Average Mac User Faced Nine Malware Threats Last Year, but OS X Remains Minor Target

[AFEPPL]

As always, most things just get taken totally out of context and only the points that support an argument are presented, everything else is dismissed.

From the fence... theres a really good resource called the security vulnerability datasource, they are independent of any of the factions. What it does do is allow you to go and look at what has been reported or is known about at a given time for a given product or vendor. The number of viruses/malicious code out there that use or exploit these vulnerabilities is pretty much irrelevant. So don't count things like "viruses", count the underlying issue once only.

You have to be careful how you read it and what meaning you extrapolate from the numbers. For example OS X is actual 4th in the list of the top 50 products in terms of the total number of "distinct" vulnerabilities. (964), Windows is lower (just at 5th with 728). Lower the placement number in the list, the worse the product is. Both examples above span the same timelines approximately, so are pretty much comparable. Chrome is 3, Firefox is 2 and linux kernel is number 1. So security or venerability goes beyond just a the OS - but remember, both those browsers are on BOTH OS platforms.

You could also take for example Microsoft as a vendor, whom has 5012, where as Apple only (i say "only" in the sense it's less, rather than it's a small number) has 3210 reports. However, from the fence again and in the interest of being fair, the same issues are doubled up on the MS platform under the vendor search with the server and desktops lines, then reporting multiple times under the desktop line for XP, 7 and 8 etc. You then have IE etc etc. So again, without pouring JetA1 on a the proverbial fire you have to think about what each line actually means.

From a true security point of view, the difference is actual not night and day between the two most argued about platforms....

Here's the link to the resource - I'll let each individual conclude their own reality based on where and what they want it to be. http://www.cvedetails.com/top-50-products.php

So for those shouting linux/unix is more secure... Hmmmm.

 

[gnasher729]

Market share argument is easier to digest for non-OSX crowd, not the truth.

The truth is, OS X is damn secure and stable, but the majority of windows users (who like the market share argument) are not ready to admit it.

But there is also the strong effect that there is very little _expertise_ in writing Mac malware around. There are very few people capable of doing it; in my opinion because the mindset that makes you an evil hacker and the mindset that makes you a Mac user or developer are incompatible. Imagine a job advert "five years Windows / Mac hacking experience required". Much harder to find Mac malware authors.

Hey, I'm not complaining, I like it that way. And there is just more than one effect, and they all work together to reduce the numbers of Mac malware.

 

[keysofanxiety]

The fact that you call virus something that can't infect other systems tells a lot of all the ******** about registry, Windows and all the other things you wrote.

And pedant my ass, there is no actual contra argument about the ******** you have written

Sorry for my belated reply, I was struggling to word this in such a way that I wouldn't get permabanned for being rude.

Cryptolocker does infect other systems. As soon as a system which has it is plugged into the network, Cryptolocker spreads and infects the entire network. It's a horrible virus. Or ransomware, if you'd like to be pedantic. To class it as 'malware' is downplaying its significance and threat, in my humble opinion.

Again, I will need to remind you that you didn't counterargue any of my other points. The other 'stuff' that I have written (I'll use that word instead of your word) about Windows' general security flaws is very real. If you could provide evidence countering my points, I would be more than happy to take the time to have a discussion with you.

I'm not pretending to be a security expert, nor have I ever claimed to be one. I'm simply going from experience in my job, what I've seen, what I've encountered, how I've fixed it, and what caused the issue in the first place.

If I may conclude by offering a word of advice: having reviewed both this post and many others you've made, your mannerism is extremely condescending and rude. People will not take the time to consider your points when you feel the need to write like that, even if your points are perfectly valid.

I imagine when you get a little older you'll find that your attitude won't get you very far.

No grudges held, though. Hope you have a great Christmas & New Year.

 

[Oletros]

Cryptolocker does infect other systems. As soon as a system which has it is plugged into the network, Cryptolocker spreads and infects the entire network. It's a horrible virus.

No, it doesn't.

 

[keysofanxiety]

No, it doesn't.

It does. We had an infected computer collected that spread it to the work network as soon as it was plugged in via Ethernet. IP trace confirmed this. Luckily we had backups we could restore from.

There are many different forms of CryptoLocker, some of which is non-replicating malware. It's likely you're getting confused with one of those versions.

 

[Oletros]

It does. We had an infected computer collected that spread it to the work network as soon as it was plugged in via Ethernet. IP trace confirmed this. Luckily we had backups we could restore from.

