detect or clean. Windows Server AV could scan for it easily (once they had the signature). So, in that case, a Windows server infrastructure was more secure than a Unix one.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[stewbacca]

You've pointed out that I need to clarify my meanings in a few places here.

Flopped is a relative term. When I say desktops flopped, I mean they were not sufficient enough to keep the company from going under.

I disagree. There would have always been a large enough creative niche to keep Apple alive, just on Mac OS (both 9 and X). Without Mac, the only mainstream option available is Windows, and nobody wants just one option.

Mac growth I believe is primarily on device integration and the social prestige that came with owning an iphone or ipod. That stigma of other mp3 players being inferior stuck after ipods did so well. So when they came out with iphone, you didn't want to be left out. Social prestige is a huge motivator in human society...

Sure there are some really shallow people in the world who buy stuff for the reasons you post. That doesn't diminish the overall quality of the Apple ecosystem.

So now that they have their iphone, their ipod, well, they need itunes, and all this "intergrates" so well with Mac. So now they're like, well, I should have a mac!

Sounds like a great plan that worked.

It's more prestige!

Let's just disagree.

I do not believe that if you removed all the external devices that apples has developed, that people would continue to see such increases in mac desktop sales.

Neither do I. But I also don't think Macs would die out. Too many of us creatives who like alternatives.

Great, apples uses their own hardware/software. That's like the developers of os/2 still using os/2.

Or kind of like Microsoft using Macs to make all their marketing materials?

I'm quite certain that majority of the software that apple uses on macs within apple are not available to the public. I'm sure things like Mac mail, are not in use.

.

And you'd be wrong. Keynote instead of PowerPoint, Pages instead of Word, Numbers instead of Excel. It's not hard to be MS free in enterprise. And I'll bet you one hundred pints of beverage of your choice that Apple uses their own Mail program. Scouring the Googles as we speak to win my 100 pints...

P.S How many people are running a mac web server with mac office producitivity suites and mac exchange servers with mac everything else in their office space besides apple or anything who deals with graphic/video design etc?

Yea...

Let's meet again in a couple of years and talk about it.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[oztiks]

Oh comeon Mac's are simply PC Clones that run a preinstalled FreeBSD distro.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[BasilBrush]

Yes, it is a mistake. The square root of 4 is 2, whether the computer is using integer maths of floating point maths. Floating point maths is not an excuse for getting an incorrect answer when the correct answer can be expressed exactly in floating point form.

Nothing to do with human expectations, or usability. It's mathematically the wrong answer. Even in floating point. Even in floating point when viewed in raw binary. It's wrong in every possible way.

If you're defending it, you're confused.

And as we've seen, other calculators don't make this mistake. Nor did putting the calculation in a C program as someone tried elsewhere on the thread. There is no excuse for it. Someone fucked up.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

Their claims were explicit in that they differentiated PCs from Macs ("I'm a Mac.", "And I'm a PC.") and referred to PC viruses.

But Macs are PCs according to Apple:

The App Store revolutionized mobile apps,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “We hope to do the same for PC apps with the Mac App Store by making finding and buying PC apps easy and fun.

Apple’s Mac App Store to Open on January 6

Now all you have to do is show where they claimed that at even remotely the same time as the "I'm a Mac" ads ran.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Xest]

Look sometimes you make good posts, other times you seem to feel the need to post because you have nothing better to do and get completely out of your depth. Despite being out of your depth you continue to argue your point even though it's completely wrong and you just look like a tit as a result. This is one of those times.

The fact is there are many different numbering and calculation systems, and demanding that the one you are used to is the only "correct" way is like a kind of ethnocentrism.

Stating that you can get the correct answer with floating point is irrelevant, because you can also get wrong answers with base 10 relative to the application of base 2. In fact, similar confusion is quite common in the computing world, look for example at how confused people get over broadband speeds where you commonly get questions like "I have a 10mbps connection, why aren't I getting 10mb/s downloads?" which is ultimately down to the megabyte/megabit difference. Similarly hard drive sizes has always been a point of confusion due to different numbering techniques.

When you study maths to a higher level (i.e. post A-Level), particularly if you do pure maths, or even if you study something like the history of maths related to computing particularly with regards to people like Bertrand Russel, Kurt Godel, etc. then you'll get a decent grasp of the importance of nailing down the fundamentals of how calculations and numbering should occur - because it's fundamental in determining the correctness of any math you do. There isn't some magical single numbering and calculation system, there's only that which is most common, but a key fundamental point in math is that you can't say something is wrong unless it's wrong within the specified numbering and calculation system, obviously with Windows Calculator it's right within it's system, the system just isn't the system you want, expect, or are used to, and again, I agree that's a major problem in itself, but it isn't an issue of an incorrect answer for the numbering and calculation system used.

Again I completely agree Windows Calculator isn't giving the answers most people would expect, but once more, the fault is one of usability in not explaining better to the user why they may expect some seemingly invalid answers but there's a stark difference between this and being inherently wrong in it's calculation.

I'm sure you can now go and make the argument that well it should use the system people are most useful and I don't really disagree, but in math "wrong" is a powerful term and it requires an understanding of not just the equation in question, but the numbering system, and the rules governing the way mathematical operations are carried out. It requires that the answer is wrong under the defined system, which it isn't - again, it's just not the system you want or expect it to use.

Note that whilst many other calculators, such as the Mac's don't exhibit this particular behaviour, they do have other behaviour that would be deemed incorrect to people like you expecting the standard base 10 numbering and mathematical calculations that you were taught at school which ironically the Windows Calculator doesn't have. A quick Google will give you any number of examples for any number of calculators, or languages/compilers.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously... the "only" thing a virus-author need to do, is to write his virus (using the umbrella term "virus" to mean also malware, spyware, keylogger, worms, trojans, etc. ie, all forms of software you do NOT want to have) in Java. Most any compter, be it running Windows, MacOS, Linux, *BSD, etc, has a Java JIT compiler. Target "everyone" with a JIT compiler, and you have a huge chance of infecting "anyone".

The exception to this is of AmigaOS, C=64, Atari ST, DOS-based, and other, very minor nowadays, Operating Systems that do NOT have a Java environment.

Hence, I'm once again claiming, the amiga is "immune" to modern-style viruses. the cause is at least threefold:
1: It doesn't have a Java RTE
2: It doesn't run on a x86-compatible CPU
3: It doesn't use neither Windows, MacOSX nor Linux
4: Viruses nowadays use more memory than the Amiga have in the first place. Well, the last one is only true for unexpanded Amiga's.

And no, *UAE is not a "real" Amiga, and even if you could argue that it'll run most any Amiga-software, it STILL doesn't run x86-compatible software. The virus you have contracted is utilising the OS which provides the platform *UAE is working under. Hence, even *UAE is "immune" to modern viruses.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Tyr07]

Crap ran into a mac fanboy, we know your type, sorry to have offended you.

We'll ignore that with their desktop sales the company went under before, needed a bailout and jobs to come back, because clearly none of that happend and their desktops were enough because of creative alternatives.

More people must use macs in your area because clearly you're just more advanced and creative over there.
90% of the world isn't microsoft. Anyone who uses it is because they don't know better.
Flash is dumb.
Mac is the future (as it was 40 years ago)
Macs don't get viruses, and it's not because no one makes them because businesses worth targeting clearly use them.
Linux isn't a creative alternative, only mac is, which is based on linux.
Windows is the only choice which is evil unless you want a mac.
Macs aren't overpriced for the same hardware that's none apple, they're creatively priced.

Appeased yet?

I'd like to see one, just one person, who uses a mac, who can acknowledge it's disabilities.
You know, doesn't act like there's zero cons at all if you get a mac, actually knows it's limitations and draw backs.

I know windows isn't perfect, neither is any distro of linux less you build it yourself to suit a specific need,
but why oh why, must every fan boy, plead that Mac shits rainbows, and in the future will shit gold, as always.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[stewbacca]

Crap ran into a mac fanboy, we know your type, sorry to have offended you.

We'll ignore that with their desktop sales the company went under before, needed a bailout and jobs to come back, because clearly none of that happend and their desktops were enough because of creative alternatives.

Look, all the ad hominem attacks on the planet won't change history. Just because I like Macs has no bearing on how history played out. The company NEVER "went under before". You only wanted it to fail, but it didn't. Saying it failed, and it will fail again defies logic and your own envy/disdain/whatever is clouding your judgment and/or recollection of history.

90% of the world isn't microsoft. Anyone who uses it is because they don't know better.
Flash is dumb.
Mac is the future (as it was 40 years ago)
Macs don't get viruses, and it's not because no one makes them because businesses worth targeting clearly use them.
Linux isn't a creative alternative, only mac is, which is based on linux.
Windows is the only choice which is evil unless you want a mac.
Macs aren't overpriced for the same hardware that's none apple, they're creatively priced.

Appeased yet?

Why in the hell would I be appeased, when I didn't say any of those things? However, I will address two:

OS X is not based on any flavor of Linux...ever...I may be a fanboy, but at least I'm informed about that which I am a fan.
Similarly equipped PCs cost roughly the same as Apple gear, and sometimes even more (Dell servers sometimes hundreds more). Any argument that equivalently equipped PCs are massively cheaper is just dumb.

I'd like to see one, just one person, who uses a mac, who can acknowledge it's disabilities. You know, doesn't act like there's zero cons at all if you get a mac, actually knows it's limitations and draw backs.

I'm right here. What would you like to talk about? I'll start with I wish they made a mid-range tower. The reason I didn't talk about "it's disabilities" is because this isn't a conversation about the Mac's weaknesses, rather, it's a firm rebuttal your tired cliche that Apple is only good at marketing. This isn't 1996, so I'm quite confounded as why you want to escalate this to a sophomoric Mac vs. PC debate, when most people, like me, realize the strengths and weaknesses of both, and it's ok to use one over the other for most tasks. Since I use both, it makes sense for me to use Apple hardware, so I can run both. It doesn't hurt that their equipment is generally the best in industry by most consumer reviews, but that doesn't make me a fanboy.

I know windows isn't perfect, neither is any distro of linux less you build it yourself to suit a specific need,
but why oh why, must every fan boy, plead that Mac shits rainbows, and in the future will shit gold, as always.

Again, I merely said the most successful tech company on the planet uses Macs exclusively, so the Mac is a viable business platform based on its merit, and not marketing, and not because a billion people have purchased iPods, iPads, and iPhones.

So the only shitting I see is not Macs shitting rainbows, it's people like you with a grudge shitting on the current successes of Apple. Why people want to celebrate failure and ignore success will remain a mystery to me.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys are terrible, this has spun away from the actual pros or cons of apples vs other companies.

It's simply mac fanboy versus anti-mac fanboy guy.
Both have their uses, chillout kids.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Tyr07]

Maybe you're different, maybe you're not.

Either way, you sound like a scientologist. I really, really don't think, regardless of what happens to apple, that you would say anything different, ever, like most mac fanboys.

Discussing Mac with most fanboys would have the same effect if I argued with a recording.
Which is my fault for pushing play, I bow out.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[stewbacca]

Maybe the "recording" you are hearing is logical analysis that causes many people to come the same conclusion. You think it's fanboyism because you don't agree. Your worldview filters the facts into something the exact opposite, and twice as bad as fanboyism. That's fine with me. You can call names all you want, I'm going to analyze the situation as the facts present themselves.

YOU are the one not saying anything different about Apple regardless of what happens to them. Apple is still here. They are not dead. They didn't die once already, like you claim. You lose any discussion to that point on every level because, well, they are the most successful technology company on Earth, which obviously irks you for some reason.

YOU are the one presenting false claims like the Mac went out of business once already, and that OS X is founded in Linux. YOU are the one perpetuating tired cliches like MS bailed Apple out and that Apple woulda/coulda/shoulda been dead. You are the one making predictions that "Apple would have been dead if"..All I'm saying is that they aren't dead even though your biases want them to be. Again, you are wrong. You lose.

So if being a fanboy means rebutting claims that are steeped in intellectually lazy arguments like "Apple is only good at marketing" or "Apple went out of business once already", then call me a fanboy. You could say "Dell has gone bankrupt 5 times this year" and I'm going to tell you that you are wrong. Does that make me a Dell Fanboy? No, it makes me a facts fanboy.

At this point in the conversation, it's not even a conversation about Apple anymore. If you'd like to come back and address any of my last three posts with some counter-points that are factually correct, then we have a conversation. If you want to keep using the term fanboy because you have no other debate mechanism, then that's cool with me that you bowed out.

You listed a long list of things that fanboys say, which I noted that I don't agree with any of those statements. How exactly am I a fanboy again? Please separate the stereotype of the douchy hipster artist wanna be from your preconceptions about me, and that might be a good first step in you understanding just how laughably wrong your assessment of me is.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[MrResistor]

I double majored in applied math and computer science, so I feel quite confident that I am not speaking from a position of ignorance when I agree BasilBrush: The Windows calculator is wrong!

