12 ms·

Apple Quietly Pulls Claims of Virus Immunity

184 points by w1ntermute 14y ago

ghurlman 14y ago
I don't think it's a sign of Apple taking security seriously as much as it is a lawyer avoiding liability suits.
- s_henry_paulson 14y ago
  I think any competent PR representative would have inevitably pulled those statements, as they were never true even when they were written.
  - Zr40 14y ago
    Untrue. This[0] is what was written in 2010: > The Mac is designed with built-in technologies that provide > protection against malicious software and security threats > right out of the box. However, since no system can be 100 > percent immune from every threat, antivirus software may > offer additional protection. Something similar is still present in today's security page: http://www.apple.com/osx/what-is/security.html http://www.apple.com/osx/what-is/security.html (near the bottom) [0]: http://web.archive.org/web/20100123154433/http://www.apple.com/macosx/security/ http://web.archive.org/web/20100123154433/http://www.apple.c...
allaun1 14y ago
I'm mildly surprised no one has sued over this yet. And since I keep seeing the mantra that flashback is a trojan. Here's some history: http://mac-antivirus-software-review.toptenreviews.com/history-of-macintosh-viruses.html http://mac-antivirus-software-review.toptenreviews.com/histo...
- demallien 14y ago
  Considering the effort that Apple marketing has made to make it clear that "Macs" and "PCs" are not the same thing, it would be very difficult to win a case, as Macs clearly don't getinfected by "PC" viruses. Which is not to say that your stement is wrong - it is surprising that nobody has tried to sue, even if they would almost certainly lose...
muraiki 14y ago
Wow, I had no idea that they said stuff like that on their site. Even though it specifies "PC viruses," the average computer user doesn't understand the distinction. Just last night a relative mentioned how Macs don't get viruses (which I corrected).
- recursive 14y ago
  Are macs not PCs? Perhaps I'm an average user, but I thought PC stood for "personal computer".
  - duiker101 14y ago
    you know... "Think different". They cannot have even the smallest thing in common... or at least that's what they want people to think.
    - batista 14y ago
      Really? That must be why when they switched to Intel they touted the compatibility, and why the even offer a utility called "BootCamp" to easily run Windows on your Mac, with automatic re-partitioning, hw drivers, et al.
      - duiker101 14y ago
        You know that, i know that, but let's ask some of those people that actually think that Macs do not get viruses because they are better...
        batista 14y ago
        Well, they must be doing something right at Cupertino, because they really don't get viruses. Not theoretically of future-wise: practically. 99.9% of things reported (and even those are not that many to begin with) are trojans. So, Mac viruses are like the Yeti, they might well exist, but very few people have seen them in real life. It's not just market share either. OS8/9 had several viruses with 1/5 the market share OS X has now. If one considers that OS X is basically NeXTStep, and essentially a UNIX, do one really sees many viruses in UNIX systems? What I'm getting at is that the "administrator privileges by default", "can fuck with any file on the system" feature of Windows --up to Windows XP, which is where viruses really reigned, was not part of OS X from the beginning. So, at worst, OS X since 10.0 was as secure as Windows Vista, which was not a swiss cheese OS like, say, Windows 98. Plus, OS X didn't have Active X, either, and used a custom PDF viewing (Acrobat is another common attack vector in Wintels). Now, with the eviction of Flash and Java plugins as the default, and several other techniques (sandboxing, ASLR, signatures, etc), things will get even better.
crazygringo 14y ago
I'm genuinely curious... are there viruses that spread in OSX? Not trojans or whatnot that require users to click on files they shouldn't, but rather actual viruses that make use of vulnerabilities in OSX to spread from computer to computer, either via Internet or thumb drives or something? In other words, if I always follow responsible practices (never opening files from untrusted sources), has there been any threat up through now that could compromise my OSX installation?
- jlouis 14y ago
  The real question to ask is not "Has there been?" but "Will there be?" Given that Mac OSX is on the rise on the popularity scale I am almost dead positive we will see a lot of increase in malware for OSX, even remote attacks where the user will be infected even if he acts sensibly. The risk of that happening to you though is fairly low. The risk of clicking something and then getting malware through that is way higher, from a risk point of view.
  - rimantas 14y ago
    > Given that Mac OSX is on the rise on the popularity scale > I am almost dead positive we will see a lot of increase > in malware for OSX This was repeated so many times, over so many years. Yet OS8-9 had more viruses in the wild despite much smaller market share.
  - demallien 14y ago
    But of course going forward the vast majority of Mac users are going to be getting their software through the Mac App Store, and not downloading random programs off the internet. That plus the default GateKeeper config (that prevents unsigned code from being installed) will dramatically reduce the risk of the average user getting hit by trojans on the Mac platform.
- technoslut 14y ago
  The recent major issue was a trojan that I didn't have. >In other words, if I always follow responsible practices (never opening files from untrusted sources), has there been any threat up through now that could compromise my OSX installation? I don't think so but I think you know that otherwise you would not be here. While this story has been posted recently, Apple has removed such articles on their site a few months ago. The ID10T's, as some put it, should be on iOS. This is yet another reason why PCs should only be for professionals.
ryegye24 14y ago
>"Safeguard your data. By doing nothing." For a brief moment after reading that I had to consider if the article was satire.
zdw 14y ago
