1. Don't fall for the fake alerts in the first place.
Doesn't help - the malware has hijacked various sites and search results, and no interaction with the website is required for it to download and ask you to install it.
Ummmit still does require user interaction to run the installer. It just doesn't require Admin privileges because it is installing in the user's folder and not the normal Applications folder.
And this was at a time when they were purposefully using their monopoly position to squash competition (i.e. Netscape). There is nothing inherently evil in being a monopoly. However, Microsoft misused that market position and that is what got them in trouble.
The moral of the story is Apple is unprepared for personal security, mainly because their marketshare kept them under the radar. Mobile technology that Apple has created has been done in such a way that breaching the iGadget is going to be tough, they've forgotten about their workstations though and the debate that "it wont happen to me because I have a Mac" is no longer valid.
Wrong. First off, trojan's have always been around–even for Macs. If you give a piece of software permission to screw you, then bend over and don't complain. However, there has yet to be a real self-propagating virus on OS X, in the wild. Can you say that about Windows or even Linux (I'm sure a fan of the odd distro will jump in here and correct me that the statement doesn't apply to *all* distros)?
And, no, Apple has not forgotten about their workstations as evidenced by the built-in protection provided by OS X. And by the evolving Mac App Store where users can get curated apps similar to the App Store for the iPad/iPhone/iPod.
And with years of notice that it would be ending, Microsoft did not have a service pack ready to go that would include all that goodness? Maybe it is running on a Vista release schedule.
Trojans for the Mac have been around forever. There is nothing new here – except maybe that the Mac has started attracting even the bottom-level intellects that normally would purchase a Windows computer. Don't blame the computer if it does what you tell it to do. If you fill out a form that asks for your credit information, that is your fault, not the computer's.
Wow, the anti-Apple sharks are in the water biting at everything. Question. How do you tell that a piece of software asking for an in-app purchase is malware/crapware/just bad software? How does anti-virus software prevent that from happening?
I ask, because, as I understand it, this Mac Defender malware starts an installer that requires user interaction to go through a series of steps (no Admin level stuff) to actually install the software. Once the user has completed the steps, it then goes through another series of steps to try to convince the user that they need to purchase the license.
Okay, how is this much different than a legitimate piece of trialware? Yes, we happen to know this group will use that credit information for nefarious purposes. But how is anti-malare supposed to discriminate between legitimate and non-legitimate software? How do you protect the user from being ill-informed or just plain stupid?
You must be kidding. Any quick look through google will show huge amounts of content creation. It may not beyond preferred method of content creation or not for the particular type creation that you do, but it most certainly is for creation. Unless, of course, you mean creating gold on WoW. Tablets don't yet have the punch for games like that yet.
Nice find. So this summer before Safari gets the same level of protection.
SoI guess that if that is true, Pwn2Own will have to basically cease to exist. I mean, there were no attempts to break Chrome this year on any device. So Chrome must be impervious and thus Safari will be impervious for next year's attempt. Obviously, the hackers would not have put all of there security investigation efforts just to beat Safari to make a political statement or anything like that. Thus, next year, Chrome and Safare users can rejoice together at having completely impregnable browsers!! Yay!!!
Seriously then, that is a nice find regarding Webkit2.
Yes, the new version was released a few minutes (according to the article) before the event started, but because they lock the versions a week before the contest, the updated version was not used. Thus my question about whether or not the exploit would work. I don't know enough about what was updated to know if they finally implemented the sand boxing that Safari is capable of or not, for example. From what I've seen, if they have just turned that on, then the exploit would not work – similar to how the sand box in Google (which also uses webkit) prevents just such an attack vector. Sohonestly curious.
The chatter is great, but no one seems to be answering the question of whether or not the exploit would work on the now current version of Safari - 5.04? I don't really care if it was released a few minutes before the contest. Does it prevent the exploit?
No one is forcing you to use Apple's store either. Just jailbreak your iPhone and have at it. Overall I agree with your sentiment, except that Google is better than Apple. My experience with both has led me to prefer Apple and its ecosystem. However, I am glad we have the choice. Now we just need a few more players to get serious so we can have just a bit more choice to keep Google and Apple honest (wellas honest as they can be).
And your point is? I know what the minimum specs are. However, isn't point of open systems that I can put up whatever I want –including hardware and software? Who is Google to be telling anyone that there system on the open market doesn't meet minimum specs? Who died and made them Apple to make such decisions?
"minimum spec"? Hmmmsounds like someone else (not the developer) is setting standards that the developers have to live with if they want to participate in Google's sand box. Doesn't Apple get spanked here for doing that?
