AppleInsider continues to used the word "quietly". It doesn't fit.
They can't do anything quietly with you guys reporting everything they do. Here, I'll rewrite the title for you:
It's quiet versus the industry standard of publicizing security fixes. Most generally agree that being open about security threats is better than silence for marketing purposes. We love to say Macs are secure but let's not be dilusional about it.
Now you are just being silly. As many as 10 million Americans a year are victims of identity theft. I couldn't find any statistics on people being hit by meteorites.
It was your argument that identity theft and personal computer hacking are closely related. I never said I bought it, never mind as the source of ten million victims per year. In fact phishing is accomplished in very large part through social engineering exploits. A computer OS can't prevent people from being tricked into giving private personal information to thieves. What it can do is go a long way towards preventing the thieves from getting it without the user's cooperation.
It was your argument that identity theft and personal computer hacking are closely related. I never said I bought it, never mind as the source of ten million victims per year. In fact phishing is accomplished in very large part through social engineering exploits. A computer OS can't prevent people from being tricked into giving private personal information to thieves. What it can do is go a long way towards preventing the thieves from getting it without the user's cooperation.
Never mind. I thought your argument was you'll have no worries if you just stay away from pirated software. I was replying that proactive measures such as anti-virus do a more thorough job of helping people avoid being hacked. Since despite someone being tricked into visiting a malicious web page the anti-virus will prevent the installation of harmful exploits. So, go on believing that nothing can hurt you, I wish you well.
Never mind. I thought your argument was you'll have no worries if you just stay away from pirated software. I was replying that proactive measures such as anti-virus do a more thorough job of helping people avoid being hacked. Since despite someone being tricked into visiting a malicious web page the anti-virus will prevent the installation of harmful exploits. So, go on believing that nothing can hurt you, I wish you well.
Okay, so when has visiting a malicious web page resulted in a Mac exploit? Please don't answer with theoretical possibilities, answer with actual incidences. Just so we're clear, I am addressing the world of the Mac user as it exists today, not at some future indefinite time when some undefined events occur.
Okay, so when has visiting a malicious web page resulted in a Mac exploit? Please don't answer with theoretical possibilities, answer with actual incidences. Just so we're clear, I am addressing the world of the Mac user as it exists today, not at some future indefinite time when some undefined events occur.
I am finding it difficult to reason with you anymore about this because your replies are becoming more and more evasive in regard to the original post I commented on relating to pirated software as not the only threat to Mac users. If a threat exists then it is possible for a user to become infected even if they never made a deliberate effort to go out and seek torrent software. Why do you suppose Apple took the measures they did with the plist fix? And why do you think they sell anti virus software in the Apple store?
I'm guessing the several dozen security fixes delivered in Safari 5 and 10.6.4 were for someone else, not you, since your holiness is immune to the vulnerabilities that some low life degenerate with pirated software might be victimized by.
There are a great many times when secrecy is in everyone's best interest. The U.S. is still cracking codes from the Germans and from the Soviet Union, and every time they crack one, they keep it to themselves. The idea is to always be one step ahead of your enemy.
Why would Apple broadcast the fact that they'd killed an existing trojan attacking their systems? If Sophos hadn't reported it, the people who made this malware might simply keep trying to use it, to almost no effect. Now that the secret is out, they will almost certainly modify the program and the whole process starts over again. THANKS SOPHOS!
It's times like this that I wish certain fanatics wouldn't pore over every single like of code in an Apple update. They've almost certainly egged these hackers on.
Nice Reply, acrobratt! Thanks!
Yep, the usual 15 Minutes of Fame Lust! Fame often seems to be an even bigger thing then any Religion... Thus, why expect anything different from the hackers... Imagine if all those minds were looking for the Cancer Cure, and did it for no pay, like these hackers do? Of course, one of the conspiracy theories is that it's the Anti-Virus Folks who plant those Viruses, so that they are always assured to sell their Anti-Virus software... BP Oil Spill would be another good cause for the bright minds... Hackers - such a sad waste of brains, and everyone's time...
I am finding it difficult to reason with you anymore about this because your replies are becoming more and more evasive in regard to the original post I commented on relating to pirated software as not the only threat to Mac users. If a threat exists then it is possible for a user to become infected even if they never made a deliberate effort to go out and seek torrent software. Why do you suppose Apple took the measures they did with the plist fix? And why do you think they sell anti virus software in the Apple store?
