Mac OS/X, Safari Security Threats on the Rise

May 3, 2006 9:00 AM

Safari is added to the spring 2006 update of the SANS Top Twenty Internet Security Vulnerabilities, following its last update in the fall which for the first time added OS/X to the list. OS/X saw its first zero-day exploit this year, there are at least seven new vulnerabilities waiting for a patch, and everyone is starting to notice. Do you still think your Mac is bulletproof?
posted by poppo (92 comments total)

yes
posted by matteo at 9:05 AM on May 3, 2006

Yes.
posted by effwerd at 9:08 AM on May 3, 2006

but its reputation for offering a bullet-proof alternative to Windows is in tatters.

Oh yeah, 114,000 viruses for PC. Zero for Mac. Tatters, I tells ya.
posted by effwerd at 9:09 AM on May 3, 2006

everyone is starting to notice

Read that story, then read what John Gruber of Daring Fireball has to say about it.
posted by DakotaPaul at 9:12 AM on May 3, 2006

Yeah, about that... Methinks I'll be sleeping as well tonight as last night, the hum of my virus-free eMac lulling me to sleep.
posted by rollbiz at 9:14 AM on May 3, 2006

John Gruber seems a little sensitive, if you ask me.
posted by kbanas at 9:14 AM on May 3, 2006

Haha. I almost linked Gruber, too. He savages the article and he's a little over the top, but he's right on his basic points.

For me, the bottom line is this: Bulletproof? No. But for the time being, I'm reserving my panic for more deserving subjects.
posted by veggieboy at 9:15 AM on May 3, 2006

Yes.
posted by Pecinpah at 9:15 AM on May 3, 2006

Obligatory Daring Fireball link.

This whole area is full of people blowing things out of proportion. This is a good example of that. As I pointed out elsewhere they come up with this:
Last year there were 52 vulnerabilities found in the Mac OS X in 2005, this year 17 have already been found.
as if that's worthy of note, when in fact if vulnerabilities were being discovered at the same rate and not on the rise you'd expect to discover 13 every four months, with a standard deviation of just under 4, so 17 being found isn't exactly noteworthy.

Oh and anyone who thought there Mac was bulletproof was already an idiot. Anyone who thought it was better than a certain alternative wasn't, and still isn't.
posted by edd at 9:16 AM on May 3, 2006

Bah, I should have previewed. Took too long to write that comment.
posted by edd at 9:16 AM on May 3, 2006

It might not be bulletproof, but nobody's shooting at it, especially not compared to the automatic-weapon frenzy going on at PCs
posted by bonaldi at 9:18 AM on May 3, 2006

My Mac is bulletproof.







It's a MacPlus.
posted by linux at 9:18 AM on May 3, 2006

My Mac isn't connected to the intarweb. Bulletproof enough for me.
posted by devbrain at 9:19 AM on May 3, 2006

Hey Gruber mentions the Matt to my Jessamyn...that's going to sound funny, isn't it...
posted by Captaintripps at 9:19 AM on May 3, 2006

It might not be bulletproof, but nobody's shooting at it, especially not compared to the automatic-weapon frenzy going on at PCs

I think that's the key. Macs are protected from viruses on two fronts:

1.) They're designed well, so they're harder to infect.
2.) Smaller audiences aren't worth the virus-writer's while.

The thing is, #2 is becoming less the case. It's something to be aware of, but I don't think I'll be worrying too much for my Powerbook's fate just yet.
posted by jefgodesky at 9:21 AM on May 3, 2006

It's a (slight) irony that the more successful Apple's "we're virus-free" message is, the less true it will become.

(But lest anyone think I disagree with them, of course it's true enough for now.)
posted by grobstein at 9:25 AM on May 3, 2006

Yes.
posted by scottreynen at 9:30 AM on May 3, 2006

Pretty much.
posted by leftoverboy at 9:32 AM on May 3, 2006

Here's a data point:

I'm been maintaining Macs for about 17 years, all of that time they have been involved in file sharing, including accepting files from public (untrusted) sources, the last dozen years having been connected to the interweb, and have been hit by destructive viruses exactly zero times and non-destructive viruses certainly no more than 5 times (basically proof-of-concept viruses that were subsequently patched in the OS and were never an actual threat).

