Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Software - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac OS X > MAC 10.6 virus proof?

MAC 10.6 virus proof?
Thread Tools
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2010, 09:02 PM
 
apple's website claims "Mac OS X doesn’t get PC viruses. And with virtually no effort on your part, Mac OS X protects itself from other malicious applications. It was built for the Internet in the Internet age, offering a variety of sophisticated technologies that help keep you safe from online threats. Because every Mac ships with a secure configuration, you don’t have to worry about understanding complex settings. Even better, it won’t slow you down with constant security alerts and sweeps. And Apple responds quickly to online threats and automatically delivers security updates directly to your Mac."

Does this mean I can't get viruses from bittorrent?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2010, 09:29 PM
 
Yes, it's absolutely impossible to get a OS X virus via Torrent.

At least for now.

Until someone actually programs a OS X virus.

-t
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2010, 09:44 PM
 
"PC viruses" are aimed at, and take advantage of parts of Windows operating systems. Apple is 100% accurate in telling people that "Mac OS X doesn't get PC viruses." However, it is possible for a Mac to have problems because many Mac users behave as if they're bullet proof. The only "successful" OS X malware has been in the form of socially engineered apps; either they promise something (usually that the user shouldn't have anyway), or they suggest that they do one thing while actually doing something very different. If you practice somewhat thoughtful surfing, and don't buy into "free copy of Software X" or "free pr0n to your Mac!!!!11!!", you'll probably never notice any threats.

Further, the security model and basic structure of OS X make it far more robust than Windows; unless you're an imbecile and defeat all the security precautions built into the OS, it's virtually impossible to "just pick up" malware, and having one part of the OS damaged won't have the apocalyptic repercussions such damage would cause in a Windows machine.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2010, 01:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Yes, it's absolutely impossible to get a OS X virus via Torrent.

At least for now.

Until someone actually programs a OS X virus.
This isn't true; there have been trojans for OS X floating around, and it isn't inconceivable that you could pick up one of them if you download things from some of the seedier corners of the Internet (such as many torrent sites).

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2010, 01:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
This isn't true; there have been trojans for OS X floating around, and it isn't inconceivable that you could pick up one of them if you download things from some of the seedier corners of the Internet (often involving torrents).
Please re-read what I said.

Virus != Trojan

Plus, I never said that there won't be viruses. There will be, I guarantee it.

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2010, 03:23 AM
 
Colloquially identical, for the porpoises of this thread.

Don't let it hurt your self of steam.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2010, 04:41 AM
 
To the original poster: if you're downloading pirated software off bittorrent and hand it your system password for installation, *anything* is possible.

There are comparatively few security exploits on Mac OS X, but social engineering exploits the stupidity of users looking to get something for nothing.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2010, 05:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Colloquially identical, for the porpoises of this thread.

Don't let it hurt your self of steam.
This is either the greatest reply in MacNN history, or you really need some sleep.

/Those damn porpoises!
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2010, 06:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
This isn't true; there have been trojans for OS X floating around, and it isn't inconceivable that you could pick up one of them if you download things from some of the seedier corners of the Internet (such as many torrent sites).
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
To the original poster: if you're downloading pirated software off bittorrent and hand it your system password for installation, *anything* is possible.

There are comparatively few security exploits on Mac OS X, but social engineering exploits the stupidity of users looking to get something for nothing.
Both of these posts emphasize my major points above: if you aren't trying to get something "you shouldn't," you're far better off. Torrents of software are a really popular means of infecting Windows systems, and it's a simple step to see Mac software torrents infected by some sort of malware. And this is a great example of the social engineering part of the equation-you intend to install this software you pirated obtained through the torrent, so you open all the gates and let the bad guys waltz in. The same is true with pr0n torrents that "require a special reader/codec."

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2010, 08:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Colloquially identical, for the porpoises of this thread.

Don't let it hurt your self of steam.
Fine, let's call it malware then, just to be clear and not confined to technical definitions.

However, it's important to recognize that Apple never stated that their systems are immune to malware.
If you read the Apple statement, it speaks specifically about viruses.
I'm sure Those PR guys at Apple are clever enough to know that their statement is factually correct when the technical definition of "virus" is applied.

