It's Official: Apple Computers Are No Longer Virus-Free

[webfact]

It's Official: Apple Computers Are No Longer Virus-Free

One of Apple computers' key selling points -- besides their cultishness, their coolness, etc., etc. -- has been their resistance to viruses. Apple hardware is "built on the world's most advanced operating system," the company's site declares; and part of that system's sophistication, Apple has emphasized, has been an exceptionally strong immune system. PCs, Mac marketing has suggested, shun OJ and shirk on sleep and could probably stand to wash their hands a little more often; Mac machines, on the other hand, are effectively impervious to malware.

Well, were. Back in April, the Flashback botnet struck more than 600,000 Mac computers worldwide, with more than 300,000 of the machines affected in the U.S. Hackers searching for user information -- passwords, financial account numbers -- took advantage of a weakness in Java programs to gain access to Mac users' machines. Nearly 300 of April's Flashback attacks were aimed at Apple computers that were based in Cupertino itself.

Full story: http://www.theatlant...us-free/258902/

-- The Atlantic 2012-06-25

[nikster]

Even OLD Apple news is news LOL

Agree with the basic premise though: Apple Computers Are No Longer Virus-Free

Even though it's 1 vs 1 million in the Mac vs. Windows viruses out there. Good thing Flashback is no more.

[BeforeTigers]

I was always under the impression that Macs had fewer viruses because they had a smaller market share and programmers were less likely to focus on their systems- not that they were impervious.

[eTiMaGo]

I was always under the impression that Macs had fewer viruses because they had a smaller market share and programmers were less likely to focus on their systems- not that they were impervious.

That was true several years ago, but today, for personal use anyway, Macs are the computer of choice for a MUCH larger amount of people...

[ThaiLife]

I normally try to forgo the knee jerk reaction to comment on the on going tedious topic of Mac / Virus / Windows . Personally as a Mac user am I concerned about the possible growing virus vulnerabilities, well of course I am , in an ever changing technical landscape , it would be foolish not to be concerned. Putting the old Mac virus debate to one side , I personally use a Mac and OS X , as I find it just a real pleasure to use .

[stormnight]

one thing they always forget to mention about flashback virus, is that you need to put in your admin password for it to install.

convenient not to mention this.

Nothing protects against “stupidity”, you access a website, and it ask for you admin password?, oh lets put it in.

As far as I know, there is no mac virus, that can run without admin rights, so how do it get there the first place?

[belg]

lol, the only way mac was save for virri in the past, is because so little people used it, hackers were not interested... now with all the mac and iphone histeria, that is changing

it is like saying: my website, with 5 visitors per day, was never hacked... as no interest to be hacked by anyone

[supashot]

every year we see the same PR about Mac virus, I use Apple for more than 15 years never been infected. Flashback doesn't install itself it required the user to enter his admin password. Sorry but if you are dumb enough to give it it's called a stupidware not a virus.

[how241]

I was always under the impression that Macs had fewer viruses because they had a smaller market share and programmers were less likely to focus on their systems- not that they were impervious.

Yes, that was my understanding too.

[blakegeee]

I was always under the impression that Macs had fewer viruses because they had a smaller market share and programmers were less likely to focus on their systems- not that they were impervious.

Yes, that was my understanding too.

This "could" have been argued many years ago, but with the huge segment of mac computers nowadays, it proves your theory wrong. Macs make up a very significant part of the computers on the internet now. It is simply much more robust than windows and has much better security. Before going to Mac, i dealt with infected windows machines on many occasions and these machines had anti-virus/malware etc installed. Now there are way more virus' around, I have no sort of protection, I am online much more than I used to be and I have never experienced any sort of infection. I have many friends and family that use them also and I have never met anyone who has been infected on their mac.

[dave111223]

If you were going to write a virus would you focus on the 90% of people using Windows, or the 5% using Macs...

