Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple acknowledges Mac Defender malware, promises update

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–27 of 27 posts

Re: Apple acknowledges Mac Defender malware, promises update

#21

Post by code_duck »

epistasis wrote: post #13
beedogs wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Macs aren't more secure than Windows machines, but they're still undeniably safer (at least for normal people)." That's a pretty absurd statement which, if it even made sense, would be far more applicable in the Bad Old Days of Windows XP.

It makes plenty of sense, and I don't think it's absurd in the least. It's the difference between locking your bike up in the middle of NYC vs. locking it up in a small rural town with identical locks to identical fixtures. One of these situations is much safer, even though there's no security difference.

I agree, a few months ago I tried to argue that more people would be making malware for Macs since it's a wide open market, so to speak... tptacek laughed at the idea.

Still, I feel almost as safe on my Mac as with Linux, but not quite. Malware producers are starting to notice the Mac.

Re: Apple acknowledges Mac Defender malware, promises update

#22

Post by tptacek »

code_duck wrote: post #21
epistasis wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes plenty of sense, and I don't think it's absurd in the least. It's the difference between locking your bike up in the middle of NYC vs. locking it up in a small rural town with identical locks to identical fixtures. One of these situations is much safer, even though there's no security difference.

I agree, a few months ago I tried to argue that more people would be making malware for Macs since it's a wide open market, so to speak... tptacek laughed at the idea. Still, I feel almost as safe on my Mac as with Linux, but not quite. Malware producers are starting to notice the Mac.

I'm still laughing at the idea. People write malware to make money. Your premise is that the return on investment for Mac malware is comparable to that of Windows, which still absolutely dominates the market for personal computers. It's not.

The most successful malware packages do not, as a general rule, lock all other malware out of their victims, so it's not as if there's a meaningful competitive hurdle for malware authors. Why would they choose the tiny market?

The way the market is going, in a couple years, I can see an outside chance that OS X will be so popular that it'll be a useful target.

Re: Apple acknowledges Mac Defender malware, promises update

#23

Post by code_duck »

tptacek wrote: post #22
code_duck wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, a few months ago I tried to argue that more people would be making malware for Macs since it's a wide open market, so to speak... tptacek laughed at the idea. Still, I feel almost as safe on my Mac as with Linux, but not quite. Malware producers are starting to notice the Mac.

I'm still laughing at the idea. People write malware to make money. Your premise is that the return on investment for Mac malware is comparable to that of Windows, which still absolutely dominates the market for personal computers. It's not. The most successful malware packages do not, as a general rule, lock all other malware out of their victims, so it's not as if there's a meaningful competitive hurdle for malware…

My premise was that someone might decide to make malware for Macs because:

- users are not expecting it, and have had little coaching regarding malware on Macs

- there is very little usage of antivirus programs

- Safari is not particularly hardened

- OSX lacks various protections present in Windows

- making a mac 'port' of a malware program is probably not difficult

It seems really easy and wide open, in other words.

We have seen a fairly widespread attempt recently to infect Macs with a trojan, 'anti-malware.zip'. I presume most people have seen this, if not: http://www.tuaw.com/2011/05/19/macdefender-malware-protectio... I've actually encountered this several times recently - chromium downloads the .zip file automatically when you are redirected to the attack site. What if they find a browser exploit for Firefox or Safari as the next step?

> People write malware to make money. Your premise is that the return on investment for Mac malware is comparable to that of Windows, which still absolutely dominates the market for personal computers. It's not.

Almost all software is written to make money, and still plenty decide to write software for the Mac even though the market is smaller. What's the difference? The revenue potential per 'customer' is a lot smaller for this vs. the programs sold by Panic, perhaps?

I'm not challenging your perspective or expertise of course, these are merely the reasons I wonder about it.

Re: Apple acknowledges Mac Defender malware, promises update

#24

Post by tptacek »

code_duck wrote: post #23
tptacek wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still laughing at the idea. People write malware to make money. Your premise is that the return on investment for Mac malware is comparable to that of Windows, which still absolutely dominates the market for personal computers. It's not. The most successful malware packages do not, as a general rule, lock all other malware out of their victims, so it's not as if there's a meaningful competitive hurdle for malware…

My premise was that someone might decide to make malware for Macs because: - users are not expecting it, and have had little coaching regarding malware on Macs - there is very little usage of antivirus programs - Safari is not particularly hardened - OSX lacks various protections present in Windows - making a mac 'port' of a malware program is probably not difficult It seems really easy and wide open, in other words.…

Sorry, I don't think you're dumb for thinking this could happen, but I simply disagree that the Mac malware "market" is going to resemble the WinAPI market any time in the near future.

Re: Apple acknowledges Mac Defender malware, promises update

#25

Post by code_duck »

tptacek wrote: post #24
code_duck wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My premise was that someone might decide to make malware for Macs because: - users are not expecting it, and have had little coaching regarding malware on Macs - there is very little usage of antivirus programs - Safari is not particularly hardened - OSX lacks various protections present in Windows - making a mac 'port' of a malware program is probably not difficult It seems really easy and wide open, in other words.…

Sorry, I don't think you're dumb for thinking this could happen, but I simply disagree that the Mac malware "market" is going to resemble the WinAPI market any time in the near future.

Thank goodness for that, I shudder each time I hear of someone using a Mac or Linux antivirus program! Not because viruses are so terrible, more that the antiviruses are.

My main concern is how long Linux and Mac users (e.g. myself) can continue to be considered comfortably immune to such threats. I'm glad to hear you think things will be safe for the Mac for years to come, esp. since that would mean desktop Linux should be safe for a long time.

Re: Apple acknowledges Mac Defender malware, promises update

#26

Post by r00fus »

Sidnicious wrote: post #4

As an IT professional, I’m honestly not sure how to feel about this. On the one hand, it’s great that all the variants of MacDefender currently out there will be neutralized. On the other hand, we’re surely going to see new flavors that go undetected by the update. Apple is getting into the anti-virus game, and potentially starting an arms race. But, what else could Apple do in this situation?

For starters, they could overhaul the concept of "safe files". This is the vector that allows auto-downloads and installer execution.

MacDefender is relatively tame. Next time it could be a rootkit packaged in a trojan.

Re: Apple acknowledges Mac Defender malware, promises update

#27

Post by drivebyacct2 »

tptacek wrote: post #20
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safer, more secure, what's the practical difference here? I'm tired of the implication that OS X is inherently more secure. I have yet to see anything to indicate that is true, especially when considering the, albeit still slow, growth of malware in OS X as market share has increased. Honestly, for a user that is not using Internet Explorer, I can't imagine a workflow nearly as dangerous as is possible with Safari. I…

This is the second time now you've "refuted" the argument that OS X is "more secure", which is interesting because nobody made that argument A Food & Liquor on Chicago's West Side is more secure than a 7-11 in suburban Kennilworth. You have to pass your money through a little slot in a bulletproof glass window! The 7-11 is safer . Nobody ever sticks it up. This is not a complicated point. I'm glad you're happy with W…

Until 7-11s pop up all over town and become known for being notoriously easy to walk in and back out of with their money.
Post reply on HN