The correct answer is zero, in all of the number systems involved, and no amount of pure math hand waving will change that basic fact. There is no other correct answer for the expression 4^(1/2) - 2 in base-10, binary integers, or any of the standard binary representations of floating point. Fortunately, it's easy to determine the magnitude of the error in this case: it's the answer the calculator gave.

Now, I will agree that an error on the order of 10^-39 is probably not worth worrying about, but it does make me question the algorithm they chose for calculating the root, and I'm going to be leery of using Windows Calculator in the future, especially given Microsoft's less than stellar history with math algorithms. If nothing else, the existence of this bug exposes an ignorance of machine precision, which is a pretty fundamental topic in applied math. After all, if they can't even account for machine precision in such a simple case, how can they determine if their algorithms are numerically stable? Indeed, I seriously doubt the programmers responsible have any idea that numeric stability is even a thing!

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Xest]

It doesn't really matter what you majored in if you didn't take what you need to away from it. If you did kind of study surrounding the search for truth and correctness in math then you'll understand why you are wrong. As you do not, I can only assume you did not cover this topic.

The issue in this case lies in the square root function used, as computers are limited as to how they provide an approximation (note that word - it's pretty key), which is what they must do using floating point math rather than using for example, symbolic math. What Microsoft haven't done is rounded the in memory result of the square root function, and whilst this gives a rather unsavoury result when exposed through functions like this, it doesn't mask the fact there isn't perfect precision in their square root function. You may feel they should mask it, and that's great, but then you just get less obvious errors as you suffer in other computer based calculators, where the lack of precision creates more subtle errors further down the line as they are masked.

You can question the algorithm for choosing the calculation of the root all you want, but it doesn't mean other calculators are magically getting it right, they're likely just rounding it and losing precision and creating the foundation for cumulative effect errors further down the line. Effectively Windows Calculator is saying "Here's the result exactly as I calculate it", whilst other calculators are saying "Here's the result, I've fudged it a bit to make it look better for you and give you what you're probably expecting at this point, but don't expect that to remain the case if you throw a few more operations into the mix".

Realistically though if you want better precision than this I'm not sure why you'd be using Windows Calculator, or any cheap/built in software calculator in the first place. You should probably be looking at something like Maple, or Mathematica, or a decent calculator.

Regardless none of this changes the fact that Windows Calculator is producing a correct result for it's use of floating point math, and the specific square root function used. What you're really asking for is that the correct solution be fudged to look right specific circumstances. If you want to see actual calculator bugs, then try here:

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

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[stewbacca]

You guys are terrible, this has spun away from the actual pros or cons of apples vs other companies.

This is exactly the point I made.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[MrResistor]

In your arrogance you assume that I'm unfamiliar with the basis of your argument, but in fact I happen to live in the real world, where your argument is bullshit of the "it's not a bug, it's a feature" variety. Again, there is only one correct answer for the expression we're discussing, and it is the same in all of the number systems and algebras at play in this scenario. Any other answer is wrong. It might be "close enough" for our purposes, but that doesn't magically make it correct.

More importantly, it's only "close enough" if the user recognizes it as such, which the vast majority of Windows Calculator users won't. Hell, I'm not even sure I would recognize it as being "close enough" when I'm checking my daughter's homework after a 10 hour day of, say, trying to get more than the most basic functionality out of the unholy abomination that is Microsoft's WPF WebBrowser control. God forbid my daughter should be using it to try and check her own answers (or her mom, now that I think about it). Sure, it could be an excellent "teachable moment", but only if she happens to actually mention it to me, which at 12 years old is pretty unlikely. I typically use MatLab to check her homework, because that's what I'm most comfortable with and it happens to be on the "recent programs" list on my start menu (and it gives the correct answer in this case, btw, as does Maxima).

Even worse; Windows Calculator isn't wrong all the time, even in this case. If you enter sqrt(4) you get 2, and it even displays 2 as the intermediate result if you enter the expression as sqrt(4)-2. It obviously doesn't store that intermediate result, because even if you hit enter after the sqrt(4) you still get the same garbage. Windows Calculator is literally telling the user that 2 - 2 != 0. Not all the time, though. In my playing around with it, it did manage to give the correct answer a couple of times, but I couldn't find a way to reliably repeat that.

And yes, any consumer calculator should round a result that's less than machine precision to zero rather than pretend that it's an actual answer. Any other behavior is nothing but trouble in the vast majority of use cases. 10^39 is about four orders of magnitude less than 128-bit machine precision, so there's really no excuse here.

Re:Mac's don't get malware

[Xest]

You seem to think you know what you're on about, you stated your degree was at least partially related to mathematics, and yet you seem to have completely missed the fact that the majority of any undergraduate mathematics course is going to be discussion of approximations to functions. The fact is that they're everywhere, and this case is no different. Sometimes exact solutions aren't an option, this is one of them.

"In your arrogance you assume that I'm unfamiliar with the basis of your argument, but in fact I happen to live in the real world, where your argument is bullshit of the "it's not a bug, it's a feature" variety."

Yes, well, it's a shame you don't seem to have an understanding of the realities of software development though, and the fact that sometimes compromise has to be made. If something doesn't work as you want the simple fact is that it's not always a bug, it quite simply is sometimes just a feature you do not like. Regardless, call this a bug if you will, I agree it's a usability failing either way, and I tend to class these as bugs myself, but the fundamental point I was making remains that the calculation is no more wrong than most other calculators, including those that mask this sort of thing, only to reintroduce them when you're least expecting them further down the line.

"Even worse; Windows Calculator isn't wrong all the time, even in this case. If you enter sqrt(4) you get 2, and it even displays 2 as the intermediate result if you enter the expression as sqrt(4)-2."

Again, I completely agree that it's horrible that you don't always get the result you want, and there's a major usability failing in not explaining what method of calculation is used, but the reason isn't irrational or illogical. The issue arises because Windows calculator supports infinite precision for the four basic mathematical operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, but only 32 bits (possibly 64 bits on 64 bit versions of Windows?) for all other operations.

"And yes, any consumer calculator should round a result that's less than machine precision to zero rather than pretend that it's an actual answer."

I see, so you think it's better to hide limitations in software and hope the user simply doesn't notice them, rather than make them obvious? Because that's exactly what you're asking for - you're asking that the software hides small errors in the hope the user doesn't notice even though they'll inevitably cumulate in some circumstances causing far bigger errors. Congratulations, you're one of those people who would be likely to cause many problems we've seen surrounding these sorts of issues from spacecraft crashing, to banks "losing" millions of dollars. Please, stick to the WPF WebBrowser control and don't try to do anything mission critical, it's for the good of computer users everywhere.

Safeguard your data. By doing nothing.

[rfioren]

http://www.apple.com/why-mac/better-os/#viruses

Re:Safeguard your data. By doing nothing.

[muon-catalyzed]

With Steve Jobs' holy ghost blessings.., I for one recommend this final solution to wipe the terror botnet hive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2s1MspmfEwg

Re:Safeguard your data. By doing nothing.

[Anonymous Coward]

"It doesn’t get PC viruses."

In other news, my electric car doesn't suffer from problems caused by low quality gasoline.

Re:Safeguard your data. By doing nothing.

[dstyle5]

Innocent-looking files downloaded over the Internet may contain dangerous malware in disguise.

Slashdotter who is Apple customer Testimonial: "I thought it was just an innocent file containing photos of goats..."

Re:Safeguard your data. By doing nothing.

[Anonymous Coward]

A mac is a PC, those mac viruses by definition *ARE* PC viruses, just not Windows viruses.

Re:Safeguard your data. By doing nothing.

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you still not understand this? Remember those apple commercials - Mac vs PC? Apple doesn't use PC as a generic term for personal computers. They use "PC" to differentiate their computers from Windows based computers.

Re:Safeguard your data. By doing nothing.

[HapSlappy_2222]

Wow. I don't know what's worse; Apple spreading this garbage or consumers believing it. Had the link not been provided, I'd not have believed they said it.

Fun game, substitute "data" with various other nouns, like "kids" and enjoy measuring how true the statement still is.

Re:Safeguard your data. By doing nothing.

[Idbar]

To be fair. The link you provided clearly states that "Macs don't get PC viruses".

So that's why their advertisement clearly differentiates a PC from a Mac. So people don't get confused about the type of virus they got... Of course they never said anything about Mac viruses ;-)

Re:Safeguard your data. By doing nothing.

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Though people will pile on Apple (rightfully, see more below) you do need to remember that this hubris is somewhat justified. There was a time when Windows had tens of thousands of viruses to Mac OS's maybe, 8. Macs were just more secure. This was early web days, and there was some department of the government that recommended Mac OSX webservers. Partly because of design, partly because of the PowerPC chip which was hard to write exploit code for. Windows machines were defective by design. Outlook viruses were prevalent because of horrible design practices - trust an environment where you can lie about who you are, and trust files that you can 'lie' about what type of file you are (hide extensions, which determines file 'type' in Windows).

Apple is still working at it, I like their sandboxing idea. And not trying to hide things from users helps security more than you think.

That said, this botnet is due to bad Apple design. They made it hard to update Java, and a bad JVM is how this is being spread. I'm hoping that this will push them to better security.

Re:Safeguard your data. By doing nothing.

[rts008]

How do you still not understand this?,/quote>
The AC you replied to understands perfectly well, it is you who has been trapped by Job's Reality Distortion Field.

'PC' is short for 'IBM-compatible Personal Computer'.
Since Apple dropped the PPC processor architecture and switched to x86, they are also PCs.

Apple doesn't use PC as a generic term for personal computers.

Apple's marketing department made themselves the laughing stock of the computer industry with those stupidity-inspired commercials.

Re:Safeguard your data. By doing nothing.

[BasilBrush]

That's exactly what I did. I did nothing. And a week ago OSX Software Update installed an updated version of Java that is not susceptible to this malware.

Soon there will be another automatic software update that will clean the malware from any Mac that did get infected.

Apple's approach to malware is that they deal with them in the OS itself. They don't leave it to third parties as Microsoft used to do. And they don't package their anti-virus into a user facing AV application as Microsoft do now.

So yes. Do nothing.

Re:Safeguard your data. By doing nothing.

[Anonymous Coward]

> So yes. Do nothing.

Unfortunately this fails to mitigate against the damage that's already been done. Fair enough, your machine may be re-secured - but if the malware has sniffed any passwords, they've been passed into the wild. If the malware has uploaded your documents, you won't be able to re-secure them. And if (as was a bit of a fad under Windows a while back) the malware decides to encrypt/ransom your documents, Apple cleaning after the fact won't help.

It sounds like mac users got off lightly this time. Things will only get worse from here.

Re:Safeguard your data. By doing nothing.

[makomk]

And a week ago OSX Software Update installed an updated version of Java that is not susceptible to this malware.

Several weeks after non-Mac users got an update for the same security issue, and only after Macs started getting infected through it in large numbers.

Re:Safeguard your data. By doing nothing.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not an Apple fan by any means, and well outside of the RDF. I'm just saying they're continuing to use 'PC' to mean 'Wintel' as they did in those stupid commercials.

Example: "Why get a new PC and just upgrade your computer, when you can get a Mac and upgrade your entire computer experience?"
http://www.apple.com/why-mac/

there is no Apple AV group

[alen]

Mac's don't get viruses. it used to be magic pixie dust protected all the Mac's but my MacBook Pro and others bought since the death of St. Steve are protected by His Spirit

Re:there is no Apple AV group

[HarrySquatter]

Flashback isn't a virus...

Re:there is no Apple AV group

[Anonymous Coward]

The Reality Distortion Field is fading...

Re:there is no Apple AV group

[ColdWetDog]

Ah, but you're right. This isn't a virus. It's a trojan. And we all know that Trojan's protect dicks.

(sorry Apple fans, that one hung out there just a wee too much).

Re:there is no Apple AV group

[revelation60]

It's a feature.

Re:there is no Apple AV group

[tacarat]

The current version downloads and installs itself. No human interaction required besides viewing an infected webpage. Don't confuse the "viruses are impossible to get on a Mac" crowd more by trying to make them learn the subcategories of malicious software. The fact it was originally a trojan that required the admin password to install versus the drive by installer requiring none is something more for the academics quibble about, not the end users.


Granted, this is /., so it's academics and fanboys anyhow >.>

Re:there is no Apple AV group

[HarrySquatter]

That doesn't change the fact that it's still a trojan. You're assumption that a trojan has to require the user to have interaction during install is erroneous.

Re:there is no Apple AV group

[lcam]

Well, that depends of if it's the intelligence community using the feature, or if it's anonymous.

Re:there is no Apple AV group

[tacarat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malware#Trojan_horses

Apparently I still go by the traditional definition. What do you think I'm missing?

