Viruses should be a concern for Mac users

Earlier this month Sophos released a free version of their product for the Mac, Sophos Anti-Virus for Mac Home Edition.  Since then, they have been gathering data from their users. They recently released some statistics from the clients on their Naked Security Blog and found that users should be concerned about what might be hiding on their hard drive. 

So far Sophos says that they have 150,000 Mac users and of those users nearly 50,000 have already reported finding malware on the computer. Interestingly enough the most common malware that the software detected was Mal/ASFDldr-A, a malware targeted at Windows machines. Mal/ASDFDldr-A takes advantage of a flaw in Windows Media Player which allows the infected media file to open a malicious web page rather than display the desired content. 

They found though that the majority of attacks detected were Java exploits which are cross platform and were typically found in the internet cache on users computers. But lower on the list they did find some OS X specific pieces of malware OSX/Jahlav-C and OSX/DNSCha-E. OSX/Jahlav-C is a variant of OSX/DNSCha-E which happens to be a piece of malware that known as a DNS changer. When a DNS changer hijacks your computers DNS settings your web surfing can be almost completely compromised. Even if it looks like you are at Google.com and the page looks like Google's home page your DNS settings may have sent you to a server in China where malicious code is being executed in your browser. 

The results show that the majority of files are more dangerous on Windows than on a Mac but that doesn't mean the virus goes away. If you plan to share files with a Windows computer it would be a good idea to maintain some sort of anti-virus protection just to be sure you are not spreading a virus to a more vulnerable operating system. 

sophos malware results

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Facebook granted trademark on the word "Face"

Next Story

Daily Gaming: November 23, 2010

111 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

We can only hope so. With the Mac making up a good 5% to 20% of the market there is money to be made here. Its a free market after all. Virus writers, blackmailers, disgruntled employees, terrorists and most of all, AV companies have to stay in business. We are living in hard times. We can only hope that some of the folks at Symantec and McAfee can do a better job.

I dont take any companies word for anything. Apple has been saying for a while that Macs dont get viruses but every work Mac and all my friends I MAKE get AV protection on their Macs.

I NEVER get viruses on my PC and can probably remove AV if I wanted to. However, I dont know what spam email I will get, why my family sends me, or if I have a brain fart and do something stupid...I want to be protected.

Also, getting viruses has a lot to do with the user clicking on **** they shouldnt or not properly knowing how to use a computer.

Brandon boyce said,
Interestingly enough the most common malware that the software detected was Mal/ASFDldr-A, a malware targeted at Windows machines. Mal/ASDFDldr-A takes advantage of a flaw in Windows Media Player which allows the infected media file to open a malicious web page rather than display the desired content.

I don't know much about Macs, but since when does it come with Windows Media Player? Or does Quicktime have the same problem?

Flawed said,

I don't know much about Macs, but since when does it come with Windows Media Player? Or does Quicktime have the same problem?

Most malware found on Macs is malware that affects Windows but doesn't affect Mac OS X in any way, Mal/ASDFDldr-A being the biggest example.

pmsl, i've always loved the whole I got a mac so I don't get a virus it was going to come about one day now wasn't it?!

I mean why does windows have so much happening to it, because its been the market leader for umpteen number of years, now that mac is picking up share suddenly they come to the scene.

It's not rocket science to think "If I spend 2 hours coding this to do this which OS should I target" you're gonna target the bigger market share.

I haven't used AV for about 4 years and still Virus free when ever I do the odd online scan.

xXTOKERXx said,
pmsl, i've always loved the whole I got a mac so I don't get a virus it was going to come about one day now wasn't it?!

I mean why does windows have so much happening to it, because its been the market leader for umpteen number of years, now that mac is picking up share suddenly they come to the scene.

It's not rocket science to think "If I spend 2 hours coding this to do this which OS should I target" you're gonna target the bigger market share.

I haven't used AV for about 4 years and still Virus free when ever I do the odd online scan.