"It doesn't get PC viruses" will, by definition, always be true. It's just not as relevant as it used to be, as Windows is much better in this regard today. If anything, this change is a nod to how the computing industry has moved on - using a Mac is no longer PC virus avoidance, but more "use this because it's great". That said, most of the "virus" writers have turned to spyware and adware, and other scummy malware that demands money, and there is nearly none of this on OS X.
- nathan_long 14y ago
  >> "It doesn't get PC viruses" will, by definition, always be true. Until someone writes a 2-in-1 virus that can infect cross-platform.
  - sigzero 14y ago
    Then by definition it is not just "PC".
    - abcd_f 14y ago
      It's still a "PC virus."
      - calinet6 14y ago
        Does someone actually need to say this is an asinine technicality that isn't relevant to the discussion? Good.
  - josephcooney 14y ago
    In biology they call this a pandemic.
- warp 14y ago
  Only if you define PC to exclude macs.
- paulmcpazzi 14y ago
brudgers 14y ago
According to Sophos U.S. senior technology consultant Graham Cluley, this is a sign that Apple is starting to take security seriously. "I view the changes in the messages pushed out by their marketing department as some important baby-steps," he wrote in a blog entry. The idea that the removal of technical falsehoods from Apple marketing copy represents a watershed moment in their attitude toward the security of their customers' computers is based upon a bar set remarkably low.
- einhverfr 14y ago
  I keep trying to find a way to set it lower but I can't. Maybe someone can help me.
  - mkaltenecker 14y ago
    You can’t set a bar for Apple because they just say nothing at all. Interpreting Apple is akin to reading tea leaves. It’s not a low bar, it’s just that Apple never says anything.
    - iuguy 14y ago
      That means the bar is glued to the floor. OS vendors should be looking to help their users have a more secure experience, not finally getting around to stop lying about security through obscurity as a positive feature because they're no longer obscure enough.
      - shinratdr 14y ago
        > not finally getting around to stop lying about security through obscurity as a positive feature because they're no longer obscure enough. That isn't what happened. It used to be true, now it's not so they changed it. Security through obscurity was a positive feature, there is little denying it. Just because it wasn't going to last doesn't make it positive and just because you think it's not something they should be touting doesn't make it a lie. > OS vendors should be looking to help their users have a more secure experience For the record, Apple has been working on OS X anti-malware since 2009 when Snow Leopard was released. It was a pretty cursory effort yes, but considering Microsoft hadn't even released MSE yet at that point it's still not bad. Marketing and engineering are two different departments. Just because someone is writing dumb copy about security in the marketing department doesn't even begin to indicate how engineers are tackling security issues in practice. In other words, Apple is both helping users to have a more secure experience (what do you think Gatekeeper is for?) and rolling back their boastful copy now that it's no longer true. How is that a bad thing?
philip1209 14y ago
This may be an offshoot of having an engineer as CEO - bringing a degree of rationality to the marketing campaigns.
esonderegger 14y ago
I love the way the article only quotes two people, both from companies that sell antivirus software. Not that their views should ignored just because of who they work for, but their self-interest was clear. The first suggests that Apple should be encouraging their users to install antivirus software. My understanding is that Apple's position is the opposite: 3rd party antivirus software on OSX provides so little extra security that it is not recommended. Does anyone know of a 3rd party antivirus application that would have stopped flashback? The second suggests Apple should do more to support older versions of OSX. I view it as a positive, security-wise, that Apple does such a good job of keeping its OSX users current. Mainly it does this by making new versions affordable, but discontinuing support for old versions is an important part of that.
- trotsky 14y ago
  Mac OS X Security Configuration Guide: https://ssl.apple.com/support/security/guides/docs/SnowLeopard_Security_Config_v10.6.pdf https://ssl.apple.com/support/security/guides/docs/SnowLeopa... Installing antivirus tools helps prevent infection of your computer by viruses, and helps prevent your computer from becoming a host used to spread viruses to other computers. These tools quickly identify suspicious content and compare them to known malicious content. Quoting the Snow leopard one since that seems to be the most recent. They've also used stronger wording in the past: "Apple encourages the widespread use of multiple antivirus utilities so that virus programmers have more than one application to circumvent, thus making the whole virus writing process more difficult." and "Regularly check for viruses on your hard disk using an anti-virus program, especially if you download files from the Internet or share files with others." While I agree that the state of AV software is generally rather poor and provides weak protection, I'd be surprised if the major AV choices didn't prevent a flashback infection at least by the time it had become commonly talked about.
mkr-hn 14y ago
Apple tried to claim Apple PCs were special, but it didn't remove the single biggest hazard to any claim of security. PC means personal computer, which means a system owned by millions of people without the technical skill to assess whether or not that attachment (whether it's birthday_card.dmg or birthday_card.exe) really came from grandma. All PCs are vulnerable to users. I'm glad Apple figured it out a few years sooner than Microsoft did.
- slurgfest 14y ago