Yes, you have to be smart no matter what computer you use but, yes, Macs have it much easier by circumstance and by design.
posted by mazola at 9:34 AM on May 3, 2006

* Do you know the difference between a Trojan and a Virus?
* Do you think that *any* computer system is secure?
* Do you understand the basic concepts of risk management?
* Can you spell Mac OS X correctly? (I mean, really... OS/X? WTF is that? What possible knowledge of the subject could someone have and write it that way?)

if you can correctly answer these questions you may write an article about OS X security issues. If you cannot then STFU, you're peeing in the pool.

Also. The sudden blitz of ill informed over reporting of these issues is highly suspect. I call shenanegans. MS PR is the source of all these bullshit articles. If real news was the issue here we'd be seeing something like 4000 words about MS security issues for every 1 word about OS X.
posted by n9 at 9:36 AM on May 3, 2006

It's odd how Safari is often the presses whipping boy for Mac browsers, considering there's firefox, camino, opera and a couple of others.

But overall, this is a very uninteresting topic. Let's talk about pizza, what's your favorite crust?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:43 AM on May 3, 2006

I've never felt like my mac was bulletproof. There have always been weird things on the mac (I still have autoplay off after a pal got the autoplay mac trojan of '98), but it's noteworthy that everytime any security hole is found on the Mac it seems like major news (in the Mac community at least), whereas with PCs you only hear about the things that will bring down your entire network one morning, but not so much about the little vulnerabilities and exploits that allow spammers to create zombie-PC armies and identity thieves to pilfer every keystroke.

So in short, I still feel pretty good abut my mac, yes.
posted by illovich at 9:45 AM on May 3, 2006

10 years with a Mac on the internet.
Promiscuious downloading.
Viruses encountered (that I know of) - ZERO!

Bulletproof? Maybe not.

Safe? YES.
posted by infomaniac at 9:49 AM on May 3, 2006

I was over at a friends house once, and her computer wouldn't stop pinging as we watched a DVD. The dvd finished and there were a hundred different spam ads floating on her desktop. That's when I realized my love for macs was well founded.

It's worth another mention - http://daringfireball.net/2006/05/good_journalism
posted by kjell at 9:51 AM on May 3, 2006

I think now that the mac is finally gaining some marketshare, the MS PR machine is starting to behave like the GOP. They've become opportunists, with multiple doomsday stories ready at the helm, just waiting for the smallest inkling of a problem they can exploit to the fullest.

I mean heck, Windows and OS X runs on the same hardware now. Switching is easier than it ever has been, and with the tens of millions of iPods out there, people are starting to make the jump away from Windows. MS has to be afriad of that and seeing these sorts of sky-is-falling-because-of-a-couple-proof-of-concept-viruses-were-found-in-the-wild stories being scattershot in the news looks like a plan from way back.
posted by mathowie at 9:52 AM on May 3, 2006

Yep, still safe. Meanwhile: Internet Explorer Security Problems Multiply.
posted by nicwolff at 9:56 AM on May 3, 2006

So does this mean I should be dusting off my copy of Disinfectant?
posted by mazola at 9:58 AM on May 3, 2006

Yes.
posted by scottq at 10:05 AM on May 3, 2006

you know, this hysteria is completely as overblown as gruber is making it out to be, but that response he wrote is everything that's wrong with macheads today. it would, in fact, have been a more reasonable response if it had been read in the voice of the nerdy scientist from the simpsons with the comic book store owner doing the quotes from the article. at least then, you could have thought it was a joke.

I'm normally fond of his site and articles, but that one is such a nitpicky piece of overly-offended mac evangelism that it's laughable. he could simply have said "this article is poorly researched and makes a vulnerability seem like an epidemic when it isn't one," but (to use his own comment about the original article) that lacks the punch that you get from composing a lengthy screed criticising every single sentence a journalist writes. he should have ended it with "worst. article. ever." for effect.
posted by shmegegge at 10:11 AM on May 3, 2006

Wow, I really should have left that last sentence off!