Re:there is no Apple AV group

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but you're right. This isn't a virus. It's a trojan. And we all know that Trojan's protect dicks.

(sorry Apple fans, that one hung out there just a wee too much).

EPIC

Re:there is no Apple AV group

[narcc]

that one hung out there just a wee too much

That's what she said!

Re:there is no Apple AV group

[amicusNYCL]

If this is a trojan, then exactly what piece of legitimate software is it piggybacking on in order to get installed? It sounds to me like it's exploiting a Java vulnerability using an applet that does not disguise itself as something useful, it is specifically to install the payload. That sounds like a traditional virus. Previous versions that were actual trojans were embedded in warez downloads.

Re:there is no Apple AV group

[Anonymous Coward]

When was the last time ANY computer got a "virus"? A self replicating piece of code that spread from that PC via contact with storage media, etc.?

"Viruses" are long dead. They are now worms, trojans, spyware, etc. etc. They do not spread the way a real virus spreads. Its an antiquated term than people just use to mean "malware" these days.

So apple can certainly claim they do not get "viruses". Neither do PC's.

Re:there is no Apple AV group

[Anonymous Coward]

Granted, this is /., so it's academics and fanboys anyhow >.>

As a fanboi, I'm offended to be compared to academics.

Re:there is no Apple AV group

[SmurfButcher Bob]

So, can we rewrite history to say that Morris wrote a self-propagating trojan?

Re:there is no Apple AV group

[Anonymous Coward]

That does it! Enough already! I'm going to switch to Lynx instead of Safari ... I'll miss Java after I make it RO.

Re:there is no Apple AV group

[Yaztromo]

It sounds to me like it's exploiting a Java vulnerability using an applet that does not disguise itself as something useful, it is specifically to install the payload. That sounds like a traditional virus.

A virus is self-propagating. AFAIK, while this does propagate over networks, it isn't self-propagating (i.e.: infected nodes don't go around infecting other nodes). Hence, not a virus.

That's not to diminish its threat; simply that correct taxonomy aids in discourse towards finding a solution, and preventing similar malware in the future.

Yaz

Re:there is no Apple AV group

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't change the fact that it's still a trojan. You're assumption that a trojan has to require the user to have interaction during install is erroneous.

No, that is the definition of "trojan horse."

Re:there is no Apple AV group

[Anonymous Coward]

A virus is self-propagating. AFAIK, while this does propagate over networks, it isn't self-propagating (i.e.: infected nodes don't go around infecting other nodes). Hence, not a virus.

No, a "virus" propagates when you boot your computer from a floppy disk that you got from your friend. A "worm" is the one that goes out on its own over the network.

Re:there is no Apple AV group

[Anonymous Coward]

Morris wrote a worm.

Re:there is no Apple AV group

[Anonymous Coward]

In the old days (floppies), the 'node' that got infected wasn't the system, it was the disk.

A worm is a specific type of software which may or may not be malware, depending on whether or not it is used to deliver a malware payload. It's perfectly possible to have a worm which provides an anti-malware payload. IIRC this was done once by someone to try to take down a much larger windows botnet. (It's been a few years now, and I can't remember the details, so I may be misremembering or conflating events.)

Re:there is no Apple AV group

[tlhIngan]

When was the last time ANY computer got a "virus"? A self replicating piece of code that spread from that PC via contact with storage media, etc.?

"Viruses" are long dead. They are now worms, trojans, spyware, etc. etc. They do not spread the way a real virus spreads. Its an antiquated term than people just use to mean "malware" these days.

So apple can certainly claim they do not get "viruses". Neither do PC's.

I can think of several in recent memory. Hell, Stuxnet (remember that?) used at least 3 different methods to ensure it gets installed by USB drive. And viruses do exist, because otherwise airgapped networks would be perfectly safe from them.

The big one was an exploit using Windows Explorer's auto-thumbnail processing. And Stuxnet was also a worm because it tried to find vulnerable hosts once introduced inadvertently to the secure network.

And given the poor security of SCADA systems out there and everyone saying they should be airgapped, well, Stuxnet proves you don't need an internet connection to still be vulnerable.

Oh, hell, didn't the USAF get infected with a virus? Apparently they brought USB drives containing map updates to the Predator control computers and those got infected. Sure they couldn't do much (yet...), but it goes to show.

Nevermind those infected iPods, LCD photoframes, hard drives and other stuff that came out of the factory with viruses on them that infected the user's PC. Older, but probably still relevant.

Re:there is no Apple AV group

[Anonymous Coward]

Woo pedantic! Here are the given definitions, as I understand them:

Virus = self-propagating, but does not run on its own. Requires some legitimate program which it exploits and modifies saved data to maintain itself. For example: a virus would enter a system as an infected word document, which would add macros into your copy of word infecting all of the word documents you edit after becoming infected. In general, the virus itself is not very useful, but frequently they're used as a piggy-back which downloads a...

Trojan-horse = program which gives a malicious user control over a system remotely. This is frequently done via IRC, but newer programs have become far more sophisticated using P2P protocols of their own design or hiding it as fake HTTP requests making traffic analysis more difficult. The trojan horse itself is NOT self-propagating, but it will put a ton of hooks around the system to re-download/re-deploy itself if it gets shut off. In general its only goal is to just keep running and allowing the malicious user to abuse the machine. Now frequently the malicious user will use the trojan horse to send out fake emails or other things which leads to propagation, but the program itself doesn't necessarily do it.

Worm = program which attempts to spread itself. It gets on a host machine and does something (normally immediately, sometimes with an incubation period, frequently involving email, sometimes 0-day exploits to networked computers) to try and get to more machines. After it has attempted to spread itself around, it will frequently follow-up by downloading a trojan horse, or sometimes it will contain the trojan horse functionality itself.

Straight up worms have kind of fallen out of style these days though. They're a bit too obvious and their repeated, predictable behaviour leads to them being spotted and blocked after not very much time out in the wild. And without some sort of trojan horse functionality there's not much point. Trojan horse functionality allows a central command to update the code and makes the worm a more useful product, eventually getting it on more computers and keeping security researchers guessing longer.

Anyway, hope this actually gets modded up by someone and people use these and or tell me I'm an idiot.

Re:there is no Apple AV group

[Anonymous Coward]

It's piggybacking on the webpage.

Re:there is no Apple AV group

[Anonymous Coward]

stuxnet?

Re:there is no Apple AV group

[gl4ss]

So, can we rewrite history to say that Morris wrote a self-propagating trojan?

all this talk is just silly. generally, if it's doing something you don't want it's labeled as virus, send story to the presses.

however.. if you really want to be a dick about the labels:
trojan you download intentionally and then get something extra you didn't order, like getting chlamydia from a hooker .
a worm(morris) sends itself actively to further nodes and then onwards(goes around raping, once someone is raped he goes and rapes the next one, it's like hiv which induces people to rape).
a virus spreads while the user does some interaction with another computer user, gives him a file that got infected on his machine(spreads by people just sticking their dicks in whatever and taking it from whoever).
because of all this we have the term malware - and flashback is malware, but you don't install it intentionally, it's more like cancer or mad cows disease - or that all the sites which serve it are trojans, but that it is not a trojan itself, being just the spartan soldiers payload of the horse.

could we now get back to the issue of osx having intentionally poor java support from apple due to jobs having been a dick about tech and sun being a bunch of dicks? and could someone explain if the flashback used any actual exploit or just api's working as intended? (my bank requires java for logging into the fancier netbank, fancy that.. totally unnecessarely mind you but that was their big upgrade couple of years ago from perfectly good browser based solution and you can still transfer all your money from the text only mobile site anyways).

as to the av firms reaction.. does apple even know who their av team is? I bet they've had a few meetings about this already where they've just shrugged and written the conclusion that it's not their problem and the problem is fixed in lion already since it doesn't ship with java.

Re:there is no Apple AV group

[CAIMLAS]

Yes, and the US is currently not at war, all the troops have left Iraq, current government policies in the US have had a net positive effect on the economy (which is recovering!), Windows 8 is going to positively synergize your life, HIV is not an STD, and the jobless rate is only 8.2% in the US.

You can tell a lot of lies if you re-define words or loosely skirt by facts. Sure, you're technically correct, but you're still wrong by fact of omission.

Re:there is no Apple AV group

[Anonymous Coward]

When was the last time ANY computer got a "virus"? A self replicating piece of code that spread from that PC via contact with storage media, etc.?

Stuxnet?

Re:there is no Apple AV group

[styrotech]

The original definition of a virus was malware that could embed its own executable code into other executables (incl boot loaders or even later on Word docs that allowed scripts). The idea was that the infected executable would still (mostly) work. So that when that infected executable was run it would activate and invisibly spread to other executables by embedding copies of itself. You had to run an infected executable to get infected.

The virus analogy was around the way real world viruses infect cells and use the cells own machinery to replicate themselves. Viruses need living cells to reproduce and are inert otherwise

It was worms that propagated over networks exploiting remote vulnerabilities (eg the Morris worm). Of course modern malware will often use multiple techniques and could very well be a combination of virus and worm (and trojan).

But these days 'virus' just seems to mean malware in general.

Re:there is no Apple AV group

[Anonymous Coward]

Those academics and high I.Q. types think their soooo smart!

Re:there is no Apple AV group

[Anonymous Coward]

Flashback isn't a virus...

In layman's terms, yes it is.

Re:there is no Apple AV group

[Anonymous Coward]

When was the last time ANY computer got a "virus"? A self replicating piece of code that spread from that PC via contact with storage media, etc.?

"Viruses" are long dead. They are now worms, trojans, spyware, etc. etc. They do not spread the way a real virus spreads. Its an antiquated term than people just use to mean "malware" these days.

So apple can certainly claim they do not get "viruses". Neither do PC's.

Gee, according to Dr.Web (what do they know):

File viruses

File viruses are traditionally classified as malicious programs that infect, among other things, executables and can replicate themselves (i.e., capable of reproducing without user intervention). Based on the number of infections by year’s end, Win32.Rmnet.12 is the leader among file viruses. This virus was detected on users' computers 165,286,935 times, which equals 11.22% of all malware infections. Second place was taken by Win32.HLLP.Neshta, which was discovered 94,777,924 times throughout the year (6.44% of infections), and Win32.HLLP.Whboy.45 closed in on the top three (52,610,974 cases, which is 3.57% of the total).

In 2011, the family of file viruses was expanded with new malware instances: the leader on the list Win32.Rmnet.12, and Win32.HLLP.Novosel, and Win32.Sector.22, as well as many others.

And according to http://stat.drweb.com/ their software scanner found several hundred thousand files infected with a virus today. So to answer your question: a couple of minutes ago.

Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

The spirit of Steve Jobs is alive and well.

Apple Gets Bit by Worm

[Anonymous Coward]

Security industry bitten by the hand that doesn't feed it.

'We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple.'

[Anonymous Coward]

Because there isn't one?

*rimshot*

Of course not.

[JustAnotherIdiot]

We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple.

Apple is to arrogant to admit they have any flaws, so odds are there isn't one.
Just like with the iPhone 4 antenna, they'd rather take bad PR and have their users suffer than admit there's an issue.

Re:Of course not.

[Anonymous Coward]

What can you expect from a company that was run by a piece-of-shit-human-being like Steve Jobs....

Re:Of course not.

[Mojo66]

As much as I love Apple products, I hate their arrogance towards anything related to security. Could break their neck.

Re:Of course not.

[idontgno]

Good point. I bet Apple's response to this trojan is "You're holding it wrong."

Re:Of course not.

[Anonymous Coward]

Know what I love? Schadenfreude!

Re:Of course not.

[CAIMLAS]

Judging by the actual support and bugfixes most Apple software seems to get (ie, none - they're worse than Microsoft in this regard, by a long shot),

Apple's MO is as follows:

* ignore the claims
* deny the claims
* blame the users when popular appeal brings large media attention (it rarely gets this far)
* offer a weak consolation, still blaming the user.

Re:Of course not.

[Anonymous Coward]

Corection "You're clicking it wrong"

Re:Of course not.

[Anonymous Coward]

Darn it misspelled.

Re:Of course not.

[stewbacca]

* blame the users ...

Wait, I thought that was slashdot commenters, not Apple.

Re:Of course not.

[BasilBrush]

Troll.

For iOS users get a new major version each year, and 2 or 3 point revisions in between. Typically Android phones get no updates.

Likewise OSX gets plenty of updates delivered via Software Update.

Re:Of course not.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Apple is totally ignoring this:

The Flashback malware, which has been seen to have affected as much as one percent of the Mac user base (the highest percentage of any threat so far), has finally received an official KnowledgeBase article by Apple that explains how the Trojan works, recommends how to avoid being at risk, and says the company is working on a Flashback detection and removal tool. The brief report also mentions Apple's efforts to disable the Trojan's effectiveness by disabling the servers the malware attempts to contact.

