Apple Updates Mountain Lion Developer Preview With New Security Features

[NAG]

But it's not.

Except when it is or isn't. Simple point is that people who bring up marketshare (whether it is importance of a platform or how much malware it is supposed to get) always ignore everything else. Marketshare isn't everything.

What the other users said is true. Mac OS X and Linux are mostly virus-proof not because they are really more secure than Windows, but because of the Market Share (altough I think Linux patches security holes faster than Apple does with the OS X, when they find one).

How can you say this? You're trying to prove the cause of the non-existence of something. This is dubious in most instances but is foolish when you're trying to pin point a single cause.

Microsoft is reportedly, by far, the company that invests most in security in their OS.

Do you mean invests as in money or more like they care the most?

Imagine you're a malware programmer. Why would you, in the past years, target Mac OS X or Linux if they represent barely 5% of all computers worldwide (10% at that time, in USA). You would code something that would only get, at best, in 10% of the PCs in only ONE country? Nope, I guess.

By this logic there would be no malware for the Classic Mac OS yet there was quite a bit. Why were these malware authors coding for Mac OS when the marketshare was even smaller than it is now? Why did they change their mind and why did it happen at the same time as an OS transition?

In the last few years, market share has been improving thanks to the iPhone, iPad etc. Now, malware programmers are beginning to target OS X. But not ONLY because of the market share, but because, since Apple never had to worry about this kind of thing, it's easy to spread the virus. Apple always told users Macs don't have viruses, and so users don't worry about malicious web pages and emails. That makes the virus easier to spread, and more effective.

Do you have any data here or are you just pulling stuff out of your rear? I could just as easily argue that the malware attacks are not accelerating by pointing out the (largely ineffective) malware that took advantage of the Rendezvous protocol in iChat way back when. The only difference between now and then is that they picked a vector that was more likely to actually infect people (that and it didn't screw up when trying to infect someone).

That's so true that when the last couple OS X malwares were found, they had infected a significant amount of Macs and it took a long time to notice the malware infection AND a long time to write a patch that really worked for it.

I don't understand how this point is relevant to the marketshare as the sole deciding factor point. It only seems to suggest that Apple needs to have a better response time for such things. Unless you have inside information I find it unlikely that you'd know why Apple has such a response time.

With Microsoft's 90%+ Market share, almost every malware developer targets Windows. It's not surprising that, even investing heavily in security since Windows XP, Windows still has some exploitable security holes.

Restating your point ≠ proof of your point.

Aple is just now understanding how's to be targeted by malware developers and is trying to fix stuff, but new malwares will appear and, you know, things will be more like Windows...

Wanna security? Run OS/2. No viruses, I guarantee. Or BSD, why not? [/quote]

Can you clean up this section? It doesn't seem to argue a coherent thought.

And the reason there's no virus for iOS and stuff is that iOS is EXTREMELY closed. You can't install anything on it without using the AppStore or jailbreaking it. Android is much more open in this point.

But I thought marketshare was the only reason anyone ever gets malware. But you now mean there are other reasons why malware might not exist other than low marketshare? Please keep your logic consistent.

iOS has security flaws, of course, but apparently, none of them are exploitable to make a virus, or Apple is really quick to patch them.

I thought you argued earlier that Apple was slow to patch flaws because they weren't used to security. Again, please keep your argument consistent. You spent most of the post saying marketshare is the only effective measurement with no evidence to support the point only to completely contradict your point at the end with actual evidence.

Or even just people in orbit.

They have to throw the files at the scale to get the weight and then convert to mass which is a whole other problem.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Wish I could update to the Preview. When the released the Preview during the conference a few weeks ago I was given the download code in email. Halfway through the download it died and it won't let me re-use the code...grrr.

It doesn't show up in "Purchases"?

 

[roadbloc]

OS X NEVER was more secure than Windows - that's just a stupid myth. It just has an insignificant market share and only recently began to appear on the radar screen of malware authors. But in every hacker contest, OS X usually is the first system that gets hacked.

