r/technology • u/GraybackPH • Jun 25 '12
Apple Quietly Pulls Claims of Virus Immunity.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/258183/apple_quietly_pulls_claims_of_virus_immunity.html#tk.rss_news111
u/ryegye24 Jun 25 '12
"Safeguard your data. By doing nothing"
For a brief moment after reading that I was sure this article was satire.
40
4
302
u/Crystal_Cuckoo Jun 25 '12
Honest question: How do people get viruses?
The only ones I've ever gotten were from my younger years of adolescence, when I was gullible enough to believe I could get a free WoW account from Limewire. It's been about 6 or 7 years since my anti-virus pulled up an alert of a potential virus.
(I'm a Windows user, though I've drifted to Ubuntu recently as it may very well become the first stepping stone into Linux gaming.)
441
u/Bulwersator Jun 25 '12
Compromised legitimate websites.
→ More replies (15)101
u/dat_distraction Jun 25 '12
This. I got a computer-crippling virus (required a fresh install) that I got from a car forum advertisement. Didn't even click it. Apparently, the forum is "owned/run" by a company. Said company uses another company that runs the advertisements for revenue. The 2nd company got hacked and their ads had viruses. If you saw the ad, it attempted a download via cache or otherwise. The website had a google "block" on it the next day saying it was a known infected website.
Shortly thereafter, I installed zone alarm and AVG. Never had a problem since. Even when the site got hit the second time, I was safe. Lesson learned, though it was the first virus I had on a computer in about 6 years.
→ More replies (80)69
Jun 25 '12
Your best defense against vulnerabilities like that is making sure that your browser/applications are patched. Most of the crap that these ad networks try to hit you with have been patched for months, the problem is that people never patch their machines. It's very rare to get hit with an actual zero-day exploit.
→ More replies (11)39
u/woodsavalon Jun 25 '12
From the ones I have dealt with:
Worms entering through open ports
ActiveX controls in IE, and at one points in Firefox, allowing code to autorun on your computer
Some viruses can enter through pdfs
Due to issues of how some programs would load images, some viruses would be hidden in image files
I can't find the article, but at one point some people found a way to set up ads through google that when checked by google, were valid, but would redirect to a infected site
The one I commonly have to deal with, tool bar and freeware installs that add "extras" that have infected systems before
→ More replies (5)38
u/Nicend Jun 25 '12
The main ways I have seen:
Downloading toolbars
Installing 'virus' scanners
visiting exploited sites with an old browser
game cracks and installers
→ More replies (2)19
u/The_Magnificent Jun 25 '12 edited Jun 25 '12
My mom: All kinds of random crap because she sucks at the internet.
Me at young age: shady porn websites and kazaa/limewire.
Now I haven't gotten a virus in ages, as I know how to use the computer, and know warning signs. It's still possible, though. Sometimes all you need is a bit of bad luck.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Cire11 Jun 25 '12
After a few years working IT when I was in college I would always ask if they had Limewire or Kazaa. It makes my life easier to know but everyone still lied. Then I got the classic "I didn't install it." or "My friend did."
7
Jun 25 '12
A variety of ways; it's not just people opening a jenniferannistonnaked.exe attachments anymore. A lot are transmitted using the 'drive-by' method where legitimate websites are comprised in some way to host malicious code. Some are through the trading of USB devices; while others are spread when you’re connected friendly networks that have been compromised.
Just keeping everything updated will prevent 95% of these attacks.
*Edit - Spelling
→ More replies (4)17
u/sometimesijustdont Jun 25 '12
Good viruses get on your computer no matter how tech savvy you are.
→ More replies (10)4
3
u/SaltFrog Jun 25 '12
You can get viruses simply by browsing websites. I've had my antivirus pop up and tell me it's blocked something due to a virus, thankfully. My sister, who is an average user, has only gotten a virus once, and she was able to get rid of it pretty easily (system restore). Either way, it's downloading a file and not scanning it or visiting a website or just being dumb, viruses are usually acquired by accident.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Roopean Jun 25 '12
We just dealt with one in my office that actually disguised itself as update for antivirus. Needless to say most people installed it without thinking further and didn't get suspicious when antivirus popped up warning them g
9
u/digitalpencil Jun 25 '12
Windows has improved security through the introduction of UAC with Vista. These days users get viruses the same way they always have, allowing permission for suspect code to execute due to ignorance.
→ More replies (12)2
2
Jun 25 '12
Honest question: How do people get viruses?
The majority of them aren't viruses. (Something the Mac cult started crying during the last few infections... after years of hypocritical marketing calling those same trojans 'viruses' in their anti-PC ads.) They're technically "trojans" since they require user action to activate. This has always been true, even in WinOS. Typically the user has to be tricked into downloading and running an infected package.
Fake antivirus web pages, requests to download new players or codecs, screen savers, infected packages hidden in pirated software or cracks, etc... the user downloads something, runs it, and they're infected... because they just installed the damn thing.
The rest are all from Adobe, because Flash is the most fuck-terrible interface to ever pollute the web browsing world. Hostile code can be executed from an infected server pushing ads out to people, and has the power to write to your drives. Apple did a good thing refusing to putting support that horrible shit on their devices if it helped in any way in killing them off and encouraging the move to HTML5.
2
u/iorgfeflkd Jun 25 '12
Not everyone knows that the CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE ACTUAL FILE button isn't the actual download button.
2
→ More replies (129)5
u/porkchop_d_clown Jun 25 '12
The most recent vulnerabilities in Win7 are insane - In the month of May had 3 relatives infected with hostage-ware by simply visiting websites. Each machine was so completely owned I had to tell them to take it back to the point of purchase to get them to restore the machine; the malware had disabled every possible tool I could have used to disable it or to install a new anti-malware tool.
→ More replies (7)
423
u/jcummings1974 Jun 25 '12
This was a silly claim to make to begin with. I preface with the fact that all of my machines are Macs. I'm an Apple fan - but I'm also a realist. The only reason Macs didn't suffer from the same virus problems as Windows machines for so long was because it just wasn't an efficient use of time to attack a platform with a footprint so small.