Ah. What you call screwing over I call progress. There were so few periphials for the "Beleaguered" Apple products at that time, that going from few Mac compatible ADB devices to few USB devices made little real difference. And it ushered in a host of products that were compatible to both Windows and Mac computers because the device makers no longer had to worry about some proprietary Apple interface. Nor did they have to keep screwing with the flaky (high performance, but flaky) and expensive SCSI devices. So I call that a huge win – not a screwing over.
However, if you had a huge investment in ADB devices and/or SCSI devices, I can see where you might think that. However, if I recall, there were interface boards for the PowerMacs (not the iMacs, which were certainly not "pro" systems anyway) that gave you ADB capability. I know that my last PowerMac G4 tower and my G5 tower had SCSI boards in them.
I've been working with computers since the mid-'70's. I've never considered simplification of complex problems getting screwed over. That way of thinking is why the Year of the Linux Desktop never seems to materialize. No one but hobbyists really give a damn about having x+ number of ports with all the cables to go with it.
So I find it funny that you support the concept of simplification to start your post, then proceed to slam Apple for actually doing it!
Re:A Microsoft Nokia bad-analogy award
on
Why Nokia Is Toast
·
· Score: 1
"Versus iOS, Microsoft's programming environment is superior"
I'd be interested in hearing how Microsoft's programming environment is superior to the Apple one – Xcode 3.x and now Xcode 4.
We will have to agree to disagree on the definition of "high quality". I feel that Apple does build high quality kit and you apparently don't. I certainly have no problem with that.
Sowhat you are doing comparing a BMW to a small quantity custom built shop or a better comparison? Which is typically what the/. Apple haters like to do? Apple is nearly the most valuable company in the world. How is comparing them to a boutique a good comparison? Comparing them to the other Tier 1 builders (term used loosely) like Lenevo, Dell, HP, etc. is very fair.
As an aside though, I did run over to the Falcon site (not enough time to do them all) and configured as close to a similar box as I could – Mac Pro vs. a Falcon Mach V. There were certainly differences like the Mac Pro have Xeon chips and ECC RAM and the Falcon certainly having a better video card. All-in-all, though the Falcon was $300 *more* than the Apple kit. So just in the first test, you build it cheaper argument is false.
What business practices are you having problems with? -genuinely curious.
BTWhaving a G5 doesn't really make you much of an Apple owner - it makes you more of a museum curator. That box could be up to seven years old.
Guess you build your own automobiles, too? Yep, build the computer yourself. However, it will only cost you less if you don't value your time.
If there is a "Cult of Apple", then there is a Cult of Apple Haters. No, we don't pretend every PC is made by eMachine, we use Dell as the king of crap comparisons.
What is this crap of having to wait for someone to repair my computer? I can damn well repair my own computer, if I want. Yes, that can (but not always) void the warranty. But if you ran a computer company, you would void a warranty, too, to keep your costs in line because people screwed things up even more when they tried to fix something. Computers companies don't just serve/. They serve a lot of people that don't have a clue, but think they do (wait...that could be/. !!!!).
Look I've not no problem with people building their own stuff (whatever it is). But I do get very irritated at those same people bashing those that just want to buy a high-quality tool and get to work. I do both according to my needs. I purchase Macs for my business and family, but will build out high-end game machines for my son or a special PC tool for some company need.
I completely agree. In fact, for the Federal government, building out infrastructure (roads in the days of the writing of the Constitution) is a mandate. A smart government will let the free market work when and where it can, because a truely competitive market is virtually impossible to beat on a cost/performance level by any government.
I was just reading a story about how the state in last place for broadband access (surprise...Mississippi) has used Federal dollars to build out a web site how what vendors provide broadband access to places where you live. Talk about a waste of money when there are dozens of sites (some by vendors others by aggregaters) that do the same thing long before the Mississippi site was introduced. The state should have used that money to actually build out some sort of broadband access for the areas that don't have it. For example, they could have literally funded the electric co-operatives to build out the data over power line systems. This would have created more competition because the co-ops operate in many of the places where the phone and cable companies do - thus adding more competition, while providing broadband to the unserved areas of the state.
Maybe common, but not exclusive. I would content that the current American president is both evil and competent. He got what is, in my opinion, an awful lost of very bad things done.
(Yes, I know I probably started a fire with that last bit.)
You are misreading, I think. The law is in place. They are discussing interpretation. They are trying to convince judges that not using a condom is to be part of the definition. I'm not saying they are right or wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Don't fall for the fake alerts in the first place.
Doesn't help - the malware has hijacked various sites and search results, and no interaction with the website is required for it to download and ask you to install it.
