Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: Wingnutt on January 12, 2010, 01:13:04 PM
-
A few months ago I pulled the trigger on a Mac Book Pro, and aside from some gaming, I never touch my PC any more. It had been quite a while since I had messed with an apple computing products and to say the lease, ALOT had changed. I really like OSX and the ability to ALSO run windows and all windows program pretty much eliminates any compatibility worries. Though so far I have not yet had to actually do that, every need Ive had has been fulfilled by a mac compatible program.
Well, now my desktop is finally starting to show its age a bit, Its a Athlon 64X2 6400 with 8gb of ram and a geforce 8800GTO. I can no longer run Aces high absolutly maxed out with all settings to full.. which as in the past has always been my "time to upgrade" indicator.
Im really, seriously, considering selling my PC for whatever I can get, and putting that amount towards a Mac Pro. The new Mac Pro will be coming out soon, As with all Macs there is the horrifying sticker shock, $2500 with no monitor to be exact. (I don't need a monitor though) Which normally I would be like most anyone else "thats insane, you can get a comparably capable PC for WAY less than that!' which I do think is true.. on paper.. But the data sheet really doesent, in this case, fully tell the entire story. As I got to actually look at, up close one of these monsters at a store the other day, and its just absolutely different. I love OSX, and already use it just about exclusively EXCEPT for games. ANd I really cannot stomach the idea of buying another windows product.
The new Pros are not listed on the site yet at the apple store. But they will be coming with the I9 Gulftown 6 core CPU as the base option (50% faster than the current quad core Xeon option), or Dual CPUs (12 cores) as an option, and support for up to 128GB of ram.
The rest of the specs I don't know (obviously) but No doubt it will be a monster.
But assuming the price doesnt jut up too much (rumors are it may actually be lower) I may very well have a target for my tax return bullet :rock
thoughts? comments? insults?
-
I was going to try to install OSX on my PC as a partition, but didn't have a DVD big enough to fit the 7 gig file. :(
Personally I'm going to ride with W7 as long as possible, it's a real great OS and what Vista shoulda been. I don't run any other XP systems in the household anymore (except my dad's XP laptop, but work won't let him upgrade).
-
A few months ago I pulled the trigger on a Mac Book Pro, and aside from some gaming, I never touch my PC any more. It had been quite a while since I had messed with an apple computing products and to say the lease, ALOT had changed. I really like OSX and the ability to ALSO run windows and all windows program pretty much eliminates any compatibility worries. Though so far I have not yet had to actually do that, every need Ive had has been fulfilled by a mac compatible program.
Well, now my desktop is finally starting to show its age a bit, Its a Athlon 64X2 6400 with 8gb of ram and a geforce 8800GTO. I can no longer run Aces high absolutly maxed out with all settings to full.. which as in the past has always been my "time to upgrade" indicator.
Im really, seriously, considering selling my PC for whatever I can get, and putting that amount towards a Mac Pro. The new Mac Pro will be coming out soon, As with all Macs there is the horrifying sticker shock, $2500 with no monitor to be exact. (I don't need a monitor though) Which normally I would be like most anyone else "thats insane, you can get a comparably capable PC for WAY less than that!' which I do think is true.. on paper.. But the data sheet really doesent, in this case, fully tell the entire story. As I got to actually look at, up close one of these monsters at a store the other day, and its just absolutely different. I love OSX, and already use it just about exclusively EXCEPT for games. ANd I really cannot stomach the idea of buying another windows product.
The new Pros are not listed on the site yet at the apple store. But they will be coming with the I9 Gulftown 6 core CPU as the base option (50% faster than the current quad core Xeon option), or Dual CPUs (12 cores) as an option, and support for up to 128GB of ram.
The rest of the specs I don't know (obviously) but No doubt it will be a monster.
But assuming the price doesnt jut up too much (rumors are it may actually be lower) I may very well have a target for my tax return bullet :rock
thoughts? comments? insults?
I would take a serious look at the new 27" iMac. It's not so pricey but granted also not so powerful. But it should play AH just fine and give all the mac benefits for a lot less.
If you plan to do some serious PC gaming a mac will be just shooting yourself to the leg financially. I can cover all my mac needs with this macbook pro - gaming I do on a watercooled + overclocked regular pc.
-
To me the real issues here are not "OS" related. They are vendor related...
what MAC has is a company controlled vertically integrated supply chain. What this achieves is an almost seamless product within the scope of the inherent limitations that the business model fosters. The real issue with any windows based (or open source) OS is compatibility. Less then 10% of the PC's on the planet are even minimally optimized and have significant integration issues. If you take any non "bloatware" PC right out of the box it's equally seamless to a MAC. However the moment you add software or reconfigure any hardware you have issues at the registry level. Even experienced builders build almost 100% of their systems with inherent incompatibility brought on by the openness of the methodology. Motherboards, Memory, CPU and peripherals are not truly seamlessly compatible. Once you add software things get worse. The flip side to this is that PC's have more hardware and software options then MAC's do. Further the top end software for a PC is almost invariably significantly better then anything a MAC can offer (beyond stability and ease of use). In then end with a MAC you pay significantly more for significantly less BUT you have the assurance that everything is in fact truly compatible. If you are in fact in the 1% of the population that actually has a properly configured PC (hardware & software) then the MAC has no real advantage...
-
Well the thing that kinda sells it for me, is that you almost get a 2 for 1. You can actually install windows on a mac, and it will run absolutely just like a PC would run it, no limitations, no problems.. so if somehow you run into a situation where you just HAVE TO HAVE a PC.. You do.. but if not you have OSX, which is in every way shape and for far superior in every way to any version of winblows, smaller footpriont, faster, easier to use, more control, no need for antivirus.. the list goes on and on.
I havent looked at the other macs, only the macbook pro (which I already have) and the desktop pro, and you literally cannot go wrong performance wise with them, the "base model" pro desktop is still a monster.
Add to that the build quality and design of the systems, which just ooze class and beauty, and suddenly the outrageous price tag, does seem so outrageous.
Of course budget and even more so "how you like to do things" really count.. If your like me, and want to just buy one badass system every couple of years, and just use and enjoy it and not have to worry any cooling, or reliability issues... just have a powerful machine that works every time all the time with no hitches then the MAC has obvious appeal.
But if you (like many people) really like constantly tweaking and fiddling with your gear, over clocking, water cooling, constantly meddling and toying with things, which I understand totally is a great source of enjoyment for some people, the the mac is a poor choice.
I used to LOVE to over clock and push the limits and all that, but at the ripe old age of 29, I just want a turn key beast that will run everything I need it to and never give me any crap about it.. And I know for sure the MAC will do that for me, So for me it is worth the price.
-
As long as you know what you're doing with it! Friend of mine is a Phone support rep for Apple and says he always gets people calling, he tells them "Alright, now shut the computer down" In response, he hears "OK, I'm hitting 'log off' now".
-
Just as much need for AV with a MAC as any other system...
http://www.switched.com/2009/09/01/apple-quietly-admits-macs-get-viruses/ (http://www.switched.com/2009/09/01/apple-quietly-admits-macs-get-viruses/)
-
Well, now my desktop is finally starting to show its age a bit, Its a Athlon 64X2 6400 with 8gb of ram and a geforce 8800GTO. I can no longer run Aces high absolutly maxed out with all settings to full.. which as in the past has always been my "time to upgrade" indicator.
thoughts? comments? insults?
I think something is a miss if you can not max out settings in Aces High with the hires pack and 1024 textures......... with your listed system above.....
although I am not too familiar with your listed videocard......
my system is almost same as yours except a tad lower on ram etc...
I have an AMD AthlonX2 6400 dualcore ( 3.2ghz ) and only 4 gigs of DDR2 ram and my videocard is EAH3870 TOP 512meg DDR4
I can easily max out with everything on highest settings and keep a solid 70 fps(70/69/70 tettering ) although my DELL Ultrasharp monitor is set for 1280x1024 screen ....... I even have my shadows set to 4096 in the Graphics advanced settings......
using windows XP pro 32 bit OS I get the 69/70 FR using same PC components and Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit I get 75 FR ( for some reason the driver for my monitor maxes out at 70 hz in WinXP, but the Win7 driver maxes at 75hz ... )
-
Just as much need for AV with a MAC as any other system...
http://www.switched.com/2009/09/01/apple-quietly-admits-macs-get-viruses/ (http://www.switched.com/2009/09/01/apple-quietly-admits-macs-get-viruses/)
Not so, there aren't even 0.05% of the amount of known windows viruses in the wild. So chances of getting one are pretty remote and afaik still require you to manually install it before you get it on the computer. This means you can get it if you download and install something illegal or freeware from untrustworthy source basically.
Oh, and win a lottery in bad luck.
-
Not so, there aren't even 0.05% of the amount of known windows viruses in the wild. So chances of getting one are pretty remote and afaik still require you to manually install it before you get it on the computer. This means you can get it if you download and install something illegal or freeware from untrustworthy source basically.
Oh, and win a lottery in bad luck.
I'm sorry but this is a BS answer. Almost all viruses are executables of some type. The only reason MAC's have fewer of them is no one bothered to create them. This is changing and MAC owners are every bit as vulnerable as anyone else...
-
Its not untrue that a MAC can indeed POSSABLY get a virus.. its not out of the relm of possability.
but to make the statement that its just as likley as with a PC is in the highest order of absurdity.
You cannot get a virus on a MAC just by visiting a website, a PC you can. and Its nothing to do with macs purposfully being more secure, its just an intrinsic part of its architecture. windows is such a hack job of patched and hotfixes and trying to be compatible with everything, it just naturally lends itself to being attacked.. its like a house with a door on every wall.
Currently no normal person will get online with a PC that has no AV, the idea seems absurd you are just totally asking for it. , and currently no normal person with a MAC even worries about viruses or has AV.
is it possable to get a virus on a MAC? yes.. is it possible to browse with a PC with no AV and not get one.. sure..
but both scenarios are at the far end of the normality spectrum.
But I will tell you this, if it ever does indeed become necessary to have AV on a MAC.. mark my words, Apple will develop it, and it will be part of the OS, and it will work far far better than these catastrophic turd boxes like Mcaffe, or Norton, which seem to ironically be the cause of more problems than they prevent most the time.
-
6.10.2009 News
Apple has finally acknowledged that spyware and viruses are a threat for Mac OS X, as well as the latest operating system in the works, Snow Leopard. Snow Leopard will be adding new technology to help prevent against attacks such as sandboxing and anti-phishing features in Safari. This, however, is not a 100% solution to protect against malware.
6.9.2009 News
UPDATED
Security Alert: Safari prior to version 4 (released June 8th, 2009) may permit malicious web pages to steal files from the local system simply by accessing a web page without further interaction. This vulnerability is present in both Mac OS X and Windows Safari. The attack is accomplished by mounting an XXE attack against the parsing of the XSL XML.
Not saying...just saying...it could happen, maybe not as easily or as often.
-
I'm sorry but this is a BS answer. Almost all viruses are executables of some type. The only reason MAC's have fewer of them is no one bothered to create them. This is changing and MAC owners are every bit as vulnerable as anyone else...
I'm sorry but it seems you have no clue about the most common way of windows viruses spreading i.e. RPC, activex, java etc voulnerabilities which require zero action from the end-user. In mac a user has to install the software and grant administrative privileges too. Typical Mac software does _not_ require raising of privileges so I for example never install a software that requests them unless it's a paid reliable vendor.
-
Again this is a statement that is simply ignorant of the facts. The driving force behind viruses is the desire to broach a system and the potential effect. Given the historically low market penetration and Apples careful positioning in never provoking any attacks the simple reality is that security flaws are not being aggressively uncovered or exploited. That does not mean that they do not exist. If/when MAC reaches enough critical mass (specific to installed user base) then this will change. I've got no issues with MAC at all and as you've noted the philosophy has inherent advantages. An assumed immunity to potential viruses is not correct however and in fact is a reflection of Apples relatively pitiful market share. As that changes so will it's security concerns...
-
I'm sorry but it seems you have no clue about the most common way of windows viruses spreading i.e. RPC, activex, java etc voulnerabilities which require zero action from the end-user. In mac a user has to install the software and grant administrative privileges too. Typical Mac software does _not_ require raising of privileges so I for example never install a software that requests them unless it's a paid reliable vendor.
Ever bother to read skuzzy's (or anyone elses comments) on safeguarding your computer. Any PC can be configured (very easily) to be just as "safe" as a MAC. The issue here is the motivation for the generator of the virus, not the MAC OS. It is very possible to write a web enabled virus for the mac OS and Safari browser...in fact its been done repeatedly.
-
Again this is a statement that is simply ignorant of the facts. The driving force behind viruses is the desire to broach a system and the potential effect. Given the historically low market penetration and Apples careful positioning in never provoking any attacks the simple reality is that security flaws are not being aggressively uncovered or exploited. That does not mean that they do not exist. If/when MAC reaches enough critical mass (specific to installed user base) then this will change. I've got no issues with MAC at all and as you've noted the philosophy has inherent advantages. An assumed immunity to potential viruses is not correct however and in fact is a reflection of Apples relatively pitiful market share. As that changes so will it's security concerns...
It's called security through obscurity. And to my knowledge Mac lacks windows-like rpc, activex etc. vulnerabilities that enable remote execute of code without user consent.
That makes it about 1000 times more safe than windows to start with. Then when we take into account that there are literally a handful of known viruses available for mac it's quite unlikely to run into one. If you had to run in a room with 5 spikes laying on the floor or 280 000 known spikes spread around which would you choose to do?
Sure there's a chance you might step on one of the 5. But with 280 000 you really need to wear thick sweaty boots.
-
Ever bother to read skuzzy's (or anyone elses comments) on safeguarding your computer. Any PC can be configured (very easily) to be just as "safe" as a MAC. The issue here is the motivation for the generator of the virus, not the MAC OS. It is very possible to write a web enabled virus for the mac OS and Safari browser...in fact its been done repeatedly.
Lol not so. Skuzzy's approach means free willing denial of service and it still won't be bulletproof. There are new zero day exploits brought daily to windows and different browsers that run on it. Add in a botched user privilege system that requires admin elevation on almost everything and you have a weak system on your hands.
Now I have at no point said Macs can't be infected please note that. But you can't deny that there are only a handful of viruses at large against hundreds of thousands. What are the chances of getting one, seriously? Especially when getting it means installing an unknown app that requests admin privileges.