When Windows was released it was much easier to use, and so people only brought Windows. And when Apple started doing propaganda, their sales started increasing.

Oh by the way, you're never really virus free, that scan is going to miss a few things because every AV doesn't protect you 100% of the time.

stablemist said,

When Windows was released it was much easier to use, and so people only brought Windows. And when Apple started doing propaganda, their sales started increasing.

Oh by the way, you're never really virus free, that scan is going to miss a few things because every AV doesn't protect you 100% of the time.

I think you are virus free when you don't have a virus....

Java, Java, Java, Java...I wonder if this kind of statistics was part of Apple's decision to remove Java from OS X "Lion".

ILikeTobacco said,
This just in: Linux has Windows virus in its temporary files. Yes they are harmless in the operating system, but OMG VIRUSES.....

Way to take one sentence out of context and ignore the rest of TFA.

Not virus free, but you'd have a job to get infected in the wild. None of those fake anti virus packages!
Hardly surprised to see so many Java related issues there as well, ha!

It's true that macs as a general rule are virus free. Everyone has their own reasoning on this subject and I think all of them are correct in a small sense. (more secure, not enough macs to bother with etc...) probably a combination of all of the reasons. That doesn't mean I want to go and buy one nor am I jealous about it. Good for them.
However, and I know it's been said before, but there will come a time. Maybe not now, maybe not next year. But at some point in the future there will be a mac virus outbreak and everyone will be
scrambling to buy antivirus. It will make the news and it will be a disaster.
PC users are just biding their time until it happens. On that day, the forums will be alive with alot of chatter

Virus's on Apple Products thats impossiable as Apple make the best Applications and There Employees never make a mistake !

end sarcasim

offroadaaron said,
I'll believe it when I see it myself.

Sweet idea... Use our personal experience and beliefs to modify reality.

This works good for me... 20 years of using Windows, and I have never ONCE had a virus or malware on any of my personal or corporate systems I use. So this means in my reality and new belief system, Windows has always been virus and malware free too! Woo Hoo...

(Intellectual honesty is not a personal belief system.)

Looks like Apple has a new slogan for the mac range:

"Yeah... we lied about not getting PC viruses"


Though if I recall correctly that main malware found on macs is usually gotten from visiting porn infected websites.

Let's not forget that the Sophos software will also ruin your Mac making it run slow, has been known to kill Time Machine backups and other such issues. Plus this is a report from Sophos -- ie. they're beating their own chest. And finally, Sophos isn't that great at detecting and stopping viruses on Windows either.

Sikosis said,
Let's not forget that the Sophos software will also ruin your Mac making it run slow, has been known to kill Time Machine backups and other such issues. Plus this is a report from Sophos -- ie. they're beating their own chest. And finally, Sophos isn't that great at detecting and stopping viruses on Windows either.

This is true of a lot of Anti-virus/Spyware software, especially the more invasive products that insist on bolting themselves into the FS and Network stacks.

Norton and McAfee are terrible at intruding into parts of Vista and Win7 that they have no business monkeying with, especially since Microsoft created a set of filters and APIs specifically for detection software that they do not use. (And it was the Norton and McAfee backlash that prompted Microsoft to acquire MSE, so that they could create a simple and clean product that did properly use the OS APIs and filters that have tiny impact on realtime scanning performance.)

On OS X it can be even worse if the software does any kernel level operations for realtime monitoring, as OS X still has that nasty funnel lock problem, that has fairly coarse locking. So if the software is engaging the kernel APIs or kernel level drivers, everytime it does a realtime scan of a file all concurrent threads come to a halt and are queued to a single CPU until the queue is processed and unlocked. So even if you have a 8 CPU/Core Mac, often the OS and regular software is forcing the machine to lock and funnel the queue through one CPU, leaving all your other cores/cpus idle until this unlocks. And if you add in realtime scanning software that is triggering these locks, the system performance will take a massive hit and basically act more like a single core/CPU for virtually everything you do, even when other software or the OS isn't creating these locks already.)