I'm guessing the several dozen security fixes delivered in Safari 5 and 10.6.4 were for someone else, not you, since your holiness is immune to the vulnerabilities that some low life degenerate with pirated software might be victimized by.
Speaking of evasive, you did not come within ten yards of my question. Do you think is it going to explode or something? If you know of a way, ANY way a Mac user came become infected other than by knowingly downloading shady software, then by all means, out with it please, and settle the entire question. Better yet, find someone who did -- and show me how wrong I am. Prove your point by demonstrating facts, not with theories or inferences.
The ball remains in your court. It never actually left.
1) Write some badass malware and release it into the wild via torrents. Don't worry that most people don't even know what a torrent is and will likely never use it.
2) For extra credibility hire a guy with an English accent and a subtlely trustworthy name.
3) Have the Brit write scare-ware articles in his blog, knowing that cluless "reporters" for tech pubs will be all over it like flies on shit. Make sure to make the the OS vendor look as evil as possible, and use sexy terms like "OS-EX") to make you look in-the-know and authoritative.
1) Write some badass malware and release it into the wild via torrents. Don't worry that most people don't even know what a torrent is and will likely never use it.
2) For extra credibility hire a guy with an English accent and a subtlely trustworthy name.
3) Have the Brit write scare-ware articles in his blog, knowing that cluless "reporters" for tech pubs will be all over it like flies on shit. Make sure to make the the OS vendor look as evil as possible, and use sexy terms like "OS-EX") to make you look in-the-know and authoritative.
It seems as though Apple would have already thought about selling their own internet security software. From what I've been told , we're eventually going to need it.
That used to be the case five years ago, however common sense is not enough today. Why? Drive-by infections when sites hosted by reputable companies get compromised.
But it might someday, somehow, in some unknown way, target OSX. That prospect alone should have all Mac users very worried.
The thing is most people are still using Windows XP--a 2001 operating system that has more patches then a 10th generation hand me down no one wants to throw away. In terms of security Windows XP is worse than System 6 was and its security holes are insanely easy to exploit. Why do you think the solution was to put an internet alert system so annoying that most people turned the blasted thing off? Because it would have broke so much of the poorly written junk already out there.
Regardless of marketshare the trogs that write malware will go for easy targets that is why they went after System 6 when the Mac had less of a marketshare than it does today. However OS X is not System 6 and what malware has popped up is of the social engineering variety and nearly all of that are proof of concepts rather than stuff actually in the wild.
Regardless of marketshare the trogs that write malware will go for easy targets that is why they went after System 6 when the Mac had less of a marketshare than it does today. However OS X is not System 6 and what malware has popped up is of the social engineering variety and nearly all of that are proof of concepts rather than stuff actually in the wild.
This is true. You should, however, make no mistake. There were 26 total Mac-only viruses spanning System 6 through MacOS 9.
The release of Word 6 was the dawn of a new era-- the era of the cross-platform macro virus. The first such virus converted .doc files to .dot files. Office 98 brought Visual BASIC for Applications to the Mac. Word 6's macro language was the pioneering technology for cross-platform technology. VBA was the technology that made macro viruses the dominant form of malware.
Old style viruses had been the exclusive domain of skilled assembly language programmers. With VBA, any idiot with a text editor could write a working virus. The era of the "script kiddie" would not have been possible without Microsoft and its misbegotten technology.
System 6 viruses were distributed via floppy disk, for the most part. When Mac viruses became an issue, freeware antivirus software like Disinfectant was soon to follow. Commercial antivirus software like Symantec Antivirus for the Macintosh came soon after that. With antivirus software installed, it was virtually impossible for an infected floppy to infect additional files. This was due to the design of System 6/7. Mac floppies mounted automatically upon insertion. An antivirus utility could then intercept the mounting process, scan for a virus, and disinfect the floppy before the virus could infect the computer's second floppy or hard drive.
Over the years that followed, the numbers of new Mac viruses did not increase; they decreased. By the end of the MacOS 9 era, there were fewer than one new Mac-only virus per year. This had nothing to do with marketshare. It was because a protected Mac was virtually impossible to infect. You don't waste your time on fruitless tasks.