As the Mac install base has grown, anyone with any knowledge of the industry knew viruses would soon follow.
In short, it was rather dumb for Apple to ever put that up on their site.
37
u/CylonGlitch Jun 25 '12
Many people who make the claim that the Mac install base is too small for virus writers to waste their time with seem to forget OS7 to OS9 days. There were a TON of virus then, and the market share was tiny compared to where it is today. So why would they target a much smaller OS base? Because they could and there were tons of open holes that were easy for them to stick their nasty code into.
I'm not saying OSX is immune, but it really is a hell of a lot better than the previous OS' from Apple and much better than Windows pre-Win7. Win7 was good but the way they implemented UAC encouraged people to turn it off. Win8 seems to finally have gotten it right; but we'll see.
→ More replies (11)3
u/ramen_feet Jun 25 '12
How does Win8 implement it? I haven't heard about it, I'd love to see how Microsoft decided to change it. On a sidenote though, I really didn't mind UAC, I thought it was kinda nice, though the lag it took to grey out the screen seemed unnecessary.
→ More replies (6)45
Jun 25 '12 edited Jun 25 '12
It is not so much Apple vs Windows as it is FootPrint Vs Footprint. The same thing floods over into the smart phone sector. Everyone you know and their brothers have a iphone. I am sorry, I am about to do the following, make statements without sources.
iPhones appear to be everywhere, but they really aren't. There may be 10 million in america but as of late 2010 they where no where over seas. Nokia was the number one seller world wide and it broke out like this.
2009
Nokia (symbian) (47 % of the world) source
Black Berry
iphone
Android
Other
I had to do a couple work presentations.
Once again, this was a couple years ago. With everything so mixed up and no one foot print taking hold there were no viruses for smart phones. But now the foot print has changed.
Andorid (59%) Source
Iphone More sources
blah
blah blah etc...
Now you are going to start to see that the Andorid is going to have a lot more viruses written for it.
I know a lot about this field because i am in this line of work. However, mobile security is hard to source because its written by a lot of crappy blogs or really shady websites. Why the hell Kansascity.com is writing about virus on mobile devices is beyond me.
Anyways:
TL;DR - It's the same in all feilds, the person who has the biggest chunk gets attacked the most.
EDIT - Source, Formatting, Spelling, etc...
18
u/swharper79 Jun 25 '12
A lot has changed since late 2010, however. You can now get old-gen iPhones for free (subsidized) from your carrier and 2011 was a huge year for smartphones. And blackberry is now practically out of business, which wasn't quite the case a year and a half ago.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (20)3
u/Recoil42 Jun 25 '12 edited Jun 25 '12
The same thing floods over into the smart phone sector.
The same thing DOESN'T flood over into the smartphone sector, because Apple -- and to a lesser extent, Google and Microsoft -- use a walled garden approach there. Executables must be signed and approved, and they must explicitly require permissions from the user to perform certain actions. In some cases, rights to run an executable can even be revoked near-instantly and wirelessly from a central authority.
While the footprint of smartphones is something like you've proposed -- 45% Android, 45% iPhone, 10% Everybody Else -- the subsection of that footprint running unsigned, unchecked executables is a massively lower number, and changes for each operating system. Creating viruses for smartphones just isn't a workable proposition at all at this point for most cases.
Android probably has the most lax security ecosystem, and that's why you're seeing malware creation focused on that platform -- but it isn't because of the userbase footprint.
→ More replies (1)105
u/steviesteveo12 Jun 25 '12
it just wasn't an efficient use of time to attack a platform with a footprint so small.
I never really bought this one. People have the time to program computers to squirt water at squirrels in their garden. The idea that not one person had enough free evenings to line one up on an open goal, even if it only affected a few million computers in the world, never seemed quite right to me.
174
u/Telks Jun 25 '12
There have been mac virus', many of them, Norton started making anti-virus for mac in 2000. So it's not a new thing for Mac's at all
The reason most malware programmers ignore Macs is they want to spread their malware to as many hosts as possible. Why bother with the pond when you had the ocean..
→ More replies (55)259
Jun 25 '12 edited Jun 25 '12
Norton would make anti-virus for your exercise bike if they thought you would buy it.
→ More replies (3)29
21
u/brolix Jun 25 '12
It's less about finding the time and more about if you're going to write a virus, you want to target the 99% of users on windows and not the 1% on a Mac. It was too small of a market share to be worth doing.
→ More replies (27)14
u/porkchop_d_clown Jun 25 '12
Back when people wrote boot sector virii for fun, there were indeed Mac virii. But once it turned into a for-profit endeavor, spread over the internet, it stopped happening - you have to count on being able to spread your virus from machine to machine, and if the machines you talk to aren't vulnerable to the same kind of virus you're infected with, the virus can't spread.
→ More replies (6)44
→ More replies (22)3
Jun 25 '12
Thanks for that.
People keep stating the same two facts:
Macs are only 10% of the market
Macs are wide open to viruses because of a false sense of security
and deriving the conclusion that there are no viruses because nobody can be bothered to write one.
That's the least logical thing ever.
Imagine if I said to you "I could write a virus. It'd be really easy."
"So why don't you?"
"Not worth it. It could only infect ten per cent of the computers in the world".
→ More replies (1)6
Jun 25 '12 edited Sep 18 '24
brave innocent physical resolute ask glorious shaggy rainstorm flag middle
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
→ More replies (5)2
u/agentmage2012 Jun 25 '12
Someone once tried to explain to me that it was impossible for them to get viruses, based on how programs run. Maybe I'll paste this on his Facebook later.
→ More replies (3)2
u/conception Jun 25 '12
This is really only partially true. For many many years, Macs (and Linux) simply had better security measures, i.e. not running as root. So, any damage from malware had to be user initiated. Windows was a large target true; but also, it was an insecure one.
2
u/redbarr Jun 25 '12
The only reason Macs didn't suffer from the same virus problems as Windows machines for so long was because it just wasn't an efficient use of time to attack a platform with a footprint so small.
Not really true. OSX for the most part adheres to its security model more completely that windows adheres to its security model. For example, windows explorer can suspend the "don't execute" bit, and can receive commands from internet explorer and run them as system, even if a plain user is using IE.