Sikosis said,
Let's not forget that the Sophos software will also ruin your Mac making it run slow, has been known to kill Time Machine backups and other such issues. Plus this is a report from Sophos -- ie. they're beating their own chest. And finally, Sophos isn't that great at detecting and stopping viruses on Windows either.
Sophos isn't great at detecting viruses?

If that is true, then the infection rate for Macs are even HIGHER. So, that isn't really a good thing that Sophos sucks.

As for the kernel thing the previous commenter said... Wow, that sucks. Last I checked Windows (x64) had a built in kernel monitor, if the kernel is modified, the computer shuts down to prevent harm, such as rootkits getting in to your computer. Mac OS X doesn't even have that?

Mr aldo said,
Sophos isn't great at detecting viruses?

If that is true, then the infection rate for Macs are even HIGHER. So, that isn't really a good thing that Sophos sucks.

As for the kernel thing the previous commenter said... Wow, that sucks. Last I checked Windows (x64) had a built in kernel monitor, if the kernel is modified, the computer shuts down to prevent harm, such as rootkits getting in to your computer. Mac OS X doesn't even have that?

Kind of jumped the track a bit... It isn't that it modifies the kernel in OS X.

OS X's kernel is an odd duck, as it is basically what came from the XNU project, but Apple put some lipstick on it to get better multi-thread/multi-tasking performance out of the how the kernel handles low level threads on single CPU systems.

In doing this though, they created a kernel model they can't move from easily and this is where it gets bad.

As newer multi-core and multi-CPU systems became more popular, the way OS X handles low level kernel calls requires it to funnel them down to a single thread queue. (Actually a dual arbitor of a queue).

This gives the kernel the ability to not flat out lock on multi-thread operations most of the time; however, when the kernel is dealing with multiple CPUs or multiple Cores, the processing on the additional CPUS/Cores basically shuts down until the kernel queue is resolved on the first CPU.

So for example you have Photoshop open and Word open and Safari open, and if any of the these applications do something that fires an API that needs the kernel's attention (which happens a lot), then OS X basically comes to a halt for a moment to process this queue, and when doing this, everything is only running on the first CPU. After this portion of the queue is handled, it unlocks and the application and OS threads go back to work on all CPUs/Cores.

What I was refering to is if you add in another layer of realtime monitoring software that is using I/O kernel calls, it could be creating even more funnel locks in the kernel, thus switching your Mac to a single CPU/Core system more and more during your usage during the day.

If you look at Snow Leopard, this is why the new 'multi-tasking' APIs where introduced, to help applications bypass some of OS X's multi-CPU threading issues. But this fix only works for newer applications that are written with the new API set, and even then it doesn't bypass these locks all the time. OS X Tiger also introduced a few revisions to make the the kernel locking granularity less coarse, that helped some. However neither of these approaches by Apple fix the basic flaw in how the kernel model works in OS X.

OS X's locking granularity and 'funnel' locking is something that probably 99% of *nix and OS X geeks probably never heard about unless they have been in kernel design specifically or have developed applications that shove multi-CPU/Core processing fairly hard. (Go look up the MySQL blogs for an example of one team that has ran into the OS X issues with multiple CPUs/Cores.)

---
So in more basic terms... If you are using OS X, part of the time, ALL of the processing is running only on one of your CPUs because of the 'locks' in OS X's kernel design model. Since most Macs have multiple CPUs/Cores, this is now more of an issue than it was back in 2000.

The thing is, because not as many people are infecting macs, i'm surprised there is not just 1 guy out there was would like create a doosie just for the fame of it all.

warwagon said,
The thing is, because not as many people are infecting macs, i'm surprised there is not just 1 guy out there was would like create a doosie just for the fame of it all.

