Could the days of the Mac's relative carefree lifestyle be soon threatened thanks to a growing user base, and thus becoming a more attractive target for hackers?
As much as we hear about Windows getting attacked and how OS X is safe, the fact is that OS X has never been tested in the same matters that Microsoft's operating systems have. Vista's also exceptionally more safe than any other Windows before it, with in some cases it being infected only a tenth as often as Windows XP.
I'll be interesting to see how Apple responds if there a considerable growth in Mac-attacks.
I have yet to find anything on my vista build and I've been using since the first month. The only crap on my system is Securom. I attribute this to having a brain, vista, and using firefox with adblock plus.
It's no different than before. It's just that more companies are wanting to produce software for MAC to have more market opportunity. OR, even better, Apple just wants to make more money by selling you ANTIVIRUS that they make after telling you that you need it.
ZERO will change.
This is just a money move.
I don't use antivirus. And I use Vista64 on my PC. And I have no problems. The best protection is to not be an idiot with what you do/click/download. And that's free.
[citation][nom]Myrdek[/nom]This completly contradicts studies that have proven that more than 1 antivirus is detrimental to computer security.It ends up creating more holes than it fixes[/citation]
I'd be interested in seeing some of those studies. It makes sense that each would open their own holes, but I've been under the impression that *generally* speaking, having say, 2 can be better because each can detect things the other can't. Obviously that's assuming the user knows how to optimize and use them so they don't interfere/slow things down.
It is that distrust to its own users that makes cracking that easy.
True that OSx is BSD-based, still they decided to close the source and thus they made the fatal move. Fatal for the OS, not for $$$ payed for antivirus software.
Nobody running proprietary closed-source stuff can dare to claim he's protected and secure. Nobody.
Nobody can claim his hardware is used 100%(especially quads or duos), unless he uses recompiled binary for his architecture. And you can't recompile if you dont have the source. Under *nix its as easy as "./config && make && sudo make install"
Again the trick to "sit home,don't talk to foreigners" doesn't work.
- We have botnet that is visiting your IP personally and try to sneak past to the core and "zombitize" remaining totally stealth.
- The vulnerability of closed-source software remains and always be legendary.
- The modern anti-malware software is NOT capable of detecting threats.
Let me explain:
1. MISTRUST IS THE REASON. OS and programs are closed source to prevent you from looking at(and stealing as they think) their "intellectual property"(theres no such term actually,but anyway). Note that professionally paid crackers(and those who are assigned to crack are specialists) use highly advanced methods. They get source anyway, unlike you - the target.
2. LEGAL=ILLEGAL. Software developers start using technologies similar to those used by virus and malware writers, again because of 1. This may protect THEM 'en masse for certain period. But not the special case on that target machine. It gets cracked.
3. SLOW. The protection mechanisms always have high impact on performance. In short it means drastically lowering efficiency compared to non-encoded,non-protected program running on the same hardware.
4. BETRAYING FRIENDS. Software developers, aware that you will never ever be able to see the source, will and do misuse their position to spy and collect data of your activities.
5. DISEASE MANAGEMENT. Antimalware fight has gone into professional status long ago. People are paid for fighting the malware. They have families and wishes, supported by that payments. No malware - no payment. This is the reason why all proprietary commercial systems will always be and keep "high malware compatibility".
6. MYTH OF SECURITY. The vulnerability of single piece of software may be detected and patched in the next version. Same applies to malware. As a result, antimalware software must store the database with all that vulnerabilities and check all your software against this list. This is NOT POSSIBLE now, as the process will take years and the database itself stretch over several DOZENS of GIGABYTES of compressed data, each byte of it must be tested with every single byte of running, actual to-protect system. Im not counting the impossibility to gather all vulnerabilities of all versions of all software in one place.