-t
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2010, 11:44 AM
 
Real viruses are passé — how many of those do you ever hear about these days? For all intents and purposes, "virus" now means trojan or worm a great deal of the time, and this usage was clearly the original poster's intent. And the answer is that you can get trojans by downloading pirated software, even on OS X.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2010, 01:27 PM
 
IMO, commingling viruses and worms is fine - you were using your computer in a regular fashion, and suddenly it got infected. They both exploit weaknesses in the software in different ways, and recent updates have made them much harder to write. No OS is "proof" from viruses and worms, but any recent OS is much harder to exploit than was say Win XP without any service packs.

Trojans are something else, though. No OS will ever be proof to them. Certain Windows versions made the problem worse by having the main user have unlimited access, but really, Trojans are a fact of life. The coming appstores (MS is working on one too) will be the first real attempt to combat them on the OS level.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2010, 04:12 PM
 
^ FTW

IMO, in order to understand the dangers of social-engineered malware, one has to first understand the differences between viruses/worms and trojans.

-t
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: NYNY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2010, 04:20 PM
 
For the average end user there is no difference between virus or trojan. When they say virus, they mean virus or trojan or really any malware. When you get the flu does it matter how? All you know is you are sick.
"Well done is better than well said." -BF
Commercial Range
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2010, 04:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Moderator View Post
For the average end user there is no difference between virus or trojan. When they say virus, they mean virus or trojan or really any malware. When you get the flu does it matter how? All you know is you are sick.
I completely disagree. You can get a virus even if you're careful, a zero-day exploit could affect anyone.

However, if you educate yourself, you will NOT catch malware on the Mac.

The difference is basically Trojans (malware) can be avoided, viruses less so.

-t
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2010, 06:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Moderator View Post
For the average end user there is no difference between virus or trojan. When they say virus, they mean virus or trojan or really any malware. When you get the flu does it matter how? All you know is you are sick.
Not only that, when most of the antivirus companies say "virus", they're referring to really any malware. Look at McAfee's "Virus Info" site for example. Only three out of 30 on their "Recently discovered viruses" are actually viruses — all the rest are trojans. Also, none of their top 6 viruses are actually viruses — four of them are trojans, and the other two are actually worms despite being labeled as "Virus".

For 99% of the population, virus == virus, worm, or trojan.

This is not even to go into the fuzzy gray areas. What do you call the things that propagate via tricking you into opening an attachment in an e-mail, and then e-mailing copies of themselves to everyone on your address book? It's like a trojan, because it relies on social engineering to get you to download and launch it, but it's like a worm in that it automatically propagates itself. It's not always even a clear-cut case.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2010, 12:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
Not only that, when most of the antivirus companies say "virus", they're referring to really any malware. Look at McAfee's "Virus Info" site for example. Only three out of 30 on their "Recently discovered viruses" are actually viruses — all the rest are trojans. Also, none of their top 6 viruses are actually viruses — four of them are trojans, and the other two are actually worms despite being labeled as "Virus".

For 99% of the population, virus == virus, worm, or trojan.
Yes, I know, but if someone asks a question like the one in the OP, we need to clear things up slightly.

Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
This is not even to go into the fuzzy gray areas. What do you call the things that propagate via tricking you into opening an attachment in an e-mail, and then e-mailing copies of themselves to everyone on your address book? It's like a trojan, because it relies on social engineering to get you to download and launch it, but it's like a worm in that it automatically propagates itself. It's not always even a clear-cut case.
By definition, it's a virus. It spreads itself, which eliminates trojans, and it does so by attaching itself to something else (in this case an email) which eliminates worms. It is sort of on the path to being a trojan in the sense that you need to actively open a specific file (rather than the typical virus, where you could get infected by opening an otherwise harmless file), but it comes from one of your contacts.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2011, 01:08 AM
 
Just to clear it up:

Trojan: Tricks the user into allowing access to the computer by appearing as something the user wants. This is the lowest common denominator and does not use an exploit to get into the computer. All Mac Malware I've run into is this ("Install this codec to access this website!" Installing alongside a legitimate program as the Torrenting cases.)

Virus: Exploits a program to take control of the computer. Word Macros, ILOVEYOU, etc fall into this. More sinister because the act of examining it can cause the exploit to occur. This is the most common exploit in the wild at this moment, and how most botnets spread. (Adobe Reader, Adobe Flash, Oracle Java, and the browser itself are the most common entry points now, though I have been seeing a resurgence of E-Mail based virii taking advantage of the fact that HTML email now uses a full browser as it's rendering backend for the most part).

