Mac OS X: Is it true that MacOS is Virus Free?...
Is it true that MacOS is Virus Free?...
by lukmanfebrianto - 2/16/08 5:32 PMDear all friends,
I've been using Microsoft Windows operating system since Windows 3.1 version, and often get computer virus attacks ever since. Eventhough I'm using many kind of security softwares (Anti Virus, Anti Spyware, etc.), still I can't free myself from the most dangerous attacks, the local computer viruses (viruses that made by programmer from my country).
I plan to switch to Mac computer and using MacOS. But, is it true that MacOS is Virus Free or at least have less computer virus or any kind of malicious software attacks?
Thank You very much for your kind and honest replies.
Best Regards,
Lukman Febrianto
.
by R. Proffitt
- 2/16/08 5:38 PM
In reply to: Is it true that MacOS is Virus Free?... by lukmanfebrianto
But your question may be whether there is a virus for the MacOS rather than what you asked.
There is few trojans and worms but so far these require the owner to install them. So far you can't be infected via email, web browsing or as in the initial XP just by connecting to the internet.
I still endorse using "Little Snitch."
Bob
Mostly true
by Krioni - 2/22/08 8:08 PM In reply to: . by R. Proffitt
You're right that there are no viruses (at least if you specify differences between virus, worm, and trojan horse, and others) for Mac OS X. There were some back in the 1990's on the classic Mac OS, but that was actually almost a completely different operating system, and those do not work in any fashion on modern computers.
Because Mac OS X (like most operating systems) assumes the user wants to be able to install and run applications, it is possible to write a trojan horse. Anyone could write a program that deletes all files owned by the user when run by the targeted user. It would literally take almost no time to create such a thing, for almost any operating system. There's the old UNIX joke about the virus spread by the honor system, where the user must manually type "rm -rf" (don't do it!) to delete all the files they own. The first and best solution is to NOT run programs from untrusted sources.
Now, Mac OS X has fewer pieces of malicious software for several reasons. The first is that it is more difficult to write viruses and worms (that seek out remote machines to attack) for multiple reasons:
(1) Mac OS X is based on UNIX (and Leopard is, in fact, officially UNIX), which has been analyzed by many people who have access to the source code, especially since the underlying source code for much of the low-level parts of Mac OS X is open source.
(2) Mac OS X, by default, has most ports closed which makes it less susceptible to remote attacks, rather than coming with many ports open, as Windows has in the past.
(3) Many of the remote services that can be activated on Mac OS X are open source software projects, and are very well vetted for security (although Apple does not always update them for security as quickly as it should).
(4) User-level security is better managed on Mac OS X, without the annoying Allow/Cancel of Vista. It is harder, though not impossible, theoretically, for a malicious program to access the operating system itself, especially if the user is not logged in as an Admin.
(5) MAYBE: The level of skill required to create malicious software for the Mac is higher, and there are fewer people who have that skill, and the people who do have more legitimate ways of making money. This MIGHT loosely tie into the "security through obscurity" theory that people carelessly throw around when they don't know about all the factors I mentioned above. That theory cannot explain the almost complete lack of any malicious software for Mac OS X, especially since there are around 25 million Macs in use, and platforms with a smaller user-base have seen viruses and other malicious software.
In addition to it being more difficult, there is somewhat less incentive to create malware for Macs, since there are fewer, BUT there are not NONE, which is how much malware there is. It is a combination of the (greatly) increased difficulty and the smaller user-base that has resulted in ZERO viruses, and only one or two pieces of malware. There have been security vulnerabilities that theoretically could have resulted in malware, but the architecture of Mac OS X makes exploiting vulnerabilities difficult, and because much of the OS is open source, it is harder for a hacker to know about a vulnerability and keep it a secret while building an exploit - generally the "good guys" find them first and Apple fixes them.
One thing to remember: Mac OS X can be hacked if you combine the following foolish behaviors: (1) don't have a firewall, (2) have remote access turned on, and (3) use a single dictionary word as your password. Believe it or not, I knew a company that had a bunch of Macs set up in that way (all with SAME single-word password), and some hacker threw a dictionary at them and got root access, installing phishing sites on them. If they had used a more difficult password, they probably would have been fine. The firewall would make them even safer, obviously.
All of the above is a long way to say: Mac OS X is currently safer, and probably will remain that way for the forseeable future, but you still want to practice safe computing. Have good passwords, use proper security methods like firewalls, and don't trust strangers.
