Kaspersky Lab was not asked by Apple to advise on OS X security [u]

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 41

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Really? You don't think a company that sells anti-malware software, a company that is completely useless to Mac users, might just have a conflict of interests in doing the reporting on malware on the Mac?



     


     


    It's like Homeland Security closing their own doors after we found Bin Laden ... or the last person who hates America on the planet.


     


    A permanent parasite creating a need for itself.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 22 of 41
    ankleskaterankleskater Posts: 1,287member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Really? You don't think a company that sells anti-malware software, a company that is completely useless to Mac users, might just have a conflict of interests in doing the reporting on malware on the Mac?



     


    I agree that Kapersky is conflicted but that does does not mean the analogy is valid.


     


    Tobacco companies sell cigarettes.


     


    What does Kaspersky sell that is equivalent to cigarettes?

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 23 of 41
    ankleskaterankleskater Posts: 1,287member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post


     


     


    The analogy is that a Cigarette company SELLS cigarette's, and they will FIND that the Cigs are healthy and part of a full balanced diet.


     


    An independent agency that had no future profits from Cigarettes, would of course recommend smoking Pot -- as it's good for arthritis, cancer and nobody has yet witnessed someone dying from natural cannibus -- we've seen people dead from Sugar for crying out loud -- but not pot.


     


    So a security expert who wasn't steeped in the religion and making a buck off the future of viruses, will tell you that having an independent company create Anti Virus software will guarantee you will ALWAYS have to deal with viruses.


     


    It's much better to have both an INSTALL PERMISSION, like the current model -- and something that looks at new applications and sand-boxes them, alerting the user to any un-authorized activity or "phoning out". A graphics application for instance, wanting to scan preference files or modify your email would be "running against pattern."


     


    Apple is also using the App store to create a market for CERTIFIED software -- which will require future hackers to first infiltrate and piggy back on a developer's submission.


     


    >> Anyway, 3rd party for profit AV companies are the WORST WAY YET CONCEIVED to make a platform secure. Some security companies are probably doing something useful, because there are issues -- but Capitalism always allows the unethical to benefit if the economic model doesn't penalize cheaters.



     


    No offense but you have not made a case at all to validate the invalid analogy. In fact, you have done a good job of describing how a tobacco company is not the same as what Kaspersky is about. This does not make Kaspersky a hero in this scenario. It just means a bad analogy was applied to a situation that should be easy enough to mock.


     


     


    A better analogy would be one that compares Kaspersky to a vaccine maker insisting that a particular strain of flu has become an epidemic.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 24 of 41
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post

    What does Kapersky sell that is equivalent to cigarettes?


     


     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 25 of 41

    Quote:


    RELIC said: I don't think you have much to worry about if you watch what you are downloading and the sites you are viewing. However the more popular Apple becomes more and more crackers will focus their energy on the platform. Just be carefull, I have never had a virus on any of my systems, even Windows because I invest in good hardware protection at home and use backups just in case. Though the secret of running a good Windows system is in a virtual enviroment.



     


     


     


    agreed i as well, but in my profession i seen some QUESTIONABLE issues with certain type of convent viruses and the AV companies with the super quick remedy!

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 26 of 41
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    bigmac2 wrote: »
    Apple will deploy his new Gatekeeper with Snow Lion.

    I'm really looking forward to Snow Lion...
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 27 of 41

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post


     


     


    I absolutely agree with this -- Apple and LINUX have a permissions model that Microsoft has only recently emulated. However -- the dearth of attacks on both *NIX platforms is probably NOT due only to "obscurity" -- it's most probably due to NO ECONOMIC MODEL to create them in the first place.


     


    What is an AV company going to recommend but that people "install AV software and update every day."


     


    100's of thousands of Macs were infected by a trojan horse? Heavens, with the millions of macs out there, we might be approaching 1% at the current rate. That's compared to 50% of PCs with various OS's on them.