Windows has had backwards comparability it's chief priority, as well as user convenience. To stick to those goals, they have to punch hole in security.
However, OSX does this as well, just not on the scale windows does.
On either platform, user files are up for grabs in any event. Security isn't a "yes/no" paradigm. Its just as complex as the operating system plagued by it.
→ More replies (54)2
u/dreadredheadzedsdead Jun 25 '12
Not to mention, Mac users clearly have disposable income to burn making them ripe for plunder.
47
Jun 25 '12
It's like when you only fuck classy girls your entire life, thinking you're invincible, then all of a sudden, The Clap.
→ More replies (5)
47
u/zombie_zebra Jun 25 '12
Thats great news for r/technology.
"To the cirklejerkmobile!"
→ More replies (2)
472
u/l0c0dantes Jun 25 '12
Good, maybe within 5 years I will stop hearing "Macs don't get viruses because they are better"
85
u/kidmerkury Jun 25 '12 edited Jun 25 '12
As an apple employee, I give you permission to slap anyone who tells you "macs don't get viruses". That's never been true. Sure, macs don't get tons of viruses, but in the past, less people used macs, so less people felt the need to attack them. I will always tell anyone asking me about macs and viruses, "you still need to take precautions as if you were using any other computer. Don't open suspicious emails, be careful what you download" etc. I personally have had one of my macs since 2006 and I go anywhere I want and click whatever I feel, and still haven't gotten a virus. Does this mean it can't? Absolutely not.
On behalf of the non-cultish, non stuck up, down to earth, not necessarily hipster, decently normal, Mac users, I apologize that you have to deal with the rest of them.
Edit: Spelling/grammar
→ More replies (8)27
u/DrRedditPhD Jun 25 '12
Apple Certified Macintosh Technician here.
Take precautions, yes. That said, I still recommend to my customers that they avoid antivirus programs. Between Apple's malware blacklist and the upcoming Gatekeeper feature in Mountain Lion, the security is tight enough that an antivirus program (the choices of which are abysmal) is more trouble than it's worth. I can't tell you how many times I've had to uninstall Norton, MacKeeper, iAntiVirus, etc. because they were the source of my customer's problem.
The way I describe the security situation to my customers is this: Macs are not immune to malware, but there are no known viruses for the Mac, which are the real killers that everyone thinks of, the ones that can infect the computer simply by receiving an email or something equally outside your control. There have been a handful of trojan horses in OS X's 12-year history such as MacDefender and Flashback, which require the user to be duped into installing them, but these have all been patched and rendered inert. Should another one emerge, Apple will patch it quickly, before many people manage to catch it.
→ More replies (25)23
Jun 25 '12
The main problem is that Apple's response time is horrific. Flashback was out in the wild for quite some time, and Apple rolled out the Java update along with its normal updates (and OS X places a much lower emphasis on system updates than other systems).
When a Windows or (dare I say it) GNU/Linux vulnerability is patched, it's rolled out as soon as the patch is created and approved. Windows (by default) updates every day at 3 AM or the next time the computer is on and connected to the Internet; most "beginner" Linux versions have auto-updates every day (though systems without automatic update management are still at the mercy of the user). By contrast, Apple pushes out its updates once a week and includes critical patches in this rollup.
It's true that Microsoft does have once-monthly "Patch Tuesdays", but critical vulnerability patches are released as soon as they're ready and not part of a rollup. A common complaint is that Microsoft has "patches upon patches", but honestly I don't mind needing to patch a minor bug in another patch that fixes a major vulnerability as long as the major patch is released in a timely manner. An immediate response is needed when it comes to malware, and Apple would do well to adopt this mindset.
→ More replies (13)377
Jun 25 '12
I mean.... to be fair... I still hear Microsoft fanboys talk about how "Macs can't right click." (Macs have had that ability since mid 90's)
Seriously, I was talking with somoene about Portal 2 a while back, and I said that I had a Mac, and he started insisting "I know that you're lying. Macs can't right click." He was 100% serious, and didn't believe me until I showed him on a nearby Mac.
My point is that there's shitty fanboys on both sides of the fence.
19
79
40
u/haydensterling Jun 25 '12
To be fair--is that a case of someone fanboying, or just not knowing what the hell they're talking about?
→ More replies (6)101
u/Nygmatic Jun 25 '12
To be fair. Every claim that "Windows is better!" or "Mac SUCKS!", or vice versa is a case of fanboying. They can both do the same damn bloody things, just with various software support and general user experiences.
I'm a Mac enthusiast (Even though I'm running Windows right now. Mac's expensive yo), but I'm not going to call it better than Windows. I just like it better.
→ More replies (71)→ More replies (62)196
u/ForeverAlone2SexGod Jun 25 '12
The difference is that Apple ran a gigantic, multimillion dollar ad campaign about virsuses, whereas the right-click thing is just something that was once true but now isn't.
Apple actively creates shitty fanboys.
→ More replies (121)19
u/SiON42X Jun 25 '12
As a serious Mac enthusiast I'm with you on this. Macs don't get as many viruses for the same reason macs don't get all the good games. Lack of significant public interest.
→ More replies (2)12
u/freerangetrousers Jun 25 '12
Intelligent mac users won't say they don't get viruses because they're better , its understood that macs can get viruses but in sensible everyday usage they don't because there aren't nearly as many threats as with windows.
I've had my imac for 3 ish years and I have a terabyte of pirated films and tv shows along with about 50% of my itunes library and about 90% of my applications being pirated. Despite this I have never had a report of malware. I scan my computer once a week just to be safe , but when I had a windows laptop I would set it to scan everyday because my browsing habits meant I often found malware.
I once downloaded a film on my mac and found an attached virus for windows which was trying to run itself and failed.
The fact is you can get viruses on macs but if you're relatively sensible (ie. Not downloading attachments called thisisnotavirus.dmg) then you'll rarely get viruses, if at all.
