PDA

View Full Version : Apple Scales Back Marketing Language on OS X Security Following Flashback




MacRumors
Jun 25, 2012, 12:13 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/25/apple-scales-back-marketing-language-on-os-x-security-following-flashback/)


Computerworld Australia reports (http://www.pcworld.com/article/258183/apple_quietly_pulls_claims_of_virus_immunity.html) on a blog post (http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/06/14/mac-malware-apple-marketing-message/) from Sophos security expert Graham Cluley published earlier this month detailing changes to Apple's "Why you'll love a Mac" (http://www.apple.com/why-mac/better-os/) OS X marketing pages on the topic of security. The changes, which come after a significant malware attack (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/04/05/600000-macs-worldwide-reportedly-infected-by-flashback-trojan/) from Flashback earlier this year, focus more of the text of OS X's built-in security features rather than implying Macs are immune to viruses and suggesting that users do not need to take any action to protect themselves.Apple removed the previous statement "It doesn't get PC viruses" and replaced it with "It's built to be safe," and "Safeguard your data. By doing nothing" with "Safety. Built in." [...]

In addition to changing its marketing messages, Apple has released a security guide for the iPhone operating system iOS and announced in February that OS X 10.8, or Mountain Lion, would include a new feature called Gatekeeper that would restrict which applications users can install on their devices.http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/06/os_x_security_marketing_comparison.jpg


Beyond the increased security features such as Gatekeeper making their way into OS X Mountain Lion, Apple is also working to reduce vulnerabilities in third-party platforms such as Java that are frequently exploited by malware authors. Apple has been working to shift responsibility for Java updates to the OpenJDK in order to make them more timely and has also been pushing out software updates to disable Java by default if it goes unused for a period of time.

Article Link: Apple Scales Back Marketing Language on OS X Security Following Flashback (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/25/apple-scales-back-marketing-language-on-os-x-security-following-flashback/)



MacFetish
Jun 25, 2012, 12:15 PM
The inevitable price of increasing success.

needfx
Jun 25, 2012, 12:16 PM
Clever maneuver. They had to adjust.

zombierunner
Jun 25, 2012, 12:17 PM
Lay off the porn and you'll be alright!

Edit: Also lay off the face space, my book and such

deannnnn
Jun 25, 2012, 12:17 PM
I understand that they're just trying to protect themselves but, a Mac really doesn't get PC viruses. I think there was nothing wrong or incorrect in the original text.

I mean, do you consider a trojan to be a virus? I certainly don't.

MH01
Jun 25, 2012, 12:17 PM
Times change. Big change in tune from
Apple, did not expect this .

Now we should see hundreds of posts defining what a virus is and what malware is.

nikhsub1
Jun 25, 2012, 12:18 PM
The inevitable price of increasing success.
No doubt. Also realizing that they can't spin this BS any longer the way they used to. OS X was safer ONLY because it hasn't been targeted... I think we are at the point where every OS X user should use some sort of malware protection.

lilo777
Jun 25, 2012, 12:21 PM
I understand that they're just trying to protect themselves but, a Mac really doesn't get PC viruses. I think there was nothing wrong or incorrect in the original text.

I mean, do you consider a trojan to be a virus? I certainly don't.

Do you mean to say that it gets Mac viruses? Is that really a good selling point?

ChazUK
Jun 25, 2012, 12:23 PM
I think we are at the point where every OS X user should use some sort of malware protection.

Common sense does me fine, thanks.

Mal
Jun 25, 2012, 12:25 PM
No doubt. Also realizing that they can't spin this BS any longer the way they used to. OS X was safer ONLY because it hasn't been targeted... I think we are at the point where every OS X user should use some sort of malware protection.

Ah, the good old Marketshare Myth™. Too bad it doesn't hold up to the simplest of logic. After all, can you tell me why OS 8-9, with a fraction of the marketshare, had orders of magnitude more malware (including actual viruses and worms)? After all, it should have been even more protected because there were fewer of them and would have been even less targeted.

jW

Dr McKay
Jun 25, 2012, 12:25 PM
Why change? It never did get PC viruses, and still doesn't. Microsoft could easily add "It doesn't get Mac Malware" to their Windows page and still be correct.

whooleytoo
Jun 25, 2012, 12:30 PM
I understand that they're just trying to protect themselves but, a Mac really doesn't get PC viruses. I think there was nothing wrong or incorrect in the original text.

I mean, do you consider a trojan to be a virus? I certainly don't.

Correct, but does it really matter? If a user's Mac is infected with malware, does it matter much what the initial attack vector was; virus, trojan or worm?

It's probably no harm for Apple to tone down the language a bit, from 'Don't worry, you're safe' to 'You're safer on a Mac'. Users still need to exercise caution.

There are a hell of a lot of developers out there now with Cocoa programming skills - iOS has made it a lucrative business, not just the preserve of Mac fans. I think we're likely to see more and more attacks, with Apple's higher profile and market-share.

haravikk
Jun 25, 2012, 12:30 PM
About time; increased market share or not there's always been the possibility of malware getting onto a machine, the fact that it's taken Apple this long to really do anything to properly stop it is shameful really.

Touting "we've probably not got any viable viruses yet" was never sound marketing, as I don't think I know anyone that would seriously switch OS (and hardware) just to escape from Windows viruses. The real important points have always been simplicity and usability, which is what they should be advertising most, and kind of do, adding "no viruses we promise" has only ever been asking for trouble.

sweetbrat
Jun 25, 2012, 12:31 PM
I understand that they're just trying to protect themselves but, a Mac really doesn't get PC viruses. I think there was nothing wrong or incorrect in the original text.

I mean, do you consider a trojan to be a virus? I certainly don't.

A lot of people (especially those outside of these forums) don't understand that there's a difference.

johncarync
Jun 25, 2012, 12:31 PM
Someone pulled out their old Bedazzler for the BEFORE and AFTER font.:)

http://collegepoison.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/bedazzler.jpg

paradox00
Jun 25, 2012, 12:32 PM
No doubt. Also realizing that they can't spin this BS any longer the way they used to. OS X was safer ONLY because it hasn't been targeted... I think we are at the point where every OS X user should use some sort of malware protection.

If someone looks hard enough, they will find a hole in any OS (often through a third party program), but don't kid yourself, OS X is and has been far safer than XP or Mac OS 9, and it wasn't due to obscurity. User Account Control in Vista and 7 made Windows much more secure than it used to be.

ristlin
Jun 25, 2012, 12:33 PM
http://i.qkme.me/36az99.jpg

whooleytoo
Jun 25, 2012, 12:34 PM
Ah, the good old Marketshare Myth™. Too bad it doesn't hold up to the simplest of logic. After all, can you tell me why OS 8-9, with a fraction of the marketshare, had orders of magnitude more malware (including actual viruses and worms)? After all, it should have been even more protected because there were fewer of them and would have been even less targeted.

jW

Before widespread internet use, people were sharing floppies a lot more; thus it's much easier for viruses to propagate. Now, most people downloading app directly from vendor's site, the Mac App Store, or DVD installs (read-only, thus safer).

Mad-B-One
Jun 25, 2012, 12:35 PM
Do you mean to say that it gets Mac viruses? Is that really a good selling point?

Never heard of a "Mac virus" - what is that? Any programmer can program something harmful to your computer - no matter what OS. If the user installs it, it can cause damage. Heck, I can install Windows on a Mac and cut most Mac users' productivity in half. Does that make Windows a virus? Maybe that is your "mac virus" then... :D

HenryAZ
Jun 25, 2012, 12:35 PM
I mean, do you consider a trojan to be a virus? I certainly don't.

To technical people, no. But the world is made up of less-than-technical people, and their perception is that if the computer has been "taken over" or invaded, it matters not what you call it.

Before I retired, doing sysadmin work, my boss used to maintain that if the web server is inaccessible, then it is "down". It didn't matter the actual technical reason (router hung, name server not resolving, someone unplugged a switch, or even in fact the web server was not serving), if the end user could not access it, it was "down". That is how most people perceive it.

ivladster
Jun 25, 2012, 12:39 PM
There's always a virus for any kind of software. Unless it's build by aliens, humans will always try to break things apart and get in.

Mad-B-One
Jun 25, 2012, 12:39 PM
About time; increased market share or not there's always been the possibility of malware getting onto a machine, the fact that it's taken Apple this long to really do anything to properly stop it is shameful really.