Safari is weak like IE, granted. That's why I browse with Firefox and noscript enabled.
-
^ agree.
I use a titanium powerbook (8yrs old now!) as my main machine every day, and have never run any AV software on it (although I may do in future depending on how OSX malware develops.) I keep all my sensitive personal and business data on it, which I would never consider doing on my PC (I dont trust my PC even for checking my online banking) despite the fact it has on-access scanning running all the time and weekly scheduled deep scanning.
The network of PCs I administer otoh has almost every conceivable method of denying malware - on-access scanning, scheduled multiple deep scanning, domain networking, limited accounts (btw the windows user rights system is a joke if you come from any *nix background), individual firewalls, network firewall, numerous system tweaks etc etc and rigorous user training. Still there is about a 1 in 50 chance of an individual machine getting infected with something per week.
The only way you will get a PC to be as secure overall as a mac is by junking any MS os on it and installing then correctly configuring some *nix flavour on it.
As for buying the Mac Pro - if you can afford it, why not :D
-
I have no issue with the fact that there has been no significant virus impact specific to Mac's and no reason to suspect that anything will change in the near future. However any competent white hat will tell you point blank that both the MAC OS and Safari have established exploitable vulnerabilities. I also have no issue with someone preferring a MAC for any reason. For anyone who doesn't use a PC for gaming linux mint is a better OS then anything windows (or apple IMO for that matter) if you are comfortable with the software offerings available. My point is simply that snow leopard is in fact significantly more vulnerable then the various windows offerings. This is a statement of fact that would not be debated by a single white hat worth his bill rate. The critical issue is the lack of motivation not the absence of an exploitable weakness....there are in fact hundreds of documented viruses specific to snow leopard.
-
I have no issue with the fact that there has been no significant virus impact specific to Mac's and no reason to suspect that anything will change in the near future. However any competent white hat will tell you point blank that both the MAC OS and Safari have established exploitable vulnerabilities. I also have no issue with someone preferring a MAC for any reason. For anyone who doesn't use a PC for gaming linux mint is a better OS then anything windows (or apple IMO for that matter) if you are comfortable with the software offerings available. My point is simply that snow leopard is in fact significantly more vulnerable then the various windows offerings. This is a statement of fact that would not be debated by a single white hat worth his bill rate. The critical issue is the lack of motivation not the absence of an exploitable weakness....there are in fact hundreds of documented viruses specific to snow leopard.
If you have any links to these viruses info and forms they spread on I'd be interested to read them. I know that Mac was hacked through safari exploit on whitehat conference every year, but only through safari afaik.
Since I use Mac daily I'd really like to see any links you have to give me heads up at least.
-
Hope you like to read Ripley...most of the issues result from the proliferation of 1d10t errors occurring between the keyboard and the seat of Mac users.
http://www.macforensicslab.com/ProductsAndServices/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&products_id=174 (http://www.macforensicslab.com/ProductsAndServices/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&products_id=174)
http://macscan.securemac.com/osxjahlav-c-dnschanger-trojan-horse/ (http://macscan.securemac.com/osxjahlav-c-dnschanger-trojan-horse/)
http://www.macnn.com/articles/09/04/17/mac.based.botnet.active/ (http://www.macnn.com/articles/09/04/17/mac.based.botnet.active/)
http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/mac/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=216401181 (http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/mac/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=216401181)
http://mac.blorge.com/2009/01/26/intego-discovers-iservices-trojan-in-photoshop-serializer/ (http://mac.blorge.com/2009/01/26/intego-discovers-iservices-trojan-in-photoshop-serializer/)
5,000 infected downloads by January 26, 09? :eek:
The thing is, even though it takes user interaction to spread the problems on Mac OSX...if you don't have anything on the system telling you that you're effing up...you won't know until it's too late. Where I work, there are a lot of 1d10t Mac users just doing their thing without a clue and our network isn't setup to scan for Mac vulnerabilities.
-
If you have any links to these viruses info and forms they spread on I'd be interested to read them. I know that Mac was hacked through safari exploit on whitehat conference every year, but only through safari afaik.
Since I use Mac daily I'd really like to see any links you have to give me heads up at least.
The simple truth is that very little "cutting edge" stuff is even in the public domain since it's invariably covered by NDA's. The friends I have involved in this type of stuff are literally skirting on the edge of an NDA violation even making casual non specific comments. So while there is a tremendous push to expose and close security issues specific to windows based OS options there is an equally compelling "don't ask, don't tell" policy at work specific to MAC. Basically until such time as one or more weaknesses are exploited significantly enough to be noticed the less said the better. However it is very safe to say that little if any truly critical data/trade secrets etc is stored on a MAC OS by anyone who knows better.
-
It would be ridiculous to suggest that any desktop OS is invulnerable, but to suggest that OSX is far less secure than any MS OS is just laughable.
-
I think, currently, A totallu unsecure mac is less likely to get a virus than a PC with Norton Antivirus.. just due to the sheer number of PC viruses and how quickly they come out.
Of course if you have Norton, you have already lost, as it is slowing your PC down and causing as many problems as most viruses :rofl
-
I think, currently, A totallu unsecure mac is less likely to get a virus than a PC with Norton Antivirus.. just due to the sheer number of PC viruses and how quickly they come out.
agreed, and for other more subtle reasons too eg. interface design/dialog fatigue.
-
The MAC OS is significantly less secure in the sense that it isn't under constant scrutiny for security weaknesses. At this point it is significantly more vulnerable then windows but there is no motivation outside of corporate espionage to "hack a MAC"...
-
I would take a serious look at the new 27" iMac.
I wouldn't, it has significant hardware flaws at the moment. Don't touch em with a barge pole.
-
Not so, there aren't even 0.05% of the amount of known windows viruses in the wild. So chances of getting one are pretty remote and afaik still require you to manually install it before you get it on the computer. This means you can get it if you download and install something illegal or freeware from untrustworthy source basically.
Oh, and win a lottery in bad luck.
They work the same way PC malware works. And that spreads easily enough.
There is now both mac and iphone botnets in operation ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/16/new_ibotnet_analysis/ and http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=7786 ) .
With a PC, you have a paranoid user usually using AV and AS software. So there is a safety net for their stupidity.
With a Mac you have a complacent user usually using no AV protection. No safety net for their stupidity.
So yes, while there are significantly more virus's and malware for the PC, the PC is usually more protected versus the zero protection you see on the mac. The signatures Apple included in OS X Snow Leopard are fixed, not dynamic, heuristic, or updateable - so good for all of 5 minutes protection.
I've shared an office with apple people for 6 years now. Mac's have their issues just like PC's. It all boils down too two things, which way of doing things you prefer (and I must say Win7 is an awesome improvement), and with mac you do it steve's way.
-
If you have any links to these viruses info and forms they spread on I'd be interested to read them. I know that Mac was hacked through safari exploit on whitehat conference every year, but only through safari afaik.
Since I use Mac daily I'd really like to see any links you have to give me heads up at least.
On average each year OS X has more flaws to patch than windows, OS X is usually the #1 OS in flaw counts year on year. Google it, it's kicking around somewhere. Each increment of OS X has replaced the Open BSD libraries with Apples own libraries, and this has lead to more and more flaws. IIRC there was some interesting wifi ones last year as well.