  How do you figure that 'Apple figured it out a few years sooner than Microsoft did'? I don't endorse Windows. But for all Windows' brokenness, Microsoft has not claimed invulnerability to viruses and has put a significant amount of effort into improving security from XP to today. The main reason it has had more trouble with malware is that it has been a much more popular platform, meaning that is where all the victims are.
  - mkr-hn 14y ago
    Microsoft didn't make the same claims, but they showed the same lax attitude toward security for years. Apple only needed to see a few malware outbreaks to come to terms with reality.
- josephcooney 14y ago
  >> I'm glad Apple figured it out a few years sooner than Microsoft did. When exactly are you claiming that Apple "figured it out"? Because Microsoft's Trustworthy Computing Initiative kicked off in 2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trustworthy_computing#Microsoft_and_Trustworthy_Computing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trustworthy_computing#Microsoft... From what I've seen inside of MS security trumps everything else. Want to change an API? You can't...unless it has a security issue in which case go right ahead.
  - mkr-hn 14y ago
    Apple took the claim down less than a year after a big malware outbreak. 2002 is quite a few years after malware authors started targeting Windows.
mbq 14y ago
Microsoft should put "doesn't get Mac viruses" on Windows.com.
- MartinCron 14y ago
  Similarly, I always tell people that I don't get Dutch Elm Disease. Puts a lot of concerns to rest.
jiggy2011 14y ago
Apple seem to be less interested in comparing themselves to MS and PCs in general these days. In ~2005 their entire marketing was based around trying to sell you a Mac as a PC replacement "Your next PC should be a Mac". I guess they are less interested now because it's a smaller % of their revenue and most of the people who would want/can afford a Mac are already giving them plenty of money so there's no desperate need to increase their market share in that area.
- idspispopd 14y ago
  Also security on the whole has improved across all platforms. When Apple began to market themselves as immune from 'PC viruses', the Windows platform was besieged in drive by downloads and massive, highly publicised infections.
- silvestrov 14y ago
  Apple's current focus is iPhone and iPad. Microsoft has zero market share in the table market ("there is no tablet market, there is an iPad market"), and a very small share in the mobile phone market. When you are #1 in a market, you don't do comparisons. The Apple Stores are probably the best marketing the Mac can ever get. So it's better for Apple to spend money on the stores than on making TV ads for the Mac. And so they have: http://www.asymco.com/2012/06/25/the-face-and-the-brand/ http://www.asymco.com/2012/06/25/the-face-and-the-brand/
  - technel 14y ago
    It's pretty clear that the next Microsoft v. Apple war is being waged in the tablet market (the show is over for cellphones -- Apple won). Traditionally Microsoft hasn't done well at competing with Apple on their own turf (mobile, mp3 players, etc), but it'll be interesting to see what the Microsoft Surface means for all of this.
    - mrich 14y ago
      Apple won big in smartphones, but Android has a bigger marketshare. Competition between all smartphone vendors have made the customer the biggest winner in any case.
Uchikoma 14y ago
Title should be "Apple (Quietly) Pulls Claims of PC Virus Immunity".
mkaltenecker 14y ago
Being immune to PC viruses used to be a great advantage. You can talk about theoretical possibilities all day long, in practical terms the difference used to huge. Apple’s marketing exploited that – and why shouldn’t they? Microsoft, however, has improved massively and that advantage is just not longer there. PC viruses still don’t affect OS X – but they also don’t affect any modern Windows very often.
reidmain 14y ago
"Let's hope more Apple Mac owners are also learning to take important security steps -- such as installing antivirus protection." This is the worst possible step to take. When I switch someone over to Mac I take the opportunity to recalibrate how they see their computer as secure. I teach them to be more aware of what they are doing and how potential viruses could infect them. I find this is 100x more effective than installing antivirus software which is shit most of the time and instills a fake sense of security. I had a family member who would always click "OK" whenever a window popped up in Windows or would blindly enter in their password because they figured Windows was just annoying them. When they got their Mac I taught them that whenever OS X opened up a window asking for their password or asked them if they really wanted to open up a file, they should freak the hell out and be 100% sure of why that box appeared. I actually got a couple of phone calls from them asking if certain popups were OK. Sure this was annoying at first but after a week or two they started to understand why these things were happening. The great benefit of changing their way of thinking and making security a priority was that when Flashback hit I told them that disabling plugins was one of the best ways to prevent from being infected and they immediately accepted this. Macs are not 100% secure. No one should be under any delusions of this. But teaching people why they are not secure is the solution. Not hiding behind POS antivirus software.
- calinet6 14y ago
  Great solution. This is the right attitude toward security in any case, Mac or PC. You can't neglect safe driving just because your car has air bags, yet I see that exact problem on computers with anti-virus all the time. Macs actually do make it easier because they have a pretty good track record of not "crying wolf" with things such as password prompts or security warnings. Most of the pop-ups are justified and infrequent. Macs have never been 100% secure. No computer is. Apple pulling this marketing has nothing to do with a reduction in security and everything to do with covering their legal butts as their platform becomes more popular and more targeted. It's still the user's responsibility to keep themselves safe in the end, even with a decently secure OS.
- idspispopd 14y ago