Ummmit still does require user interaction to run the installer. It just doesn't require Admin privileges because it is installing in the user's folder and not the normal Applications folder.
And this was at a time when they were purposefully using their monopoly position to squash competition (i.e. Netscape). There is nothing inherently evil in being a monopoly. However, Microsoft misused that market position and that is what got them in trouble.
The moral of the story is Apple is unprepared for personal security, mainly because their marketshare kept them under the radar. Mobile technology that Apple has created has been done in such a way that breaching the iGadget is going to be tough, they've forgotten about their workstations though and the debate that "it wont happen to me because I have a Mac" is no longer valid.
Wrong. First off, trojan's have always been around–even for Macs. If you give a piece of software permission to screw you, then bend over and don't complain. However, there has yet to be a real self-propagating virus on OS X, in the wild. Can you say that about Windows or even Linux (I'm sure a fan of the odd distro will jump in here and correct me that the statement doesn't apply to *all* distros)?
And, no, Apple has not forgotten about their workstations as evidenced by the built-in protection provided by OS X. And by the evolving Mac App Store where users can get curated apps similar to the App Store for the iPad/iPhone/iPod.
And with years of notice that it would be ending, Microsoft did not have a service pack ready to go that would include all that goodness? Maybe it is running on a Vista release schedule.
Wrong. It continues to just work.
New Mac Defender variant already being blocked by Mac OS X
http://www.macnn.com/articles/11/06/02/definitions.updating.silently/
Trojans for the Mac have been around forever. There is nothing new here – except maybe that the Mac has started attracting even the bottom-level intellects that normally would purchase a Windows computer. Don't blame the computer if it does what you tell it to do. If you fill out a form that asks for your credit information, that is your fault, not the computer's.
Wow, the anti-Apple sharks are in the water biting at everything. Question. How do you tell that a piece of software asking for an in-app purchase is malware/crapware/just bad software? How does anti-virus software prevent that from happening?
I ask, because, as I understand it, this Mac Defender malware starts an installer that requires user interaction to go through a series of steps (no Admin level stuff) to actually install the software. Once the user has completed the steps, it then goes through another series of steps to try to convince the user that they need to purchase the license.
Okay, how is this much different than a legitimate piece of trialware? Yes, we happen to know this group will use that credit information for nefarious purposes. But how is anti-malare supposed to discriminate between legitimate and non-legitimate software? How do you protect the user from being ill-informed or just plain stupid?
You must be kidding. Any quick look through google will show huge amounts of content creation. It may not beyond preferred method of content creation or not for the particular type creation that you do, but it most certainly is for creation. Unless, of course, you mean creating gold on WoW. Tablets don't yet have the punch for games like that yet.
Nice find. So this summer before Safari gets the same level of protection.
SoI guess that if that is true, Pwn2Own will have to basically cease to exist. I mean, there were no attempts to break Chrome this year on any device. So Chrome must be impervious and thus Safari will be impervious for next year's attempt. Obviously, the hackers would not have put all of there security investigation efforts just to beat Safari to make a political statement or anything like that. Thus, next year, Chrome and Safare users can rejoice together at having completely impregnable browsers!! Yay!!!
Seriously then, that is a nice find regarding Webkit2.
Thanks, for the update. So it would seem that Apple has still not implemented their own sand box with Safari. That sucks.
Yes, the new version was released a few minutes (according to the article) before the event started, but because they lock the versions a week before the contest, the updated version was not used. Thus my question about whether or not the exploit would work. I don't know enough about what was updated to know if they finally implemented the sand boxing that Safari is capable of or not, for example. From what I've seen, if they have just turned that on, then the exploit would not work – similar to how the sand box in Google (which also uses webkit) prevents just such an attack vector. Sohonestly curious.
The chatter is great, but no one seems to be answering the question of whether or not the exploit would work on the now current version of Safari - 5.04? I don't really care if it was released a few minutes before the contest. Does it prevent the exploit?
The poster just above you seems to disagree with you.
No one is forcing you to use Apple's store either. Just jailbreak your iPhone and have at it. Overall I agree with your sentiment, except that Google is better than Apple. My experience with both has led me to prefer Apple and its ecosystem. However, I am glad we have the choice. Now we just need a few more players to get serious so we can have just a bit more choice to keep Google and Apple honest (wellas honest as they can be).
And your point is? I know what the minimum specs are. However, isn't point of open systems that I can put up whatever I want –including hardware and software? Who is Google to be telling anyone that there system on the open market doesn't meet minimum specs? Who died and made them Apple to make such decisions?
