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

Apple Quietly Pulls Claims of Virus Immunity

pcworld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 154 posts

Re: Apple Quietly Pulls Claims of Virus Immunity

#141

Post by nodata »

reidmain wrote: post #53

"Let's hope more Apple Mac owners are also learning to take important security steps -- such as installing antivirus protection." This is the worst possible step to take. When I switch someone over to Mac I take the opportunity to recalibrate how they see their computer as secure. I teach them to be more aware of what they are doing and how potential viruses could infect them. I find this is 100x more effective than…

> "Let's hope more Apple Mac owners are also learning to take important security steps -- such as installing antivirus protection." > This is the worst possible step to take.

What?

He's recommending security steps, i.e. layers. What you wrote (education) is another layer. Users need anti-virus too.

Recommending anti-virus as a layer is not the worst possible step to take. It's a better step than having an uneducated user with no anti-virus. It's not as good as an educated layer with anti-virus.

As a side note, much of the software available for the Mac is "download from some http website that your friend recommended". Also not ideal, which is where the Mac Store is meant to come in.

Re: Apple Quietly Pulls Claims of Virus Immunity

#142

Post by josteink »

hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #77
reidmain wrote: post #53

"Let's hope more Apple Mac owners are also learning to take important security steps -- such as installing antivirus protection." This is the worst possible step to take. When I switch someone over to Mac I take the opportunity to recalibrate how they see their computer as secure. I teach them to be more aware of what they are doing and how potential viruses could infect them. I find this is 100x more effective than…

All the noise the media is doing around this case is to actually drive a demand for antivirus software for Mac. You don't see any article mentioning installing software from trusted sources (like Mac App Store), digital signing, configuring firewall, keeping software up to date, etc. Their whole point is to compare the Mac platform to the Windows one, so they can conclude that installing antivirus software is the obv…

You don't see any article mentioning installing software from trusted sources (like Mac App Store), digital signing, configuring firewall, keeping software up to date, etc.

Do you see anyone mentioning that when it comes to Windows-based articles? If not, why complain that it's not mentioned here?

Re: Apple Quietly Pulls Claims of Virus Immunity

#143

Post by josteink »

slurgfest wrote: post #69
batista wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, in the context we are discussing, a PC is not a "personal computer", but what was called an "IBM PC compatible" (and subsequently by some a Wintel machine). Few people use "PC" to mean personal computers in general, especially since for 99% of the people personal computers are all they know and encounter anyway, so no need to distinguish both Mac and PCs from, say, Mainframes and embedded systems.... That's why n…

I was under the impression that since Macs went over to x86, they were capable of running Windows. They are IBM PC compatible.

I think the only difference now is that Macs use EFI boot, and not BIOS boot and hence will only boot software with a EFI-boot compatible bootloader.

Once you get past that step a Mac works exactly like a "PC". Just like a "PC" works exactly like a Mac if you fake the EFI-boot via a custom BIOS-to-EFI bootloader on a USB-stick.

Re: Apple Quietly Pulls Claims of Virus Immunity

#144

Post by batista »

slurgfest wrote: post #69
batista wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, in the context we are discussing, a PC is not a "personal computer", but what was called an "IBM PC compatible" (and subsequently by some a Wintel machine). Few people use "PC" to mean personal computers in general, especially since for 99% of the people personal computers are all they know and encounter anyway, so no need to distinguish both Mac and PCs from, say, Mainframes and embedded systems.... That's why n…

I was under the impression that since Macs went over to x86, they were capable of running Windows. They are IBM PC compatible.

Technically, since they don't use a PC BIOS. Plus, the "IBM PC compatible" as a specification hasn't been important since 199x.

The PC moniker for Wintel machines, while heralding from the "IBM PC compatible" era, it's used as a designator of the category of, well, PC-derived machines now, not as a technical spec. We mostly use the word Wintel for the respective thing now.

Re: Apple Quietly Pulls Claims of Virus Immunity

#145

Post by batista »

paulmcpazzi wrote: post #112
kalleboo wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we're going to be technical, since they don't run a PC BIOS (they use the newer EFI), they're not compatible with the original IBM PC.

EFI is not exclusive to Macs. It was developed by Intel and has been deprecated in favor of UEFI. Most UEFI images will have legacy support for BIOS services. There is basically no difference between a modern Mac and a PC - except for Mac OS X, which can be run on "Hackintoshes".

