An anonymous security researcher claims to have developed a worm capable of delivering a malicious payload to fully-patched Mac OS X systems. A posting on the Information Security Sellout blog insists that the worm proves that Apple computers are as vulnerable to malware as Windows-based PCs. The blog is written by a group of anonymous researchers using the name 'Infosec Sellout'.
The researcher responsible for the post claimed to be developing the worm for a client, and said that no proof-of-concept or related details will be published. The author claims that the client does not plan to use the worm for criminal purposes. The author has not yet notified Apple of the bug, but plans to contact the company "eventually".
View: The full story
News source: vnunet
The researcher responsible for the post claimed to be developing the worm for a client, and said that no proof-of-concept or related details will be published. The author claims that the client does not plan to use the worm for criminal purposes. The author has not yet notified Apple of the bug, but plans to contact the company "eventually".
View: The full story News source: vnunet
*** prepares the "Mac fanboys" shield ***
also have to agree, if Macs were as popular as Windows, there would also be tons of security threats, mainly because hackers and virus makers attack the bigger crowd, Pc's.
also have to agree, if Macs were as popular as Windows, there would also be tons of security threats, mainly because hackers and virus makers attack the bigger crowd, Pc's.
Yeah I've said it many times before, nothing making macs invincible it's just what's the point given how few people use them?
also have to agree, if Macs were as popular as Windows, there would also be tons of security threats, mainly because hackers and virus makers attack the bigger crowd, Pc's.
Yeah I've said it many times before, nothing making macs invincible it's just what's the point given how few people use them?
The "it's just because of the marketshare" theory has been repeatedly debunked.
by who and where, i have never read anything about it being debunked at all let alone repeeatedly
Out of all the people I know, there is only 1 person that has a mac, and that one person most likely doesn't know anyone else that owns a mac. If she gets infected, there's no one to spread it to. It doesn't spread so it would be a waste of time and stupid to make a virus or worm for the mac.
i kid... don't shoot...
so this idiot (sorry, but obviously yes) has developed a malicious app just to prove something we a) already know b) isnt exactly as correct... mac's are a bit safer due to Mac OS X, while the small market share still is the mac user community's biggest protection...
and now he doesnt release any info, because ugh... he's too cool for it or what?
lol... if u ask me, how about me spreading unproved sh** like this and then trying to make it on Neowin FPN.... lol
cmon... he gives us no proof at all, neither to apple...
why is this on FPN?
im not trying to say its impossible to code malicious code, but why in hell would you wanna code something and then don't hand it to apple or so... just to prove something we already know, uhm... yea... whatever
Glassed Silver:mac
Microsoft used to do the same, but quickly learned that they were just shooting themselves in the foot.
However, I don't want to provide any proof for this exploit because everyone will want to use it.
the only thing that makes macs a bit safer, and glassed silver already pointed that out, is the market share.
until now it just didnt make sense to develop worms for apple computers because the market share was just too small and only professionals used it, which means they know just how to deal with security (and lets face it: most of the average windows users dont know how to set up a firewall properly).
with apple aiming more at the consumer market (mac mini, macbook, 17" imac) and so gaining more market share, it makes much more sense now to code a worm for apple. it will just infect more computers. and as far as i know one of the most important reasons to code a virus is to infect as much computers as possible, right after "make as much trouble as you can".
in anyways, i agree with glassed silver fully.
the only thing that makes macs a bit safer, and glassed silver already pointed that out, is the market share.
Yeah, security features are irrelevant - they're all operating systems therefore they're all just as vulnerable as each other! /End Sarcasm
No-one is suggesting that market share doesn't play a huge role but to say that all operating systems are basically on par and that their security is based completely on the number of users is nonsense. XP had little concern for security, only becoming "secure" after SP2. OSX, on the otherhand, was designed with security as a central feature and, despite an increase in exploits/vulnerabilities recently, that still holds up. However, now Windows users have Vista, which put security at the forefront - it still remains to be seen how secure it will be but it's at least a step in the right direction.
the only thing that makes macs a bit safer, and glassed silver already pointed that out, is the market share.