In any case, the title was "Mac OS/X, Safari Security Threats on the Rise" not "Hackers pwn all Macs"

I'm surprised that everyone here is fixated on the last article, rather than my main point which is that the SANS institute, a vendor agnostic security awareness and education group, added Mac OS/X and Safari to a very important list.

It doesn't mean the sky is falling, it means that owning a Mac does not preclude you from thinking about what you're doing on the internet anymore, which has been the case for a lot of folks until now, and rightly so.

Also, don't shoot the messenger n9. For what it's worth, I have been doing IT security for along time, so I know what your fancy words mean, but admittedly cannot properly spell OS/X.
posted by poppo at 10:11 AM on May 3, 2006

Yep. Pretty much. Of course, as Morel says, "you're bulletproof when your hope is gone," so Windows may be bulletproof under that definition.
posted by OmieWise at 10:11 AM on May 3, 2006

shmegegge: did you read the article?

It states as true that since macs use intel processors now there will be more viruses for macs. This one sentance belies something beyond overblowing an issue. It pisses Gruber off that people write dogshit stories like this. It pisses me off too, because people read them. Yesterday the Senior VP of Systems mentioned this very article to me and chided me for promoting OS X in our business because "now it gets viruses too."
posted by n9 at 10:16 AM on May 3, 2006

n9, did you read what I wrote?

if the answer is yes, consider reading it again, especially my first sentence, where agree completely with what gruber has to say.

then you can read the rest of it, where I point out that his overzealous pouncing on everything that even marginally criticizes a mac is absurd and counterproductive to taking him seriously.
posted by shmegegge at 10:19 AM on May 3, 2006

I feel I can say a few things and add to this discussion since I know absolutely nothinbg about computers.
1. I have owned Macs (2)
2. I have owned PCs (2)
3. Clearly Macs are less vulnerable. This is because of build and much fewer sales so not worth hacking. The second cause will fade a bit with time, as noted, and hackers will try hitting Macs.
4. Mac owners are like religious cultists--they will swear by their god, no matter what.
5. PC owners are like former religious people: they love to curse the relationship to Windows, that is Microsoft, that is Billy Gates.
6. I have owned my present PC for over 6 years now and it has never been felled by a virus--some viruses there, yes; spyware, yes...but I get them out and clean my machine every week(a thing for the register, spyware remover etc).
7. The good news is that Mac and PC getting closer together (Mac can now share Windows), so that incest, or marriage, or misegenation--whatever it might be called, might dampen the ongoing back and forth tirades between the two platforms.
posted by Postroad at 10:19 AM on May 3, 2006

* Do you know the difference between a Trojan and a Virus?

One keeps you from getting the other.
posted by malaprohibita at 10:29 AM on May 3, 2006

You mean I shouldn't be using my Powerbook as an insert for my bulletproof vest?

Damn it, now you guys tell me.
posted by rand at 10:30 AM on May 3, 2006

of course...
posted by HuronBob at 10:30 AM on May 3, 2006

I just shot my Mac with a .44 magnum. Indeed, you are correct, it is not bulletproof. What was I thinking?
posted by teece at 10:36 AM on May 3, 2006

but admittedly cannot properly spell OS/X.

Okay, the first time was excusable. You thought maybe OS X was the sequel to OS/2. But now you're just doing it to annoy us.

4. Mac owners are like...
5. PC owners are like...

People who make broad generalizations are always completely wrong.
posted by scottreynen at 10:38 AM on May 3, 2006

People who make broad generalizations are always completely wrong.

"To generalize is to be an idiot!"

-William Blake
posted by shmegegge at 10:40 AM on May 3, 2006

Oh hells yes.

I think while I'm at work, my iMac leaves the house and fights crime.
posted by chunking express at 10:42 AM on May 3, 2006

You mean I shouldn't be using my Powerbook as an insert for my bulletproof vest?

No, but maybe its little brother....

From apple.com:

The iBook was designed with durability in mind, using ultratough polycarbonate plastic — the same material used in bulletproof glass — with an internal magnesium frame for added strength.

