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

61–70 of 154 posts

Re: Apple Quietly Pulls Claims of Virus Immunity

#62

Post by idspispopd »

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…

Sophos and Kapersky like to allude that their software provides all the protection a user requires. Which I agree is the wrong way to approach security. They have also alluded to the idea that their software would have protected systems against the flashback malware, which is of course false.

Tediously, antivirus software provides a consistent vector into a machine, indeed as seen on Windows, the antivirus software is merely a consideration for the virus writer.

10.8 will feature a number of security enhancements which make the statement 'Apple is starting to take security seriously', an understatement designed to deliberately instil a sense of doubt. Two such examples are the improved kernel address space layout randomisation and the new signed-only code default aka 'gatekeeper'.

Re: Apple Quietly Pulls Claims of Virus Immunity

#64

Post by cooldeal »

batista wrote: post #56
smackfu wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, are "viruses" the problem on PCs anyway? Or are trojans the problem everywhere? Viruses are hard to write, since you need several exploits, to get them to both install and spread. Trojans just need one.

Well, the big epidemics on PCs have been viruses, not Trojans. Trojans don't spread fast because of their very nature.

What are some examples of big epidemics of Windows "viruses" over the past year?

Also, do you consider Flashback.k a virus or not?

Re: Apple Quietly Pulls Claims of Virus Immunity

#65

Post by napierzaza »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #33

Apple seem to be less interested in comparing themselves to MS and PCs in general these days. In ~2005 their entire marketing was based around trying to sell you a Mac as a PC replacement "Your next PC should be a Mac". I guess they are less interested now because it's a smaller % of their revenue and most of the people who would want/can afford a Mac are already giving them plenty of money so there's no desperate ne…

So they are selling enough Macs to no longer be interested in selling them? What a novel company strategy.

I don't think they are so much satisfied with their market share. I think they are no longer interested in comparing themselves to Windows. They'd do better to maybe compare Mac OS to iPhone and iPad, which is what they have been doing (Back to the Mac).

Re: Apple Quietly Pulls Claims of Virus Immunity

#66

Post by recoiledsnake »

batista wrote: post #55
duiker101 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know that, i know that, but let's ask some of those people that actually think that Macs do not get viruses because they are better...

Well, they must be doing something right at Cupertino, because they really don't get viruses. Not theoretically of future-wise: practically. 99.9% of things reported (and even those are not that many to begin with) are trojans. So, Mac viruses are like the Yeti, they might well exist, but very few people have seen them in real life. It's not just market share either. OS8/9 had several viruses with 1/5 the market shar…

>99.9% of things reported (and even those are not that many to begin with) are trojans

How is Flashback a trojan? Also what percentage of new Windows malware over the past few years do you think are "viruses" according to your definition?

Am I the only one sick of the pedantic quibbling and nitpicking over the word "virus" in every Apple malware story when everyone knows that viruses really mean modern malware in this context in general parlance and not really floppy bootsector or executable file viruses of the 90s? Anti"viruses" try to defend against all types of malware, so making a huge distinction here doesn't really help the discussion.

Re: Apple Quietly Pulls Claims of Virus Immunity

#67

Post by _b8r0 »

mkaltenecker wrote: post #43
einhverfr wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep trying to find a way to set it lower but I can't. Maybe someone can help me.

You can’t set a bar for Apple because they just say nothing at all. Interpreting Apple is akin to reading tea leaves. It’s not a low bar, it’s just that Apple never says anything.

That means the bar is glued to the floor. OS vendors should be looking to help their users have a more secure experience, not finally getting around to stop lying about security through obscurity as a positive feature because they're no longer obscure enough.

Re: Apple Quietly Pulls Claims of Virus Immunity

#69

Post by slurgfest »

batista wrote: post #58
paulmcpazzi wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "It doesn't get PC viruses" will, by definition, always be true. Macs are PCs.

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.
Post reply on HN