or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Security firm details new Trojan written for Apple's Mac OS X
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Security firm details new Trojan written for Apple's Mac OS X - Page 2

post #41 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post


Apolgies to Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species, too. Our smartest keep protecting the dumbest and weakest, thus weakening the species.

Actually, you're, in my humble opinion, making a mistake here. Our species is weakening specialization, not itself. Therefore, it becomes less efficient at its core tasks (whichever these might be), but the silver lining of the cloud is, you are more adaptable. Maybe suck "morons" are stronger or more artistic minded, or whatever... Preserving diversity is important to an advanced species.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #42 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range View Post

Great, wake me up when a real virus for OS X is developed, one that doesn't require me to manually install and run itself first. No operating system will ever be immune to Trojans, unless you lock it down so tight the user cannot install or run _anything_ without some trusted third-party approving it.

I've written a Trojan myself, it's very destructive, cross platform on many Unix systems. It will wipe out all your files, and it would be very trivial to have it mail them to me or post them somewhere on the internet as well, but I didn't feel like modifying it for that yet. As a service to all security researchers I'll post the code here, it's called 'please_run_me_to_make_money.sh'

Code:

#!/bin/sh

rm -rf $HOME/*

echo "U R fscked!"



Don't tell anyone I wrote it!

Exactly! I make a distinction between something that requires the user to install it and one that attacks without the user's assistance.

If a thief comes to my door and rings the bell and I let him just because he asks, then I am responsible for the outcome.

If a thief breaks into my house while I am gone and the security company had told me the house was break-in proof, well then that is something completely different.

TechnoMinds

We are a Montreal based technology company that offers a variety of tech services such as tech support for Apple products, Drupal based website development, computer training and iCloud...

Reply

TechnoMinds

We are a Montreal based technology company that offers a variety of tech services such as tech support for Apple products, Drupal based website development, computer training and iCloud...

Reply
post #43 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

These stories come out every so oftenand then are forgotten. (A Trojan is simply a lie, and no OS is immune.)

Remember when the first successful real-world self-spreading Internet virus/worm came out? Me neitherbut I know that headline has appeared in the media at least twice since OS X came out. False alarms. And it MAY happen for real one day, but it never has yet.

As a matter of fact, I do, as far as Windows. It was the Melissa virus in 1999, the one that sent an email titled "I love you!" in the title. Quite the shock to get it from coworkers. There were of course lots of others before that were spread by floppy and network, but that was the first "big" internet virus. I have read about an Internet worm that spread through the world in 1988, a Unix worm, not Windows. The first PC virus was a boot sector virus written by two Pakistani brothers in 1986, who realized ANY instructions written there would be executed. In 1988, I thought PC viruses might be urban legend material, until we experienced one at work.
post #44 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range View Post

Care to point out what part of that is 'simply not true'?

Edit: I'll help you out, before you waste your time:

Here's 4 quick searches in the McAfee antivirus database:

1) 16-bit Windows (what I was referring to when I said MacOS was 'much worse than Windows at that time'):

http://www.mcafee.com/apps/search/th...=W16&v=malware : 38 threats

2) MacOS (prior to OS X):

http://www.mcafee.com/apps/search/th...acOS&v=malware : 86 threats

3) OS X:

http://www.mcafee.com/apps/search/th...=OSX&v=malware : 51 threats

4) 32-bit Windows (just for laughs):

http://www.mcafee.com/apps/search/th...=W32&v=malware : 1000 threats, but the database clipped the results at 100 pages

Interesting bit of information RE MacOS. I had read that MacOS was a very challenging environment for viruses and was relatively immune in the early/mid 90s - I didn't use them then.

I did notice these threats for MacOS were from 2002-2005, which was probably after Apple quit releasing updates for MacOS (2001?). The O/S had been around for awhile, and exploits were found. I am sure many were still using the system, though.
post #45 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maltz View Post

The part about the Mac OS 9 having more malware than Windows is the bit that's simply not true. You forgot to include the 1000+ DOS viruses that Win16 was also susceptible to in #1. Clearly, you weren't involved with computers during that time period. lol I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now and assume you're just badly misinformed and not trolling.