:-P

(Apple's been marketing their polycarbonate-encased machines with that dubious line since the G3 era.)
posted by jbrjake at 10:48 AM on May 3, 2006

chunking express writes "I think while I'm at work"

See, that's your problem right there. I try never to fall into that trap.
posted by OmieWise at 10:50 AM on May 3, 2006

My PowerBook transforms into a mighty robot whose discs pop out and become smaller mighty robots who then go on to kill all the Autobots.
posted by Captaintripps at 10:52 AM on May 3, 2006

Yes.
posted by thefreek at 10:56 AM on May 3, 2006

Bulletproof? Well not literally but as someone who;'s been using a mac since 1986, I've had exactly one virus in 1987 - it "infected" Ms Word files by messing with the header info - damage, i had to open and copy the text out to another WORD file. Since then - ZERO. That is one more virus than being hit by a meteorite personally so i suppose I can stop looking up in the sky but ... PC users just don't get it. Useless someone breaks into your house and logs onto your computer right then & there, we are safe. I also have seen about 5 popups in my life on my Mac - on the PC, if it's less than 5 in an hour, that's a good day.

Mac - triathlete.

PC - 80 year old coal miner.

Can a triath;ete get sick, sure - but it's odds of fighting off most viruses aare just a bit better than an 80 year old coal miner.

Yes, PC users, you are dying to say the mac is dangerous but it's not gonna happen. There are now 12 million mac oSX users - not exactly a tiny installed base.
posted by jbelkin at 11:04 AM on May 3, 2006

. I have owned my present PC for over 6 years now and it has never been felled by a virus--some viruses there, yes; spyware, yes...but I get them out and clean my machine every week(a thing for the register, spyware remover etc).

This reminds me of the argument about the reliability of M-16 (AR, M4, whatever). "Never had a problem with it. Well, except those few times.. But if you clean it every day and after every shot, it will work just fine."
posted by c13 at 11:07 AM on May 3, 2006

Yes. Bulletproof as one wants it to be. I share the opinion that this is some M$0ft "yellow dog" PR. This sadly, is their ownly ace in the hole. I was a pc user for 10 years, until I recently saw the light; I still have my PC's but the 2001 Pismo is clipping along just nicely thank you.
posted by AllesKlar at 11:14 AM on May 3, 2006

Wouldn't the reasonable metric be to track the growth of Mac vs. Linux threats?
posted by mkultra at 11:16 AM on May 3, 2006

Bulletproof? No, never made that claim.

Impact-resistant? youbetchahey.

Those mac users who rhetorically wield the platform as some shield of invulnerability are, in fact, idiots. IME, however, the number of mac users who fit this category are more scarce than the people who make this stereotype would have one believe.

Because mac osx is now on the radar it does behoove Apple to be more vigilant and quicker to respond. That it seems the case can be made otherwise, I do worrry. But not enough to ever cough up my 12" iBook.
posted by Fezboy! at 11:21 AM on May 3, 2006

Doesn't anyone here run linux?!?!
posted by nofundy at 11:31 AM on May 3, 2006

nofundy, you big kidder you!
posted by AllesKlar at 11:35 AM on May 3, 2006

posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 11:37 AM on May 3, 2006

This, however, might be more relevant to the discussion.
posted by mazola at 11:48 AM on May 3, 2006

Look at me! I'm righteous and good. My Mac is a gift from Stevegod! It's all I need. PCs always suck! PCs are viruses. Steve be praised. Apple is mother. Apple is father.

I am so f'ing tired of this stuff. Plug your iPod into somewhere tender and go away. I've got machines running out of my ears, Macs and PCs both. I also know damned well that feature parity isn't there if you need something that Apple doesn't offer. Enough already.

The Mac platform is heading for a virus awaking moment and, though I don't really wish it on anyone, I won't be sorry to see the horror and gnashing of teeth that befalls the Mac faithful.

Normally I wouldn't rant like this here, but it's patently impossible to discuss security matters with rank and file Mac users.
posted by shagoth at 11:57 AM on May 3, 2006

What is Mac OS/X? Is that anything like Mac OS X? 'Cause that shits bulletproof. But yeah, everything n9 said.
posted by patr1ck at 12:09 PM on May 3, 2006

but it's patently impossible to discuss security matters with rank and file Mac users.

This is your first post in this thread -- it looks like you haven't even tried.

As for the virus awakening moment -- of course it's heading for one. Nobody's saying the platform's completely immune. But it is subject to an incredible magnitude fewer attacks, so in the months it'll take for this moment to arrive, millions upon millions of PCs will have been infected.

I'll add your ears and their feature parity to the pile of straw in the corner.
posted by bonaldi at 12:10 PM on May 3, 2006

This might stop a bullet if it were in your breast pocket. [Google video link]
posted by NationalKato at 12:19 PM on May 3, 2006

mathowie wrote "Switching is easier than it ever has been"

Still requires you to buy a new computer. I have a perfectly good one already.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to point out to those of you who keep denigrating "PCs" that unless you are talking about a rack-mounted dedicated server or a mainframe, you have a PC, whether it runs OSX, Windows, Linux or whatever. Operating system and hardware are two different things. Your OSX would run just fine on my current Windows box. My Windows install would be quite happy in your Mac. Both would run Linux. That is all. You may now go back to extolling your Macs. Try not to look so starry-eyed as you gaze at the thing, though. Jeez. Get a room. It's just a computer.
posted by caution live frogs at 12:19 PM on May 3, 2006

bonaldi: I admit my venting is based on not even attempting to discuss it here. I've already read claims on this thread that in the last 17 years there have been no Mac viruses, which is a lie. I see the same fanboy arguments about the "goodness of Apple" and "badness of PC" over and over again. Nobody audits for security and if you dare to question Apple's value you get a load of FUD.

Microsoft has written extensively about security, they're not perfect but more than lip service.

Apple is slower to patch than Microsoft or Mozilla when vulnerabilities appear.

As for the target nature of MacOS (or however is the right way to refer to it), SANS and others have made it clear that Apple's offering is the next big target. It's not hardened, it's not mission critical. It's a consumer computer masquerading as a serious platform by grafting onto unix.

Macintosh as a platform could readily become the secure platform of choice but locking down tight comes at a HUGE cost in useability ala OpenBSD. Snazzy laptops and whizzy blue buttons that buy music from the mothership come at a price. That price is risk. That risk is potentially very large. Ignore it at your own peril.

So bonaldi. Like that better? It didn't feel as good as venting my spleen, but it is admittedly a better argument.
posted by shagoth at 12:21 PM on May 3, 2006

Limb by limb and tooth by tooth
Tearing up inside of me
Every day, every hour
I wish that I was
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 12:23 PM on May 3, 2006

I think one of the reasons macs have less malware is that they come with most of the basic programs people want; windows machines don't, and thus people go for questionable freeware and warez, some of the largest malware vectors. It's just the result of selling a computing platform vs. an operating system.

Also, I think it doesn't hurt that most hackers of the kind that make viruses and exploits cannot go near a mac without vomiting. The platform really doesn't endear itself to the hardcore hacker type that makes malware or really, programmers in general.
posted by Mitrovarr at 12:31 PM on May 3, 2006

I really like how Microsoft went out and bought themselves an anti-virus company.

That'll really increase the bottom line.

No need to make secure code, night hurt the anti-virus profits!

Want secure? OpenBSD baby!
posted by nofundy at 12:33 PM on May 3, 2006

Apple can currently afford to be much slower with security updates, because when they delay nothing bad happens. Microsoft *has* to be faster, because the world ends when they don't.

The fact that they talk a lot about security means nothing, quite frankly, not when the evidence -- what they actually do -- is so poor. Even Thurrot slammed the new user-mode protections in Vista. I'll admit to knowing little about Windows, but it seems that most times I hear of an exploit it's Microsoft being hoist on its own petard, whether it's ActiveX or IE or Outlook.