There are many different forms of CryptoLocker, some of which is non-replicating malware. It's likely you're getting confused with one of those versions.

Really, there is no version of Cryptolocker that spread.

This is why I have not counter argued anything you said about Windows, because it makes no sense and you clearly don't know what you talk about.

Our just one proof about Cryptolocker spreading by itself if you can. You won't be able to do that he cause it doesn't spread by itself

 

[roadbloc]

Regrettably you're the one who comes across as having literally no idea what you're on about.

Uhuh.

There are many, many, many real viruses for Windows. Cryptolocker is possibly the worst I've encountered. Not only that but there are hidden payloads in .scr files (screensaver), .doc, Excel attachments -- the lot. These are all emailed as attachments and none of them are detected as malicious items, even through VirusTotal. But run it and you're scuppered. There are payloads which automatically download and run Trojans in addition to a number of other nasties, just by exploiting Javascript, Flash, or through Internet Explorer.

Nope. Ever since the introduction of UAC, viruses for Windows have declined sharply. Not to mention, since Windows 8, Windows now has its own inbuilt virus scanner (finally!). True viruses no long can run on Windows and any other malware has to be run by the user (and confirmed with UAC).

If I may offer a gentle reminder that Internet Explorer is the default browser on Windows. Many people use it, and it's patched weekly to sort out the slew of security holes in it. The fact that you could just browse an infected website and unwittingly get a payload downloaded/installed in the background isn't a virus to you? It's a very real, and very common, issue.

Said by someone who clearly hasn't used IE in a long time. You're talking like people are still using IE5/IE6. And I'd rather have holes patched ASAP rather than left to be exploited for a few months like Apple allows.

The additional truth of the matter is that Windows, under-the-hood, has practically remained unchanged for 2 decades. The registry layout in Windows 8.1 is almost identical to how it was in Windows 95.

Seriously? You expect me to take your post seriously with complete nonsense like that? It's clear you don't know how Windows runs under the hood at all.

Microsoft have an obligation to supply an incomprehensible amount of backwards compatibility due to how long they've been in the business and how many people rely on their software. This alone opens up a wealth of security problems.

Yet again, complete nonsense. Microsoft don't have an obligation at all. It is entirely up to Microsoft when they want to end support for their products, just like everyone else in the industry. Unlike Apple, Microsoft actually play their software support by ear and keep legacy products updated if they are heavily used. This does not open up a wealth of security problems either. Microsoft's backwards compatibility is heavily controlled, perhaps one of things things they put the most effort into. With the use of UAC, Windows Defender services and that dreaded Registry you seem to hate, Windows is pretty much immune to malware of the past. It just doesn't run unless you force it to.

I can go on, and on, and on, and give you multiple examples how Windows security issues are not just from people downloading malware. However I feel I may just be wasting my time, thanks to your general (and I'm assuming unfounded) assumption that it's a marketshare/malware issue.

No offence, but I don't understand your logic (or your blatent misinformation). If you make malware for a living, you're going to want to make sure the most people get it are you not? That is why you write your malware for Windows which has 90% of the market you're after, don't you think? Flashing the word UNIX around like it provides absolute security from malware is pure idiocy. Especially when malware and viruses for UNIX have been around longer than Windows itself.

0/10.

 

[Mashurrab]

Hogwash. I'm sick of hearing this marketshare argument. How do you explain that before OS X, there were more viruses/malware threats on the Mac for OS 8 alone than there have been for OS X's decade+ old reign? This isn't about marketshare.

Here's the thing that people love to forget: OS X is damn secure. It's a UNIX system. Apple implement so many security features to prevent malware installations. They put additional sandboxes to ensure that if a malicious application is installed, it can't edit or access any of the really important stuff (protected by root, blah blah).

How many hackers out there would love to make a Mac-bricking virus? How many hackers would love to have that under their belt -- those brilliant brownie points of screwing a smug Mac users' computer. But it hasn't been done -- yet.

And that's down to marketshare? No, it's because OS X is difficult, if not practically impossible, to hack. With every new iteration of OS X they make more under-the-hood changes. With Mavericks they even changed how third-party apps used Accessibility features, to increase security.

Fact is: Windows is easy to screw. You can delete some registry entries even without admin privileges. All the services are stored in the registry. Windows updates, every single core function, or file allocation, is buried somewhere in the registry. The amount of times I've remoted into a computer to see the Windows Firewall/Update service deleted. Not 'disabled', full on deleted. Simply a folder deleted from the registry, and boom -- a right PITA to fix.

