MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

As usual the MDN take is the best part of the article. When's the new cat coming? my guess 4/15/05.

Looks like Symantec needs a new revenue stream.

first post

A self-serving, dishonest and/or poor analysis on many levels. In their discussion of likely virus targets, they should at least examine the extent to which Microsoft's anti-competitive practices and and terrible (and well-earned) corporate image increase the desire of hackers to target them. Personally I think that even if Apple had exactly the same marketshare as Microsoft they wouldn't be anywhere near as big a bullseye on them.

Yes, it's time for Symantec to start talking dirty about Macs. Like you say: "Symantec needs a new revenue stream"

Hmmm…

Could it be that Symantec, Trend et al can see a bit of a speed-bump coming in their cosy little symbiotic marketplace, caused by a resurgence in interest in the Macintosh and the Mac mini in particular.

So they resort to the obvious scaremongering (much in vogue in politics, by the way) which is "the threat is coming, so you'd better protect yourself just in case".

And how do you protect yourself? Pay them $40.

Just like Europe protects itself with an over-priced "air superiority" fighter (Typhoon) designed to fight an enemy that doesn't exist anymore, which is just as well given that it doesn't fulfil its brief properly anyway and you can't afford to have one of the buggers shot down or you'll have to shut down a hospital for year in exchange. And the US defense establishment is no better - can anyone tell me the point of the F-22?

Both of these scenarios are just complex confidence tricks.

The Australian IT article is the worst of all. The headline literally says that worms have been released by hackers that attack Mac OS X, but the article itself never says that. Check out my take at:
http://www.danshockley.com/comments.php?id=P27_0_1_0

FUD to sell more software.

Given the level of difficulty to write a virus for the Mac, the hackers/virus writers would take that as a challenge to put their claim to fame.

So seems to me, marketshare have nothing to do with it.

This is just such a load of self-serving crap ...

Just last night my fiancée told me people were telling her they couldn't access her MSN Group site because "Spyware Doctor 3.1 wouldn't let them" ... I downloaded it to my work PC and installed it (it wouldn't run in Virtual PC 7 on my home Mac).

However the part that handles "live" blocking of sites is in their persistent "OnGuard" section which you have to pay for ... not wanting to pay just to test it once I found a [k] on an Astalavista-type [k] site ... downloaded it and ran the "start" script and immediately things went haywire (not to mention it didn't [k] Spyware Doctor). In a self-referential act I ran Spyware Doctor which now said there were over 1000 infections ... the [k] had installed toolbars, HTML hijackers, you name it. Found another [k] and removed all of those ... or so I thought.

To make a long story short, I ran 3 or 4 programs including a Registry fixer and spent a couple of hours removing all of this crap (including 5 reboots) before everything was finally eradicated ... and NONE of this would ever happen on a Mac ... the "Registry" concept is so damn retarded ... TSR's that sit there and can't be killed with Task Manager ... blah blah blah and so on and so on ... the reason there's all these viruses and trojans and malware/spyware for the PC is because WINDOZE BLOWS, not because of market share - Mac OS X is, fundamentally, a UNIX under the hood so it's subject to the same issues as Linux and other Unices/derivatives - yes there are vulnerabilities but I see them every day at work and the Linux ones are so obscure and unexploitable compared to the Windoze ones it's not even comparable.

The bottom line: Symantec is screaming "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" - would you trust the company saying that when they're the ones selling the Fallout Shelters?!?

MCCFR--great take there! Complex con indeed.....

Magic word: why

The other reason "why" is Symantec sees a very large competitor (aka Microsoft) coming into their business...and we all know what happens when Microsoft adds your functionality to the next Windows release (regardless of how long it takes). So they gotta start now getting people scared. Booooo!

Blatant. Just blatant. But the good news of course is that this shows Symantec are concerned that they'll lose a good chunk of revenue as the switch to OSX take place.

Go Apple.. and let them bring on the hackers (Symantec do your best)!

Good points MCCFR--note, however, that Rumsfeld is trying to kill the F-22, so you may need another example for the US. There are probably others...

Symantec said MacOS is becoming more and more a target and this is how MDN interpreted it:

>And, please, there are simply too many security issues with Windows and too few with Mac OS X for any sane, intelligent person to say that Mac OS X is just secure due to its relative obscurity.

MDN and other MacOS fanatics are a bit much! Lighten up folks, it's not a personal attack on you, your family, or your dog!

Heck, it's not even an attack on MacOS.

MCCFR: The F22 is about giving others cause to believe that they need not bother trying for superiority: it'll cost them far too much. I personally am happy that we have superior kit that can protect us in a barking mad world thanks. And what's more I believe that we Europeans should think twice before we sell our kit to the Chinese... because its more than just money at stake.

Sorry for going off topic..!

It really simple, people: security begins with the user. If you set your Mac up properly you will have nothing to fear. Maybe someone should ask Symantec how many Mac OS X definitions are on their AV product. If it's such a serious problem there should be a bunch of them. The last time I checked, the defs on McAfee and Symantec were mostly for the'Doze.