Since Vista, Windows has an architecture that provides much more security out of the box than most other operating systems on the market.

But that's the amazing thing here: Apple is playing catchup with Microsoft's security features and all of a sudden everything you people have bashed Microsoft for in the past becomes an awesome new feature in OS X.

+1. This guy has it spot on. More security in OS X has been needed for a while and I am glad Apple have finally woken up and are defending against their increasing malware threat.

Malware is a B!t@H!!

Now i can't complete 1 million reason why i love my MBP and the Apple ego system!


999,999,999 reason is still good though!!

What the **** you on about son?

 

[mazz0]

Daily checks? Why not push?

 

[mw360]

Please stop saying "weighs in at".

That, and 'screen real estate'. Not clever any more.

 

[Asclepio]

umm... thats a windows thing. no good.

 

[bushido]

That, and 'screen real estate'. Not clever any more.

i "could" care less lolz

 

[ScottishDuck]

But it's not.

What the other users said is true. Mac OS X and Linux are mostly virus-proof not because they are really more secure than Windows, but because of the Market Share (altough I think Linux patches security holes faster than Apple does with the OS X, when they find one).

Microsoft is reportedly, by far, the company that invests most in security in their OS.

Imagine you're a malware programmer. Why would you, in the past years, target Mac OS X or Linux if they represent barely 5% of all computers worldwide (10% at that time, in USA). You would code something that would only get, at best, in 10% of the PCs in only ONE country? Nope, I guess.

In the last few years, market share has been improving thanks to the iPhone, iPad etc. Now, malware programmers are beginning to target OS X. But not ONLY because of the market share, but because, since Apple never had to worry about this kind of thing, it's easy to spread the virus. Apple always told users Macs don't have viruses, and so users don't worry about malicious web pages and emails. That makes the virus easier to spread, and more effective.

That's so true that when the last couple OS X malwares were found, they had infected a significant amount of Macs and it took a long time to notice the malware infection AND a long time to write a patch that really worked for it.

With Microsoft's 90%+ Market share, almost every malware developer targets Windows. It's not surprising that, even investing heavily in security since Windows XP, Windows still has some exploitable security holes.

Aple is just now understanding how's to be targeted by malware developers and is trying to fix stuff, but new malwares will appear and, you know, things will be more like Windows...





Wanna security? Run OS/2. No viruses, I guarantee. Or BSD, why not?





And the reason there's no virus for iOS and stuff is that iOS is EXTREMELY closed. You can't install anything on it without using the AppStore or jailbreaking it. Android is much more open in this point.

iOS has security flaws, of course, but apparently, none of them are exploitable to make a virus, or Apple is really quick to patch them.

There were a few security holes in the PDF viewing engine last year, if I remember correctly.

Moronic. Totally moronic.

You have no idea how unix-like systems work and why they are more secure.

Are you aware that Linux powers the vast majority of the worlds servers, which are the MAIN target of black hats.

Windows still does not take security serious enough, it is far too trusting of users and applications. A system that takes security seriously asks for permission every time, windows still doesn't.

Microsoft need to ditch NT and rebuild from the ground up, take more cues from the UNIX spec, redesign their filesystem with proper permissions and create a logical userspace.

 

[finalcut]

hmm weird, I didnt get that update

 

[MSlaw]

No, but that phrase is overused and nonsensical. It's about as hackneyed as "we reached out to X for a comment".

How about "The update is 1.2GB." and "We contacted X for a comment."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2057018/Internet-weighs-strawberry.html

 

[Enectic]

I hope it's background updated, Microsoft's problem is with their constant having to load the app or WU, it's like, if I'm connected to the Internet, download the ****ing thing already.

Hmmmmm, Windows automatically checks and downloads updates in the background. It's always been that way with me for Windows 7.

 

[pmz]

Anyone else's Mac App Store completely hosed after this update?

"Hosed" = unresponsive, beach ball, no access.

 

[Demonofelru]

Anyone else's Mac App Store completely hosed after this update?

"Hosed" = unresponsive, beach ball, no access.

Fine here on 2.3 RMBP.