So, Microsoft can keep talking, and I'll keep using the Mac without anti-virus software, because not only have I seen nothing apart from proof-of-concepts viruses for OS X, I haven't seen *one* that behaves like a real proper no-intervention-required scary-as-hell virus. The day might come, but it comes every 20 minutes for a Windows PC.
posted by bonaldi at 12:37 PM on May 3, 2006

I think one of the reasons macs have less malware is that they come with most of the basic programs people want; windows machines don't

huh?! consider me wondering what on earth makes you say that. i'm a fan of macs and all, but this is a very strange thing to say.
posted by shmegegge at 12:40 PM on May 3, 2006

Mitrovarr writes "The [Mac] really doesn't endear itself to the hardcore hacker type that makes malware or really, programmers in general."

I'm a programmer by [a]vocation and OSX gives me a stiffy. Judging from the number of macs utilized as personal computing devices in my department, I'd have to say I'm not alone in this regard.
posted by Fezboy! at 12:44 PM on May 3, 2006

I cannot believe where this thread has gone since I left work.

Nowhere did I suggest that Macs have suddenly become so vulnerable to exploitation that your best move was to switch to Windows.

And p4t1rck, I apologize for adding that slash into the name OS X. I can understand how that would be worth correcting. Oh wait, no I can't.
posted by poppo at 12:58 PM on May 3, 2006

Fezboy!: I'm a programmer by [a]vocation and OSX gives me a stiffy. Judging from the number of macs utilized as personal computing devices in my department, I'd have to say I'm not alone in this regard.

It wouldn't surprise me if they're starting to draw a programmer following (OSX being an operating system with real merit,) but back in the days before OSX when their operating system was starting to age badly, I doubt they had too many. Even now, I suspect a lot of the kind of people that make viruses (who are often smart, but have the personality of a script kiddie) won't go near them; macs chase off hackers in the same way a pink car deters car thieves.
posted by Mitrovarr at 1:05 PM on May 3, 2006

I guess we should replace our Macs with windows boxes. I know you didn't explicitly say this, but what choice do I have after you posted this? When someone says the sky is falling, you'd be a fool not to run for cover, right? I've never owned any antivirus software, should I buy some? The truth is I wouldn't know the first thing about non-Mac security. The rest of the household couldn't compute their way out of a box, will that make security difficult? I'm dealing with 3 other people and 7 machines, I don't want to spend any more time 'helping' than I do now - which beyond an easy setup is zero. I never thought of Macs as 'bulletproof', I never thought about it at all until now. Thanks for the wake up call, if I have any problems, or if the rest of my family does, can you help us then too? I can't imagine I'll run into any trouble, in all my 20+ years of Mac usage, I've had so little - to imagine it could be even better! I can't wait to implement this switch. I am indebted to you poppo. MeFi is great, I learn stuff here all the time.
posted by lazymonster at 1:29 PM on May 3, 2006

metafilter: your favorite os sucks
posted by pyramid termite at 1:37 PM on May 3, 2006

It's dead easy to not have a spyware infested PC with viruses. Any problems the Mac may have now or in the future, it will be dead easy as well.

It's nice that there are organizations that keep watch and document it.

Use what you like. You're the one that counts, not the computer!
- Louis Fresh, National Organization to end Platformism
posted by juiceCake at 1:41 PM on May 3, 2006

It wouldn't surprise me if they're starting to draw a programmer following

I blame this March 2005 piece for the Powerbook sitting next to me. Stupid consumer.

Apple can currently afford to be much slower with security updates, because when they delay nothing bad happens.

This is not an absolute truth, it's only so because of the current nature of things. Were positions reversed, the need for patch speed would be reversed as well.
posted by yerfatma at 1:46 PM on May 3, 2006

I am indebted to you poppo. MeFi is great, I learn stuff here all the time.

Same here. Today I learned you are a dick.
posted by poppo at 1:51 PM on May 3, 2006

because not only have I seen nothing apart from proof-of-concepts viruses for OS X, I haven't seen *one* that behaves like a real proper no-intervention-required scary-as-hell virus. The day might come, but it comes every 20 minutes for a Windows PC.

It's rare, but it has happened.

Every 20 minutes? Not on mine.
posted by juiceCake at 1:53 PM on May 3, 2006

Every 20 minutes? Not on mine.
I took that figure from the average time it takes an unpatched Windows XP PC just sitting quietly on the net to be compromised. So your PC might not be falling prey to the attacks, but they're out there hammering at its door.