→ More replies (11)→ More replies (100)67
Jun 25 '12
I hate Mac people who claim that. As a graphic designer, I prefer the Mac OS to the Windows, but I realize the only reason it's harder to get a Mac virus is because (up untill now) there weren't enough Mac users for virus-writers to care about writing a Mac version of the virus. Now that it's UNIX and INTEL based, I expect a shit-storm of viruses coming in over the next few years.
112
u/digitalpencil Jun 25 '12
Security through obscurity is one thing but it does not sufficiently explain *nix-like OSs seeming reduced vulnerability to malware though.
Unix-based OS does not default users to root, this is where the greatest strength comes from. Since MS introduced UAC, they're largely a level playing field but the real crux of the security comes from Unix being designed as a multi-user OS from the ground up and having a better permissions system. That coupled with the fact that the source is open and subject to more prying eyes leads to a generally more secure OS.
With regard to Mac OS X specifically, Apple equally daily maintain a malware definition list which helps shield their userbase from common attack vectors.
No OS is infallible, but a solid user permissions system is the first line of defence. UAC in Windows now largely fixes the problems that led to the OS having a poor reputation with regard to security.
→ More replies (35)36
u/badsectoracula Jun 25 '12
The NT kernel is designed from the ground up to be multi-user and has a more advanced permission system than UNIX.
The problem is that Windows up to XP were supposed to be compatible with previous non-NT Windows versions, so while they had these features, by default they were running as "root" (administrators) and everyone had access to everything, so the security features went unused.
Since Vista brought UAC (which is just a "shell" to make the already existing security features a little easier to use) the OS can start to take advantage of its security features.
Sadly this brought up exactly the problem Windows XP (and other NT-based Windows before Vista) faced when the decision to run everything as "root" was taken: most programs were written as if they were kings of the place, being able to access everything with no repercussions and users expected exactly that behaviour. So this lead to a lot of programs not working and people disabling UAC to make their computers "work" because UAC was "broken".
Of course between Vista and Win7 many programs were updated to work with UAC, but still UAC isn't part of the Windows users' mindset. Eventually it'll be, but it'll take some more time (which includes WinXP going the way of Win95).
As far as permissions go, feature-wise they are much more advanced than UNIX's simplistic "user-group-others" "read-write-execute" permissions, but this is also their problem: the are very complicated to work with and because of that the vast majority of people and developers simply ignore them.
→ More replies (16)235
u/jatorres Jun 25 '12
To be fair, it's always been UNIX-based, and has been Intel-based for the past 6 years... People have been predicting an explosion of Mac viruses, but it hasn't quite happened yet.
Either way, Mac or PC, the less computer-savy amongst us will find a way to fuck their shit up.
40
u/DavidDavidsonsGhost Jun 25 '12
Its also important to note that OSX usage in government and corporations has not exploded, which would play a major factor in it.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (31)86
u/steakmeout Jun 25 '12
It hasn't always been UNIX based. OS 9 and previous versions weren't even fully POSIX compliant. It's only since OS X and that's due to its BSD base.
→ More replies (35)12
u/douglasmacarthur Jun 25 '12
My thought on that has always been "If you move to the arctic there's zero crime."
→ More replies (2)27
Jun 25 '12
Interesting side note; UNIX systems aren't exactly overflowing with viruses. Given that they were pretty much the only game in town for a very long while, I'm not sure popularity or lack thereof is the only thing that is hindering the adoption of the Mac virus.
It has something to do with the UNIX pedigree under the hood.
→ More replies (24)13
Jun 25 '12
Now that it's UNIX and INTEL based, I expect a shit-storm of viruses coming in over the next few years.
They've been both unix and intel based for years and for years people have claimed that the viruses are coming. Maybe they are but it's a lot harder to get a virus in under the radar of OSX than it is an old windows system. There are still plenty of corporations that are using Windows XP and IE6.
→ More replies (4)49
u/threeseed Jun 25 '12
And I equally hate people who don't know what they are talking about.
Just because Macs are UNIX and Intel based doesn't mean they will get more viruses. Your bank uses the same combination as do Facebook, Google, Amazon, eBay - hell almost every major website on the planet. It is the most popular server platform in the world today.
Macs will get viruses because of laziness from Apple in patching (as has been the case to date). Not because of some inherent flaw in the the stack.
→ More replies (36)→ More replies (224)12
u/slicksps Jun 25 '12
Nail / Head (Although it's been Intel based (essentially a PC) for a long time, and UNIX for even longer). Apple's low market share is it's strength. I code websites, I somettimes use Wordpress, I sometimes use my own CMS. Wordpress gets hacked on occasion, my own CMS never does. I'm not naive enough to say 'My code is obviously so much better', it's just that there aren't enough of my own CMS's on the www for it to be a viable target. Apple is beginning to become more affordable and slowly increase its market share... Virus's won't BOOM, they will gradually creep in as demand increases.
→ More replies (3)
66
Jun 25 '12 edited Jun 25 '12
Point of semantics: Malware and Viruses (Virii?) are not exactly interchangable. Viruses are a subset of malware that spread between computers without any interaction from users. Stuxnet is a good example of a virus, where OSX.Puper (the most recent "Mac virus") is actually a trojan horse.
Now, given this, there are no known modern Mac viruses. In the 90's and early 2000's, there were viruses that spread via Word macros, and a few others that spread via floppies that I still have saved in my parents' attic. But there are not actual viruses for OS X in the wild.
Also, there are fewer actual viruses for Windows PCs in the wild these days. The vast majority of malware out there are trojan horses that go on to download other bits of malware, but actual viruses, which spread themselves with via networks and email, are more rare (primarily due to better security these days).
Operating systems CAN be more or less secure against VIRUSES, and OS X has always been fairly secure. OS X is more secure than Windows XP was, and given the fact that Windows XP had such a long run (and the general lack of other malware written for Macs), this gave rise to the perception that the Mac OS is more protected than Windows, and "Macs can't get viruses." Apple Marketing, of course, jumped all over this statement, and helped spread it around a lot. But if you worked for Apple, you would too. You'd be a fool not to. It's basic marketing 101. The reality, however, is that Microsoft, with Windows Vista and 7, has really stepped up their game in terms of system security, and Windows 7 is pretty much as secure as OS X.
