What is Digg?Sponsored by Microsoft
Microsoft responds to the headlines. view!
microsoft.com/everybodysbusiness - Read our developers' points of view on the headlines making news.
227 Comments
- xeriscaped, on 11/16/2009, -11/+173Next, Kaspersky unveils multiple viruses for Mac.
- DanielPhermous, on 11/16/2009, -44/+112No viruses exist in the wild for the Mac. A few have been made in labs by companies like Kapersky to highlight vulnerabilities and there are a few trojans attached to some pirated software (it is impossible to protect a system against trojans since they rely on fooling people rather than fooling the operatings system) but that's all. No worms, no viruses, no rootkits, no botnets and no protection required.
An anti-virus vendor is clearly not going to be unbiased about such things. - DevinWatson, on 11/16/2009, -26/+67Any system is vulnerable to malicious software, including OS X...it's just that Apple has a much smaller market share than Microsoft and thus is less profitable for those who would want to hack it...
http://www.iantivirus.com/threats/
http://macscan.securemac.com/spyware-list/ - LiquidIse, on 11/16/2009, -1/+36Because this is the first anti-virus for macs? Every mac in our imaging labs has had anti-virus software on it for years, and those were by no means the first of their kind.
Non-news. - rolf, on 11/16/2009, -4/+37People buy macs or install Linux so they don't have to run those resource sucking programs in the first place.... Windows 7 with UAC kept on and not running admin all the time does a decent but not perfect job as well.
- gemlarin, on 11/16/2009, -18/+478 years using Apple. Never once a virus. That is 300 bucks worth of piece of mine. Good try though.
- DanielPhermous, on 11/16/2009, -0/+29Games.
Which is fair enough. - ProfBagelwood, on 11/16/2009, -17/+42Here we go again. Let's get it over with.
The reason that Windows has so many more vulnerabilities isn't because it's simply more common. People who don't know about operating systems in depth tend to assume that's the reason because it's an easy concept to grasp, but it's actually because of how unix and unix-like systems are built under the hood. Go ahead, ask a computer science professor. The vast majority of servers, databases, etc run unix and unix-like systems anyway, and if you're connect to the internet, you connect to far more of those than you do regular desktops and laptops, so the "Windows in less secure because it's more common" argument is incomplete at best and flat out invalid at worst.
Now, if for whatever reason you've decided that Windows is your favorite OS, then that's fine, I guess. But I sure hope that reason doesn't have to do with security. (Or performance, stability, openness, tweakability...) :P - ehaugan, on 11/16/2009, -14/+37Number of Windows PCs I have repaired do to viruses/malware/spyware : 837
Number of Apple machines I have repaired do to viruses/malware/spyware : 0
No thanks Kapersky. - Jimmylecroy21, on 11/16/2009, -6/+27I love nachos:D
- DevinWatson, on 11/16/2009, -27/+48I don't know why you're getting buried, there are plenty of viruses/malware/adware for OS X:
http://www.iantivirus.com/threats/
http://macscan.securemac.com/spyware-list/ - USArugula, on 11/16/2009, -12/+32I've been on a mac since '95 with no virus/malware protection and I've not once incident in all that time. Every once in a while, I'll download something to run a virus check –– it always comes up clean.
So, while there are viruses out there, they are very rare. It's a fact. Which means your "fanboy" whinings make you sound like a douche. - rolf, on 11/16/2009, -7/+27The old Mac OS (pre-OS X) had hundreds of viruses in the wild, some even carried floppy to floppy in the 1980s.
While I think any system is vulnerable, I think the marketshare argument is overblown. Linux viruses would be profitable, just due to the amount of servers with important info they run...
I think it comes down to architecture that the systems are built on and that doesn't change even from version to version (ie how Windows still has the registry). - Sparky9292, on 11/16/2009, -7/+26Generally the reason that IT departments put anti-virus software on OSX is to simply catch viruses from Word Documents/Excel Macros and email. So basically the Apple computer is just helping to prevent the LAN from becoming infected.