Microsoft are an utter joke when it comes to things like this. Using the marketshare argument is frankly a total insult to the OS X programmers, Apple's mentality, and people who get inundated with calls about malware/viruses on Windows PCs.

Thank you very much my dear sir.

 

[Renzatic]

It does. We had an infected computer collected that spread it to the work network as soon as it was plugged in via Ethernet. IP trace confirmed this. Luckily we had backups we could restore from.

There are many different forms of CryptoLocker, some of which is non-replicating malware. It's likely you're getting confused with one of those versions.

Cryptolocker isn't a virus, it's a trojan, and it doesn't propagate itself throughout a network. The most it can do is encrypt a networked drive an infected machine is connected to.

On top of that, there's only one confirmed variant of Cryptolocker in the wild, and the only difference is that it can install itself to removable thumbdrives, and spread from there. Though it still requires someone to activate it even then. Meaning it's, yup, a trojan. Not a virus.

 

[grahamperrin]

… an infected computer collected that spread it to the work network …

… encrypt a networked drive …

keysofanxiety: was that the symptom and if so, were the networked volumes hosted on computers running any version of Mac OS X or OS X?

 

[SlCKB0Y]

Even though Mac sales are increasing... it's still taken them 30 years just to get 7-8% in either metric.

30 years ago a much greater percentage of computers sold were made by Apple.... 30 years ago was well before Microsoft attained its massive OS marketshare.

 

[Michael Scrip]

30 years ago a much greater percentage of computers sold were made by Apple.... 30 years ago was well before Microsoft attained its massive OS marketshare.

30 years ago the Commodore 64 and IBM PCs were already dominating anything Apple in market share.

Apple has never had a significant amount of computer market share... which is what I was saying earlier. There's nothing wrong with that... it's just how it is.

See the charts from this article

Did you notice Apple at the BOTTOM of all those charts?

So I'm not seeing how Apple had a "greater percentage of computers sold" at ANY point in history.

If you look at Apple's red and black lines on those charts... and there are any other lines above them... then Apple could NOT have had a greater percentage of computers sold.

Another article here

 

[SlCKB0Y]

Did you notice Apple at the BOTTOM of all those charts?

So I'm not seeing how Apple had a "greater percentage of computers sold" at ANY point in history.

If you look at Apple's red and black lines on those charts... and there are any other lines above them... then Apple could NOT have had a greater percentage of computers sold.

You have misinterpreted what I said.

You stated that it took Apple 30 years to attain a market share of 7% This is incorrect. They previously had a market share above 7% in the mid 80's (~20%) and 90's (above 10% prior to the release of Windows 95), at which point their marketshare plummets. They now may be at only 7% but this is significantly lower than they were during this earlier period.

The term I used (greater) is a relative one. My reference point was Apple's current percentage of the market, not relative to any other company. My statement spelled out for you.... "It has not taken Apple 30 years to attain a marketshare of 7% because in the mid 80's/early 90's they had a higher marketshare than this but lost it with the release of Windows 95".

 

[SlCKB0Y]

Cryptolocker isn't a virus, it's a trojan, and it doesn't propagate itself throughout a network.

A computer virus isn't self-propagating either - it still requires human interaction to run. They are self-replicating.

A worm is both self-replicating and self-propagating.

 

[Renzatic]

A computer virus isn't self-propagating either - it still requires human interaction to run. They are self-replicating.

A worm is both self-replicating and self-propagating.

You're right. A virus doesn't need direct interaction to run, but it does need contact. This could be anything from passing by an infected source on the internet, to plugging in an infected USB drive. It works from point to point. A worm still needs that initial contact, but it can spread itself unbidden on a network afterwards.

Thing is, Cryptolocker isn't either one of these. It's a trojan, which requires direct permission to do its thing. Once you give it admin rights, it can do whatever it wants. But until then, it's just a harmless file sitting around on your computer.

 

[SlCKB0Y]

You're right. A virus doesn't need direct interaction to run, but it does need contact. This could be anything from passing by an infected source on the internet, to plugging in an infected USB drive.

In the end though, a virus is just an executable (or attached to an executable). Someone still needs to execute the virus code (directly or indirectly).

 

[Michael Scrip]

You have misinterpreted what I said.