Worm: Totally self-suficient, requires no user interaction. In order to be a "worm" it has to attack over a network. When they are released, they tend to spread quickly. Examples were Code Red, SLAMMER, and Nimda.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2011, 02:21 AM
 
Healthy thread, and salient info.

But jus to bring it full circle:

The original question was about Apple's marketing phrase, which specifies that "Macs cannot get PC viruses."

Which is unequivocally true:
When and if the Mac gets viruses, they will be Mac viruses.
     
cgc
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2011, 07:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by pwrmacg4 View Post
...And Apple responds quickly to online threats and automatically delivers security updates directly to your Mac."
This is the part that Apple is BSing us with...they are not quick to respond to threats via security updates. I just read an article this week (forgot the source) that said Apple was the slowest by far to plug security vulnerabilities. With that said, there are few people trying to attack the Mac platform (but I'm sure quite a few would love to be the first so I'd be careful). If you're worried here's what I recommend (and what I do):

1. Only get software from reputable sources
2. Install a 2-way firewall like Little Snitch or Hands-Off!.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2011, 11:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Healthy thread, and salient info.

But jus to bring it full circle:

The original question was about Apple's marketing phrase, which specifies that "Macs cannot get PC viruses."

Which is unequivocally true:
When and if the Mac gets viruses, they will be Mac viruses.
Just as a word of warning, because some people get confused: If you have any PC emulation software, such as Parallels, VMWare Fusion, VirtualBox, QEMU, or Crossover, you [i[CAN[/i] get infected, or at least your PC environment can be infected. This is why it is important not to share your documents folder with your Windows Virtual Machine; If you get a bug on the PC side it can embed itself into or wipe out any documents the VM has access to.
     
JKT
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2011, 12:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by cgc View Post
This is the part that Apple is BSing us with...they are not quick to respond to threats via security updates. I just read an article this week (forgot the source) that said Apple was the slowest by far to plug security vulnerabilities. With that said, there are few people trying to attack the Mac platform (but I'm sure quite a few would love to be the first so I'd be careful). If you're worried here's what I recommend (and what I do):

1. Only get software from reputable sources
2. Install a 2-way firewall like Little Snitch or Hands-Off!.
Yes, it is marketing BS and semantics, but bear in mind that a threat is not the same as a vulnerability. Having an exposed vulnerability does not mean that there is instantaneously (or ever) anything to do any damage via that vulnerability. Fortunately, Apple have been very lucky so far that the vast majority of their vulnerabilities have not lead to any threats (i.e. an example of malware to exploit the vulnerability).

Fwiw.
     
JKT
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2011, 12:11 PM
 
P.S. I have no idea if Apple has actually responded quickly or not to any of the actual threats that have arisen because they have been so few and far between... DNSChanger is the last I can think of and I don't recall them updating the OS quickly in response, but I also don't recall them not doing so.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2011, 12:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Healthy thread, and salient info.

But jus to bring it full circle:

The original question was about Apple's marketing phrase, which specifies that "Macs cannot get PC viruses."

Which is unequivocally true:
When and if the Mac gets viruses, they will be Mac viruses.

True, but it's kind of a lame statement. If there was an OS X trojan you could say that Windows cannot get Mac trojans either.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2011, 12:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
True, but it's kind of a lame statement.
I disagree.

It addresses the concern that people have, especially switchers that were burned with viruses on Windows.
IMO, it's secondary that Windows virtualization could introduce a threat. Apple provides support for OS X, not support to secure an environment where multiple OSes have access to the same pool of data.

Also, it's your own fault if you read "Macs cannot get PC viruses." as "Macs are immune from any kind of malware." If you are ignorant about varying degrees and threats of malware, don't blame Apple for knowing better and making a precise, accurate statement that doesn't make sense in your limited world.

People need to educate themselves, and not expect that the OS vendor will keep them safe from their own ignorance.

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2011, 01:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
I disagree.

It addresses the concern that people have, especially switchers that were burned with viruses on Windows.
IMO, it's secondary that Windows virtualization could introduce a threat. Apple provides support for OS X, not support to secure an environment where multiple OSes have access to the same pool of data.

Also, it's your own fault if you read "Macs cannot get PC viruses." as "Macs are immune from any kind of malware." If you are ignorant about varying degrees and threats of malware, don't blame Apple for knowing better and making a precise, accurate statement that doesn't make sense in your limited world.