In the eight years I've owned Apple computers, I've not ever been infected, and I do really "dangerous" stuff on my machine, download all kinds of crap off Pirate Bay etc. - ArthurSucks, on 11/16/2009, -2/+20Sales Man: Hello Sir!
Peter: Enough of the foreplay, What are you sellin?
Sales Man: Well, Sir, I was about to sell you some handsome cream but I can see you already bought out the store.
Peter: Go on..
Sales Man: Pehaps you be interested in something no home owner should be without; Volcano Insurance
Peter: Go on..
Sales Man: Acording to my Uncle, who's a real wiz with volcanos, a volcano is coming this way!
Peter: I too have an uncle. Come in. How much is this volcano insurance?
Sales Man: I don't know.. let's say $200!
Peter: $200! That more than I spent on all that handsome cream, I don't have that kind of money!
Sales Man: What about that jar of money?
Peter: No way, that Lois' rainy day fund.
Sales Man: Aw come on, it never rains in Rhode Island.
Peter: Yeah, well I'm pretty sure we've never had a volcano either.
Sales Man: Don't you think we're over due for one?
Peter: Touche, sales man. - DanielPhermous, on 11/16/2009, -13/+31Yes, I read them.
The list is of roof of concepts made in a lab, exploits, trojans, password cracking software and keyloggers that have to be installed by a malicious third party (or an idiotic first party). What there is not in the list is a single virus, worm or rootkit in the wild.
Cracking and hacking are both possible. Exploits are often found and, where they leave a door open for such a creature, viruses and worms are sometimes created to prove that they are genuine problems. None of this means that there is a single malicious, self replicating, contagious piece of software infecting any Mac computer outside a laboratory. - AlphaMode, on 11/16/2009, -7/+23I don't know about everybody else, but I bought my Mac for its stability.
Any platform can be safe or vulnerable depending on how you use it. - cutofmyjib, on 11/16/2009, -0/+14Finally! Some reason amongst these comments!
- aychseven, on 11/16/2009, -8/+22please show me one piece of information regarding an existing virus in the wild for Mac OS X. and by virus, i mean virus; not malware, not trojan, not keystroke logger etc. because i have yet to come across one. i've worked in corporate IT for years on both mac and windows, and the one time i came across a virus on a mac it was in system 7.
i'm not trying to be a "***** mac fanboy," rather i'd like to keep my network virus free, so any real info about a virus threat would be appreciated. but so far, yeah "ooooh no viruses for me!"
and it's pretty much the same situation with my linux boxes. i don't hear you getting all hot under the collar about "***** linux fanboys" and their lack of viruses - Bentleyk9, on 11/16/2009, -4/+18Gemlarin, what piece of you do I get for $300?
- tidu, on 11/16/2009, -6/+20seconded... They required Norton on my university's network but all it did was consume resources...
- Shadic, on 11/16/2009, -10/+23I've been on a PC since 2000 with no virus/malware protection and never had a virus attack. liekohmahgawd.
- Shadic, on 11/16/2009, -16/+29Why, because we spent half as much as you for a computer with better specs?
- clickmyface, on 11/16/2009, -4/+16I especially enjoyed the 20+ that were for "mac classic." I ran to my closet and was about to unplug my mac classic from the internet when I remembered its not 1992 and I dont have dialup anymore.
Thanks for the list, though! - inkswamp, on 11/16/2009, -1/+13Predictably, the deeply flawed market share argument shows up. Consider this....
* The Classic Mac OS (OS 9 and earlier) had a fraction of the market share OS X has and yet it had loads of viruses.
* OS X is a Unix OS underneath and therefore part of a larger pool of potential targets. The OS X isn't an island unto itself, so to speak.
I agree market share plays a role but it's minor and not the whole story. - Falldog, on 11/16/2009, -3/+14Hasn't it occurred to anyone other than myself that it would be extremely useful scan an external drive or data share commonly used by Window's machines for possibly harmful files, regardless of the 'Mac's can't get virus' ... or can they' arguments?
- DontThinkSo, on 11/16/2009, -1/+12If I wanted to write the most profitable virus I could, I would target linux/unix. Imagine what a virus author could do with millions of email accounts, banking information, etc...
