If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Posted on 04/24/2006 10:29:04 AM PDT by LouAvul
Benjamin Daines was browsing the Web when he clicked on a series of links promising to deliver pictures of an unreleased update to a computer operating system.
Instead, a window opened on his screen and showed strange commands being run, as if the computer was under the control of someone - or something - else.
Daines was the victim of a computer virus.
Such headaches are hardly unusual for computer users that run Microsoft Corp.'s Windows operating system. Daines, however, was using a Mac - a computer often touted as being more secure and immune to such risks.
He and at least one other person who clicked on the links were infected by what security experts call the first ever virus for OS X, the operating system that has shipped with every Mac sold since 2001.
After surviving unscathed from the onslaught of viruses and other computer malware unleashed on the Internet over the past decade, Mac aficionados can no longer take for granted they are immune to such attacks, security experts said.
"It just shows people that no matter what kind of computer you use you are still open to some level of attack," said Daines, a 29-year-old British chemical engineer. He's one of those who considered Macs invulnerable to such attacks.
Apple's increasingly iconic image, growing market share and adoption of the same type of microprocessors used in machines running Microsoft Windows are making the Apple machines a bigger target, they warn.
(Excerpt) Read more at modbee.com ...
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
People forget that the most virus attacks are against the most prevalent O/S. Just like most people waging an attack, they want to expend their resources where they can do the most damage.
Alert the forces, men...
How come I get the feeling Mr. Daines clicked on the link to get the pictures, unzipped them, and then double clicked them. Then for some reason he probably entered in his admin password when the so-called pictures required his password in order to display.
If anything endangers a mac, it is the complacency of the user base, many of whom don't understand the power of their admin password, and what it means when a supposedly innocent program or file they got off the internet or from an email or chat program asks for it.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
"...- The number of discovered Mac vulnerabilities has soared in recent years, with 81 found last year, up from 46 in 2004 and 27 in 2003, according to the Open Source Vulnerability Database, which is maintained by a nonprofit group that tracks security vulnerabilities on many different hardware and software platforms.
Another example of falsehood by omission. They hint at it by mentioning the Open Source Vulnerability Database, but do not explicitly mention that many of those OS X vulnerabilities are shared by EVERY version of UNIX, or Apache, or another component of the "Open Source" core of OS X... and further that everyone of those "vulnerabilities" were fixed BEFORE any exploits in the wild were reported.
Clarify? Sounds like the statement, as made, is quite accurate and to the point....
Bottom line: a Mac is still a lot safer than a Windows PC
That statement means as much as saying "a Ford is a lot better than a Chevy", without specifying which Ford, which Chevy, or what constitutes "better".
Even making common assumptions about the actual meaning of the statement, it's still untrue. I will posit that my home system (running XP) is as safe/secure as any typical home system running OSX/*nix; as I have offered in the past to be disproven and not been taken up on the offer, nor have I had any security problems, I maintain that I am correct about this computer and any similarly configured XP system.
Benjamin Daines was browsing the Web when he clicked on a series of links promising to deliver pictures of an unreleased update to a computer operating system.This Daines guy also bought what he thought was a small dog while he was in Mexico, and it turned out to be a rat. ;')
OK, you run your XP SP2 system without firewall, anti-virus, anti-spyware, anti-adware applications and I will run my OS X.4.6 without firewall, anti-virus, anti-spyware, and anti-adware applicaitons, on the internet 24/7, doing our normal email, surfing, downloading, etc., and we will see who gets owned first.
I should mention that I already run my OS X system without anti-virus, anti-spyware, or anti-adware applications. I have also turned off my firewall and run it without firewall for a couple of weeks at a time to see what would happen. I also have a static IP address. It always is on 24/7, running as a router for a couple of other computers, as well as being my primary computer. I don't even put it to sleep because it is running a folding@home protein folding app for Harvard on a background user. You know what happened? Nothing.
Do you really believe your XP box, given those criteria, would last any length of time at all?
I maintain that I am correct about this computer and any similarly configured XP system.
But that is the problem... 85% or more of the Windows box purchasers, especially buying from a name brand vendor, are NOT going to have their systems properly configured. Out of the box, they are very vulnerable. Macs are secure right out of the box. That makes them safer. Bottom line.
Neat, do I have to download and run any executable anyone emails me as part of the test too?
Actually, if I had the time and a spare machine, I'd like to run a properly set up test machine running only XP SP2 outside my hardware firewall to see what would happen. But it sounds like according to your rules, for the test to be valid I'd have to leave an administrator account open, disable the XP firewall, disable automatic updates, and leave any service running that opens a port. That comparison would prove that an XP machine running as unsecured as possible is less secure than a secured OSX machine. Well, duh.
Do you really believe your XP box, given those criteria, would last any length of time at all?
Given your criteria? Of course not. Given more legitimate criteria, such as testing a secure XP machine without using any software not part of XP or running an external firewall, I think the XP system would do a lot better than the average Machead would care to admit. None of which, by the way, has anything to do with my initial claim, which was "my home system (running XP) is as safe/secure as any typical home system running OSX/*nix". That's without being told to disable any security I may be running, just as I wouldn't tell you to bypass any Mac security stuff you may use to make your system more vulnerable for a "test".