     


    Not to be cavalier about the issue -- but it's a Trojan horse -- until Apple and the rest of these companies create systemic software that LOOKS AT WHAT APPS ARE TRYING TO DO -- rather than this weak-kneed "virus signature" nonsense -- nobody has real security.


     


     


    >> That's the thing -- it would have been fairly EASY for someone creating a Virus to make it "change it's signature." The operating code can stay the same, but it can seed itself with random data and use compression on the file itself with ONLY the need to find some process to hijack to decompress itself -- randomizing even the process call used. Such Poly-morphic Viruses would DEFEAT all dedicated AV software that scans for "patterns".


     


    The ONLY explanation I can find that we haven't seen Polymorphic Viruses is because it doesn't make money -- and it doesn't make money because the independent "developers" who happen to get money from AV companies by "finding viruses" are likely the same people creating the viruses. Other than a few groups out there who want to use Zombie and DNS attacks to either shut someone down or steal information -- the vast majority of these viruses are just nuisances.


     


    Sure, back when it was a Visual Basic script in the email -- it was script kiddies -- but now, it likely takes a bit more dedication than a hobbyist.


     


     


    >> The WORST THING APPLE CAN DO, is to create a 3rd-party economic incentive to sell AV software. I've been saying this for 10 years -- and I know that as soon as they make it institutionalized, Viruses will be a way of life.


     


    Just like Homeland Security needs terrorists and the FBI is going to help find them, if they have to train a meth addict and get him the wardrobe -- dang it, they'll find them some terrorists.



    YES SIR!

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 28 of 41

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GTR View Post





    I'm really looking forward to Snow Lion...


    AHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA ok thats funny - but yeah we know what GTR meant.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 29 of 41

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post


     


    I agree that Kapersky is conflicted but that does does not mean the analogy is valid.


     


    Tobacco companies sell cigarettes.


     


    What does Kaspersky sell that is equivalent to cigarettes?



     


     


    It should be REALLY OBVIOUS: You get sold a permanent addiction to Anti Virus software that takes money from your wallet. In the case of Norton Utilities -- it can give your computer an early death as it thrashes the hard drive and heats up components.


     


    Also -- it's just a funny analogy. These Security companies sell FEAR, and the Tobacco companies sell COMFORT. Other than the asbestos and vaporized tar - it's almost a tie.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 30 of 41

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GTR View Post





    I'm really looking forward to Snow Lion...


     


    My PREDICTION -- and you can quote me on this; Security Companies will go into MELT DOWN MODE -- they will claim that a GateKeeper will keep Apple "brainwashed" complacent. They will send advisories to large corporations warning them of the security threats posed by NOT having AV software.


     


    It will be a last ditch effort to PROVE THAT Apple users NEED THEM -- we REALLY NEED THEM.


     


    I've been using Macs since they've had the 9" black and white screen -- and the only time I saw a virus was in a computer lab I ran at college. Maybe I've been REALLY LUCKY.


     


    If I'd been running AV software that entire time -- I could then claim that the AV software kept me safe -- but I didn't, so I can at least claim that my "magic underwear" kept me safe from Tigers. I haven't seen one.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 31 of 41

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post


    Is it me or is it trendier than ever to claim fake dalliances with Apple?



     


    Not nearly as trendy as the fake claim of "I know this Apple user who has nothing but problems..."

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 32 of 41
    bigmac2bigmac2 Posts: 639member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post


     


    I agree that Kapersky is conflicted but that does does not mean the analogy is valid.


     


    Tobacco companies sell cigarettes.


     


    What does Kaspersky sell that is equivalent to cigarettes?



     


    They both sell smoke...


     


    my 2 cents image

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 33 of 41
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    No offense but you have not made a case at all to validate the invalid analogy. In fact, you have done a good job of describing how a tobacco company is not the same as what Kaspersky is about. This does not make Kaspersky a hero in this scenario. It just means a bad analogy was applied to a situation that should be easy enough to mock.


    A better analogy would be one that compares Kaspersky to a vaccine maker insisting that a particular strain of flu has become an epidemic.