- Alias1431, on 11/16/2009, -18/+2914 years using Windows. Never once a virus. Except I paid less than you. Good smug though.
- clickmyface, on 11/16/2009, -5/+16The ironic (stupid?) thing about your statement is that by not using virus/malware protection you have no mechanism for figuring out if you do have a virus/malware/trojan. A big incentive for malware developers is to create something that users dont know is running.
Not using any form of antivirus is not something to brag about, and it's really irresponsible and stupid. - Orbital101, on 11/16/2009, -7/+18Both of those links lead to websites where they want you to buy their anti-virus software. There's no way they're going to say Macs are secure. They'd go broke.
- supermanred, on 11/16/2009, -2/+12There are anti-malware programs for Mac OS X, there have been for a while. They remove tracking cookies and spyware.
I run one once every few months. It never finds anything.
The dude is right, man. UNIX is so much more secure by design than Windows. - Orbital101, on 11/16/2009, -1/+11May I add: And if you do link to that information, have it come from an impartial source. Not from the website of a company that sells anti-virus software.
- ethos101, on 11/16/2009, -1/+11All my years of using Windows and I've never had a virus either. Big whoop. I like how everybody is an expert yet everybody disagrees with each other.
- DevinWatson, on 11/16/2009, -20/+30I'm must be taking stupid pills because I just posted two lists of malicious software that run specifically on OS X / MacOS...
- grimacebrown, on 11/16/2009, -4/+14This has degraded in to an argument of semantics... sweet.
- JasonHaley, on 11/16/2009, -5/+15You don't understand the argument. It has nothing to do with the kernel. The argument of 'Windows being more common, therefore it has more viruses' has to do with the mentality of the virus-developer himself.
If you wanted to cause as much damage as you could. Would you aim your virus at 90% of users or 9% of users? Bingo. - Orbital101, on 11/16/2009, -6/+16A few thoughts about this story:
- Any computer can be hacked or infected with a virus. No computer manufacturer/OS publisher will ever claim otherwise.
- Macs tend to be less susceptible to viruses than Windows. So many credible and impartial experts and analysts will confirm this that it doesn't need to be reiterated here. Notice I said "tend" and "less", not "always" and "completely" (so don't have a fanboy/hater tantrum).
- Anti-virus software tends to be a serious drain on system resources, and poor interface design can often interrupt and annoy the user.
- Anti-virus software has, historically, been known to sometimes introduce problems to the system so that it not only appears that the software finds issues that other software doesn't, but can also cure the so-called problem.
- The average Mac user won't typically get a virus or malware (how many times have you met a Mac user who has?).
With these things in mind, I don't think I'll get this software. I've protected myself nicely so far (and OS X has helped me do that). I'm more scared of anti-virus software than I am of viruses. - Amadeus2490, on 11/16/2009, -1/+10due*
- mrBitch, on 11/16/2009, -2/+11@ DevinWatson, RE: " I don't know why you're getting buried, there are plenty of viruses/malware/adware for OS X .. "
Yet none of your links point to any known OS X viruses.
There are TROJANS for OSX, but if you understand that a Trojan is just malware pretending to be another type of program, then you also understand that no OS can protect itself from malware that the user unintentionally installs thinking it's something else.
The definition of a virus :
"malware that auto-replicates itself without any user intervention."
The number of OSX viruses that currently exist : Zero. - LordScarab, on 11/16/2009, -0/+8Well viruses are a form of malware to start with, but yes most decent anti-virus programs will scan for a whole range of problems that may lead to a computer getting compromised.
Its part of the reason they market themselves as "security" software more now days rather than just "anti-virus" software like they often did in the past.
no use pluging the leaking sink in a boat if there is a 2m hole in the floor - DanielPhermous, on 11/16/2009, -4/+12The difference, Krism, is that a virus installs ITSELF. It's the difference between catching the flu and drinking it.
- pyrates, on 11/16/2009, -1/+9FTA:
To protect the Mac against viruses, the Kaspersky Anti-Virus has a global anti-virus database of more than 20 million malicious programs for a range of platforms. There are also hourly updates to ensure users are protected against the very latest malicious programs that appear every day.