  Sophos and Kapersky like to allude that their software provides all the protection a user requires. Which I agree is the wrong way to approach security. They have also alluded to the idea that their software would have protected systems against the flashback malware, which is of course false. Tediously, antivirus software provides a consistent vector into a machine, indeed as seen on Windows, the antivirus software is merely a consideration for the virus writer. 10.8 will feature a number of security enhancements which make the statement 'Apple is starting to take security seriously', an understatement designed to deliberately instil a sense of doubt. Two such examples are the improved kernel address space layout randomisation and the new signed-only code default aka 'gatekeeper'.
thebigshane 14y ago
Can anyone here speak to the risk to FreeBSD (or other BSDs)? As MacOS becomes more of a target, how much more vulnerable does FreeBSD become?
- tedunangst 14y ago
  Most BSDs aren't running stuff like Bonjour which increases exposure to the network.
  - tensor 14y ago
    Bonjour is just Apple's name for zero config networking which most Linux and BSD distributions do support to various degrees.
    - tedunangst 14y ago
      I was under the impression it also did file server and printer discovery among other things. I know OpenBSD doesn't do that out of the box.
- hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
  Most vulnerabilities are unrelated to the actual OS stack and exploit other stuff. In that particular case is even wrong to say it was a "Mac virus", since it was a Java exploit and could have affected any system with Java installed. The point is that it remained unpatched for too long on Apple's Software Update.
- duaneb 14y ago
  Most of the shared bits of Darwin and FreeBSD are the userland and (I think?) libc.
- GeneralMaximus 14y ago
  OS X != FreeBSD. It has a bunch of userland tools that are ported over from FreeBSD, and IIRC a large part of the network stack is from FreeBSD, but that doesn't mean OS X itself is FreeBSD.
fjorder 14y ago
While Apple's install base is steadily growing, I still think they have a significant advantage in obscurity that grants them security. i.e. Why do virus-writers target Windows? Sure, it has the largest install base, but Windows also runs a lot of servers and embedded systems. These two things are the real jackpots. What's taking control of one person's computer compared to taking control of a server with credit card information or a system running a billboard in Times square? Apple doesn't do embedded systems and their servers, while some do exist, are exceedingly rare. Is security through obscurity enough though? That depends on who you are and how interesting your data is.
- yalogin 14y ago
  What do you mean by obscurity? Which level of the system are referring to? You seem to indicate that Windows is somehow open. Can you explain what you have in mind?
  - fjorder 14y ago
    I said what I meant by "obscurity" and I did not say anything about Windows being open, but I'll restate things in other words in case it clears things up. OSX and iOS are used predominantly to run personal computing devices. In addition to PC's, Windows also runs a significant number of the world's servers (although Linux dominates here) and embedded systems (see http://www.microsoft.com/windowsembedded/en-us/windows-embedded.aspx http://www.microsoft.com/windowsembedded/en-us/windows-embed...). Despite OSX and iOS gaining significant market share, virus-writers may still find that the sweetest targets are disproportionately running windows. OSX and iOS are more "obscure" in the sense that they don't run many of the systems virus-writers want to target.
cldrope 14y ago
This is a great step. I am personally pretty hateful of Apple's decisions as far as hardware lockdown and restrictive use, but it's a tradeoff they offer customers and many consider it a good deal. That aside, being more security minded as opposed to claiming immunity for marketing purposes is a fantastic move and one to be applauded by the tech community.
Someone 14y ago
This is somewhat of link bait. Yes, they changed the wording on their site, but what do you expect them to do in addition? Plan a press conference about the change? Have a press release? Of course it is "quietly"; Apple has product upgrades that they do not feel worthy of a press release. Back to the subject: this possibly/partly is a response to the outcome of a complaint at an advertising complaints commission in the Netherlands (correlation is present, but the Dutch Apple site still had the original text while the US site had the updated text). They got the short end of the stick there, but the commission cannot do more than naming and shaming (https://www.reclamecode.nl/webuitspraak.asp?ID=76881&acCode https://www.reclamecode.nl/webuitspraak.asp?ID=76881&acC...)
jodoglevy 14y ago
Good to see Apple not contributing to the "Macs can't get viruses," "Macs can't get spam" misinformation any longer. Users need to learn to defend themselves, not just rely on the OS, which can't really protect users from phishing attacks. Reminds me of this post: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4004154 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4004154
jpxxx 14y ago
Free and unprofessional advice on how to avoid Mac malware and headaches: - DO NOT INSTALL A VIDEO CODEC PACKAGE - DO NOT RUN COPIED OR TORRENTED SOFTWARE - DO NOT DOWNLOAD ANTIVIRUS PACKAGES OR "SYSTEM CHECKERS" - Enable Firewall (System Preferences -> Security -> Firewall Tab) - Uninstall Adobe Acrobat Reader unless your PDF workflow absolutely requires it - Disable Java immediately (Spotlight Magnifying Glass -> 'Java Preferences' application. Uninstall Java entirely for extra credit.) - Make sure Adobe Flash is at the dead latest self-updating version and set to auto-update (System Preferences -> Flash. Must be 11.3.x.x or greater) - Update all non-stock browsers to self-updating versions (Name of browser -> Updates...) - Allow Microsoft Office to check for updates weekly. (Help -> Check for Updates) - Allow Software Update to do its thing, at least weekly (System Preferences -> Software Update)
lawnchair_larry 14y ago
This article invokes a memory of reading one of PG's essays about the PR machine seeding news stories. http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

