[B Gallagher]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor.../tech_apple_dc

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Hacker attacks on Apple Computer Inc.'s (Nasdaq:AAPL - news) Macintosh (news - web sites) OS X operating system, thought by many who use the Mac to be virtually immune to attack, are on the rise, according to a report from anti-virus software vendor Symantec Corp (Nasdaq:SYMC - news).

"Contrary to popular belief, the Macintosh operating system has not always been a safe haven from malicious code," said the report, which was issued on Monday.

"It is now clear that the Mac OS is increasingly becoming a target for the malicious activity that is more commonly associated with Microsoft and various Unix (news - web sites)-based operating systems."

Many in the Macintosh computer community have long claimed that the Mac platform has been virtually immune to attack -- unlike Microsoft Corp.'s (Nasdaq:MSFT - news) Windows operating system, which runs on more than 90 percent of the world's personal computers.

The Macintosh operating system, the current version of which is based on the Unix operating system, has less than 5 percent of the global market for computer operating systems.

"All these platforms have vulnerabilities - it's a fact of life," said Gartner analyst Martin Reynolds. "The truth of the matter is that Mac is only a couple percentage points of (computer) shipments so it's not an interesting target."

Apple's recent introduction of the Mac mini, a $500 computer sold without a display, keyboard or mouse, could actually increase the likelihood of more malicious software computer code targeting the Mac platform, Symantec said.

"The market penetration of Macintosh platforms will be accelerated by the much lower priced Mac mini, which may be purchased by less security-savvy users," the report said. "As a result, the number of vulnerabilities can be expected to increase, as will malicious activity that targets them."

An Apple spokesman was not immediately available to comment.

Symantec said that over the past year, it had documented 37 high-vulnerabilities--weaknesses that leave the system open to malicious software attacks--in Mac OS X (news - web sites). They "have been confirmed by the vendor, which, in the Apple case, almost always means that the company has released a patch."

A patch is a small piece of software designed to shore up a vulnerability or to fix other software glitches.

At the same time, the report said that while those vulnerabilities in the Mac operating system will increase, "they will likely be outnumbered in other operating systems for some time to come."

Shares of Apple was down 53 cents to $43.17 on Nasdaq.

[Chuckit]

...in other news, studies show that installing Symantec software still poses more of a threat than a hacker attack.

[Millennium]

The hacks were patched quickly, and not one exploit was ever released (it's doubtful that most were even exploitable).

Symantec is right to state that Macs aren't invincible. It's foolish to be without decent anti-virus and firewall software. However, they've gotten inappropriately alarmist as of late.

[ginoledesma]

It is inevitable that the script kiddies and other malicious software writers will target the Mac. But then again, just because the Mac is getting more attention these days doesn't mean it'll get infected overnight. Unix, BSD, and Linux have been around and exposed far longer than Mac OS X has, yet there is nary any virus that have brought them down. Though Mac OS X may invite more viruses easily because of the user-factor, fact remains that the Unix core has proven itself to be mature and secure over time. Not full-proof, but relatively secure nonetheless.

<Conspiracy Theory>
The anti-virus companies probably want to cash in on the potential new market that the Mac Mini brings in.
</Conspiracy Theory>

[OptimusG4]

Meh, they're just pissed that their Mac software, made in 2003, isn't selling because of word-of-mouth from other Mac users.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Millennium:
The hacks were patched quickly, and not one exploit was ever released (it's doubtful that most were even exploitable).

Symantec is right to state that Macs aren't invincible. It's foolish to be without decent anti-virus and firewall software. However, they've gotten inappropriately alarmist as of late.

Alarmism has proven to be an extremely effective technique to convince people to do what you want them to.

[Brass]

Originally posted by ginoledesma:
Though Mac OS X may invite more viruses easily because of the user-factor, fact remains that the Unix core has proven itself to be mature and secure over time. Not full-proof, but relatively secure nonetheless.

Too true. Mac OS X machines are definitely not full-proof. I remember when I filled a partition on one of my first OS X systems. It was very painful.

[Moose]

Originally posted by ginoledesma:
Unix, BSD, and Linux have been around and exposed far longer than Mac OS X has, yet there is nary any virus that have brought them down.

This is a very foolish thing to say.

Go read up on, for starters, the Morris Internet Worm of 1988.

Unix systems and software tend to be designed securely now as a direct result of being exploited like a cancer patient at Neverland.

The reason everybody shits on Microsoft now is because 1990s Microsoft didn't learn from 1980s Unix.

[Detrius]

Originally posted by Millennium:
The hacks were patched quickly, and not one exploit was ever released (it's doubtful that most were even exploitable).