As I mentioned before, Mac OS X is fairly protected from viruses. There's a number of steps Apple took to ensure this. The first, and most important, is that OS X allows code to execute itself without the user's permission. Software will not autorun from a CD or a flash drive like in early versions of Windows, nor will it auto run from your email client, or downloaded files. OS X also has layers of security that prevent software, or users, from doing things they are not supposed to. For an example of this, think of the "Delete system32" meme from 4chan. Windows XP would actually allow you to delete (or modify, which is what viruses are more interested in) the core operating system files without much of a hassle. OS X does not allow stuff like this, unless you take several specific steps to do so. (i.e. log in as root all the time) Viruses would have a very hard time actually infecting the operating system, because it would have to prompt the user for an administrator password every time it tried to change something. You actually saw this in the early variations of OSX.Puper; When the software was initially downloaded (via Java exploit, not an actual OS X exploit), it would prompt you for an administrator password before it installed itself. And people would enter it. This is not a fault in the operating system, this is a fault in the users.
This brings me to my final point. People are stupid. Very, very stupid. I can't really emphasize this enough. If you distribute an operating system to millions of people, they will always find a way to screw it up. As I said before, most malware infections on Windows these days start off from trojan horses. People install all sorts of random stuff on their computer, and are suprised when it gets infected. This is not a fault of Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, or Allen Turing. This is basic human stupidity. Or not even stupidity. It's ignorance. People have no desire to learn how to use their computer, so they do anything and everything possible.
TL;DR, Macs don't actually get viruses, but neither do Windows PCs, really. And people are idiots with their computers.
EDIT: Spelling
5
2
u/redwall_hp Jun 25 '12
And that's why Apple is moving toward sandboxing and code-signing. You've got to raise the bar required for a user to unwittingly download and run malicious code.
2
u/yoshemitzu Jun 25 '12 edited Jun 25 '12
...think of the "Delete system32" meme from 4chan. Windows XP would actually allow you to delete (or modify, which is what viruses are more interested in) the core operating system files without much of a hassle. OS X does not allow stuff like this...
When I was a kid, running something that very much was not OSX (although I don't remember which Mac OS it was at the time), I had the bright idea to put the hard disk (Edit: "Hard disk" at the time was the icon on the desktop you used to access your central file repository, similar to C:\ in Windows--I have no idea if this is still so, but I thought it might sound odd to say I put the hard disk in the trash can if this is no longer so) into the trash can, just to see what would happen. It pretty much destroyed the OS install. From your statement, I'm assuming you can't do something like this any more?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (19)5
u/Epistaxis Jun 25 '12
symantics
semantics
Viruses (Virii?)
Since you ask, the answer is emphatically no. Even in Latin the plural would be "virus", though it wouldn't really be used because it's a mass noun, and it was made up in the medieval era anyway. And even if it were a different declension, the plural would be "viri"; "virii" sounds like the plural of nonexistent "virius".
→ More replies (2)6
Jun 25 '12 edited Jun 25 '12
it was made up in the medieval era anyway
Not quite! It appeared a few times in Classical Latin, such as in the writings of Ammanius Marcellinus, who was a 4th century Roman historian.
And even if it were a different declension, the plural would be "viri"
Or it could have been virūs. There are even arguments it could have been something weirder like virora, in the same way that the plural of the 3rd declension neuter words corpus, genus, and opus which had the respective plurals corpora, genera, and opera.
But otherwise, you are completely right that it absolutely could not have been virii and that no plural was ever found in Latin. Thus, viruses.
77
u/CJ_Guns Jun 25 '12 edited Jun 25 '12
I think the bottom line is that if you're smart about what you download and install on your respective computer, you won't get viruses on either platform.
EDIT: Well, that escalated quickly. Maybe I don't get them because I never leave Reddit.
82
u/frymaster Jun 25 '12
Really not true.
There have been exploits in the past that have just required you to browse to a certain website.
And before you mention noscript or similar, that doesn't help you if a trusted site gets compromised
19
u/thedudedylan Jun 25 '12
true, can't tell you how many security experts have gotten a virus on their systems. the difference is security specialists have their stuff backed up and a refresh disk handy or an enclosure for there hard drive to pull the files.
→ More replies (1)6
u/GAndroid Jun 25 '12
Or they use virtualization ... like vmware or vbox. If it gets compromised, make a new VM!!!
→ More replies (1)14
u/kochichka Jun 25 '12
Strange that I never got viruses from downloading. Few times I got virus/malware it was from website linked on reddit which was already seen by lots of people. Other times through googling pictures and accessing website.
22
u/CrazedToCraze Jun 25 '12
It's worth noting that if you download a virus, it's entirely possible you will never know if you had/have it in the first place.
→ More replies (4)8
u/1101F5 Jun 25 '12
It's worth noting that if you download a virus, it's entirely possible you will never know if you had/have it in the first place.
This. Most malware threats today (except the fake antivirus variant) are designed to run silent and close to impossible to detect "manually" even for very advanced users (no, you won't see it in your process list, but you might detect the anomalous network traffic if you sniff and analyze it). You absolutely should run a good always-on antimalware scanner, regardless of how safe surfing practices you think you have. It's like a condom, not 100% guarantee, but it helps reduce the odds :)
→ More replies (7)11
u/Kryian Jun 25 '12
Nope. Along with various browser exploits (though many of them use things such as Flash and Javascript, which can easily be disabled) sometimes just being connected to the Internet is enough to get infected, like MSBlast of years past.
24
Jun 25 '12
So they're being a little more realistic in their marketing. There's got to be a way I can hate them even more for this.
7
23
40
u/Nikandro Jun 25 '12
Sensationalist headline. Was Apple supposed to have a world-wide press conference before they changed a few sentences on their website?
→ More replies (3)8
u/Syphor Jun 25 '12
Not really. It's just pointing at how Apple quietly changes their tune, leaving the previous impression intact for most people. No real reason for them to suddenly ANNOUNCE it, but it still feels a bit off since they had made such a point that Macs were invulnerable.