There is Mac malware, so somebody has. There are no worms, but then, there haven't been any huge worms on Windows since MS switched the firewall on by default in XP SP2 either.
Bottom line is, Mac OS X and NT both have enough security that it's really only worth trying to infect those systems if the pay off is going to be large and make it worth it, which generally means you need a large amount of systems to infect which again means that they all target Windows. Unlike say MS-DOS and Mac OS 9 where everybody was doing it for fun because it was so easy (no security at all).

Edited by J_R_G, Nov 24 2010, 5:42am :

J_R_G said,

There is Mac malware, so somebody has. There are no worms, but then, there haven't been any huge worms on Windows since MS switched the firewall on by default in XP SP2 either.
Bottom line is, Mac OS X and NT both have enough security that it's really only worth trying to infect those systems if the pay off is going to be large and make it worth it, which generally means you need a large amount of systems to infect which again means that they all target Windows. Unlike say MS-DOS and Mac OS 9 where everybody was doing it for fun because it was so easy (no security at all).

Conficker was pretty big, but in the most part you`re correct. Malware has shifted recently to a different area, mostly phising, false av scams!
AV software just cannot keep up with the amount of nasties being churned out, behaviour blockers and the like are what`s needed nowadays imo...

Riggers said,

Conficker was pretty big, but in the most part you`re correct. Malware has shifted recently to a different area, mostly phising, false av scams!
AV software just cannot keep up with the amount of nasties being churned out, behaviour blockers and the like are what`s needed nowadays imo...

Completely agreed. There are so many variations and what not they can't keep up.

However, everyone should be aware that antimalware programs can't protect you 100%. People need to be vigilant themselves, not visit weird, strange and "scary" websites and download crap from them or other random things.

People on the PC are just as ignorant as the Mac people, but on a different level.

Mac users think they don't need such programs to protect them because Apple told them so, which everyone with half a brain knew was a complete and utter lie, and now we have proof... If these results are representative, a huge amount of Mac users could be infected.

PC users think just because they have such programs they are safe. Sure, they are more safe than not having it at all (unless they downloaded a fake-AV, ), but they themselves still need to be doing some of the work...

Dinggus said,
So, what's a good Mac virus scanner?

They got Norton, definately is the best at detecting them. However sometimes it's too good.

Aaron7pm said,

They got Norton, definately is the best at detecting them. However sometimes it's too good.

I really don't like Norton. NOD32 or Kaspersky is what I like.

martheen said,
There's no virus in Mac, you're detecting it the wrong way

Steve Jobs, from my iPad2

Nice one, actually snickered.

As my World History teacher would say, "Your doing it wrong"

One thing I dislike about make or safari is that I had a pop up today that wouldn't allow me to exit without saying "OK" or completely shutting down safari vs in windows just closing that specific instance..... all of safari was Locked out was very strange

nothing like Bill Gates saying Windows is the best OS
or when Obama saying USA is the best country to live.

where is the objectivity in that report?
Anyway, I'm using ESET Cybersecurity just to make sure :grin:

Pink Floyd said,
nothing like Bill Gates saying Windows is the best OS
or when Obama saying USA is the best country to live.

where is the objectivity in that report?
Anyway, I'm using ESET Cybersecurity just to make sure :grin:


A reporter trying to get his money?

Seems like a lot of news is like that.

So Sophos does a study that shows that malware was found on users Macs to promote its product. Brilliant! How much of that malware was just sitting there not doing anything? This "study" reeks of fail.

asdavis10 said,
So Sophos does a study that shows that malware was found on users Macs to promote its product. Brilliant! How much of that malware was just sitting there not doing anything? This "study" reeks of fail.
Um, where else is this data going to come from? Apple? Heck no.

Most if not all anti-virus makers do studies like this (McAfee, Norton, heck, even Microsoft), that doesn't make it any less valid. These anti-virus makers collect such data to better protect their users, along with making their products better by fending against the biggest threats.

Mr aldo said,
Um, where else is this data going to come from? Apple? Heck no.

Most if not all anti-virus makers do studies like this (McAfee, Norton, heck, even Microsoft), that doesn't make it any less valid. These anti-virus makers collect such data to better protect their users, along with making their products better by fending against the biggest threats.


I think it's the whole "We are advising you about this study, and we are also secretly trying to get you to buy our product because everybody torrents it" attempt.

Aaron7pm said,

I think it's the whole "We are advising you about this study, and we are also secretly trying to get you to buy our product because everybody torrents it" attempt.

Earlier this month Sophos released a free version of their product for the Mac, Sophos Anti-Virus for Mac Home Edition.

asdavis10 said,
So Sophos does a study that shows that malware was found on users Macs to promote its product. Brilliant! How much of that malware was just sitting there not doing anything? This "study" reeks of fail.

You like to not read or comprehend, don't you? The study found that most of the malware was not capable of harming a Mac (GASP!) but the use of the software was still recommended to help prevent virus transmission to Windows, where most of the viruses can actually do something

asdavis10 said,
So Sophos does a study that shows that malware was found on users Macs to promote its product. Brilliant! How much of that malware was just sitting there not doing anything? This "study" reeks of fail.
Yeah they have all this financial incentive to get out there and push their free product. Yup, I can see the conflict.

Seriously, as Mr aldo stated, who else is going to do this?

/- Razorfold said,


That's why they made a free version. Free version = less torrenting + advertising = More upgraded version purchases.

Tim Dawg said,
[...]

Seriously, as Mr aldo stated, who else is going to do this?


It isn't only that, it's also the fact that antimalware makers are some of the only ones who can do such studies, as they have a huge database of malware definitions which allows them to see what is on ones computers to then be able to see how many people are infected.

Apple certainly doesn't have such abilities, well, not compared to companies that focus on malware (though Microsoft does).

Aaron7pm said,

That's why they made a free version. Free version = less torrenting + advertising = More upgraded version purchases.
Microsoft releases information and statistics too. What are they gaining?

Microsoft Security Essentials is free, there is no "upgrade" path of which you speak. They do have things like Forefront and what not, but those are for enterprise and not something the consumer would buy.

Your logic is weird. Why can you not believe these statistics, just because an antimalware company also sells software? It is a well known company (I believe), not all companies try to scare people into buying things. Sure, it may look like that's what they are doing, but they are also letting people know. They could keep this information locked up, allowing people who think they are safe to continue to think that when they aren't. To me, that is worse.

I wasn't refering to antivirus programs in general, oh and also MSE was created for Windows users so that they don't need to buy software. Last time I checked this was discussion about Macs and Viruses. I also never said I don't believe them, maybe if you actually read my other comments I am stating that Macs do get viruses and they are a real threat. Also this is the first time I've ever heard of Sophos so I doubt they are that big of a company.

Aaron7pm said,
Also this is the first time I've ever heard of Sophos so I doubt they are that big of a company.
First time I have really heard much about Sophos either, but just because you haven't heard of a company doesn't mean they can't be big.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophos

Says they started in 1985 with over 1,800 employees. Not huge compared Symantec, but they are about a third the size of McAfee.

1.8k employees is not that big, this news post however makes them sound big.

Big isn't the amount of employees, it's the amount of sales and economic growth and usage that makes them big.

I could hire 300,000 people to make a simple notepad, does that mean it's a big company? Also to be big, you need software to make you big.

Aaron7pm said,
1.8k employees is not that big, this news post however makes them sound big.

Big isn't the amount of employees, it's the amount of sales and economic growth and usage that makes them big.

I could hire 300,000 people to make a simple notepad, does that mean it's a big company? Also to be big, you need software to make you big.

There are different definitions of big.

A company can be big based on different aspects. Ranging from the money they make, to the employees they have to the amount of clients and customers they serve.

Mr aldo said,
There are different definitions of big.

A company can be big based on different aspects. Ranging from the money they make, to the employees they have to the amount of clients and customers they serve.

Ok, kind of what I said, just a lot clearer (Typing on the iPhone so I really don't read over what I say)

Aaron7pm said,

Ok, kind of what I said, just a lot clearer (Typing on the iPhone so I really don't read over what I say)

I think you and others sidetracked into a straw man argument.

It has little to do with the company, it has to do with the fact that X number of Mac users have installed their product and their product has found Y number of infections/malware.

This is just a 'sample' of Macs out there, but it is one of the first samples that have been reported, as some companies that sell Anti-Virus/Malware don't report this type of information (or possibly even collect it).

The company could be 'A guy in his mom's basement' - what matters is that 150,000 computers are running the software, and 1/3 of them are reporting variuos forms of infections/malware.

Which is a fairly high percentage, as it would be a massive problem if Windows 7 machines report a 1/3 infection rate. The last numbers I saw showed less that 1% of Windows 7 macihnes to report malware. So even if you look at only the OS X specific or cross platform malware from this sample, it is considerably higher that what Windows7 users are seeing.)

With regard to the company, their software could even be crap, and missing detection of a lot of malware, as the Mac world is still uncharted in malware and how exploits are used on OS X.

So the company is irrelevant, and a straw man argument at best.

There are people around me saying that Mac will never infected with virus. As a computer security man, I never agreed with them, but those are viruses that not for Mac specifically, or webpage caches, or is not that harmful (change DNS) in comparison with Windows viruses. So as an end user of Mac OSX, I might not want to waste my hard disk and performance for such anti-virus product since the highest infection rate is just 5%.

Spreading fear is an efficient way to do branding, particularly for anti-virus, but not so soon, at least not so soon for Mac.

BestWC said,
There are people around me saying that Mac will never infected with virus. As a computer security man, I never agreed with them, but those are viruses that not for Mac specifically, or webpage caches, or is not that harmful (change DNS) in comparison with Windows viruses. So as an end user of Mac OSX, I might not want to waste my hard disk and performance for such anti-virus product since the highest infection rate is just 5%.

Spreading fear is an efficient way to do branding, particularly for anti-virus, but not so soon, at least not so soon for Mac.


True, but you also forget the fact that most people don't try to make viruses for Mac. Mainly because if a person wanted to create a computer virus epidemic, he would choose the most widely used OS which would be Windows.

Also if Macs really come up to the standard everyone says they do (Which no computer truly does {Stating this for all computers not just Macs}) installing a anti-virus program shouldn't effect the computer performance. Also most anti-virus programs are relatively small, ~300mb max.

BestWC said,
... or is not that harmful (change DNS) in comparison with Windows viruses.
Huh? You think changing or re-directing your DNS is "not that harmful"??? You obviously don't know much about phishing attacks then eh?

Tim Dawg said,
Huh? You think changing or re-directing your DNS is "not that harmful"??? You obviously don't know much about phishing attacks then eh?

Well Macs actually have a rather good Phishing blocker I have to admit.

Aaron7pm said,

True, but you also forget the fact that most people don't try to make viruses for Mac. Mainly because if a person wanted to create a computer virus epidemic, he would choose the most widely used OS which would be Windows.

Also if Macs really come up to the standard everyone says they do (Which no computer truly does {Stating this for all computers not just Macs}) installing a anti-virus program shouldn't effect the computer performance. Also most anti-virus programs are relatively small, ~300mb max.

We all know that the reason Mac has not so many viruses is because only a small group of people own a Mac. And having the possibility to be infected doesn't necessarily mean we MUST be infected.

But no one can deny the fact that those are not harmful viruses, and we don't have so many of them on Mac. So my opinion to this is really simple, not a good time, too soon.

BestWC said,

We all know that the reason Mac has not so many viruses is because only a small group of people own a Mac. And having the possibility to be infected doesn't necessarily mean we MUST be infected.

