PDA

View Full Version : Macs Increasingly Targeted by Malware, Virus


Braincase
12-06-2007, 10:58 AM
Link (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c79b814e-a364-11dc-b229-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1)

Apple’s rising popularity lures hackers
By Kevin Allison in San Francisco

After years of relative safety, the Apple Mac is becoming an increasingly tempting target for malicious computer hackers, according to a new report published this week.

Security researchers have been aware of the threat to Apple since last year, when they detected the first piece of malicious code – or “malware” – specifically designed to target Apple.

Steep rise in hacking attacks from China - Dec-05MI5 warns banks of Chinese hackers - Dec-01Over the past few months, however, the number of malicious programmes has increased, according to a report published this week by F-Secure, an internet security company.

“Over the past two years, we had found one or two pieces of malware targeting Macs,” said Patrik Runald, an F-Secure security researcher. “Since October, we’ve found 100-150 variants.”

The rising security threat could present a challenge to Apple, which has long touted the security advantages of its platform over those of Microsoft, whose software is a perennial target for hackers.

“As Apple’s platform becomes more visible, it will increasingly come under the gun,” said Roger Kay, an analyst at Endpoint Technologies.

Apple declined to discuss specific steps it was taking to counter the growing number of attacks. However, Apple said: “We take security very seriously and have a great track record for addressing vulnerabilities before they can affect users.”

Mr Runald said the jump in attacks against Apple appeared to be the work of a single gang of professional hackers. The group, known in security circles as the “Zlob gang”, makes programs that infect PCs by tricking users into thinking they are installing software needed to view copyrighted video files.

As with other attacks against Apple, the Zlob gang relies on tricking users to install its malicious software, rather than on exploiting any inherent software vulnerability.

Apple sold 2.1m Macs in the third quarter, up from 1.1m in the first quarter of 2006, according to Gartner, the research group. After years of catering to a niche audience of Mac lovers, Apple now commands about 10 per cent of the consumer PC market, according to Mr Kay.

News of Apple’s growing profile among professional criminals comes as the number of viruses and other malicious computer programmes loose on the internet has doubled over the past 12 months, according to F-Secure.

F-Secure said it had detected 500,000 viruses, trojans and worms in 2007, compared with 250,000 last year.

KCFalcon59
12-06-2007, 03:08 PM
But....but.....Microsoft is evil...

Saulbadguy
12-06-2007, 03:30 PM
MAC fanboys unusually quiet.

Simplex3
12-06-2007, 03:30 PM
These losers aren't exploiting security problems with a Mac, they're exploiting an intelligence problem with the average user. Additionally, those morons at F-Secure wouldn't know a virus if it bit them on the ass. Lastly, just because someone is finding variants doesn't mean any of them are infecting machines.

This article and its author are stupid.

BigRedChief
12-06-2007, 03:39 PM
This article and its author are stupid.
That may true but Mac's are no more sercure than Bill's software. Bill's software is in wider use so the hackers spend their time and effort on finding leaks in M$ products so they can maximize their potential targets if successful. Mac's are not predisposed to being safer machines. They just have less people trying to find the holes.

Fish
12-06-2007, 04:07 PM
That may true but Mac's are no more sercure than Bill's software. Bill's software is in wider use so the hackers spend their time and effort on finding leaks in M$ products so they can maximize their potential targets if successful. Mac's are not predisposed to being safer machines. They just have less people trying to find the holes.

I'm sorry, but that's just not true. A popular view, but not true. OS X is a Unix-based platform, and hence is much more secure simply by design. It has nothing to do with market share.

http://weblog.infoworld.com/venezia/archives/011187.html

Simplex3
12-06-2007, 04:59 PM
That may true but Mac's are no more sercure than Bill's software. Bill's software is in wider use so the hackers spend their time and effort on finding leaks in M$ products so they can maximize their potential targets if successful. Mac's are not predisposed to being safer machines. They just have less people trying to find the holes.
LMAO

I love it when people say this stuff.

JBucc
12-06-2007, 05:02 PM
I ate my apple.

Simplex3
12-06-2007, 05:08 PM
I ate my apple.
You can't blame an apple for being delicious.

irishjayhawk
12-06-2007, 05:15 PM
Wow, I love it when people play to stereotypes.