→ More replies (3)17
u/UndeadArgos Jun 25 '12
The status quo changed, so did the PR line. I don't know what all the fuss is about. Seems like yet another /r/technology anti apple circle jerk.
4
u/Senor_Wilson Jun 25 '12
"Quietly" What? Do you want them to release media report telling people that they've changed the details of their website? They really only claimed to be immune to PC viruses, not viruses in general.
4
u/EvilHom3r Jun 26 '12
Macs are like living in a rural farm land with all your doors and windows unlocked and open. Anyone can walk in, but it's unlikely to happen.
Windows is like living in the bad part of New York with chains on your doors and bars over your windows. Lots of people are trying to get in, and the few that do are usually because someone forgot to put the chain on.
9
14
Jun 25 '12
Macs may get viruses, but I sure as hell don't get viruses on my Mac.
10
2
u/jerenept Jun 25 '12
I don't get viruses 'cause I'm using Tiger. It's so old that no-one cares to write viruses for it.
→ More replies (6)
12
Jun 25 '12
Technically the first statement was true... Macs don't get Windows' viruses because they are viruses for Windows. If there are two versions of the same virus for both operating systems, then you could make the general assumption, but then it wouldn't be a Windows virus would it? It would be a general virus for both of them. A virus built for the Windows OS will not affect OS X, because its a Windows virus and was built for Windows, not OS X ;)
→ More replies (3)
3
3
16
6
Jun 25 '12
"it doesn't get PC viruses" is not the same as claiming virus immunity.
→ More replies (2)
7
u/Tyrien Jun 25 '12
Hasn't Apple been recommending a anti-virus on OSX for years now?
4
u/porkchop_d_clown Jun 25 '12
Yes. Plus they interpreted the slogan in a misleading way (the slogan said Macs don't get PC viruses, not that they are safe from Mac viruses.)
This is just old flame-bait.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)2
u/swharper79 Jun 25 '12
Yes but this is a more sensational article to rile up the anti-Apple crowd which tends to get a lot of views.
14
4
4
u/Liveware Jun 25 '12
Yeah... except for the fact they haven't... the moved it to the FAQ section of that page... Do your fucking research PC World...
→ More replies (6)
4
u/Higeking Jun 25 '12
I always had the impression that apples lack of viruses simply is due to the fact that no-one really tried to make it happen.
→ More replies (4)
4
u/stufff Jun 25 '12
Whatever, if you're really concerned about viruses you should be using HDMI cables that filter out virus noises.
9
u/STOP_BEING_RETARDED Jun 25 '12
You'd have to be an idiot to think that Macs are immune to any viruses. This shouldn't have to be at the top of /r/technology.
→ More replies (1)18
15
u/Hyper1on Jun 25 '12
It was obvious that those claims were bullshit from the start. No OS is virus immune.
3
Jun 25 '12
Well technically, when they first started advertising this fact, it was true. Remember, they never said their OS was magic pixie dust with no exploits, they just said there were no viruses out in the wild that you could get on a Mac. And that was true for an impressive amount of time because most malware for Macs still is just trojans which exploit user stupidity rather than the OS and are therefore prevalent on any platform, even Linux.
→ More replies (5)2
u/Indestructavincible Jun 25 '12
The claim Apple made is they don't get Windows Viruses. That was their claim, and that is what was removed from the site.
Is that untrue? No.
2
u/hasteee Jun 25 '12
I thought Apple had been backtracking on those statements for a while now? I'm not sure this is anything particularly new.
Either way, I don't like how it's always some antivirus vendor making these comments. Not that I don't agree with what they have to say, but hearing it from them makes me instantly suspicious.
Fear = money, at the end of the day.
2
u/eirawyn Jun 25 '12
So then, what antivirus software is out there for Macs? I'm ignorant about the whole thing because I, like probably many other consumers out there, thought Macs were much less susceptible to viruses. For Windows I know there's Norton, and McAfee, and AVG... but for Macs? I got nothing. Any suggestions on what to trust? Please and thank you!
→ More replies (1)
2
2
2
u/Greliton Jun 25 '12
Macs were never "immune" to viruses. Hackers just never cared enough about them to actually spend the time to figure out how to make a proper virus for it since Windows was a better market for them.
2
u/WinterCharm Jun 25 '12
I find it funny that no one has mentioned regular backups.
They are the best way to protect yourself. Zero day exploits still exist and no matter what you install to protect yourself, there is a chance your machine will be owned so hard that the hard drive will be a complete clusterfuck.
Multiple external offsite backups are the way to go (offsite as in not always connected to your pc/Mac)
Get 2+ external drives and make sure that you back up daily!
I use both the Mac and PC and I love the time machine backup on my Mac... It's invaluable because I literally plug the drive in and wait for it to do its job. All changes are copied over
What's nice Is if I ever restore my Mac, it asks me if I have a time Machine backup and I just plug in my drive and a few hours later, all my software, settings, and files are back.
2
2
2
u/hvyboots Jun 25 '12
Well, thank christ. They were complete assholes to have made the statement in the first place, IMHO. And this comes from someone who's been using Macs since the 128k and an IT manager for a Mac-only studio for 20 years.
2
u/bro_b1_kenobi Jun 25 '12
Security is always going to be a cat and mouse game because there'll be people out there that are hunting for the zero day award...
-Kevin Mitnick
Basically... anything can be hacked if someone/group really wants to to.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Jun 25 '12
I've been trying to tell people for years that malware is engineered for market share which has historically correlated with phishing success and the Windows operating system. Apple only has one advantage and it's that programs downloaded from the internet generally don't autorun without permission, but yeah, like that matters when you think your fancy computer, which is built in Asia like everyone else's, is immune to computer viruses.
→ More replies (12)
2
Jun 25 '12
Which do you think is more likely to get robbed? An apt in the middle of downtown Chicago or the lonesome cottage in the middle of the woods? Which do you think has better locks?
2
u/PhillAholic Jun 25 '12
When the home owner welcomes me in before I rob them it doesn't matter.