Symantec is just another noisemaker who doesn't like secure operating systems. So they try to assiciate some security vulnerabilities and proof of concepts in labs and start screaming "OS X IS BEING TARGETED!!!!"

Sorry, but the one does not necessarily follow the other. And just because something is posssible does not in fact make it so.

What a bunch of horse hockey.

40$? Try 70$!!!!!! Symantec wants all the new Mac mini owners to buy their overpriced product that dosen't protect against anything.

MDN is right, Symantec is scared.

And really...I consider it a personal attack. When you make up lies....

In other news, mechanic Joe Bob said that because engines have been known to fail when contaminated gas is used, that 747's are unsafe and will eventually crash.

mw LEARNED as in I thought journalist learned how to write

Great point Macaday. I knew I liked you from your other posts. MCCFR is an extreme liberal, US bashing, terrorist loving thug. I'm sick of his posts. Great point on China too. Why the hell would Europe want to help arm those nuts? They might as well sell nukes to the middle east while they're at it.

Macaday:

F-35 gives you superiority - given the manoeurability/stealth/better ordanance/better trained pilots - at a greatly reduced cost per airframe and with the flexibility of forward projection, either carrier-based or from ad-hoc/damaged airfields.

On both continents, F-22/Typhoon are simply the results of poor impulse control by military planners and pork-barrel politicians - neither have a defined mission in the world we now live in, and we (the electorate) are sold them on the basis that they protect a strategic high-tech industry far more than their projected utility.

Going back on topic, Windows and its surrounding entourage of software designed to manage the software that patches or protects the software you bought in the first place is almost exactly the same thing: you're conned into believing that you need an "up-to-date" version of Windows, despite the fact that you'll probably only ever use 20% of the additional functionality.

But poor impulse control by IT managers (keen to keep their skills up) and CIOs (keen to keep budgets) means that the corporate world falls for it hook, line and sinker. It is truly amazing.

average time to loose your windows machine to a successful hack-attempt is about 10 minutes after installation of said "operating system." compared to osx, which comes secure out of the box.

humm, since when is OS X not unix-based? but i should give katodia (?) some slack, since he doesn't know what he is writing about in either case. that's the problem when you let a suit talk.

"popularity" of an operating system can never be displayed by numbers, at least not in such a context where quality counts. hollywood, television, print... if you don't work on a mac in that field, don't even try. anything serious with media is done on the mac, but not because it is just popular by name, but by reputation.
if popularity is expressed by numbers, then crap must taste great, after all, a gazillion of flies don't lie.

oh, on unix, you "invite" your problems, since you have to give (say it with me) permission! i do not expect any windows user to understand this, since those lost souls are on an operating system that was always single user based -- and still is.

The thing that these people who always talk about the Mac's security being due to it's relatively low market penetration fail to consider is that prior to OS X, there were plenty of viruses for the Mac. Does that mean that OS 9 had a much higher market share than OS X?

It just doesn't make sense...

Arnold - you're a fsckwit.

Actually, I espouse the UK dropping additional Eurofighter/Typhoon options and instead purchasing more F-35 JSF in its ground-attack variant.

So I'm espousing the UK finally recognising that native defence procurement is a joke and instead becoming a customer of the US aerospace industry albeit with engines and avionics sourced from UK companies (RR and Smiths respectively). Hardly sounds like an "anti-American" to me, more like someone who recognises that to fight a ground-based mobile enemy in a non-conventional urban theatre, you might need a robust, inexpensive (i.e. disposable) toolset rather than a single, overpriced weapon that only achieves its mission when its fighting other airplanes.

To be blunt - you can shoot down a 757 just as well with an F-35 as with an F-22 or Typhoon, in fact (with the right ordanance on board and well-trained personnel) - you can probably shoot down anything with an F-35 that you can shoot down with a so-called air superiority fighter.

And to be even more blunt, the only reason that the F-22 or Typhoon exists is because the F-15 or Tornado airframes are coming to the end of their servicable life as opposed to the fallacy that they were becoming "vulnerable" in combat - the F-15 is over 30 years old and not one has ever been lost in a combat situation, and the only Tornado losses have been recorded in low-level ground-attack operations as opposed to "dogfight" situations.

So to sum-up, bite me!

Microsoft HQ: "I don´t care how many people you have to pull off of Longhorn development, we need viruses for the Mac OSX----now!!!!

Symantec wants your business so they report things like this to try and scare people with it. It's a bunch of baloney unless you give them your admin password. Then your screwed! But it's doubtful.

Oh the nostalgia of a neo-con/liberal flame war. Those were the days...

It is kind of a good sign that they are starting to talk about the Mac as becoming more mainstream even if it is in FUD tactics.

I liked the part where they said "the Mac OS is increasingly becoming a target for the malicious activity that is more commonly associated with Microsoft and various Unix-based operating systems," Neat trick, making it seem that Unix-based operating systems are as insecure as Microsoft. For some reason I don't recall any headlines in the last couple of years about widespread virus damage being associated with any system except Microsoft - but maybe that is just me.

