Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: dayglored
All it takes is encrypting ONE file, if it's the right one, and a user could lose anything from a day's work to their business, depending on their backup strategy (or lack of one).

They cannot touch any system files. They cannot touch any Application files. That requires an administrator name and passcode. They cannot touch any Library files. Same thing. The only thing they can touch would be user files. They could, conceivably look for most recent files in the documents folder and encrypt the most recent 128 files there. That could be devastating for someone who is working on an important project who is not using Time Machine.

However, the encryption of 128 files is not going to hose most people's entire set of documents, photos, etc. It also would not effect any office that used a server that stored their documents on a centralized files system, unlike some of the Windows Ransomware attacks. It will affect only one user's files and even then only a limited number of those, even on a multi-user Mac.

So, in the respects of comparison, it isn't as much of a threat.

13 posted on 06/13/2017 12:18:06 PM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users continue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: Swordmaker
> They cannot touch any system files. They cannot touch any Application files. That requires an administrator name and passcode. They cannot touch any Library files. Same thing.

Those are the files that are easy to replace with a reinstall of the OS. Nice that they're protected, but... it doesn't matter compared to the unique and possibly irreplaceable personal files.

> The only thing they can touch would be user files. They could, conceivably look for most recent files in the documents folder and encrypt the most recent 128 files there. That could be devastating for someone who is working on an important project who is not using Time Machine.

Yep. Anyone on a Mac who is -not- using Time Machine is missing the point big-time.

> However, the encryption of 128 files is not going to hose most people's entire set of documents, photos, etc.

You and I know that "128" is a very round number in a computer. I suspect it's arbitrary, and could even be a mistake. There's probably nothing whatsoever stopping the malware artist from changing that to anything else. So I don't accept an assessment of "not a big deal" simply because this happens to limit at 128.

> It also would not effect any office that used a server that stored their documents on a centralized files system, unlike some of the Windows Ransomware attacks. It will affect only one user's files and even then only a limited number of those, even on a multi-user Mac.

On this we agree completely. LAN-wide encryption could kill a business flat-out.

> So, in the respects of comparison, it isn't as much of a threat.

Yep.... So far.

14 posted on 06/13/2017 8:19:26 PM PDT by dayglored ("Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson