7 ms·

It says right in the article that AppleCare doesn't cover what users do to their machines. Microsoft doesn't remove malware that Windows users install either.

by bonch 15y ago

It says right in the article that AppleCare doesn't cover what users do to their machines. Microsoft doesn't remove malware that Windows users install either. This thing is coming from Ed Bott's Microsoft column on ZDNet, where he's been hitting this hard for the second day in a row based on an "investigation" that involved him scouring the Apple discussion forums for a couple of hours. Two hundred clueless posts on a web forum out of a userbase of millions doesn't mean there's a "malware explosion," as he described it. Why are people falling for this flamebait?

illumin8 15y ago
The Mac Defender malware is pretty harmless. It downloads as a zip file, and users must manually click through the entire installer just to get it installed. How many Windows viruses are delivered as a setup.exe where you have to click next about 3 times and enter your admin password just to install it? As usual anti-mac trolls love to jump on the bandwagon and bash the platform with one of the best security track records running.
- lotusleaf1987 15y ago
  "[Bott] cited an internal document titled "About 'Mac Defender' Malware," which was last updated on May 16 and says that the trojan, which surfaced earlier this month and masquerades as legitimate security software for the OS X platform" I find it ironic that Bott's fear mongering is leading the naive to download shady anti-virus software that is actually adware. These articles are really just contributing to the problem by misinforming people. Ed Bott is the equivalent of Glen Beck.
  - innes 15y ago
    Ed 'Glen Beck' Bott is apparently more influential amongst non-technical Mac users than anyone might have expected!
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- Niten 15y ago
  Most Windows viruses these days have the exact same attack vector, simply tricking the user into installing them. All we're seeing here is that: (1) Despite the marketing, the Mac is not magically immune to these things any more than Windows is, and (2) now that OS X has obtained a reasonable market share it's finally become worth attacking. Neither of these things should be surprising to anyone, and hopefully the antimalware situation on OS X will improve before progressively more insidious Mac viruses are released.
  - jonhohle 15y ago
    > and hopefully the antimalware situation on OS X will improve before progressively I don't think antimalware is anything I'd ever want to run on a computer I control. Unfortunately, I think we're being pushed into a world where all applications are vetted and purchased through a trusted marketplace, eliminating this vector.
    - Niten 15y ago
      > I don't think antimalware is anything I'd ever want to run on a computer I control. Why not? I mean this as an honest question. EDIT: If you're concerned about performance or system resources, try a PC with MSE sometime, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at how unobtrusive good antimalware can be.
      - danssig 15y ago
        Have you ever ran a windows machine without all this stupid virus/malware software running? It's dramatically faster. Anti-malware/virus software was a stupid road to go down, the proper solution is to have better security on the machine.
        JonoW 15y ago
        I run MSE, I barely notice it speed wise, and haven't had any malware or viruses. On your comment: > the proper solution is to have better security on the machine. Strongly disagree; if you look at this MacDefender issue, there is no flaw in OSX that is causing infection, users are installing it on their own accord. But what anti-malware/virus software can do here is warn or prevent the user from installing this in the first place, as it should detect the virus/malware signature. This is why you need it even if the underlying OS is secure, to try protect users from themselves.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  ... the platform with one of the best security track records running. Have you forgotten that Darwin is by and large derived from BSD? Apple is standing on the shoulders of giants with this one.
Niten 15y ago
> Microsoft doesn't remove malware that Windows users install either. Yes they do: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/129972/en-us http://support.microsoft.com/kb/129972/en-us "Call 1-866-PCSAFETY or call 1-866-727-2338 to contact security support." > Two hundred clueless posts on a web forum out of a userbase of millions doesn't mean there's a "malware explosion," as he described it. Why are people falling for this flamebait? If Apple is issuing special instructions to its support staff about this malware, then clearly this is a pronounced problem.
- kenjackson 15y ago
  Not only that but Microsoft has an anti-virus anti-malware application. AND as part of Windows Update they regularly run the malicious program removal tool. And I suspect MS would ship antivirus built into Windows if they could. Unfortunately, antitrust makes packaging things that make sense a non-starter if other companies sell it.
  - Niten 15y ago
    Oh they absolutely would. Heck, Windows Defender is the same engine as MSE, they just had to limit its functionality to keep from getting sued. They were even threatened by the third-party antivirus companies when they promoted a link to MSE in Microsoft Update. But hopefully they can take a more proactive course now that the DoJ's oversight is ending: http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2011/04/department-of-justices-long-oversight-of-microsoft-to-end.ars http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2011/04/department-of-...
    - yuhong 15y ago
      Huh? Windows Defender existed before MSE.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - vacri 15y ago
    Not only that, but Microsoft isn't a direct retailer, they're a wholesaler. If you have a problem with your machine, it's the responsibility of the person who sold it to you to ensure it is fit for purpose, not the upstream provider. Apple is a direct retailer.
foob 15y ago
I think that it's reasonable if Apple doesn't want to provide support for fixing malware problems on systems that they've sold regardless of how any other company chooses to handle such issues. Also, this issue is obviously independent of OS as the exploited security hole is the users' lack of understanding. That said, the reason that I thought this article was hackernews worthy is because Apple is encouraging employees to knowingly withhold information about malicious software running on users' computers. I personally find that to be an inappropriate approach in almost any situation. What are your thoughts on this aspect of the article?
demallien 15y ago
Not to mention that Apple is the only company to have started building a defence to the 'clueless user' problem,with the Mac App Store. It's going to become increasingly more difficult for trojan horse authors to convince users to install their non-App Store application, the more that people become accustomed to that being the way to install software on a Mac.