Hmmm. And what was the Microsoft Virus Scanner again? I think AV.exe in 3.11 - and that's about it (PS: That AV.exe was never updated - ever. Just had a virus list from the get-go it could detect...). Please don't sell me the Malware Detector as antivirus program.

nagromme
Jun 25, 2012, 12:45 PM
People do twist themselves into logical knots trying to convince themselves that the actual, real world, malware situation is as bad on Mac as it is on PCs. (Or “just about to be as bad, any day now, for reals, Simon Says!”)

At the end of the day, users are SO MUCH safer on a Mac that it’s not even close, and any shift simply cannot overwhelm that advantage any time soon—not even if Apple “stands still” with OS X development. Argue the definitions (and certainly Flashback was nasty in its own way, whatever you call it—more than “just a trojan”). But the reality remains. And what Apple has already done with Mountain Lion for security is just plain awesome on top of that. (Yes, MS has done a lot too finally, and in certain ways has done more and better. My Windows friends are still constantly infested and my Mac friends are not—bearing out the same stats we see in the world.)

It’s like PCs are box of cobras and and Macs are box of turtles, and you’re deciding which one to put your hand into. And the PC people say “both turtles and snakes can theoretically give you salmonella—so choose the cobras for long life and health!” :p

EDIT: And even if smaller market size (obscurity) WERE the only reason for Mac’s safety (clearly untrue) that would still be a good thing, and Macs won’t surpass PC installed base for many years if ever. (But look at iOS’s lack of malware... and there are more of those than Macs.... It would seem that market share is not the only factor here.) Apple products aren’t perfect, merely the best by far and improving fast.

Mal
Jun 25, 2012, 12:45 PM
Before widespread internet use, people were sharing floppies a lot more; thus it's much easier for viruses to propagate. Now, most people downloading app directly from vendor's site, the Mac App Store, or DVD installs (read-only, thus safer).

Yes, because it's so much easier for a virus to spread on a floppy disk than over the internet. History obviously proves you right.

/sarcasm :rolleyes:

Seriously? Do half a moment's research and you'll find that the internet was the catalyst for a huge surge in the number of virus available for Windows. Also, internet usage was certainly widespread before OS X was released, and many of the OS 9 viruses and other types of malware did propagate via email or websites.

jW

iEvolution
Jun 25, 2012, 12:45 PM
I understand that they're just trying to protect themselves but, a Mac really doesn't get PC viruses. I think there was nothing wrong or incorrect in the original text.

I mean, do you consider a trojan to be a virus? I certainly don't.

The line of trojan and virus is pretty blurry these days and the general public thinks any program that is malicious in nature is a virus when, in the strict sense, it may not be.

I agree that the original text isnt misleading at all because PC viruses do require a PC to run.

Pakaku
Jun 25, 2012, 12:47 PM
Lay off the porn and you'll be alright!

I'll take my chances :)

marioguarneros
Jun 25, 2012, 12:51 PM
They say that you are what you eat and this is no different, you browse garbage sites and download rubbish you will get garbage and rubbish in your OS, plain and simple.

If you are careless or dumb enough to download everything you can find online you shouldn't be complaining as it is not the OS company's fault, call it Microsoft, Apple or any other flavour.

That said I have been worry free since I moved to Mac many years ago and I don't see that changing anytime soon. I hope I am not wrong, lol.

----------

Someone pulled out their old Bedazzler for the BEFORE and AFTER font.:)

Image (http://collegepoison.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/bedazzler.jpg)

Hilarious man! :D

nikhsub1
Jun 25, 2012, 12:54 PM
Common sense does me fine, thanks.
Sometimes it's not about that. Recently popular web sites were injected with malicious code, anyone who went there on a PC with IE that did not have a certain patch was infected immediately. Without the user even knowing anything had happened. But hey, if sticking your head in the sand is how you like to deal with things, more power to you.

nwcs
Jun 25, 2012, 01:09 PM
It was always misleading to say you had to do nothing to be safe/secure. They should have had that gone before the flashback stuff. Ultimately all a system can do is help people become more safe -- it can't prevent bad choices.

Apple's best message is to talk about how they can help a user choose a more secure environment.

Erwin-Br
Jun 25, 2012, 01:11 PM
I understand that they're just trying to protect themselves but, a Mac really doesn't get PC viruses. I think there was nothing wrong or incorrect in the original text.

I mean, do you consider a trojan to be a virus? I certainly don't.

True, but when was the last time a virus hit Windows big-time? Nowadays it's mostly trojans and malware anyway.

FakeWozniak
Jun 25, 2012, 01:14 PM
The headlines are drawing a conclusion I don't agree with. Apple has added a metric ass ton of security features to Mountain Lion. This is the reason they changed the web page, not because of a specific trojan.

Demigod Mac
Jun 25, 2012, 01:15 PM
So much misinformation.

* "Just don't visit porn sites" is no longer true. Porn sites have cleaned up their act and are actually among the safest sites in terms of not getting infected. The worst? Blogs and personal sites. Social networking sites can be pretty dangerous too. Malware can lurk in ad banners.

* The vast majority of infections these days are trojans, not viruses. Even on PCs, viruses and worms are rare these days, and most true virus infections happen after the system has already been hosed by a trojan that downloads additional malware. But to an end user, an infection is a "virus" regardless of the correct semantics.

* You don't have to be fooled into clicking on Allow/Install or opening a file to get infected. Many infections happen when you search for something popular on the internet (e.g. celebrity news), click on an SEO-poisoned website set up by the hacker to be high up on a search engine result, and if your web browser, Java, Flash, etc. are out of date, you're screwed. They use code exploits to automatically run the software on your computer, and it bypasses the normal permissions granting install procedure. This is why Flashback was so bad: a serious Java exploit had recently come out but Apple was being lazy on patching it for OS X, so even if you were fully up to date, you could still get infected just by visiting the wrong website. Apple seems to have gotten their act together however and issued the latest update to Java very quickly.

dokujaryu
Jun 25, 2012, 01:16 PM
Hey, maybe I'm just crazy here, but I think Apple should just compete by building the safest consumer OS possible, then claim that, and only that. "Protection" by obscurity is hardly something to shout about anyway.

hkenneth
Jun 25, 2012, 01:18 PM
The line of trojan and virus is pretty blurry these days and the general public thinks any program that is malicious in nature is a virus when, in the strict sense, it may not be.

I agree that the original text isnt misleading at all because PC viruses do require a PC to run.

The definition of PC itself is arbitrary and misleading. So, an x86 Intel microcomputer running any operating systems except Mac OS X is a PC but running Mac makes it an Macintosh/Hackintosh? How about some low level virus written purely in x86 assembly language that can live in your ROM/EFI no matter of what operating system you run above it? (I believe there was such kind of virus before.) Does such virus count for a Mac virus or a "PC" virus.

IzzyJG99
Jun 25, 2012, 01:20 PM
Hey, maybe I'm just crazy here, but I think Apple should just compete by building the safest consumer OS possible, then claim that, and only that. "Protection" by obscurity is hardly something to shout about anyway.

That's an brilliant marketing and advertising idea. Market OS-X as the safest consumer OS available.

Don...what do you think?

http://xfinity.comcast.net/blogs/tv/files/2011/03/don-draper-mad-men.jpg

Don Draper Approved™.

Codyak
Jun 25, 2012, 01:21 PM
So much misinformation.

* "Just don't visit porn sites" is no longer true. Porn sites have cleaned up their act and are actually among the safest sites in terms of not getting infected. The worst? Blogs and personal sites. Social networking sites can be pretty dangerous too. Malware can lurk in ad banners.

If you read around, you see that Porn sites really are some of the cleanest as they have a vested interest in you returning. You are right on the money with the banners.

Dr McKay
Jun 25, 2012, 01:26 PM
They say that you are what you eat

I don't remember eating a sexy beast this morning.....

jonnysods
Jun 25, 2012, 01:27 PM
Had to happen sooner or later.

GenesisST
Jun 25, 2012, 01:27 PM
Common sense does me fine, thanks.

It is a a form of malware protection, so there you go!

marioguarneros
Jun 25, 2012, 01:34 PM
I don't remember eating a sexy beast this morning.....

How very original! ;)

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/they-say-you-are-what-you-eat.jpg

ethana
Jun 25, 2012, 01:36 PM
Good move by Apple. The "Before" was always a lie, and this coming from a lifelong Mac user.

scottsjack
Jun 25, 2012, 01:48 PM
There's something honorable about advertizing that reflects actual truth rather than the all to typical BS. Apple gets a gold star on this one.

whooleytoo
Jun 25, 2012, 01:48 PM
Yes, because it's so much easier for a virus to spread on a floppy disk than over the internet. History obviously proves you right.