I've seen my fair share of the DOS world, actually it was my first PC experience (around MS-DOS 5.0). But you are right, I didn't count these. Let's keep it at the observation that OS 9 and before never had a very good security track record and was exploited a lot more than OS X.
post #46 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range View Post

That first link in the results for your query nicely show how retarded statements like 'the most dangerous OS is [..]' actually are. The only argument put forward in that 'article' is that OS X has longer patch cycles, and as such it is the 'most dangerous OS'. If there are no security holes that are actively exploited, no signs of anyone with OS getting pwned, and no published, unpatched zero-day exploits know, what difference does it make how long it takes before OS X gets another update? A much more interesting figure would be 'mean time between zero-day exploit and patch', but the 'article' conveniently skips over that and instead makes a sensationalist headline out of nothing.

Meanwhile, in my active life of using all kinds of operating systems (which is over 2 decades and includes every version of Windows since 3.11, many different Linux distributions, a number of other Unix OS's) and Macs since OS X 10.4, I have seen 1 (one) Linux server with a rootkit (at work), not a single OS X machine with a virus (and I've seen a lot of them, many of my friends and colleagues use macs), yet so many Windows computers with malware, spyware and viruses that I don't even know how many there were. Even the ones with antivirus software (which in my opinion is almost a scam) attract all kinds of bad things.

From a practical point of view, I think that you can safely say Windows is the most dangerous OS, especially pre-SP2 Windows XP. I don't care about any excuses about marketshare or theoretical exploitability, just measured facts about exploits, and in that aspect, OS X is rock solid.

Anti-virus is an Industry and Microsoft has a competing product called 'Microsoft Security Essentials' for free, some how I can recall Netscape v/s IE.

To summarize
post #47 of 80
deleted
post #48 of 80
deleted
post #49 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustReelFilms View Post

Last time I heard, there is this thing call Mac App Store which Apple happily tests it out for you before it goes out in public. And the new Lion API called Sandboxing and Privilege mode which will be a requiement for developers.

User stupidity is the best way to get these trojans installed from an untrusted source.

Whenever a system software update is run on OS X you'll notice it has a signed ssl cert, similar to windows verification mechanisms. I've never understood why this wasn't more widely used, why Apple doesn't require cert verification from all developers & if you download something unsigned it throws up a big warning. I guess the app store is one way to start doing this but I imagined it as something a little simpler where Apple would issue you a cert the system trusted & you simply had to verify with Apple you are who you say you are, similar to getting a cert now from one of the big cert authorities. Then it could be setup so you could say not to allow self signed certs for apps as a default but then turn the feature off if you wanted to go ahead & allow it. You can't protect people from stupidity but in the least you can make stupidity an effort so they can't casually stumble into trouble.

I know with sandboxing a lot of this is already in place to some degree, but a default option where programs that aren't signed are actually blocked would be nice. Everyone & their mother just clicks right through warning dialogs.
post #50 of 80
Wake me up when you have self installing executables for macosx, and can click on a malicious link in a web browser for osx and ruin your system.
post #51 of 80
Perhaps the anti virus firms should have finished the Trojan before they started trumpeting it. Tsk! Amateurs!
..... the greatest fame comes from adding to human knowledge, not winning battles.
Paraphrased from Napolean Bonaparte, 1798
Reply
..... the greatest fame comes from adding to human knowledge, not winning battles.
Paraphrased from Napolean Bonaparte, 1798
Reply
post #52 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Hackers have written a new "backdoor Trojan" targeted specifically at Apple's Mac OS X operating system that can allow remote operations and password "phishing," as Mac sales and market share continue to grow.

Is it called "windows"?

Zing!
post #53 of 80
I like the button that says "owned". I'm going to use it to shrink down Microsoft and Google market share. Hurrah!
post #54 of 80
Quote:

Nothing times nothing is still nothing. There are currently just over one hundred virus threats for OS, half of which is actually distributed software which *could* be used maliciously. All of the keyloggers fit that description.

The anti-virus and security software people have to justify their existence somehow for an OS that doesn't have any substantive virus issues to deal with. Yet. That describes a *potential* market for these folks who advertise their product with scare tactics.

Most dangerous my a**. Based on the length of the update cycle? Compared to what? Window that has new virus's every week? Linux? Which by definition is updated on a continuous basis?

There are updates when there are reasons for updates. I'm sure when we get to the point that we have to deal with a new virus de jour ... we'll see lots of updates. And that makes it ...errrr ..safer?