The other side of virus question is the damage done by the virus. Each of the 26 Mac-only viruses were fairly innocuous. VBA viruses had access only to Office on the Mac. On Windows, VBA viruses had access to the run of the computer. Windows XP saw the most malicious viruses in history. In its early days, while Windows 98 was still the dominant version of Windows, Windows XP withered under a barrage of virus attacks. A rising chorus of criticism forced Bill Gates to respond. He turned this critical flaw into a virtue. Gates claimed that Windows had so many viruses because it was so popular. This was the first time that anyone had ever made such a claim. However, the popular press accepted the assertion with neither proof nor evidence to support the assertion. It goes like this:
Windows has a lot of viruses.
Windows is the most popular OS.
Therefore, Windows has so many viruses because it is the most popular OS.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
Windows users accepted the assertion and continue to repeat it to this very day.
This is true. You should, however, make no mistake. There were 26 total Mac-only viruses spanning System 6 through MacOS 9.
The release of Word 6 was the dawn of a new era-- the era of the cross-platform macro virus. The first such virus converted .doc files to .dot files. Office 98 brought Visual BASIC for Applications to the Mac. Word 6's macro language was the pioneering technology for cross-platform technology. VBA was the technology that made macro viruses the dominant form of malware.
Old style viruses had been the exclusive domain of skilled assembly language programmers. With VBA, any idiot with a text editor could write a working virus. The era of the "script kiddie" would not have been possible without Microsoft and its misbegotten technology.
System 6 viruses were distributed via floppy disk, for the most part. When Mac viruses became an issue, freeware antivirus software like Disinfectant was soon to follow. Commercial antivirus software like Symantec Antivirus for the Macintosh came soon after that. With antivirus software installed, it was virtually impossible for an infected floppy to infect additional files. This was due to the design of System 6/7. Mac floppies mounted automatically upon insertion. An antivirus utility could then intercept the mounting process, scan for a virus, and disinfect the floppy before the virus could infect the computer's second floppy or hard drive.
Over the years that followed, the numbers of new Mac viruses did not increase; they decreased. By the end of the MacOS 9 era, there were fewer than one new Mac-only virus per year. This had nothing to do with marketshare. It was because a protected Mac was virtually impossible to infect. You don't waste your time on fruitless tasks.
The other side of virus question is the damage done by the virus. Each of the 26 Mac-only viruses were fairly innocuous. VBA viruses had access only to Office on the Mac. On Windows, VBA viruses had access to the run of the computer. Windows XP saw the most malicious viruses in history. In its early days, while Windows 98 was still the dominant version of Windows, Windows XP withered under a barrage of virus attacks. A rising chorus of criticism forced Bill Gates to respond. He turned this critical flaw into a virtue. Gates claimed that Windows had so many viruses because it was so popular. This was the first time that anyone had ever made such a claim. However, the popular press accepted the assertion with neither proof nor evidence to support the assertion. It goes like this:
Windows has a lot of viruses.
Windows is the most popular OS.
Therefore, Windows has so many viruses because it is the most popular OS.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
Windows users accepted the assertion and continue to repeat it to this very day.
Sad but true. The problem is they don't realize the flaw in that overly simplistic Syllogism because it is actually a Non sequitur. In the Mac word the Syllogism would be as follows:
Mac System 6-9 had a lot of viruses
MacOS X is more popular then System 6-9 ever were
Ergo by Windows logic MacOS X MUST have more virus than System 6-9 ever did.
It covers up the fact that the IE browser is linked into the OS at levels that no program outside of administrator control should ever be. This is the real reason many internet sites don't work well (or at all in some rare cases) on a Mac --because they can't install stuff at some insanely low level in the OS without alerting the user that they are doing a no no.
This is why I use Firefox, Safari, or Chrome and flat out refuse to use IE when using the Windows OS--there is some separation between the program and OS making it a little harder for a hacker to get through.
Comments
AppleInsider continues to used the word "quietly". It doesn't fit.
They can't do anything quietly with you guys reporting everything they do. Here, I'll rewrite the title for you:
It's quiet versus the industry standard of publicizing security fixes. Most generally agree that being open about security threats is better than silence for marketing purposes. We love to say Macs are secure but let's not be dilusional about it.
