How safe are apples?

unrich

The only viruses I have suffered have been on PC's.

The proof of the apple is in the eating.

By the way I think this thread is tantamount to baiting.

Food for thought? My Ar$£!

superscaper

First two references you use actually use "virus" to refer to them and it's only your subjective definition that they're not. Third reference which is the only one you gave to say it wasn't a virus you still cherry picked from and ignored the opinion where it states it's not a trojan but a virus: http://math-www.uni-paderborn.de/~axel/bliss/trojan2.txt which also actually states that worms are a subset of virus. You say who are you to argue with Alan Cox (he supports your point, shocker!) but why not say who are you to argue with Albert Cahalan (I'm guessing for no better reason than it doesn't support your point at all)?

While you're at it maybe you'd like to edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_computer_viruses and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_virus since they don't seem to fall into your personal definitions at all.

JustPassingBy

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

Which apples obviously aren't if a fully patched one can have code remotely executed within 2 mins...

Safety and security are relative concepts. You're expecting something absolute. You'll be disappointed. Design as best you can. Discover flaws. Improve implementation. That's the way engineering goes.

Just because the apple os is BASED on free bsd doesn't mean it has all the same strengths and weaknesses -

More than likely.

. . . the mac fell in 2mins, the windows machine in 2 days, the linux one wasn't properly penetrated. I think the facts speak for themselves but whether they get past those fingers and into your ears is questionable.

The facts may be trustworthy but the interpretation of them and the conclusions drawn are open to argument.

Brian.

superscaper

JustPassingBy wrote: »

Safety and security are relative concepts. You're expecting something absolute. You'll be disappointed. Design as best you can. Discover flaws. Improve implementation. That's the way engineering goes.

The facts may be trustworthy but the interpretation of them and the conclusions drawn are open to argument.

Brian.

Have you not read your own posts? It's quite apt for them, they're quite absolute and statements of generalised "fact".

JustPassingBy

superscaper wrote: »

While you're at it maybe you'd like to edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_computer_viruses and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_virus since they don't seem to fall into your personal definitions at all.

I take it you are happy with the first paragraph of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_virus

One characteristic of a virus is that it spreads. None of the three examples you gave goes anywhere. A non-spreading fragment of code is not a virus.

Brian.

PrinceGaz

Most non-technical computer owners have heard about viruses, and know they are a bad thing. Most non-technical computer owners have NOT heard of trojans, so a non self-replicating key-logger, or downloader (which is usually pre-programmed to download and install other malware from a specific location, some of which may be true viruses) is best referred to as a virus, unless you're prepared to give them a mini-lecture on the various types of malware.

I would say that everything a technical person considers as malware, is best related to non-technical people as a virus, as they will know that is a bad thing and something to avoid ever letting onto their machine in future. Viruses and trojans tend to come from similar sources after all, so if you get one, you are likely to end up with the other sooner or later (even if the trojan doesn't download a virus itself).

Omertron

JustPassingBy wrote: »

It is good engineering design which minimises security risks. How a user chooses to interact with a system does not detract from that.
Brian.

In the OP, the exploit used was a 0 day attack possibly (due to the non-disclosure agreement, we won't know for sure) via Safari on a fully patched system. User interaction was required to click on or visit a website with the exploit code on it.
The risk was minimised by "good engineering design" (I won't debate that here), but the weakest link in the chain still would click on the "See the new MacBook Fire* here" link in a forum or spam email.
* Fictional product name for illustration purposes only.

Here's the assumption that perhaps needs to be validated:
Are Mac users less bothered about security because they believe they run a more secure OS and/or because they run an OS with a smaller market share and therefore are less targeted?

If a [Mac] user believes they are safe from attack because of either of the two options above it will make them an easier target for malware (of whatever definition) as their market share increases.

An analogous comparison might be on Windows machines and IE / Firefox / Opera. Originally there were few exploits available for Firefox because their market share was so low it was not economically viable for hackers to exploit it.
Now that the market share of Firefox is increasing the number of exploits taking advantage of flaws is greater (I'm not getting into the safer because it's open source and patched quicker).

So if a user thinks they are secure, why should they patch their systems / software to keep it secure? If you believe you're safe (because you are told so by the media and other techies) wouldn't you just update when you can be bothered?

I run several home windows machines and make sure that the firewalls, virus checkers and anti-spam are all update date and working. With two teenagers who will visit all sorts of undesirable sites we have yet to contract a virus or malware.

Sorry for the ramble and I'm not trying to feed those that live under bridges.

BeerBelly

Cider tastes nicer than PVC!

always_amazed

From my own experience (I use Mac at home and maintain Windows at work) I find that Macs are much easier to keep safe. My mac tells me when it wants to update and does a big batch at once... and also as it's all under 'Mac', and not different companies for each bit of security, I don't get confused.

At work, I find it's actually quite an effort to keep the PCs safe... I actually have to make sure that; as Omertron says; all the bits and bobs are up to date and up to scratch.

I suppose that's the difference for me. I DO make sure my mac is safe and updated.... just I don't have to actually do very much at all for that to happen. At work I spend about 4 hours a week ensuring our tiny network of 4 PCs is safe and working. I don't mind doing his, using windows certainly has it's advantages, but it just reminds me I have more peace of mind at home.

mr_flibble

I suppose the other way to look at the whole thing is that there was a lot of money on offer and they got to keep the laptop they hacked.

Maybe it's no surprise the most desirable laptop was targeted first!

Just looking at things from another perspective.

Kel.