You stated that it took Apple 30 years to attain a market share of 7% This is incorrect. They previously had a market share above 7% in the mid 80's (~20%) and 90's (above 10% prior to the release of Windows 95), at which point their marketshare plummets. They now may be at only 7% but this is significantly lower than they were during this earlier period.

The term I used (greater) is a relative one. My reference point was Apple's current percentage of the market, not relative to any other company. My statement spelled out for you.... "It has not taken Apple 30 years to attain a marketshare of 7% because in the mid 80's/early 90's they had a higher marketshare than this but lost it with the release of Windows 95".

My first comment was talking strictly about the Mac. My 2nd comment to you was talking about all Apple computers since you mentioned "greater percentage of computers sold"

Yes... my first comment was poorly worded. I admit that. I didn't mean the Mac peaked at 7%.

As you know... the Mac was once higher than 7% for sure.

So how about this instead... "After 30 years the Mac has never had a significant amount of computer market share"

Would that have make more sense?

There was talk in this thread that the reason Macs don't get malware is because they aren't a big enough target. That's how this whole market share argument was started.

My point was... it's been 30 years and the Mac is still not a dominant player in terms of market share.

Whether the Mac once had 14-15% market share and now they only have 7-8%... that wasn't what I was saying.

I was just trying to point out that the Mac has never had significant market share.

 

[SlCKB0Y]

Whether the Mac once had 14-15% market share and now they only have 7-8%... that wasn't what I was saying.

Ahh Ok, well I guess I misunderstood you as well then!

 

[jlc1978]

Also, if anything, Macs make you more tech savvy when doing upgrades. Try upgrading the HDD of an iMac, or install an SSD in the optibay of a non-Retina MacBook Pro.

I wouldn't call a simple mechanical swap tech savvy. It requires some mechanical skill but not much beyond that. Most users that do that follow a script they find on the internet anyway so the "discover how to do it on your own' factor, which would require some tech savvy,is missing. While it may be mechanically challenging it is no more a demonstration of tech savvy than changing a set of rims and tires or the oil on a car makes one mechanically savvy.

When people think PC, they automatically think of a tweaker and a PC Gamer that builds his own PC. In reality, the vast majority of Windows users are average jane/joes who need a computer.

Most computer owners, Windows or Mac, simply need a computer and PC, them, means computer without relating it to gaming or DIY.

 

[boo-boo-butt]

Often, when I install something on my Mac I have to enter an admin password. It's not clear exactly what will be done to my system if I do that - it's always something cryptic like "access hard drive".

Would it be possible for someone to hijack the install process for, say, MS Office, to install a trojan or whatever? Granted, you'd have to conscientiously visit a torrent site or similar and download the installer. But what about random software you find online that may not obviously be nefarious?

Of course, we always run that risk when installing any software at all but with Windows, anti-virus programs flag things up. For example, if some freeware carried adware with it to pay the bills, Sophos or whatever would warn me during the install.

I'd assume that, granted admin rights, an app could do anything it wants despite how secure OSX and other UNIX-based OSes are.

 

[lowendlinux]

Is this standard fare for security threads? If you combine this with the NTP and the Spotlight thread you see a bunch of people not caring much about security. While none of these are hold on to you hats and unplug the computer type security issues the fact that just about everyone is trying to shoot the messenger is telling. Yes Windows is less secure but there are a number of companies and people trying to make it more secure but this is totally irrelevant to the arguement because one thing is not as bad as another doesn't make it good. The thing that should be asked is how is the community going to mitigate risk, while working within the framework that's given. So long as browser plugins and extensions live in S/L/E and not ~/L/E there will be problems.

 

[AFEPPL]

Gee's is this thread still going on, I posted a link to the facts, but it would appear people just love to argue from all sides.

"Generalisations" about anything don't mean "all". Some mac users will be techie, others won't. Some will like the steve approach of don't look for your own way, use mine, "it just works" (sometimes - but much less it would appear these days). To claim you know more than 90% of a group is truly arrogant by any measure, frankly thats a silly comment.

If you like windows, cool, if you like mac cool. They are what they are. lets not get the rulers out in the showers and start measuring appendages!!

 

[johnnyturbouk]

Mac Users better thank the Unix Kernel and GateKeeper2 Technology for only have just 9 malware virus. I can only image Windows.

several thousands a day, one of them was MS updates

 

[chrono1081]

Should I be worried that I didn't notice facing any malware threats this year?

Not at all. 9 is a laughably small amount.