Yeah, security features are irrelevant - they're all operating systems therefore they're all just as vulnerable as each other! /End Sarcasm
No-one is suggesting that market share doesn't play a huge role but to say that all operating systems are basically on par and that their security is based completely on the number of users is nonsense. XP had little concern for security, only becoming "secure" after SP2. OSX, on the otherhand, was designed with security as a central feature and, despite an increase in exploits/vulnerabilities recently, that still holds up. However, now Windows users have Vista, which put security at the forefront - it still remains to be seen how secure it will be but it's at least a step in the right direction.
you are right of course. but i thought it was clear that not all os are on par. i thought everyone was aware of that, so i didnt mention it.
but: in theory every os can be harmed by some especially designed worm or virus or whatever.
one can be harmed easier, one is harder to get.
the only thing that makes macs a bit safer, and glassed silver already pointed that out, is the market share.
Yeah, security features are irrelevant - they're all operating systems therefore they're all just as vulnerable as each other! /End Sarcasm
No-one is suggesting that market share doesn't play a huge role but to say that all operating systems are basically on par and that their security is based completely on the number of users is nonsense. XP had little concern for security, only becoming "secure" after SP2. OSX, on the otherhand, was designed with security as a central feature and, despite an increase in exploits/vulnerabilities recently, that still holds up. However, now Windows users have Vista, which put security at the forefront - it still remains to be seen how secure it will be but it's at least a step in the right direction.
OSX wasn't designed period. It's FreeBSD with a fancy Xwindows interface...
OSX wasn't designed period. It's FreeBSD with a fancy Xwindows interface...
this statement shows the level of your competence in this topic...
Glassed Silver:mac
I lol'd so hard XD ... r u serious XD !?
Anytime you hear the words "security" and "Mac" in the same sentence, it's potentially big news.
Well ya know what I saw an alien last night. And he told me his coming to conquer the earth! - Quick Neowin get the scoop of the century!
I mean seriously I know its 'Unprofessional Journalism' but at-least try.
Last edited by Vice on 18 Jul 2007 - 11:41
We have every reason to believe that there are lots of bugs in Mac OS X, and that they're just waiting to be exploited. It's just that no one has bothered, so far.
We have every reason to believe that there are lots of bugs in Mac OS X, and that they're just waiting to be exploited. It's just that no one has bothered, so far.
I don't think Vice is disputing the fact there are many bugs with a large variety of OSes... I however think he/she is disputing the fact that a rumour should not be made as front page news. And that the security model of OSX is far superior to that of Windows.
If not here's a synopsis.
The aforementioned code has alledgedly been written by someone calling him/her self Infosec Sellout. He/She has called this exploit Rape.OSX and suggests that it can be 'fully weaponised'
It has also been claimed that the code was written in only a few hours making one bonafide security researcher state that it's probably nothing more than a stack overflow exploit. If the code is eventually released for proper analysis then Apple will no doubt release a patch if the exploit is genuine.
Until then this is not FPN.
I think LOTS of people are trying, even if it is just to make a point. Showing they are right and Mac OS X is indeed as fragile as Windows. Would give them lots of attention :-) The fact this article is front news proofs it! Cannot imagine a front news article every time a new Windows worm or virus has been detected!
I find it equally amusing that those who seem to have the slightest doubt in this specific claim are automatically dubbed a fanboy.... *chuckles*
the apple fanboys are REALLY out in force to try and bury this information.
why can it just be accepted that there could possibly be some flaws in the shiny apple ? yes the group haven't PROVED this works to anyone outside their group, they just say they are working on it and testing it.
OS X is an operating system built by humans, there for will contain human error, and will there for have bugs/exploits, deal with it and stop acting like your all so high and mighty just coz you dare to be different
[Edit]
a message sent to this "group"
"I dare you to demonstrate this at Defcon you ****** Microsoftie. We will drag you out, put a bullet in you, and bury your body so deep it will take a nuclear blast to find your body."
.... i dont know what to say...
but thanks, anyways.
but thanks, anyways.
Exactly. OS X isn't perfect but it's built upon UNIX (FreeBSD) which has so far proven to be harder to write exploits for. I guess on Neowin that makes me a "Fanboy."
a message sent to this "group"
"I dare you to demonstrate this at Defcon you ****** Microsoftie. We will drag you out, put a bullet in you, and bury your body so deep it will take a nuclear blast to find your body."
.... i dont know what to say...
wow someone was actualy stupid enough to type something like that? its almost as bad as the news its self
alot of looney people in this world gonna kill someone because they said something bad about their precious macintosh computer oh no its the end of the world...retards
*yawn*
When someone spots one in the wild, and it actually *does* something worth writing about, let us know.
Thanks for this "news", though.
