Viruses

[johnnyturbouk]

i have mackeeper, i quite like it and it also has an AV
it's there in the background but really no need for it..

unlike when i had a windows laptop and norton......

 

[Eddyisgreat]

However, there is a general sense among hackers that OS X has many more unpatched exploits than Windows has. So, all that is really needed is for those exploits to be exploited in systematic fashion. So far, this hasn't happened. That doesn't mean it won't.

Andd sooo basically you're saying that OS X is the most unsecure OS in the planet...
...and black hats all over the globe don't take advantage of this because...why again?

What, a few milli macs sitting around hooked up to fast pipes of the rich and famous isn't enough to entice?

oic oic black hats *only* get interested when marketshare gets to around 12%. Yup.
When OS X has 12% of the marketshare ladies and gentlemen THIS is the time that you will fear for your safety.

Until then, compute in obscurity!1!

 

[matt3839]

And why don't you provide a link then?

I'm afraid I can't find the original article, so I'll just let you have your little victory there. I did find this article though.

First you talk about marketshare, now you're changing the subject to a more generic "Macs have vulnerabilities". No one is claiming Macs are not vulnerable in some way.

As for your original argument, the "market share" theory suggests:

larger market share = more visibility = more malware​

This is not proven by actual events. Ten years ago, when Macs represented a much smaller market share and a much smaller installed base, there were a handful of viruses that could affect Mac OS 9 and earlier. Today, Macs have a much larger market share and much larger installed base with Mac OS X (and growing at a rate of over a million Macs per month), but the number of viruses has not increased proportionately.... or at all... in fact, the number has decreased to zero. The market share theory doesn't work. Period.

You're not thinking outside the box.
By your logic, the number of viruses for an operating system incrementally increases based on market share; this is absolutely asinine because it assumes that every single script kiddie who wants to try his hand at writing malware puts on a blindfold and throws a dart at a dartboard with portions representing operating systems based on the market share. "14 points? Time to hack Red Hat Linux!" It does not work that way at all.
It's not about Mac OS X having less viruses; it's the fact that Windows has more malware available. All a script kiddie wants is to maximize the probability of infecting some poor sucker's computer and ruining their day. No, most malware is not written by teams of pro hackers in Russia and China, it's written by bored teenagers and basement-dwellers who think it's funny to mess with people like that: I remember a webpage for my town's legislature being hacked by some neighborhood kids.
I've talked with guys that pull this kind of ******, and they aren't all brooding about how they hate Apple and want to hack the living hell out of every Mac in the world. They're just angsty kids and want to ruin people's lives.

 

[simsaladimbamba]

I'm afraid I can't find the original article, so I'll just let you have your little victory there. I did find this article though.

I don't want to win anything.
Anyway, the article linked to the following table:

and shall show, that Mac OS X is leading with the most un-patched security holes in percent.
Meaning, if Mac OS X has 100 security holes, 14.3 of them will be left open.
It doesn't mention how many security holes are there though in each OS, thus one could imagine (someone with more times on the hand right now could even properly research), that Windows could have much more security holes than Mac OS X, thus the percentage could lead to the same amount of open holes, or even more. And as Windows is used eight times as often as Mac OS X, the holes will affect much more people.
But maybe my confused math is confused right now.

 

[GGJstudios]

You're not thinking outside the box.

No, I'm using common sense and basic reasoning skills instead.

By your logic, the number of viruses for an operating system incrementally increases based on market share

No, what I'm saying is that if market share were a meaningful contributing factor, as market share grows, so would the instances of viruses, even if not proportionately. At least move in the same direction. But the opposite is true. Market share grew. Viruses disappeared completely. That completely disproves the theory that market share is a contributing factor in the presence of viruses on Mac OS X.

It's not about Mac OS X having less viruses; it's the fact that Windows has more malware available.

That was true 10 years ago, as well. That still doesn't explain why, as the Mac market share and installed base grew, the number of viruses dropped to zero.

No, most malware is not written by teams of pro hackers in Russia and China, it's written by bored teenagers and basement-dwellers who think it's funny to mess with people like that: I remember a webpage for my town's legislature being hacked by some neighborhood kids.

That, too, was the same 10 years ago. In fact, the first virus in the wild was written for an Apple computer. Still, that doesn't address the fact that, as market share and installed base of Macs has grown significantly, the viruses available dropped to zero. Not one. Out of almost 50 million Macs out there, not one virus. With over a million new Macs being sold every month, no viruses. None. Zip.