Symantec is right to state that Macs aren't invincible. It's foolish to be without decent anti-virus and firewall software. However, they've gotten inappropriately alarmist as of late.

http://packetstorm.linuxsecurity.com...its/fm-iSink.c

This exploit has been available since January. The latest security update (number 3) still doesn't fix it. Number 2 didn't fix it either.

[legacyb4]

At least we don't get winners like this one!

Date Reported:
March 16, 2005

Vendor:
Microsoft

Description:
A vulnerability in default installations of the affected software that allows malicious code to be executed, contingent upon minimal user interaction.

Severity:
High (Remote Code Execution)

Software Affected:
Internet Explorer
Outlook
Additional miscellaneous titles

Operating Systems Affected:
Windows NT 4.0 (All versions)
Windows 2000 (All versions)
Windows XP (All versions)
Windows 2003 (To be determined)

"Minimal user interaction" that affects everything from NT up through XP on the vaunted Service Pack 2!

[adambooth]

Could it be they're releasing all this alarmist garbage to sell more copies of their software (also garbage).

[SystemPreffs]

Umm... it's not really garbage. Nor really information.

It's just... MARKETING!

(and don't you love it?)

[PurpleGiant]

Originally posted by Moose:
Unix systems and software tend to be designed securely now as a direct result of being exploited like a cancer patient at Neverland.

[sminch]

It's foolish to be without decent anti-virus and firewall software.

i'm pretty new to the world of macs, but what does the above statement mean on the mac platform? i was reading a post on another mac site this week that said that it was stupid not to have an antivirus running on your mac, and that you have to keep it updated with new definitions. but again, what does that mean?

my understanding is that there are no viruses for osx, so what does an antivirus do? what are the definitions you need to keep up to date?

isn't this just like saying that you need to keep yourself immunised against malaria and make sure you keep up with booster shots, even though you live in greenland and it's impossible for you to even come into contact with a vector?

sminch

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by sminch:
i'm pretty new to the world of macs, but what does the above statement mean on the mac platform? i was reading a post on another mac site this week that said that it was stupid not to have an antivirus running on your mac, and that you have to keep it updated with new definitions. but again, what does that mean?

my understanding is that there are no viruses for osx, so what does an antivirus do? what are the definitions you need to keep up to date?

isn't this just like saying that you need to keep yourself immunised against malaria and make sure you keep up with booster shots, even though you live in greenland and it's impossible for you to even come into contact with a vector?

sminch

... and OS X does come with a firewall which is activated by a simple click.

[tikki]

Originally posted by Moose:
Unix systems and software tend to be designed securely now as a direct result of being exploited like a cancer patient at Neverland.

This almost made me spit my morning coke out.

[chris v]

Originally posted by sminch:
i'm pretty new to the world of macs, but what does the above statement mean on the mac platform? i was reading a post on another mac site this week that said that it was stupid not to have an antivirus running on your mac, and that you have to keep it updated with new definitions. but again, what does that mean?

my understanding is that there are no viruses for osx, so what does an antivirus do? what are the definitions you need to keep up to date?

isn't this just like saying that you need to keep yourself immunised against malaria and make sure you keep up with booster shots, even though you live in greenland and it's impossible for you to even come into contact with a vector?

sminch

One reason to run anti-virus is if you live/work in a mixed Mac/Win environment and use Entourage os Exchange server type-stuff, while your Mac might be invulnerable to infection, you could still pass on a virus to Windows users, unwittingly. So it's a good-citizen thing to run NAV in those circumstances.

That said, I'm getting sick of Symantec issuing these vague alarms that don't even list any actual exploits, but just wag a big finger in everyone's face. They had to repeat themselves a couple of times to even have enough material there to generate a press-release, and it's all innuendo and no substance. That doesn't endear me to them as a potential customer.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by sminch:
i'm pretty new to the world of macs, but what does the above statement mean on the mac platform? i was reading a post on another mac site this week that said that it was stupid not to have an antivirus running on your mac, and that you have to keep it updated with new definitions. but again, what does that mean?

Right now, not too much.

my understanding is that there are no viruses for osx, so what does an antivirus do? what are the definitions you need to keep up to date?

OSX machines cannot catch most Windows-based viruses, but they can catch Office macro viruses if you come across them. These viruses will be somewhat limited in terms of what they can do on the Mac, but they aren't completely nullified. There are also some OS9 viruses which can still infect Classic apps, though these are quire rare nowadays. In addition, if you run Windows in an emulator, the emulated environment is as vulnerable to viruses as a real PC, and most Mac anti-virus software can catch this. They actually have an added advantage, as far as this goes: most malware out there nowadays tries to disable antivirus and antispyware software on the PC, in order to keep from being detected, but they can't touch programs on the Mac side.