Someone has a rather distorted and self serving view of what constitutes *dangerous* and *safe*
post #55 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range View Post

That's funny, because back when OS 9 was still around there were dozens of successful viruses for it, in fact, it was much worse than on Windows, even though Macs had even smaller market share...

Utter nonsense. There has never been anything other than proof of concept in the history of the mac os. No one has even managed to gain access without physical contact with the machine.

If anything 7.5 was more secure, more stable than os x.
post #56 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range View Post

Care to point out what part of that is 'simply not true'?

Edit: I'll help you out, before you waste your time:

Here's 4 quick searches in the McAfee antivirus database:

1) 16-bit Windows (what I was referring to when I said MacOS was 'much worse than Windows at that time'):

http://www.mcafee.com/apps/search/th...=W16&v=malware : 38 threats

2) MacOS (prior to OS X):

http://www.mcafee.com/apps/search/th...acOS&v=malware : 86 threats

3) OS X:

http://www.mcafee.com/apps/search/th...=OSX&v=malware : 51 threats

4) 32-bit Windows (just for laughs):

http://www.mcafee.com/apps/search/th...=W32&v=malware : 1000 threats, but the database clipped the results at 100 pages

It might be worth quoting a source that doesn't make money by scaring people into buying it's services...
post #57 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by techno View Post

Exactly! I make a distinction between something that requires the user to install it and one that attacks without the user's assistance.

If a thief comes to my door and rings the bell and I let him just because he asks, then I am responsible for the outcome.

If a thief breaks into my house while I am gone and the security company had told me the house was break-in proof, well then that is something completely different.

Only in Monty Python skits. In the real world, nobody rings a doorbell and announces "burglar!" Likewise, the writers of Trojans don't label their code as compromising your computer, they sneak it in under false pretenses. Always blaming the user just doesn't cut it.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #58 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

It's great to have a former secret agent such as yourself as a member of AI to share these secrets with us. Do you also sell tinfoil hats?

Actually he is correct. The virus writers are backed by the virus checker writers. This is common knowledge.

It's pure capitalism at it's finest. Create a virus then write a checker to get rid of it, then sell that software. In other words create a market and supply that market.
post #59 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Given that the average price of a PC is $740 and the average price of a Mac is nearly twice that, it's not surprising.

Here's an equally relevant statistic: Linux has 91% of the supercomputer market.

EHHHHHHHHHH wrong.

All computers sold with the CoreDuo processor are actually classed as SuperComputers because their calculations are performed in gigaflops.

By that reckoning Windows has the lion's share of the supercomputer market.
post #60 of 80
deleted
post #61 of 80
deleted
post #62 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by spinnerlys View Post

The Mac OS X Malware Myth Continues

Good article link (one i had not seen before). Thanks.
Even though from 11-2007, it provides (me anyway) with more understanding of the situation.
The Universe is Intelligent and Friendly
Reply
The Universe is Intelligent and Friendly
Reply
post #63 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post

Which is odd because before Mac OS X Apple sold less Macs and had a smaller marketshare and yet still managed to have more viruses written for it.

I had a G3 tower for many years and ran OS 8.0, 8.5, 9.0 and the very first version of OS X. I never caught, nor did I ever hear about a single virus. I would like to know where you get your information from.

Also, lets just say you ARE correct. Mac OS X has one single proof of concept "virus" and this recent "trojan".

I still have yet to see anything remotely within even 5% of the malware, spyware, viruses, worms, and trojans available for windows.

So, please, cite your source.

Thanks.
post #64 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericblr View Post

I had a G3 tower for many years and ran OS 8.0, 8.5, 9.0 and the very first version of OS X. I never caught, nor did I ever hear about a single virus. I would like to know where you get your information from.

Also, lets just say you ARE correct. Mac OS X has one single proof of concept "virus" and this recent "trojan".

I still have yet to see anything remotely within even 5% of the malware, spyware, viruses, worms, and trojans available for windows.

So, please, cite your source.

Thanks.

You don't recall hearing about or never herd about a virus for pre-Mac OS X Macs, that must be that didn't exist. :rollseyes: Can you name all the Windows virus or are all those not real either?

If you read the read there is plenty of sourcing, including spinnerlys' link explaining why Mac OS X is inherently more secure than Windows despite how strongly you hold to the marketshare myth.
post #65 of 80
In all my years with the Mac OS - going back to when it was called System 6 and even before that - I have personally seen exaclty one virus in the wild cDEV or was it Cdev - which copied itself exacly once to any mounted volume and was difficult to eradicate since that was the in the days of every student on campus using a floppy disk to save work done on the Macs in the library and the computer lab - meaning you coudl celan every running system without too much difficulty - but could not easily clean every floppy disk - and it only took one to reinfect the computers.