/sarcasm :rolleyes:

Seriously? Do half a moment's research and you'll find that the internet was the catalyst for a huge surge in the number of virus available for Windows. Also, internet usage was certainly widespread before OS X was released, and many of the OS 9 viruses and other types of malware did propagate via email or websites.

jW

Back when I was using System 6/System 7, every Mac user I knew was copying software with floppies, because it was so hard to source software otherwise (in the US, it might have been different). Which meant, if any of your friends' Macs were infected, you were certain to get it too when you swapped floppies.

Nowadays, downloading from legal sources is far, far safer (and there is far more free software available, so less need to pirate software). With lower software prices and digital distribution options like the MAS and Steam, it's easier to get it online legally (and thus, safely) rather than from a pirate site. Of course, it's just one of several factors.

theSeb
Jun 25, 2012, 01:50 PM
I understand that they're just trying to protect themselves but, a Mac really doesn't get PC viruses. I think there was nothing wrong or incorrect in the original text.

I mean, do you consider a trojan to be a virus? I certainly don't.

To Joe Average Computer User they are the same.

frabber
Jun 25, 2012, 01:53 PM
don't we all know marketing people talk with their behind. whoever takes marketing seriously should check themselves. such a dishonest profession. marketing = disgusting in my book. If you are in marketing, quit your job and start doing something usefull.

Mattie Num Nums
Jun 25, 2012, 01:53 PM
The line of trojan and virus is pretty blurry these days and the general public thinks any program that is malicious in nature is a virus when, in the strict sense, it may not be.

I agree that the original text isnt misleading at all because PC viruses do require a PC to run.

If we are getting technical here... a Mac is just another "PC" "Personal Computer".

NAG
Jun 25, 2012, 01:57 PM
What I find funny is that the same people that jump on Apple for changes like this saying, "See! OS X is super vulnerable to viruses!" are usually the same people that jump on Apple for things like Gatekeeper. It truly boggles the mind.

Doombringer
Jun 25, 2012, 01:58 PM
I'm glad they changed their language. "It doesn't get viruses" is false. "Safeguard your data, by doing nothing" is also a fallacy.

Here's hoping they continue to take security seriously. Security-by-rarity is not the way to go considering how popular Apple products are becoming.

Sackvillenb
Jun 25, 2012, 02:00 PM
Hmm, well that's very interesting. I really do hope they start taking their security seriously, since it's a main selling point, and since Macs are getting more and more popular (and so become bigger targets for malware). They need to stay on top of security issues!

And, they really should avoid saying PC viruses, and should say Windows viruses. I know a lot of posters bust people's balls and say "a Mac IS a PC", and while that's completely true, misusing that term PC in general language is not something I'm very picky about, but using it in an official statement on your website, now that requires some more accuracy. :)

Augure
Jun 25, 2012, 02:03 PM
This is critical.

I'm sure most of you who use OSX know what makes it success: you get your Mac out of the box, light it up, and use it without having to tweak, install or change anything.

If I have to use any antivirus or firewall software on my Mac that is not naturally and discretely already included in OSX without me having to do anything, then this is another sign of the end of the real Apple (by real I mean the one in the 80s in the one in the 2000s with Steve Jobs)

gnasher729
Jun 25, 2012, 02:04 PM
If someone looks hard enough, they will find a hole in any OS (often through a third party program),

That's what sandboxing is for. The developer splits their app into parts that handle the dangerous outside world but have no rights to do anything that affects your computer, and the parts that don't need to handle any data coming from the outside and are therefore safe from attack. So even if the attacker finds a hole in your application, they are stuck in a sandbox that they cannot leave.

kps
Jun 25, 2012, 02:15 PM
Safety. Built right in. Except the part where we log people's passwords in plain text, and don't bother to release a patch for three months.

Nunyabinez
Jun 25, 2012, 02:31 PM
I'm glad they changed their language. "It doesn't get viruses" is false. "Safeguard your data, by doing nothing" is also a fallacy.

Here's hoping they continue to take security seriously. Security-by-rarity is not the way to go considering how popular Apple products are becoming.

Please provide me with the name of the last Mac virus to hit. And if you say Flashback, please ask your nearest coworker to slap the back of your head for not knowing the difference between a virus and malware. And contrary to what posters here have said, it makes a difference.

A majority of people in the US believe that dinosaurs and humans lived simultaneously, but that doesn't' mean that they are right. So, who gives a crap if the "average" person doesn't know the difference between a virus and malware.

No OS can protect against a user installing malicious software. The point is that Macs have been impervious to being attacked without the users' express actions authorizing the attack. That hasn't changed.

Ajones330
Jun 25, 2012, 02:38 PM
Well I'm glad this was a big story and Apple will stay on top of the security issue. One of the big reasons I got a Mac yrs back was because they were not targeted but with success comes heighten security...:rolleyes:

brdeveloper
Jun 25, 2012, 02:52 PM
Lay off the porn and you'll be alright!

Buy a PC only to watch porn and let it screw it up.

----------

Times change. Big change in tune from
Apple, did not expect this .

Now we should see hundreds of posts defining what a virus is and what malware is.

Yep. Beginners even know what is a malware. Virus, although incorrect, is a more generic term for defining malware than malware itself. I would even say that this differentiation between virus and malware is more of an excuse from Apple fans. When you buy an antivirus software, actually you're buying an anti-malware software. The classical virus, that assembler app that screwed up your PC is rare these days.

paradox00
Jun 25, 2012, 02:54 PM
That's what sandboxing is for. The developer splits their app into parts that handle the dangerous outside world but have no rights to do anything that affects your computer, and the parts that don't need to handle any data coming from the outside and are therefore safe from attack. So even if the attacker finds a hole in your application, they are stuck in a sandbox that they cannot leave.

Those have been broken before too, but you're absolutely right, that is the intent and it's a great security feature.

that1guyy
Jun 25, 2012, 02:57 PM
Well I guess that's one more pro thing that Mac users can't say anymore when arguing about Macs vs. pcs.

Don't worry I'll thumb down my own comment. You don't have to.

hkenneth
Jun 25, 2012, 03:02 PM
Buy a PC only to watch porn and let it screw it up.

----------



Yep. Beginners even know what is a malware. Virus, although incorrect, is a more generic term for defining malware than malware itself. I would even say that this differentiation between virus and malware is more of an excuse from Apple fans. When you buy an antivirus software, actually you're buying an anti-malware software. The classical virus, that assembler app that screwed up your PC is rare these days.

You don't even need to buy a PC. You just need to set up a virtual machine, and set it to be read-only~

Bubba Satori
Jun 25, 2012, 03:05 PM
You ok?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQb_Q8WRL_g

jroadley
Jun 25, 2012, 03:09 PM
Just download free av from Sophos

Simples

brdeveloper
Jun 25, 2012, 03:13 PM
You don't even need to buy a PC. You just need to set up a virtual machine, and set it to be read-only~

Good idea :P

D.T.
Jun 25, 2012, 03:23 PM
You don't even need to buy a PC. You just need to set up a virtual machine, and set it to be read-only~

Already there ... :D

kustardking
Jun 25, 2012, 03:30 PM
The inevitable price of increasing success.

Yes, and for that being a first post I applaud the Apple community for finally recognizing, though under duress at the edge of the cliff, that there is NOTHING inherently special about OS X's security environment. It is, in fact, apparently more holey and less holy at the same time. I'm glad the scripture has become more self-conscious.

Old Muley
Jun 25, 2012, 03:32 PM
Now if it could just prevent all those "Mac Keeper" ads from popping up, I'd be a happy boy.

kustardking
Jun 25, 2012, 03:40 PM
please provide me with the name of the last mac virus to hit. And if you say flashback, please ask your nearest coworker to slap the back of your head for not knowing the difference between a virus and malware. And contrary to what posters here have said, it makes a difference.

A majority of people in the us believe that dinosaurs and humans lived simultaneously, but that doesn't' mean that they are right. So, who gives a crap if the "average" person doesn't know the difference between a virus and malware.

No os can protect against a user installing malicious software. The point is that macs have been impervious to being attacked without the users' express actions authorizing the attack. That hasn't changed.


my bad!

throttlemeister
Jun 25, 2012, 03:40 PM
I understand that they're just trying to protect themselves but, a Mac really doesn't get PC viruses. I think there was nothing wrong or incorrect in the original text.

I mean, do you consider a trojan to be a virus? I certainly don't.