    Close, but which vaccine maker requires an annual subscription to 'stay safe'? And which vaccine maker exaggerates the extent of the risks?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 34 of 41
    likkielikkie Posts: 43member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post


     


    What does Kaspersky sell that is equivalent to cigarettes?



     


    A product that you don't need and is not necessarily good for you.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 35 of 41
    likkielikkie Posts: 43member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post


    These Security companies sell FEAR, and the Tobacco companies sell COMFORT. 



     


    No, they both sell comfort.   Security companies may create fear, but they sell comfort. 

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 36 of 41
    pbpb Posts: 4,255member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post


     


    They both sell smoke...


     


    my 2 cents image



    image  image Good one, well said! After the incident I had with their online tool checking if a machine has the Flashback infection, my trust to them dropped to levels below zero.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 37 of 41
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post


    Too bad for M. Kaspersky none of his software will be running on Mac once Apple will deploy his new Gatekeeper with Snow Lion.  Beside this news is boggus, if Apple was really desperated to seek security advise, they will start by searching on their own homeland first before going to the land of piracy and computer far west.



     


    First off, it's Mountain Lion, not Snow Lion


     


    Second, Gatekeeper isn't perfect because the user can override the security settings. You can pick to use only things from the App Store, signed apps or anything. And even things in the App Store won't always been 100% perfect, the iOS app store has shown us that. That a trusted source like Adobe could release Flash with a hole in it shows up that nothing is 100% guaranteed to be perfect and secure. Not to mention that there are folks that don't run updates or vet where they get their software from as well as they should. My next door neighbor for example is still running Windows XP on Service Pack 1. Or was until I told him I wouldn't touch the computer until got it up to speed on the updates. And I know several folks still running Tiger on their Macs. 


     


    Third, if Kaspersky was deemed the best company to work with that they are not American wouldn't matter. 

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 38 of 41
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post


     


    My PREDICTION -- and you can quote me on this; Security Companies will go into MELT DOWN MODE -- they will claim that a GateKeeper will keep Apple "brainwashed" complacent. They will send advisories to large corporations warning them of the security threats posed by NOT having AV software.


     


    It will be a last ditch effort to PROVE THAT Apple users NEED THEM -- we REALLY NEED THEM.


     



     


    Until all the third party companies get their acts together, you do need anti-malware protection. Perhaps software, perhaps just avoidance. I got a new computer with Lion about a month after that OS came out and I still haven't installed Flash, Java Runtime or Office. No shock that when I ran the whole flashback check software it took about half a second to confirm I was clean. 

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 39 of 41
    markbyrnmarkbyrn Posts: 662member


    Everybody should read the latest article on ZDNet titled:


     


    Avira Antivirus update cripples millions of Windows PCs

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 40 of 41
    bigmac2bigmac2 Posts: 639member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


     


    First off, it's Mountain Lion, not Snow Lion


     


    Second, Gatekeeper isn't perfect because the user can override the security settings. You can pick to use only things from the App Store, signed apps or anything. And even things in the App Store won't always been 100% perfect, the iOS app store has shown us that. That a trusted source like Adobe could release Flash with a hole in it shows up that nothing is 100% guaranteed to be perfect and secure. Not to mention that there are folks that don't run updates or vet where they get their software from as well as they should. My next door neighbor for example is still running Windows XP on Service Pack 1. Or was until I told him I wouldn't touch the computer until got it up to speed on the updates. And I know several folks still running Tiger on their Macs. 


     


    Third, if Kaspersky was deemed the best company to work with that they are not American wouldn't matter. 



    Thank you for correcting me,


     


    Second, Gatekeeper nor any security solution is perfect and like you point it out the user can bypass any security setting or uninstall any security software.  The deal here is about default setting, now by default every new Mac with 10.8 will be unable to run unsign software.  I don't know what you mean by "App Store won't always been 100% perfect", it doesn't need to be since like any sign method you can revoke the right of any software to run even after being deploy, and more than all it give a traceability of malicious code back to a registered developer.


     


    Third, oh please do you really trust a russian security corp who made ads sponsored freeware?

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.