The other "Virus" that I ran into was any software from Microsoft. Back in the day there was an app called Disinfectant that would watch for Virus-Like behaviour - things such as an app writing to its own resource fork - and it would allow you to allow an app to perform such behavious - the problem was that most Microsoft apps at the time could not function without at least one of six differnet permissions being allowed - which opened the door for a real Virus to get into the system via an infected MS app.
post #66 of 80
I just got rid of a very nasty piece of OSX malware.

It was called WD Drive Manager.



PS: Charlie Miller says that OSX is not as intrinsically secure as Windows, even though he concedes that over-all Macs are the safer option.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...hack,2254.html
post #67 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericblr View Post

I had a G3 tower for many years and ran OS 8.0, 8.5, 9.0 and the very first version of OS X. I never caught, nor did I ever hear about a single virus.

Agreed. I've been an Apple user since before there even was a Mac. I have always worked in all Mac environments. Like you, I've never seen or even heard of anyone actually getting a virus on their Mac. Security companies claiming proof-of -concept to try to sell their product, sure, but actual in the wild virus? Never.
post #68 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post

You don't recall hearing about or never herd about a virus for pre-Mac OS X Macs, that must be that didn't exist. :rollseyes: Can you name all the Windows virus or are all those not real either?

If you read the read there is plenty of sourcing, including spinnerlys' link explaining why Mac OS X is inherently more secure than Windows despite how strongly you hold to the marketshare myth.

I stand corrected, however I have a little history lesson for you.

Back when Apple had a 5% market-share in the 1980s, there was Commodore, Apple, Atari, Amiga, Texas Instruments (and later, IBM) among others all competing for the desktop space. Any of the software produced for any of these machines was compatible only with the computer it was designed for. It was a very different time, and for Apple to have commanded 5% of a market that was dominated by hobbyists and computer geeks was big. That market-share DID attract the attention of virus coders.

As the proliferation of IBM computers, DOS, and Windows began in the early 90's NEW viruses were beginning to be written more for IBM.

I do agree that Mac OS X is a more secure OS, but you cannot dismiss the fact that market-share DOES play a part. To claim that it has nothing to do with the proliferation of viruses makes you look very ignorant.
post #69 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

Malware is still a program, just one that does unpleasant things.

On a simple level, programs can be script-based or compiled. Script-based programs are interpreted by the operating system at run-time and will work on any architecture as long as it's running the correct OS (i.e. a Unix script won't run on Windows but it will probably run on any OS X machine, regardless of the Mac being PPC or Intel).

A compiled program is translated from the human-readable source code to "machine code" at compile time, and distributed in this "machine code" format. Machine code differs from one architecture to another - PPC machine code is different from Intel machine code. A machine of the right architecture can read the file and performs the tasks instructed, with the help of the operating system. A compiled program therefore needs the correct architecture and operating system in order to run. Note that it's possible to compile a Mac program to contain both PPC and Intel machine code, and therefore run on any Mac with the correct operating system.

Thanks. I have asked this question a few times actually. But I think your explanation is by far the easiest to understand.
post #70 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericblr View Post

... you cannot dismiss the fact that market-share DOES play a part. To claim that it has nothing to do with the proliferation of viruses makes you look very ignorant.

Not all of us were born yesterday. The notion marketshare plays a role in malware susceptibility is only about 10 years old. During the early days of Windows XP, that OS faced a withering barrage of viruses. Microsoft faced a growing chorus of criticism and with it, the threat of lawsuits and loss of sales. Bill Gates responded by saying that Windows had more viruses because it was the most popular OS. He offered zero (0) proof of his assertion. It was simply a verbal statement made to the press.

The statement was demonstrably false. The most popular OS extant was Windows 98, not Windows XP. Yet, Windows 98 was not a target of the virus barrage. The viruses that infected Windows 98 were not as serious as those that infected Windows XP.