And exactly how many viruses have been there for PC the last few years? A virus is rare these days, regardless of platforms. It's a he'll of a lot easier to create a Trojan or worm, as the general user is fundamentally stupid and will click anything, regardless of platform.

ChazUK
Jun 25, 2012, 03:42 PM
Sometimes it's not about that. Recently popular web sites were injected with malicious code, anyone who went there on a PC with IE that did not have a certain patch was infected immediately. Without the user even knowing anything had happened. But hey, if sticking your head in the sand is how you like to deal with things, more power to you.

LOL.

Unlikely to happen to my PC on Linux. Like I said, common sense (not using IE on Windows) goes a long way.

dokujaryu
Jun 25, 2012, 03:47 PM
That's an brilliant marketing and advertising idea. Market OS-X as the safest consumer OS available.

Don...what do you think?

Image (http://xfinity.comcast.net/blogs/tv/files/2011/03/don-draper-mad-men.jpg)

Don Draper Approved™.

Shooped. He's not drinking.

iReality85
Jun 25, 2012, 03:49 PM
My Windows friends are still constantly infested and my Mac friends are not—bearing out the same stats we see in the world.)

It’s like PCs are box of cobras and and Macs are box of turtles, and you’re deciding which one to put your hand into. And the PC people say “both turtles and snakes can theoretically give you salmonella—so choose the cobras for long life and health!”

Then your friends continually participate in questionable web surfing and downloading. It is true that the vast majority of malicious code is created to interact with PCs. That said, you don't just 'get' a virus/trojan/worm. People act as if malicious code crawls around the internet actively looking for machines to infest. 99% of the time, the initiation of malicious code is due to the user. Whether it's opening spam/fraud email, downloading from file sharing sites, roaming porn sites, or opening .exe programs when the source is unconfirmed, all these stem from bad user habits. Truth is you can have the best AV running, or use OS X, and still get malicious code.

It's the exact same as sleeping around. Those who do, and constantly- take a huge risk of contracting something. They eventually reap what they sow.

As a 27 year old who has used many Apple products and has built lots of PCs for himself, I can safely say I can count on one hand the number of times I've ever had really bad malicious code on my machine. It's not about being 'book smart' and having technical knowledge to avoid these things. It's about being 'street smart'- on the internet.

iAshley
Jun 25, 2012, 03:49 PM
Seems to me they're rewording it to be more positive... "Doesn't get viruses" in a marketing sense isn't as good as "built to be safe"
Looks more like they're doing away with negative associations than protecting themselves.

Max_Walker
Jun 25, 2012, 04:07 PM
Apple probably changed the lingo because some born again litteralist might bring a class action because the advert told them they wouldn't have to do anything and they would never get stung by a virus

TennisandMusic
Jun 25, 2012, 04:18 PM
You are clueless.

Macs ARE linux, and both do not get viruses, because they are secure Operating Systems, unlike Windows.

Not to say they'll never get one, but they're MUCH MORE secure than Windows.

The irony is absolutely crushing.

Renzatic
Jun 25, 2012, 04:46 PM
Did someone mention the words "security" and "OSX" in the same sentence? I know! Lets quibble over the various definitions of malware for 16 pages!


vi·rus   [vahy-ruhs]
noun, plural vi·rus·es.
1.
an ultramicroscopic (20 to 300 nm in diameter), metabolically inert, infectious agent that replicates only within the cells of living hosts, mainly bacteria, plants, and animals: composed of an RNA or DNA core, a protein coat, and, in more complex types, a surrounding envelope.
2.
Informal . a viral disease.
3.
a corrupting influence on morals or the intellect; poison.

Macs don't get viruses because they don't have an organic compound to infect. Nor do Macs have morals. I know this for a fact because I once saw a Mac shoot a man in Reno just to watch him die. Now he listens to trains.

tro·jan/ˈtrōjən/
Adjective:
Of or relating to ancient Troy in Asia Minor: "Trojan legends".
Noun:
A native or inhabitant of ancient Troy.


Macs are designed in Cupertino, California, and constructed in various factories in and around China. They have absolutely nothing to do with Greece.

mal·ware/ˈmalˌwe(ə)r/
Noun:
Software that is intended to damage or disable computers and computer systems.

This. Macs get malware. Because Macs are computers and malwares are against computers. Macs do not get viruses or come from ancient Troy.

holmesf
Jun 25, 2012, 05:00 PM
Any was, I think we can all agree that any device with a micro chip thats programable can have a virus.

Not true. It's totally possible to design a device that doesn't get viruses. One way to do this is by not allowing unsigned code to run. iOS is a pretty big target, yet there haven't been any viruses for it. If Apple weren't quite so sloppy with some vulnerabilities (e.g. PDF exploits) it wouldn't even be possible to jailbreak the devices.

Antares
Jun 25, 2012, 05:04 PM
Before widespread internet use, people were sharing floppies a lot more; thus it's much easier for viruses to propagate. Now, most people downloading app directly from vendor's site, the Mac App Store, or DVD installs (read-only, thus safer).

Many people from that era learned that you don't put someone else's disk in your slot without using some kind of protection. This still applies to today. That said, no protection is 100% safe. The only way to avoid infection is to abstain from downloading. But what fun is that?

Renzatic
Jun 25, 2012, 05:24 PM
Snip

No glove, no love.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3018396/raincoat.jpg

brdeveloper
Jun 25, 2012, 05:44 PM
Many people from that era learned that you don't put someone else's disk in your slot without using some kind of protection. This still applies to today. That said, no protection is 100% safe. The only way to avoid infection is to abstain from downloading. But what fun is that?

The virtual machine was the best solution. The host computer can run only AppStore apps while the VM can run anything you download from the internet. But don't store anything personal in the unsafe VM.

----------

my stupid? :cool:



Not true. It's totally possible to design a device that doesn't get viruses. One way to do this is by not allowing unsigned code to run. iOS is a pretty big target, yet there haven't been any viruses for it. If Apple weren't quite so sloppy with some vulnerabilities (e.g. PDF exploits) it wouldn't even be possible to jailbreak the devices.

Maybe Turing, if was still alive could prove it's impossible to develop the perfect malware blocker. You can always screw up code, data, hardware and in the last instance the user. You can, on the other hand, difficult crackers' work for some time, but sooner or later, security gets broken.

Sixtafoua
Jun 25, 2012, 06:03 PM
That before and after font is really snazzy.

Grannyville7989
Jun 25, 2012, 06:20 PM
lay off the porn and you'll be alright!

Never!!!

JAT
Jun 25, 2012, 06:27 PM
About time; increased market share or not there's always been the possibility of malware getting onto a machine, the fact that it's taken Apple this long to really do anything to properly stop it is shameful really.
What? This article is about Apple changing some marketing copy.

AidenShaw
Jun 25, 2012, 06:34 PM
The virtual machine was the best solution. The host computer can run only AppStore apps while the VM can run anything you download from the internet. But don't store anything personal in the unsafe VM.

Originally Posted by zombierunner
lay off the porn and you'll be alright!

Never!!!

The obvious solution - only watch porn from a virtual machine!

Renzatic
Jun 25, 2012, 06:58 PM
Pfft. Half the fun of downloading porn on the internet is the risk factor. Like bungee jumping with a frayed cord...but with boobs somehow involved.

AidenShaw
Jun 25, 2012, 07:03 PM
Pfft. Half the fun of downloading porn on the internet is the risk factor. Like bungee jumping with a frayed cord...but with boobs somehow involved.

...or not.

Renzatic
Jun 25, 2012, 07:09 PM
What's the point of bungee jumping then?

AidenShaw
Jun 25, 2012, 07:18 PM
What's the point of bungee jumping then?

To barely not die?

Renzatic
Jun 25, 2012, 07:25 PM
Yeah, and there has to be a reason for that.

Nanasaki
Jun 25, 2012, 07:32 PM
I understand that they're just trying to protect themselves but, a Mac really doesn't get PC viruses. I think there was nothing wrong or incorrect in the original text.

I mean, do you consider a trojan to be a virus? I certainly don't.

Is this a joke or some short. You might be a techsavy, but for people like my mom or dad torjan and virus are the same. Be honost, consumers are stupid, for once, someone asked me how to install Windows programs on his Windows Phone 7 phones. You cannot under estimate stupidities of consumer. I mean, i am stupid too on something i have no idea of.

ioinc
Jun 25, 2012, 09:17 PM
What I find funny is that the same people that jump on Apple for changes like this saying, "See! OS X is super vulnerable to viruses!" are usually the same people that jump on Apple for things like Gatekeeper. It truly boggles the mind.

