Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

yetanotherdave

macrumors 68000
Apr 27, 2007
1,770
19
Bristol, England
Yes, because surely what a hacker wants is to be famous and win a measly $50,000 and waste a great hack that everyone will patch immediately afterwards. I think your level of thought is extremely close minded. I bet you save your credit card info and take a picture of your social security card "for emergencies" and store it on your iPhone too.

If I've come up with the perfect way to rob a bank and get away with it, i'm going to save it to use on Fort Knox, not go rob a Seven Eleven. I wouldn't even be surprised if the exploits/viruses for Mac OSX all ready exist and people are simply just waiting for Apple's market share to increase to make it all worth while. The whole point is that USUALLY you will only get one great shot at pulling off something spectacular because after that, the heat is on. So, with Apple being completely laid back on security my guess is that the very first full on attack will be highly successful and by the time people figure out what's going on, it'll be too late and millions of people would have gotten ripped off. Afterwards, Apple will ramp up their security, but at the cost of millions of customers all ready.

The very first person to write a Mac virus will use it steal millions of people's credit cards, social security numbers, etc. that all you people that think you're safe over in La La Land with your unicorns and rainbows.

The point of PWN2OWN is not to write a virus, it's to gain control of a system by any means because that's more valuable than a virus. Year after year they all are picking OSX and it's always the very first one cracked. In a lot of situations, the Windows exploits aren't even successful, meanwhile everyone else hacks OSX in 10 seconds. Someone can be remotely connected to your machine without you knowing and what could they do? Well, when you go spend $3000 on a MacBook Air they could write programs to take screenshots of your credit card number and all information associated. They could create keyloggers that specifically start recording only when a 'longer digit' begins to be entered because it could possibly be a credit card number. Plenty of things.

No one is going to waste their time until they deem they can reap the benefits.

Your theory only holds water if all hackers and virus writers all over the world are colluding and collectively have decided to wait for the jackpot.
In reality this doesn't work because
1) there will be a hell of a lot of "credit" for being the first
2) someone else may beat you to it
3) if someone else beats you to it, apple will patch it
4) apple may patch it anyway, without it being exploited
5) apple may never get anywhere near a MS market share
6) why wait on a money maker. 11% market share is still a lot of people, especially as 99% of them don't have antivirus. An effective virus could hit millions of mac users and catch them with their pants down.
7) as we know from MS ads, Mac users have more disposable income, as we buy ridiculously expensive computers, that's attractive in a "more $ per victim" / "less work for return" sort of way
8) etc etc etc
 

WickedRabbit

macrumors regular
Feb 17, 2009
153
0
Your theory only holds water if all hackers and virus writers all over the world are colluding and collectively have decided to wait for the jackpot.
In reality this doesn't work because
1) there will be a hell of a lot of "credit" for being the first
2) someone else may beat you to it
3) if someone else beats you to it, apple will patch it
4) apple may patch it anyway, without it being exploited
5) apple may never get anywhere near a MS market share
6) why wait on a money maker. 11% market share is still a lot of people, especially as 99% of them don't have antivirus. An effective virus could hit millions of mac users and catch them with their pants down.
7) as we know from MS ads, Mac users have more disposable income, as we buy ridiculously expensive computers, that's attractive in a "more $ per victim" / "less work for return" sort of way
8) etc etc etc

You make valid points on the whole time thing and waiting could result in someone else beating you to the punch, but I think this is where simple math and greed comes in. As you said, 11% of the market share is still quite a lot of people and you could catch them off guard.

My reasoning is based simply off of greed and also off of people that are probably doing this for PC's all ready and seeing that the results are pretty fruitful. On a PC, even if their virus is only 25% effective, that's still almost double the amount of return a hacker would get with Mac assuming it's 100% effective on the Mac. Obviously, no one will ever get a virus that infects absolutely everyone, so they establish a guestimate (yes, I said guestimate and I know how wrong that just sounds) and factor in effectiveness to profit and no matter how you slice it, PC currently is just way more profitable on all scales simply because of the vast amount of users.

Greed is a very powerful factor in everything. You can change the TV channel to anything on any given day and see people on gameshows for money and they've all ready won a million dollars, or half a million dollars, more money than they'd ever see in their life the way they currently live and they could take it all home if they just walk away. But, what do they do? They go for even more and typically end up losing everything. The gameshows know that greed will typically prevail. You think they just want to give out money? It's cause they get advertisement cash and they know that 9 out of 10 people will be greedy and lose. I would only imagine that someone smarter (referring to a hacker) would have the patience to know when to play his cards and when to back out.

You're right, that no matter how you look at it, it is profitable either way, but due to greed, it's simply not worth the effort to target such a small market. They might get away, but then Apple starts immediately focusing on security afterwards and they could have waited for a much bigger pot.