For the Mac they're not even out there. That link you provided is the same one Gruber debunked, and the "virus" in it required user intervention to "act", not that it did anything scary.
posted by bonaldi at 2:01 PM on May 3, 2006

What is Mac OS/X? Hey, I know! It must be a new release of IBM OS/2 Warp that runs on Mac! But...can it run my BeOS applications?
posted by nlindstrom at 2:16 PM on May 3, 2006

Hey, did you see how the poster spelled it "OS/X"!?! What's with that?!?
posted by mr_roboto at 2:30 PM on May 3, 2006

It may be worth noting, and maybe not, that I just saw for the first time an actual TV commercial talking about how many viruses exist for PCs that don't for Macs. Up until yesterday, I'd only ever heard this through word of mouth ("buzz" that for all I know may have begun at Apple itself) and by personal experience of never having any security problems on my (admittedly corporate, and therefore MUCH more heavily watched) work Mac, as opposed to the years of spyware and other little problems that have plagued but never killed my brave Compaq at home. I had never seen any actual claim from Apple itself that this was the case. It seemed to me dangerous--flaunting it, and therefore tempting potential virus writers out there. Or running the risk of having to eat one's words once the first big Mac virus does hit. At any rate, despite the smugness of rabid Mac fans, I still hope that's far in the future, since I think my next computer will be a Mac.
posted by lampoil at 2:32 PM on May 3, 2006

Nowhere did I suggest that Macs have suddenly become so vulnerable to exploitation that your best move was to switch to Windows.

I didn't think you made that suggestion. In fact, I hardly ever attribute an agenda to a poster (unless they make an agenda apparent). My problem is with how SANS portrays the extent of the problem. As has been pointed out, either in this thread of through links, the portrayal of a few proofs of concept has not left the perception of Mac OS X security in tatters. There are still plenty of features in place to keep one relatively secure, and proofs of conept or not, OS X is no where near the beseiged state as Windows. This is vapor malware.
posted by effwerd at 2:43 PM on May 3, 2006

It's not hardened, it's not mission critical.

Heh. I guess all that mission critical work I've been doing for the past 12 years on Macs without ever losing any data must have been pure luck. Whew.
posted by effwerd at 2:51 PM on May 3, 2006

For the Mac they're not even out there. That link you provided is the same one Gruber debunked, and the "virus" in it required user intervention to "act", not that it did anything scary.
posted by bonaldi at 5:01 PM EST on May 3 [!]

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I was aware that user needed to be a factor. This is hardly unusual or is it? I haven't deal with virii so I don't know, but I heard that was often the case.

As for not doing anything scary, like what computer you prefer, that is a relative judgement. Fucking up files would be scary to me, as would crippling them, not to mention a huge nuisance (similar to dealing with Windows and Mac OS bugs) but I understand it's not scary to you.

As for knocking at my door. They can do so all they like. I couldn't care less. I imagine most Mac users couldn't care less either when things occur because it's so easy to protect one's self. Hard-drive and component failures are my main computer concerns. Thankfully disciplined backups keep those concerns minimal as well.
posted by juiceCake at 2:57 PM on May 3, 2006

I think one of the reasons macs have less malware is that they come with most of the basic programs people want; windows machines don't, and thus people go for questionable freeware and warez, some of the largest malware vectors.

Good point! Never heard that one before.
posted by fungible at 3:37 PM on May 3, 2006

Geez. I don't throw around the title dick very often, certainly not for a lame jab like mine, but hey I'll be your dick if that's what you need me to be. I don't know if it's a measure of your fragility or my character, am I a prude? Prude + dick = prick?

In all seriousness, I usually avoid these mac/pc things, my best friends use windows/linux.

everyone is starting to notice, Do you still think your Mac is bulletproof?, it just sounds like a taunt, more than a heads up. If the substance of the links amounted to more than, well what others have said, maybe it wouldn't have provoked my teasing. I should have just said that I thought this was a bad post instead of trying to be irreverent. Either way, sorry if I ruffled or poked or any of that.