>EFI is not exclusive to Macs.

Which is beside the pedantic point, that to be an "IBM PC compatible" you have to NOT run EFI.

Re: Apple Quietly Pulls Claims of Virus Immunity

#146

Post by praptak »

nodata wrote: post #141
reidmain wrote: post #53

"Let's hope more Apple Mac owners are also learning to take important security steps -- such as installing antivirus protection." This is the worst possible step to take. When I switch someone over to Mac I take the opportunity to recalibrate how they see their computer as secure. I teach them to be more aware of what they are doing and how potential viruses could infect them. I find this is 100x more effective than…

> "Let's hope more Apple Mac owners are also learning to take important security steps -- such as installing antivirus protection." > This is the worst possible step to take. What? He's recommending security steps , i.e. layers . What you wrote (education) is another layer. Users need anti-virus too. Recommending anti-virus as a layer is not the worst possible step to take. It's a better step than having an uneducate…

I agree that calling it "the worst possible step" is an overstatement but antivirus has a huge irremovable drawback: it's basic operating principle is "enumerating badness", a known security antipattern.

Re: Apple Quietly Pulls Claims of Virus Immunity

#147

Post by idspispopd »

molmalo wrote: post #85
idspispopd wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"PC" has been appropriated numerous times by vendors to mean a specific platform. In the times were personal computers were less-standardised "IBM PC" and later "PC Clones" referred to the platform and not "personal computer" specifically. This naturally led to Macintosh computer being referred to as Macs, even though they too are "personal computers". The problem is that many people today don't understand the histor…

just asking seriously.. aren't Macs x86 now? Doesn't that distinction comes from the time when Macs used a totally different architecture (risc) based on something called Ironically "PowerPC"? I still can't see the difference now. Why then don't call Linux-PC or BSD-PC to others if based on the platform? I may be wrong, but the way I see it its just something anachronistic with an historical basis, but now just used…

The early intel macs were "x86". The current line up is x86_64. Depending on who you ask in the industry this is called AMD64, Intel64, EM64T, IA-32e. This is the 64 bit platform as developed by AMD, it's not to be confused with Intels IA-64 as sold in "Itanium" chips.

Re: Apple Quietly Pulls Claims of Virus Immunity

#148

Post by idspispopd »

hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #77
reidmain wrote: post #53

"Let's hope more Apple Mac owners are also learning to take important security steps -- such as installing antivirus protection." This is the worst possible step to take. When I switch someone over to Mac I take the opportunity to recalibrate how they see their computer as secure. I teach them to be more aware of what they are doing and how potential viruses could infect them. I find this is 100x more effective than…

All the noise the media is doing around this case is to actually drive a demand for antivirus software for Mac. You don't see any article mentioning installing software from trusted sources (like Mac App Store), digital signing, configuring firewall, keeping software up to date, etc. Their whole point is to compare the Mac platform to the Windows one, so they can conclude that installing antivirus software is the obv…

The article is basically an advertorial. It could have provided helpful information and quoted security researchers who don't stand to gain financially. Instead it assembles quotes from vested interests who imply that their product is necessary.

Re: Apple Quietly Pulls Claims of Virus Immunity

#149

Post by idspispopd »

wfarr wrote: post #97
mrich wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple won big in smartphones, but Android has a bigger marketshare. Competition between all smartphone vendors have made the customer the biggest winner in any case.

Is that even relevant when Apple is taking home the biggest slice of the profit pie?

This article sums up quite a bit of why that is:

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11586384/1/android-users-dont...

Re: Apple Quietly Pulls Claims of Virus Immunity

#150

Post by paulmcpazzi »

batista wrote: post #145
paulmcpazzi wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EFI is not exclusive to Macs. It was developed by Intel and has been deprecated in favor of UEFI. Most UEFI images will have legacy support for BIOS services. There is basically no difference between a modern Mac and a PC - except for Mac OS X, which can be run on "Hackintoshes".

> EFI is not exclusive to Macs. Which is beside the pedantic point, that to be an "IBM PC compatible" you have to NOT run EFI.

Not if your (U)EFI firmware is capable of booting BIOS-booted operating systems as well as (U)EFI operating systems (like IBM System x Server Firmware).
Post reply on HN