85% or more of the Windows box purchasers, especially buying from a name brand vendor, are NOT going to have their systems properly configured
Maybe so, though that's getting better. Of course, that's the fault of the OEM and not XP; AFAIK Microsoft doesn't tell the vendors how to configure XP on any given box. I don't know why they don't set up the OEM builds more securely, other than possibly a desire to profit by selling add-on security software and/or pay-per-call technical support, though I have no evidence of such a motive. In any case, your "bottom line" is again too vague to have meaning; if a given XP setup is less secure "out-of-the-box", that only means it was put in the box wrongly. Take that up with Dell, HP, etc.
I already run my OS X system without anti-virus, anti-spyware, or anti-adware applications
One last point: It's great that you don't use such security software, if that works for you and you've had no problems. I personally believe in a belt-and-suspenders security strategy and have multiple redundant security features on my system; for example, I use SpywareBlaster to block malicious ActiveX controls even though I use Firefox for 99.9% of Web browsing and have ActiveX disabled by default except for the very few sites I have in my IE trusted zone. I'll admit it's excessive and don't claim everyone should follow my lead in that regard, but multiple layers of security protect me from not just known threats, but from any newly developed threats. If a new XP exploit comes out, I've got a lot of stuff it's got to get through before it affects my machine. If a new OSX exploit comes out, by your own admission there's nothing between the Internet and your data and system files. The exploits detailed in the original article require a minimal amount of social engineering to work (as do many of the popularly publicized XP exploits), but no one's perfect and in any case nothing says that a new exploit not requiring an admin password won't be released in the wild tomorrow. It's the difference between locking your doors in a bad neighborhood and leaving them unlocked in a good neighborhood; those in the bad neighborhood may be vulnerable, but they've taken steps to protect themselves, while all it takes is one burglar for those in the good neighborhood to get hit hard. Incidentally, that's one reason converting to a supposedly more secure OS doesn't appeal to me; I wouldn't run OSX or Linux without a firewall, antivirus, etc. any more than I'd run XP without those apps. I'm inclined to believe that paranoia will result in better security than arrogance for systems I manage personally.
And that is why it is less safe. They could CONFIGURE IT BY DEFAULT... but don't. Apple does.
Actually, if I had the time and a spare machine, I'd like to run a properly set up test machine running only XP SP2 outside my hardware firewall to see what would happen.
Several months ago, I had the opportunity to start up an XP Home SP2 box (from Dell) for the first time for a client. Usually, I am called in after they have it screwed up, to clean up the mess. Instead of my usual method that results in a very secure box, I decided (with the owner's permission) to allow it to boot on its own with all of the vendor's crap installed, following their script and instructions.
I would accept their default choices, click on the OK button when requested, and hook it up to whatever I was told to hook it up to.
"When it finally reached the Windows desktop, by my count, NINE different requestors with little or no identification popped up, one on top of another, asking permission to update various things... anti-virus, anti-spy, OS update, Java, ActiveX, and a several others. Windows XP helpfully popped up some suggestions... some were correct, some were downright wrong. Some of these requesters could be moved... others insisted on being on top and could not be moved.
By the time the OS was updated with the latest security patches from Microsoft, before the anti-virus (Actually TWO different ones installed by Dell... McAfee and Norton... Why? I haven't a clue... but both of them were arguing about priority on the system), before the anti-spyware was updated, and before the Firewall was turned on, the box was infected by two different Spyware (not cookies, actualy spyware apps - one of which was Cool Web Search, a particularly insidious piece of trash) and three Trojans (one of which installed the spyware and added itself to the start-up in the registry so that it could reinstall if the spyware were removed). That was BEFORE I could close all those damn update requesters. Quite frankly, I was shocked. Turbo, if I was a Mom and Pop business or a home user, experiencing a computer for the first time, I would have packaged that damn thing back up and sent it back!
Internet Explorer's opening page had already been hijacked the first time I started it. That is unacceptable.
Needless to say, it was preferable to wipe the HD and do a clean install (Who knows what all that mess left behind) than to do my normal clean up because there was no data to save. The vendors pile on a lot of BUYMEware and things that really don't integrate very well. I installed only what the client really needed to run his vertical solution apps... not the junk that Dell included which included two different versions of AOL... again why?, I haven't a clue.
Given your criteria? Of course not. Given more legitimate criteria, such as testing a secure XP machine without using any software not part of XP or running an external firewall, I think the XP system would do a lot better than the average Machead would care to admit.
The point I was making, Turbo, is that an OS X Mac can be run under those criteria completely safely... and that is the OS... not the third party apps to protect the OS from its own weaknesses.
Incidentally, that's one reason converting to a supposedly more secure OS doesn't appeal to me; I wouldn't run OSX or Linux without a firewall, antivirus, etc. any more than I'd run XP without those apps.
You have developed a phobia because of your use of Windows... there is a better way. There are no self-propagating viruses or worms yet for OS X. As I mentioned above it took TWO Mac experts from Macworld and TWO security experts from Secunia, and six hours of concentrated effort, to get the so-called exploit to exploit... to do what it was supposedly designed to do.
Recently a college IT expert placed a Mac Mini on line with no firewall, an advertised, static address, and challenged people to break in. Although the exercise had to be terminated after a couple of days, not one of the thousands of attempts succeeded in breaking in. The few OS X anti-spyware apps that are available only detect for Windows viruses... as a courtesy for our Windows using friends so that we don't accidentally pass on a virus in email. AFAIK, there are no anti-spyware apps for OS X because there is no spyware. There have been a few examples of Trojans... but the people impacted can be counted on the fingers of your hands.
No OS is perfect. The only "protection" MACs have had is that no one wanted to go to all the trouble to write a virus to infect 50 machines.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.