Did Anyone Get Hit With The Mac Virus

23n1th

Gillor wrote: »

No Father Christmas? Basil Brush not really a fox? Mac not infallible?

Is nothing sacred anymore?

Surprised we haven't heard from the Linux brigade yet.

Thats the thing though, is linux more secure? I'd say it is but not with reference to all malware. Sure the core OS is a lot more secure but most malware today, such a phishing attacks, some trojans, and malware that generally target users data or user gullibility are not protected against. Some malware dont need an escalation of privileges to do damage to your bank account.

The bottom line here for the OP is switching your Operating System is not a security fix. If you want a mac buy one, using security as an excuse is silly.

And security by obscurity (the apple security model to date) doesn't work when you aren't as obscure any more.

The most secure OS is the one you are most familiar with and know what security controls you need to have in place.

Notmyrealname

sillygoose wrote: »

As Gonzo says above Macs are not bullet proof, they may even have more holes in than Windows its just that its not been worth exploring for hackers.

The problem wasn't OS X, it was Java that was bolted on to it. The same version of Java had the same issue for Windows but Microsoft were quicker to patch it than Apple.

23n1th wrote:

The problem with macs as far as security goes is Apple. Apple have been advertising and telling their customers for years that macs don't get viruses.

This a thousand times. It is unfortunately the same problem with the Linux community. The Linux community for years have been saying "Dump Windows and come to Linux because we don't get viruses" when in fact there have been many exploits of various parts of Linux distributions and Linux is a popular target due to its high presence on servers.

Notmyrealname

23n1th wrote: »

Thats the thing though, is linux more secure? I'd say it is but not with reference to all malware. Sure the core OS is a lot more secure

Only the kernel. CUPS, SAMBA and other "de facto" packages included in a typical linux distro have all had their fair share of exploits.

Here's a list of CUPS ones...

23n1th

Notmyrealname wrote: »

The problem wasn't OS X, it was Java that was bolted on to it. The same version of Java had the same issue for Windows but Microsoft were quicker to patch it than Apple.

Third party applications are the main cause of most security issues on any modern operating systems. These third party applications give the underlying operating system (windows, linux or OSX) further functionality the the OS doesn't have.

Apple are to blame for not forwarding on to their users a patch that was available 6 weeks previously. Their is no hiding that fact.

This a thousand times. It is unfortunately the same problem with the Linux community. The Linux community for years have been saying "Dump Windows and come to Linux because we don't get viruses" when in fact there have been many exploits of various parts of Linux distributions and Linux is a popular target due to its high presence on servers.

I believe I've already stated that security by obscurity is flawed and that moving OS as a security fix is stupid.

I would say linux is be default more secure than windows as you are not running as root/adminstrator by default (vista/win 7 are better provided you dont turn off UAC).

You'll find the majority of the exploits on linux servers are used to get malware passed on to windows clients. The market share of linux in the server market is testimony to how effective its security is.

Notmyrealname wrote: »

Only the kernel. CUPS, SAMBA and other "de facto" packages included in a typical linux distro have all had their fair share of exploits.

Here's a list of CUPS ones...

Are CUPS and Samba not part of OSX as well? In fact didn't apple develop CUPS?

I find it rather hypocritical that in one post you defend OSX by saying the security issue was the fault of a third party app whilst here using these third party apps to demonstrate insecurity in linux.

Mr_Toad

23n1th wrote: »

The problem with macs as far as security goes is Apple. Apple have been advertising and telling their customers for years that macs don't get viruses.

No they don't.

What they actually say is that Macs don't get PC viruses. :rotfl:

The key bit there being - PC

Just like PCs don't get Mac viruses

Millionaire

A Mac is a PC..

Mr_Toad

Millionaire wrote: »

A Mac is a PC..

Of course it is but we both know the context being used in this thread.

Dave_C_2

baloo710 wrote: »

Hi just wondered if anyone got hit with the apple mac virus i heard about?

You honestly expect a mac owner to openly admit being hit by a virus?

Dave

23n1th

masonn wrote: »

No they don't.

What they actually say is that Macs don't get PC viruses. :rotfl:

Omitting that they do get viruses thereby implying they don't get viruses full stop. Its lying by omission. Usually apple just lie. Or maybe its not their fault maybe its just their reality distortion field at work.

Mr_Toad

23n1th wrote: »

Omitting that they do get viruses thereby implying they don't get viruses full stop. Its lying by omission. Usually apple just lie. Or maybe its not their fault maybe its just their reality distortion field at work.

I refuse to get into a battle of wits with someone who is clearly unarmed.