By the way, there are zero-percent (0%) of viruses for the Mac OS X platform that should, logically, have some 10-16% of the world's viruses if platforms' install bases dictate the numbers of viruses. The fact that Mac OS X has zero (0) viruses totally discounts "security via obscurity." 23+ million Mac OS X installs is not "obscure" at all, but 6+ years of Mac OS X users surfing unimpeded certainly is "secure." There should be at least some Mac OS X viruses. There are none. The reason for this fact is not attributable solely to 'obscurity,' it's attributable to superior security design.
Let's assume that virus writers are rational.
If you were given the choice between 4 slices of cake (80%) or 1 slice of cake (20%), given that you want as many slices of cake as possible, how many slices would you take?
The answer is 4 slices of cake. Therefore, given a rational person, there is a Pr of 1 of any given person choosing 4 slices of cake, and correspondingly a Pr of 0 for the choice of 1 slice of cake.
Now apply that to coding viruses. Not that hard.
That would be fine, if it held up in real life, but the fact is that it doesn't. There were viruses (lots of them) for the Classic Mac OS (prior to OS X), which didn't even have the market share that OS X has now. There were plenty of viruses for the Amiga as well, which never had a huge market share either. Kind of blows apart your analysis doesn't it?
Let's assume that virus writers are rational.
If you were given the choice between 4 slices of cake (80%) or 1 slice of cake (20%), given that you want as many slices of cake as possible, how many slices would you take?
The answer is 4 slices of cake. Therefore, given a rational person, there is a Pr of 1 of any given person choosing 4 slices of cake, and correspondingly a Pr of 0 for the choice of 1 slice of cake.
Now apply that to coding viruses. Not that hard.
You know what, Led, I agree.
But it can be said that these days, OS X is probably the more attractive target. Anyone who writes the first successful, malicious virus that makes it into the wild and does some serious damage, will get plenty of (perhaps unwanted) limelight.
As for wanting to cause widespread havoc on as many systems as possible, you're right, Windows would be the OS to target.
Show me one in the wild. Show me ONE SINGLE VIRUS CURRENTLY IN THE WILD FOR OS X.
Good God, when are Neowin going to figure out how to add an ignore list to the news comments. This person is the perfect example of why it is needed. Repeatedly posting ignorant comments that have already been shown to be wrong is just plain annoying.
Good God, when are Neowin going to figure out how to add an ignore list to the news comments. This person is the perfect example of why it is needed. Repeatedly posting ignorant comments that have already been shown to be wrong is just plain annoying.
whatever dude, if you don't want to reead it don't. i tend not to read any of yours
I can only assume that there is a flaw in the firewall as the firewall is always on by default on the Mac and is rarely turned off by users
If you feel that unsafe using your computer on the Internet I believe there are some bomb shelters left over from the 1950's you can go hide in. I'm certain you will be safe there.
Oh, I don't know...how about a company looking to make a splash with the "only anti-virus app for OS X that can keep you safe"? It's highly suspicious and I really question the lack of proper news reporting Neowin does sometimes. To have a headline like "Worm 'Proves' Macs as Vulnerable as PCs" is ridiculous. Nothing has been proven and even if the worm DID get out, Macs have a TON of ground to make up if they want to be just like PCs.
I'm not anti-Mac, don't get me wrong. I'm still gonna get one sometime. I'm just thinking that people need to drop their false beliefs about things sometimes. The truth is that Macs aren't invincible. PCs aren't either.
In fact... Nobody said Macs are invincible. It's a false believe manifested by the masses of humans.
Perhaps one day that figure will change. Until then, the UNIX/FreeBSD/Mach security architecture deserves its fine reputation.
UNIX and Apple's own security implementations make it safer from the base copared to windows' base...
then, additionally to that, and that is the very main reason: macs are a minority, that is why no1 is interested in attacking them appart from guys who didnt get enough attention paid by their moms, those who are paid by security firms that need more user base and of cause those coders, who want to prove something.
so yes, in fact macs are attackable, but they are safe... paradoxum?
hardly... as long as there are no attacks, you dont have to be affraid of anything... the only possibility to attack something, doesnt make it in the moment of not being attacked unsafe!
so please guys, dont mix up those words
Glassed Silver:mac
At this point, can anyone call Apple liars? Nothing has been released, no systems have been infected, and life goes on.
Perhaps one day that figure will change. Until then, the UNIX/FreeBSD/Mach security architecture deserves its fine reputation.
im going to pretend im a hacker, which one should i make a virus for, the 30+ Million macs or the 2+BILLION PC's? tough question.
They never said Macs were invincible. They said that Macs are more secure, and that Macs have less virusses available. I asked the people at the Apple store about security, and they said the same thing. In fact, they said:
"There are viruses for Macs, but not as much as with PCs, so the chance to get infected with a virus is much smaller. Of course you can install a virus scanner, just to be sure."
If Apple people don't say the Mac is invincible, then who does? The masses.
Also, yeah, we shouldn't forget that Macs have a UNIX core. That adds a major security 'layer' to the whole system. I think a lot of people don't know this and how the UNIX core works. For those people I suggest reading up a little, it's very enlightening.
Even better, install a UNIX-like OS on your computer. Theory is nice, but experience is always handy.
let me see if i get this right
1) We have a John Doe who claims that he has developed a worm for OS X
2) He does not gives information about what it does
3) He is not going to inform apple about the "worm"
4) He is working for an unknown client
5) and apparently he is the same one claiming he hacked a the airport wireless network and just showed a video without any proof-of-concept what so ever
so basically we have NOTHING
how convenient
hmm I know
[sarcasm]
Guys I'm creating a worm for Vista, is the ultimate Worm, its so cool that no one is going to know that they have it installed, well actually you already have it installed but you don't know you have it...
there thats it =D, maybe Neowin should post a story about this
"Hacker" creates a worm for Vista, that no one knows they have installed
[/sarcasm]
the best thing of all, are all the anti-apple crew, claiming he is saying the truth without showing any proof of anything
There was a non-working POC worm for alpha version of Vista. And all the new were about it. Do you have memory issues?
Last time I checked, Mac wasn't an acronym.
Looking at his site, it appears that he has taken down his claim now. Hmmm, I wonder why? Also, the link he posts to the Security Focus web site only lists versions of Tiger up to 10.4.9 as being vulnerable, while the article here claims that it works on a "fully patched Mac OS X system", which would be 10.4.10. Which is right?
edit: Security Focus has updated the page now to include 10.4.10. It was not listed when I originally wrote this post.
Last edited by roadwarrior on 18 Jul 2007 - 18:14
Looking at his site, it appears that he has taken down his claim now. Hmmm, I wonder why? Also, the link he posts to the Security Focus web site only lists versions of Tiger up to 10.4.9 as being vulnerable, while the article here claims that it works on a "fully patched Mac OS X system", which would be 10.4.10. Which is right?
Funnily enough, there's a problem with the version number "10.4.10", where programs would read it as "10.4.1" (omitting the last number), and refuse to install because it would think the OS is too old.
Thats a problem with the program itself, not the version numbering system itself. While no previous version of OS X has made it to 10.x.10 before (probably because Apple never went so long without releasing a new version before, although Panther made it to 10.3.9), the possibility was always there, and the version numbering is correct. If a software author doesn't know how to properly code his version checking to account for something other than single digit subversion numbers, then that is the programmer's problem, not Apple's.
Nothing in the wild.
You can get out your crystal ball and make all the predictions you like. But until an OS X install is brought to its knees by viruses/malware in the wild, I don't think we need anyone preaching - which takes away valuable time from updating Windows anti-spyware/virus databases.
Nothing in the wild.
It's called being an obscure system. Why go after a meager segment when you can reap the rewards from the larger user base.
Its no more obscure than Mac OS 8 or 9 were, and there were plenty of viruses written for those systems. How about the Amiga, which was even more obscure? It was the target of hundreds if not thousands of viruses. People like you who claim that OS X is not targeted simply because it is "obscure" seem to have very short memories.
Nothing in the wild.
You can get out your crystal ball and make all the predictions you like. But until an OS X install is brought to its knees by viruses/malware in the wild, I don't think we need anyone preaching - which takes away valuable time from updating Windows anti-spyware/virus databases.
are you absolutely positive there are none or are you deliberatley avoiding the trojans, which of course arent technically viruses, but are indeed malicious code, because once i start googling and find one you will look reallly reallllly stupid
ok heres one
http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/art...macosxleap.html
want me to keep going
seem to have found another one
http://www.symantec.com/security_response/...-063013-2645-99
and if you really want an unbiased opinion read this
http://www.symantec.com/enterprise/securit...os_x_virus.html
Last edited by whocares78 on 19 Jul 2007 - 02:09
But, you don't understand! MACs are very important! I know noone can hack my MAC! After all, the Media Access Control address of my PC is useless without the associated Internet Protocol address!
Oh, you meant Mac.
Nothing in the wild.
You can get out your crystal ball and make all the predictions you like. But until an OS X install is brought to its knees by viruses/malware in the wild, I don't think we need anyone preaching - which takes away valuable time from updating Windows anti-spyware/virus databases.
are you absolutely positive there are none or are you deliberatley avoiding the trojans, which of course arent technically viruses, but are indeed malicious code, because once i start googling and find one you will look reallly reallllly stupid
ok heres one
http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/art...macosxleap.html
want me to keep going
seem to have found another one
http://www.symantec.com/security_response/...-063013-2645-99
and if you really want an unbiased opinion read this
http://www.symantec.com/enterprise/securit...os_x_virus.html
Were you born ignorant or do you work at it? None of those are "in the wild", they are all proof-of-concepts, so that pretty much means you lose the debate. Then calling Symantec (probably the world's largest seller of Anti-Virus software) unbiased when talking about viruses? That's just golden. Then again, that last link backs up the statement that there currently are in fact NO viruses that can infect OS X. Did you even bother to read it?
Last edited by roadwarrior on 19 Jul 2007 - 04:52
yes i read the article adn they clearly state they do not consider a worm to be a virus, but in regards to this forum where it is being assumed that any malicious code is a virus so these woudl actualy be considered viruses.
to be more accurate for all you mac nuts that want to say how seure it is the correct language to use is
"there are no file-infecting viruses that can affect Mac OS X"
this is totally different from saying there are none at all
http://lowendmac.com/lite/03/0813.html yet another and this one was in the wild
I am refering to an AV vendor beig iunbiased towards an OS. nthign to do with their bias on viruses.
or are you just one of the typical mac users that just seem to try and deny any of this ever happened
Does your ignorance know no bounds? Switchback was a JOKE posted to the humor section of that site!!!!!
i know you cant compare human life to computers' lifes (lol... life..), but I hope you get what kind of idiotism you just dropped...
please don't be such a mad person, the only reason for flame wars, extreme fanboyism etc... is intollerance and aggression
Glassed Silver:mac
after all i wouldnt want to have it proven i was lying
UNIXes are by default more secure than windowsXP (I haven't tried Vista).
There are two issues to consider here.
1. How much of the base system if written by the main distributer.
Windows has the upper advantage here because if a security bug is found in windows, MS wrote the software and theoretically they should be able to solve it.
On BSD/Linux, if a bug in for example X11 is found, they would have to wait for Xorg foundation to fix it.
2. Method of software installation.
BSD/Linux has the advantage here because most software is open source and thus doesn't contain spyware. Also there is less chance the user is going to install malicious software since unlike WindowsXP, most software will be packaged from the distributor. Another thing is that the Setup.exe method is extremely bad because it doesn't do dependency checking and doesn't keep track of installed files. But Microsoft's msi packages should solve this, correct?
How does OSX install software, does it use a package manager like Linux?
When it comes to virus infections, there is no excuse. Even OSX can run clamav.
some applications or expecially professional suites come with an installer which checks for dependencies.
"Even OSX can run clamav." So WHAT?
don't you think that security companies want to earn some money from the mac user community, too?
its about money, it's not like those security companies are like charities for the public.
very often those proof-of-concept virus developments are sponsored or done by security firms, guess why...
hey, we found vulnerabilities, buy our product and get the protection you need!!!
see the bold BUY?
Glassed Silver:mac
Or they can fix it themselves (we're talking about companies with some coding resouces here, aren't we?) and submit the patch to the Xorg developers.
OS X is not invincible, just like the other OS, but this guy is beating a dead horse.
'Nuff said.
Source
Glassed Silver:mac
Last edited by warwagon on 18 Jul 2007 - 16:25
OR, they could spend there time making Viruses for PC's when theres TONS more out there than Macs.
at least the skeptics were right, mmmh... more computers might get attacked... ah who cares, yea... at least the skeptics were right...
no one with a bit of brain doubted it could ever happen, but every1 screamed theres nothing malicious for that system, and THAT still is true...
open your eyes
Glassed Silver:mac
at least the skeptics were right, mmmh... more computers might get attacked... ah who cares, yea... at least the skeptics were right...
no one with a bit of brain doubted it could ever happen, but every1 screamed theres nothing malicious for that system, and THAT still is true...
open your eyes
Glassed Silver:mac
Again go on about your crap...