184 points by w1ntermute 14y ago

ghurlman 14y ago

I don't think it's a sign of Apple taking security seriously as much as it is a lawyer avoiding liability suits.

s_henry_paulson 14y ago
I think any competent PR representative would have inevitably pulled those statements, as they were never true even when they were written.
- Zr40 14y ago
  Untrue. This[0] is what was written in 2010: > The Mac is designed with built-in technologies that provide > protection against malicious software and security threats > right out of the box. However, since no system can be 100 > percent immune from every threat, antivirus software may > offer additional protection. Something similar is still present in today's security page: http://www.apple.com/osx/what-is/security.html http://www.apple.com/osx/what-is/security.html (near the bottom) [0]: http://web.archive.org/web/20100123154433/http://www.apple.com/macosx/security/ http://web.archive.org/web/20100123154433/http://www.apple.c...

allaun1 14y ago

I'm mildly surprised no one has sued over this yet. And since I keep seeing the mantra that flashback is a trojan. Here's some history: http://mac-antivirus-software-review.toptenreviews.com/history-of-macintosh-viruses.html http://mac-antivirus-software-review.toptenreviews.com/histo...

demallien 14y ago
Considering the effort that Apple marketing has made to make it clear that "Macs" and "PCs" are not the same thing, it would be very difficult to win a case, as Macs clearly don't getinfected by "PC" viruses. Which is not to say that your stement is wrong - it is surprising that nobody has tried to sue, even if they would almost certainly lose...

muraiki 14y ago

Wow, I had no idea that they said stuff like that on their site. Even though it specifies "PC viruses," the average computer user doesn't understand the distinction. Just last night a relative mentioned how Macs don't get viruses (which I corrected).

recursive 14y ago
Are macs not PCs? Perhaps I'm an average user, but I thought PC stood for "personal computer".
- duiker101 14y ago
  you know... "Think different". They cannot have even the smallest thing in common... or at least that's what they want people to think.
  - batista 14y ago
    Really? That must be why when they switched to Intel they touted the compatibility, and why the even offer a utility called "BootCamp" to easily run Windows on your Mac, with automatic re-partitioning, hw drivers, et al.
    - duiker101 14y ago
      You know that, i know that, but let's ask some of those people that actually think that Macs do not get viruses because they are better...
      - batista 14y ago
        Well, they must be doing something right at Cupertino, because they really don't get viruses. Not theoretically of future-wise: practically. 99.9% of things reported (and even those are not that many to begin with) are trojans. So, Mac viruses are like the Yeti, they might well exist, but very few people have seen them in real life. It's not just market share either. OS8/9 had several viruses with 1/5 the market share OS X has now. If one considers that OS X is basically NeXTStep, and essentially a UNIX, do one really sees many viruses in UNIX systems? What I'm getting at is that the "administrator privileges by default", "can fuck with any file on the system" feature of Windows --up to Windows XP, which is where viruses really reigned, was not part of OS X from the beginning. So, at worst, OS X since 10.0 was as secure as Windows Vista, which was not a swiss cheese OS like, say, Windows 98. Plus, OS X didn't have Active X, either, and used a custom PDF viewing (Acrobat is another common attack vector in Wintels). Now, with the eviction of Flash and Java plugins as the default, and several other techniques (sandboxing, ASLR, signatures, etc), things will get even better.

crazygringo 14y ago

I'm genuinely curious... are there viruses that spread in OSX? Not trojans or whatnot that require users to click on files they shouldn't, but rather actual viruses that make use of vulnerabilities in OSX to spread from computer to computer, either via Internet or thumb drives or something? In other words, if I always follow responsible practices (never opening files from untrusted sources), has there been any threat up through now that could compromise my OSX installation?

jlouis 14y ago
The real question to ask is not "Has there been?" but "Will there be?" Given that Mac OSX is on the rise on the popularity scale I am almost dead positive we will see a lot of increase in malware for OSX, even remote attacks where the user will be infected even if he acts sensibly. The risk of that happening to you though is fairly low. The risk of clicking something and then getting malware through that is way higher, from a risk point of view.
- rimantas 14y ago
  > Given that Mac OSX is on the rise on the popularity scale > I am almost dead positive we will see a lot of increase > in malware for OSX This was repeated so many times, over so many years. Yet OS8-9 had more viruses in the wild despite much smaller market share.
- demallien 14y ago
  But of course going forward the vast majority of Mac users are going to be getting their software through the Mac App Store, and not downloading random programs off the internet. That plus the default GateKeeper config (that prevents unsigned code from being installed) will dramatically reduce the risk of the average user getting hit by trojans on the Mac platform.
technoslut 14y ago
The recent major issue was a trojan that I didn't have. >In other words, if I always follow responsible practices (never opening files from untrusted sources), has there been any threat up through now that could compromise my OSX installation? I don't think so but I think you know that otherwise you would not be here. While this story has been posted recently, Apple has removed such articles on their site a few months ago. The ID10T's, as some put it, should be on iOS. This is yet another reason why PCs should only be for professionals.

ryegye24 14y ago

>"Safeguard your data. By doing nothing." For a brief moment after reading that I had to consider if the article was satire.

zdw 14y ago

"It doesn't get PC viruses" will, by definition, always be true. It's just not as relevant as it used to be, as Windows is much better in this regard today. If anything, this change is a nod to how the computing industry has moved on - using a Mac is no longer PC virus avoidance, but more "use this because it's great". That said, most of the "virus" writers have turned to spyware and adware, and other scummy malware that demands money, and there is nearly none of this on OS X.

nathan_long 14y ago
>> "It doesn't get PC viruses" will, by definition, always be true. Until someone writes a 2-in-1 virus that can infect cross-platform.
- sigzero 14y ago
  Then by definition it is not just "PC".
  - abcd_f 14y ago
    It's still a "PC virus."
    - calinet6 14y ago
      Does someone actually need to say this is an asinine technicality that isn't relevant to the discussion? Good.
- josephcooney 14y ago
  In biology they call this a pandemic.
warp 14y ago
Only if you define PC to exclude macs.
paulmcpazzi 14y ago

brudgers 14y ago

According to Sophos U.S. senior technology consultant Graham Cluley, this is a sign that Apple is starting to take security seriously. "I view the changes in the messages pushed out by their marketing department as some important baby-steps," he wrote in a blog entry. The idea that the removal of technical falsehoods from Apple marketing copy represents a watershed moment in their attitude toward the security of their customers' computers is based upon a bar set remarkably low.

einhverfr 14y ago
I keep trying to find a way to set it lower but I can't. Maybe someone can help me.
- mkaltenecker 14y ago
  You can’t set a bar for Apple because they just say nothing at all. Interpreting Apple is akin to reading tea leaves. It’s not a low bar, it’s just that Apple never says anything.
  - iuguy 14y ago
    That means the bar is glued to the floor. OS vendors should be looking to help their users have a more secure experience, not finally getting around to stop lying about security through obscurity as a positive feature because they're no longer obscure enough.
    - shinratdr 14y ago
      > not finally getting around to stop lying about security through obscurity as a positive feature because they're no longer obscure enough. That isn't what happened. It used to be true, now it's not so they changed it. Security through obscurity was a positive feature, there is little denying it. Just because it wasn't going to last doesn't make it positive and just because you think it's not something they should be touting doesn't make it a lie. > OS vendors should be looking to help their users have a more secure experience For the record, Apple has been working on OS X anti-malware since 2009 when Snow Leopard was released. It was a pretty cursory effort yes, but considering Microsoft hadn't even released MSE yet at that point it's still not bad. Marketing and engineering are two different departments. Just because someone is writing dumb copy about security in the marketing department doesn't even begin to indicate how engineers are tackling security issues in practice. In other words, Apple is both helping users to have a more secure experience (what do you think Gatekeeper is for?) and rolling back their boastful copy now that it's no longer true. How is that a bad thing?

philip1209 14y ago

This may be an offshoot of having an engineer as CEO - bringing a degree of rationality to the marketing campaigns.

esonderegger 14y ago

I love the way the article only quotes two people, both from companies that sell antivirus software. Not that their views should ignored just because of who they work for, but their self-interest was clear. The first suggests that Apple should be encouraging their users to install antivirus software. My understanding is that Apple's position is the opposite: 3rd party antivirus software on OSX provides so little extra security that it is not recommended. Does anyone know of a 3rd party antivirus application that would have stopped flashback? The second suggests Apple should do more to support older versions of OSX. I view it as a positive, security-wise, that Apple does such a good job of keeping its OSX users current. Mainly it does this by making new versions affordable, but discontinuing support for old versions is an important part of that.

trotsky 14y ago
Mac OS X Security Configuration Guide: https://ssl.apple.com/support/security/guides/docs/SnowLeopard_Security_Config_v10.6.pdf https://ssl.apple.com/support/security/guides/docs/SnowLeopa... Installing antivirus tools helps prevent infection of your computer by viruses, and helps prevent your computer from becoming a host used to spread viruses to other computers. These tools quickly identify suspicious content and compare them to known malicious content. Quoting the Snow leopard one since that seems to be the most recent. They've also used stronger wording in the past: "Apple encourages the widespread use of multiple antivirus utilities so that virus programmers have more than one application to circumvent, thus making the whole virus writing process more difficult." and "Regularly check for viruses on your hard disk using an anti-virus program, especially if you download files from the Internet or share files with others." While I agree that the state of AV software is generally rather poor and provides weak protection, I'd be surprised if the major AV choices didn't prevent a flashback infection at least by the time it had become commonly talked about.

mkr-hn 14y ago

Apple tried to claim Apple PCs were special, but it didn't remove the single biggest hazard to any claim of security. PC means personal computer, which means a system owned by millions of people without the technical skill to assess whether or not that attachment (whether it's birthday_card.dmg or birthday_card.exe) really came from grandma. All PCs are vulnerable to users. I'm glad Apple figured it out a few years sooner than Microsoft did.

