Prev: immunet
Next: LOCKERZ INVITE
From: FromTheRafters on
"Mr. Strat" <rag(a)nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:250120101828125524%rag(a)nospam.techline.com...
> In article <hjkd7p$d7a$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, FromTheRafters
> <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>> There is nothing standard about limiting the definition of virus just
>> to
>> suit your argument.
>>
>> It is a virus for the Mac - and runs on OS-X
>
> The point is...OS X cannot become infected without "help." Can't say
> that about Windows.

Yes, I can. If a program runs, it is because the user supplied power to
the machine. The OS or related programs can invoke other (infected or
otherwise malicious) programs to run.

Whether or not user interaction is required, is *not* part of the
definition for virus or worm.

Many definitions do (wrongly) make a point of whether or not user action
is required, but that is a red herring.


From: Mr. Strat on
In article <4b7ea282$0$3599$9a6e19ea(a)news.newshosting.com>, Wolf K
<wekirch(a)sympatico.ca> wrote:

> But if you want to do it yourself, Google on "Mac anti-virus software",
> you'll find quite a few. (Macs are _not_ immune!) For advice on which is
> best, go to a newsgroup for Mac users. You can also ask there about how
> to change the permissions on any file so that you can delete it, which
> in this case may be the best way to go. I've posted questions on
> seattle.users.macintosh and received courteous replies. it's not a very
> active group, though.

There are not now nor have there been any OS X viruses in the wild. Any
infections depend on physical access, special rights, or PEBCAK.
From: Wolf K on
Mr. Strat wrote:
> In article <4b7ea282$0$3599$9a6e19ea(a)news.newshosting.com>, Wolf K
> <wekirch(a)sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> But if you want to do it yourself, Google on "Mac anti-virus software",
>> you'll find quite a few. (Macs are _not_ immune!) For advice on which is
>> best, go to a newsgroup for Mac users. You can also ask there about how
>> to change the permissions on any file so that you can delete it, which
>> in this case may be the best way to go. I've posted questions on
>> seattle.users.macintosh and received courteous replies. it's not a very
>> active group, though.
>
> There are not now nor have there been any OS X viruses in the wild. Any
> infections depend on physical access, special rights, or PEBCAK.

That's nice to know....

OTOH, I found this:

http://www.clamxav.com/
and this:
http://www.macforensicslab.com/ProductsAndServices/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&products_id=174

NB the last paragraph. (The date of the post is early 2008, since it
references items dated 2007-12-31.)

Quote:
Mac OS X (Including Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard)

All successful, and most plausible, malware attacks on Mac OS X have
occurred in the last 2 years with the last quarter of 2007 being
particularly prolific. Market penetration and overall sales of the Mac
OS X system have directly mirrored development of malware, a phenomenon
also demonstrated with other operating systems such as Microsoft
Windows. Based on this data there is no reason to believe the trend will
not continue as Apple continues to increase their market share.

The concept of the economy of scale has historically meant that malware
authors have not previously considered the Mac a viable target. This
protection is being eroded by the increase in size of the Mac user base.

IDC analyst Chris Christiansen is warning Mac users of the growing threat.

"Most Mac users take security too lightly. In fact, most are quite proud
of the fact that they don't run any security at all," Christiansen said.
"That's an open door; at some point it will be exploited."
http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/12/31/mac.os.x.a.growing.target/

“Apple users, your days of worry-free web surfing could be numbers. A
Mac internet security and privacy software maker has discovered what is
believed to be the first professionally crafted in-the-wild malware
targeting the Mac Operating system.”
http://www.scmagazineus.com/Trojan-targets-Mac-users/article/58290/?source=PSGL1SCM1001&gclid

cheers,
wolf k.
From: FromTheRafters on
"Mr. Strat" <rag(a)nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:190220100649304736%rag(a)nospam.techline.com...
> In article <4b7ea282$0$3599$9a6e19ea(a)news.newshosting.com>, Wolf K
> <wekirch(a)sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> But if you want to do it yourself, Google on "Mac anti-virus
>> software",
>> you'll find quite a few. (Macs are _not_ immune!) For advice on which
>> is
>> best, go to a newsgroup for Mac users. You can also ask there about
>> how
>> to change the permissions on any file so that you can delete it,
>> which
>> in this case may be the best way to go. I've posted questions on
>> seattle.users.macintosh and received courteous replies. it's not a
>> very
>> active group, though.
>
> There are not now nor have there been any OS X viruses in the wild.

Yes there has.

http://threatinfo.trendmicro.com/vinfo/virusencyclo/default5.asp?vname=OSX_LEAP.A

> Any infections depend on physical access, special rights, or PEBCAK.

Excluding malware that exploits software vulnerabilities, and malware
that requires exploiting user's bad habits (mostly worms and trojans),
then "yes" perhaps there aren't any of those for OS-X in the wild up to
and including this point in time. However, you seem to be implying that
this trend will continue due to some sort of "security" built into the
OS. It might be worth noting that "viruses" do not depend on any
functions other than what users are normally supplied by the OS.

http://vx.netlux.org/lib/afc08.html

Having a secure OS (and adhering to safe computing practices) is a good
thing, but it won't stop "viruses" from being able to spread on that
platform or any other.



From: Mr. Strat on
In article <hlmd6k$rk4$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, FromTheRafters
<erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

> Yes there has.
>
>
> http://threatinfo.trendmicro.com/vinfo/virusencyclo/default5.asp?vname=OSX_LEA
> P.A

PEBCAK

> Excluding malware that exploits software vulnerabilities, and malware
> that requires exploiting user's bad habits (mostly worms and trojans),
> then "yes" perhaps there aren't any of those for OS-X in the wild up to
> and including this point in time. However, you seem to be implying that
> this trend will continue due to some sort of "security" built into the
> OS. It might be worth noting that "viruses" do not depend on any
> functions other than what users are normally supplied by the OS.

Software maybe...but the operating system, no. I wasn't implying
anything...maybe there will be an infection in the future...but nine
years is a pretty good record, far better than any version of Windows.

And it has nothing to do with market share; it has everything to do
with the basic design of the operating system.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: immunet
Next: LOCKERZ INVITE