Gatekeeper strikes me as a solution looking for a problem.
I already get a message alerting me if I try to run a program downloaded from the internet.

Is gatekeeper really an improvement over this?

If you are clever enough you will just set gatekeeper to allow you to run the downloaded application.
If you are not clever enough you will not be able to install an application you want.

What is good about this over the current alert?

Major.Robto
Jun 25, 2012, 09:21 PM
Not true. It's totally possible to design a device that doesn't get viruses. One way to do this is by not allowing unsigned code to run. iOS is a pretty big target, yet there haven't been any viruses for it. If Apple weren't quite so sloppy with some vulnerabilities (e.g. PDF exploits) it wouldn't even be possible to jailbreak the devices.

There will always be a way to run un signed code.
It is physically imposable for something to only do what its told.

Look at the Xbox 360 its hacked, Look at the ps3 its hacked. Look at IOS its been hacked number of times, not even withthe PDF bug.

Everything can and will be hacked.

NAG
Jun 25, 2012, 09:26 PM
Gatekeeper strikes me as a solution looking for a problem.
I already get a message alerting me if I try to run a program downloaded from the internet.

Is gatekeeper really an improvement over this?

If you are clever enough you will just set gatekeeper to allow you to run the downloaded application.
If you are not clever enough you will not be able to install an application you want.

What is good about this over the current alert?

Yes, gatekeeper is an improvement because it has gradation. It has MacAppStore only mode, signed mode, and basically what we have now mode. The MAS only mode is probably a bit much and we're not there yet (MAS is great but the selection just isn't there). The middle mode is great, though. With signed apps Apple can revoke a signature if the app is found to be malware or otherwise bad. What happens is that on first run the computer will see the signature was revoked and refuse to run it (presumably with an explanation that it was deemed to be bad). So this is fundamentally different than the current nag screen that just says "beware, bad stuff be on the interweb" since it is somewhat intelligent. Think of it like Google's fraud site blacklist.

ioinc
Jun 25, 2012, 10:06 PM
Yes, gatekeeper is an improvement because it has gradation. It has MacAppStore only mode, signed mode, and basically what we have now mode. The MAS only mode is probably a bit much and we're not there yet (MAS is great but the selection just isn't there). The middle mode is great, though. With signed apps Apple can revoke a signature if the app is found to be malware or otherwise bad. What happens is that on first run the computer will see the signature was revoked and refuse to run it (presumably with an explanation that it was deemed to be bad). So this is fundamentally different than the current nag screen that just says "beware, bad stuff be on the interweb" since it is somewhat intelligent. Think of it like Google's fraud site blacklist.


It is not only when the signature is 'revoked' tho.
There is no fundamental difference between a 'revoked' signature and that of a small developer that never got a signature in the first place.

Just because Gatekeeper won't run it does not mean it is bad.

You (as an end user) still need to be able to make a judgement call or give up some of your freedom to install the aps you want.

You can accomplish all the gradients you want with a Nag message...

Let it install with no issues

or

"Beware this is an application from a source other than the MAS or a registered developer"

or

"Beware this developer had their license revoked for being bad"

haruhiko
Jun 25, 2012, 10:07 PM
Gatekeeper strikes me as a solution looking for a problem.
I already get a message alerting me if I try to run a program downloaded from the internet.

Is gatekeeper really an improvement over this?

If you are clever enough you will just set gatekeeper to allow you to run the downloaded application.
If you are not clever enough you will not be able to install an application you want.

What is good about this over the current alert?Because a lot of people just click Yes/Open for whatever dialog that pops up.

ioinc
Jun 25, 2012, 10:10 PM
Because a lot of people just click Yes/Open for whatever dialog that pops up.


The same people will fall into one of two categories.

They will set gatekeeper to allow such installations (if they can)
or
They will give up the ability to install the software they do want.

The first makes gatekeeper useless
The second limits your computing experience.

MacNewsFix
Jun 25, 2012, 10:28 PM
Why change? It never did get PC viruses, and still doesn't. Microsoft could easily add "It doesn't get Mac Malware" and still be correct.

ROFLMAO! *wipes tears of laughter from eyes*

Thanks for that! Pure gold.

NAG
Jun 25, 2012, 10:36 PM
It is not only when the signature is 'revoked' tho.
There is no fundamental difference between a 'revoked' signature and that of a small developer that never got a signature in the first place.

Yes, there is a fundamental difference. If there is no signature you are given the option to run it.

Just because Gatekeeper won't run it does not mean it is bad.

Hence why there are three levels.

You (as an end user) still need to be able to make a judgement call or give up some of your freedom to install the aps you want.

I never said this absolves the user of responsibility. The computer isn't running itself. Additionally, this is not giving up freedom. You have multiple levels. You might as well say running as a standard user instead of an admin is giving up freedom while you're at it.

Basically, your entire post is based on FUD with the implicit message being that Apple will arbitrarily revoke signatures. This is not based on any precedent and is actually the opposite of what happens (Apple has never removed an app off iPhones because so far there has been no app that is that level of a threat).

Here is a good post that will hopefully dispel the FUD.

http://www.panic.com/blog/2012/02/about-gatekeeper/

katewes
Jun 25, 2012, 10:40 PM
If OSX is so safe, I'd like to know how Facebook gets access to all my gmail records.

I have a junk mail gmail account for receiving newsletters etc - and there's a Facebook account connected to that junkmail gmail account. Facebook then sends, to my junkmail account, suggestions for people I know based on the emails I receive to the junkmail account. Facebook thinks they're people I know - whereas they're just people/companies that send me newsletters and advertising email.

How on earth does Facebook get access to my gmail records? Can't OSX and its browser security stop that sort of thing?

ioinc
Jun 25, 2012, 10:40 PM
Basically, you're entire post is based on FUD with the implicit message being that Apple will arbitrarily revoke signatures.

http://www.panic.com/blog/2012/02/about-gatekeeper/


actually this is something you brought up not me... it never entered my mind that apple may or may not revoke anything....

It's misses the issue.

Gatekeeper remains a solution looking for a problem.

risc
Jun 25, 2012, 10:41 PM
Just 1 more reason to run OpenBSD on your Mac. :P

NAG
Jun 25, 2012, 10:41 PM
actually this is something you brought up not me... it never entered my mind that apple may or may not revoke anything....

It's misses the issue.

Gatekeeper remains a solution looking for a problem.

You keep saying that. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Seriously, read the blog post.

If OSX is so safe, I'd like to know how Facebook gets access to all my gmail records.

I have a junk mail gmail account for receiving newsletters etc - and there's a Facebook account connected to that junkmail gmail account. Facebook then sends, to my junkmail account, suggestions for people I know based on the emails I receive to the junkmail account. Facebook thinks they're people I know - whereas they're just people/companies that send me newsletters and advertising email.

How on earth does Facebook get access to my gmail records? Can't OSX and its browser security stop that sort of thing?

There are several ways Facebook could have got ahold of the gmail address book. The most common one is when you first make a Facebook account they offer to upload your address book to look for people. That is probably when that happened.

polaris20
Jun 25, 2012, 10:45 PM
There are two big problems in security today. Users and companies.

Apple users often think that Macs are so secure that they can click on everything and nothing will hurt their machine. Obviously not true. However Lion is more secure than any previous version of OS X, and very on par with Windows 7 in terms of security. I wouldn't say better than Win7 though. I think Gatekeeper will go a long ways to keeping more basic users safe.

Windows users make absurd claim that as long as you're careful where you go, and you're not stupid, you won't get infected. First, thousands of CMS-based websites get hacked and loaded with malware every day. Its not just seedy porn and wares sites. Second, how would you know if you got infected? Can you pick apart code? I run AV on Windows and Mac. You never can be too careful.

Second problem are the companies. Apple moved FAR too slow in response to Flashback. They need to patch faster. The same can be said for MS and Adobe, the latter of which is a constant security problem.

Google, as much as I love a lot of their products, needs to stop with their carelessness in their app market, because mobile is the next big malware target, and there's already more malware on Android than there is OS X.

ioinc
Jun 25, 2012, 10:46 PM
You keep saying that. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Seriously, read the blog post.

I have no concerns or fear about what apple will or will not revoke regarding signatures... honestly... it's not a concern of mine.

All I ask from apple is a message giving me information "Hey... pay attention, you're about to install something from the internet.... be careful"

This is what they have now...

After that I own it.

If they want to get real fancy, they can skip the message if its a registered developer (and no message is needed if it's from the mac store)

My post has nothing to do with revoking of signatures.