People need to educate themselves, and not expect that the OS vendor will keep them safe from their own ignorance.

-t

You kind of sound like a lawyer here or something...

Yes this is all true, but to me it is clear that this statement is designed to offer assurances to the ignorant who would most likely read this as a general assurance that no matter what they are safe on the Mac. It is disingenuous, is all. I think Apple knows full well what this statement is designed to do, and all the specifics do make for a convenient and viable cop out.
     
JKT
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2011, 02:08 PM
 
If we want to get into semantics, we could easily say that Apple is actually wrong anyway as a Mac is a PC (personal computer) and, therefore, could get a 'PC' virus...
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2011, 02:24 PM
 
Yeah, Apple could also say that no MAC willl ever be affected by any malware, and be semantically correct.

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2011, 02:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
You kind of sound like a lawyer here or something...

Yes this is all true, but to me it is clear that this statement is designed to offer assurances to the ignorant who would most likely read this as a general assurance that no matter what they are safe on the Mac. It is disingenuous, is all. I think Apple knows full well what this statement is designed to do, and all the specifics do make for a convenient and viable cop out.
No, what's disingenuous is to assume that Apple is only after a cop out.
You're reading this into this statement.

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2011, 03:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
No, what's disingenuous is to assume that Apple is only after a cop out.
You're reading this into this statement.

-t

Disingenuous is not the word I'd use to describe my take, but I get your point. Maybe Apple is not after a cop out, but I would not be at all surprised if Apple is aware of the manipulation of statements like this and how it benefits them. This is far from the only Apple propaganda that gloats about not having virus problems.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2011, 05:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by cgc View Post
I just read an article this week (forgot the source) that said Apple was the slowest by far to plug security vulnerabilities.
Apple moves slowest because there is no reason for them to do otherwise.
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Also, it's your own fault if you read "Macs cannot get PC viruses." as "Macs are immune from any kind of malware."
Exactly. I have no problem with Apple's marketing on this issue.
     
cgc
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2011, 05:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
You kind of sound like a lawyer here or something...
A lawyer? Lemme go get my torch and pitchfork...the angry mob starts here everyone! Get him...
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2011, 08:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by cgc View Post
A lawyer? Lemme go get my torch and pitchfork...the angry mob starts here everyone! Get him...

Being turtle-like makes him a slow moving turtle, so I predict multiple pitchfork impales.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2011, 08:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
You kind of sound like a lawyer here or something...

Yes this is all true, but to me it is clear that this statement is designed to offer assurances to the ignorant who would most likely read this as a general assurance that no matter what they are safe on the Mac. It is disingenuous, is all. I think Apple knows full well what this statement is designed to do, and all the specifics do make for a convenient and viable cop out.
Without exception, all malware "in the wild" IS PC malware. There isn't a current Mac-targeted threat that can surreptitiously infect a computer. Thus turtle's statement is not only accurate, it's inclusive. Apple is accurately informing switchers that their bane, Windows malware, is NOT a threat to Macs. Suggesting that all Windows users, of whom almost all switchers are a subset, are completely oblivious to the difference between viruses and "stuff they have to actively do something to get" is a disservice to the majority of Windows users, no matter how tech-impaired they may be.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2011, 09:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Without exception, all malware "in the wild" IS PC malware. There isn't a current Mac-targeted threat that can surreptitiously infect a computer. Thus turtle's statement is not only accurate, it's inclusive. Apple is accurately informing switchers that their bane, Windows malware, is NOT a threat to Macs. Suggesting that all Windows users, of whom almost all switchers are a subset, are completely oblivious to the difference between viruses and "stuff they have to actively do something to get" is a disservice to the majority of Windows users, no matter how tech-impaired they may be.

Perhaps you're right.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2011, 09:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Perhaps you're right.
I'm still not happy with Apple on the security issue, though. They have never been upfront about what Mac users should be concerned about. We're a loose bunch, and without some "directive from the Jobs" about what one should or shouldn't do, we tend to behave poorly-and unsafely. But on the point of Macs' immunity to PC viruses, I believe Apple is being quite honest.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2011, 09:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
We're a loose bunch, and without some "directive from the Jobs" about what one should or shouldn't do, we tend to behave poorly-and unsafely.
I dunno. To quote a wise person, this statement seems like "a disservice to the majority of Windows Mac users".

