"OMG! "Unhackable" MAC OS at risk!" Topic

So much for the "unflawed" OS:

link

My favorite quotes, "Attacks on Apple computers are extremely rare, but security experts say that will change as Macs gain market share on PCs running Microsoft Corp's Windows operating system."

Better yet, "There is no magic fairy dust protecting Macs,"

Sucks becoming more popular…

Yes but that quote is very old. I've heard it for a few years now. I use both Macs and PCs and still find that my Mac works faster than the PC just due to the OS, not anything to due with security. It's just a better design OS than windows ever will be.

It's just a better design OS than windows ever will be.

…*and* since it's unix-based the security holes and solutions, when they become necessary, will be straightforward.

There are, finally, some Mac malware out there, but I have yet to hear of an ordinary user ever being adversely affected by some. It will happen, not today, not tomorrow, but someday.

In the meantime, I know plenty of Windows users who have been hit by viruses or somesuch while running the latest service packs and commercial virus protection.

So there is no magic fairy dust, but the odds are in our favor.

Andrew

From the article:

The technique -- dubbed "Machiavelli" -- exploits a vulnerability in the Mac OS X kernel, the heart of the machine's operating system. It only works on machines that have already been victimized, such as ones attacked with the pirated software. It can take control of Apple's Safari browser, logging passwords to financial accounts and data on bank statements, Dai Zovi said.

Emphasis mine.

So, you have to have been an idiot and downloaded the fake pirated software with its Trojan horse in the first place to be affected by this egregious hole in the OS. Yeah, that's a huge security hole. Not. On a PC, all you have to do to get malware is read an e-mail.

I am so quaking in my OS. Not.

Macs aren't invulnerable, it's just that nobody bothers.

It'd be like robbing a gumball machine instead of a bank.
-Kle.

Not this again. The facts are simple: Unix based systems (Mac, Linux) do not have as many inherent security holes as Windows (pre-Vista) system, and all Macs ship with basic security features enabled (firewall, no "super user" access without the user's permission, etc.).

Vista fixed a lot of the problems in Windows, but at the cost of some compatability problems. (That's how ingrained the problems in pre-Vista windows were!) They also added a standard firewall program and an "are you sure?" prompt when software is trying to do something possibly dodgy.

No system in the world is unhackable, given enough time, money and access. Macs do not have any obvious, easy back doors that "script kiddies" can exploit, and to date the only consistent way to hack into a Mac is to trick the user with a Trojan Horse virus.

Windows XP and earlier can be hacked by the simple act of connecting to the internet without a firewall or playing a music CD (google "sony rootkit" for a good example). Anyone with reasonable security precautions (a network firewall, turn off auto-play, run an active anti-virus program) won't be insta-hacked, and with Vista you are much safer, though you still can't let your guard down.

Unix based systems (Mac, Linux) do not have as many inherent security holes as Windows

The worlds first internet worm was Unix based. Unix is the preferred platform of the hacker malcontent, they will hack themselves but it comes down to basic economics, there are more WinPC's in the world so as a predator you develop a taste for PC. As the Mac/Unix/Linux pop grows they will develop a taste for MUL.

It is that simple.

All OS's are hackable, in the security business it's only about being harder to get into than your neighbor. The truth is if they want you, they will get you <Period/>

For what it's worth, I heard a story about a hacking test on a PC, a Mac and a Linux machine. It took only five minutes to hack the Mac, the PC lasted 15 minutes and the Linux held out nearly an hour before it succumbed.

Right, so MACS are faster since the OS only has to work on their systems.

Point is that it "appears" that as Apple nibbles into the market share, the "world" will take notice, and their will contineu to be more attempsts to break into them…

So, you have to have been an idiot and downloaded the fake pirated software with its Trojan horse in the first place to be affected by this egregious hole in the OS.

Riiiight, and because MAC users are so much prettier an smarter that the rest of us, something like this would NEVER, EVER happen…

EVER!

It's just a better design OS than windows ever will be.

Right, so why is it not prevalanet in the marketpalce for Intel and AMD (and other) processeors and laptops?

Because Apple keep the prices high and don't allow clones?