 

[mbh]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2057018/Internet-weighs-strawberry.html

I will concede the point if the original author determined the byte size of the update by weighing his Mac before and after applying the update.

 

[AidenShaw]

MSFT won't do automatic updates by default because enterprise usage requires hours/days/months of testing software with a current security update to make sure nothing breaks. Lot of companies are running very old software that if a single update was done, it would break it.

...but the company stresses not to use it. And the company isn't some small company either, its Mazak. Go figure.

You should educate your company IT guys about WSUS.

It's a little feature that let's IT define intranet Windows Update servers, and force company clients to look at the local version, not the Microsoft site. IT can test the updates, and move them to the local server after verifying local apps.

MS has seen the problem, and provided the tools for IT to manage updates without "stressing to users not to download an update".

WSUS can also be configured as a proxy for Windows Update - so that the WSUS automatically downloads all of the updates from Microsoft, and the clients get them from the local intranet server instead of over the WAN.

Microsoft need to ditch NT and rebuild from the ground up, take more cues from the UNIX spec, redesign their filesystem with proper permissions and create a logical userspace.

It's definitely a LOL moment when someone says that UNIX-like filesystems have "proper permissions".

NTFS has had rich access control list permissions from day one. *nix systems are struggling with simplistic legacy permissions.

 

[MacAddict2000]

Anyone have issues in Finder (specifically with the Home folder)? If I double-click to open Documents, Movies, Music or Pictures, nothing happens. Same for the Finder sidebar. Also, all items in the Sidebar section of Finder preferences are unchecked despite items being present in the Finder sidebar.

 

[ThunderSkunk]

Maaaan I just hope this thing's ironed out by the time it ships.

So tired of Lion.

...please tell me they fixed Lions expose/spaces/multi-monitor/full screening mess.

 

[unplugme71]

You should educate your company IT guys about WSUS.

It's a little feature that let's IT define intranet Windows Update servers, and force company clients to look at the local version, not the Microsoft site. IT can test the updates, and move them to the local server after verifying local apps.

MS has seen the problem, and provided the tools for IT to manage updates without "stressing to users not to download an update".

WSUS can also be configured as a proxy for Windows Update - so that the WSUS automatically downloads all of the updates from Microsoft, and the clients get them from the local intranet server instead of over the WAN.




It's definitely a LOL moment when someone says that UNIX-like filesystems have "proper permissions".

NTFS has had rich access control list permissions from day one. *nix systems are struggling with simplistic legacy permissions.

Our company has WSUS implemented. But that still doesn't mean that security updates are installed immediately. We test software for several days, sometimes weeks before implementing it across the organization. Even then we miss things and have to roll back updates. So during this few days/weeks, the computers can become infected. No matter how secure our firewalls are set, email filters, etc, **** still happens.

 

[GreyOS]

Please stop saying "weighs in at".

Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

 

[andrebrait]

Except when it is or isn't. Simple point is that people who bring up marketshare (whether it is importance of a platform or how much malware it is supposed to get) always ignore everything else. Marketshare isn't everything.



How can you say this? You're trying to prove the cause of the non-existence of something. This is dubious in most instances but is foolish when you're trying to pin point a single cause.



Do you mean invests as in money or more like they care the most?



By this logic there would be no malware for the Classic Mac OS yet there was quite a bit. Why were these malware authors coding for Mac OS when the marketshare was even smaller than it is now? Why did they change their mind and why did it happen at the same time as an OS transition?



Do you have any data here or are you just pulling stuff out of your rear? I could just as easily argue that the malware attacks are not accelerating by pointing out the (largely ineffective) malware that took advantage of the Rendezvous protocol in iChat way back when. The only difference between now and then is that they picked a vector that was more likely to actually infect people (that and it didn't screw up when trying to infect someone).



I don't understand how this point is relevant to the marketshare as the sole deciding factor point. It only seems to suggest that Apple needs to have a better response time for such things. Unless you have inside information I find it unlikely that you'd know why Apple has such a response time.



Restating your point ≠ proof of your point.



