Translation: NOT A VIRUS. CANNOT HAPPEN. DOES NOT HAPPEN.
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit. What part about that report indicates it is not a virus? Perhaps all the wording that calls it a virus and talks about how it replicates itself?
Multi-Platform Proof of Concept Virus Clapzok.A Examined
A multi-platform virus, named Multi/Clapzok.A, have been released by researcher JPanic. It is written in Assembly, and targets Windows, Linux and OS X 32-bit executables.
This proof of concept is an update of JPanic’s Capzloq Tekniq (2006), that targets Windows and Linux operating systems. The OS X infection process is similar to the concept Roy G Biv exposed with MachoMan (2006) on VX Heavens.
In short, when the virus is executed, it looks for other 32-bit executables (either Windows, Linux or OS X native and FAT binaries) to replicate itself.
This does not work. This cannot work. This is not a virus. It is not anything whatsoever. It is not on anyone’s computer. It does not move itself to anyone else’s computer.
These sentences are as simple as it can be made. Go find something else (you can’t; there isn’t). Your large words only work if you’re right.
This does not work. This cannot work. This is not a virus. It is not anything whatsoever. It is not on anyone’s computer. It does not move itself to anyone else’s computer.
These sentences are as simple as it can be made. Go find something else (you can’t; there isn’t). Your large words only work if you’re right.
Wow - talk about reading. Please read your own screen shots:
Please keep in mind that this is a proof of concept - showing that something is possible
The definition of a virus is self-replicating code, and this meets that criteria.
If we're going to start naming all code that can self-replicating and not consider, how it could be delivered via a trojan et al., or how the design of the *nix system may prevent this from occurring at core layers then every single app in OS X is a virus. Delete a PLIST file and it will get remade the next time it is launched. Apple built that to allow the replication of certain files used by the app. Stop the presses¡ That's not self-replicating the entire program, but that's because it wasn't written to do so, but it's certainly easy enough to do. I think Adobe apps will recreate actual stand-alone apps that run a single service software updater if upon being run again those apps or its PLIST files in LaunchAgent have been deleted.
If you had a point you've long since lost track of it.
PS: Are you not seeing all this shitty markup code in your comments or are you putting it in? You don't see how your comments get all spread out and take up a lot more room when people quote you?
Not something that people should be worried about.
There isn’t a delivery method… …we can’t speculate on how it would perform in the wild.
There aren’t any. Shut up now.
Wow. What a great comeback. It's a virus for Mac. Plain and simple. It just wasn't released to the wild. I'll correct your earlier statement above. "There are no viruses for OS X and Macs"
Now - there IS a virus, so you can shut up.
If you'd like to change your overly broad statement above to something like "There have been no mass-infections from an OS X virus" (or something to that effect), I would be in agreement with you. There have been, however, Mac viruses prior to OS X, if you believe the intarwebs:
PS: Are you not seeing all this shitty markup code in your comments or are you putting it in? You don't see how your comments get all spread out and take up a lot more room when people quote you?
Not sure where it's coming from (me, the user, duh!), but I'll watch for that in the future. I do see the vertical spreading in other people's "quotes" of my posts. Thanks for the heads up.
Not sure where it's coming from (me, the user, duh!), but I'll watch for that in the future. I do see the vertical spreading in other people's "quotes" of my posts. Thanks for the heads up.
FYI: this is what I see when I quote a your comments…
I think not using the BBEdit options is why this might happen with some posters…
I dont' blame you. It's a shortcoming with Huddler. All of their HTML formatting should be cleaned up so when others quote them it doesn't make a mess.
Oh! I bet that’s the formatting carrying over from wherever he’s copying in that text.
One of the perils of allowing full HTML editing in posts. Except the text animation tags don’t work, which would be great.
I think that you and SolipsismX are both right about my posts (pasting and using RTF). I've changed my preferences to use BB Code Editor. We'll see what happens. Again - thanks for the heads up on that.
On an tech forum when we use the word virus I assume that everyone is on the same page to refer to a virus that can replicate its entire self and infect you without your doing anything that you might consider risky.
Colloquially when people talk about viruses they usually are referring to malware in general. Word macro viruses are technically viruses but they are limited in scope to Word, obviously, but if Word is running on a Mac with macros enabled are those still Mac OS X viruses? They were a threat to Mac users but they are not viruses in Mac OS X. I think that's key.
