Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Archive > Archives of Old Posts > MacBytes.com News Discussion

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Mar 23, 2011, 03:55 PM   #126
GGJstudios
macrumors Westmere
 
Join Date: May 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVonMagnum View Post
Don't attempt to use logic or scientific evidence around here zer0sum. Fanboys have never heard of it.
It's quite predictable that when someone fails to prove their baseless arguments in this forum, they resort to the elementary school tactic of name-calling, such as "fanboys". Your "logic" and "scientific evidence" was flawed. Just because others didn't agree with you doesn't make them "fanboys". It just means they found your arguments unfounded.
GGJstudios is offline   0
Old Mar 23, 2011, 04:05 PM   #127
MagnusVonMagnum
macrumors 68040
 
MagnusVonMagnum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGJstudios View Post
It's quite predictable that when someone fails to prove their baseless arguments in this forum, they resort to the elementary school tactic of name-calling, such as "fanboys". Your "logic" and "scientific evidence" was flawed. Just because others didn't agree with you doesn't make them "fanboys". It just means they found your arguments unfounded.
It's quite predictable that when someone says something you cannot successively argue with that you will post pages and pages of nonsense instead. You haven't said anything that makes sense in this entire thread (e.g. comparing a monogamous relationship with your wife to exposing your computer to hundreds of millions of computers on the Internet. It makes NO sense and yet there is NO POINT to arguing with that kind of illogical crap because you will defend it with yet more NONSENSE until the end of time itself).

Furthermore, I wasn't talking to you. You clearly don't even KNOW the definition of a fanboy (it's not an insult, but a description of an emotional archetype type of poster) and then make false accusations of flaming while simultaneously supporting actual flamers like cwt1nospam (whose arguments you conveniently ignored TWICE just like I said). If you cannot "argue" based on all the evidence but just conveniently ignore anything that does not support your argument while attacking with anything that does and then pretending everyone else doesn't exist you've then proven you are not worth conversing with and thus my lack of replies to you. You will now predictably reply with yet more BS nonsense about how great your arguments are and how stupid everything I say is. Sorry, but I'm done playing your games.
__________________
Mac Mini Server 2012 (2.3GHz Quad i7, 8GB, 2x1TB RAID 0) ; External 12x Memorex Blu-Ray USB3, External WD 3x3TB,1x2TB HD USB3)
15" Matte MBP 2.4GHz, 4GB/500GB, NVidia 8600M GT; 3 ATV; 2 iPod Touch
MagnusVonMagnum is online now   0
Old Mar 23, 2011, 04:13 PM   #128
GGJstudios
macrumors Westmere
 
Join Date: May 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVonMagnum View Post
...You will now predictably reply with yet more BS nonsense about how great your arguments are and how stupid everything I say is. Sorry, but I'm done playing your games.
Thanks! I needed that laugh!
GGJstudios is offline   0
Old Mar 23, 2011, 04:20 PM   #129
munkery
macrumors 68020
 
munkery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVonMagnum View Post
Much of the information in the PDF associated with this article is incorrect. For example:

Page 26

It refers to the bundle architecture as insecure. The argument presented would be true if security sensitive apps were not owned by system. Given that they are owned by system, malware cannot modify the bundle of an app owned by system without authentication when the app is run with user privileges in an admin or standard account.

For example, show package contents of iTunes, Safari, or Mail and try to create a folder in the bundle. In relation to the example in the article, try renaming iTunes. The argument in the article relies on actions that can not be completed in an OS X admin account; these type of changes are even more restricted in a standard account.

Apps not owned by system are vulnerable but without privilege escalation can not install rootkits or keyloggers. Even apps owned by system run with user privileges and require privilege escalation to install dangerous payloads.

Mac OS X does not prompt for authentication if you install apps in the proper location for that user account type. When installed in the proper location, apps are sandboxed from the system level of Mac OS X by the Unix DAC model used within Mac OS X.

Windows is less secure because most apps (Chrome only exception I can recall) install their associated files in levels of the system that require authentication regardless of user account type (unless Admin in Windows XP because running as superuser - no authentication required to install with elevated privileges - very dangerous). It is easier to trick Windows users to install a trojan with elevated privileges given that almost all apps ask for authentication to install and the user can not distinguish the intent of that authentication.

Page 30

The claim that the Application folder is unprotected is false. Security sensitive apps within the Application folder are owned by system.

Also, security sensitive system binaries are still stored in /bin and /sbin in Mac OS X.