[blakegeee]

According to wiki, mac makes up over 9%, and windows less than 75%. That means that there is roughly 1 mac per 7.5 PCs. That is not such a small portion! Not to mention most hackers are doing it for fame, so if they can hack a supposedly "unhackable" system than they gain fame. Believe me, many people would love to successfully infect macs too but it isn't so easy! Talk to any "geek" and it is undisputed.

I just checked the users on my own website and 13% of them are using Mac and only 65% are using windows. I think that my website is probably more relative to what systems people use in western countries. Obviously more poor countries can't afford to use Macs as often. My point is, I suspect that the percentage of Mac users in western countries is much higher than the wiki link suggests. And I doubt that many hackers are too interested in infecting some poor kids playing video games on their old Pentium 1 box in Africa. So a hackers target market has a fair share of Mac users!

Edited June 25, 2012 by blakegeee

[sezze]

True , a Mac pc is less infected partially due to the software system which works different then a windows ( as far as i've been told by geeks ) . However , it is possible and given enough market share they will increase . It has no reason to write a virus which has to be made for mac to have only a few costumers . If you look in the western world , mac is increasing it's marketshare but this is only in the last years . In the east the marketshare is still a lot less . Most pc's , mac or windows still run unprotected , especially in the east , so it is still more attractive to work for windows . Also , people who do write virusses are limited . Many times the virusses on the market use the same loopholes in the system , and are just made from the root of another virus on the market . So 1 virus brings out 100 new ones . Since virusses in the long run has always been made for windows , they will always have the greatest market share .

Also , not to forget , that Apple makes pc's for the rich people . So they offer everything with a big premium ( in the pocket ) and 99% of the people working with a mac/apple only use original software , from smallest program to the most complicated . On pc's , many programs are downloaded from everywhere , some sources not as reliable as they should be . That is a bit like buying medicines over the internet , from a strange source . Some are good , other ones contain nothing and some contain unhealthy things .

BTW , linux is still unaffected by virusses as far as i know .

[woodyleonhard]

Phuket Gazette, May 21: Mac Attack

http://www.phuketgazette.net/archives/articles/2012/article16004.html

[ripstanley]

If a computer brand eg Apple say they are virus free is this not challenge to the virus inventors, It does not mater what there share of the market is. They love the challenge

[JackisBack]

Phuket Gazette, May 21: Mac Attack

http://www.phuketgaz...ticle16004.html

You don't be any chance make money by writing books about Windows stuff do you

[nikster]

Both factors are true - it's not that hard, really, neither one alone is the full story:

- Macs are harder to hack

- There are fewer Macs than Windows machines.

The Flashback virus was the first virus which initially worked as a drive-by virus through a Safari vulnerability - this has since been fixed, so once again, for any virus to enter your Mac, you need to enter your admin password.

Apple is doing the right things and cracking down on those 3rd party add-ons that might be vulnerable, like Java and Flash. Java is currently getting disabled if not used for a while as a sort of default fix - most people never use Java so this makes sense. The next version of the OS will sandbox all plug-ins, which is mainly a measure to fix Flash breakins.

OS X will also feature developer certificates which in theory should allow Apple to contain a malware outbreak completely as soon as they hear about it. Unless hackers find a way around the system, this will make writing malware just not worth it. If you come up with some super clever exploits only to find your certificate revoked once you've built a 10,000 machine botnet, then it might not be your while to start on it to begin with.

So I like what I see: Apple cannot guarantee a safe device - but they can make it dam_n hard to break in, and they do. They are not just patching individual exploits like Microsoft does seemingly every 2 weeks, they work on systems that disable entire classes of break-ins.

Apple's cat-and-mouse game with Jailbreakers on the iPhone is the blueprint on how this will play out. Currently Apple has the upper hand in this game. The Jailbreaks are slow to appear after an update, and they can be closed down easily. Jailbreaking is not a crime, and viruses don't spread this way, but if it did and Apple put a higher priority on it they could close down each of those jailbreaks within days.