Re:Of course not.

[JustAnotherIdiot]

Typically Android phones get no updates.

Funny, my phone has received one major update and 2 minor ones, and I've only had the phone for a year.

Re:Of course not.

[CAIMLAS]

And yet, if the Apple updates for iOS were to cease, nothing of significance would be lost.

Without knowing the difference, most people would be hard pressed to tell any between a first gen and a last gen iPhone based on how the software works. They didn't get it right the first time, they just haven't improved it.

(Though, not completely true. iPhones don't brick themselves nearly as much as they used to.)

Re:Of course not.

[BasilBrush]

Without knowing the difference, most people would be hard pressed to tell any between a first gen and a last gen iPhone based on how the software works. They didn't get it right the first time, they just haven't improved it.

Do you actually enjoy looking stupid? Huge amounts of functionality have been added since the first version.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_version_history

Re:Of course not.

[BasilBrush]

"Typically".

And most new phones don't even ship with Ice Cream Sandwich yet and that's been out half a year.

Re:Of course not.

[Anonymous Coward]

Woah Woah! Hey now! Don't you think calling him a "human-being" is cross the line a little?

Re:Of course not.

[CrackedButter]

Wow, I'M trolling? Fuck you, moderator cunts.

Blaming the messenger

[cpu6502]

"I found a security hole in your OS....."

"It's your fault scumbag. Keep quiet!" - Apple. Other companies have tried the same tactic, trying to silence/punish security people from publishing known holes. Like Microsoft. Sony. Nintendo. The Bluray Cartel.

Re:Blaming the messenger

[ray_nicov]

Dr. Web is one of the leading security companies (at least in Russia) and they've been around since 1992. They are by no means 'nagware' or 'junk scanner' - they tools are legitimate, powerful and useful

Re:Blaming the messenger

[NatasRevol]

However, I think you can forgive Apple not having heard of them before now. Especially given that all of their tools are Windows focused.

Re:Blaming the messenger

[SmurfButcher Bob]

Eh? Not to make a "no true Scotsman" plea, but the security world is not that big. If Apple hasn't heard of them before, it means that Apple has no presence in this field. Not surprising when you consider that can't seem to keep their top-secret iphone prototypes in their pants.

Next, you'll excuse Utah for not knowing that Oracle is a giant security suck-hole. And in other news, RSA didn't realize that PDFs can carry exploits. Uh...

Re:Blaming the messenger

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you manage to breathe with your tongue so far up the asshole of a cancer-riddled corpse?

Re:Blaming the messenger

[Anonymous Coward]

LAWL you'd put either of those ahead of Elcomsoft?

Not much of a clueless retard, are you.

Re:Blaming the messenger

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's your fault scumbag. Keep quiet!" - Apple. Other companies have tried the same tactic, trying to silence/punish security people from publishing known holes. Like Microsoft. Sony. Nintendo. The Bluray Cartel.

A few years back Apple threatened to sue security researchers who announced a serious flaw in mac wifi drivers - so serious that you could get pwned merely by having wifi on.

Apple quietly fixed it several months later.

Re:Blaming the messenger

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you manage to breathe with your tongue so far up the asshole of a cancer-riddled corpse?

Thru his nose like most people?

Re:Blaming the messenger

[Anonymous Coward]

MS took a few years to come to grips with it. Then the CEO stopped everything and said 'fix this'. We got XP sp2 out of it and a 2 year delay on vista/longhorn.

These days they are a lot better about it. Sony, Nintendo, and Apple have yet to go thru that pain. They will.

Re:Blaming the messenger

[Anonymous Coward]

we're obviously dealing with a mouth breather in this case.

Re:Blaming the messenger

[BasilBrush]

If I set up a security company in Bhutan, I'll instantly be one of the leading security companies (in Bhutan).

I've been in the industry for 30 years, too many of those involving PCs, and I'd never heard of Dr. Web until this story. Norton, Symantec, McAfee, AVG, Kaspersky, Microsft etc. But not Dr. Web.

Clearly Apple have not ignored the problem. The fixed version of Java was pushed out a week ago, and there's an advisory saying there's an update that cleans infections coming soon. Dr. Web may not have been the first to report it to Apple.

Re:Blaming the messenger

[ray_nicov]

If I set up a security company in Bhutan, I'll instantly be one of the leading security companies (in Bhutan).

I take your point but I think there is a distinct difference between Bhutan and Russia in this sense. Also you may consider that you did hear about Kaspersky and the main difference between these guys used to be that Kaspersky is better at PR and marketing.

Re:Blaming the messenger

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello,

Dr. Web is a well-known and respected vendor of anti-malware software and is well-known in the anti-malware community and regularly show up at industry events like Virus Bulletin conferences. The security world is actually pretty darn big, and anti-malware is only a small component of it.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

'We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple.'"

[Anonymous Coward]

Because there aren't any, I worked for them and customers that called in were routinely told there is nothing to worry about when it comes to malware.
On their corporate side you would be amazed at who states exactly the same thing when they should know better.

Just a taste:
http://www.exploit-db.com/search/?action=search&filter_page=1&filter_description=OS+X&filter_exploit_text=&filter_author=&filter_platform=0&filter_type=0&filter_lang_id=0&filter_port=&filter_osvdb=&filter_cve=

And?

[HarrySquatter]

Yes, they don't have much communication and cooperation with the 'security industry' since it is mostly full of leeches and parasites who make money spreading fear. Now, this doesn't excuse them from failing to acknowledge issues, since that's just as bad, but the less this 'industry' leeches itself to OS X the better.

Re:And?

[Baloroth]

Yes, they don't have much communication and cooperation with the 'security industry' since it is mostly full of leeches and parasites who make money spreading fear. Now, this doesn't excuse them from failing to acknowledge issues, since that's just as bad, but the less this 'industry' leeches itself to OS X the better.

Yeah, just let the trojan spread unacknowledged. Ignore it and it will eventually go away, right?

"Leeches" or not, someone needs to work on stopping malware. MS didn't step up the plate in the past, and I have little reason to think Apple will now (after all, their website still claims "Macs don't get viruses".)

Re:And?

[HarrySquatter]

Wow couldn't even finishing reading a post with 2 sentences? No, it's not okay to deny anything as my post explicitly said.

Re:And?

[sir-gold]

A leech that swims by and says "hey, did you know you are bleeding?" isn't much of a leech. Other than a bit more fame, what does dr web gain from this, it's not like they are extorting apple.

I'm curious were you picked up the idea that security researchers and fake-av sellers were somehow related?

Do you also assume that anyone yelling "fire" in a crowded building is just trying to make everyone scared? if so, I hope you are in a building fire some day so you can ignore the warning, safe in your fire-proof pants

Re:And?

[lgw]

The security industry are leeches because they provide a needed and valuable service? Did you have any actual argument to that effect, or were you just karma whoring?

Re:And?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they don't have much communication and cooperation with the 'security industry' since it is mostly full of leeches and parasites who make money spreading fear. Now, this doesn't excuse them from failing to acknowledge issues, since that's just as bad, but the less this 'industry' leeches itself to OS X the better.

So, you think the security industry is nothing but a bunch of 'parasites' trying to get at your pocketbook?

We totally agree! BTW, what's your IP address? Nevermind, we'll find out for ourselves...

Signed,
The Black Hats

Re:And?

[stewbacca]

And while all the slashdotters out there who all know they are smarter than everyone else on the planet are bitching about how Apple fails to acknowledge issues, Apple is quietly fixing shit behind the scenes.

Ever wonder why you never hear anything about reported Apple problems after a week? Because Apple doesn't feed the media troll and respond to overly sensationalized news stories. It's a strategy that -- checking AAPL -- seems to be working.

Re:And?

[stewbacca]

And a an unscrupulous dentist would never have any incentive to determine you need a filling or a shady mechanic would never replace a part that was working just fine...

Re:And?

[BasilBrush]

Yeah, just let the trojan spread unacknowledged. Ignore it and it will eventually go away, right?

Unacknowledged? What's this, Scotch mist?

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5244?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US

Re:And?

[BasilBrush]

Other than a bit more fame, what does dr web gain from this, it's not like they are extorting apple.

Publicity for their OSX antivirus product.

Re:And?

[grantspassalan]

Apple won't be feeling much pain after OS X 10.8 comes out this summer. After that, the majority of Mac users will get almost all their software from the Mac Apple Store. Nasty malwares that download themselves from infected websites, will no longer be allowed to run. Security companies never have made any business to speak of from Apple products. They currently make *nothing* at all from Apple's iDevices. Soon Macs will be just as secure as iPads and its smaller siblings.

Re:And?

[lgw]

I'm still not seeing any argument being made that the AV folks are "leeches", though apparantly many /.ers take this as an article of faith. All OSs and most popular software products have security flaws. There's definitely real malware out there exploiting these flaws, for profit. The problem clearly won't fix itself. How is this any different from the market for auto repair or dentistry? There are certainly unscrupulous players in every market there is; I'm not getting what the problem here is supposed ot be.

Re:And?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since he's an Apple user, he think's HE's fireproof.

"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple"?

[MartinSchou]

Sharov describes the lack of communication and cooperation as a symptom of a company that has never before had to work closely with the security industry. 'For Microsoft, we have all the security response team's addresses,' he says. 'We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple.'"

Seriously? Is it really that difficult for a security company to search for "security" on apple's website and find this page?

https://ssl.apple.com/support/security/

Re:Not a virus, numbnuts

[ColdWetDog]

Macs don't get viruses, tardo. This is a trojan. This guy claims to be a 'security researcher' but doesn't know the difference?

I think we might as well get over having lost this battle. All of the major media outlets (and thus the vast majority of Mindless Media consumers) are calling it a 'virus'.

But not to worry, we've got lots of other technological windmills to tilt at.

Hubris

[Meatbucket]

It will bite them in the ass someday

Re:Hubris

[SmurfButcher Bob]

No, it won't. The cost of that hubris is borne by others - Schneier's proverbial "externality". If my product leaks your username, email, and password, it costs me nothing.

Re:Hubris

[Attila Dimedici]

If my product leaks your username, email, and password, it costs me nothing.

Until some lawyer files a class action lawsuit against you for all of the people whose information your product may have leaked.

Re:Hubris

[Meatbucket]

Reputation is still worth something isn't it?

Re:Hubris

[Cro Magnon]

If your product gets a reputation for leaking your username, email, and password, people will eventually switch to a more secure competitor. I know a lot of people who switched to FireFox when IE was having security problems every day.

To paraphrase Steve J...

[kbob88]

"It's not the job of Russian security firms to know where our security holes are"

And also, Macs only get malware "when you hold it wrong"

Re:To paraphrase Steve J...

[koan]

They also get malware infections when you remove them from their velvet cases.

Re:Not a virus, numbnuts

[Anonymous Coward]

And nobody has cared about the distinction for a long time. Trojans are always called 'viruses' with Windows based operating systems.

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you understand what he means, but oh well

How ya like your Mac now, fanboys?

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

That's so funny. A security link over https using an untrusted key! No wonder Apple is failing with security when they can't even get the basics right.

No overwhelmingly surprising

[gubers33]

Apple has had the benefit of so many years of being such a small market share that it did not make sense for people to create Trojans that targeted them. However, Microsoft has had to respond to threats over the years and had the time to develop processes to assess threats and work with security researchers. Apple has ended up behind the curve in this spectrum because of how long they had a small market share. If Apple is able to suck up their pride and work with the researchers they could end up being able to deal with such threats appropriately, but right now their pride is getting the best of them.

Re:No overwhelmingly surprising

[sohmc]

But in Apple's defense, the permissions structure of Macs are inherently different than on a Windows machine.

Most mac users run at normal user level, a la Linux/Unix. When the computer needs to do something at the priveleged level, it asks for a password.

Most Windows users usually run as administrator by default. Anytime some virus/trojan wants to do something, it just prompts the user with a "Hey, Windows Explorer wants to do something. Continue?"

There is something different about having to type in a password than just clicking ok. Then again, Windows has so many random dialogue boxes that most users don't read them anymore.

Re:No overwhelmingly surprising

[lightknight]

Pride goeth before the fall.

Re:No overwhelmingly surprising

[interval1066]

But in Apple's defense, the permissions structure of Macs are inherently different than on a Windows machine.

So? You still write a virius for it, you just have to find the weak spot. There have been virii for Unix-ish machines too,

Re:No overwhelmingly surprising

[w_dragon]

You don't need to be admin to be a botnet member, a user process will work just fine.

Re:No overwhelmingly surprising

[Sir_Eptishous]

I would say that Windows users, especially with Windows 7, are running less and less under an account with Administrative permissions.