Yes, the first worm was a Unix worm. Unix systems quickly became more secure. Besides, there was no Windows back then (unless you count that misbegotten 16 piece-o-crud)

Interestingly, back in the late 80's, Macs were the most virus-ridden machines around, at least on my campus. Of course that was back in the "OS/2" days and DOS/Windows was almost useless. Apple learned the hard way how to gain security.

So Windows was in the perfect cross-product of Popular and Immature when the Web really came into its own, and the IP-speaking world became a more dangerous place. I personally believe Windows' worst days are behind it from a security standpoint, since Vista has adopted the sorts of security measures that Unix and Mac (by virtue of being a flavor of Unix) have been using for years.

But like I said, nothing is unhackable.

So, you have to have been an idiot and downloaded the fake pirated software with its Trojan horse in the first place to be affected by this egregious hole in the OS.

Riiiight, and because MAC users are so much prettier an smarter that the rest of us, something like this would NEVER, EVER happen…

EVER!

I don't believe I said that or implied it. What I said was that *if* a person wasn't stupid (which I'm not), then this security hole is nothing to worry about. In order for a Mac to be affected by this hole, the user has to do something deliberately foolish to make the machine vulnerable. A machine can't be affected by it by simply visiting a website or opening an e-mail or all the other thousands of perfectly normal everyday things that computer users of any stripe do. The user has to actually seek out and download an application of dubious nature and source (engaging, at least in this instance, in a crime on their part if it *were* the pirated software it claimed to be), and THEN give the Mac permission to install the same downloaded application despite the automatic warning the Mac OS puts up in such cases. A person who does this sort of thing, Mac user or PC user, is to my mind an idiot. As I am not so foolish, I am not worried about this "hole," which is in any case easily plugged by the most basic safe computing practices. The story is much clamor over nothing.

But are there souls who could behave in such stupid ways as to fall victim to this "hole?" Sure. Idiocy knows no limits; there are still people who believe that Nigerian Oil Ministers want to give them millions of dollars. These people can't be protected by any OS, no matter how secure. The only way to protect them is to deny them computers altogether. But then, they'll just give away the same information to a phone call or a post card or some glib talker in a parking lot. The only OS that's the fault of is the one between their ears.

It's just a better design OS than windows ever will be.

Right, so why is it not prevalanet in the marketpalce for Intel and AMD (and other) processeors and laptops?

Easy. Legacy, marketshare, and IBM. You're forgetting your computer history. The first really viable personal computer for the public and business market was the Apple II— a good machine that was very popular among computer fans. But at the time, businesses that used computers typically didn't use personal computers; they used terminals that accessed a mainframe. And the leading manufacturer of mainframes (at least in terms of popular familiarity) was IBM. IBM saw what was happening with comparatively little computer companies like Apple, Eagle, and Tandy, and realized the business market was due to explode. IBM designed its own PC, and rather than code their own OS, licensed the rights to an OS developed by a small software firm called Microsoft.

The IBM name, among businessmen, was magic. Regardless of the actual utility and value of the machine, the value of the IBM logo was phenomenal. They were an international company with an established presence and a "suit" mentality that appealed to the other "suits" of the world far more than two guys with a fondness for turtlenecks and t-shirts. Besides, the "suits'" grandkids had Apple IIs— they used 'em to play "video games." Surely those couldn't be used for "serious" business work.

IBM sales in the business world took off. Every business felt the need for a computer, and every computer *had* to be an IBM, if you were "serious" about business. And that meant every computer had an Intel chip and that odd little jargon-laden, funky command-line OS called "Microsoft DOS." But that was okay, because every OS was jargon-laden with a funky command-line interface that had terms that only made sense to the computer nerds hired to make sure the businessmen and their staff didn't turn the company files into random 1s and 0s.

Then Steve Jobs learned about a new approach to an OS, developed by Xerox but not really pursued by them. It involved turning the computer screen into a visual metaphor of an office. The screen was like a "desktop" where files could be depicted as little pictures that represented what the files essentially were: documents, "applications" or tools for creating and changing documents, and folders that contained documents or even applications. And the user could access these elements by moving a tool to point at the various pictures, and then push a single button to begin using or working on whatever that picture represented. It was ingenious, and almost perfectly intuitive; there was no need for a command-line interface or obscure jargon or funky command syntax using punctuation marks to mean things that punctuation marks had never meant before. The original Mac OS was born, and there was no question it was superior to DOS. It did everything that DOS did (and more), simpler, quicker, and better.