-
Well, now my desktop is finally starting to show its age a bit, Its a Athlon 64X2 6400 with 8gb of ram and a geforce 8800GTO. I can no longer run Aces high absolutly maxed out with all settings to full.. which as in the past has always been my "time to upgrade" indicator.
thoughts? comments? insults?
thoughts?
I still am holding to my opinion, that something is a miss in your current PC ........ as I posted earlier in this thread...... :headscratch:
-
and with mac you do it steve's way.
... and with a MS OS you do it steves way.
glad you turned up to give us your impartial advice vulcan, we needed reminding that all windows users are security and OS experts, whereas all mac users are idiots.
so how long exactly have you been using, owning and administering macs? I asked you this before, never got an answer though ...
-
... and with a MS OS you do it steves way.
glad you turned up to give us your impartial advice vulcan, we needed reminding that all windows users are security and OS experts, whereas all mac users are idiots.
so how long exactly have you been using, owning and administering macs? I asked you this before, never got an answer though ...
Actually Holmes...you're not far off...I work at a college and all of the Mac users are complacent about the security of their systems...I have seen people do things on their Mac's that most pc users have learned to avoid or find some way of preventing a backlash that would kill their OS.
Over the last 4 years we have had almost every Mac virus available...and the only way they were found was because the techs have learned to "play it safe" and do scans anytime any issue is reported...exactly the same way we deal with PC's.
-
The MAC OS is significantly less secure in the sense that it isn't under constant scrutiny for security weaknesses. At this point it is significantly more vulnerable then windows but there is no motivation outside of corporate espionage to "hack a MAC"...
This by itself is a good motivation to using one. You have to do something really dumb to get infected using one.
-
This by itself is a good motivation to using one. You have to do something really dumb to get infected using one.
Like buy a MAC and assume your "bullet proof"?
-
They work the same way PC malware works. And that spreads easily enough.
There is now both mac and iphone botnets in operation ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/16/new_ibotnet_analysis/ and http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=7786 ) .
With a PC, you have a paranoid user usually using AV and AS software. So there is a safety net for their stupidity.
With a Mac you have a complacent user usually using no AV protection. No safety net for their stupidity.
So yes, while there are significantly more virus's and malware for the PC, the PC is usually more protected versus the zero protection you see on the mac. The signatures Apple included in OS X Snow Leopard are fixed, not dynamic, heuristic, or updateable - so good for all of 5 minutes protection.
I've shared an office with apple people for 6 years now. Mac's have their issues just like PC's. It all boils down too two things, which way of doing things you prefer (and I must say Win7 is an awesome improvement), and with mac you do it steve's way.
I'm getting a feeling that in fact there's anti-Apple bias in many of the comments i.e. hatemail. Fear of unknown or something.
The stuff I read so far from gyrene81:s links show that Apple doesn't suffer from windows-like remote exploitable code weaknesses which scare me the most i.e. holes that require no user interaction for infection. The threat comes mainly from trojan horses and these can be readily avoided.
Add in the fact that Mac is very uninteresting target to virus makers / malware makers count for a low amount of existing viruses / malware. Now, considering Snow Leopard has a built in protection against even the few known ones, what are the chances you're going to run into the 2-3 possible new viruses that will be made if you keep using legal software? About the same as winning a lottery most likely. And I'm not sweating every weekend about my lost millions over not playing the game. The '5 minutes of protection' comment is based on pretense that Mac viruses are being factoried like Windows viruses i.e. new virus every minute. But the reality is that Mac is not an interesting target for attackers, therefore small people develop stuff for it, therefore it's very rare to get a new exploit in the wild.
If you don't believe me maybe you believe the maker of open source antivirus for mac www.clamxav.com:
Back in the days before OS X, the number of viruses which attacked Macintosh users totalled somewhere between about 60 and 80. Today, the number of viruses actively attacking OS X users is...NONE!
As a lifetime PC user I use every precaution with Mac as I use with PC.
-
Like buy a MAC and assume your "bullet proof"?
You can have any issues you want on Mac and Mac users humble. They're not my problem.
-
Over the last 4 years we have had almost every Mac virus available
I'd be interested to know exactly what these were, afaik there are no osx virii in the wild. If you mean virus in the broader sense of malware (inc trojans etc) then yes there are some out there (as you linked to earlier), but you have to explicitly grant permissions to install them (like any other executable that requires system access) using an admin password. I'd quite like to know how this was possible too, assuming they were all using limited accounts.
bottom line - if you're going to be installing dodgy software (ie. kracked software from warez sites) or anything from untrusted sources then of course you should be scanning it whatever os you use.
I'm going to ask a friend of mine for his experiences with malware, he lives in a parallel sysadmin universe to me but in reverse - a network of 25ish OSX machines and 1 XP box - and has been in charge of it for about the same time. The major differences i'm aware of are; he spends 1/4 the time I do maintaining his network, and if he screws up he has complaints from users whereas I face criminal prosecuction under the Financial Services and Data Protection Acts :uhoh
btw his users are truly tech clueless - they're art students :D
-
I wouldn't, it has significant hardware flaws at the moment. Don't touch em with a barge pole.
got to agree with this, stay well clear of 27" iMacs until the hardware problems have been resolved.
-
Its not untrue that a MAC can indeed POSSABLY get a virus.. its not out of the relm of possability.
but to make the statement that its just as likley as with a PC is in the highest order of absurdity.
You cannot get a virus on a MAC just by visiting a website, a PC you can. and Its nothing to do with macs purposfully being more secure, its just an intrinsic part of its architecture. windows is such a hack job of patched and hotfixes and trying to be compatible with everything, it just naturally lends itself to being attacked.. its like a house with a door on every wall.
Currently no normal person will get online with a PC that has no AV, the idea seems absurd you are just totally asking for it. , and currently no normal person with a MAC even worries about viruses or has AV.
is it possable to get a virus on a MAC? yes.. is it possible to browse with a PC with no AV and not get one.. sure..
but both scenarios are at the far end of the normality spectrum.
But I will tell you this, if it ever does indeed become necessary to have AV on a MAC.. mark my words, Apple will develop it, and it will be part of the OS, and it will work far far better than these catastrophic turd boxes like Mcaffe, or Norton, which seem to ironically be the cause of more problems than they prevent most the time.
1: Granted Macs hardly get viruses. Why? Because there aren't that many out there. With the exception of TV stations (most use Apple servers) and video design, Apple is not used in any sort of "Mission Critical" sense. It costs too much for major companies to use Apple. Why waste the time to write a virus to strike at a target that will yield you little to nothing. That would be like bombing the ords at a landlocked V-base. As more and more Macs become mainstream you will see a rise in Mac viruses.
2: Macs can fall prey to Websites just as easily, if not easier. In fact, Mac was the first to fall in a "Hackers" convention. TCP/IP was used to redirect the Mac to a different website then Telnet was used to break into it.
The "highest order of absurdity" is to believe your system is 100% safe. You are just as vulnerable to the world as the rest of us. Now if a Mac fulfills your needs, and you are happy with it, by all means get a Mac.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no11eIx0x6w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig1qtduR9ik
The whole Apple -vs- PC debate is moot. Everyone has their own preference. Just don't be blind and believe nothing will happen to you just because you own a Mac.