NAG
Jun 25, 2012, 10:48 PM
I have no concerns or fear about what apple will or will not revoke regarding signatures... honestly... it's not a concern of mine.

All I ask from apple is a message giving me information "Hey... pay attention, you're about to install something from the internet.... be careful"

This is what they have now...

After that I own it.

If they want to get real fancy, they can skip the message if its a registered developer (and no message is needed if it's from the mac store)

My post has nothing to do with revoking of signatures.

And my last post acknowledged that. I suggested you read it because you seemed to remain confused about the potential benefits of dev signatures and how it is not in search of a problem but addresses a very real problem in a thoughtful way (i.e. it lets you keep the current way OS X handles apps from the net).

polaris20
Jun 25, 2012, 10:49 PM
actually this is something you brought up not me... it never entered my mind that apple may or may not revoke anything....

It's misses the issue.

Gatekeeper remains a solution looking for a problem.

If you think that, you have no idea what Gatekeeper is for. It already exists in another form on Linux. As an admin I can let employees install from repositories that I approve and nothing else. Or I can let them install whatever they want. It's fantastic that we'll have it in OS X.

ioinc
Jun 25, 2012, 10:56 PM
If you think that, you have no idea what Gatekeeper is for. It already exists in another form on Linux. As an admin I can let employees install from repositories that I approve and nothing else. Or I can let them install whatever they want. It's fantastic that we'll have it in OS X.

Yeah that's great if you're an admin at a company.
Does not apply to personally owned computers.... unless you're suggesting that I can only install applications that apple approves and nothing else.

polaris20
Jun 25, 2012, 11:08 PM
Yeah that's great if you're an admin at a company.
Does not apply to personally owned computers.... unless you're suggesting that I can only install applications that apple approves and nothing else.

It's also great if you are a home user and want to be more careful with what you install.

Once ML comes out, I'll keep it on the middle setting. There's no reason for me to install anything not in the App Store or Apple signed. Any vendor I deal with would most certainly have a cert.

NAG
Jun 25, 2012, 11:13 PM
Yeah that's great if you're an admin at a company.
Does not apply to personally owned computers.... unless you're suggesting that I can only install applications that apple approves and nothing else.

And again, there are three levels. One is Apple approval (MAS only). Another one is what we have now. The middle option is Apple approval or dev signature (which requires no Apple approval other than the ability for Apple to revoke it if the developer is found to be malicious).

And again, there are nag windows that pop up with information (we already covered this blah blah blah).

ioinc
Jun 25, 2012, 11:37 PM
And again, there are nag windows that pop up with information (we already covered this blah blah blah).

Putting "blah blah blah" after a valid point does not invalidate it.

Make the nag window go away if its from the mac store or a registered developer.

Show the nag window for unregistered developers (to include developers that have lost their privileges)

it seems you can actually accomplish the same levels as gatekeeper by removing the nag alert in certain situations.

What does gatekeeper give you additional to that?

Icy1007
Jun 25, 2012, 11:51 PM
Common Sense is my malware protection.

haruhiko
Jun 26, 2012, 12:11 AM
You keep saying that. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Seriously, read the blog post.



There are several ways Facebook could have got ahold of the gmail address book. The most common one is when you first make a Facebook account they offer to upload your address book to look for people. That is probably when that happened.

I remember a version of the Facebook app on the iPhone just steals (uploads) your phonebook to their server and if you don't want this "feature" you have to delete the contacts on facebook's page manually.

ioinc
Jun 26, 2012, 12:23 AM
here's no reason for me to install anything not in the App Store or Apple signed.

It's quite the prediction to not only dismiss every historic application ever written by a non-registered developer but to extend that to all future ones.

Again, this is a solution looking for a problem.

Based on your assumption the gatekeeper functionality will never come into play.

On the rare instance you actually do find an app you want... you will change the gatekeeper settings to allow installation.

This sounds shockingly similar to clicking 'ok' when a nag window comes up... functionality you already have.

betatest
Jun 26, 2012, 01:42 AM
Image (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/25/apple-scales-back-marketing-language-on-os-x-security-following-flashback/)


Computerworld Australia reports (http://www.pcworld.com/article/258183/apple_quietly_pulls_claims_of_virus_immunity.html) on a blog post (http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/06/14/mac-malware-apple-marketing-message/) from Sophos security expert Graham Cluley published earlier this month detailing changes to Apple's "Why you'll love a Mac" (http://www.apple.com/why-mac/better-os/) OS X marketing pages on the topic of security. The changes, which come after a significant malware attack (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/04/05/600000-macs-worldwide-reportedly-infected-by-flashback-trojan/) from Flashback earlier this year, focus more of the text of OS X's built-in security features rather than implying Macs are immune to viruses and suggesting that users do not need to take any action to protect themselves.Image (http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/06/os_x_security_marketing_comparison.jpg)


Beyond the increased security features such as Gatekeeper making their way into OS X Mountain Lion, Apple is also working to reduce vulnerabilities in third-party platforms such as Java that are frequently exploited by malware authors. Apple has been working to shift responsibility for Java updates to the OpenJDK in order to make them more timely and has also been pushing out software updates to disable Java by default if it goes unused for a period of time.

Article Link: Apple Scales Back Marketing Language on OS X Security Following Flashback (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/25/apple-scales-back-marketing-language-on-os-x-security-following-flashback/)

Yeah right! Apple have no virus.

Most of the Security Companies and Computer Security Experts bombard them with facts findings.

They whacked them hard this time round. So that Apple goes mellow with what they have to say.

The competition for hacking a Mac, Windows, Linux conducted in Canada tells everything!

It's going to be "Another exploits for Mac OS X".

Follow the guide in Macrumors will never go wrong!

http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/06/21/mac-app-store-gatekeeper-security/
http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/06/14/mac-malware-apple-marketing-message/

Skiniftz
Jun 26, 2012, 02:28 AM
Considering Macs can run Windows, I think it would be silly to advertise them as not being able to get PC viruses which is what I think this is about rather than anything more sinister.

A Mac running Windows (Bootcamp or otherwise) is just as susceptible to Windows viruses as PC hardware.

haravikk
Jun 26, 2012, 03:07 AM
What? This article is about Apple changing some marketing copy.
I know, but it's part of the overall trend as they're clearly beefing up security still further in Mountain Lion, which is something that has been long overdue. Claiming that Macs were virus free however has done nothing to help the situation, as it's been a lie for a long time; Macs have had malware for a while, though none of them really managed to be a serious threat.

At the end of the day, users are SO MUCH safer on a Mac that it’s not even close
Seriously? This is exactly the kind of mentality that makes many users more vulnerable, not less. All it takes is for malware to find any weakness on a user's system, which doesn't even need to be an OS component by the way, just something that most users have installed, and they can exploit it to get in.

This is why Apple's finally getting a move on with sandboxing; not desperately well mind you since the balance is far from perfect in terms of what sandboxed apps can do, but without sandboxing any app you install is potentially another attack vector for malware, especially anything that requires root-privileges or can reasonably be expected to be on all the time, this is why Flash has been such a popular target.

Wiesi24
Jun 26, 2012, 04:02 AM
Ah, the good old Marketshare Myth™. Too bad it doesn't hold up to the simplest of logic. After all, can you tell me why OS 8-9, with a fraction of the marketshare, had orders of magnitude more malware (including actual viruses and worms)? After all, it should have been even more protected because there were fewer of them and would have been even less targeted.

jW

Maybe because OS8-9 was so weak security wise, that it was an easy target and worth the effort despite it's small market share. Your counter argument only proves that it is wrong just to look purely at marketshare and nothing more. It depends on the goal of the malware developer.
For example malware like Stuxnet was clearly targeted at a specific Siemens software (running on Windows).
But if a malware developer wants to reach the masses with some malware/scareware/... Marketshare clearly becomes a factor. And OSX much smaller one, clearly saved it from being target number one in that cases.

The number of malware for a system is no indicator of a system's security at all.

polaris20
Jun 26, 2012, 06:24 AM
It's quite the prediction to not only dismiss every historic application ever written by a non-registered developer but to extend that to all future ones.

Again, this is a solution looking for a problem.

Based on your assumption the gatekeeper functionality will never come into play.

On the rare instance you actually do find an app you want... you will change the gatekeeper settings to allow installation.

This sounds shockingly similar to clicking 'ok' when a nag window comes up... functionality you already have.