Linux is effing secure. Mac is based on a form of linux (UNIX) [Well, I honestly don't know the difference between UNIX and Linux, but I digress.]. Windows is it's own code.

And so far for viruses on the Mac: You have to download the file, open the file and then press a button afterwards. I would say the user has to be at fault there. Unlike, in Windows.

Also, the time in patches:

Apple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MS

Simplex3
12-06-2007, 07:10 PM
Linux is effing secure. Mac is based on a form of linux (UNIX) [Well, I honestly don't know the difference between UNIX and Linux, but I digress.].
OSX is technically built on FreeBSD, which is based on Berkley's BSD 4 which uses much of the same principles as AT&T's UNIX.

Linux isn't technically an operating system, it's a kernel. People use that kernel as the basis for an operating system (traditionally consisting of a kernel and userland utilities). The BSD's (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Firefly, etc) include the userland utilities and the kernel, making them a fully functional OS.

The various UNIX derivatives were built with all kinds of security in mind from day one because they have always had multiple users on single machines, sharing address space and cpu time. This was completely foreign to Windows until well after it was established.

Open source applications have the added benefit of many, many eyes on the source that can identify exploits BEFORE they are problematic. With Windows nobody knows there is a problem until it is being exploited. Additionally, your developers are your users. They contribute because they want to, not for a paycheck. They understand that their contribution must stand naked in front of their peers, their users, and their potential future employers. There's a lot of incentive to get it right.

Braincase
12-06-2007, 07:14 PM
Next thing you know, you're going to tell me that David Cutler used to work on Unix based systems and that all the Windows operating systems since 2000 have supported the POSIX 2 library.

KC Kings
12-07-2007, 08:01 AM
One word.... Duh.

No system is flawless, but hackers aren't going to waste their time writing maleware and other malicous code for any system used by less than 5% of the public because it isn't worth their time. I spent 3 years supporting Lotus Notes for a mail system and loved it. I don't like the application, compared to Exchange it is severely limited and underperforming in every catagory, but nobody uses Notes. We would patch maybe 2 or 3 times a year, as compared to weekly on Patch Tuesday and administratively it was nice.

BigRedChief
12-07-2007, 08:14 AM
Wow, I love it when people play to stereotypes.

Linux is effing secure. Mac is based on a form of linux (UNIX) [Well, I honestly don't know the difference between UNIX and Linux, but I digress.]. Windows is it's own code.

And so far for viruses on the Mac: You have to download the file, open the file and then press a button afterwards. I would say the user has to be at fault there. Unlike, in Windows.

Also, the time in patches:

Apple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MSI work in the real world of I.T. and Mac's/Linux will never, I repeat ever be a major threat to M$ because of inoperability to apps and issues with updates being applied to those apps. Another major factor is that end users are using M$ at home. Less training has to be done for employees.

I'm not saying that M$>>>>>>>>Mac. I'm just saying that if you want to play with it at home fine and dandy but in the real world M$ is a done deal.

Simplex3
12-07-2007, 08:34 AM
I work in the real world of I.T. and Mac's/Linux will never, I repeat ever be a major threat to M$ because of inoperability to apps and issues with updates being applied to those apps. Another major factor is that end users are using M$ at home. Less training has to be done for employees.

I'm not saying that M$>>>>>>>>Mac. I'm just saying that if you want to play with it at home fine and dandy but in the real world M$ is a done deal.
ROFL

Guess you've never stepped foot in a high volume datacenter. You one of those guys who works in the "real world of I.T." by fielding calls from Sally-Anne that she can't open Word?

Every study I've read says that 40% or more of IT shops have Linux deployed in some capacity. Apple's sales numbers are through the roof and gaining ground. The traditional powers (IBM, Dell, HP, etc) are all offering Linux and certifying their hardware for it. WalMart is selling a Linux PC to consumers. Hardware companies are rolling out ultra low-cost environmentally friendly PCs running Linux. According to NetCraft the web servers with the most uptime almost all run FreeBSD and Linux.

Don't worry about any of that, though. Keep your head in the sand. It'll work out just fine for you.