The popular press and the computer buying public accepted Bill Gates's assertion uncritically. Afterall, Windows was the most popular OS. [Not true in the context of the threat.] It only made sense that Windows would have the most viruses, didn't it? This was the most fundamental logical fallacy:
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. It assumes that viruses were a natural consequence of the computing experience and that their development is subject to the rules of chance. To the extent that chance places a role, the various Windows platform loads the dice, marks the cards, and places magnets under the roulette wheel.
post #71 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

AT 5 or 10% market share, it's just not worth it.

...so at what percentage will this canard finally die? 51%? 70%? 99.44%?

Funny thing is, and unlike (the currently dominant) Windows machines, there are a few bits of info that make Macs one hell of an attractive target:

* most mac desktops are running almost constantly, and are hooked up to the network
* given the pricing structure of most Apple computers, the typical buyer is more likely to have more disposable income.
* You don't have any competing malware and/or botnets to constantly fight off in the OSX-using pile
* the vast majority of OSX users don't bother with A/V or any sort of anti-malware 'protection'.


...and yet you'd think that with all of these attractive features, a given large group of OSX users would certainly have been made someone's bitch by now, no?

But, in spite of all that, the absolute best that the black hat community can cough up is a bunch of empty (and baseless) bragging. Oh, and a handful of crap trojans that are more of a Darwin Test than anything else.
post #72 of 80
deleted
post #73 of 80
There were plenty of threats to windows 98, and any windows 98 software could run fine on XP. It didnt take much effort to create a windows XP program(including virii) that would run on a 98 system. The attention would shift towards the newer system for obvious reasons. Eventually XP became a widely used and much loved OS. You cant treat each version of windows like its an entirely new OS. It was all either based upon the 9x kernel or the NT kernel.

I am only saying marketshare sometimes reflects growing trends in the market which also provides motivation and incentive for a virus programmer to work towards cracking the system. Its not the only factor, or the biggest factor, but its a factor nonetheless, and im sorry you disagree.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post

Not all of us were born yesterday. The notion marketshare plays a role in malware susceptibility is only about 10 years old. During the early days of Windows XP, that OS faced a withering barrage of viruses. Microsoft faced a growing chorus of criticism and with it, the threat of lawsuits and loss of sales. Bill Gates responded by saying that Windows had more viruses because it was the most popular OS. He offered zero (0) proof of his assertion. It was simply a verbal statement made to the press.

The statement was demonstrably false. The most popular OS extant was Windows 98, not Windows XP. Yet, Windows 98 was not a target of the virus barrage. The viruses that infected Windows 98 were not as serious as those that infected Windows XP.

The popular press and the computer buying public accepted Bill Gates's assertion uncritically. Afterall, Windows was the most popular OS. [Not true in the context of the threat.] It only made sense that Windows would have the most viruses, didn't it? This was the most fundamental logical fallacy:
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. It assumes that viruses were a natural consequence of the computing experience and that their development is subject to the rules of chance. To the extent that chance places a role, the various Windows platform loads the dice, marks the cards, and places magnets under the roulette wheel.
post #74 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericblr View Post

There were plenty of threats to windows 98, and any windows 98 software could run fine on XP. It didnt take much effort to create a windows XP program(including virii) that would run on a 98 system. The attention would shift towards the newer system for obvious reasons. Eventually XP became a widely used and much loved OS. You cant treat each version of windows like its an entirely new OS. It was all either based upon the 9x kernel or the NT kernel.

I am only saying marketshare sometimes reflects growing trends in the market which also provides motivation and incentive for a virus programmer to work towards cracking the system. Its not the only factor, or the biggest factor, but its a factor nonetheless, and im sorry you disagree.

You misrepresented my point. At no time and nowhere did I say that Windows 98 had fewer viruses than Windows XP. I said that Windows XP viruses were worse. And they were. Now you have invented a whole new bit of nonsense about "growing trends." To the extent that viruses make money for their authors, the money is in the here an now. A virus writer does not speculate about what may be big in five or ten years. He steals your credit card number or converts your computer into a zombie because it represents cash now.

As for the rest of you point, show me some figures from any source that proves that marketshare drives viral infection.
post #75 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post

You misrepresented my point. At no time and nowhere did I say that Windows 98 had fewer viruses than Windows XP. I said that Windows XP viruses were worse. And they were. Now you have invented a whole new bit of nonsense about "growing trends." To the extent that viruses make money for their authors, the money is in the here an now. A virus writer does not speculate about what may be big in five or ten years. He steals your credit card number or converts your computer into a zombie because it represents cash now.