Re:No overwhelmingly surprising

[edelbrp]

I don't buy the marketshare argument entirely. Back in the dark days of OS-9 our office used to get worms and such all the time. Once we migrated to OS-X, we haven't had an incident since. That said, it's pretty much common knowledge that drive-by exploits have existed for years, particularly against Flash and Adobe Acrobat. I suspect that Apple might do with Java what they did with Flash and not have it installed by default and not take the responsibility to push updates with Software Update.

Re:No overwhelmingly surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

No. "Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall."

Re:No overwhelmingly surprising

[IamTheRealMike]

Bingo. Getting root is useful but not required for viruses, and Windows has had very similar setups for a long time already. It's perfectly possible to make a program that hides itself, resists deletion, spams, steals passwords, logs keys etc all without having root and there are quite a few such viruses out there. MacOS isn't any better defended than Windows against malware, in fact it's significantly worse because so many users don't even have AV software installed (my Mac does, btw).

Re:No overwhelmingly surprising

[SmurfButcher Bob]

Defense?

How exactly does MS's strategy for the migration of decades of legacy software relate to Apple finally being called out for having Oracle-style security responses and procedures?

Re:No overwhelmingly surprising

[blueg3]

Apple already works with security researchers on a regular basis. (Also, there have been Mac viruses and antivirus software for ages. I think I had antivirus software for System 6.)

Re:No overwhelmingly surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple has had the benefit of so many years of being such a small market share that it did not make sense for people to create Trojans that targeted them. However, Microsoft has had to respond to threats over the years and had the time to develop processes to assess threats and work with security researchers. Apple has ended up behind the curve in this spectrum because of how long they had a small market share. If Apple is able to suck up their pride and work with the researchers they could end up being able to deal with such threats appropriately, but right now their pride is getting the best of them.

"1981: A program called Elk Cloner, written for Apple II systems and created by Richard Skrenta. Apple II was seen as particularly vulnerable due to the storage of its operating system on floppy disk. Elk Cloner's design combined with public ignorance about what malware was and how to protect against it led to Elk Cloner being responsible for the first large-scale computer virus outbreak in history." (Source)

Re:No overwhelmingly surprising

[Uberbah]

So? You still write a virius for it, you just have to find the weak spot.

So it can't take over the whole machine, only your personal files.

There have been virii for Unix-ish machines too

Also no comparison to what Windows users have had to deal with. The sense of proportion/risk assessment in this story is as broken as a helmetless motorcycle rider talking about how how he refuses to fly because he's afraid that the plane might crash.

Re:No overwhelmingly surprising

[Yaztromo]

When the computer needs to do something at the priveleged level, it asks for a password.

Interestingly enough, when it comes to Flashback, it will prompt you for the admin password when it attempts to infect your system. If you give it, it will attempt to infect Safari (but only if you don't have certain applications installed -- if you have Xcode installed for example, it will delete itself immediately), but if you don't provide an Administrative password, it will attempt to infect you via the users local ~/Library directory and /Users/Shared (although again, there is a list of app paths which, if present, will cause it to delete itself).

Thus, this one can infect even without admin access, although it can only infect a single user in this manner. Other users of the system won't see anything, and it won't propagate to them in any automated manner.

Lots of interesting details here. I'm glad to see that Apple has patched the Java flaw that permitted drive-by installation of this trojan, however the ability to dump libraries into folders and update property files to load native code that replaces common system-wide functions seems troubling, and is something Apple should address.

Yaz

Re:No overwhelmingly surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Why bother reading the dialog boxes when the message text is usually too vague to base any rational decision on, unless you're a geek who knows the translation between vaguese and actual functionality.

Re:No overwhelmingly surprising

[interval1066]

So it can't take over the whole machine, only your personal files.

Mac users have had an easy time of it to now, and that's only becuase the market share has been so low. If you're trying to tell me that the reason was becase the technology was so scarry superior to windows or linux I think you're in for a rude awakening.

Re:No overwhelmingly surprising

[tgd]

But in Apple's defense, the permissions structure of Macs are inherently different than on a Windows machine.

Yes, they're coarse-grained user permissions, not fine grained ACLs like Windows has.

Most mac users run at normal user level, a la Linux/Unix. When the computer needs to do something at the priveleged level, it asks for a password.

Most Windows users usually run as administrator by default.

Perhaps people on a nine year old OS. Not a problem for Apple, because people on Jaguar would've thrown their hardware away a half decade ago when you stopped being able to get software for them. Of course anyone using Vista or later is running without an admin token, unless they deliberately disabled their account security by turning off UAC. You can do that in OSX, too.

Re:No overwhelmingly surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

and I would say bullshiat!....but just keeping tell yourself that.

Re:No overwhelmingly surprising

[AshtangiMan]

Until OSX it was too hard to develop a virus for the mac. The APIs changed between system versions too much for virus makers (as well as legitimate application makers) to keep up. At least now there are a few years at least of consistency and backwards compatibility for developers to keep up. [/snarkasm . . . and I use Mac, Linux, and Windows, they all suck in their own special ways]

Re:No overwhelmingly surprising

[interval1066]

Don't be rediculous, Microsoft Office for the Mac, Adobe, and a whole slew of other products have been around for years. If virus makers thought a Mac virus would be effective, they would have targeted it.

Re:No overwhelmingly surprising

[AshtangiMan]

I see you don't know what snarkasm is. Perhaps you'd like to subscribe to my newsletter?

Re:No overwhelmingly surprising

[exomondo]

So it can't take over the whole machine, only your personal files.

Oh, well that's ok then. Seriously if it can run under user privileges and access your personal files that's generally about as much as it needs to do, no-one is interested in stealing your system files.

Re:No overwhelmingly surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish you and others would finally stop singing that market share song once and for all. Apple, by far has the largest market share for their iDevices. What they have done is made these products as a secure as possible, such that that there are NO nasty programs running on any of the millions of these devices. The solution to ironclad protection from malware is simple: let no one install untrusted software. Soon Apple will be doing this for the Mac products as well. Those who insist on getting their software such as warez from the dark corners of the Internet may still do so, but they will be a small minority, like the owners of jail-broken iPads and iPhones.

Re:No overwhelmingly surprising

[hobbit]

Long ago, Apple's Installer app team decided that the default target for library files should be /Library rather than ~/Library.

That single decision has had the upshot that for the last decade and more, Apple has been training its users to type in their admin passwords at the drop of a hat.

I've never understood why they didn't realise it would come back to haunt them. Now they're going to have to learn on the back foot.

Re:No overwhelmingly surprising

[squiggleslash]

Ok, just to be clear: I'm pretty sure the installed base of Windows 7, plus that sliver of Vista installs, currently forms the majority of Windows installs.

In 7 and Vista, apps do not run with admin privileges unless you explicitly consent to that. Indeed, this was one of the early complaints about Vista from users not used to the idea.

While technically, yes, you don't have to re-enter your password, the OS makes it very clear that extra privileges are being requested (including screen darkening) so there's no risk you'll confuse the dialog with, say, an "Are you sure you want to delete this file?" type thing. I'd also argue that it's actually worse to get users into the habit of entering their password every time a program apparently asks for it. Kinda easy to see how that can be abused.

I always was a tad horrified when using Mac OS X that it was apparently OK just to bounce a system update like icon in the dock a couple of times before putting up a very standard dialog box to ask for what actually is very privileged information. It's definitely inferior to the Vista/7 method of doing things. The computer shouldn't be asking YOU if you're the real deal when it's trying to validate the permissions of another application, you should be asking IT if the other application is the real deal. And even if it's asking you, it damn well shouldn't be asking you for the same password you use to log in and access all of the computer's features.

I'm guessing Microsoft is doing it right because unlike Apple, they've learned the hard way over and over again that they can't get it wrong. Apple's lack of an installed base and the implied lack of a network effect has given Apple a lot of latitude to make basic security errors without anyone caring.

Re:No overwhelmingly surprising

[Uberbah]

Oh, well that's ok then.

Oh, just an obvious difference in proportion that some people are obviously ignoring. Like the helmetless motorcycle rider afraid of plane crashes.

Re:No overwhelmingly surprising

[Uberbah]

Mac users have had an easy time of it to now, and that's only becuase the market share has been so low.

Ah, the Marketshare Myth that has never had any basis in reality.

If you're trying to tell me that the reason was becase the technology was so scarry superior to windows or linux I think you're in for a rude awakening.

Easy enough to debunk with Microsoft's own products. If it were only a matter of marketshare, then the number of exploits for Windows 7 would be surpassing the number of exploits for XP and '98 as 7 has surpassed it's predecessors. But that's obviously not the case, because Microsoft started to give a damn about security after the release of XP. See also: the fact that there were far more hacks for IIS than there were hacks for Apache, despite the latter having more marketshare than the former.

That's because marketshare has little to do with it. Shitty code and privileged separation has everything to do with it. If OS X or Linux had all programs run with administrative access all the time, left ports and services open all over the place, or had web browsers tied into the operating system (with scripting!) then they would have been a cesspool just like 98 and XP.

Re:No overwhelmingly surprising

[interval1066]

Ah, the Marketshare Myth that has never had any basis in reality.

You're gonna tell me Macs had better than a 9% market share at any best? Please begin in the space provided:

Easy enough to debunk with Microsoft's own products.

I'm not a microsoft booster, so say what you want. But don't tell me they don't run 90% of the pc's around.

They don't know the antivirus group inside apple?

[Tanman]

I don't know what they are talking about. What antivirus group inside Apple?

Not surprising....

[Anonymous Coward]

That's probably because Apple has no security team. They along with all their airhead customers refuse to believe the are vulnerable.

Re:Not surprising....

[SmurfButcher Bob]

Not true. Apple knows full well that such vulnerabilities exist. But airhead customers mean that Apple need not worry about them.

If you've been convincing idiots that The Emperor is Wearing Beautiful Clothes for well over a decade, why the hell would you spend a single dime on silk or thread? Security is a *perception*, not a reality. Apple has sold that perception, and a quick glance at the comments shows that the idiots are fully vested in it, some going so far as to base their self-esteem / social posture on it.

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[jesseck]

I'm sure that email address is to report the location of a lost and/or stolen prototype, and is emailed directly to the Commissioner.

Why do we support liers?

[VernorVinge]

Apple products are overpriced, insecure, not upgradable, developed by a CEO who believed integrity is optional, and makes it's outsized profits on breaking labor laws in developing countries. Why do the supposed 'creative' class continue to support this pile of dung?

Re:Why do we support liers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple products are overpriced, insecure, not upgradable, developed by a CEO who believed integrity is optional, and makes it's outsized profits on breaking labor laws in developing countries. Why do the supposed 'creative' class continue to support this pile of dung?

Not to get dragged into the magic troll circle here, but.... seriously? Overpriced (alienware), insecure(Windows), not upgradeable(netbooks), sleazy CEOs(pick a firm, any firm) and cheap illicit labor(again...you have your pick) are your qualifications for hating Apple? Just Apple? Not anyone else? If those are your qualifications, what magic fair-trade, free-hardware, earth-friendly hippie device are you using? Because we'd all like one.

I'm not by any stretch denying that these problems exist, or that they're negligible. We'd all like to see secure, flexible format hardware and software that isn't bundled in DRM and doesn't cost us an arm and a leg, made by honest men earning a fair wage. And there are fine folks working every day to move us closer to that dream. Honestly, it's a dream we would all share, if we weren't so burdened and burned by cynicism and a healthy dose of the stupidity that is the real world. But at least recognize the blame isn't all on Apple's shoulders.

If you're going to hate on Apple, at least do it for the mindless sheeple fanbois. They're much easier to mock. I should know. I'm one of them. :)

Re:Why do we support liers?

[Securityemo]

Because the lives of the so-called 'creative class' rests inside a comfortable cocoon spun out of (the side effects of) global industry and commerce? It'd be like a fish trying to escape the water.

Re:Why do we support liers?

[amicusNYCL]

It's not their fault if they think different.

Re:Why do we support liers?

[sir-gold]

if apple is one of foxconn's biggest customers, does that not make apple at least partially responsible for creating working conditions so poor that people killed themselves to change it?

If people are going to blame drug users for the drug problem, shouldn't we blame labor users for the labor problem?

Re:Why do we support liers?

[Nominei]

Apple products are overpriced, insecure, not upgradable, developed by a CEO who believed integrity is optional, and makes it's outsized profits on breaking labor laws in developing countries.

Weird... You can replace "Apple" in that sentence with "Dell", "Sony", and "HP" and it still makes sense!!

Why do the supposed 'creative' class continue to support this pile of dung?

Because it's a SHINY piece of dung, of course! All the COOL kids have shiny dung, why don't you want shiny dung too?!

Re:Why do we support liers?

[melikamp]

Because it's a highly sophisticated and polished pile of dung, and the so-called 'creative' class is just as brainwashed by ads as any other class in USA.