BigRedChief
12-07-2007, 08:46 AM
ROFL

Guess you've never stepped foot in a high volume datacenter. You one of those guys who works in the "real world of I.T." by fielding calls from Sally-Anne that she can't open Word?

Every study I've read says that 40% or more of IT shops have Linux deployed in some capacity. Apple's sales numbers are through the roof and gaining ground. The traditional powers (IBM, Dell, HP, etc) are all offering Linux and certifying their hardware for it. WalMart is selling a Linux PC to consumers. Hardware companies are rolling out ultra low-cost environmentally friendly PCs running Linux.

Don't worry about any of that, though. Keep your head in the sand. It'll work out just fine for you.My latest project is that I'm migrating 1,300 servers from one domain to another domain and IP re-numbering another 300 in 3 months time. People on the Planet know me in my "real" life. I don't BS. I'm stating my opinion. You don't like it fine but business's are paying me for that advise So someone thinks it has value. Let's put this you must be a low level M$ employee chit behind us.

Yes, Linux is deployed in large enterprise enviorments but the fact you leave out is that it's a very small % and is being used as an evaluation tool by enterprises to see if it will work out for them. Business's don't want to pay out thousands of $'s to M$ in liscense fees. If Linux can save them money and not effect productivity they would go all in. But that fact remains it doesn't save them money.

Unix has been around since the 60's. Linux has been deployed in enterprise enviorments since the mid 90's. Their market share has not went up dramatically despite being free software. Why?

Saulbadguy
12-07-2007, 08:50 AM
Unix has been around since the 60's. Linux has been deployed in enterprise enviorments since the mid 90's. Their market share has not went up dramatically despite being free software. Why?
Because people just "don't get it".

:rolleyes:

BigRedChief
12-07-2007, 08:59 AM
Because people just "don't get it".

:rolleyes:
I'm pissed off at the Bill monoply. Their buggy damn software and I know there is a better way to build software. But I just don't see a scenerio where Mac desktops and Linux servers take M$ down.

Simplex3
12-07-2007, 09:04 AM
Unix has been around since the 60's. Linux has been deployed in enterprise enviorments since the mid 90's. Their market share has not went up dramatically despite being free software. Why?
This old cliche says it all:

"Nobody has ever been fired for buying IBM"

People are change-adverse. People also like to take the easy path. Sticking with MS is perceived to cover both.

KC Kings
12-07-2007, 09:06 AM
I work in the real world of I.T. and Mac's/Linux will never, I repeat ever be a major threat to M$ because of inoperability to apps and issues with updates being applied to those apps. Another major factor is that end users are using M$ at home. Less training has to be done for employees.

I'm not saying that M$>>>>>>>>Mac. I'm just saying that if you want to play with it at home fine and dandy but in the real world M$ is a done deal.
I would agree that no time in the near future, but is Mac's popularity and usage continues to rise, then more popular app's will be written for Mac's and the inoperability will no longer be an issue. PearPC isn't a true solution, and if MAC would release an OS that ran on a PC I think a lot of people would at least try to make the switch after struggling with Vista.

I think MS is taking a big risk releasing Vista and Office 2007 at the same time because people don't like change. I have been using MS since DOS, and not since the DOS to 95 upgrade has there been as big of a change as XP to Vista. Office Apps have pretty much always been the same, but 2007 it waaaay different. Maybe I am wrong, but I see most Office users as basic end users with very little IT knowledge. They know how to perform functions because they haven't changed in 10 years. The first time I used Word 07, I spent 10 minutes trying to figure out how to 'save as' before I found it by clicking on the ghey looking ball.

Simplex3
12-07-2007, 09:07 AM
I'm pissed off at the Bill monoply. Their buggy damn software and I know there is a better way to build software. But I just don't see a scenerio where Mac desktops and Linux servers take M$ down.
That attitude is precisely why. It's easier for an IT guy to walk into a customer and sell them that dumping a s**t-ton of cash into more MS stuff is the right choice. It's much more time consuming to show them an alternative, even if it would help that customer out in the long run. I get it, we're all in this to make money and we make good money on MS. Hell, I'm sitting here coding in C#.NET between posts. It's low hanging fruit.