As for the rest of you point, show me some figures from any source that proves that marketshare drives viral infection.

Yes, the money is in the here and now. So, with that knowledge, you're going to sit here and tell me that the existence of hundreds of million (if not billions) of computer systems around the world running some variant of Windows provides no incentive whatsoever to a virus programmer? You dont even consider for a SECOND that the reason so many people are creating viruses for windows is because it creates a bigger target?

NOPE, I guess its solely based on the security (or lack therof) of the system. Popularity of a machine has nothing to do with it!
You are either a fool, or just plain ignorant!

OK, you think Mac OS X is so invulnerable to viruses?

http://www.iantivirus.com/threats/
post #76 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericblr View Post

Yes, the money is in the here and now. So, with that knowledge, you're going to sit here and tell me that the existence of hundreds of million (if not billions) of computer systems around the world running some variant of Windows provides no incentive whatsoever to a virus programmer? You dont even consider for a SECOND that the reason so many people are creating viruses for windows is because it creates a bigger target?

NOPE, I guess its solely based on the security (or lack therof) of the system. Popularity of a machine has nothing to do with it!
You are either a fool, or just plain ignorant!

OK, you think Mac OS X is so invulnerable to viruses?

http://www.iantivirus.com/threats/

Illogical. No one ever said that the millions of Windows PCs don't represent the largest amounts of cash. The thing that you don't understand is that Macs also represent massive amounts of cash, perhaps a larger amount of cash per station than the Windows PCs. Macs would make wonderful targets if they were vulnerable.

You also don't seem to understand that thieves seek targets of opportunity. Do you snatch a purse or rob the liquor store? Do you rob a liquor store or Podunk State Bank? Do you rob Podunk State Bank or Chase Bank? Do you rob Chase Bank or Fort Knox? Not to put too fine a point on it, but do you go for the biggest haul or do you go for the target that you can actually take down and from which you can escape?

Every single item out of the 116 items on your threat list requires installation by a legitimate user. The term of art is "cooperative target." No uncooperative MacOS X computer has ever been breached. It would be stupid for a thief to expend resources to try to be the first to breach an uncooperative MacOS X computer while Windows PCs can be breached. You are not going to make any money by trying to rob Fort Knox.

Illogical though you may be, you still have no excuse for using personal invective. If you continue, then you run the distinct danger of being banned from the forum.
post #77 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

clearly OSX is just a wide open free for all where hackers can gain social security and credit card numbers, and nude photos of your wife!

Dang it! *I* haven't even seen the nude photos of my wife, give em back!
post #78 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

They're starting to make your dream come true:
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/...orm_targe.html

They're going to have to try harder than going after Java (esp. considering that IIRC Lion won't even have it in there).
post #79 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Walk View Post

They're going to have to try harder than going after Java (esp. considering that IIRC Lion won't even have it in there).

Java will be available for Lion. However, Apple will not provide it. IIRC, Apple no longer provides Java for Snow Leopard. Development of Java is now the exclusive domain of Oracle.
post #80 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post

Java will be available for Lion. However, Apple will not provide it. IIRC, Apple no longer provides Java for Snow Leopard. Development of Java is now the exclusive domain of Oracle.

From what I've read, Apple will continue to provide Java SE6 for both Snow Leopard and Lion (perhaps as a separate download or install). Java SE7 will be available directly from Oracle.

Quote:
Also missing from Lion is a preinstalled Java runtime capable of executing "100% pure" Java apps. There are few examples of Java desktop apps in the wild, so most users won't notice. Not bundling the runtime will erase a large number of security vulnerabilities from the reported list of issues related to Mac OS X going forward however, as Java exists as a parallel platform to Apple's native Cocoa.

When users attempt to run a Java app, Lion offers to look online for a version it can install, and will download and install a slightly newer version than is currently available for Snow Leopard today (1.6.0_24-b07-329, rather than 1.6.0_22-b04-307).

Apple announced earlier that it would be working with Oracle to divest itself of maintenance of the Java platform on Macs, setting up a new OpenJDK Project for Java on Mac OS X going forward, starting with the release of Java SE 7.

Apple noted that the Java runtime may be removed from future versions of its operating system, and it appears that will be the case with Lion, albeit with a rather painless install option for users who need it.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...e_rosetta.html
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Security firm details new Trojan written for Apple's Mac OS X