slurgfest 14y ago
How do you figure that 'Apple figured it out a few years sooner than Microsoft did'? I don't endorse Windows. But for all Windows' brokenness, Microsoft has not claimed invulnerability to viruses and has put a significant amount of effort into improving security from XP to today. The main reason it has had more trouble with malware is that it has been a much more popular platform, meaning that is where all the victims are.
- mkr-hn 14y ago
  Microsoft didn't make the same claims, but they showed the same lax attitude toward security for years. Apple only needed to see a few malware outbreaks to come to terms with reality.
josephcooney 14y ago
>> I'm glad Apple figured it out a few years sooner than Microsoft did. When exactly are you claiming that Apple "figured it out"? Because Microsoft's Trustworthy Computing Initiative kicked off in 2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trustworthy_computing#Microsoft_and_Trustworthy_Computing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trustworthy_computing#Microsoft... From what I've seen inside of MS security trumps everything else. Want to change an API? You can't...unless it has a security issue in which case go right ahead.
- mkr-hn 14y ago
  Apple took the claim down less than a year after a big malware outbreak. 2002 is quite a few years after malware authors started targeting Windows.

mbq 14y ago

Microsoft should put "doesn't get Mac viruses" on Windows.com.

MartinCron 14y ago
Similarly, I always tell people that I don't get Dutch Elm Disease. Puts a lot of concerns to rest.

jiggy2011 14y ago

Apple seem to be less interested in comparing themselves to MS and PCs in general these days. In ~2005 their entire marketing was based around trying to sell you a Mac as a PC replacement "Your next PC should be a Mac". I guess they are less interested now because it's a smaller % of their revenue and most of the people who would want/can afford a Mac are already giving them plenty of money so there's no desperate need to increase their market share in that area.

idspispopd 14y ago
Also security on the whole has improved across all platforms. When Apple began to market themselves as immune from 'PC viruses', the Windows platform was besieged in drive by downloads and massive, highly publicised infections.
silvestrov 14y ago
Apple's current focus is iPhone and iPad. Microsoft has zero market share in the table market ("there is no tablet market, there is an iPad market"), and a very small share in the mobile phone market. When you are #1 in a market, you don't do comparisons. The Apple Stores are probably the best marketing the Mac can ever get. So it's better for Apple to spend money on the stores than on making TV ads for the Mac. And so they have: http://www.asymco.com/2012/06/25/the-face-and-the-brand/ http://www.asymco.com/2012/06/25/the-face-and-the-brand/
- technel 14y ago
  It's pretty clear that the next Microsoft v. Apple war is being waged in the tablet market (the show is over for cellphones -- Apple won). Traditionally Microsoft hasn't done well at competing with Apple on their own turf (mobile, mp3 players, etc), but it'll be interesting to see what the Microsoft Surface means for all of this.
  - mrich 14y ago
    Apple won big in smartphones, but Android has a bigger marketshare. Competition between all smartphone vendors have made the customer the biggest winner in any case.

Uchikoma 14y ago

Title should be "Apple (Quietly) Pulls Claims of PC Virus Immunity".

mkaltenecker 14y ago

Being immune to PC viruses used to be a great advantage. You can talk about theoretical possibilities all day long, in practical terms the difference used to huge. Apple’s marketing exploited that – and why shouldn’t they? Microsoft, however, has improved massively and that advantage is just not longer there. PC viruses still don’t affect OS X – but they also don’t affect any modern Windows very often.

reidmain 14y ago

"Let's hope more Apple Mac owners are also learning to take important security steps -- such as installing antivirus protection." This is the worst possible step to take. When I switch someone over to Mac I take the opportunity to recalibrate how they see their computer as secure. I teach them to be more aware of what they are doing and how potential viruses could infect them. I find this is 100x more effective than installing antivirus software which is shit most of the time and instills a fake sense of security. I had a family member who would always click "OK" whenever a window popped up in Windows or would blindly enter in their password because they figured Windows was just annoying them. When they got their Mac I taught them that whenever OS X opened up a window asking for their password or asked them if they really wanted to open up a file, they should freak the hell out and be 100% sure of why that box appeared. I actually got a couple of phone calls from them asking if certain popups were OK. Sure this was annoying at first but after a week or two they started to understand why these things were happening. The great benefit of changing their way of thinking and making security a priority was that when Flashback hit I told them that disabling plugins was one of the best ways to prevent from being infected and they immediately accepted this. Macs are not 100% secure. No one should be under any delusions of this. But teaching people why they are not secure is the solution. Not hiding behind POS antivirus software.

calinet6 14y ago
Great solution. This is the right attitude toward security in any case, Mac or PC. You can't neglect safe driving just because your car has air bags, yet I see that exact problem on computers with anti-virus all the time. Macs actually do make it easier because they have a pretty good track record of not "crying wolf" with things such as password prompts or security warnings. Most of the pop-ups are justified and infrequent. Macs have never been 100% secure. No computer is. Apple pulling this marketing has nothing to do with a reduction in security and everything to do with covering their legal butts as their platform becomes more popular and more targeted. It's still the user's responsibility to keep themselves safe in the end, even with a decently secure OS.
idspispopd 14y ago
Sophos and Kapersky like to allude that their software provides all the protection a user requires. Which I agree is the wrong way to approach security. They have also alluded to the idea that their software would have protected systems against the flashback malware, which is of course false. Tediously, antivirus software provides a consistent vector into a machine, indeed as seen on Windows, the antivirus software is merely a consideration for the virus writer. 10.8 will feature a number of security enhancements which make the statement 'Apple is starting to take security seriously', an understatement designed to deliberately instil a sense of doubt. Two such examples are the improved kernel address space layout randomisation and the new signed-only code default aka 'gatekeeper'.