Wanna security? Run OS/2. No viruses, I guarantee. Or BSD, why not?

Can you clean up this section? It doesn't seem to argue a coherent thought.



But I thought marketshare was the only reason anyone ever gets malware. But you now mean there are other reasons why malware might not exist other than low marketshare? Please keep your logic consistent.



I thought you argued earlier that Apple was slow to patch flaws because they weren't used to security. Again, please keep your argument consistent. You spent most of the post saying marketshare is the only effective measurement with no evidence to support the point only to completely contradict your point at the end with actual evidence.



They have to throw the files at the scale to get the weight and then convert to mass which is a whole other problem.

First: "That's so true" wasn't refering to the "Market Share" issue.

Second: I said, THIS WAY (FEEL THE FURY OF CAPS LOCK) that Market Share isn't THE ONLY reason.

Third: I never said there wasn't any virus for Mac OS 9 and earlier nor I said there are no viruses that affect Linux. There'll be always someone, somewhere, who will develop malwares

Fourth: I never said anything about servers. Linux is a faster patcher than Apple is, that' been reported a few times, including by Phoronix, as I remember. Can't find the article, unfortunately...

I never said anything that hadn't come from somewhere I trust (Phoronix, for example). Microsoft IS reportedly the company that invests more money and time in security. Windows IS less secure than OS X and Linux, but not ONLY because it's "not UNIX blah blah blah", but ALSO because of the huge malware developer base targeting it.

I'm talking keyloggers, viruses, trojan horses, not security holes that would allow someone to gain root access, which is the kind of security issue SERVERS care the most (you see, nobody on a SERVER would click the "ENLARGE YOUR P*N*S" link in an email (I mean it's unlikely someone would).

I know I'm not an expert in anything, but you should read ALL the words INCLUDING THE ONES IN UPPER CASE before saying I said something I didn't say. Just because I explained the market Share thing on PERSONAL computers, not servers, doesn't mean I said it's THE ONLY cause. But it's one that SHOULDN'T be thrown away.

I'll never undestand you guys. When someone says "Hey, there's this reason too" you answer like the guy had said "IT'S THE ONLY REASON, I'M MASTER OF TRUTH" and call him moronic and stuff.

As far as I know, one of the most secure systems out there is FreeBSD, also a true UNIX like Darwin. Darwin, with its UNIX roots is secure, too, but has its hols, which were not likely to get explored because #1 It's hard and #2 There were few Macs out there.

AFAIK, OS 9 had a more exploitable base system and therefore, the malware volume was justifiable by the ease of developing one, I guess...






I'll find my sources and show you guys, and as for the guy who called my arguments "moronic", recently I did read an article that explained NTFS is not a bad FS at all, and one of the most secure ones out there. But, of course, a very good FS is worth nothing if the system can be exploited.

 

[seamer]

I took the original advertizing as a direct smack against Windows. I don't know anyone that refers to their Mac as a PC. It's always "my mac, my computer".

 

[aggri1]

My issue with Auto Update on Win XP was that it would automatically restart the computer. So unbelievably stupid, especially with XP's idiotic behaviour where applications with unsaved data were forced to quit (c.f. on the Mac where you are asked, and the shutdown/logoff is cancelled).

We all learnt to turn off automatic updates, so that our simulations running overnight or for the week wouldn't be nuked by some daft auto update.

Hopefully this sort of thing won't/doesn't happen with more 'modern' or 'mature' operating systems.

 

[Yamcha]

Apple is definitely getting there, but some applications/games still do not work for me..

 

[q64ceo]

Syncing with my iPhone 4S and iPad (both over WiFi and regular wired) no longer works after installing the update. Anyone else finding the same thing?

 

[extensor]

Mac vs PC Security

I ran my game companies on Windows since 3.1. I've switched to Mac OS X since 2001. My personal experience is that on Mac OS X I have had zero incidents. On Windows....plenty of virus squashing and reinstalls. I don't give a crap about your "excuses" on why Windows has tons of exploits. When I get hit by a virus on OS X then you can talk.