Page 31

The ability to read the contacts stored in Address Book could be used by a worm to propagate. But, malware that uses this to spread is not likely to appear in the wild if the malware is not profitable. It is unlikely that malware will be profitable without being able to hook (this is a specific function) into apps owned by system.

Page 33

Starts off talking about trojans, trojans are easily avoided with user knowledge in Mac OS X because most apps do not require authentication to install if installed in the appropriate location where the Unix DAC model protects the system.

Viruses using the model shown in the article will not be successful without privilege escalation. This is the reason why Mac OS X malware is not successful in the wild.

By default, very few server side services are exposed in Mac OS X and those that are exposed are sandboxed. Vectors for worm propagation are limited to client side. Client side worms require authentication to install and spread if do not include privilege escalation via exploitation because of the Unix DAC model used in Mac OS X. Trojans used to trick users to authenticate are less likely to be successful in Mac OS X as stated above.
__________________
Mac Security Suggestions
munkery is offline   0
Old Mar 23, 2011, 06:18 PM   #130
cwt1nospam
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVonMagnum View Post
If you cannot "argue" based on all the evidence but just conveniently ignore anything that does not support your argument while attacking with anything that does and then pretending everyone else doesn't exist you've then proven you are not worth conversing with and thus my lack of replies to you.
Are you talking to yourself? You've consistently argued that Mac users are complacent and need to "protect" themselves, presumably by using AV software. We've consistently pointed out that AV software offers no advantage to Mac users, to which you resort to the same tired tactic used by shills for the AV industry since OS X was first introduced: you claim that the sky will fall soon and we'll be sorry.

Let's take a look at what you need to ignore to do that:
  1. You must ignore a long history of your argument proving itself wrong. The sky has not fallen, and we're not sorry.
  2. You must ignore a proven history of AV software opening security holes on the Windows platform.
  3. You must ignore the fact that said holes have been exploited very successfully on that platform.
  4. You must ignore the cost to users in both time and money that AV software adds while not significantly increasing their security and sometimes decreasing it.
  5. You ignore claims that while the Mac isn't 100% secure, AV software will not help it reach that level of security. Instead of acknowledging these claims, you pretend that those making them are claiming the Mac is 100% secure. Ok, this is more lie on your part than ignoring facts, but still...
cwt1nospam is offline   0
Old Mar 24, 2011, 04:53 AM   #131
roadbloc
macrumors 604
 
roadbloc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: UK
Yawn. This thread is still alive?
__________________
roadbloc is offline   0
Old Mar 24, 2011, 07:23 AM   #132
cozmot
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Washington, DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadbloc View Post
Yawn. This thread is still alive?
Yep. Or it's a bad dream. There isn't anything left that's worthwhile to say or that hasn't been said. I suggest that people quit responding to the needling posts of the two main provocateurs (you know who they are; one even claimed several posts back that he was "sick of this thread"-- not.)
cozmot is offline   0
Old Apr 2, 2011, 03:00 PM   #133
Ed91
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Thanks, McAfee,

Ever since I got my first mac in 2007, you and other antivirus vendors have been reminding me, every six months or so, that OS X is facing an imminent security meltdown.

Though this is yet to happen, it's always enough to remind me to make sure I've got the latest version of the excellent and free ClamXav, and that I have a good working backup of my machine, which is made possible by many other wonderful free tools.

Though I'll never buy your software, you provide a great service to me.

Thanks, Ed
Ed91 is offline   0
Old Apr 3, 2011, 08:10 AM   #134
michaelsviews
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBytes View Post


Category: Apple Software
Link: Apple Faces Increasing Cyber Threats, McAfee Says
Description:: McAfee Inc. expects Apple¡¯s iPhone, geolocation services such as Foursquare, and mobile devices to be the target of malware attacks in 2011. The computer security company also predicts attackers targeting shortened URL services and internet TV platforms as well as a rise in politically motivated hacktivisim, as more groups are expected to repeat the WikiLeaks example.

¡°We¡¯ve seen significant advancements in device and social network adoption, placing a bulls-eye on the platforms and services users are embracing the most. These platforms and services have become very popular in a short amount of time, and we¡¯re already seeing a significant increase in vulnerabilities, attacks and data loss,¡± said Vincent Weafer, senior vice president of McAfee Labs.

McAfee Labs Threat Predictions for 2011:

* Apple: No longer flying under the radar

McAfee said the popularity of iPads and iPhones, combined with the lack of user understanding of proper security for these devices, will increase the risk for data and identity exposure, and will make Apple botnets and Trojans a common occurrence.



Posted on MacBytes.com
Approved by Mudbug
Just another ploy to scare people into buying there over priced software.