Good luck in whatever decisions you make.
Elucidating
by richteral - 2/22/08 11:40 PM In reply to: Mostly true by KrioniHave read with great interest your detailed & well-reasoned expose. Very useful for making decisions about whether to switch to Mac.
Virus free Macs
by c.b.mullen - 2/23/08 3:04 PM In reply to: Elucidating by richteralTo state that a Mac OS cannot be infected with viruses, worms, trojans or malware in general is pure and simple *********. Don't believe it.
There are many malware programs being written for Mac OSX and Linux in general. Go to any searchbar and type Mac OS infections or Mac malware attacks or anything similar. You will be provided with abundant information that will back up what I am telling you.
You must remember that the biggest cause of computer problems and infections lies between the computer and the chair. Your computer cannot be infected or infested with malware of any kind without the actions of the person using the computer. You are responsible for all infections on your computer, whether knowingly or unknowingly.
Did I miss something here?
by mrmacfixit - 2/23/08 5:18 PM
In reply to: Virus free Macs by c.b.mullen
Which post said that the Mac OS cannot be infected with viruses, worms, trojans or malware?
You are right about the problem being between the computer and the chair but believe me, Windows can be infected without the aid of anyone.
P
Virus free Mac OS
by c.b.mullen - 2/24/08 6:32 PM In reply to: Did I miss something here? by mrmacfixit
I was responding to the post by "lukmanfebrianto" who made the statement "is it true that Mac OS is virus free".
Yes, it is certainly true that a Windows OS can be infected much easier and more often than a Mac. Most malware applications are written for Windows because it is the operating system used on 90% of the worlds computers. Please note that I stated "computers" and not servers.
However, more and more malware apps are being written for Apple's operating systems.
Security is in the structure
by algreig - 2/22/08 8:01 PM In reply to: Is it true that MacOS is Virus Free?... by lukmanfebriantoMac OSX is a version of Unix, and Linux is a derivative of Unix. When Unix was designed it was built for networking, and for outstanding security. When Linus Torvalds developed the Linux Operating system in 1992 he based it on Unix, and it too, was designed for networking and for rock solid security. !n 1992 Microsoft had little idea of networking and even less of an idea of security, theuy are still playing catch up today. The difference is in the construction: MS Windows is "monolithic" ie everything is put into the kernel, everything attaches to the kernel, and so every program you install on a Windows system has access to the kernel - it's just the way it's built. On the other hand Unix and Linux are "modular" in that the kernel interacts with various modules, without giving them write access to itself. In fact some security minded folk install their Linux kernel on a CDRom and install the rest on the hard drive. Because a CDRom is readonly it cannot be compromised at all. Not a bad idea. The trick in compromising a Mac or Linux machine is to deceive the user into performing an unsafe procedure. So if you are an idiot, your computer is at risk. But if you have a healthy suspicion, have never opened a Nigerian money scam and wondered if it worked, then there is hope for you with a Mac or Linux system.
Your question? Does Mac OS X have viruses?
by GSTWOSEF - 2/22/08 8:30 PM In reply to: Security is in the structure by algreigYes, but it does not mean that Microsoft is a bad operating system to use. Let's face it. Microsoft makes and program the operating system in a way that is related to DOS program and always has been for years. The UNIX Open Source is one of people's preferences today because those are the system architectures in which it is built to work seamlessly and independently. I love my Mac and always will be a Mac users forever!
Ever heard of Vista?
by santuccie - 2/23/08 9:24 PM In reply to: Security is in the structure by algreigVista works the same way. Kernel drivers still interact with other programs, but every driver has pre-defined functions, and system32 is locked down in the creator/owner account. Just as you can with Linux, you can surf dodgy sites in Vista without antimalware, and without some iFrame remotely executing arbitrary code on your system. The only way you can get infected is by installing the software yourself, and either clicking "Continue" to grant high privileges or turning off UAC. And even then, it's still fairly isolated from the rest of the system, changes are easily undone, and damage little to none.
The people at Microsoft do not sit around from nine to five Monday through Friday, with their left index finder up their left nostril to the second knuckle, and their right thumb where the sun doesn't shine. Linux is inherently more secure than XP and earlier because it was designed for servers, not desktops. It's not because Windows is all monolithic and Linux is modular; that's what you call a meme. How come Linux never again works the same after the first USB crash, and icons disappear from the taskbar? And just FYI, no Linux distro is as secure as OpenBSD. In ten years, a grand total of 2 remote vulnerabilities have surfaced.