But the bottom line and truth is:
Macs can also be infected with computer viruses
at least the skeptics were right, mmmh... more computers might get attacked... ah who cares, yea... at least the skeptics were right...
no one with a bit of brain doubted it could ever happen, but every1 screamed theres nothing malicious for that system, and THAT still is true...
open your eyes
Glassed Silver:mac
Again go on about your crap...
But the bottom line and truth is:
Macs can also be infected with computer viruses
roflmao... you sound like a desperate fanboy to me... a fanboy of hate and anger...
chill dude...
i know the 1970's are over, but hell... love and peace, darn love and peace!
life and let life...
lol back to topic, your statements are BS
Glassed Silver:mac
They haven't released any code, and there's no court order asking to do so. It's all about documentation.
Nothing is being taken away as there are still 0 viruses on the Mac, and 0 proof that any virus exists.
Nothing is being taken away as there are still 0 viruses on the Mac, and 0 proof that any virus exists.
may be no viruses technically but trojans exist, see above post and security vulnerabilites exist, all viruses need is a vulnerability.
Nothing is being taken away as there are still 0 viruses on the Mac, and 0 proof that any virus exists.
may be no viruses technically but trojans exist, see above post and security vulnerabilites exist, all viruses need is a vulnerability.
And all of the ones you linked to earlier have been patched ages ago. When are you going to accept the fact that you simply haven't got a clue what you are talking about?
Nothing is being taken away as there are still 0 viruses on the Mac, and 0 proof that any virus exists.
may be no viruses technically but trojans exist, see above post and security vulnerabilites exist, all viruses need is a vulnerability.
And all of the ones you linked to earlier have been patched ages ago. When are you going to accept the fact that you simply haven't got a clue what you are talking about?
and so has almost ever single hole that MS ever had and was affected by, so does that mean there are no viruses for windows, umm no it means they can no longer affect a patched machine. you can argue all you like, the fact is there are viruses trojans that have existed for mac OSX in the wild, so do no tcome telling me there are ZERO (0) viruses for OSX when clearly thers are.
my point wasn't that OSX is not secure, it actually is failry secure, my point is that there have indeed been vulnerabilities and viruses for OSX, denying they exist or ever existe doesn't help anyone except apple.
Going around telling everyone there are none does no good all it does is lull peple into a false sense of security. i.e the reason why most mac users do not use a firewall or even run AV software and i have known a lot of mac users, all it takes is one virus and all those users are screwed senseless, all because a few people said there are no viruses for OS X period (but fail to tell them about the ones they think don't count, like ones that have been patched or proof of concepot viruses) and they thought that it was fine to not worry about security.
Last edited by whocares78 on 19 Jul 2007 - 07:51
*all neowinians bow to me or feel the wrath*
thank god I'm on Solaris.
yours truly
I now own your girlfriend. lol
you can have the bitch
you can have the bitch
LMAO.
Sometimes I feel the same way about mine when she drives me up a wall.
T_T
That would raise it's impact from a half-dozen or so percent of the computer market to well into the upper hundreds of millions of devices- many of which have or are proposed to have Internet connectivity?
Sounds like a beckoning target to me.
It stands to reason if someone is clever enough to Make it then its only a matter of time before someone figures out how to reverse engineer it or finds a flaw in it.
+1
Mac worm creator vanishes from blogosphere
Very well.
On we go, no viruses yet. STILL AT ZERO.
Very well.
On we go, no viruses yet. STILL AT ZERO.
Yep- still at zero.
zero interest
zero worth
zero interest
zero worth
There was enough interest on your part to post your smart comment, along with all the other Mac-bashing trolls who don't know what the hell they are talking about. There was more interest in this post than in the one posted at the same time where hackers stole information from the government by planting viruses on several departments PC's (which were obviously running Windows).
That these people are referred to as "researchers" is an insult to professionals who actually do important research. Anyone can put up a blog and claim whatever they want, without showing proof or identifying themselves. As far as Mac OS X security is concerned, my own "research" shows that there is no real world threat. Until there is such evidence, these Mac OS X security stories are just a source of ongoing amusement.
Macs are just as vulnerable, you say? Great. Ok. Where's the beef??? Where's this fabled UNIX virus that will bring OS X to its knees? Seems it's rumoured to be in a lab somehwere, or in controlled environments on Macbooks where there's a contest and a prize is involved and the OS' security was lowered incrementally in order to give contestants a chance or whatever. It's cool if you're into kissing you're sister, lol.
Ok.............................I'll move on now.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.