I'm sure Apple takes security very very seriously. Is it me or is McAffee screaming wolf?
__________________
Bring back the down vote for post's
Never a boring moment here on MR. It's amazing
michaelsviews is offline   0
Old Apr 3, 2011, 09:25 PM   #135
cwt1nospam
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelsviews View Post
Is it me or is McAffee screaming wolf?
Since 2001, and with no let up.
cwt1nospam is offline   0
Old Apr 4, 2011, 08:54 AM   #136
Amazing Iceman
macrumors 68020
 
Amazing Iceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Florida, U.S.A.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seashellz View Post

Ive used Macs for 20 years with no antivirus software; never had a virus
Only heard rumours of any out in the wild-like sightings of bigfoot
Never seen a huge Microsoft type hoopla over some new virus-of-the month crisis

* Apple: No longer flying under the radar
No, my friend, you are wrong. it's not Bigfoot.
It's the Chupacabra! Well..., at least the McAfee version.
__________________
17" MacBook Pro (2007) iPad Air WiFi+Cell 128 GB iPhone 5s 64 GB T-Mobile AppleTV 2
Follow @AmazingIceman for useful tech info and more (mention MacRumors).
Amazing Iceman is online now   0
Old Apr 4, 2011, 08:56 AM   #137
Amazing Iceman
macrumors 68020
 
Amazing Iceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Florida, U.S.A.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelsviews View Post
Just another ploy to scare people into buying there over priced software.

I'm sure Apple takes security very very seriously. Is it me or is McAffee screaming wolf?
Why pay for bloatware, when Sophos is giving it away for free? Then, there's also ClamXAV.
__________________
17" MacBook Pro (2007) iPad Air WiFi+Cell 128 GB iPhone 5s 64 GB T-Mobile AppleTV 2
Follow @AmazingIceman for useful tech info and more (mention MacRumors).
Amazing Iceman is online now   0
Old Apr 4, 2011, 09:20 AM   #138
Miles513
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnfkitchen View Post
Having been bitten numerous times by McAfee, I never believe their press releases.

Way back, I subscribed to their virus and firewall software. I tested the firewall, and it worked. Until they updated it to a slicker looking interface. Some sixth sense made me test it again, and bingo, my computer was exposed. McAfee customer "support" was not interested. They had my annual subscription, and that was all they wanted.

After ripping all McAfee code out of my PC, I was dismayed to find that my employer signed up for McAfee products.

Months and months of slow PC, followed by bricking thousands of employee PCs with their encryption-at-rest software.
co-sign, same thing happened to me
Miles513 is offline   0
Old Apr 4, 2011, 04:26 PM   #139
roadbloc
macrumors 604
 
roadbloc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed91 View Post
Thanks, McAfee,

Ever since I got my first mac in 2007, you and other antivirus vendors have been reminding me, every six months or so, that OS X is facing an imminent security meltdown.

Though this is yet to happen, it's always enough to remind me to make sure I've got the latest version of the excellent and free ClamXav, and that I have a good working backup of my machine, which is made possible by many other wonderful free tools.

Though I'll never buy your software, you provide a great service to me.

Thanks, Ed
ClamXav only detects Windows viruses.
roadbloc is offline   0
Old Apr 4, 2011, 04:52 PM   #140
GGJstudios
macrumors Westmere
 
Join Date: May 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadbloc View Post
ClamXav only detects Windows viruses.
http://www.clamxav.com
Quote:
ClamXav is a free virus scanner for Mac OS X. It uses the very popular ClamAV open source antivirus engine as a back end and has the ability to detect both Windows and Mac threats.
GGJstudios is offline   0
Old Apr 4, 2011, 04:54 PM   #141
roadbloc
macrumors 604
 
roadbloc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: UK
I stand corrected.
roadbloc is offline   0
Old Apr 4, 2011, 05:02 PM   #142
GGJstudios
macrumors Westmere
 
Join Date: May 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadbloc View Post
I stand corrected.
I find myself standing that way a lot!
GGJstudios is offline   0
Old Apr 8, 2011, 09:24 PM   #143
munkery
macrumors 68020
 
munkery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by munkery View Post
Apps not owned by system are vulnerable but without privilege escalation can not install rootkits or keyloggers. Even apps owned by system run with user privileges and require privilege escalation to install dangerous payloads.
Playing around with a Mac OS X Leopard system and noticed that default apps can be modified without authentication by admins unlike Snow Leopard where authentication is required.

Therefore, the default apps are more vulnerable in Leopard. Privilege escalation would still be required to install payloads such as rootkits but it does leave open a vector that is not present in Snow Leopard.