Now you are just being silly. As many as 10 million Americans a year are victims of identity theft. I couldn't find any statistics on people being hit by meteorites.
It was your argument that identity theft and personal computer hacking are closely related. I never said I bought it, never mind as the source of ten million victims per year. In fact phishing is accomplished in very large part through social engineering exploits. A computer OS can't prevent people from being tricked into giving private personal information to thieves. What it can do is go a long way towards preventing the thieves from getting it without the user's cooperation.
It was your argument that identity theft and personal computer hacking are closely related. I never said I bought it, never mind as the source of ten million victims per year. In fact phishing is accomplished in very large part through social engineering exploits. A computer OS can't prevent people from being tricked into giving private personal information to thieves. What it can do is go a long way towards preventing the thieves from getting it without the user's cooperation.
Never mind. I thought your argument was you'll have no worries if you just stay away from pirated software. I was replying that proactive measures such as anti-virus do a more thorough job of helping people avoid being hacked. Since despite someone being tricked into visiting a malicious web page the anti-virus will prevent the installation of harmful exploits. So, go on believing that nothing can hurt you, I wish you well.
Never mind. I thought your argument was you'll have no worries if you just stay away from pirated software. I was replying that proactive measures such as anti-virus do a more thorough job of helping people avoid being hacked. Since despite someone being tricked into visiting a malicious web page the anti-virus will prevent the installation of harmful exploits. So, go on believing that nothing can hurt you, I wish you well.
Okay, so when has visiting a malicious web page resulted in a Mac exploit? Please don't answer with theoretical possibilities, answer with actual incidences. Just so we're clear, I am addressing the world of the Mac user as it exists today, not at some future indefinite time when some undefined events occur.
Okay, so when has visiting a malicious web page resulted in a Mac exploit? Please don't answer with theoretical possibilities, answer with actual incidences. Just so we're clear, I am addressing the world of the Mac user as it exists today, not at some future indefinite time when some undefined events occur.
I am finding it difficult to reason with you anymore about this because your replies are becoming more and more evasive in regard to the original post I commented on relating to pirated software as not the only threat to Mac users. If a threat exists then it is possible for a user to become infected even if they never made a deliberate effort to go out and seek torrent software. Why do you suppose Apple took the measures they did with the plist fix? And why do you think they sell anti virus software in the Apple store?
I'm guessing the several dozen security fixes delivered in Safari 5 and 10.6.4 were for someone else, not you, since your holiness is immune to the vulnerabilities that some low life degenerate with pirated software might be victimized by.
There are a great many times when secrecy is in everyone's best interest. The U.S. is still cracking codes from the Germans and from the Soviet Union, and every time they crack one, they keep it to themselves. The idea is to always be one step ahead of your enemy.
Why would Apple broadcast the fact that they'd killed an existing trojan attacking their systems? If Sophos hadn't reported it, the people who made this malware might simply keep trying to use it, to almost no effect. Now that the secret is out, they will almost certainly modify the program and the whole process starts over again. THANKS SOPHOS!
It's times like this that I wish certain fanatics wouldn't pore over every single like of code in an Apple update. They've almost certainly egged these hackers on.
Nice Reply, acrobratt! Thanks!
Yep, the usual 15 Minutes of Fame Lust! Fame often seems to be an even bigger thing then any Religion... Thus, why expect anything different from the hackers... Imagine if all those minds were looking for the Cancer Cure, and did it for no pay, like these hackers do? Of course, one of the conspiracy theories is that it's the Anti-Virus Folks who plant those Viruses, so that they are always assured to sell their Anti-Virus software... BP Oil Spill would be another good cause for the bright minds... Hackers - such a sad waste of brains, and everyone's time...
I am finding it difficult to reason with you anymore about this because your replies are becoming more and more evasive in regard to the original post I commented on relating to pirated software as not the only threat to Mac users. If a threat exists then it is possible for a user to become infected even if they never made a deliberate effort to go out and seek torrent software. Why do you suppose Apple took the measures they did with the plist fix? And why do you think they sell anti virus software in the Apple store?
I'm guessing the several dozen security fixes delivered in Safari 5 and 10.6.4 were for someone else, not you, since your holiness is immune to the vulnerabilities that some low life degenerate with pirated software might be victimized by.