I wouldn't count any proof of concept as being a virus just as wouldn't count Elon Musk's Hyperloop demo as proof that it's a viable project. If one wants to say that it's still a virus then even putting a Windows 95 virus on your desktop on a Mac means that one's Mac has a virus. In both cases the viruses are not something that can affect the OS, which is the important part here.
But all this is beside the point as Apple doesn't believe that it's impossible for Mac OS X to ever have a virus, have never said it's impossible for Mac OS X to have a virus, and have taken many steps to help prevent malware which is proof that Apple is aware that malware does exist.
A lot of companies use Google for email service. On its face, it looks like a great service, but it doesn't use standard IMAP folders, which can cause problems for mail clients. Google very likely wants users to use nothing but webmail so that they are exposed to advertising. What I hate the most about Google's email service is that they are using a consumer email service, and they are passing it off as a business solution. They should be using dedicated servers for business class email rather than lumping it all into the same Gmail servers that are used for the free services. That's a big scam in my opinion.
The comment earlier in this thread was that Apple never said that Mac's don't get viruses. They did.
I'm not looking to sue Apple, and we don't know that no else did or didn't.
""It doesn't get PC viruses""
That they (Macs) do not get "PC" viruses, which due to the popularity of Windows and the larger potential exploitable target list, is both literally true and understandable. "Hi: I'm a Mac and he's a PC" sound familiar?
Different computer code: different exploits. And due to the different numbers of viruses out in the wild targeting the different OS's Macs have the advantage (less so now but still) of not being the overwhelmingly numerous OS as well as not be enterp[rise's favorite (and getting into businesses is a big draw).
OTOH that's actually so trite it is sort of embarrassing: like me or you bragging we don't get Corn Blight.
Comments
There are no viruses for OS X and Macs cannot be infected with PC viruses. Period.
Did you really just say that?
Two birds, one stone:
http://www.intego.com/mac-security-blog/clapzok-a-multi-platform-virus/
Only because it’s true, yes.
Wrong. Try again.
Translation: NOT A VIRUS. CANNOT HAPPEN. DOES NOT HAPPEN.
Only because it’s true, yes.
Wrong. Try again.
Translation: NOT A VIRUS. CANNOT HAPPEN. DOES NOT HAPPEN.
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit. What part about that report indicates it is not a virus? Perhaps all the wording that calls it a virus and talks about how it replicates itself?
Multi-Platform Proof of Concept Virus Clapzok.A Examined
A multi-platform virus, named Multi/Clapzok.A, have been released by researcher JPanic. It is written in Assembly, and targets Windows, Linux and OS X 32-bit executables.
This proof of concept is an update of JPanic’s Capzloq Tekniq (2006), that targets Windows and Linux operating systems. The OS X infection process is similar to the concept Roy G Biv exposed with MachoMan (2006) on VX Heavens.
In short, when the virus is executed, it looks for other 32-bit executables (either Windows, Linux or OS X native and FAT binaries) to replicate itself.
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
No, but it’s certainly not yours.
This does not work. This cannot work. This is not a virus. It is not anything whatsoever. It is not on anyone’s computer. It does not move itself to anyone else’s computer.
These sentences are as simple as it can be made. Go find something else (you can’t; there isn’t). Your large words only work if you’re right.
No, but it’s certainly not yours.
This does not work. This cannot work. This is not a virus. It is not anything whatsoever. It is not on anyone’s computer. It does not move itself to anyone else’s computer.
These sentences are as simple as it can be made. Go find something else (you can’t; there isn’t). Your large words only work if you’re right.
Wow - talk about reading. Please read your own screen shots:
Please keep in mind that this is a proof of concept - showing that something is possible
The definition of a virus is self-replicating code, and this meets that criteria.
It does work. It did work (in testing, not released into the wild). It's a virus. The fact that he didn't write a "delivery method" is something easily rectified by using one of the Java 0day vulnerabilities that pop up (like this one http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2013-2465 that was used to write this malware [not a virus, but it did "deliver"] https://www.securelist.com/en/blog/8174/A_cross_platform_java_bot)
Wow - talk about reading. Please read your own screen shots:
Nah, you read them.
Not something that people should be worried about.
There isn’t a delivery method… …we can’t speculate on how it would perform in the wild.
There aren’t any. Shut up now.
If we're going to start naming all code that can self-replicating and not consider, how it could be delivered via a trojan et al., or how the design of the *nix system may prevent this from occurring at core layers then every single app in OS X is a virus. Delete a PLIST file and it will get remade the next time it is launched. Apple built that to allow the replication of certain files used by the app. Stop the presses¡ That's not self-replicating the entire program, but that's because it wasn't written to do so, but it's certainly easy enough to do. I think Adobe apps will recreate actual stand-alone apps that run a single service software updater if upon being run again those apps or its PLIST files in LaunchAgent have been deleted.