7. MYTH OF KNOWLEGDE AND TRUST. The technology of many viruses AND COPY-PROTECTION SYSTEMS, that gets applied on the software you use (see p2.), utilizes polymorphism and stealthiness. Same actions are implemented differently on-the-fly. This renders the protection mechanisms, described in p6 useless. To handle this, modern anti-malware uses semi-"intelligent" analysis(heuristics) and sandboxing, to detect the bad behaviour. Unfortunately, due to p.2, NO METHOD can guarantee that tested subject is 100% clean. Only showing program source can, but its not possible thanks to p1. You got false positives and undetected infection. ALWAYS. Antimalware companies start doing whitelists, for companies they BLIND-TRUST. This is the same as trusting a gigolo or prostitute. They even have a marketing dept for that. I will never understand how can anyone claim he is protected (??!) whilst his hardware is running closed-source program or even worse - operating system ?!
- zero cost.
- total openess and freedom. In every single aspect.
- total flexibility.
- high modularity.
- extreme development rate.
- highest protection/invention ratio among operating systems.
- extreme wide hardware and platform support, including lastest OpenGL(3.0) with shading support.
- huge goverment,military and company support. They contribute to upstream.
- huge fan base. Same, a lot of contribution.
I've been a MS user since '92 and their DOS 5.0. Yet I migrated to linux recent year and using it for all my tasks.
You get all free, open and secure. You can and should pay the developers. Your money will go straight to them. Its not that 4% contract salary. A lot of unneeded "managers", "directors" and "consultants" will be excluded from the list.
I was not a fan of Linux, or FOSS in general, until I did a deep analysis of what's going on with intention to save my time for productive work.
If you want to give it a try, ask distrowatch.com. And note, Linux doesn't and will never advertise itself. People are telling about their experiences, not fanatic marketing agents. Try it out, see if it works out.
[citation][nom]malveaux[/nom]Who cares?It's no different than before. It's just that more companies are wanting to produce software for MAC to have more market opportunity. OR, even better, Apple just wants to make more money by selling you ANTIVIRUS that they make after telling you that you need it.ZERO difference.ZERO will change.This is just a money move.I don't use antivirus. And I use Vista64 on my PC. And I have no problems. The best protection is to not be an idiot with what you do/click/download. And that's free.Cheers,[/citation]
Your argument is an interesting one, and I'm sure it has been argued almost as much as the PC/Mac debate. That approach may work for almost all cases but if your router's firewall goes crazy or shows an exploit at the same time there is a new bug in a service that is allowed through your software firewall (or a bug in the firewall itself)... ...you will still get infected. The cost and nuisance of a single, good anti-virus program is worth the extra layer of protection.
Your approach is only valid if, on that day you get a virus, you can tell immediately and remove it, including files in use.
Freeze all of the threads of the in-use files in each process, remove read permissions on their start entries in the registry, kill the threads, start looping batch scripts to delete the in-use files, kill winlogon and cause a bluescreen. Usually by the time the file system dies the files were freed long ago and your script deletes them, leaving you clean on reboot. Of course that still leaves the question of how you FOUND the infected files without A/V software...which I don't feel like typing out. It also assumes that the virus was not monitoring and instantly killing cmd, taskman, regedit, procexp, procmon, killbox and any number of other tools. That's a fun one to get around, too.
Users below this level need not apply unless you like reinstalling your OS.
MAC: Uhhhh PC
PC: What is it MAC
MAC: Well I've got this rash and it hurts when I pee.
PC: Oh thats a virus MAC, not to worry, I'm sure your anti-virus will get rid of it
MAC: My what?
PC: Don't you use protection MAC?
MAC: ???? Protection thats for PC's, I'm a MAC we don't get viruses!!!!
PC: Well you have one, and well your probably going to die from it.
PC: Yep you ****** yourself around around without being safe and now look at you.
PC: OH PC's are stuffy, Vista has annoying popups, BLA BLA BLA..... I hope you suffer!
MAC: Can't you help me PC!!! I'll be better I swear!
PC: Well I guess I could ask my DAD Bill gates, If he could pay for a doctor visit.
MAC: REALLY! Wow that's swell PC!! I love you PC.
PC: I love you to MAC.