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2011, 02:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I'm still not happy with Apple on the security issue, though. They have never been upfront about what Mac users should be concerned about. We're a loose bunch, and without some "directive from the Jobs" about what one should or shouldn't do, we tend to behave poorly-and unsafely. But on the point of Macs' immunity to PC viruses, I believe Apple is being quite honest.
Their attitude seems to be to go out of their way not to concern users with things that can be possibly avoided - one reason for the App Store.
     
cgc
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2011, 06:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Apple moves slowest because there is no reason for them to do otherwise...
How about public perception? If they perceive Apple is taking a nonchalant attitude towards security, regardless of the actual threat, it may deter potential customers.
( Last edited by cgc; Jan 7, 2011 at 07:01 AM. Reason: fixed quote tag)
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2011, 07:05 AM
 
I agree with Spheric on this. They didn't introduce the App store solely to "save the planet" by reducing packaging (and shipping costs). But cgc's point is correct-corporate adoption of Macs is definitely impacted by Apple's apparently laizzes faire attitude to security certainly makes it hard for IT managers to sell shifting over to Macs. Boards of directors aren't all a bunch of dummies, and they don't want to look at high costs for conversion AND lots of "fix it" charges after something bad happens. But they aren't well educated on how malware threats work, either. If Apple was more publicly active about security, I think businesses would be more likely to adopt Macs because the directors would feel more comfortable with Macs.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2011, 08:42 AM
 
Then again, the point has been made that Apple doesn't WANT corporate customers.

Corporate needs long-term stability and predictability, which Apple *does* offer to a degree, but certainly not to the degree of "this $200 million custom software backbone running our company needs to be supported for the next fifteen years", which is what actual *corporate* customers want and need (and which produced the trap that Microsoft laid for itself).
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2011, 09:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob View Post
Just as a word of warning, because some people get confused: If you have any PC emulation software, such as Parallels, VMWare Fusion, VirtualBox, QEMU, or Crossover, you [i[CAN[/i] get infected, or at least your PC environment can be infected. This is why it is important not to share your documents folder with your Windows Virtual Machine; If you get a bug on the PC side it can embed itself into or wipe out any documents the VM has access to.
They can get some PC viruses - not all. Antivirus companies need to analyze every new virus that they get sent to them, and they usually do this inside a virtual machine. Virus makers know this, so some of the most clever viruses will detect if they're running in a virtual machine and disable themselves to make it harder to devise a countermeasure. Antivirus companies of course respond by hacking their virtual machines to make it look like a real computer and the cycle goes on, but an interesting side effect of this is that virtual machines will not catch the worst of the Windows viruses.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2011, 09:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Then again, the point has been made that Apple doesn't WANT corporate customers.

Corporate needs long-term stability and predictability, which Apple *does* offer to a degree, but certainly not to the degree of "this $200 million custom software backbone running our company needs to be supported for the next fifteen years", which is what actual *corporate* customers want and need (and which produced the trap that Microsoft laid for itself).
Also, Corporate doesn't pay a cent more than it has to. Apple would have to compete on price, and they suck at that.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
cgc
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2011, 11:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
...an interesting side effect of this is that virtual machines will not catch the worst of the Windows viruses.
Interesting especially since my company uses virtual machines a lot as it's much more cost effective.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2011, 08:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
They can get some PC viruses - not all. Antivirus companies need to analyze every new virus that they get sent to them, and they usually do this inside a virtual machine. Virus makers know this, so some of the most clever viruses will detect if they're running in a virtual machine and disable themselves to make it harder to devise a countermeasure. Antivirus companies of course respond by hacking their virtual machines to make it look like a real computer and the cycle goes on, but an interesting side effect of this is that virtual machines will not catch the worst of the Windows viruses.
Originally Posted by cgc View Post
Interesting especially since my company uses virtual machines a lot as it's much more cost effective.
Another point is that many viruses use low level functions that are expected to bypass the OS and go straight to the hardware. But virtual machines take those calls and virtualize them-which tends to break the malicious calls. Plus, since at least Win98, programs have to go through at least a layer of OS to get to the hardware, often several layers. This breaks many disallowed calls so the virus writers avoid those calls. But the virtual machine can handle what goes through preferentially-VMs can implement ONLY the calls that should go through Windows appropriately, so there's nothing for the virus to grab onto if it gets through the OS. Efficient, economic code manages to break a fairly large number of really nasty viruses.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
   
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:17 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2