Speaking of evasive, you did not come within ten yards of my question. Do you think is it going to explode or something? If you know of a way, ANY way a Mac user came become infected other than by knowingly downloading shady software, then by all means, out with it please, and settle the entire question. Better yet, find someone who did -- and show me how wrong I am. Prove your point by demonstrating facts, not with theories or inferences.
The ball remains in your court. It never actually left.
Suddenly people take one article very seriously, not even a doubt, but when Apple states something, critics try to make people doubt it.
Anyway, I use Mac for many many years now and never ever had any problems with malware, or even viruses.
Anyway, I use Mac for many many years now and never ever had any problems with malware, or even viruses.
Don't you mean "never had any problems with viruses, or even malware"? I just thought that malware would be the more easily 'contagious' disease?
Ahh?*it does feel good to post again.
1) Write some badass malware and release it into the wild via torrents. Don't worry that most people don't even know what a torrent is and will likely never use it.
2) For extra credibility hire a guy with an English accent and a subtlely trustworthy name.
3) Have the Brit write scare-ware articles in his blog, knowing that cluless "reporters" for tech pubs will be all over it like flies on shit. Make sure to make the the OS vendor look as evil as possible, and use sexy terms like "OS-EX") to make you look in-the-know and authoritative.
4) Sell anti-scareware software.
5) Profit.
The five step plan:
1) Write some badass malware and release it into the wild via torrents. Don't worry that most people don't even know what a torrent is and will likely never use it.
2) For extra credibility hire a guy with an English accent and a subtlely trustworthy name.
3) Have the Brit write scare-ware articles in his blog, knowing that cluless "reporters" for tech pubs will be all over it like flies on shit. Make sure to make the the OS vendor look as evil as possible, and use sexy terms like "OS-EX") to make you look in-the-know and authoritative.
4) Sell anti-scareware software.
5) Profit.
Cynic!
I agree with you for the most part. But Apple has never had the market share they do now.
Right and yet the Mac had the largest number of viruses under System 6. THat should tell you something.
That used to be the case five years ago, however common sense is not enough today. Why? Drive-by infections when sites hosted by reputable companies get compromised.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20000898-245.html
Didn't read the article fully did you? "targets the Windows operating system"
Didn't read the article fully did you? "targets the Windows operating system"
But it might someday, somehow, in some unknown way, target OSX. That prospect alone should have all Mac users very worried.
But it might someday, somehow, in some unknown way, target OSX. That prospect alone should have all Mac users very worried.
The thing is most people are still using Windows XP--a 2001 operating system that has more patches then a 10th generation hand me down no one wants to throw away. In terms of security Windows XP is worse than System 6 was and its security holes are insanely easy to exploit. Why do you think the solution was to put an internet alert system so annoying that most people turned the blasted thing off? Because it would have broke so much of the poorly written junk already out there.
Regardless of marketshare the trogs that write malware will go for easy targets that is why they went after System 6 when the Mac had less of a marketshare than it does today. However OS X is not System 6 and what malware has popped up is of the social engineering variety and nearly all of that are proof of concepts rather than stuff actually in the wild.
....
Regardless of marketshare the trogs that write malware will go for easy targets that is why they went after System 6 when the Mac had less of a marketshare than it does today. However OS X is not System 6 and what malware has popped up is of the social engineering variety and nearly all of that are proof of concepts rather than stuff actually in the wild.
This is true. You should, however, make no mistake. There were 26 total Mac-only viruses spanning System 6 through MacOS 9.
The release of Word 6 was the dawn of a new era-- the era of the cross-platform macro virus. The first such virus converted .doc files to .dot files. Office 98 brought Visual BASIC for Applications to the Mac. Word 6's macro language was the pioneering technology for cross-platform technology. VBA was the technology that made macro viruses the dominant form of malware.
Old style viruses had been the exclusive domain of skilled assembly language programmers. With VBA, any idiot with a text editor could write a working virus. The era of the "script kiddie" would not have been possible without Microsoft and its misbegotten technology.