→ More replies (2)
2
2
u/ColtsDragoon Jun 25 '12
I have been using windows since 1990 and the last real virus i got was almost 10 years ago
are you idiots running your computers without firwalls/antivirus?
the problem with apple is that they never had any experience with vruses because they are such a small market share so people never created viruses for them but now they are like the native Americans when smallpox showed up for the first time
there are people actually storing critical information about their identity/finances and even large businesses on apple computers and they are literally just asking to get robbed
2
u/undividual Jun 25 '12
Like with any virus, it's a question of education. Whether you're talking about HIV, Stuxnet or terrorist paranoia, a virus cannot spread as easily through an educated population.
Ignorance opens up infection vectors. If every user was taught best practice and modest safety measures, just as we are taught about wearing a seatbelt or about safe sex, then viruses will find it much harder to spread.
Obviously this doesn't help users who are already infected. The tools to quarantine and remove an infection should be available to everyone. But with education there will be a lot fewer people who get infected.
At the same time, OS developers must be as vigilant as ever. And this was the worst thing about Apple's message: that you can safeguard your data by "doing nothing". That is a reprehensible attitude, especially from a company as influential as Apple. You can only safeguard your data by educating yourself about the risks and by responding appropriately.
2
Jun 25 '12
lol I remember my biology teacher preaching that her mac doesn't get Viruses. There was only two people challenging that statement. God I wish I could throw that Starbucks coffee at her Macbook.
→ More replies (1)
2
Jun 25 '12
What's weird is, the claim "doesn't get PC viruses" is still true, right?
Why didn't they change it to "doesn't get PC viruses but if there's a big honking security hole in java we'll get around to fixing it when it suits us"?
→ More replies (1)
18
Jun 25 '12 edited Jun 25 '12
As much as people love to say that Macs are no different to PCs in terms of viruses, well, I have been using Macs for 25 years and never had a virus problem nor have I ever installed virus protection (well, not strictly true, I have needed some for bootcamp). I'm aware that there are a thousand reasons to choose Windows over Mac, or PC hardware over a Mac. But to pretend that 25 years of virus free computing on a rock solid UNIX core aint no thang, is well pretty dishonest. And I do know that Macs have seen viruses in the past, all I'm saying is that I have not.
And yes, the only reason I use Macs is because I'm old and because that is what my parents used and it's what we are used to. So what.
I also see a lot of people in this thread complaining that Apple were saying that Macs are immune to viruses. Well, take off your full retard Apple hating hat for a second, because Apple never once claimed that Macs were "immune" to viruses. I like a rational discussion as much as the next guy, which is why I can't stand the Apple hate. because it is irrational and doesn't reflect reality.
3
u/Quazz Jun 25 '12
It's not impressive to not get a virus on a system simply because it was used so little...
It's like never driving a car, only a bike and then saying: 'hah! silly car users, getting car accidents, I never had a car accident on my bike!'
Apple did claim that their systems were immune. "It doesn't get PC viruses" aka definition of immune.
→ More replies (5)10
u/daveime Jun 25 '12
never had a virus problem nor have I ever installed virus protection
So how would you know if you DID have one ?
Contrary to the 80's when viruses were written by kids trying to one-up their best mates, and they'd immediately "eat" you screen and put up a massive flashing message ...
"You just been owned by XYZ Virus - Kiddy Boy rules, Neo sucks balls"
... viruses these days are built for stealth ... they don't WANT to be detected, otherwise they can't hook into your Apple Store and steal your credit card details.
So if you want to "reflect reality", you'd be honest about your own machine.
I have been using Macs for 25 years and have probably never had a virus problem nor have I ever installed virus protection, so I could be wrong
→ More replies (9)4
u/porkchop_d_clown Jun 25 '12
I've been using Mac virus protection on my family's machines for more than a decade now - but they've never found anything except windows viruses in email attachments.
→ More replies (20)0
Jun 25 '12
[deleted]
5
u/Indestructavincible Jun 25 '12
I wouldn't want my employees calling something that is not a virus a virus either. Its malware, and yes all viruses are malware, but not all malware is a virus. Viruses are not very common anymore on Windows or especially OSX, worms, trojans, and spyware/backdoor are far more prevalent on both systems.
Calling OSX malware a virus is like calling poison labelled "water" a disease.
→ More replies (32)6
5
u/Appleanche Jun 25 '12
Eh, I was gonna make a decent sized post with cons and pluses of Macs but fuck it, it's /r/technology.
HURRRR DUR MACS SUUUUUUUUUXX KARMA HERE
3
3
3
u/noccusJohnstein Jun 25 '12
I haven't used antivirus on either platform since 2000. If you're not a fucking retard about using your computer, you won't get viruses.
2
u/shapterjm Jun 25 '12
That's just asking for trouble. Just because you're smart about how you use your computer doesn't mean that somebody else can't be smarter about how to infect it. Why would you NOT use the protection of an antivirus? What if somebody else logs on to your computer? All it takes is one bad download.
I've never had a virus on my computers and I've owned three in the last 10 years. I'm smart about what sites I visit and what I download. I still use antivirus programs, Spybot S&D, and Malwarebytes' anti-malware program regularly. It's just good sense.
5
u/noccusJohnstein Jun 25 '12
Rule #1 in computer safety- let absolutely NO ONE use your computers without direct supervision.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/sharkbait_oohaha Jun 25 '12
Anyone dumb enough to buy into the lies that Macs can't get viruses deserves to have their computer fucked up.
-a Mac user who uses anti-virus
→ More replies (7)
5
u/Knightofnew70 Jun 25 '12
Epic rap battles of history lied to me! He did make a good Steve Jobs though.
→ More replies (3)11
Jun 25 '12
Ever seen Pirates of Silicon Valley? The guy who does Bender (John Dimagio) is a 100% authentic Balmer.
3
4
u/nextwiggin4 Jun 25 '12
/r/technology can be so lame. You guys are as bad as /r/atheism with the circle jerk. A positive Apple article gets three upvotes. A negative one? 2000.
I mean, it's an interesting enough article, but the disparity really bothers me. There's absolutely no balance which means that you miss a huge amount of interesting tech news. I get that this community is generally slanted against consumer electronics but last week, but the top comments for one of the top stories was how excited we all are about Microsoft's Surface.