I would never build something of my own that way, though.

Saulbadguy
12-07-2007, 09:10 AM
I would agree that no time in the near future, but is Mac's popularity and usage continues to rise, then more popular app's will be written for Mac's and the inoperability will no longer be an issue. PearPC isn't a true solution, and if MAC would release an OS that ran on a PC I think a lot of people would at least try to make the switch after struggling with Vista.

I think MS is taking a big risk releasing Vista and Office 2007 at the same time because people don't like change. I have been using MS since DOS, and not since the DOS to 95 upgrade has there been as big of a change as XP to Vista. Office Apps have pretty much always been the same, but 2007 it waaaay different. Maybe I am wrong, but I see most Office users as basic end users with very little IT knowledge. They know how to perform functions because they haven't changed in 10 years. The first time I used Word 07, I spent 10 minutes trying to figure out how to 'save as' before I found it by clicking on the ghey looking ball.
We just rolled out Office 2007 to several thousand users. Many think it is more user friendly than previous versions.

Simplex3
12-07-2007, 09:12 AM
I think MS is taking a big risk releasing Vista and Office 2007 at the same time because people don't like change. I have been using MS since DOS, and not since the DOS to 95 upgrade has there been as big of a change as XP to Vista. Office Apps have pretty much always been the same, but 2007 it waaaay different. Maybe I am wrong, but I see most Office users as basic end users with very little IT knowledge. They know how to perform functions because they haven't changed in 10 years. The first time I used Word 07, I spent 10 minutes trying to figure out how to 'save as' before I found it by clicking on the ghey looking ball.
Office 2007 sucks. I'm also having a serious "hate/might be ok" relationship with VS.NET 2k5 right now.

phisherman
12-07-2007, 09:18 AM
it sounds like everyone in this thread wants to sound like they know the most

the biggest "IT in the real world" penis goes ........

who cares.

BigRedChief
12-07-2007, 09:23 AM
it sounds like everyone in this thread wants to sound like they know the most
Have you ever been around I.T. guys? Thats modus operundi dude.:)

phisherman
12-07-2007, 09:30 AM
i am one.

in my group it isn't who knows the most, it's who spends the most money on worthless gadget crap.

KC Kings
12-07-2007, 09:31 AM
We just rolled out Office 2007 to several thousand users. Many think it is more user friendly than previous versions.

Really? We can't even roll out an office XP patch to several thousand users without everybody bitching.

We only have IT types using it so far, but in my oppinion it isn't anymore user friendly. To me, going to 'Insert' and having a complete list of options is much better than having to go to 'insert' and getting presented with thumbnails for most of the available options, but I guess end users like as much gui as possible so the thumbnails might make it easier.

BigRedChief
12-07-2007, 09:39 AM
Really? We can't even roll out an office XP patch to several thousand users without everybody bitching.

We only have IT types using it so far, but in my oppinion it isn't anymore user friendly. To me, going to 'Insert' and having a complete list of options is much better than having to go to 'insert' and getting presented with thumbnails for most of the available options, but I guess end users like as much gui as possible so the thumbnails might make it easier.
The best benefit that I see in Office 2007 for the end user is the search function. They can not only search their share folders, HD etc but their outlook folders and .pst's. And the results come back with the the little icon associated with that file beside the search result. So they know if its a Powerpoint, Word or email file.

Too many end users spend way too much time trying to find something because they forgot where they put the file.

Saulbadguy
12-07-2007, 09:39 AM
Really? We can't even roll out an office XP patch to several thousand users without everybody bitching.

We only have IT types using it so far, but in my oppinion it isn't anymore user friendly. To me, going to 'Insert' and having a complete list of options is much better than having to go to 'insert' and getting presented with thumbnails for most of the available options, but I guess end users like as much gui as possible so the thumbnails might make it easier.
Yep, end users like it.

Simplex3
12-07-2007, 09:42 AM
i am one.

in my group it isn't who knows the most, it's who spends the most money on worthless gadget crap.
So how many of them own a red stapler and/or a binary clock?

KC Kings
12-07-2007, 09:43 AM
i am one.

in my group it isn't who knows the most, it's who spends the most money on worthless gadget crap.