I'd take a Mac over Vista, anyday...
by b8375629 - 2/24/08 12:23 PM In reply to: Ever heard of Vista? by santuccieAnd that's coming from a dual XP / Linux user...
(NT) Good for you
by santuccie - 2/24/08 2:46 PM In reply to: I'd take a Mac over Vista, anyday... by b8375629No, it is not.
by thljcl - 2/23/08 4:10 AM In reply to: Is it true that MacOS is Virus Free?... by lukmanfebriantoHonestly, no one in the world could claim that anything in the world is perfect. Mac OS is certainly not virus-free. Viri are more for Windows because hacker would like to attack the software with dominant market share. Please don't think that switching to Mac OS is the solution for your problem. I've used Windows since Windows 98. I've seldom had virus/Trojan/Spyware problems. Safe or not? I can't claim that Windows is safe. You need to have good practice to avoid many problems. A user's ignorance is very harmful. Instead for paying for a new software, try to increase your general knowledge. In this era, it is quite easy since Internet is so convenient. At the same time, Internet is quite dangerous. You can easily get attacted from the Internet.
An interesting statement
by mrmacfixit - 2/23/08 7:36 AM
In reply to: No, it is not. by thljcl
"Mac OS is certainly not virus-free."
Examples of virus's, in the wild, that attack OS X would be appreciated.
This market share idea is just a myth. It has nothing to do with market share and everything to do with the ease of writing a virus that attacks the Windows operating system.
For example. Off the top of your head, how many people do you think are running the Linux operating system on their iPod?
Your first answer may be that you didn't know that could be done. It can and there are quite a few people who do it.
Now, given the millions of iPods that are out there, the number of people running Linux on them is infinitesimal. Way less than 1% of the market share.
So a statement like "hacker would like to attack the software with dominant market share" would mean that the standard Apple iPod should have a considerable number of virus's that attack it. After all, it has the dominant market share.
Instead we find that the Linux variant of the Apple iPod is the one with the virus! How can that be so? It has virtually No market share.
Source: Symantec
Enough of the Security by Obscurity Myth, it just does not fly
The greatest danger right now to OS X is the user themselves. As already mentioned in this thread, there is nothing to stop any user from installing a program that will do damage to their computer. Education helps but there will always be someone who does what everyone tells them not to do.
To answer the original posters question: There are currently no virus's, in the wild, that successfully attack the current versions of OS X.
P
Here's an example for you
by santuccie - 2/23/08 10:54 PM In reply to: An interesting statement by mrmacfixit
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-6126_102-0.html?forumID=10&threadID=284174&messageID=2705874
OSX.RSPlug.A is in fact an ItW sample, not PoC. Of course it requires user intervention, and cannot simply install itself in a drive-by attack. But Vista is the same way. System32 is locked down in the creator/owner account, kernel drivers are confined to pre-defined functions and associations, and any program that requires administrative privileges has to be admitted via UAC.
Once admitted through UAC, any program not recognized by Microsoft is still blocked from starting with Windows. Even some legitimate programs cannot run without manual configuration in the task scheduler. Arovax Shield is one example; it's a perfectly legitimate program, and fully compatible with Vista. Microsoft just hasn't endorsed it.
Before Mac OS went to the BSD kernel, there were Mac viruses out there. And before remote vulnerabilities aplenty started being sought out in XP and earlier, all attacks were social engineering attacks. Users of Windows XP and earlier still have MPack and others to worry about, but have you been reading about the Storm worm at all? It's the most successful and longest-running botnet worm of all time (actually, it's the most successful malware, period), pumping out roughly 1,000 variations a day. You have to open an "e-card" from someone you don't know to get it.
Social engineering is, was, and is to be...the foremost method of attack delivery. And as long as you can install software on a Mac, you can install malicious software just as easily. I have already mentioned that there are ItW threats for Mac OS; the reason less exist for OS-X than Linux is because Linux is older than OS-X itself. Before Apple switched to the BSD kernel, fewer people used BSD than Linux. There's your market share connection.
If you do a Google search for "mac more secure than vista," or "os-x more secure than vista" in quotes, you won't find anything. Reverse them, and you'll get plenty. Plenty of experts, Dino Dai Zovi being one, say that OS-X is less secure than Vista. And since Leopard's default install has the firewall disabled, non-suspecting users are sitting ducks. So why is Vista the bigger target? Market share. Hope this helps!
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