Re:Why do we support liers?

[Anonymous Coward]

If people are going to blame drug users for the drug problem, shouldn't we blame labor users for the labor problem?

The question is: A problem for whom?

The "drug problem" is a problem for the master-class, as it makes wage-slaves useless, adds crime, etc. .. stuff that's bad for business.

The "labor problem" is that labor wage-slaves cannot afford to live on the pittance the master-class is able to pay them ... that's not really a problem ... for the master-class.

Re:Why do we support liers?

[moronoxyd]

Not to get dragged into the magic troll circle here, but.... seriously? Overpriced (alienware), insecure(Windows), not upgradeable(netbooks), sleazy CEOs(pick a firm, any firm) and cheap illicit labor(again...you have your pick) are your qualifications for hating Apple? Just Apple?

Are you aware that there is a difference between being one (or two) of the above and fitting ALL of the criteria at once?

Re:Why do we support liers?

[VernorVinge]

No doubt many of the major PC and Android manufacturers are guilty of similar sins. I pick on Apple because they are the largest corporation in the world, with insane amounts of market share and power over their suppliers. If we can't demand better behavior from them, then we might as well pack it up and move to Russia. I root my tablets, build my own PCs, and do not own a single piece of computer hardware and software that cannot be upgraded. That is a personal choice, and I'd never hate on those who choose a product for its utility.

Re:Why do we support liers?

[SmurfButcher Bob]

..."Dude, You’re a Barista..."

Re:Why do we support liers?

[amicusNYCL]

That commercial has some great lines. "I could never buy a Samsung, I'm creative."

Re:Why do we support liers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple products are overpriced, insecure, not upgradable, developed by a CEO who believed integrity is optional, and makes it's outsized profits on breaking labor laws in developing countries. Why do the supposed 'creative' class continue to support this pile of dung?

Because the alternative is having the same computer as pretentious clueless pricks like you - that still has the same or worse problems.

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[koan]

Yeah and you send something to that link on that page and then what?
He means he has the DIRECT information for MS's security, meaning email and phone numbers.

Re:Not a virus, numbnuts

[lightknight]

Meh, close enough.

Trojan virus vs. trojan malware. Yes, it's technically not a virus, but it is a piece of malware that the Mac-heads have been convinced they are immune to. And it is, no doubt, the first of many; in time, if someone actually cares, perhaps a real virus (CIH style) will be created for the Mac. You know, something with a timebomb, that goes undetected, then fries the disk firmware?

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure what he means is he doesn't know them all by name, because of the frequency with which he reports bugs.

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[neonv]

'We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple.' means they haven't been to able to talk to them and get to know them. I saw the website, and I feel safe saying I don't know the Apple AV group. I'm sure Sharov found the website. As they said in the article, they just get no response from Apple.

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[ray_nicov]

I guess there is a difference between knowing a public email address and being on speaking terms with the people behind the address.

Just as in the past...

[rullywowr]

Official Apple statement: "You're holding it wrong."

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[Chris Mattern]

They did that. They sent email there. They got ignored. What they have for Microsoft, what they *don't* have for Apple, is direct phone numbers/email addresses for the right personnel.

Russian altruism? Suuuuure...

[KrazyDave]

Boris is trying to spin Apple's response (or lack thereof) as a sign of arrogance or unpreparedness, I don't think it it's either. I think it's Boris' attempt to publicize himself and Dr. Web and might even be behind the engineering of the threat now that Mac saturation is broad enough to make A.V. for Macs a profitable market. I don't trust the Russians or the Chinese in any regard.

Re:Russian altruism? Suuuuure...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't trust the Russians or the Chinese in any regard.

How do you feel about Iowans? I think they're pretty suspect, as a state. Delaware-ians as well.

Re:Russian altruism? Suuuuure...

[yodleboy]

Apple, its employees and its users are legendarily arrogant. I find it much more believable that a security researcher got rebuffed than that there is global conspiracy to make Apple look bad and drive American customers to purchase security products from a Russian company...An American company would likely have gotten the same response from Apple anyway.

The Apple slogan "Think Different" could just as easily be "It's Not Me, It's You". Oh they'll own up to things eventually, but not before playing some passive aggressive blame game and trying to convince their users that it's somehow their fault. In the meantime, anyone who gets hurt is just collateral damage and will probably buy the next shiny bauble Apple dangles in front of them anyway. I know some very smart people that are hopelessly addicted to Apple no matter what they do. You read about people in cults and say "how can that person be in a cult, they are so smart!". Well Apple has it figured out. We should probably be grateful Steve Jobs wasn't another Jim Jones.

Re:Russian altruism? Suuuuure...

[Pope]

Apple, its employees and its users are legendarily arrogant.

Unlike, say, Linux...

Re:Russian altruism? Suuuuure...

[the_y_the]

That doesn't negate the fact that the security risk is apparently true. Who cares if the company is only doing it for PR reasons for potential AV sales? The problem is still there. And Apple's response, apparently, is to go for denial.

Re:Russian altruism? Suuuuure...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hard to be arrogant when half the hardware on a computer (HDMI port, hybrid graphics card and fingerprint scanner on my laptop) doesn't work. I like fiddling around, computers would be boring if they just worked. Plus Macs and now Windows and even some Linux distros are condescending to the point of being seemingly targeted at brain damaged children.

Re:Russian altruism? Suuuuure...

[yodleboy]

well that's a good point. I think the difference, in my experience, is that Linux people are more willing to admit when something sucks or is just plain wrong. Apple fans seem to rationalize problems as "Apple just knows best, I must have misunderstood what they meant."

Re:Russian altruism? Suuuuure...

[ThatsMyNick]

Apple, its employees and its users are legendarily arrogant.

Not to mention ignorant. Which is very rare for linux users.

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[Ultra64]

"How ya like your Mac now, fanboys?"

Just fine, thank you.

OS X has what, TWO viruses now?

Wow, they sure are creeping up to the millions on Windows platforms.

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[DerekLyons]

Seriously? It's that difficult to understand the difference between a generic address that goes $DIETY knows where (and mail rent to it is probably vetted by an intern) and the actual address of the responsible individual(s)/team(s)?

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[qwe4rty]

Sharov describes the lack of communication and cooperation as a symptom of a company that has never before had to work closely with the security industry. 'For Microsoft, we have all the security response team's addresses,' he says. 'We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple.'"

Seriously? Is it really that difficult for a security company to search for "security" on apple's website and find this page?

https://ssl.apple.com/support/security/

I don't see a list of security team members on that page you linked to, which is what I believe Boris was referring to when he mentioned they have "all the security response team's addresses" for Microsoft

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think he was talking about a public support address where his email will sit in a queue for a month, then get ignored. When you work closely with another company, you have direct phone numbers and email addresses. That's all he means.

What viruses don't we know about?

[Animats]

The iPhone is a juicy target for attackers. One wonders what attacks on the iPhone are in the wild but not generally known. Especially attacks that target individuals of interest.

Re:What viruses don't we know about?

[synapse7]

http://www.ehow.com/info_8495494_tell-someone-hacking-iphone.html

Seems hijacked itunes accounts are more common.

Re:What viruses don't we know about?

[synapse7]

https://discussions.apple.com/message/17969567?tstart=0#17969567

Re:What viruses don't we know about?

[noh8rz3]

holy shizznit the iPhone is insecure due to all the holes and viruses we don't know about but presume to exist! sky is falling!

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[Andy Dodd]

That page does not have a single direct contact.

Attempts to contact Applie via info provided on that page apparently, according to Dr. Web, go nowhere.

There is no antivirus group within apple

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no security group within apple. You'd think security researchers would know that.

Dr Web created it

[Anonymous Coward]

Dr Web was the only one with the stats and information and from Russia where alot of viruses come from. Am I the only one that things the bug came from them? Seems strange to me!

Re:Dr Web created it

[forkfail]

if (troll)
      return 0.1;
else
      return ( 1.0 / 0.0 );

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[ifrag]

OS X has what, TWO viruses now?

Soon my armies shall pour forth from the shattered sandbox, ravaging this OS and all hope of resistance. My minions will find the vulnerability, wherever you choose to hide it. Then, at long last, BSD shall reign as the prime OS.

Not a MacOS malware

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to get things straight: the Flashback trojan is based on the Oracle-supported Java that is being shipped with MacOS.

Re:Not a MacOS malware

[moronoxyd]

Yes, the Flashback trojan used a flaw in Java. A flaw that was fixed by Oracle on February 12th.

The problem here is that Apple didn't care to fix a known vulnerability until it was too late.

Re:Not a MacOS malware

[forkfail]

And... I thought that the point of a walled garden was that the keepers of the wall kept you safe, happy and hip...

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[__aaqvdr516]

Read two sentences before the one you quoted, right in the summary. They did contact Apple. Apple didn't respond back.

+5 informative indeed...

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[amicusNYCL]

OS X has what, TWO viruses now?

Wow, they sure are creeping up to the millions on Windows platforms.

Enjoy it while you can, arguments like that have their days numbered.

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[moronoxyd]

Do you know the difference between communication channels for customers and those for partners and specialists?

I work in an IT support position, and sure, if I need to contact a special group (say the Exchange administrators) I could use the phone numbers used by the customers... and would waste valuable time by making the call center agent on the other end understand that I need to speak with the admins directly.
To avoid this, we have phone numbers and email addresses of those other divisions. You know: A direct line.

The security companies have direct lines to the security teams from Microsoft, and certainly Oracle, Red Had etc.
This is to everybody's advantage, as it reduces friction and increases response times.
Only Apple doesn't understand that they are part of an ecosystem where everybody relies to some extend on everybody else...

Re:Not a virus, numbnuts

[LanMan04]

I think we might as well get over having lost this battle. All of the major media outlets (and thus the vast majority of Mindless Media consumers) are calling it a 'virus'.

You don't get a trojan from just surfing the web. Installing kracked software from TBP and then authenticating with your admin password is a loooooong way from random innocent people getting clobbered by drive-by malware.

Re:Not a virus, numbnuts

[LanMan04]

You know, something with a timebomb, that goes undetected, then fries the disk firmware?

Which would require (a) installing shady pirate software and (b) authenticating with your admin password.

They deserve what they get.

But macs dont get infected!

[Anonymous Coward]

Atleast thats a knee jerk response from most mac fans.

Fact is macs do get infected by malware, trojans, bootloaders, viruses and so on. Thing is people dont know they dont have it because apple wont publicly say so and ignore the problem (this article being a case and point) and users somehow think they are immune because "they read on the net macs dont get viruses" so they will believe it because it sounds good. Its kind of how like people still think and swear we only use 10% of our brain and 90% is unlocked potential because a article awhile back said we only use 10% of our brain for concious thought because the other 90% is used by the subconcious and autonomic and regulatory functions we have no control over, but somehow everyone has turned something into a falsehood just because "they read it in a article" or "read it on the net" or "a friend told them".

Apple products get the same problems as windows pcs do, apple products just dont get them nearly as much because they are a much lower produced product than a windows pc. Windows based pcs get so many because they are the majority of the market so people who make these viruses are obviously going to aim for the largest target possible instead of going for the little target that wont affect nearly as many people.

But bottom line is apple is to smug and pretentious to ever admit to their own faults or problems. They few times they have is when the majority of their users publicly complain about something, but apple still doesnt apologize they just fix the problem and go on. Other than that apple is just on a constant parade of how awesome they are and perfect.

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[sir-gold]

You only need one bubonic plague...

It doesn't matter how many mac viruses there are as long as apple continues to plug it's ears when it comes to mac viruses.

Corroboration?

[CyberLife]

As with any other claimed discovery, I'd like to see independent corroboration. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that I personally haven't seen it. Everything I've read credits Dr.Web as the source. Has nobody else confirmed their findings?

Re:Corroboration?

[oDDmON oUT]

Flashback? My mother got bit by it and I spent a hour or two remoted in cleaning and securing.

But hey, I'm just another anecdotal tale myself. : )

Re:Corroboration?

[forkfail]

Here's PC Mag's article, which also does attribute the finders to be Dr. Web - but also links the Apple patch for the vulnerability (months late):

www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2402641,00.asp

Re:Corroboration?

[CyberLife]

Apple's patching of the vulnerability only means they acknowledge its existence and feel it's worth correcting. Nobody is disputing that. It's not even the first vulnerability for Macs nor the first to be patched. It is, however, the first to my knowledge to have such a widespread infection. THAT is what I would like to see corroborated.

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Then what? A bot directs you to the nearest Genius Bar where some washout never-was will utterly fail to comprehend the scope of your statement.

Re:Not a virus, numbnuts

[Anonymous Coward]

FWIW, I've seen that one already. The Feds didn't like my writing style or content, and ... suddenly, my disk is KIA.
(BTW, that works on the PowerPC version of OSX. too.)

a bad assumption......?