thebigshane 14y ago

Can anyone here speak to the risk to FreeBSD (or other BSDs)? As MacOS becomes more of a target, how much more vulnerable does FreeBSD become?

tedunangst 14y ago
Most BSDs aren't running stuff like Bonjour which increases exposure to the network.
- tensor 14y ago
  Bonjour is just Apple's name for zero config networking which most Linux and BSD distributions do support to various degrees.
  - tedunangst 14y ago
    I was under the impression it also did file server and printer discovery among other things. I know OpenBSD doesn't do that out of the box.
hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
Most vulnerabilities are unrelated to the actual OS stack and exploit other stuff. In that particular case is even wrong to say it was a "Mac virus", since it was a Java exploit and could have affected any system with Java installed. The point is that it remained unpatched for too long on Apple's Software Update.
duaneb 14y ago
Most of the shared bits of Darwin and FreeBSD are the userland and (I think?) libc.
GeneralMaximus 14y ago
OS X != FreeBSD. It has a bunch of userland tools that are ported over from FreeBSD, and IIRC a large part of the network stack is from FreeBSD, but that doesn't mean OS X itself is FreeBSD.

fjorder 14y ago

While Apple's install base is steadily growing, I still think they have a significant advantage in obscurity that grants them security. i.e. Why do virus-writers target Windows? Sure, it has the largest install base, but Windows also runs a lot of servers and embedded systems. These two things are the real jackpots. What's taking control of one person's computer compared to taking control of a server with credit card information or a system running a billboard in Times square? Apple doesn't do embedded systems and their servers, while some do exist, are exceedingly rare. Is security through obscurity enough though? That depends on who you are and how interesting your data is.

yalogin 14y ago
What do you mean by obscurity? Which level of the system are referring to? You seem to indicate that Windows is somehow open. Can you explain what you have in mind?
- fjorder 14y ago
  I said what I meant by "obscurity" and I did not say anything about Windows being open, but I'll restate things in other words in case it clears things up. OSX and iOS are used predominantly to run personal computing devices. In addition to PC's, Windows also runs a significant number of the world's servers (although Linux dominates here) and embedded systems (see http://www.microsoft.com/windowsembedded/en-us/windows-embedded.aspx http://www.microsoft.com/windowsembedded/en-us/windows-embed...). Despite OSX and iOS gaining significant market share, virus-writers may still find that the sweetest targets are disproportionately running windows. OSX and iOS are more "obscure" in the sense that they don't run many of the systems virus-writers want to target.

cldrope 14y ago

This is a great step. I am personally pretty hateful of Apple's decisions as far as hardware lockdown and restrictive use, but it's a tradeoff they offer customers and many consider it a good deal. That aside, being more security minded as opposed to claiming immunity for marketing purposes is a fantastic move and one to be applauded by the tech community.

Someone 14y ago

This is somewhat of link bait. Yes, they changed the wording on their site, but what do you expect them to do in addition? Plan a press conference about the change? Have a press release? Of course it is "quietly"; Apple has product upgrades that they do not feel worthy of a press release. Back to the subject: this possibly/partly is a response to the outcome of a complaint at an advertising complaints commission in the Netherlands (correlation is present, but the Dutch Apple site still had the original text while the US site had the updated text). They got the short end of the stick there, but the commission cannot do more than naming and shaming (https://www.reclamecode.nl/webuitspraak.asp?ID=76881&acCode https://www.reclamecode.nl/webuitspraak.asp?ID=76881&acC...)

jodoglevy 14y ago

Good to see Apple not contributing to the "Macs can't get viruses," "Macs can't get spam" misinformation any longer. Users need to learn to defend themselves, not just rely on the OS, which can't really protect users from phishing attacks. Reminds me of this post: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4004154 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4004154

jpxxx 14y ago

Free and unprofessional advice on how to avoid Mac malware and headaches: - DO NOT INSTALL A VIDEO CODEC PACKAGE - DO NOT RUN COPIED OR TORRENTED SOFTWARE - DO NOT DOWNLOAD ANTIVIRUS PACKAGES OR "SYSTEM CHECKERS" - Enable Firewall (System Preferences -> Security -> Firewall Tab) - Uninstall Adobe Acrobat Reader unless your PDF workflow absolutely requires it - Disable Java immediately (Spotlight Magnifying Glass -> 'Java Preferences' application. Uninstall Java entirely for extra credit.) - Make sure Adobe Flash is at the dead latest self-updating version and set to auto-update (System Preferences -> Flash. Must be 11.3.x.x or greater) - Update all non-stock browsers to self-updating versions (Name of browser -> Updates...) - Allow Microsoft Office to check for updates weekly. (Help -> Check for Updates) - Allow Software Update to do its thing, at least weekly (System Preferences -> Software Update)

lawnchair_larry 14y ago

This article invokes a memory of reading one of PG's essays about the PR machine seeding news stories. http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html