-
2: Macs can fall prey to Websites just as easily, if not easier. In fact, Mac was the first to fall in a "Hackers" convention. TCP/IP was used to redirect the Mac to a different website then Telnet was used to break into it.
They were exploiting a flaw in Safari to do that. And regardless of the fact there's about 1 in 1000 0000 0000 chance you will run into the random hacker that's interested to break into your mac when he has gazillion times more windows victims to target.
-
They were exploiting a flaw in Safari to do that. And regardless of the fact there's about 1 in 1000 0000 0000 chance you will run into the random hacker that's interested to break into your mac when he has gazillion times more windows victims to target.
Thank you for proving my point. Like I said, going after a Mac will yield you next to nothing. Again tho, as more and more Macs become mainstream, that little security flaw in Safari is going to become a bigger issue. Besides, by the attitude of most die-hard Mac users I've run into, that security flaw shouldn't have even existed, because Macs are impervious to the world.
I'm not saying that Macs aren't worth it. Personally, I'll stick to PC. I like the fact that I have more options available, at a lower cost (software-wise). But, like I said before If the Mac fulfills your needs, and you are happy with it, get a Mac. Just don't think you're invulnerable because you have a Mac.
-
I dont think anyone here has said that OSX is unvulnerable, but several have implied that OSX is considerably less secure than anything from MS which I cant agree with.
as for mission critical applications there are a bunch of macs running them. apple has decent penetration into legal markets where security is very important and a range of academic, business and medical applications where reliability is a bigger factor. ranging from single machines to massive clusters of xserves running OSX Server (iirc U Illinois has literally hundreds of em clustered up). Even the US navy uses xserve clusters ...
The only reason for running a MS server os in a mission critical application is because your server app only runs on that os. In most other cases of course they will be running a different flavour of *nix than OSX because they will be more interested in tweaking than easy configuration. theres good reasons why the bulk of the worlds web and mail servers run on *nix rather than MS servers ...
so why are so many organisations using MS servers? I think this quote from a US Navy tech director after USS Yorktown was left dead in the water for a few hours when its NT farm fell over is telling:
Because of politics, some things are being forced on us that without political pressure we might not do, like Windows NT. If it were up to me I probably would not have used Windows NT in this particular application
-
<snip>as for mission critical applications there are a bunch of macs running them. apple has decent penetration into legal markets where security is very important and a range of academic, business and medical applications where reliability is a bigger factor. ranging from single machines to massive clusters of xserves running OSX Server (iirc U Illinois has literally hundreds of em clustered up). Even the US navy uses xserve clusters ...<snip>
You were doing fine until you said this. I cannot count how many of the businesses, you listed, I have walked into and found their so called security to be a joke. Why do you thank banks continually lose customer information?
Companies use Windows servers because they believe the marketing Microsoft does. They also get used because many IT folks feel it secures a job for them. If there is a problem with the server, they can always blame Microsoft for the problem. Then there is the, "No one ever got fired for suggesting Microsoft products be used."
The only reason Apple is used by scholastic institutions is Apple gives the equipment to the schools. Apple donates more hardware to schools than any other company in the world. It is a good tax write-off.
The U.S. government procurement for computers takes years to get done. Apple is popular because they do not change their hardware often enough to have to continue to build obsolete equipment the government specified 3 years ago. I have been involved with that process. Many computer companies today will simply not participate in the government process for procurement of products.
At the end of the day, it is all about personal preference as a PC can do what a Mac can do and vice-versa. I can crash a Mac inside of 15 seconds. I can do the same to a PC. Apple's biggest plus is the fact they do not allow you to really do whatever you want with the computer. PC's are more open and easier to mess up as a result of that.
Apple computers are more of an appliance. You get what you get when you buy it. PC's are more for the tinkerer and as a result are more prone to have problems. Most of which, are user induced. Understand the limitations with either platform, make your choice, and be happy with it.
-
I dont think anyone here has said that OSX is unvulnerable, but several have implied that OSX is considerably less secure than anything from MS which I cant agree with.
as for mission critical applications there are a bunch of macs running them. apple has decent penetration into legal markets where security is very important and a range of academic, business and medical applications where reliability is a bigger factor. ranging from single machines to massive clusters of xserves running OSX Server (iirc U Illinois has literally hundreds of em clustered up). Even the US navy uses xserve clusters ...
The only reason for running a MS server os in a mission critical application is because your server app only runs on that os. In most other cases of course they will be running a different flavour of *nix than OSX because they will be more interested in tweaking than easy configuration. theres good reasons why the bulk of the worlds web and mail servers run on *nix rather than MS servers ...
so why are so many organisations using MS servers? I think this quote from a US Navy tech director after USS Yorktown was left dead in the water for a few hours when its NT farm fell over is telling:
Chase uses an Apple infrastructure, and yesterday their claims dept was "dead in the water" for a couple of hours from their system failing. ANY system is vulnerable to failure. Let me clarify, I'm not saying that OSX is more vulnerable from a system standpoint. It may indeed be more secure, I'm saying it's more vulnerable from a USER standpoint. In other words, the "I have a Mac, I'm bulletproof" mentality that seems to run rampant is the problem. I watched one guy run around our college accusing each of our CCNA class of messing with his Mac when he left it alone. It was working properly, it's a Mac, therefore we must have done something to it. First of all, we're specializing in Cisco systems, go to the Security guys, go accuse them. Second, why the hell did you leave it alone on the first place? His answer: It's a Mac, you can't break in; my answer: A pawn shop will still take it. We told him his OS was probably corrupt, go get it checked out. He denied that up and down till he took it in. His OS was corrupt. In punishment we duct-taped a sign that said "I 'heart' Windows" to him and made him wear it for an entire day. Easy enuff fix is education. RTHolmes this is not aimed at you or anyone, I am not trying to insult or flame, but instead aimed at the populace with that attitude: YOU-ARE-NOT-BULL-LET-PROOF. Just be smart about what you're doing and use common sense. If you are browsing questionable websites, sooner or later it will catch up to you. Just use common sense. Again, if you are happy with you're choice then go for it.
Edit: Thank you Skuzzy
-
You were doing fine until you said this. I cannot count how many of the businesses, you listed, I have walked into and found their so called security to be a joke. Why do you thank banks continually lose customer information?
agreed, although I'm not sure what you're contradicting
Companies use Windows servers because they believe the marketing Microsoft does. They also get used because many IT folks feel it secures a job for them. If there is a problem with the server, they can always blame Microsoft for the problem. Then there is the, "No one ever got fired for suggesting Microsoft products be used."
agreed, thats what I was hinting at with my quote. Plus MS "donate" on a massive scale, our civil service and health service in the UK will be fubar for years because Bill got friendly with Blair a few years back.
The only reason Apple is used by scholastic institutions is Apple gives the equipment to the schools. Apple donates more hardware to schools than any other company in the world. It is a good tax write-off.
I'm sure they do, I was thinking more of university research depts than kids with computers.