Most Mac anti-virus programs also scan for Windows viruses. Even though Macs can't actually catch these, they're not automatically destroyed either, so if you give an infected file to a Windows user they can still catch the virus.

isn't this just like saying that you need to keep yourself immunised against malaria and make sure you keep up with booster shots, even though you live in greenland and it's impossible for you to even come into contact with a vector?

Living in Greenland doesn't make it impossible to come into contact with a malaria vector, just unlikely. People do travel, after all. If you did come into contact with one, you'd be helpless.

That may sound nit-picky, but the point is that though we currently enjoy a dearth of viruses, and even when viruses do hit they won't be as destructive as they are on Windows, we're not invincible. Viruses exist for every system: OS9, Windows, Linux, Amiga, and every other system out there. Eventually, assuming OSX doesn't die first, someone will write a virus for it. The kinds of people who write viruses feed on challenge almost as much as they feed on glory -after all, one often goes hand in hand with the other- and so it's only a matter of time. We have threads in the Lounge already explaining how such a thing could be designed, and exactly how it would work.

Come to think of it, I've never seen an anti-spyware program for the Mac that bothered to scan for PC software (even on emulated hard drives). That would actually make a pretty neat tool. Among other things, just as with a virus scanner, running it on the Mac side means that it won't slow down Windows in the emulator, and God knows Windows needs all the help it can get in that situation.

[real]

Maybe Symantec can get together with the Homeland Security and have a rating system.

You know GREEN ---> RED.


Theres no better way to get people to buy something then to scare them into it.

[sminch]

cool, thanks for your answers.

so the basic gist is that macs are safe, but if you run a windows emulator or microsoft software you open yourself up to malware. which means that symantec's 'macintosh hacker attacks are on the rise' headline is a load of utter tosh - 'hacker attacks against crappily programmed microsoft software running on macs are on the rise' would be more like it.

all good then, as i run neither ms apps nor a windows emulator, and don't run os9.

as for passing on viruses through a mac to windows users, yip, i can see that this is an issue of acting responsibly. that said, it's a little hard to justify spend money on antivirus software to help protect others when i'd far rather spend that money on something which benefits me, rather than benefiting those windows users around me who can't be bothered running their own antivirus when they're the ones who need it, not me.

sminch

[cpac]

Originally posted by Brass:
Mac OS X machines are definitely not full-proof.

This statement makes you seem like the "full."

[romeosc]

I bet a lot of Microsoft and anti virus software designers are hoping for (if not helping design) virus and malignat software......


Some of them probably seed some of the peer to peer networks with bogus apps!

[Siggi_arni]

FUD!
That is what this is. Plain simple FUD.

[chris v]

Originally posted by sminch:
cool, thanks for your answers.

so the basic gist is that macs are safe, but if you run a windows emulator or microsoft software you open yourself up to malware. which means that symantec's 'macintosh hacker attacks are on the rise' headline is a load of utter tosh - 'hacker attacks against crappily programmed microsoft software running on macs are on the rise' would be more like it.

all good then, as i run neither ms apps nor a windows emulator, and don't run os9.

as for passing on viruses through a mac to windows users, yip, i can see that this is an issue of acting responsibly. that said, it's a little hard to justify spend money on antivirus software to help protect others when i'd far rather spend that money on something which benefits me, rather than benefiting those windows users around me who can't be bothered running their own antivirus when they're the ones who need it, not me.

sminch

You'll never be totally safe from malware/spyware/keystroke loggers should you download something disguised as something else. This has already happened-- a pirate version of Office X floating around the peer-to-peer networks was really a malware script that wiped directories when installed. There was another shareware developer who got irate with pirates and wrote code into his legitimate app that would wipe home directories if certain pirated serial #'s were input (He was roundly flayed by the shareware community for doing so, but damage was done). You do have to be certain of what you're installing, and keep in mind that you surrender your machine to installers when you type your admin password. That said, the difference between these malware trojans and a Windows virus is they have no effective way of propagating from machine to machine. The other difference is that you have to be an unwitting participant in compromising your own machine in most cases, vs. windows where trojans can install themselve just because you visited a web page.

edit: /piracy.

[omar96]

Originally posted by adambooth:
Could it be they're releasing all this alarmist garbage to sell more copies of their software (also garbage).

Yes, but if they're not careful they're going to hurt the Mac platform; a big selling point for me was the security of OS X, and while I understand their marketing tactics, not everyone will.