[Anonymous Coward]

'We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple.'"

The fellow was being nice, assuming there actually exists an "antivirus group" within Apple...

Can you say "elitist"?, or perhaps "head in the sand"?

And the users are blaming Java, not Apple

[Bugler412]

Have already seen numerous comments from fanboi's that it's "Java's fault" and "Apple is stuck fixing someone else's problem". So Apple is going to get a pass on this one at least from their users.

Re:And the users are blaming Java, not Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Have already seen numerous comments from fanboi's that it's "Java's fault" and "Apple is stuck fixing someone else's problem". So Apple is going to get a pass on this one at least from their users.

Actually, when it comes to java, it IS Apple's fault.

Apple made a deal with Sun/Oracle that Sun/Oracle would no longer release java for the mac. Sun/Oracle passes along the code to Apple, then Apple distributes it after modification.

As a result, when serious flaws are discovered/announced in java, it takes many months for patched versions of java to be available for the mac. Until then, macs have a well-documented security flaw that is easy to exploit with a simple web page.

misleading summary

[noh8rz3]

Now that it's being increasingly targeted by botnet herders,

newsbreak- mac botnets increase from 0 to 1. increasingly targeted! infinity percent increase!

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

You focused on the right quote. The funny thing is you don't seem to understand what the words mean.

"For Microsoft, we have all the security response team's addresses,"

Let me help interpret this for the short bus crowd. What he is saying is that they have email addresses for real, live people on Microsoft's security team. Not some generic Apple security email address attracting millions of emails, that you have no idea who is going to respond or when.

They're not the same thing. "Is it really that difficult" to understand?

As the user base for Apple products increases, it will become more of a malware target, plain and simple. Apple should get out in front of this and start developing better relationships within the security community.

In my experience...

[blueg3]

Not surprisingly, the summary is not as accurate as the article.

Sharov may describe this as "a symptom of a company that has never before had to work closely with the security industry", but the article correctly points out that it's more a symptom of having "little experience working with the community of security researchers who aim to dissect and shut down botnets." The botnet security community is different from the general security community. As far as I know, Apple has a decent working relationship with the latter. It's no real surprise they have limited experience working with the anti-botnet community, since until now they haven't really had botnet problems.

The article also notes that Dr. Web is relatively unknown and that in the opinion of Kaspersky (which is at least more well-known), Apple is taking the usual appropriate steps.

As far as them not getting a contact back, that disagrees with my experience in reporting a security vulnerability to Apple. You send a message to their easily-found, catch-all "security" address. In relatively short order, a security engineer gets in touch with you, and you communicate with that person from that point on. It seemed to work just fine, unless, I suppose, you're egotistical enough to think that you should be able to pick up the phone and talk to someone at Apple immediately -- which is a common-enough problem in security.

Re:In my experience...

[forkfail]

Funny how the word egotistical is thrown around by both "sides" here (even though there shouldn't be sides; Apple dropped the ball with an exploit in Java that was patched by Sun months ago, but because Apple owns their own version of Java, porting it from Oracle, they didn't get to it in a timely manner).

Egotistical is not fixing a known exploit. Egotistical is ignoring a security firm with a history of legitimacy that a google search would have revealed. Egotistical is saying that the kernel will protect you from everything.

I'm not one for holy wars, but sheesh - the Apple enthusiasts attitude on this thread make me want to Office Space an Mac big time.

Re:In my experience...

[sphealey]

= = = Funny how the word egotistical is thrown around by both "sides" here (even though there shouldn't be sides; Apple dropped the ball with an exploit in Java that was patched by Sun months ago, but because Apple owns their own version of Java, porting it from Oracle, they didn't get to it in a timely manner). = = =

Sun has been a division of Oracle for ~2 years now.

sPh

Re:In my experience...

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't Apple announce that from the release of Lion they are no longer the source of Java - that Oracle is responsible for their own software although Apple would distribute and update it through the Software Update mechanism?

So, how did Apple drop Oracle's ball?

Re:In my experience...

[blueg3]

I'm not an Apple fan. I'm in computer security. There are a lot of egos.

Re:In my experience...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm trying to figure out how a "security engineer" can be a schmuck who answers these emails. Engineers design things. I'm pretty sure the schmuck replying to the email is little more than data entry.

Apple Security through obfuscation

[Tyr07]

You don't know why you'd use a mac in a business, so you don't know why you'd write a virus for a mac.
(Except if you want to art school, not sure if that's a compliment or an insult, take it either way)

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[blueg3]

I e-mailed that address and got a response from a security engineer. Perhaps Dr. Web is holding it wrong.

Re:Not a virus, numbnuts

[forkfail]

Except that this was well enough done to nail 600,000 Apple users:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/04/06/researchers-confirm-flashback-trojan-infects-600000-macs-being-used-for-clickfraud/

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[blueg3]

The Apple Security address isn't for customers, it's for security researchers.

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, they sure are creeping up to the millions on Windows platforms.

Citation Please

Definitely, maybe

[wzinc]

While we may see an actual, factual Mac virus someday, I don't believe we'll ever see something on the level of conficker or blaster on the Mac. There have been several proof-of-concepts out there, but few, if any, hackers seem to be exploiting them. Also, none of the POC's produce full-fledged, self-replicating viruses. They're all trojan-ish, and they require your password or an OK/allow click.

Re:Definitely, maybe

[forkfail]

Except that even this one installed itself and worked without the password:

As PCMag's Security Watch noted yesterday, Mac users did not have to download or even interact with the malware to become infected. Websites exploited a Java flaw that let Flashback.K download itself onto Macs without warning. It then asked users to supply an administrative password, but even without that password, the malware was already installed.

www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2402641,00.asp

The password was icing on the cake. Fundamentally, this was a virus with a trojan addon to get the admin password; however, it was not necessary to the functioning of the virus.

Re:Definitely, maybe

[Em Adespoton]

Of course, the reason for this is that Mac malware authors DON'T NEED to write stuff on that level, as they're getting conficker-levels of infection with the current version of Flashback. Remember: it's not about the elegance of the code, it's about the results... and Flashback is giving them GREAT results.

Of course, last year people were saying that we wouldn't see multi-vector attacks with runtime decryption in Mac malware any time soon.

The moral of the story is that programmers are lazy, and only do as much as they have to do to get the job done.

Re:Not a virus, numbnuts

[LanMan04]

Ah, it was a Java Applet. That's what I get for not RTFA.

Re:Not a virus, numbnuts

[lgw]

You do realize that flashback evolved to where it needed neither, right? Unles you have Windows-style habits of relentlessly patching every thrid-party toolkit on your box, flashback is perfectly capable of installing itself without your assistance (beyond browsing the web in a normal way).

With all that extra money lying around..

[Anonymous Coward]

Why doesn't Apple simply admit that they were wrong, and buy Dr. Web, and turn it into their security unit..

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[forkfail]

To carry the analogy further, there is no immune system evolution in the Mac ecosystem, and what exists are usually exact genetic clones.

In the biological world, this is a species extinction event waiting to happen.

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[forkfail]

Obviously, they DID send information to that address (or another one off the web site), as Dr Web's rep said that they had turned over all their data.

Apple just didn't bother to respond.

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[Roogna]

They got no response? It says right on that page that unless Apple desires more information from them that there will be no response.

So if you send them an email that says "If you do this and this in Java it infects the machine" Well then Apple probably won't write you back. It does not mean it was ignored. It says right there they won't make you feel special by responding to you unless they need more information.

On that same note, if you send an email that says "I found a security flaw, email me"... they will likely ignore you, as a troll.

If they legitimately desire more information from someone they will contact them. Not every report needs your personal help though once you've made the report.

Re:Not a virus, numbnuts

[LanMan04]

Well, I admit that running an unsigned Java applet is not the same, but still.....running unsigned Java applets?

I guess normal people would do that...

Re:Not a virus, numbnuts

[lgw]

It seems that hundreds of thousands of normal people would. And with all the CA problems in the past few years, they would be signed if that was actually needed for them to spread.

ob spelling recommendation

[Onymous Coward]

There are lots of words folks misspell for which the response is that everyone just takes it in stride. The plural of virus is not one of them because it's been so widely discussed. The debate has made clear that "viruses" is the only acceptable spelling.

And you can't even misspell it ironically because despite the decline of misspelling there are still many people who spell it wrong unwittingly. It's not obvious enough to be smooth sarcasm. If you're misspelling for fun and not trolling, you might consider adding a sarcasm/irony punctuation or other indicator.

Stay out of Apple's Sandbox.

[OldGunner]

It is their sandbox. They don't share. they don't play well with others. They don't have to. They are Apple. What kind of an expert are you if you don't know the difference between a computer company and a religion?

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[inpher]

Wow, they sure are creeping up to the millions on Windows platforms.

Citation Please

if this is a Mac virus/trojan/malware (which it by all accounts seem to be) then the number is indeed increasing.

Apple is the new MS

[Anonymous Coward]

When the first major attacks against Microsoft appeared, they responded the same way Apple is responding now. Instead of, "Oh crap! Thank you for pointing that out. We'll take a look," the response was "If you disclose this, we will sue you into oblivion. We dare you!" Microsoft opened themselves up to a whole lot of people looking to make them eat their words. In the last 5 years, Microsoft seems to have had a change of heart. Love them or hate them, there has been a noticeable change of attitude toward security. I honestly believed their trustworthy computing intuitive would be a marketing BS and sugar coating. To say I am surprise that they did the right thing still boggles my mind at times.

Re:Apple is the new MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple never threatened to sue anyone, dipshit. They just shut down the botnet, which by coincidence happened to be on a server owned by Dr. Web.

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

whoosh?

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[gstrickler]

As someone who has found and reported a (now) patched security vulnerability to that email address, I can say that I agree with Boris Sharov's complaint. You do get an automated response with a case #, that includes the text

We do not automatically provide status updates on issues as we work on them, but please feel free to request one if needed by replying to this message.

However, I received no replies to when I did request status updates (and supplied additional information about the affected systems with explicit instructions about what needed to be done to fix existing systems). Even when I contacted other sources (Secunia, who confirmed the problem, and US-CERT), I received nothing from Apple. Nor was the problem addressed in two releases of QuickTime in the year following my report.

How I finally got a reply from Apple was sending an email to sjobs@apple.com on Sept 4, 2010 with a copy of the now year old security report, and my statement that I was taking it to the full-disclosure list if I didn't hear back from Apple by Sept 15th. Fewer than 6 hours later (on a Saturday), I had a status update from Apple. Here's the meat of that reply:

Just wanted to let you know that a fix for this issue has been identified, and we are targeting an upcoming release of QuickTime to address it.

We provide status updates upon request.

Subsequent emails always got a reply, but before I sent my email to sjobs, it was like talking to a wall. Also, despite assurances that they understood the extent of the problem and my explicit instructions about needed remediation for affected systems, when they finally released the fix 3 months later, it only corrected the problem and did not provide remediation for the permissions on already affected systems, nor did it even mention that there were permissions to be fixed.

When it became clear that no remediation fix, nor an acknowledgement of the problem was coming from Apple, and ample time had passed for users to have installed the updated version of QT, I submitted my own fix to the Full Disclosure mailing list.

In total, it was 15 months for Apple to release a fix, a fix that in all likelihood involved altering or removing two lines of code that were granting excessive privileges to specific directories. Even then, they did not correct the permissions on machines that were already affected.

So, in my opinion, Apple has a long way to go in developing and maintaining communications with those who report security vulnerabilities. And in acting upon those reports in a timely and responsible way.

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[CriminalNerd]

This is to everybody's advantage, as it reduces friction and increases response times.

Personally, I would want to decrease response times, not increase them.

from a management pov that even makes sense...

[steve.cri]

... so much for the rationality of transnational corporation's agendas. Sometimes I think if only the CEOs of the world's top 10 corporations did an unbiased, impartial reality check on what they are doing vs. what would benefit mankind as a whole, the world economy as we know it would grind to a halt immediately.

Clearly

[PopeRatzo]

It was obviously the researchers fault for suggesting that any Mac was vulnerable in any way to malware.

I'm starting the countdown to him getting sued by Apple for violations of trademark, copyright, defamation of character and aggravating upsetting of Apple fans.

If he was smart, he'd convert all his money into precious metals and go into hiding, because he's now got a target on his head, William Tell style.

I'm only partly joking. When I bought my last Mac Pro and was checking out, a polite gentleman asked if he would need any virus protection on his new Macbook. You could have heard the Genius' snort of derision from the sidewalk out front. My wife, who was picking out a nice Macbook Pro, spending the money from her most recent academic appointment, can do a great imitation of the nasally dismissive tone of the tubby, metrosexual Genius. She now makes the same snort whenever I walk into the kitchen on a Sunday morning and ask what she's making for breakfast.