Understand the limitations with either platform, make your choice, and be happy with it.
the joys of a free market economy :D
-
In punishment we duct-taped a sign that said "I 'heart' Windows" to him and made him wear it for an entire day.
my OSX admin mate will definately be hearing about this :rofl
-
agreed, although I'm not sure what you're contradicting
You were talking about Apple being used for security reason by all those companies. My point being, whether or not it is Apple or Microsoft or UNIX, those companies always will find a way to render any inherent security moot.
agreed, that's what I was hinting at with my quote. Plus MS "donate" on a massive scale, our civil service and health service in the UK will be fubar for years because Bill got friendly with Blair a few years back.
Yes Microsoft does donate software, but I am not aware of them ever donating hardware. The hardware either preexisted or was purchased. That may not always be the case as I do not keep a thumb on MS.
I'm sure they do, I was thinking more of university research depts than kids with computers.
Yes, the research departments is an area where Apple will donate huge amounts of hardware and software.
The whole crux of what I was saying is based off your claim Apple is chosen, by all those companies and institutions, for security reasons. It simply is not the case. Most companies, that chose Apple, do so for other reasons based on Apples marketing. Or they got it for free from Apple.
Anyone claiming to buy an Apple computer for security reasons is inept or lazy or both. Buy any computer for what it can do for you. Then go from there.
-
... and with a MS OS you do it steves way.
glad you turned up to give us your impartial advice vulcan, we needed reminding that all windows users are security and OS experts, whereas all mac users are idiots.
so how long exactly have you been using, owning and administering macs? I asked you this before, never got an answer though ...
I've worked in an organisation with a large proportion of mac's for over 6 years now. I work along side mac enterpriserver engineers.
As for the MS OS comment, apple is far from innovative. I can look back and X Windows and Amigas OS and point out many of the 'innovations' apple have claimed to bring to market.
Yes mac users can be idiots, as I pointed out as windows users can be. Windows users have a safety net though, mac users don't. Spot the apple fanboi LOL.
-
Chase uses an Apple infrastructure, and yesterday their claims dept was "dead in the water" for a couple of hours from their system failing. ANY system is vulnerable to failure. Let me clarify, I'm not saying that OSX is more vulnerable from a system standpoint. It may indeed be more secure, I'm saying it's more vulnerable from a USER standpoint. In other words, the "I have a Mac, I'm bulletproof" mentality that seems to run rampant is the problem. I watched one guy run around our college accusing each of our CCNA class of messing with his Mac when he left it alone. It was working properly, it's a Mac, therefore we must have done something to it. First of all, we're specializing in Cisco systems, go to the Security guys, go accuse them. Second, why the hell did you leave it alone on the first place? His answer: It's a Mac, you can't break in; my answer: A pawn shop will still take it. We told him his OS was probably corrupt, go get it checked out. He denied that up and down till he took it in. His OS was corrupt.
I've seen a similar thing. The last release of Snow Leopard has some wierd DNS bugs in it (especially when used with an OSX Server). Because I'm the firewall guy everything got blamed on the network, because the sun shines out steves **** and apple can do no wrong. Til we threw some DNS settings that pointed... ironically... to our Windows AD Controller for DNS and everything worked.
RTholmes you can stick your head in the sand all you like about the security. Proof in the pudding is that there is an operation mac botnet.
I'm not anti mac, I've used many OS's over the years, my favourite being Amiga Workbench (which OS X is shaping to look a lot like). I'm anti the mac cult which seems to be isolated from reality.
-
Proof in the pudding is that there is an operation mac botnet.
you're quite right, there is. and since OSX is less secure than any MS OS, by deduction there must have never been any botnets operational on MS systems.
-
The whole crux of what I was saying is based off your claim Apple is chosen, by all those companies and institutions, for security reasons. It simply is not the case. Most companies, that chose Apple, do so for other reasons based on Apples marketing. Or they got it for free from Apple.
I didnt say that companies chose apple stuff simply because its the most secure product on the market, companies obviously chose their os and hardware vendors for a wide range of different reasons. MadHatter suggested that OSX isnt used for any mission-critical applications, I was supplying examples of where they are and some reasons for the choices. I mentioned security because none of those institutions that chose apple stuff consider them to be such a massive security problem (like some here) that they ruled them out.
edit for vulcan:
Apple Inc CEO Steve Jobs
Microsoft CEO Steve Balmer
see what I did there? :)
-
you're quite right, there is. and since OSX is less secure than any MS OS, by deduction there must have never been any botnets operational on MS systems.
As I stated earlier, there are stupid people in both camps. If there weren't, I'd be out of a job ;)
-
edit for vulcan:
Apple Inc CEO Steve Jobs
Microsoft CEO Steve Balmer
see what I did there? :)
Ahh ok. Well Steve Balmer doesn't tell me what hardware I should use, or prevent me from customizing my system in ways I like (too the extent of having Windows XP looking like an X-Windows or OS X gui).
Wait til the App Store hits the market for the desktops, then you'll be squealing ;)
-
As I stated earlier, there are stupid people in both camps. If there weren't, I'd be out of a job ;)
The difference is that Windows is riddled with hundreds of remote exploits that require no user interaction and IMO that's about as bad as it gets. I remember making the mistake of plugging my box directly into a cablemodem while installing XP. Took 15 seconds to get infected during the first boot without moving a finger on my part.
When I reinstalled cable unplugged and went back firewalled I did a scan. About 2000 infiltration attempts a minute, all from infected windows machines doing active portscans. Imagine what kind of stress that alone puts to the network and how much they mess up with our ping times.
-
Ahh ok. Well Steve Balmer doesn't tell me what hardware I should use, or prevent me from customizing my system in ways I like
And by doing so customers stay happy since they have no mysterious hardware incompatibility problems or malfunctioning software. Everything has to sides to it.
-
The difference is that Windows is riddled with hundreds of remote exploits that require no user interaction
No, malware on windows requires user interaction, same as OS X. To pick up a virus from a network segment you'd have to have enabled file sharing with open rights or something equally stupid. Good anti-virus also mitigates this risk.
OS X annually has many many exploitable bugs, until recently nobody has bothered as the market share for apple has been insignificant. Now the malware people are looking at apple users as easy pickings as they typically have no AV software. Why do you need AV Software? Because there is a lag between exploit and the patch, and apple are notorious for keeping quiet about these and being slow to patch (whereas microsoft are quick to respond due to bad press they get).
So you plugged an unpatched XP box with no AV directly into the net and got infected - if anything that proves my comment about users.
So, let me re-iterate, the same methodology requiring user interaction on OS X malware is used to infect Windows systems. Malware does not rely on exploits to infect systems, it relies on social engineering. OS X users have no AV safety net, windows users usually do. It wasn't even until 2009 that Safari got phishing protection of any kind.
As for the hardware comment, bollocks. I see this problem with mac's all the time - it may be what the sell you but it sure ain't reality. Want your 3G card to work with a Mac? Gotta install the 3rd party driver. Want your Mopier to work with your Mac? Gotta install the 3rd party driver.
In the last few years I've seen more Mac's brown screen than I've seen PC's blue screen. Mac's are nice, but they have their share of problems (look at Snow Leopard for that LOL).
-
No, malware on windows requires user interaction, same as OS X. To pick up a virus from a network segment you'd have to have enabled file sharing with open rights or something equally stupid. Good anti-virus also mitigates this risk.