Please stop using facts to correct Adroid fans. It really confuses them.
"minimum spec"? Hmmmsounds like someone else (not the developer) is setting standards that the developers have to live with if they want to participate in Google's sand box. Doesn't Apple get spanked here for doing that?
Ah. What you call screwing over I call progress. There were so few periphials for the "Beleaguered" Apple products at that time, that going from few Mac compatible ADB devices to few USB devices made little real difference. And it ushered in a host of products that were compatible to both Windows and Mac computers because the device makers no longer had to worry about some proprietary Apple interface. Nor did they have to keep screwing with the flaky (high performance, but flaky) and expensive SCSI devices. So I call that a huge win – not a screwing over.
However, if you had a huge investment in ADB devices and/or SCSI devices, I can see where you might think that. However, if I recall, there were interface boards for the PowerMacs (not the iMacs, which were certainly not "pro" systems anyway) that gave you ADB capability. I know that my last PowerMac G4 tower and my G5 tower had SCSI boards in them.
I've been working with computers since the mid-'70's. I've never considered simplification of complex problems getting screwed over. That way of thinking is why the Year of the Linux Desktop never seems to materialize. No one but hobbyists really give a damn about having x+ number of ports with all the cables to go with it.
So I find it funny that you support the concept of simplification to start your post, then proceed to slam Apple for actually doing it!
"Versus iOS, Microsoft's programming environment is superior"
I'd be interested in hearing how Microsoft's programming environment is superior to the Apple one – Xcode 3.x and now Xcode 4.
We will have to agree to disagree on the definition of "high quality". I feel that Apple does build high quality kit and you apparently don't. I certainly have no problem with that.
Sowhat you are doing comparing a BMW to a small quantity custom built shop or a better comparison? Which is typically what the /. Apple haters like to do? Apple is nearly the most valuable company in the world. How is comparing them to a boutique a good comparison? Comparing them to the other Tier 1 builders (term used loosely) like Lenevo, Dell, HP, etc. is very fair.
As an aside though, I did run over to the Falcon site (not enough time to do them all) and configured as close to a similar box as I could – Mac Pro vs. a Falcon Mach V. There were certainly differences like the Mac Pro have Xeon chips and ECC RAM and the Falcon certainly having a better video card. All-in-all, though the Falcon was $300 *more* than the Apple kit. So just in the first test, you build it cheaper argument is false.
What business practices are you having problems with? -genuinely curious.
BTWhaving a G5 doesn't really make you much of an Apple owner - it makes you more of a museum curator. That box could be up to seven years old.
Guess you build your own automobiles, too? Yep, build the computer yourself. However, it will only cost you less if you don't value your time.
If there is a "Cult of Apple", then there is a Cult of Apple Haters. No, we don't pretend every PC is made by eMachine, we use Dell as the king of crap comparisons.
What is this crap of having to wait for someone to repair my computer? I can damn well repair my own computer, if I want. Yes, that can (but not always) void the warranty. But if you ran a computer company, you would void a warranty, too, to keep your costs in line because people screwed things up even more when they tried to fix something. Computers companies don't just serve /. They serve a lot of people that don't have a clue, but think they do (wait...that could be /. !!!!).
Look I've not no problem with people building their own stuff (whatever it is). But I do get very irritated at those same people bashing those that just want to buy a high-quality tool and get to work. I do both according to my needs. I purchase Macs for my business and family, but will build out high-end game machines for my son or a special PC tool for some company need.
I completely agree. In fact, for the Federal government, building out infrastructure (roads in the days of the writing of the Constitution) is a mandate. A smart government will let the free market work when and where it can, because a truely competitive market is virtually impossible to beat on a cost/performance level by any government.
I was just reading a story about how the state in last place for broadband access (surprise...Mississippi) has used Federal dollars to build out a web site how what vendors provide broadband access to places where you live. Talk about a waste of money when there are dozens of sites (some by vendors others by aggregaters) that do the same thing long before the Mississippi site was introduced. The state should have used that money to actually build out some sort of broadband access for the areas that don't have it. For example, they could have literally funded the electric co-operatives to build out the data over power line systems. This would have created more competition because the co-ops operate in many of the places where the phone and cable companies do - thus adding more competition, while providing broadband to the unserved areas of the state.
Maybe common, but not exclusive. I would content that the current American president is both evil and competent. He got what is, in my opinion, an awful lost of very bad things done.
(Yes, I know I probably started a fire with that last bit.)
You are misreading, I think. The law is in place. They are discussing interpretation. They are trying to convince judges that not using a condom is to be part of the definition. I'm not saying they are right or wrong.