I'm going to hang out on the King Tut's Penis post, maybe I'll *fit* in there.
posted by lazymonster at 4:42 PM on May 3, 2006

I just saw for the first time an actual TV commercial talking about how many viruses exist for PCs that don't for Macs

Was it one of these? (Can't link to the Viruses one. Stupid Apple.)
posted by kirkaracha at 4:52 PM on May 3, 2006

lazymonster: Do you still think your Mac is bulletproof?, it just sounds like a taunt

yeah, and I said later on that I should never have said it. it threw off the whole thread into a windows vs mac thing, which as i also said before you commented wasn't my intent

in any case your jab, lame or not, got personal for no reason. so i called you a dick. sniff.
posted by poppo at 4:59 PM on May 3, 2006

Nobody wants to talk about pizza?!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:14 PM on May 3, 2006

I'm normally fond of his site and articles, but that one is such a nitpicky piece of overly-offended mac evangelism that it's laughable. he could simply have said "this article is poorly researched and makes a vulnerability seem like an epidemic when it isn't one,"

Yeah, people are really gonna pay to read that sentence. The AP article is so bad it deserved his scorn. People read the AP article and they need to realize how from top to bottom it's nonsense.

then you can read the rest of it, where I point out that his overzealous pouncing on everything that even marginally criticizes a mac is absurd and counterproductive to taking him seriously.
posted by shmegegge

You actually decide on taking a person seriously by their writing style? Overzealous or not, I'll take him seriously if he seems to be knowledgeable on the subject, and as you say yourself, he is. The AP article is crap and has the dry, ZZZZZ, style you seem to prefer.

4. Mac owners are like religious cultists--they will swear by their god, no matter what.
posted by postroad

Postroad, for someone who knows "nothing about computers" you seem pretty confident in your opinions.

Mac owners are actually very critical of macs, debating every aspect. Sure, they rarely switch to windows, but that has nothing to do with be a cultist.

But overall, this is a very uninteresting topic. Let's talk about pizza, what's your favorite crust?
posted by Brandon Blatcher

Nobody wants to talk about pizza?!
posted by Brandon Blatcher

You use your name brandon because you want people to respect each other, yet you shit in the thread twice simply because it doesn't interest you. How about respecting metafilter itself and quit being an ass, and I mean "ass" as a term of respect.
posted by justgary at 6:50 PM on May 3, 2006

I'd like some pizza.
posted by Captaintripps at 7:57 PM on May 3, 2006

Pepperoni pizza with extra cheese, please - which, flipped upside down and smashed all over my laptop keyboard, is about the only thing that will mess up my Linux box.
posted by TheFarSeid at 8:31 PM on May 3, 2006

"2.) Smaller audiences aren't worth the virus-writer's while."

I always have to disagree with that, especially when it comes to the Mac. Thanks to its long standing reputation of being virus-free, one would expect that it would be a very VERY high profile target and that virus writers would be drooling all over themselves in an attempt to be the first one to get a "Mac virus" out in the wild.
So far, the attempts have really fallen flat.

Also consider the Apache web server. It has the overwhelming majority of the web server market, but the trailing Internet Information Service (IIS) by Microsoft has been the one with the net-raping virus problem. (Remember Nimda?)
posted by drstein at 8:35 PM on May 3, 2006

Would someone please link to a single Mac virus that will automatically propagate from one of my machines to the other over the network?

Yeah, I didn't think so.
posted by odinsdream at 9:17 AM on May 4, 2006

You actually decide on taking a person seriously by their writing style? Overzealous or not, I'll take him seriously if he seems to be knowledgeable on the subject, and as you say yourself, he is.

no, I decide on taking an argument seriously by how much it resembles reasonable discourse rather than rabid and blind zealotry. as someone who knows what gruber was talking about, I can say that the MEAT of his point was valid, and the rest was utter garbage. as someone who didn't know what gruber was talking about, I wouldn't even have remembered anything he said, because no one just accepts frothing rants without a heavy dose of skepticism. the point is that he's hurting himself and his ability to make a point by turning into a rabid fanboy. it has nothing to do with writing style, and everything to do with the presentation of a cogent and valid argument.
posted by shmegegge at 9:42 AM on May 4, 2006