That's just plain wrong. IE is so embedded in the system that you can get totally owned simply by visiting a website. Same thing can happen with remote exploits where worms use system level weaknesses to infiltrate the box through net. It's a far cry from requiring to trick a user to actually install something - not that this kind of exploits are by the hundreds for Windows too.
OS X annually has many many exploitable bugs, until recently nobody has bothered as the market share for apple has been insignificant. Now the malware people are looking at apple users as easy pickings as they typically have no AV software. Why do you need AV Software? Because there is a lag between exploit and the patch, and apple are notorious for keeping quiet about these and being slow to patch (whereas microsoft are quick to respond due to bad press they get).
Yes nobody has bothered which is why the situation is infinitely better for the time being. Walk in the park opposed to battlefield where you're constantly under death threat.
So you plugged an unpatched XP box with no AV directly into the net and got infected - if anything that proves my comment about users.
Yep at that time I didn't know the cable modem wasn't using NAT and the network was full of port scans. Was quite a shock to find out really. Not my fault though, the system has inherent flaws that enabled this to happen.
So, let me re-iterate, the same methodology requiring user interaction on OS X malware is used to infect Windows systems. Malware does not rely on exploits to infect systems, it relies on social engineering. OS X users have no AV safety net, windows users usually do. It wasn't even until 2009 that Safari got phishing protection of any kind.
Windows has worms, viruses, trojans, rootkits and browser add-on malware. OSX has trojans in the wild which most are patched against in snow leopard. Trojans spread through warez sites which I don't use. According to ClamXav for example there are no active viruses in the wild targeting OSX at the moment. True or not it can be said with absolute certainty that you're about a thousand times more likely to encounter a windows exploit instead of a mac one. In fact the danger on windows is so big that even commercial hardware drivers have been released with embedded viruses. One example being TomTom GPS navigators that got a virus slipped in the installation CD-Rom.
As for the hardware comment, bollocks. I see this problem with mac's all the time - it may be what the sell you but it sure ain't reality. Want your 3G card to work with a Mac? Gotta install the 3rd party driver. Want your Mopier to work with your Mac? Gotta install the 3rd party driver.
So essentially you're not realizing the difference between plug-in external hardware and OEM hardware? :) Interesting. We were indeed discussing about the configuration of the actual computer not peripherals.
In the last few years I've seen more Mac's brown screen than I've seen PC's blue screen. Mac's are nice, but they have their share of problems (look at Snow Leopard for that LOL).
Interesting, we have 9 Macs in the office and I've yet to see a single glitch on any of them. When I used to run windows I had to do a complete overhaul of the OS every year where with Mac I haven't touched the OS since purchase if you count out a painless upgrade to snow leopard. I have to admit all of my Win7 boxes have worked as well as OSX so far.
-
Mac's can get exploited remotely too. It happens all the time and hacking conferences. In fact the mac's are usually the easiest to hack, and not just safari but in other areas (remember the wifi driver attack that apple went legal over?). Ever system has its flaws, be it mac or windows or something else. Windows gets targeted to exploit these simply because it dominates the market so totally.
My Windows XP box has been stable for ... 3 or 4 years now. This includes changing hardware (like upgrading the video card). My server even longer. Same goes for my work laptop (though I upgraded to 7 recently). The reason you hear of more people having problems with PC's is that for every mac theres at least 20 PC's. Where I work is 90% mac's, I'm the minority. But I see them have all the same problems the rest of us have. For example, Snow Leopard... painless upgrade? Yeah right. I know of 3 people whos upgrade was painful, they eventually went for a fresh install. And I know of more people who have had problems with snow leopard, such as the data loss issue, or the IP/DNS problems.
My job is in network security, and without windows lovely flaws I wouldn't be needed. But to put OS X on a pedestal like you do is crazy but symptomatic of many mac users - and given that social engineering is the biggest single vector for bad stuff that is what concerns me the most about mac's.
-
Mac's can get exploited remotely too. It happens all the time and hacking conferences.
Yep and about only there which is the key. :)
-
Yep and about only there which is the key. :)
Not true :) , www.zone-h.org, if they still had the OS filter function you could check the archive and see that os x machines get hacked quite a bit. Still it amounts to less than 1% of all hacks IIRC from the old stats. Most hacks are still primarily Linux then MS.
-
Not true :) , www.zone-h.org, if they still had the OS filter function you could check the archive and see that os x machines get hacked quite a bit. Still it amounts to less than 1% of all hacks IIRC from the old stats. Most hacks are still primarily Linux then MS.
You still don't get the point - if OSX and Windows are equally vulnerable and OSX has 1 in a million of chance of hitting an attack compared to windows, which one would you deem safer to use?
-
You still don't get the point - if OSX and Windows are equally vulnerable and OSX has 1 in a million of chance of hitting an attack compared to windows, which one would you deem safer to use?
Take two streets, one (Street W) has 20 attempted burglaries a year, the other (Street M) has 1 attempted burglary a year. However Street M has a policy of no locks on doors, windows or burglar alarms to be fitted to houses. Which street would you rather live in?
-
Take two streets, one (Street W) has 20 attempted burglaries a year, the other (Street M) has 1 attempted burglary a year. However Street M has a policy of no locks on doors, windows or burglar alarms to be fitted to houses. Which street would you rather live in?
Sorry but both of them share the policy and the ratio is much worse then 20 to 1 and you know it. The amount of zero day exploits published and actively used for windows is simply staggering. Just recently dns poisoning or something got thousands of internet bankers.
From a million infected websites you may find one that's actually targeting a mac for some weird reason.
-
Just recently dns poisoning or something got thousands of internet bankers
Now, hang on. I don't have a dog in this fight at all, but if it was the DNS poisoning attack I think you are referring to, it was due to a flaw in how DNS was originally designed and was a cross platform vulnerability on pretty much all DNS servers regardless of OS - and affected every system that used the compromised DNS server equally, whether the station was Windows, OS X, Linux - or Commodore Vic 20.
<S>
-
Now, hang on. I don't have a dog in this fight at all, but if it was the DNS poisoning attack I think you are referring to, it was due to a flaw in how DNS was originally designed and was a cross platform vulnerability on pretty much all DNS servers regardless of OS - and affected every system that used the compromised DNS server equally, whether the station was Windows, OS X, Linux - or Commodore Vic 20.
<S>
Exactly.
Not only that but this was directed as a phishing attack. Phishing is not dependent on OS. However Safari (the default browser on all mac's) has only just recently acquired phishing protection, whereas this has been common place protection for windows browsers for some time. ie (scuz the pun) a mac user is significantly more at risk from this attack than a windows user.
Would you like to try for a better example mrripley :D
-
Now, hang on. I don't have a dog in this fight at all, but if it was the DNS poisoning attack I think you are referring to, it was due to a flaw in how DNS was originally designed and was a cross platform vulnerability on pretty much all DNS servers regardless of OS - and affected every system that used the compromised DNS server equally, whether the station was Windows, OS X, Linux - or Commodore Vic 20.
<S>
I'm not sure which mechanism was used but it was windows malware that directed users to a fake banking site. Most likely a virus or trojan delivered the payload since other systems were not affected.
Your anti-Apple bias is showing through guys.
-
I'm not sure which mechanism was used but it was windows malware that directed users to a fake banking site. Most likely a virus or trojan delivered the payload since other systems were not affected.
Your anti-Apple bias is showing through guys.