If market share had anything to do with it, at least ONE of those "bored teenagers" or "basement-dwellers" would have written ONE virus. Just ONE.

I've talked with guys that pull this kind of ******, and they aren't all brooding about how they hate Apple and want to hack the living hell out of every Mac in the world.

Then why haven't they?

As for the article you linked, did you read it?

Still, that doesn't mean this report has any significant meaning on this specific subject. As has been said many times before - just counting vulnerabilities isn't a good measure of security.

At the end of the day, what matters is not only quantity, but also quality. Any report on security that does not take severity into account is a little hard to take seriously when it comes to making general statements about a platform's security record. The report does tell that 1% of the total amount of reported issues has the critical severity rating, but it doesn't break it down per platform.

The pattern of argument is predictable:

1. Claim that there are viruses that run on Mac OS X
2. After failing to prove that claim, claim that market share is the reason why
3. After failing to prove that market share is the reason, claim that Macs have vulnerabilities
4. After failing to prove that having vulnerabilities alone isn't a good measure of security...?
5. Next?

 

[Eddyisgreat]

No, what I'm saying is that if market share were a meaningful contributing factor, as market share grows, so would the instances of viruses, even if not proportionately. At least move in the same direction. But the opposite is true. Market share grew. Viruses disappeared completely. That completely disproves the theory that market share is a contributing factor in the presence of viruses on Mac OS X.

Sorry GGJs I had to bold + enlarge this since some people won't understand it otherwise.

 

[wpotere]

Wait, so we are now arguing about viruses that don't yet exist? Rich! So it is now safe to say that the AV is again pointless because if the companies have not seen the virus they can't actually detect and protect the system against it.

This thread is rather amusing.

Interestingly enough, I agree that market share will have an affect on virus attacks. However, I don't think that anyone has found a way to take advantage of any holes that currently exist. I guess all those linux users also should install av software.

 

[matt3839]

No, I'm using common sense and basic reasoning skills instead.

Clearly.

No, what I'm saying is that if market share were a meaningful contributing factor, as market share grows, so would the instances of viruses, even if not proportionately. At least move in the same direction. But the opposite is true. Market share grew. Viruses disappeared completely. That completely disproves the theory that market share is a contributing factor in the presence of viruses on Mac OS X.

You seem to have misinterpreted my question.
Let's say there are two operating systems: OS A and OS B.
OS A has a measly 0.5% market share, while OS B has a whopping 99.5%. Obviously, a malware author is going to want to attack OS B.
Years later, OS A's market share has grown to 10%. This seems like a lot more, right? Well, OS B's market share is still a substantial 90%. The target hasn't changed a bit.
Script kiddies couldn't care less about covering every possible base. At all. They do not care who else is writing viruses for what. All they want is to maximize the chances of their particular piece of malware infecting a computer. It's all about messing with the people who use the computers, not the computers themselves.

That was true 10 years ago, as well. That still doesn't explain why, as the Mac market share and installed base grew, the number of viruses dropped to zero.

Is is very damp under your rock?

That, too, was the same 10 years ago. In fact, the first virus in the wild was written for an Apple computer. Still, that doesn't address the fact that, as market share and installed base of Macs has grown significantly, the viruses available dropped to zero. Not one. Out of almost 100 million Macs out there, not one virus. With over a million new Macs being sold every month, no viruses. None. Zip.

Yep, very damp.
There have been plenty of viruses for OS X written within past years; you would have to be actively trying to ignore that.

If market share had anything to do with it, at least ONE of those "bored teenagers" or "basement-dwellers" would have written ONE virus. Just ONE.

And.........they have.

Then why haven't they?

Hmm? We don't seem to be on the same page, I just said that they have virtually no motivation for writing a virus for OS X. Some have, but all I know that they've tried to peddle out over P2P networks is for Windows.

As for the article you linked, did you read it?

Did you even read my post? I said that I conceded that point because my evidence is gone from the Internet for whatever reason. Just skimmed it.

The pattern of argument is predictable:

1. Claim that there are viruses that run on Mac OS X
2. After failing to prove that claim, claim that market share is the reason why
3. After failing to prove that market share is the reason, claim that Macs have vulnerabilities
4. After failing to prove that having vulnerabilities alone isn't a good measure of security...?
5. Next?

I don't think I can refute that without starting an old fashioned text fight......that would be funny, but that's not my intention.
I'm just curious as to why you think there is NO MALWARE FOR OS X. That is logically unsound and would be statistically amazing; are there databases listing OS X malware like I linked, do those somehow not exist?

 

[GGJstudios]

Well, OS B's market share is still a substantial 90%. The target hasn't changed a bit.