But no one can deny the fact that those are not harmful viruses, and we don't have so many of them on Mac. So my opinion to this is really simple, not a good time, too soon.


THAT WAS A GREAT POINT! I applaud you!, however if everyone decides to switch over to Mac, Mac will be as vulnerable as Windows.

So I would look and see how Mac sales are going before you purchase one deciding you aren't going to install anti-virus protection.

BestWC said,
We all know that the reason Mac has not so many viruses is because only a small group of people own a Mac.
So tired of statements like these being made without any objections from anyone. Mac OS 9 had a lower market share but a larger amount of viruses. Especially considering the rise in popularity of the internet it's a counterintuitive correlation, and one that forces you to think twice about the claim that Mac OS X relies on security through obscurity.

Mike Brown said,
So tired of statements like these being made without any objections from anyone. Mac OS 9 had a lower market share but a larger amount of viruses. Especially considering the rise in popularity of the internet it's a counterintuitive correlation, and one that forces you to think twice about the claim that Mac OS X relies on security through obscurity.

Thank you for your comment as well! Yet another very valid point. Clearly Apple was giving out hype to get more sales. But that doesn't mean that the comment BestWC is completely false.

Also it's human nature to state your opinion when you think it's a fact so in all honesty nobody is right. But that does not mean you are completely wrong.

Aaron7pm said,

Well Macs actually have a rather good Phishing blocker I have to admit.

Um, and what does this have to do with modified DNS? The Phishing tools will just go, ok, that is right and move on if software is telling it what it wants to hear.

thenetavenger said,

Um, and what does this have to do with modified DNS? The Phishing tools will just go, ok, that is right and move on if software is telling it what it wants to hear.


I was refering to when he said Phishing attacks not the DNS, I actually don't have much knowledge on DNS.

Mike Brown said,
So tired of statements like these being made without any objections from anyone. Mac OS 9 had a lower market share but a larger amount of viruses. Especially considering the rise in popularity of the internet it's a counterintuitive correlation, and one that forces you to think twice about the claim that Mac OS X relies on security through obscurity.

Mac OS 9 had no security whatsoever, so people made viruses for it to get famous and for fun. Mac OS X and Windows NT have enough security to be difficult enough to infect that it's only worth trying to infect if it is widely used, and will net you a lot of money in return for your trouble. Even Charlie Miller, the world famous hacker and Mac user, has said 3 year old Vista is more secure than Snow Leopard, so don't take my word for it.

Edited by J_R_G, Nov 24 2010, 5:06am :

Aaron7pm said,

I was refering to when he said Phishing attacks not the DNS, I actually don't have much knowledge on DNS.
If you don't have much knowledge on DNS, then you can't know how good the phishing blocker is.

The statement from Apple saying Macs can't get viruses was completely false. Every piece of software can receive a virus of some sorts.

Also people don't realize that if you do get a virus and you don't have protection on a Mac and it happens to do harm, your Mac will be screwed. I've actually received 3 viruses that completely rendered my Macs useless! You can't even re-install OSX because every time I boot up it instantly shuts down.

I've taken them to the Apple stores before and nobody could fix it.

Aaron7pm said,
The statement from Apple saying Macs can't get viruses was completely false. Every piece of software can receive a virus of some sorts.

Also people don't realize that if you do get a virus and you don't have protection on a Mac and it happens to do harm, your Mac will be screwed. I've actually received 3 viruses that completely rendered my Macs useless! You can't even re-install OSX because every time I boot up it instantly shuts down.

I've taken them to the Apple stores before and nobody could fix it.

Please cite, where did you read that Apple officially said they will never get infected by viruses? I know sales man or fanboys say that much, but I'd like to see they say that officially.

BestWC said,

Please cite, where did you read that Apple officially said they will never get infected by viruses? I know sales man or fanboys say that much, but I'd like to see they say that officially.


The Get a Mac ads - Mac said "Oh Macs don't get those".