Amen to that. I am trying to sell a 4 year old Unisys ES7000 datacenter box, because it is no longer being used due to being a big POS. We paid $200k for it 4 years ago, but because it is a POS, (and was going to cost $10k to upgrade the BIOS so it would run SP2), the powers that be decided to quit using it.

Fish
12-07-2007, 09:45 AM
We just rolled out Office 2007 to several thousand users. Many think it is more user friendly than previous versions.

We're having to leave Office 2003 on the machines along side Office 2007, because people are throwing a damn hissy fit. I'm of the stance that we shouldn't hold their damn hand through each upgrade, just make them deal with it.... But boy, you wouldn't believe how much they gripe about the differences between Word 07 and Word 03.

College students mind you.....

phisherman
12-07-2007, 09:49 AM
So how many of them own a red stapler and/or a binary clock?

none that i know of, but we all work at home now, so who knows?

wutamess? petegz28? any red staplers or binary clocks?

BigRedChief
12-07-2007, 09:58 AM
Really? We can't even roll out an office XP patch to several thousand users without everybody bitching.You need to just upgrade them and let them bitch. If we don't keep moving forward we would still be stuck with our Commadore 64's that people use to love.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/ptech/12/07/c64/index.html
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2007/TECH/ptech/12/07/c64/t1home.commodore64.irpt.jpg

Simplex3
12-07-2007, 10:14 AM
You need to just upgrade them and let them bitch. If we don't keep moving forward we would still be stuck with our Commadore 64's that people use to love.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/ptech/12/07/c64/index.html
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2007/TECH/ptech/12/07/c64/t1home.commodore64.irpt.jpg
Yeah, but what are the users getting for their pain going from 2k5 to 2k7? They're still just typing in docs and printing them. I didn't see a compelling reason to upgrade.

phisherman
12-07-2007, 10:19 AM
Yeah, but what are the users getting for their pain going from 2k5 to 2k7? They're still just typing in docs and printing them. I didn't see a compelling reason to upgrade.

BECAUSE IT LOOKS DIFFERENT DAMN IT!!!

seriously though, that seems to be what the users hate the most, even if it's just aesthetic. there could a lot more functionality but if the end users have to learn different button sequences or the buttons are in a different place, it's like the apocalypse.

DaFace
12-07-2007, 10:24 AM
BECAUSE IT LOOKS DIFFERENT DAMN IT!!!

seriously though, that seems to be what the users hate the most, even if it's just aesthetic. there could a lot more functionality but if the end users have to learn different button sequences or the buttons are in a different place, it's like the apocalypse.

For what it's worth, I'm a pretty tech savvy guy, and it's taking me a while to get used to Office 2007. After using the current system of Offices for years, actions that used to be second nature now take me a while to find where they've hidden it. I'll get used to it, but it's not an overnight learning curve.

Simplex3
12-07-2007, 10:41 AM
BECAUSE IT LOOKS DIFFERENT DAMN IT!!!

seriously though, that seems to be what the users hate the most, even if it's just aesthetic. there could a lot more functionality but if the end users have to learn different button sequences or the buttons are in a different place, it's like the apocalypse.
I'm all for leaning something new when there's a compelling reason, but I don't get it with the new version of Office. What was I missing before? What can I do now that I couldn't do before? I don't want to learn something new just so I can have a different UI.

penguinz
12-07-2007, 10:41 AM
Office 2007 sucks. I'm also having a serious "hate/might be ok" relationship with VS.NET 2k5 right now.Good new is that VS.NET 2k8 is just a month or two away. As well as Windows Server 2008 and SQL 2008.

Simplex3
12-07-2007, 10:43 AM
Good new is that VS.NET 2k8 is just a month or two away. As well as Windows Server 2008 and SQL 2008.
Yeah. Great news. Just as we get the bugs/issue/workarounds going with these versions they give us the next ones. :)

penguinz
12-07-2007, 10:53 AM
Yeah. Great news. Just as we get the bugs/issue/workarounds going with these versions they give us the next ones. :)
I am actually looking forward to some of the 'improvements' that are coming in IIS 7. As for the other two I don;t really care at this moment.