System 6 viruses were distributed via floppy disk, for the most part. When Mac viruses became an issue, freeware antivirus software like Disinfectant was soon to follow. Commercial antivirus software like Symantec Antivirus for the Macintosh came soon after that. With antivirus software installed, it was virtually impossible for an infected floppy to infect additional files. This was due to the design of System 6/7. Mac floppies mounted automatically upon insertion. An antivirus utility could then intercept the mounting process, scan for a virus, and disinfect the floppy before the virus could infect the computer's second floppy or hard drive.
Over the years that followed, the numbers of new Mac viruses did not increase; they decreased. By the end of the MacOS 9 era, there were fewer than one new Mac-only virus per year. This had nothing to do with marketshare. It was because a protected Mac was virtually impossible to infect. You don't waste your time on fruitless tasks.
The other side of virus question is the damage done by the virus. Each of the 26 Mac-only viruses were fairly innocuous. VBA viruses had access only to Office on the Mac. On Windows, VBA viruses had access to the run of the computer. Windows XP saw the most malicious viruses in history. In its early days, while Windows 98 was still the dominant version of Windows, Windows XP withered under a barrage of virus attacks. A rising chorus of criticism forced Bill Gates to respond. He turned this critical flaw into a virtue. Gates claimed that Windows had so many viruses because it was so popular. This was the first time that anyone had ever made such a claim. However, the popular press accepted the assertion with neither proof nor evidence to support the assertion. It goes like this: Windows users accepted the assertion and continue to repeat it to this very day.
This is true. You should, however, make no mistake. There were 26 total Mac-only viruses spanning System 6 through MacOS 9.
The release of Word 6 was the dawn of a new era-- the era of the cross-platform macro virus. The first such virus converted .doc files to .dot files. Office 98 brought Visual BASIC for Applications to the Mac. Word 6's macro language was the pioneering technology for cross-platform technology. VBA was the technology that made macro viruses the dominant form of malware.
Old style viruses had been the exclusive domain of skilled assembly language programmers. With VBA, any idiot with a text editor could write a working virus. The era of the "script kiddie" would not have been possible without Microsoft and its misbegotten technology.
System 6 viruses were distributed via floppy disk, for the most part. When Mac viruses became an issue, freeware antivirus software like Disinfectant was soon to follow. Commercial antivirus software like Symantec Antivirus for the Macintosh came soon after that. With antivirus software installed, it was virtually impossible for an infected floppy to infect additional files. This was due to the design of System 6/7. Mac floppies mounted automatically upon insertion. An antivirus utility could then intercept the mounting process, scan for a virus, and disinfect the floppy before the virus could infect the computer's second floppy or hard drive.
Over the years that followed, the numbers of new Mac viruses did not increase; they decreased. By the end of the MacOS 9 era, there were fewer than one new Mac-only virus per year. This had nothing to do with marketshare. It was because a protected Mac was virtually impossible to infect. You don't waste your time on fruitless tasks.
The other side of virus question is the damage done by the virus. Each of the 26 Mac-only viruses were fairly innocuous. VBA viruses had access only to Office on the Mac. On Windows, VBA viruses had access to the run of the computer. Windows XP saw the most malicious viruses in history. In its early days, while Windows 98 was still the dominant version of Windows, Windows XP withered under a barrage of virus attacks. A rising chorus of criticism forced Bill Gates to respond. He turned this critical flaw into a virtue. Gates claimed that Windows had so many viruses because it was so popular. This was the first time that anyone had ever made such a claim. However, the popular press accepted the assertion with neither proof nor evidence to support the assertion. It goes like this: Windows users accepted the assertion and continue to repeat it to this very day.
Sad but true. The problem is they don't realize the flaw in that overly simplistic Syllogism because it is actually a Non sequitur. In the Mac word the Syllogism would be as follows:
Mac System 6-9 had a lot of viruses
MacOS X is more popular then System 6-9 ever were
Ergo by Windows logic MacOS X MUST have more virus than System 6-9 ever did.
It covers up the fact that the IE browser is linked into the OS at levels that no program outside of administrator control should ever be. This is the real reason many internet sites don't work well (or at all in some rare cases) on a Mac --because they can't install stuff at some insanely low level in the OS without alerting the user that they are doing a no no.
This is why I use Firefox, Safari, or Chrome and flat out refuse to use IE when using the Windows OS--there is some separation between the program and OS making it a little harder for a hacker to get through.