But it was on an Apple machine. It didn't have that IBM logo. Plus, all the files and applications, however cludgy, which businesses had paid millions of dollars for on their IBM machines, didn't work with the new OS. And the new OS didn't work on the IBM machines. It required a different chipset used almost exclusively by Apple. Businesses, already enamored of the "suit" image of IBM, faced considerable expense switching to the new "Macintosh" machine. At the same time, the user-friendly new "GUI" OS was not "nerd friendly." Nerds had power. They knew the obscure patterns of punctuation marks and truncated words required to make the IBM machines function. Plus, DOS was like the neighbor's unlocked toolshed. You could go in and pick whatever tool you liked, even put in your own tools, even build stuff in the shed out of bailing wire and duct tape, and sometimes the stuff even mostly worked! And your boss was mystified by your prowess. But that "Mac" thing… now your stuff had to look good, and use "menus" and "windows" and be "user friendly." How could Apple do this, the nerds roared, they're dumbing down computing so anybody could do it! HORRORS!!! (Yes, I did actually hear this argument from a die-hard DOS fanatic as late as 1997.)

But the nerds had an unexpected savior— somebody had figured out how to reproduce IBM's core computer designs without violating any patents; companies could make CLONES of IBM machines, clones that used DOS and ran all the applications and files and were even *cheaper* than the machines IBM made… and far cheaper than the $2,500 USD Macintosh. It looked like Apple's big idea was going to be snowed under…

And then Apple introduced something called a "laser printer," and the concept of "Desktop Publishing." Businesses that had relied on printers that were little more than glorified typewriters could now produce documents that looked as if they came from professional linotype machines— they could even design pages with graphics, even black and white photos… and print them out in their own offices. And it could only be done on a Mac!

Microsoft and the clone companies had to answer this threat quickly. Not only were Macs easier to use, they could do something the DOS machines couldn't. But if Apple had the advantage of a coming up with new and innovative products, Microsoft had the advantage of a world-wide base of Microsoft-dependent machines (and therefore customers). All Microsoft had to do was copy what Apple was doing, keeping their customers relieved that technology wasn't passing them buy. The problem was that Apple pretty much owned the GUI design. But Microsoft had something else— the best selling and ubiquitous Microsoft Word, which had become the dominant word processor in both marketplaces. They also had another advantage fall their way— the genius behind Apple and the Mac, Steve Jobs, had angered his own array of suits. He was out, and another man was in. A soft drink man. A man concerned with marketshare above all— John Sculley.

Microsoft played hardball. They told Sculley that if he didn't license the core elements of the Mac interface to them, they'd stop making the bestselling word processor for the Mac— the word processor that created the majority of the documents that people wanted to share between PCs and Macs. Afraid he'd lose the marketshare he'd been hired to build, Sculley caved, and Windows was born. Well, almost still-born. It didn't have the elegance of the Macintosh OS, the graphics were bad, and it still used the funky command syntax, but it was a GUI… sort of… and with the right updated "driver" (no, the latest update), it could run a laser printer and produce better looking documents. Better looking, that is, than a strictly DOS PC. Not so much a Mac. It was flawed (horribly flawed at first), but it locked in the base, and encouraged the base to grow… and it was cheaper than a Mac— for obvious reasons, perhaps, but still cheaper. And Microsoft could always improve the OS. All they had to do was watch what Apple did, and copy that. Oh sure, the improvements stayed behind Apple— sometimes years behind— but the base was there and solid and willing to put up with all sorts of bad design, blue screens of death, bugs and malware simply because "it's what everyone else uses." (Except, of course, those annoying Mac users who wouldn't come back to the true religion.)