If you had a point you've long since lost track of it.
PS: Are you not seeing all this shitty markup code in your comments or are you putting it in? You don't see how your comments get all spread out and take up a lot more room when people quote you?
Nah, you read them.
Not something that people should be worried about.
There isn’t a delivery method… …we can’t speculate on how it would perform in the wild.
There aren’t any. Shut up now.
Wow. What a great comeback. It's a virus for Mac. Plain and simple. It just wasn't released to the wild. I'll correct your earlier statement above. "There are no viruses for OS X and Macs"
Now - there IS a virus, so you can shut up.
If you'd like to change your overly broad statement above to something like "There have been no mass-infections from an OS X virus" (or something to that effect), I would be in agreement with you. There have been, however, Mac viruses prior to OS X, if you believe the intarwebs:
http://mac-antivirus-software-review.toptenreviews.com/history-of-macintosh-viruses.html
Not sure where it's coming from (me, the user, duh!), but I'll watch for that in the future. I do see the vertical spreading in other people's "quotes" of my posts. Thanks for the heads up.
FYI: this is what I see when I quote a your comments…
I think not using the BBEdit options is why this might happen with some posters…
I dont' blame you. It's a shortcoming with Huddler. All of their HTML formatting should be cleaned up so when others quote them it doesn't make a mess.
Nah. Sorry. There are no viruses for OS X.
Oh! I bet that’s the formatting carrying over from wherever he’s copying in that text.
One of the perils of allowing full HTML editing in posts. Except the text animation tags don’t work, which would be great.
I think that you and SolipsismX are both right about my posts (pasting and using RTF). I've changed my preferences to use BB Code Editor. We'll see what happens. Again - thanks for the heads up on that.
On an tech forum when we use the word virus I assume that everyone is on the same page to refer to a virus that can replicate its entire self and infect you without your doing anything that you might consider risky.
Colloquially when people talk about viruses they usually are referring to malware in general. Word macro viruses are technically viruses but they are limited in scope to Word, obviously, but if Word is running on a Mac with macros enabled are those still Mac OS X viruses? They were a threat to Mac users but they are not viruses in Mac OS X. I think that's key.
I wouldn't count any proof of concept as being a virus just as wouldn't count Elon Musk's Hyperloop demo as proof that it's a viable project. If one wants to say that it's still a virus then even putting a Windows 95 virus on your desktop on a Mac means that one's Mac has a virus. In both cases the viruses are not something that can affect the OS, which is the important part here.
But all this is beside the point as Apple doesn't believe that it's impossible for Mac OS X to ever have a virus, have never said it's impossible for Mac OS X to have a virus, and have taken many steps to help prevent malware which is proof that Apple is aware that malware does exist.
Your right, but some of us have gmail at work.
A lot of companies use Google for email service. On its face, it looks like a great service, but it doesn't use standard IMAP folders, which can cause problems for mail clients. Google very likely wants users to use nothing but webmail so that they are exposed to advertising. What I hate the most about Google's email service is that they are using a consumer email service, and they are passing it off as a business solution. They should be using dedicated servers for business class email rather than lumping it all into the same Gmail servers that are used for the free services. That's a big scam in my opinion.
The comment earlier in this thread was that Apple never said that Mac's don't get viruses. They did.
I'm not looking to sue Apple, and we don't know that no else did or didn't.
""It doesn't get PC viruses""
That they (Macs) do not get "PC" viruses, which due to the popularity of Windows and the larger potential exploitable target list, is both literally true and understandable. "Hi: I'm a Mac and he's a PC" sound familiar?
Different computer code: different exploits. And due to the different numbers of viruses out in the wild targeting the different OS's Macs have the advantage (less so now but still) of not being the overwhelmingly numerous OS as well as not be enterp[rise's favorite (and getting into businesses is a big draw).
OTOH that's actually so trite it is sort of embarrassing: like me or you bragging we don't get Corn Blight.
OTOH that's actually so trite it is sort of embarrassing: like me or you bragging we don't get Corn Blight.
Eh… no? More like bragging whites aren’t subject to the same anemia as blacks.
OS X and Windows are “different species”, yes, but freedom from .exe and .dll malware is hardly nothing to brag about.
And I’m in before someone starts claiming I’m calling blacks and whites different species. That’s an argument for PO.