[Jimi007]

True , a Mac pc is less infected partially due to the software system which works different then a windows ( as far as i've been told by geeks ) . However , it is possible and given enough market share they will increase . It has no reason to write a virus which has to be made for mac to have only a few costumers . If you look in the western world , mac is increasing it's marketshare but this is only in the last years . In the east the marketshare is still a lot less . Most pc's , mac or windows still run unprotected , especially in the east , so it is still more attractive to work for windows . Also , people who do write virusses are limited . Many times the virusses on the market use the same loopholes in the system , and are just made from the root of another virus on the market . So 1 virus brings out 100 new ones . Since virusses in the long run has always been made for windows , they will always have the greatest market share .

Also , not to forget , that Apple makes pc's for the rich people . So they offer everything with a big premium ( in the pocket ) and 99% of the people working with a mac/apple only use original software , from smallest program to the most complicated . On pc's , many programs are downloaded from everywhere , some sources not as reliable as they should be . That is a bit like buying medicines over the internet , from a strange source . Some are good , other ones contain nothing and some contain unhealthy things .

BTW , linux is still unaffected by virusses as far as i know .

You obviously aren't a geek and don't use a Mac as most of what you have said is utter nonsense!

[nikster]

True , a Mac pc is less infected partially due to the software system which works different then a windows ( as far as i've been told by geeks ) . However , it is possible and given enough market share they will increase . It has no reason to write a virus which has to be made for mac to have only a few costumers . If you look in the western world , mac is increasing it's marketshare but this is only in the last years . In the east the marketshare is still a lot less . Most pc's , mac or windows still run unprotected , especially in the east , so it is still more attractive to work for windows . Also , people who do write virusses are limited . Many times the virusses on the market use the same loopholes in the system , and are just made from the root of another virus on the market . So 1 virus brings out 100 new ones . Since virusses in the long run has always been made for windows , they will always have the greatest market share .

Also , not to forget , that Apple makes pc's for the rich people . So they offer everything with a big premium ( in the pocket ) and 99% of the people working with a mac/apple only use original software , from smallest program to the most complicated . On pc's , many programs are downloaded from everywhere , some sources not as reliable as they should be . That is a bit like buying medicines over the internet , from a strange source . Some are good , other ones contain nothing and some contain unhealthy things .

BTW , linux is still unaffected by virusses as far as i know .

You obviously aren't a geek and don't use a Mac as most of what you have said is utter nonsense!

Anything in particular you disagree with? I agree with @sezze's post I have to say... none of this is nonsense.

Not even the thing about Macs being bought by rich people. I just read that travel website Orbitz is showing Mac users more expensive hotels because their statistics show that Mac users on average book hotels that are 40% more expensive than their Windows counterparts. They don't pay more for the same hotel, they just book nicer hotels. Makes perfect sense, as in the same way they spend more money for a nicer and better machine...

[vijer]

OS X is basically a Unix derivative which is the biggest contributing factor to its ability to fend off viruses not because Apple did anything miraculous. Lynx machines are similarly virus free. The other major contributor to making Apple products less prone to viruses and system failures is the VERY LIMITED hardware and software profile. If you limit what can be put in the machine the chances of it malfunctioning are drastically reduced. Pick a Mac any Mac, what are your choices for a video card, one, and in very few cases two choices. What are your memory choices, again one or two and now with new Mac laptops the memory and physical drive are being soldered onto the mother board.

iOS is locked down so that Apple can ensure the software you buy will work without causing your iPhone/iPad to crash. It limits your choice of applications (application functions, the 100's of thousands of apps are all basically the same; a 100 different photo editors, a 100 different password managers, a 100 different social network apps, etc. not several hundred thousand uniquely different apps like Apple would mislead you to believe) but for the average user it makes for a better user experience and that is more important to your average user than variety.