Anybody else notice who has write privileges to Safari, Mail, etc in Mac OS X Leopard?
__________________
Mac Security Suggestions
munkery is offline   0
Old Apr 10, 2011, 01:20 PM   #144
MBPro825
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperCachetes View Post
Obviously McAfee has a vested interest is spewing "fear FUD" such as this.
Interesting isn't it how McAfee could benefit from these "New security threats"
MBPro825 is offline   0
Old Apr 10, 2011, 01:30 PM   #145
GGJstudios
macrumors Westmere
 
Join Date: May 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by munkery View Post
Playing around with a Mac OS X Leopard system and noticed that default apps can be modified without authentication by admins unlike Snow Leopard where authentication is required.
What exactly do you mean? Do you mean changing the default app for opening a file type, using the Get Info window? Or do you mean some modification to the app itself? If the former, it works the same in L and SL. I haven't tried the latter yet.
GGJstudios is offline   0
Old Apr 10, 2011, 04:17 PM   #146
munkery
macrumors 68020
 
munkery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGJstudios View Post
What exactly do you mean? Do you mean changing the default app for opening a file type, using the Get Info window? Or do you mean some modification to the app itself? If the former, it works the same in L and SL. I haven't tried the latter yet.
"Get Info" any of the softwares that came on your Mac by default, such as Safari, Mail, iTunes, etc. At the bottom of the "Get Info" screen, what users have write privileges to the app bundle?

In Leopard, both system and admin have write privileges. So, malware could modify these app bundles as a vector to hide payloads with user level access in admin accounts. Privilege escalation would still be required for more serious exploitation, such as rootkit installation.

In Snow Leopard, only system has write privileges. This represents a security improvement in SL. Apps installed via the Mac App Store also only have system with write privileges.
__________________
Mac Security Suggestions

Last edited by munkery; Apr 10, 2011 at 04:32 PM.
munkery is offline   0
Old Apr 11, 2011, 05:16 AM   #147
cwt1nospam
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Yeah, let's all waste time worrying about a "possible" threat that hasn't proved to be any significant danger in the wild. It's even better that we can worry about it in an obsolete version of the OS!
cwt1nospam is offline   0
Old Apr 11, 2011, 02:54 PM   #148
munkery
macrumors 68020
 
munkery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwt1nospam View Post
Yeah, let's all waste time worrying about a "possible" threat that hasn't proved to be any significant danger in the wild. It's even better that we can worry about it in an obsolete version of the OS!
If this is in response to my post, I was just clarifying some details related to an article discussed earlier in the thread.

For those interested, this threat vector in Leopard would allow a similar means of exploitation as ELF viruses in Linux, which were not very serious and did not manifest as any significant threat in the wild.
__________________
Mac Security Suggestions
munkery is offline   0
Old Apr 12, 2011, 07:15 PM   #149
munkery
macrumors 68020
 
munkery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Can anybody running Leopard confirm what users/groups have write privileges to Safari, Mail, & etc.

Just want to clarify if the permissions on that Leopard system have been modified?
__________________
Mac Security Suggestions
munkery is offline   0
Old Apr 12, 2011, 07:28 PM   #150
GGJstudios
macrumors Westmere
 
Join Date: May 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by munkery View Post
Can anybody running Leopard confirm what users/groups have write privileges to Safari, Mail, & etc.

Just want to clarify if the permissions on that Leopard system have been modified?
Leopard:
Click image for larger version

Name:	ScreenCap 4.png
Views:	37
Size:	40.1 KB
ID:	281058 Click image for larger version

Name:	ScreenCap 5.png
Views:	36
Size:	44.6 KB
ID:	281059 Click image for larger version

Name:	ScreenCap 6.png
Views:	35
Size:	28.6 KB
ID:	281060
Snow Leopard:
Click image for larger version

Name:	ScreenCap 7.png
Views:	43
Size:	70.4 KB
ID:	281066
GGJstudios is offline   0


 
MacRumors Forums > Archive > Archives of Old Posts > MacBytes.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
All iPads: Apple Store Black Friday & Cyber Monday nanogirl21 iPad 20 Nov 27, 2013 04:41 PM
Lodsys Free to Continue Patent Threats Against Developers After Judge Tosses Apple's Legal Challenge MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 86 Oct 6, 2013 03:46 PM
[App Announcement] Rage Faces IRL : Face Detection + Rage Faces = Free lols deliciouspixels iPhone and iPod touch Apps 0 Jul 23, 2012 01:55 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:37 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC