Mac OSX Virus? (2)
in [Anti-Virus]
|
From: Wolf K on 30 Jun 2010 17:06 On 30/06/2010 15:50, ~BD~ wrote: [snip argument that you needn't worry about Mac viruses]; Check out: http://www.thexlab.com/faqs/malspyware.html wolf k.
From: ~BD~ on 1 Jul 2010 03:02 "Wolf K" <wekirch(a)sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:8lOWn.83587$uQ3.75758(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > On 30/06/2010 15:50, ~BD~ wrote: > [snip argument that you needn't worry about Mac viruses]; > > Check out: > http://www.thexlab.com/faqs/malspyware.html > > wolf k. Many thanks. Bookmarked for study when I'm back home with my iMac! Dave
From: Wolf K on 1 Jul 2010 09:55 On 01/07/2010 03:02, ~BD~ wrote: > "Wolf K"<wekirch(a)sympatico.ca> wrote in message > news:8lOWn.83587$uQ3.75758(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >> On 30/06/2010 15:50, ~BD~ wrote: >> [snip argument that you needn't worry about Mac viruses]; >> >> Check out: >> http://www.thexlab.com/faqs/malspyware.html >> >> wolf k. > > Many thanks. Bookmarked for study when I'm back home with my iMac! > > Dave > > Yes, I found it very thorough. IMO viruses are not the main danger anymore (though if you ever get one, the effect can be traumatic. Don't ask how I know.) Trojans, spybots, hijackers, spambots, sniffers - these are money makers for the criminal classes, who are taking serious aim at all desktop/mobile/laptop/ OSs. The days of "I don't have to worry, I have a Mac" are over. Anyhow, direct attack on the OS is not necessary. Social engineering trumps OS security measures. All it takes is a careless or unaware click on an e-mail attachment or web-site link, and the malware is installed on your computer. Since you "allowed" it, it will run at your permission level, which means it can send and receive 'net traffic, which what the black hats want. The strict permissions regime of the *nix (including OS-X) is no protection. It is designed to prevent attacks on the OS itself, which is no help when the user has allowed the malware access to the system. More subtle attacks are also possible, of course. No one really knows all the insecurities in *nix (which includes OS-X), as there have been no really serious attacks as yet. Granted, *nixes are inherently more secure than Windows, but that doesn't mean they're impregnable. Cheers, wolf k.
From: ~BD~ on 1 Jul 2010 10:10 "Wolf K" <wekirch(a)sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:d71Xn.26663$Jy1.18367(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > On 01/07/2010 03:02, ~BD~ wrote: >> "Wolf K"<wekirch(a)sympatico.ca> wrote in message >> news:8lOWn.83587$uQ3.75758(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >>> On 30/06/2010 15:50, ~BD~ wrote: >>> [snip argument that you needn't worry about Mac viruses]; >>> >>> Check out: >>> http://www.thexlab.com/faqs/malspyware.html >>> >>> wolf k. >> >> Many thanks. Bookmarked for study when I'm back home with my iMac! >> >> Dave >> >> > > Yes, I found it very thorough. > > IMO viruses are not the main danger anymore (though if you ever get > one, the effect can be traumatic. Don't ask how I know.) > > Trojans, spybots, hijackers, spambots, sniffers - these are money > makers for the criminal classes, who are taking serious aim at all > desktop/mobile/laptop/ OSs. The days of "I don't have to worry, I have > a Mac" are over. > > Anyhow, direct attack on the OS is not necessary. Social engineering > trumps OS security measures. All it takes is a careless or unaware > click on an e-mail attachment or web-site link, and the malware is > installed on your computer. Since you "allowed" it, it will run at > your permission level, which means it can send and receive 'net > traffic, which what the black hats want. The strict permissions regime > of the *nix (including OS-X) is no protection. It is designed to > prevent attacks on the OS itself, which is no help when the user has > allowed the malware access to the system. > > More subtle attacks are also possible, of course. No one really knows > all the insecurities in *nix (which includes OS-X), as there have been > no really serious attacks as yet. Granted, *nixes are inherently more > secure than Windows, but that doesn't mean they're impregnable. > > Cheers, > wolf k. I appreciate your comments, 'Wolf K' Cheers! Dave
From: FromTheRafters on 1 Jul 2010 21:29
"Wolf K" <wekirch(a)sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:d71Xn.26663$Jy1.18367(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > IMO viruses are not the main danger anymore (though > if you ever get one, the effect can be traumatic. Don't > ask how I know.) Generally, there is no reason to resort to viral techniques when there is so much low hanging fruit to be had just by tricking the user into running an application he perhaps shouldn't be running. When users start getting clued-up and adhering to best practices, viruses might again rule the malware world. [...] > The strict permissions regime of the *nix (including OS-X) is no > protection. It is designed to prevent attacks > on the OS itself, which is no help when the user has > allowed the malware access to the system. Good point to make, Wolf K. Not long ago I was trying to convince some Linux user that malware (specifically, bots) can still run on Linux, he didn't understand that malware is often just an application that the user is running and not some software exploit based intruder. [...] |