So how many of those 20 million malicious programs are for the mac? The vast majority of them are for windows actually, but they couldn't say that. They had to say they were multi platform. That whole paragraph is marketing BS. All they did was take the signatures that was in the windows version and add it to the mac version. What good is that going to do to a mac user? These can't be ran on Mac OS X, so why bother checking for them? - MonkeyFit, on 11/16/2009, -0/+7Actually I'm pretty sure the reason Windows can't write to the Mac partition is because it lacks an HFS driver by default. You could always try installing this beta software in Windows to see if Boot Camp really blocks it or not.
http://www.paragon-software.com/home/hfs-windows/
However the driver supplied by Apple only offer read-only support. So it might not be Boot Camp at all, but the filesystem driver installed on Windows. - Rob1n, on 11/16/2009, -0/+7I've been on my Commodore since '82 and never one virus or malware.
Eat that windows & mac users! - Angostura, on 11/16/2009, -0/+7Nope, it's occurred to lots of people. The early OS X virus scanners were sold largely on their ability to prevent Mac users inadvertently passing on infected Office documents containing visual basic viruses to vulnerable Windows users.
- Angostura, on 11/16/2009, -0/+7As a matter of interest how much malware have they caught? (Genuine enquiry).
- HuangFeng, on 11/16/2009, -0/+7So I downloaded the free trial of Kaspersky Anti-Virus for Mac. Why not? See what it finds. I have Kaspersky for my MS Windows machines and have been quite impressed - avoiding the autorun viruses on the USB drives that are quite a bit more prevalent than I thought, particularly from people who are using AVG as their anti-virus ... AVG is apparently shockingly poor, one guy had 4 different trojans/viruses on his USB stick and really thought he was safe as he always kept his AVG up to date.
So I'm a fan of Kaspersky for Windows. Not so much for Mac OS X.
Kaspersky Mac took two hours to scan 1% (allegedly), maybe it niced itself, then it was "stopped" as it was scanning Adobe's airglobal.swc ... so I quit twhirl plus everything else and started the AV scanning again. And Kaspersky prematurely aborted again, this time without leaving any notification in the log!
I asked Kaspersky to perform a "Quick Scan", which apparently examines only some of the current user files. The quick scan completed in under 10 minutes and found nothing.
I restarted the Mac. Kaspersky didn't auto-start although the preferences said it would. I ran the Full Scan again, left the Mac running, came back an hour later to find that Kaspersky had minimised itself and stopped the scan without logging, except to say that it had stopped.
I am getting the very strong feeling that this version of Kaspersky Anti-Virus for Mac is quite buggy and not very useful at the moment. - ProfBagelwood, on 11/16/2009, -5/+12Heh heh, Jason, actually that's the exact thing that I was saying most people incorrectly believe because it's easy to say and doesn't require knowledge of computers to grasp. I don't say that to be arrogant, I say that because that's the truth. That's how humans are.
But don't take my word for it. Take some classes and then purely for study purposes try to write a virus for Windows, and then try to write one for Mac, Linux, BSD, etc. You will find that it is much easier to write viruses in Windows, and most of your techniques just won't even make sense in the others. - newbill123, on 11/16/2009, -4/+11Macs had viruses back in the Classic Mac OS era so the small market share and difficulty of learning to program a Mac aren't reasons OS X never developed a major virus threat. OS X now has a bigger marketshare and is easier to program than Classic, but it also stopped many unsafe security practices in the transition (e.g. auto-execution of untrusted code).
One day there will be a flaw that something takes advantage of. And one day all the folks making Mac anti-virus tools will say "We told you so!". While they surely don't have many sales right now I'm sure Kaspersky and their ilk don't see this as wasted effort. They are positioning themselves to be the "trusted" name in malware removal before the need arises.
A shrewd marketing move on their part, but not a reason to panic just yet. - pagno, on 11/16/2009, -1/+7Technically, those iPhones were hacked, which left a(wide-open and retarded as *****) hole in its security. But yeah, nothing is "un-hackable".
-
Show 51 - 100 of 230 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is