Point is moot however, both system get them, we all deal with it.

BestWC said,

Please cite, where did you read that Apple officially said they will never get infected by viruses? I know sales man or fanboys say that much, but I'd like to see they say that officially.

Apple is condoning it. The words are coming from their sales people, and if Apple knew it was completely false, they would tell their sales people to back off from making such claims.

Raa said,

The Get a Mac ads - Mac said "Oh Macs don't get those".

Point is moot however, both system get them, we all deal with it.

That's where I got it from, watch them on YouTube or something.

Oh, and since Apple made the commercials they said it.

BestWC said,

Please cite, where did you read that Apple officially said they will never get infected by viruses? I know sales man or fanboys say that much, but I'd like to see they say that officially.

The don't say it. But they do employ spin to almost say it (careful statements like "PC Viruses") And only admitting that no platform is %100 immune to threats at the bottom of their page on the matter. Again, they don't lie, but they do twist

http://www.apple.com/macosx/security/

Sraf said,

The don't say it. But they do employ spin to almost say it (careful statements like "PC Viruses") And only admitting that no platform is %100 immune to threats at the bottom of their page on the matter. Again, they don't lie, but they do twist

http://www.apple.com/macosx/security/


That has not a single commercial that we where talking about. After reading that page you posted I was hinted that viruses can't effect you, however it hints that hackers can attack you.

Aaron7pm said,

That has not a single commercial that we where talking about. After reading that page you posted I was hinted that viruses can't effect you, however it hints that hackers can attack you.

Sorry, the bit about the commercials popped up after I had written this comment, after reviewing that page to see what Apple's specific terminology was

BestWC said,

Please cite, where did you read that Apple officially said they will never get infected by viruses? I know sales man or fanboys say that much, but I'd like to see they say that officially.

ive too heard from many fanboys that macs never get viruses (this is there one reason usually to why a mac is better than a pc)...but i dont recall hearing it from apple directly...uh. maybe actually i might have read up on a remark on something steve jobs said but im not 100% sure...id have to find it..

Goldenlotus said,

People should take care to listen to the wording, and phrasing used. That ad doesn't say macs don't get viruses, nowhere in the ad do they lie.
PC: "There are 114'000 known viruses for PCs"
Mac: "PCs, not macs"

Therefore Mac guy is simply stating that those known viruses are indeed PC viruses and as such a mac wouldn't be vulnerable to the PC viruses. He's just restating to obvious whilst, playing off of the previous comment. I think you'll find that most ads are creatively worded in roughly the same way.

Just because it doesn't hurt you, doesn't mean you shouldn't be taking precautions from spreading stuff to thers... you could have a virus and not even know if laying dormant in a file that you could send to someone else who it would hurt

neufuse said,
Just because it doesn't hurt you, doesn't mean you shouldn't be taking precautions from spreading stuff to thers... you could have a virus and not even know if laying dormant in a file that you could send to someone else who it would hurt

Many Mac viruses are undetectable even when active.

Sadly my school Mac had a virus on it. Plugged the flash drive from that computer into my own personal computer and had a few files quarantined. Really surprised.

ObiWanToby said,
Sadly my school Mac had a virus on it. Plugged the flash drive from that computer into my own personal computer and had a few files quarantined. Really surprised.

Explain, how is that in any way surprising? If you sent me an infected file from your Windows machine, I will now have it on my Mac. Afterwards I can forward that file to someone else.

That doesn't mean the virus can do anything harmful on my iMac running Mac OS X Snow Leopard.

.Neo said,

Explain, how is that in any way surprising? If you sent me an infected file from your Windows machine, I will now have it on my Mac. Afterwards I can forward that file to someone else.

That doesn't mean the virus can do anything harmful on my iMac running Mac OS X Snow Leopard.

Viruses aren't only scripted for Windows. It's a lot easier to script a virus for OS X due to it being by far less secure.