So you're suggesting that no viruses will be developed for Mac OS X until its market share exceeds that of Windows? Or do you have a "magic market share percentage" number in mind, at which point viruses will appear?

It's all about messing with the people who use the computers, not the computers themselves.

This is extremely flawed thinking. Virus developers have no way to target certain people. When a virus is released in the wild, the developer has no control over what people are affected; only what computer platforms are affected.

There have been plenty of viruses for OS X written within past years; you would have to be actively trying to ignore that.

I'm still waiting for you to name one. C'mon! Just ONE!

And.........they have.

It's apparent you're not interested in educating yourself. If you had read the Virus/Malware link I posted, you would have read:

iAntiVirus is one app that makes inaccurate claims about the existence of Mac malware, in order to hype the need for their product. This post will give details.

Since you probably won't read that either, I'll spell it out for you: there's not a single Mac OS X virus on that list. Not one.

I'm just curious as to why you think there is NO MALWARE FOR OS X. That is logically unsound and would be statistically amazing; are there databases listing OS X malware like I linked, do those somehow not exist?

Please quote where I ever said or implied that there was no malware for OS X. Please.

 

[Mactrillionaire]

Andd sooo basically you're saying that OS X is the most unsecure OS in the planet...
...and black hats all over the globe don't take advantage of this because...why again?

What, a few milli macs sitting around hooked up to fast pipes of the rich and famous isn't enough to entice?

oic oic black hats *only* get interested when marketshare gets to around 12%. Yup.
When OS X has 12% of the marketshare ladies and gentlemen THIS is the time that you will fear for your safety.

Until then, compute in obscurity!1!

I don't think you are appreciating the picture of how hackers and malware developers associate with one another. Hackers are divided into groups, depending upon talent, discover exploits and then sell those exploits to malware developers. However, hackers do not generally disclose the exploits that they have developed to malware developers. The malware developers present them with an idea for new malware and ask them what exploits will be needed. Then the hacker figures out which exploits, if any, will enable the malware developer to complete or approximately design the malware they are intending to make and gives them a price tag by exploit. However, if the exploits to do what the malware developer don't exist or haven't been discovered yet then the hacker just informs the malware developer that it can't be done. So, for the malware developer to be successful, he actually has to already have some knowledge of existing exploits.

As an aside, one operating system could have 100 unpatched exploits and another could have 1000 unpatched exploits. It's quite possible that the 100 unpatched exploits are far more dangerous from a security standpoint because they are more easily exploitable in a far broader range of scenarios than the 1000 unpatched exploits in another operating system. There's just no way to know unless you have knowledge of such exploits. It all comes down to the fact that an exploit is a bug by nature and one bug doesn't necessarily help exploit another bug in a systematic fashion unless the design was shoddy in the first place (just visit microsoft.com for lots of examples).

 

[GGJstudios]

I don't think you are appreciating the picture of how hackers and malware developers associate with one another. Hackers are divided into groups, depending upon talent, discover exploits and then sell those exploits to malware developers. However, hackers do not generally disclose the exploits that they have developed to malware developers. The malware developers present them with an idea for new malware and ask them what exploits will be needed. Then the hacker figures out which exploits, if any, will enable the malware developer to complete or approximately design the malware they are intending to make and gives them a price tag by exploit. However, if the exploits to do what the malware developer don't exist or haven't been discovered yet then the hacker just informs the malware developer that it can't be done. So, for the malware developer to be successful, he actually has to already have some knowledge of existing exploits.

This is the biggest pile of BS I've read in a long time. If you think you can organize and categorize hackers and malware developers, you're quite naive. They don't fit nicely into boxes. They do what they want, and don't operate with a code of ethics or conform to anyone's stereotype. By their very nature, they are independent and follow their own set of values, priorities and motivations. They don't all fit into one or two profiles, and you have no idea at all what they sell or don't sell, or if they sell anything at all. A hacker can also be a malware developer, and vice-versa. To suggest there's some order or established relationship between hackers and malware developers is pure fantasy. You're making it up as you go along.

 

[Mactrillionaire]

This is the biggest pile of BS I've read in a long time. If you think you can organize and categorize hackers and malware developers, you're quite naive. They don't fit nicely into boxes. They do what they want, and don't operate with a code of ethics or conform to anyone's stereotype. By their very nature, they are independent and follow their own set of values, priorities and motivations. They don't all fit into one or two profiles, and you have no idea at all what they sell or don't sell, or if they sell anything at all. A hacker can also be a malware developer, and vice-versa. To suggest there's some order or established relationship between hackers and malware developers is pure fantasy. You're making it up as you go along.