Jesus, you sure have a severe reading comprehension problem, and apparently you also assume you know my computing habits. If you're seriously going to sit there, having read everything about Gatekeeper that's been explained to you, and still say it's a solution looking for a problem, there's simply no help for you. Why you can't wrap your head around an OS only allowing the installation of signed apps (thereby largely reducing drive-by malware installs) is baffling.

Sure, if you're that much of a moron (speaking hypothetically now) that as a user you visit an infested Wordpress site, for example, and there's a drive-by malware install that can't install the malware because the code isn't signed, but then you go ahead and allow it anyway, then yes, Gatekeeper can't save you.

Mal
Jun 26, 2012, 07:51 AM
Maybe because OS8-9 was so weak security wise, that it was an easy target and worth the effort despite it's small market share. Your counter argument only proves that it is wrong just to look purely at marketshare and nothing more. It depends on the goal of the malware developer.
For example malware like Stuxnet was clearly targeted at a specific Siemens software (running on Windows).
But if a malware developer wants to reach the masses with some malware/scareware/... Marketshare clearly becomes a factor. And OSX much smaller one, clearly saved it from being target number one in that cases.

The number of malware for a system is no indicator of a system's security at all.

Sorry, but you just horribly contradicted yourself. OS 9 was targeted despite it's small marketshare, but OS X has not been targeted because of it's small marketshare?

Regardless, if you still believe the myth that marketshare has anything to do with OS X remaining secure, I can't help you. There's been bodies of evidence piling up for 10+ years against your theory, and it's been shot down countless times on these very forums without ever once having a convincing argument made in it's favor, but some poor souls still cling to it despite all the evidence.

If you want to know why OS X has never had a virus or worm and has remained mostly malware-free for the entire last decade since it was introduced, look no further than it's original introduction and the way the system was designed. It's virtually impossible to spread any type of malware outside of social engineering, and it's more difficult to achieve that than on Windows due to the more effective authentication and authorization schemes in OS X.

jW

JAT
Jun 26, 2012, 10:01 AM
I know, but it's part of the overall trend as they're clearly beefing up security still further in Mountain Lion, which is something that has been long overdue. Claiming that Macs were virus free however has done nothing to help the situation, as it's been a lie for a long time; Macs have had malware for a while, though none of them really managed to be a serious threat.
Security has been worked on and improved in every version of every OS since the 80s. And in countless security updates in .x updates. Don't hyperbolize as if Apple just heard about malware in January and said "oh, maybe we should think about that".

Your last sentence should weigh more heavily in your thought processes than it does, IMO.

Azathoth
Jun 26, 2012, 10:12 AM
Mac OS 8 and 9 where jokes as far as OSes are concerned, lacking basic memory protection etc (nor pre-emptive multitasking), so the fact that they were easy to write malware for doesn't mean much.

Windows XP (released 2001) was not secure(able) until SP2 and the introduction of the firewall. After that it remained insecure mainly due to lack of user education / UAC enforcement. And even today Windows has a huge attack surface due to legacy code compatibility. MS's job is an unenviable one.

OS X, coming from the Unix side of things had UAC built-in and with Apple's relatively rapid obsolescence (of OSes) means that vulnerabilities are much harder to exploit.

Mandriva 2010 probably also doesn't have much malware either. Is it immune? No - market share is definately an issue for all flavours of Linux, and by extension, Unix.

Apple also releases security fixes (sometimes with a large delay) - they wouldn't do so if they didn't see the holes as threats, ergo Macs cannot be assumed to be immune.

However, finding an exploit is hard, and the motivation varies (money, fame, espionage, idealism), so sometimes the quantity of machines out there does play a role, in other cases, not.

Asia8
Jun 26, 2012, 10:27 AM
Many people mentioned that technically "It doesn't get PC viruses" does not need to change, as as Mac is not a PC. However, distasteful as it may seem to some, regardless of how much many of us try to change the definitions, a Mac computer is a PC.

PC: Personal Computer

Unless Apple could prove that a Mac can not be defined as a personal computer and that the advertising was not deceptive, they would be legally liable for that statement. It was a wise change that could have saved them millions in potential future legal fees.

MortalDays
Jun 26, 2012, 02:06 PM
Mac don't need protection. :D

thekeyring
Jun 26, 2012, 04:45 PM
Still, it's way more secure than a Windows PC. I don't think Macs need virus scanners running 24/7 yet, just common sense is needed.

When we go over to OS 11 and Apple kill off all the old apps, the older viruses will die, too. ;)

----------

Many people mentioned that technically "It doesn't get PC viruses" does not need to change, as as Mac is not a PC. However, distasteful as it may seem to some, regardless of how much many of us try to change the definitions, a Mac computer is a PC.

PC: Personal Computer

Unless Apple could prove that a Mac can not be defined as a personal computer and that the advertising was not deceptive, they would be legally liable for that statement. It was a wise change that could have saved them millions in potential future legal fees.

Yes, but by PC they mean Windows-PC. Either that, or they think all Mac users are part of the Post-PC era.

KnightWRX
Jun 26, 2012, 05:49 PM
Windows XP (released 2001) was not secure(able) until SP2 and the introduction of the firewall. After that it remained insecure mainly due to lack of user education / UAC enforcement. And even today Windows has a huge attack surface due to legacy code compatibility. MS's job is an unenviable one.

Windows XP was securable without a firewall. A port filter does little if no ports are open and as used by most users (deny all for port, allow all for port) is no better than just stop the listening process.

Now, it did require a few hardening steps, the same found on any default install of a Unix system or any multi-user operating system really :

- shutting down unneeded system services
- locking down the account and changing the administrator password.
- creating unprivileged users and forcings users to use those to perform their daily tasks.
- Enforcing proper permission schemes accross the filesystem (making most filesystems read-only to unprivileged users).
OS X, coming from the Unix side of things had UAC built-in and with Apple's relatively rapid obsolescence (of OSes) means that vulnerabilities are much harder to exploit.

There is no such thing as UAC in Unix (the SUS). UAC is not sudo (that would be runas, available since... well... Windows NT really and the true multi-user version of Windows).

It's quite a big misunderstanding of what UAC actually is to think it's just some vulgar sudo implementation. It actually has to do with Windows XP and onwards use of RDP to render the local desktop and very little to do with privileged execution (which is what runas is for on a Windows system).

As for other "security profile" applications like sudo, RBAC, AppArmor, etc.., well, they aren't part of Unix either. They're used in the Unix world (HP-UX and Solaris using RBAC, the BSDs using sudo, etc..) but they are not part of Unix as far as the SUS goes iirc. Your system can be branded Unix '03 compatible without implementing these kind of privilege escalation mecanisms.

----------

Yes, but by PC they mean Windows-PC. Either that, or they think all Mac users are part of the Post-PC era.

Actually they mean IBM Compatible PC, which is where the term designating a x86 computer with a BIOS running Microsoft software originates from. This morphed into the Wintel machines in the 90s, but the PC acronym stuck to them. To this day, PC means Wintel, a throw back to the roots of the IBM PC 5150 model and the subsequent clone market launched by Compaq's reverse engineering of the BIOS.

borcanm
Jun 26, 2012, 06:51 PM
Hi Im a Mac, and Im a PC. And we both have the same level of security.

Asia8
Jun 26, 2012, 09:24 PM
Yes, but by PC they mean Windows-PC. Either that, or they think all Mac users are part of the Post-PC era.

But good luck holding that up in court. As I said regardless of how many people like to separate it, or what they assume the meaning to be it didn't say Windows PC or anything else. It simply said PC - Personal Computer - and most Mac computers would fit that description in a legal case.

Any claim that it meant something other than it said would be easily thwarted.

haravikk
Jun 27, 2012, 03:36 AM
Your last sentence should weigh more heavily in your thought processes than it does, IMO.
It already weighs pretty heavily; the fact that none were particularly viable didn't mean there was less threat, only that no-one was really taking the time to properly develop a viable piece of malware. Flashback was quickly able to evolve from a simple "trick the user into installing me" malware into one that installed itself pretty quickly.

The fact of the matter is that this capability has been OS X for ages, with nothing being done to properly prevent it, it's only recently that any serious improvement has been made, and finally ditching the backwards mentality of being virus free is just another step in that process.

Sue De Nimes
Jun 27, 2012, 05:50 AM
Sweet, sweet, schadenfreude!

KnightWRX
Jun 27, 2012, 06:15 AM
But good luck holding that up in court. As I said regardless of how many people like to separate it, or what they assume the meaning to be it didn't say Windows PC or anything else. It simply said PC - Personal Computer - and most Mac computers would fit that description in a legal case.