But Apple continued to innovate. They had the best engineers— until Sculley lost them in a failed attempt to gain marketshare by promoting Mac clones. They dreamed up astounding new products like the Newton— which Sculley introduced too fast at too high a price. They designed a new Mac based around a RISC processor— and built a hundred different versions like flavors on a grocery store soda aisle. They improved the OS… just not as much. And Scully threw it all out to see what stuck. Some things did, some things didn't, some things fell to the ground because they just weren't ready to fly. The company did grow, though, because no matter what Sculley did, the truth was the products, no matter how confusing the array, were good, and the OS was attractive. Yet Microsoft crept forward, tweaking here, expanding there, copying, copying, copying, until they had an OS almost as good as the original Mac, give or take the occasional cludginess held over from DOS. And during this time, Apple's market share rose to about 10%, give or take, and Microsoft had 90%, give or take, and hey, 90% is better than 10% any day of the week! (Until you recall what Theodore Sturgeon had to say about 90%.) But it looked like no matter what Sculley did, Apple's marketshare (despite being one of the largest single computer makers in the world) was stuck at 10%— or worse, was going to fall well below it.

And then, shock of shock, Steve Jobs came back. The computer world was in a tizzy. What would this mean for Apple? Jobs's big venture away from Apple, the NEXT computer, had not taken off. Sure, he had started a little animation company called Pixar and helped it make a movie or two, but what could he really do with Apple? The marketshare fight was clearly over, and Microsoft had won.

What did Jobs do? He ignored marketshare, and took the Mac back to what it was intended to be in the first place— an elegant, fun tool that anyone could use to do amazing things.
He dazzled everyone with the original crystal and blue iMac, turning the computer from an ugly looking tool hidden in a closet "study" to a fun, eye-catching conversation piece; fashion combined with function. He appealed to young users, who no longer cared about being "power nerds," by offering the iMac in multiple colors for their college life and first apartments. Then when they graduated and entered the "real" world, he introduced a new iMac with a cleaner, classier appeal for their professional desktops and interior-designed rooms. (Open any interior design catalog and look at pictures of workspaces— the computer pictured is probably either the "round base" iMac or the current "hinged-L" iMac.) If computers were now cool, there was no question that the coolest computers were Macs.

But Jobs wasn't just doing computers. Anybody can sell a computer— Sculley proved that. Jobs wanted to sell a lifestyle. First came innovative, bundled software for storing and manipulating digital photos. Then came software for editing digital video. Then, along with an iconic device— the iPod— came a tool (and a store) for legally purchasing and downloading music and video. Then came the iPhone— no need to explain its appeal. And Microsoft was left to scramble, discovering that mimicry could only go so far.

Today, Apple's marketshare is bigger than ever before, and continues to grow. Its products are innovative and trendsetting. Its ads are clever, iconic and effective— while Microsoft is left to depict third-world teachers and guys with bad haircuts proclaiming themselves as PC users as its main sales point. Uh. Right. That's persuasive.

And the power nerds? They're still here. They now use a system which is basically Mac OS circa 2003, with their beloved command-line interface mostly buried from sight. But they're still ready to protect their territory of techie superiority while they try to get their Zunes to look remotely cool and scrape the invisible malware off their hard drives. Again. This week.

Well, whatever floats a boat, as they say. Enjoy the 90%. I'll stick with the 10.

Ooh, that's a long post

But like I said, nothing is unhackable.

Exactly; I've been in the Network Security Biz for over 10 years now. The weakest link is not the OS anymore it's the user and the 3rd party apps running on the OS. If users would patch regularly, quit clicking links and stop visiting less then savory sites (if the site seems immoral it typically isn't just your brain and spirit getting the contamination)a lot of the propagation of malware would cease.

D~

Ooh, that's a long post

Yeah. Temporary insomnia. It was waaaay too late for me to be up, and when I'm really tired I tend to ramble.

For instance, did I tell you the story about when I was fourteen and wanted an Apple II computer but my family wouldn't buy one because my father had just started his own business and the economy wasn't so hot and… *THONK*zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I can't believe I actually read all of Parzival's post – only to realize that I agree with much that is in it now that I have an iMac, and have gone from working at home on a Dell, to the iMac – even with it's tiny keyboard and "magic mouse" without all the bells and whistles and buttons and command lines and jacks and cables and peripherals and . . .. Yeah, I used to love my Dell and I enjoyed working with Windows XP professional, it worked better than anything else I've used on an IBM platform and I trained people to use them, was mildly effective at hacking software on them, and found security holes in software you could drive a Naval armada through, but I am now a convert. It almost feels dirty to use that word, as I almost feel like I was never fully an IBM individual in the first instance.