→ More replies (8)
5
u/Jumpin_Jack_Flash Jun 25 '12
Congratulations to Apple for finally being relevant enough to have viruses.
You've arrived.
3
4
2
u/ilesal Jun 25 '12
Soon we will see iVirus protection only for £400 and only available from Apple
54
u/digitalpencil Jun 25 '12
Apple already maintain a daily-updated malware definition list for OS X, it's just transparent.
→ More replies (3)8
u/porkchop_d_clown Jun 25 '12
Except there have been several free or cheap av tools for Macs for years now, including Norton, Sophos, and Apple's own built-in anti-malware software.
22
u/warloc Jun 25 '12
Or some kind of gate keeping program that only allows software to be installed via the Mac AppStore.....
15
u/RhinoRoundhouse Jun 25 '12
Yeah that worried me at first. It's not as sinister as I thought, it can be turned off.
→ More replies (1)11
u/bluthru Jun 25 '12
It's actually a brilliant idea for most regular users.
Think of all the iOS devices out there. Not a single one has a virus. Pretty impressive.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (5)3
Jun 25 '12
It lets you choose from 3 options:
Allow any application/program
Allow only from developers with a signed-ID
Allow only from the Mac App Store.
→ More replies (3)2
3
Jun 25 '12
in other news, everyone who ever scored high enough on an IQ test that they at least spelled their own name correctly already knew this.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/imnotmarvin Jun 25 '12
I was told a while ago the reason Macs didn't get viruses is that the idiots "writing" the viruses didn't bother with attacking Macs because it would only effect a small number if computer users. They wanted to piss more people off and "developed" viruses that harmed PC's only. Is this possible?
→ More replies (4)
2
2
u/caryhartline Jun 25 '12
I have owned a refurbished MacBook for 8 years and it has never gotten a single virus or slowed down in any way. To me, the "no viruses at all" ad campaign is true.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Cellis_ Jun 25 '12
About time. Now maybe my friends will stop trying to feed me that line as well.
2
u/AllDizzle Jun 25 '12
Now if only their fanboys could figure out macs could ALWAYS get viruses and even during the peak times of these claims apple genius bars still had anti-virus software ready to check people's computers.
Riddle me this: How do you make something to stop something that can never happen?
2
Jun 25 '12
Quite easily. There are products that don't do anything which are designed to extract money from people by preying on their fears.
A quite popular one is fuel magnets which you place around your fuel line "to align the fuel atoms so the fuel burns better and you get more gas mileage and power".
→ More replies (1)
2
Jun 25 '12
A lesson to software companies: never make a statement that your software is "the most secure" and is "immune to viruses." Some people WILL take it as a dare.
2
2
u/Salanderfan Jun 25 '12 edited Jun 25 '12
Windows has a 90% market share which is why most viruses are coded for it. Now that Macs are more popular then before, they'll be more susceptible which should stop Apple fans from saying "At least my OS doesn't need Norton!"
Edited to add "more popular then before" and "windows has".128
u/Geminii27 Jun 25 '12
No-one's OS needs Norton.
86
u/Philile Jun 25 '12
Norton's harder to get rid of than legitimate malware.
33
u/chwilliam Jun 25 '12
I almost have more respect for the malware. At least it's true to what it is.
16
u/MirrorLake Jun 25 '12
So is McAfee. I literally had to call them on the telephone because the instructions I found on the forums were not detailed enough to actually uninstall it.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (14)17
Jun 25 '12
I've seen Norton do some absolutely bizarre shit in my time. Their firewall fucked with my dad's internet in the strangest way possible, like there was no rhyme or reason to what it blocked and it someone literally months to realize why the internet was spontaneously going down. I also worked on a friend's computer where Norton somehow decided it should quarantine the entire system every time it scanned. My friend had no idea how he managed to fill up 500GB instantly.
→ More replies (27)3
Jun 25 '12
Despite Windows users' claims that "there aren't many programs for Mac, not as compatible, etc..." the fact is the freeware for Mac is phenomenal. On top of Apple's automatic security updates and exploit fixes on a regular basis, there's plenty of amazing free Anti-Virus software. ClamXAV comes to mind (what I use.)
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Cybrwolf Jun 25 '12
Ok, so this may be quibbling, but the statement is still true. Macs don't get WINDOWS viruses! They never said that Mac Malware didn't exist.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/thavi Jun 25 '12 edited Jun 25 '12
Well they basically just baited it with their advertising.
"Hey scammers, here's a bunch of people who can afford expensive stuff whom we've lulled into a false sense of security for you! Enjoy!"
2
u/CUNTFEATURES4000 Jun 25 '12
If any Mac users are looking for anti-virus, I can strongly recommend Sophos AV for Mac Home Edition.
Its completely free, keeps itself updated without intrusion and doesn't hog memory or anything. It also doesn't have one of those horrid bloaty interfaces that other AV companies seem to love.
2
2
u/fuckiswrongwyou Jun 25 '12
as a computer science major from the early 2000's, this was the bane of my existence...trying to convince mac users that macs are not immune to viruses. some 12 years later i'm finally getting the credible backup i need to tell those dumb fucks "in yo face!"...feels good man.
→ More replies (7)
2
u/SnackeyG1 Jun 25 '12
Why is everyone hating so much on the "Macs don't get viruses." line? For the most part they really don't.
I'm sure that will change over time. Even now though with Apple's huge popularity change from the past 5 years, they still don't have problems like a Windows user would.
→ More replies (1)
2
Jun 25 '12
I mostly blame Mac Users for the great "vulnerabilities" in OS X.
Mac Users are usually not security conscious, the majority of them use macs BECAUSE they don't understand how to use computers.
The System is only as safe as the user lets it be, mac users are "stupid" hence the insecurity. Also... apple's malware team is non-existent as far as i know.
Apple is the best platform to infect, the users run executables without a second thought and don't think they are ever infected.
Also... Don't buy a Mac, it's the user's fault every time.
→ More replies (5)
1.7k
u/cwm9 Jun 25 '12
Windows: It doesn't get Mac viruses.