Re:Clearly

[Anonymous Coward]

Must be some good ganja, man.

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[forkfail]

It says right there they won't make you feel special by responding to you unless they need more information.

Not about making anyone feel special - it's about professional courtesy.

I'd note that the timbre of your post does not endear your fellow Mac enthusiasts to the rest of the world.

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[Dogtanian]

I was under the impression that the guy's comment was tongue-in-cheek, and besides, BSD isn't Linux, even if it shares some of the same utilities.

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[Roogna]

My point is more, who expects a response on a email address that specifically says "Do not expect a response"
I don't care what company it is, if the company says upfront that you likely won't get a response then no professional courtesy entitles you to expect one. It'd be far different if they said that they will get back to people right away and then never do.

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't have a "don't worry about security" PR disaster, pointing to over a half million infected macs, to submit.

I have a feeling the issue was submitted, and it kept escalating until it was long out of sight from whomever sits behind that little email address.

Perhaps...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is pissed that Dr. Web didn't update the infection figures after Apple rolled out a fix. Dr. Web said infected systems check-in every day, so they ought to know that the number of infections is now far lower than 600K. But I never saw any updated figures. The press just keeps echoing 600K.

Re:Perhaps...

[kybred]

I don't think the patch fixes already infected Macs, it just fixes the vulnerability used to infect. But Apple is working on a tool to remove Flashback.

Apple is developing software that will detect and remove the Flashback malware.

In addition to the Java vulnerability, the Flashback malware relies on computer servers hosted by the malware authors to perform many of its critical functions. Apple is working with ISPs worldwide to disable this command and control network.

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're trying way too hard to reason this away. The very fact they say not to expect a reply is weird, but that goes with Apple's desire to hide absolutely everything from the public.

Had this been practically any other company, I think a 600,000+ strong botnet discovery would attract their attention enough for a phone call. I think that the fact Apple explicitly doesn't do this speaks volumes their security considerations.

Because there isn't one...

[almondjoy]

'We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple.'

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

things sent to /dev/null don't get responses

It's not a virus.

[Catbeller]

It's not a virus, but a trojan. A trojan can be considered a virus, but in this case the term is misleading. A virus infects your computer without your permission or action. A trojan requires the user of the computer to install a program, usually by faking them out. You can screen for viruses, but you can't stop people from clicking "yes" to "You have a virus! Download THIS app now!". Macs don't have any known viruses, and people who don't understand this are the very people who keep installing the bloody trojans.

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[Bobfrankly1]

I e-mailed that address and got a response from a security engineer. Perhaps Dr. Web is holding it wrong.

Just like when you go the Apple Store and get a "Genius". Chances are the "security engineer" you got was a minimum wager working off a script. How many times were you asked to turn off the mac and check the cables? =D

Re:'We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure when you worked for them, but for the past few years, they've had a top notch security group (ever since the self-updating XProtect came out). This group is in communication with most of the major AV and security groups. Interestingly, these groups have attempted to make contact with Dr. Web on a number of occasions, and have generally had no response. You'd think they'd at least be talking with Kaspersky, but they seem to enjoy playing their cards close to their chest. Maybe now that they're complaining about Apple, they'll be willing to talk with everyone else (including the Apple antimalware guys).

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that hard to find contact information for the security group at Apple. If they can't find it from contacting Apple, they could always contact someone ELSE in the security industry and ask THEM... Pretty much every major AV player has contacts in the Apple security group. The problem is that they contacted the consumer contact address that explicitly states they likely won't respond.

Not on MY Windows 7 64-bit System

[Anonymous Coward]

"Most mac users run at normal user level, a la Linux/Unix. When the computer needs to do something at the priveleged level, it asks for a password. Most Windows users usually run as administrator by default." - by sohmc (595388) on Tuesday April 10, @02:16PM (#39634517) Homepage

I run as Administrator here, & just like MacOS X does (this is how).

The settings to examine & change are as follows in gpedit.msc &/or regedit.exe:

---

Computer Configuration\Windows Settings\Security Settings\Local Policies\Security Options\User Account Control: Admin Approval Mode for the Built-in Administrator account

OR

HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System /v FilterAdministratorToken

(Set as ENABLED)

---

Computer Configuration\Windows Settings\Security Settings\Local Policies\Security Options\User Account Control: Behavior of the elevation prompt for administrators in Admin Approval Mode

OR

HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System /v ConsentPromptBehaviorAdmin

(Set as PROMPT FOR CREDENTIALS)

---

Computer Configuration\Windows Settings\Security Settings\Local Policies\Security Options\User Account Control: Behavior of the elevation prompt for standard users

OR

HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System /v ConsentPromptBehaviorUser

(Set as Automatically deny elevation requests)

---

Computer Configuration\Windows Settings\Security Settings\Local Policies\Security Options\User Account Control: Detect application installations and prompt for elevation

OR

HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System /v EnableInstallerDetection

(Set as ENABLED)

---

Computer Configuration\Windows Settings\Security Settings\Local Policies\Security Options\User Account Control: Only elevate UIAccess applications that are installed in secure locations

OR

HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System /v EnableSecureUIAPaths

(Set as ENABLED)

---

Computer Configuration\Windows Settings\Security Settings\Local Policies\Security Options\User Account Control: Run all administrators in Admin Approval Mode

OR

HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System /v EnableLUA

(Set as ENABLED)

---

Computer Configuration\Windows Settings\Security Settings\Local Policies\Security Options\User Account Control: Switch to the secure desktop when prompting for elevation

OR

HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System /v PromptOnSecureDesktop

(Set as ENABLED)

---

Computer Configuration\Windows Settings\Security Settings\Local Policies\Security Options\User Account Control: Virtualize file and registry write failures to per-user locations

OR

HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System /v EnableVirtualization

(Set as ENABLED)

---

Computer Configuration\Windows Settings\Security Settings\Local Policies\Security Options\User Account Control: Allow UIAccess applications to prompt for elevation without using the secure desktop

OR

HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System /v EnableUIADesktopToggle

(Set DISABLED)

---

* There you go... you can do all of what you state, & more, easily enough, but instead by using NATIVE TOOLS already present in Windows itself in, gpedit.msc or regedit.exe!

APK

P.S.=> To even FURTHER enhance that, albeit @ the application level? You can use taskmgr.exe, & set UAC Virtualization ENABLED on ANY RUNNING APP too: Further sealing it off from infecting/infesting other running apps or the entire OS by every users' profile, by simply right clicking on running apps & changing the

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[mjwx]

To carry the analogy further, there is no immune system evolution in the Mac ecosystem, and what exists are usually exact genetic clones.

In the biological world, this is a species extinction event waiting to happen.

Worse than that, OSX has effectively lived in a hermetically sealed and sterilized environment. This means the immune system has not learned any immunity and cannot respond to infections effectively.

There isn't an anti-virus dept IN Apple

[Centurix]

They're parked outside your house in a white/glass van with a giant Apple on the side.

Re:Mac's don't get PC viruses

[grantspassalan]

is all they claim on the referenced web-page. This is true. They deserve and get custom-made malware, just like their Windows cousins. Apple's iDevices get NO malware, because you can only get carefully checked out programs through Apple's app store. With OS X 10.8, users who never want to be at risk from the Internet again, will be able to set their Macs to refuse to execute any program that hasn't gone through Apple's inspection program. Since nothing is perfect, Apple has made provisions to kill nasty programs remotely, on the odd chance that they made it through their inspection program.

Users who love and enjoy viruses and Trojans however, will still have the privilege of setting their Mac to run *any* program from the wilds of the Internet.

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[stewbacca]

How ya like your Mac now, fanboys?

Just fine, thanks. Fortunately for me, by practicing slightly-below-average security, I was fortunate enough to NOT be one of the less than 1% of all installed Macs on the planet that got infected.

Call me back when I have to completely reinstall my system because I decided to download a track add on for a racing game, or a file that appeared to be Minecraft, or any of the other multiple computer wrecking malware my kids have collected over the years on a PC. Their behavior is no different on my Mac, yet they've never been able to wreck my Mac.

Here's a fun fact: I've had to reinstall every home version of Windows since Win95 due to malware and I've never had to reinstall any version of Mac OS from MacOS 7.6 up to OS X 10.7 due to malware.

Purely anecdotal, but that's good enough for me, because my time is valuable, and my anecdotes are mine. I'm the only one I have to prove my anecdotes are real.

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[stewbacca]

People keep saying this. Did you ever stop and think WHY Apple viruses only pop up in intermittently? Could it possibly be because Apple squashes them, generally within a couple of weeks, with software update? Virus threats don't just appear then disappear with Apple sitting around doing nothing.

You won't hear shit about this stupid virus two weeks from now because the entire time all you basement dwellers are on slashdot making up statements like "apple doesn't care about security", Apple is probably busy fixing shit.

Mac users are prime Rubes, [Score:5, Loudmouth]

[Anonymous Coward]

A certain, large percentage of the population is simply going to be made up of AOL users. Computer illiterates who can't and don't want to think for themselves. Not about the under-the-hood stuff, anyway.

And that's fair. Not everybody is a mechanic.

Apple is the new AOL.

The problem is, when you base your entire business plan on herding that kind of demographic together, is that once they become a significant market segment, they'll be targeted for abuse. I mean, if you can sell a person into using a Mac, you can trick them into giving up their passwords. As we have just witnessed.

Windoze users, by contrast, have become accustomed to, and psychologically resistant to the filthy side of the internet. Inoculated to a degree.

Mac users are going to have a painful learning curve exactly because they are not used to critical thinking when it comes to safe computing.

"damn it feels good to be a pc"

[Anonymous Coward]

see subject.

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[BasilBrush]

Yes. In fact it doubled overnight.

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[grantspassalan]

How much malware is there for iPads and iPhones? Zero? After this summer, when OS X 10.8 arrives, Macs will be almost impossible to infect, because only fools will get software outside of the Apple Mac store or other vendors who get an Apple encryption signature for their software. Furthermore, Apple will have the capability of effectively wiping any possible malware that might get by the inspection system, by remotely revoking the encryption signature.

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[master_p]

OS X has what, TWO viruses now?

They are called PROGRAMS, you insensitive clod!!!

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[Ultra64]

>Could it possibly be because Apple squashes them, generally within a couple of weeks, with software update?

Yup, they already pushed out the fix a couple of days ago.

Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

It works!!! Now all I need is to include a payload that:

1. 50 days after infection corrupts all filed synced to icloud and triggers a sync
2. Wipes all time machine backups on the network
3. overwrites the first Mb of each partition on the disk with random gibberish
4. Reboots the machine.

My work is done. Why? Because the vast majority of users don't use anything else but these products to protect their systems, once I have access the scope for destruction is limitless.

Re:'We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.exploit-db.com/search/?action=search&filter_page=1&filter_description=Linux&filter_exploit_text=&filter_author=&filter_platform=0&filter_type=0&filter_lang_id=0&filter_port=&filter_osvdb=&filter_cve= Do you have a point? My list goes over 23 pages, yours not even over 3 and a half.

Re:'We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

That's bullshit, I worked for apple technical support as well, we where told to say:

"While there aren't any known Viruses for mac, we always recommend using different kinds of anti-malware protection on your machine.
Apple works to deliver security updates via the software update function at all times, so keep your computer updated and you're at minimal risk - adding an anti-malware program to your machine will minimize the risk even more."

I bet you where one of those first-line agents acting all cool working for apple.... lol.

LMGTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=apple+product+security -> https://ssl.apple.com/support/security/ -> "Contacting Apple -

To report security issues that affect Apple products, please contact: product-security@apple.com

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[blueg3]

They asked me details about the security vulnerability I found, gave me status updates on their patching efforts, and credited me in the resulting patch. Seemed pretty legit.

Re:Not a virus, numbnuts

[makomk]

Well, getting infected with this doesn't require an admin password and can happen just from surfing the web because it exploits a security vulnerability in Java that Apple were slow to release an update for, as they often are with third-party code that they distribute.

Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

>>>
As someone who has found and reported a (now) patched security vulnerability to that email address, I can say that I agree with Boris Sharov's complaint. You do get an automated response with a case #, that includes the text
>>>
-snipped a whole lot of shit that this guy did gratis for Apple *sigh*-

Forgive me, but you are an idiot! People like you are idiots. I can see you are a nice guy, you all seem to be nice guyz! But stop sucking vendor dick in the name of doo-gooder-shitdom, or in the hopes of building a resume / cred / etc., would you please?!

Moreover, quit bitching about the big bad $megacorp_vendor, that doesn't love you back---will you please, I love you!

Your SOP should be:
Hack your shiz + crack your shiz + notify vendor + include a 1 / 3 / 5 / 7 / 9 / 11? biz day reprieve (or make it boilerplate in your sig) + then release your hackz. EOF.

Or. If you want to kiss ass, then please don't tell us how you got HepB.