It's true that some hackers are also malware developers, but what I described is the general case. It's also true that some hackers don't necessarily charge for an exploit if it is for a cause they support. Again, I am describing the general case rather than every case as you seem to surmise.

Again, your post is coming very close to what should be reported. You have no idea what I know or do not know. I have refrained from questioning your own knowledge because I am above that bar even though you have demonstrated an unwavering belief that OS X (which is not even designed to run on a cryptoprocessor or have other hardware that would prevent live tampering) is safe from viruses just because hackers have not focused on any for this operating system.

 

[GGJstudios]

It's true that some hackers are also malware developers, but what I described is the general case. It's also true that some hackers don't necessarily charge for an exploit if it is for a cause they support. Again, I am describing the general case rather than every case as you seem to surmise.

At this point, I'm claiming that you have no facts to support your argument. If you have some, post links. If you don't, your whole argument about hackers and malware developers is pure conjecture.

Again, your post is coming very close to what should be reported.

Then report it. You may want to read the Forum Rules first, as there is no rule against disagreeing with someone who is posting unsubstantiated claims.

Rules:

Sources. If you make claims of fact but don't cite sources when requested, the posts may be removed. If you started the thread then the thread may be closed or removed.

You have no idea what I know or do not know.

That's why I'm asking you to provide any proof that what you're claiming is true. Any proof at all.

.. even though you have demonstrated an unwavering belief that OS X ... is safe from viruses just because hackers have not focused on any for this operating system.

I have said repeatedly that Mac OS X is not immune. I have never said that Macs can't get viruses, only that they don't, because none exist.

 

[simsaladimbamba]

you have demonstrated an unwavering belief that OS X (which is not even designed to run on a cryptoprocessor or have other hardware that would prevent live tampering) is safe from viruses just because hackers have not focused on any for this operating system.

That is not true. There just haven't been any yet, and there is still the possibility that there can be, but the last ten years have brought no viruses affecting Mac OS X in public circulation.

 

[wpotere]

Where is my popcorn! You guys arguing for AV are way out of your element and haven't a clue on system security. Sorry, but most of what you have posted is pure rubbish!

 

[Mactrillionaire]

That is not true. There just haven't been any yet, and there is still the possibility that there can be, but the last ten years have brought no viruses affecting Mac OS X in public circulation.

So, then, the important question is: Why is Windows so frequently targeted and OS X and Linux have almost no malware written for them compared to the amount written for Windows? Answer: Because Windows is broadly exploitable with minimal effort. A big culprit in all of this is the Windows Registry as the backbone to how the operating system works itself.

At this point, I'm claiming that you have no facts to support your argument. If you have some, post links. If you don't, your whole argument about hackers and malware developers is pure conjecture.

No, it would only mean that YOU don't have access to how I got my information. We can't let every person evaluate every claim. Can you find the logical argument for why such is the case?

Then report it. You may want to read the Forum Rules first, as there is no rule against disagreeing with someone who is posting unsubstantiated claims.

It has nothing to do with whether you agree or disagree. You come very close to questioning my intellectual ability which could very easily be construed as a personal attack.

Sources. If you make claims of fact but don't cite sources when requested, the posts may be removed. If you started the thread then the thread may be closed or removed.

Well thank you for citing the rule on sources. I will respect them while I am here, but expect to get a lot less information that could be useful to you. There are OBVIOUS reasons why some sources cannot be cited.

 

[GGJstudios]

No, it would only mean that YOU don't have access to how I got my information.

Your "information" is bogus, unless you can prove that you've surveyed every hacker and malware developer in the world, or even a large percentage of them. The "I'd tell you, but I'd have to kill you" excuse doesn't fly.

You come very close to questioning my intellectual ability which could very easily be construed as a personal attack.

I have said nothing about your intellectual ability. I have challenged your statements, your reasoning and your sources. Those are valid challenges, which you have yet to successfully defend.

Well thank you for citing the rule on sources. I will respect them while I am here, but expect to get a lot less information that could be useful to you

As the old forum saying goes, "Pics, or it didn't happen". Well, for discussions such as this, "Sources, or it's only conjecture/opinion."

There are OBVIOUS reasons why some sources cannot be cited.

The only thing that's obvious is that you have no sources that can back up your baseless statements.

 

[Mactrillionaire]

Your "information" is bogus, unless you can prove that you've surveyed every hacker and malware developer in the world, or even a large percentage of them. The "I'd tell you, but I'd have to kill you" excuse doesn't fly.