Someday there will probably be a malicious viruses in the wild again for the Mac but I think they will be very few and far between and because of the inherent security will be much more limited in effect.

We can just keep on using Virex. I'm done with Symantec. Sounds more like a secret buyout by that Secundia company that keeps tossing out the hysterics about proof of concept vulnerabilities.

That darned subscription model just won't go away. I don't want to keep paying for the same thing over and over. Windows users may be accustomed to it, but the Mac world isn't.

I love my Magic Word: "hope" as the OS X light shines across the world.

I want to share the good news with this wonderful group: another Mac convert in the office (that makes 4 of us in an office of 350.) His Windows computer was made completely useless by a pernicious trojan spyware. He got fed up, drove to CompUSA in Baton Rouge about 60 miles from here, and purchased an iMac. I can't wait for his cheers of joy as he finds the many benefits and pleasures of Mac computing. I expect there will be a moment or two of frustration as he has to unlearn the MS way of doing things, but when he sees the equivalent way, his brain, and his attitude, will adjust.
Magic Word "greater" as in "He is about to experience a greater plane of computer existence."

Would you go to an unknown mechanic and ask him to fix anything he finds wrong in your car?

Why trust ANY virus software company?
They are greater experts at creating money from viruses rather than knowing about the Mac and the best interest of Apple's customers.

What's the point of all these fighter planes anyway?

"Quick, scramble the F-22s. The Chinese are com....."<sound of hydrogen bombs going off, taking airbases, cities, Macaday, MCCFR, and the majority of humans on the planet, be it conservative or liberals, in one nice easy succession of blasts>.

Until someone comes up with something better, there's really only one defensive weapon worth having.

Just don't run the launch systems on Windows.

One keyboard and mouse to input your data?

$50

One decent monitor to view your work?

$200

A beautifully designed and virus-secure Mac mini computer running the OS X operating system?

Priceless.

If these alleged proof-of-concepts really exist, it makes you wonder in who's lab they reside? MS? Symantec? Who would have the most to gain if a virus were to strike OS X? Who has motive?

These "security warnings" from *security companies* are such a farce... OF COURSE they want people to think that there's a "security threat"... if people don't think this way nobody will buy their software!

--mAc

Dave H:

Bear in mind I'm not the one who's espousing the $400 billion defence budget, unlike Macaday/Arnold.

And that's why I think we should stop spending money on Typhoon and get a plane thats more in keeping with being a minor power. I'd rather the savings got spent on things like education and a decent health service (I live in Guildford and our local hospital somehow manages to set new lows in performance every year).

In whose lab:

One of my friends still believes that the tyre companies scatters nails on the ground to puncture our tyres. He then adapted his theory by saying that on one side of a door in Symantec, there's the virus team and on the other side, there's the NAV team. A bit ying/yang, a bit conspiracy theory. Who knows?

Hmm? If virus activity is directly proportional to marketshare.... where were all the viruses when the Mac had much bigger marketshare??

Symantec....

the company that makes some of the worst software the mac has ever seen is suddenly a security expert

does this mean that their software actual works now instead of creating more problems for the user??

advocate: I'll second your recomendation not to install Symantec products. I've seen more problems caused by it than it supposedly fixes. Search Google groups first before buying.

As for marketshare equals prevelence of viruses that is just so much bull. Blackice Firewall has maybe 50,000 users yet that didn't stop them for writting a virus that exploits it. By all measures, Blackice users should have been safe if lack of users equals security.

ClamXav is a decent free virus checker. Use it until the first viruses are found, then make the decision whether to switch to a commercial product.

Symantec makes the worst antivirus programs in the world bar none

and they want the mac users to buy there utter crap to.

I find that insulting.

Bush wants the Americans to feel threatened.

Symantec wants mac users to feel the same way.

go figure.

When I started getting serious about switching a couple of years back, 4% was the number being bandied round as Apple's marketshare.

Now 2% is the claim.

At 4% there were no Mac viruses, so why should there be any if Apple returns to 4%??

My prediction: If Apple double their marketshare, viruses will increase accordingly - i.e. double.

Coz two times zero = zero! :D

you guys just don't get it. given finite time and resources a hacker is motivated to get the most bang for the buck. no incentive for a motivated hacker to target one of the 37 serious vulnerabiliies on os x because there are not enough hosts to efficiently propogate the exploit code.

You Mac people are black turtle-neck wearing, latte sipping, one-eyed freaks.

Hey Mac Da Knife,

Go troll somewhere else you man-goo sucking skin-flutist.

Or do you prefer to called a skin-flautist??

Mac Da Knife:

Actually, I prefer cappucino myself with the odd doppio espresso to clear the cobwebs.

But other than that, what's your point?

A "Target" does not mean that there are viruses. All that it means is hackers might be "Trying" to make a virus.

And if Mac OS X is a "Target", then what is Windows?

A 2,000 lb. Industrial magnet?