by bonch 15y ago

illumin8 15y ago

The Mac Defender malware is pretty harmless. It downloads as a zip file, and users must manually click through the entire installer just to get it installed. How many Windows viruses are delivered as a setup.exe where you have to click next about 3 times and enter your admin password just to install it? As usual anti-mac trolls love to jump on the bandwagon and bash the platform with one of the best security track records running.

lotusleaf1987 15y ago
"[Bott] cited an internal document titled "About 'Mac Defender' Malware," which was last updated on May 16 and says that the trojan, which surfaced earlier this month and masquerades as legitimate security software for the OS X platform" I find it ironic that Bott's fear mongering is leading the naive to download shady anti-virus software that is actually adware. These articles are really just contributing to the problem by misinforming people. Ed Bott is the equivalent of Glen Beck.
- innes 15y ago
  Ed 'Glen Beck' Bott is apparently more influential amongst non-technical Mac users than anyone might have expected!
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
Niten 15y ago
Most Windows viruses these days have the exact same attack vector, simply tricking the user into installing them. All we're seeing here is that: (1) Despite the marketing, the Mac is not magically immune to these things any more than Windows is, and (2) now that OS X has obtained a reasonable market share it's finally become worth attacking. Neither of these things should be surprising to anyone, and hopefully the antimalware situation on OS X will improve before progressively more insidious Mac viruses are released.
- jonhohle 15y ago
  > and hopefully the antimalware situation on OS X will improve before progressively I don't think antimalware is anything I'd ever want to run on a computer I control. Unfortunately, I think we're being pushed into a world where all applications are vetted and purchased through a trusted marketplace, eliminating this vector.
  - Niten 15y ago
    > I don't think antimalware is anything I'd ever want to run on a computer I control. Why not? I mean this as an honest question. EDIT: If you're concerned about performance or system resources, try a PC with MSE sometime, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at how unobtrusive good antimalware can be.
    - danssig 15y ago
      Have you ever ran a windows machine without all this stupid virus/malware software running? It's dramatically faster. Anti-malware/virus software was a stupid road to go down, the proper solution is to have better security on the machine.
      - JonoW 15y ago
        I run MSE, I barely notice it speed wise, and haven't had any malware or viruses. On your comment: > the proper solution is to have better security on the machine. Strongly disagree; if you look at this MacDefender issue, there is no flaw in OSX that is causing infection, users are installing it on their own accord. But what anti-malware/virus software can do here is warn or prevent the user from installing this in the first place, as it should detect the virus/malware signature. This is why you need it even if the underlying OS is secure, to try protect users from themselves.
sliverstorm 15y ago
... the platform with one of the best security track records running. Have you forgotten that Darwin is by and large derived from BSD? Apple is standing on the shoulders of giants with this one.

Niten 15y ago

> Microsoft doesn't remove malware that Windows users install either. Yes they do: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/129972/en-us http://support.microsoft.com/kb/129972/en-us "Call 1-866-PCSAFETY or call 1-866-727-2338 to contact security support." > Two hundred clueless posts on a web forum out of a userbase of millions doesn't mean there's a "malware explosion," as he described it. Why are people falling for this flamebait? If Apple is issuing special instructions to its support staff about this malware, then clearly this is a pronounced problem.

kenjackson 15y ago
Not only that but Microsoft has an anti-virus anti-malware application. AND as part of Windows Update they regularly run the malicious program removal tool. And I suspect MS would ship antivirus built into Windows if they could. Unfortunately, antitrust makes packaging things that make sense a non-starter if other companies sell it.
- Niten 15y ago
  Oh they absolutely would. Heck, Windows Defender is the same engine as MSE, they just had to limit its functionality to keep from getting sued. They were even threatened by the third-party antivirus companies when they promoted a link to MSE in Microsoft Update. But hopefully they can take a more proactive course now that the DoJ's oversight is ending: http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2011/04/department-of-justices-long-oversight-of-microsoft-to-end.ars http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2011/04/department-of-...
  - yuhong 15y ago
    Huh? Windows Defender existed before MSE.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- vacri 15y ago
  Not only that, but Microsoft isn't a direct retailer, they're a wholesaler. If you have a problem with your machine, it's the responsibility of the person who sold it to you to ensure it is fit for purpose, not the upstream provider. Apple is a direct retailer.

foob 15y ago

I think that it's reasonable if Apple doesn't want to provide support for fixing malware problems on systems that they've sold regardless of how any other company chooses to handle such issues. Also, this issue is obviously independent of OS as the exploited security hole is the users' lack of understanding. That said, the reason that I thought this article was hackernews worthy is because Apple is encouraging employees to knowingly withhold information about malicious software running on users' computers. I personally find that to be an inappropriate approach in almost any situation. What are your thoughts on this aspect of the article?

demallien 15y ago

Not to mention that Apple is the only company to have started building a defence to the 'clueless user' problem,with the Mac App Store. It's going to become increasingly more difficult for trojan horse authors to convince users to install their non-App Store application, the more that people become accustomed to that being the way to install software on a Mac.