I have said nothing about your intellectual ability. I have challenged your statements, your reasoning and your sources. Those are valid challenges, which you have yet to successfully defend.

As the old forum saying goes, "Pics, or it didn't happen". Well, for discussions such as this, "Sources, or it's only conjecture/opinion."

The only thing that's obvious is that you have no sources that can back up your baseless statements.

No, it isn't that at all. Some examples include "Conflict of Interest", "Conflict of Obligation", "Conflict of [Other] Requirement", "Conflict of Purpose", etc. In short, what can be verified can be verified by anyone who is capable of verifying it. You are getting some piece of information which you cannot verify unless provided with the source, but providing you with the source may lead to uncover further information which would result in [insert one of the above examples (for instance)].

 

[GGJstudios]

No, it isn't that at all. Some examples include "Conflict of Interest", "Conflict of Obligation", "Conflict of [Other] Requirement", "Conflict of Purpose", etc. In short, what can be verified can be verified by anyone who is capable of verifying it. You are getting some piece of information which you cannot verify unless provided with the source, but providing you with the source may lead to uncover further information which would result in [insert one of the above examples (for instance)]. Those who need to evaluate a claim can evaluate it. We all have the same tools at our own disposal. It is just a question of how we choose to use them.

More smoke-screen. You don't have facts to back up your statements, because there are no such facts. No person on earth knows what is in the mind of every hacker and malware developer.... not even the majority of them. Not even the secure hacker sites represent the majority, in the same way that this forum doesn't represent the majority of Mac users. You simply have no proof that your claims are anything but your own conjecture. Throwing out more "Conflict of ..." arguments is just more evidence that you can't back up your statements.

 

[Apple OC]

No, it isn't that at all. Some examples include "Conflict of Interest", "Conflict of Obligation", "Conflict of [Other] Requirement", "Conflict of Purpose", etc. In short, what can be verified can be verified by anyone who is capable of verifying it. You are getting some piece of information which you cannot verify unless provided with the source, but providing you with the source may lead to uncover further information which would result in [insert one of the above examples (for instance)].

could you translate this please? ... are you still talking about the non-existent Mac OSX viruses?

 

[Mactrillionaire]

More smoke-screen. You don't have facts to back up your statements, because there are no such facts. No person on earth knows what is in the mind of every hacker and malware developer.... not even the majority of them. Not even the secure hacker sites represent the majority, in the same way that this forum doesn't represent the majority of Mac users. You simply have no proof that your claims are anything but your own conjecture. Throwing out more "Conflict of ..." arguments is just more evidence that you can't back up your statements.

You still didn't answer the question I asked earlier: Why is it that not every person can be allowed to evaluate every claim? And, yes, I do have logic on my side. And this is getting really tiring at this point. Most "rumors" will take any other link as a source, so all you have to do is post it on some other site first and then it counts as a source on this one. The problem with this is: X vouches for Y, Y vouches for X. And I know you would agree this site would be a lot less interesting with fewer "rumors" because the "outlandish" seeming ones all got pulled down due to not having a source released.

What I am saying is that I am glad to respect the rules here. I'm just hoping that you will see the logical contradictions that pop up along the way in this discussion so I don't feel my effort is totally wasted.

 

[GGJstudios]

What I am saying is that I am glad to respect the rules here. I'm just hoping that you will see the logical contradictions that pop up along the way in this discussion so I don't feel my effort is totally wasted.

Stating rumors, opinions, facts or conjecture are all acceptable here, as long as they're properly identified as such. Stating conjecture or opinion as fact, without providing proof or even a source (since not all sources are correct) is not acceptable, as such statements can be misleading. I welcome logical contradictions. I'm still waiting for one, just as I'm still waiting for the name of just one Mac OS X virus.

 

[Macsavvytech]

Stating rumors, opinions, facts or conjecture are all acceptable here, as long as they're properly identified as such. Stating conjecture or opinion as fact, without providing proof or even a source (since not all sources are correct) is not acceptable, as such statements can be misleading. I welcome logical contradictions. I'm still waiting for one, just as I'm still waiting for the name of just one Mac OS X virus.

I agree with you thoroughly on this one GGJstudios

 

[elVince]

I'm coming out of the blue with this one, but if i were to use an anti virus, should i use sophos or clamxav?

 

[GGJstudios]

I'm coming out of the blue with this one, but if i were to use an anti virus, should i use sophos or clamxav?

You don't need either to protect your Mac, so it doesn't matter which you choose.