There were some DNS hijacks late last year of some significant companies including banks. DNS hijacks have nothing to do with your OS. IIRC there was an indian bank or two that got redirected to phishing sites. Perhaps you should do some research on DNS and phishing before you claim anti-apple bias. Your pro-Apple ignorance is showing through on this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phishing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_hijacking
-
There were some DNS hijacks late last year of some significant companies including banks. DNS hijacks have nothing to do with your OS. IIRC there was an indian bank or two that got redirected to phishing sites. Perhaps you should do some research on DNS and phishing before you claim anti-apple bias. Your pro-Apple ignorance is showing through on this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phishing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_hijacking
So you claim that you know already better about the exploit without knowing a thing about it? Do you even know the delivery mechanisms behind Finnish internet banking? I just checked the banks report on the issue and it's a Windows based virus. They link to antivirus vendor as the solution. http://www.nordea.fi/Tietoa+Nordeasta/Nordea+varoittaa+asiakkaitaan+haittaohjelmasta/1285712.html Looks like it was a pharming attack, virus or trojan pointing the machines to a compromised DNS server.
If you notice a bank website in false language it is not allowed to use your computer for banking untill it has been disinfected (with a link to F-Secure AV)
You guys are unbelievable. I have owned 10x more PC's in my life and this is my first mac ever and even then I use it mostly for work. Now you're painting me to be some Apple biggot? LOL! You just can't face the facts thats all. :lol
-
Just recently dns poisoning or something got thousands of internet bankers.
Just recently dns poisoning or something got thousands of internet bankers.
Just recently dns poisoning or something got thousands of internet bankers.
Anyhoo, moving along, all I could find on the bank.patch malware you appear to referencing is this
Discovered: August 18, 2008
Updated: February 3, 2009 6:11:43 PM
Type: Trojan
Infection Length: Varies
Systems Affected: Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows NT, Windows Server 2003, Windows 2000
When executed, the Trojan drops and executes one of the following files, which allows the Trojan to escalate its execution privileges:
%Temp%\conlf.ini
%Temp%\conlf[RANDOM DIGIT].ini
It's a trojan, it requires the user to run it, and oh guess what it does the exact same thing as the Mac DNS Changer trojan.
All we're doing is painting reality. Mac like to surround their platform in a lot of fud.
And funnily enough as I sit here typing I hear a mac user being told over the phone to hold down the power button to restart their mac and press the cmd-option-p-r keys as they do until it chimes 3 times. It just works..... yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah right.
-
Anyhoo, moving along, all I could find on the bank.patch malware you appear to referencing is this
It's a trojan, it requires the user to run it, and oh guess what it does the exact same thing as the Mac DNS Changer trojan.
All we're doing is painting reality. Mac like to surround their platform in a lot of fud.
And funnily enough as I sit here typing I hear a mac user being told over the phone to hold down the power button to restart their mac and press the cmd-option-p-r keys as they do until it chimes 3 times. It just works..... yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah right.
LOL and yet no mac user was affected. Guess why? Too few of them to bother attacking.
The fact you didn't find anything but 2008 trojan does _not_ mean it wasn't a completely remote executed vulnerability since windows gets them developed on daily basis. There are more zero day exploits for windows coming out per year than mac exploits ever made so far. Just now there's the thread about antivirus 2010 that infected the user despite having multiple AV/malware removers etc. running, taking resources and user wasting days of time for nothing.
No near-automatic backup setup for windows like time machine has offered mac for ages. So user is hesitant to do the only move he should do, total reinstall. He probably will keep using the compromised system despite the possibility it's permanently rootkitted now.
And funnily enough if all your mac user needs to do is reset his computer after it's been running how long, 100+ days without restart? HORRIBLE! He probably would have had to reinstall XP by that time. The instant start-up times alone saved him 2 days worth of working time by that time most likely compared to a regular PC.
You're making yourself ridiculous Vulcan. What you're saying is that you have a similar risk of being attacked and killed while pacing down the isles of the white house and most infamous sections of harlem as a white man. Yeah sure, in both cases there are guns and they will hurt you - but the other place takes a remarkable exception before some insane person would turn aggressive against you.
-
LOL and yet no mac user was affected. Guess why? Too few of them to bother attacking.
Are you talking mac malware in general, the dns hijack or the article you linked too?
Because mac malware in general there IS an operational botnet of infected mac's. DNS hijacks affect mac's, OS is irrelevant. Last one well if its windows malware of course not.
No near-automatic backup setup for windows like time machine has offered mac for ages.
There are several solutions available that are superior to time machine, range in price, features, and have been out longer than time machines. Google CDP.
And funnily enough if all your mac user needs to do is reset his computer after it's been running how long, 100+ days without restart?
I do that with my laptop all the time. Plus there's another guy in our office still having constant issues with the Snow Leopard DNS problem (like this: http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2170105&tstart=0 ) <-- oh and note apple forums with plenty of problems.
Every mac professional I work with agrees (I work with people who work with the likes of the guys that did the animation for Avatar in case you're wondering), no OS is totally secure, and most mac users are overly complacent about security to the point of it being dangerous.
If you like your mac, cool, but don't tell me how bad windows is because I like it and I know the grass ain't as green as people make out on the mac.
-
Are you talking mac malware in general, the dns hijack or the article you linked too?
Because mac malware in general there IS an operational botnet of infected mac's.
Yeah and it made big time news. Guess what, windows botnets are not even newsworthy they're just happening.
There are several solutions available that are superior to time machine, range in price, features, and have been out longer than time machines. Google CDP.
Is it free and built in windows? If then cool.
I do that with my laptop all the time. Plus there's another guy in our office still having constant issues with the Snow Leopard DNS problem (like this: http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2170105&tstart=0 ) <-- oh and note apple forums with plenty of problems.
There's something wrong with your laptop or software you run if you need to do it. None of our macs require any maintenance whatsoever if you count out plugging them to loader when battery runs out. Sure mac forums is full of people with problems. You forget the fact that any windows forum has 100 times as many people with windows problems if not more. And then there are hundreds of thousands who don't complane and do internet banking with a rootkited windows. :)
Every mac professional I work with agrees (I work with people who work with the likes of the guys that did the animation for Avatar in case you're wondering), no OS is totally secure, and most mac users are overly complacent about security to the point of it being dangerous.
Who said OSX was totally secure? The low amount of attacks on it however make it very very unlikely to run into any exploits, especially when visiting legal sites. It's like walking in white house. Plenty of guns around but they're not pointed at you (they're all pointed at Windows figuratively speaking) even though they could, potentially, get you killed any second. Would you be scared that statistically one of the employees might be psycho and kill you? You'd say the chances are so low it's laughable.
Windows guy would have to visit in a main battle tank and still get taken out by a 0-day hellfire missile after ruining the white house lawn.
If you like your mac, cool, but don't tell me how bad windows is because I like it and I know the grass ain't as green as people make out on the mac.
Heh untill about a year ago I hated mac. That is untill I started to like its features and ease of use over windows. I still use win7 dominantly on everything except audio/video work and office stuff.
-
Please let the thread go away. U already said everyhing that needed to be said.
Semp
-
^^^ Is it just my simplemindedness, but does anyone else find this ^^^ to be hilariously ironic?
<S>