Any claim that it meant something other than it said would be easily thwarted.

There's like 30 years of industry marketing pointing out that "PC" is the shorthand term to mean an IBM PC 5150 Compatible computer (the good old clone industry spawned by Compaq or an IBM machine that is "IBM Compatible-PC").

Apple would have no problems proving in court that they never built a Mac around the PC architecture and that even the Intel Macs require special software to install PC compatible OSes (Bootcamp).

You just wish it could be easily thwarted, for some obscure reason that evades me (facts much ?).

Asia8
Jun 28, 2012, 08:10 AM
There's like 30 years of industry marketing pointing out that "PC" is the shorthand term to mean an IBM PC 5150 Compatible computer (the good old clone industry spawned by Compaq or an IBM machine that is "IBM Compatible-PC").

Apple would have no problems proving in court that they never built a Mac around the PC architecture and that even the Intel Macs require special software to install PC compatible OSes (Bootcamp).

You just wish it could be easily thwarted, for some obscure reason that evades me (facts much ?).

I'm sorry, I guess you've just not had a lot of experience in such matters. Just because many people have become accustomed to calling a windows based pc a PC, and calling an apple computer a mac doesn't make the make any less a PC.

Their written claim was a PC a mac is by the base definition (non-biased definitions) a PC.

As defined by Wikipedia:
"A personal computer (PC) is any general-purpose computer whose size, capabilities, and original sales price make it useful for individuals, and which is intended to be operated directly by an end-user with no intervening computer operator. This contrasted with the batch processing or time-sharing models which allowed larger, more expensive minicomputer and mainframe systems to be used by many people, usually at the same time. Large data processing systems require a full-time staff to operate efficiently."

A PC is defined by it's use, by it's price, not by it's operating system. Names also vary regionally as well as legal policies.

The claim as it was written before could not be legally defended. Hence why Apple changed it. I agree with Apples legal team who decided to change the message as it could not be defended, especially after recent events.

You just wish it could be easily thwarted, for some obscure reason that evades me (facts much ?).

I'm not sure what you mean, I'm just agreeing with Apples decision, legally that statement is high risk. If it wasn't, Apple would not have changed it. A PC by definition across the globe is a computer designed for personal use, as opposed to server type usage.

Maybe to some people they may believe a mac is not a PC, but that doesn't mean that much in the eyes of the laws, and I do mean laws. Laws across the globe vary greatly, rulings may vary in different locations, with such a risky statement it is highly likely that even IF they managed to win the legal battle in one or two countries they would still very likely lose in others.
Take not of Australian consumer protection laws which are rather harsh against false product claims.

Apple could try and argue it, but once the dictionaries come out, they have lost.

I know this, Apple know this, and has made the appropriate changes. Only you don't seem to realise/know this, and for some strange reason keep fighting it instead of waking up and realising the truth.

KnightWRX
Jun 28, 2012, 08:24 AM
As defined by Wikipedia:

Wikipedia doesn't trump 30 years of marketing material since the launch of the IBM 5150, I'm sorry. Anyway, sue Apple and tell us how it goes. Apple just doesn't make "IBM PC-Compatible" personal computers. Just like the Commodore 64 wasn't an IBM PC Compatible, but was still a personal computer.

Apple will have no trouble in proving a case where they used PC in the context it has been defined as for 30 years. You on the other hand will have quite the trouble with just a Wikipedia entry as your evidence. ;)

PC is an acronym that's used for a shorthand term for again, IBM PC compatible. The IBM PC 5150 is an actual model. The personnal computer market is vast and has many different models, not all of which are IBM PC compatible or even genuine IBM PCs. That's just how it's been for 30 years, good luck trying to prove otherwise in court.

whooleytoo
Jun 28, 2012, 08:33 AM
PC is an acronym that's used for a shorthand term for again, IBM PC compatible.

Isn't an Intel Mac every bit as "IBM PC compatible" as any Dell/Acer/Toshiba PC? You can install and boot Windows on it. Is there another criterion?

Yes, it ships with another OS, but I don't think anyone would say a Linux PC isn't a PC either.

KnightWRX
Jun 28, 2012, 08:53 AM
Isn't an Intel Mac every bit as "IBM PC compatible" as any Dell/Acer/Toshiba PC?

Nope, it's not. Insert a MS-DOS boot floppy, and boot off of it straight from EFI. Come back and tell me your results.

You can install and boot Windows on it. Is there another criterion?

Not without Bootcamp.

whooleytoo
Jun 28, 2012, 09:32 AM
Nope, it's not. Insert a MS-DOS boot floppy, and boot off of it straight from EFI. Come back and tell me your results.

Not without Bootcamp.

Fair point! The hardware may be compatible, but the firmware isn't; not as shipped anyhow.

p.s. "floppy"? What is this thing "floppy"? ;)

KnightWRX
Jun 28, 2012, 09:33 AM
Fair point! The hardware may be compatible, but the firmware isn't; not as shipped anyhow.

And before Compaq reverse engineered the BIOS, the "Open PC Architecture" was anything but. It's a big point to the whole "IBM PC-Compatible" thing. ;)

brucebrendon
Jun 28, 2012, 02:03 PM
today x4 Macs went down in the studio!

Apps quit, Spotlight bar scrambled, reboot and all User level scrubbed!! Same on each machine.

what is this?!

x3 on 10.5.8 and x1 on 10.6

tech4all
Jun 29, 2012, 04:00 AM
Good move by Apple. The "Before" was always a lie, and this coming from a lifelong Mac user.

Macs don't get PC viruses.

How is that a lie? It's true. The same as PC don't get Mac viruses.

It's a "well, duh!" statement, but still true nonetheless.



today x4 Macs went down in the studio!

Apps quit, Spotlight bar scrambled, reboot and all User level scrubbed!! Same on each machine.

what is this?!

x3 on 10.5.8 and x1 on 10.6

Probably wanna make your thread about that.

GGJstudios
Jul 2, 2012, 01:27 PM
I'm glad they changed their language. "It doesn't get viruses" is false.
No, it's not false. There are no Mac OS X viruses in the wild and Macs don't get Windows viruses.

You can keep your Mac malware-free by practicing safe computing. This has always been true for Mac OS X.

Regardless of what labels you want to put on it, there are two prominent types of malware in the wild: malware that you can avoid by practicing safe computing alone (trojans), and malware that can affect your Mac, even if you practice safe computing, if you don't have antivirus software running (virus). There has always been the former for Mac OS X, but there has never been the latter.

Macs are not immune to malware, but no true viruses exist in the wild that can run on Mac OS X, and there never have been any since it was released over 10 years ago. The only malware in the wild that can affect Mac OS X is a handful of trojans, which can be easily avoided by practicing safe computing (see below). Also, Mac OS X Snow Leopard and Lion have anti-malware protection (http://support.apple.com/kb/ht4651) built in, further reducing the need for 3rd party antivirus apps.
Mac Virus/Malware FAQ (http://guides.macrumors.com/Mac_Virus/Malware_FAQ)

Make sure your built-in Mac firewall is enabled in System Preferences > Security > Firewall


Uncheck "Open "safe" files after downloading" in Safari > Preferences > General


Disable Java in your browser (Safari (http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5241), Chrome (http://www.podfeet.com/wordpress/tutorials/how-to-disable-java-in-chrome/), Firefox (http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/How%20to%20turn%20off%20Java%20applets)). This will protect you from malware that exploits Java in your browser, including the recent Flashback trojan (http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5244). Leave Java disabled until you visit a trusted site that requires it, then re-enable only for the duration of your visit to that site. (This is not to be confused with JavaScript, which you should leave enabled.)


Change your DNS servers to OpenDNS servers by reading this (http://guides.macrumors.com/Mac_Virus/Malware_FAQ#Why_am_I_being_redirected_to_other_sites.3F).


Be careful to only install software from trusted, reputable sites. Never install pirated software. If you're not sure about an app, ask in this forum before installing.


Never let someone else have access to install anything on your Mac.


Don't open files that you receive from unknown or untrusted sources.


For added security, make sure all network, email, financial and other important passwords are long and complex, including upper and lower case letters, numbers and special characters.


Always keep your Mac and application software updated. Use Software Update for your Mac software. For other software, it's safer to get updates from the developer's site or from the menu item "Check for updates", rather than installing from any notification window that pops up while you're surfing the web.

That's all you need to do to keep your Mac completely free of any Mac OS X malware that has ever been released into the wild. While you may elect to use it, you don't need any 3rd party software to keep your Mac secure.