Granted, I made it sound like a mass attack would happen in the near future and that's my fault. We're probably a good 5-10 years before I think a first "major" attack is made on Mac, and I'd guess that it happens once Apple breaks at least 25% marketshare. I don't see Apple ever really challenging Microsoft on a marketshare battle for a lot of reasons, but I do see them becoming quite a bit more mainstream and a lot less niche over the next decade.

I'm just the type of consumer that looks at the big picture and doesn't take anything for granted. Despite the fact that I think it's a ways away from happening, doesn't mean I'm going to go on my daily life as if I know that for a fact not considering that it could also happen tomorrow. As someone who's had his identity and money stolen in the past, I'm not as naive as I use to be.
 

SnowLeopard2008

macrumors 604
Jul 4, 2008
6,772
18
Silicon Valley
No chance. The Windows kernel makes it weak, not the actual OS. Linux and Mac OS X both utilize UNIX foundations. Windows relies on ancient kernel coding. Not a chance. Heck, I already got a a few viruses on my beta copy of Windows 7.
 

ravenvii

macrumors 604
Mar 17, 2004
7,585
493
Melenkurion Skyweir
No chance. The Windows kernel makes it weak, not the actual OS. Linux and Mac OS X both utilize UNIX foundations. Windows relies on ancient kernel coding. Not a chance. Heck, I already got a a few viruses on my beta copy of Windows 7.

Windows 7 is based on the NT kernel. It's not exactly ancient - UNIX is older than NT by a decade or so.

I don't know if the NT kernel is inherently weak, though, I'll leave that up to the code monkeys.
 

BMWFan

macrumors regular
Apr 11, 2009
209
0
Doesn't Microsoft always make this claim for each new update? Call me crazy, but last I checked, Corficker was still making trouble for all Windows based machines even if they had the patch Microsoft had pushed. I mean, how can a machine still fall victim even with the exploit fixed?

And where exactly did you get this fact from?
 

clevin

macrumors G3
Aug 6, 2006
9,095
1
No chance. The Windows kernel makes it weak, not the actual OS. Linux and Mac OS X both utilize UNIX foundations. Windows relies on ancient kernel coding. Not a chance. Heck, I already got a a few viruses on my beta copy of Windows 7.

just a honest suggestion, you should be careful in how you make statement, dont be so absolutely, there are several erroneous statements i read from you. this is one of them.
 

nick9191

macrumors 68040
Feb 17, 2008
3,407
313
Britain
Highly doubt it.

There is so much legacy crap that needs to be in Windows for businesses that cannot be removed or improved without breaking compatibility. Internet Explorer for one. All through the 90's Microsoft used their own proprietary standards instead of following industry standards. When IE7 came out, a lot was removed to try and make the browser more secure, now many businesses can't upgrade to Vista because their stuff doesn't work anymore.

Microsoft is the only company that hurts itself by innovation.

And you can bring up Pwn2Own (a Microsoft sponsored event by the way) all you like, the statistics speak for themselves, 70,000 viruses for Windows, 0 for Mac.
 

Berlepsch

macrumors 6502
Oct 22, 2007
303
48
No chance. The Windows kernel makes it weak, not the actual OS. Linux and Mac OS X both utilize UNIX foundations. Windows relies on ancient kernel coding. Not a chance. Heck, I already got a a few viruses on my beta copy of Windows 7.

Quite the opposite. The NT kernel is robust and has all the necessary security mechanisms you need. The problem is that the OS contains too many loopholes for malicious code to obtain root privileges, for compatibility reasons. In addition to that, Microsoft has added and continuously changed so many programming interfaces (Win32 API, OLE, ActiveX, COM, DCOM, RPC, .NET, WPF and whatever they are called) over the years, that development is dragged down by the sheer mass of it.
 

Locoweed

macrumors member
Apr 14, 2009
32
0
No facts, just my opinion!

I think that one of the reasons for all the virus/worm, etc. problems with Windows is that Microsoft's business model has pi$$ed off a bunch of folks that like to get some revenge.
 

FX120

macrumors 65816
May 18, 2007
1,173
235
Doesn't Microsoft always make this claim for each new update? Call me crazy, but last I checked, Corficker was still making trouble for all Windows based machines even if they had the patch Microsoft had pushed. I mean, how can a machine still fall victim even with the exploit fixed? Leaves so much to ask...
No, you're wrong. Conficker does not affect patched computers, so unless you can provice contrary evedence, you're already off to a bad start.

Windows 7 will still be unsafe, it is still based on Vista, which is based on XP, which is based on NT, which is an 10-12 year old architecture of ancient code and exploits waiting to be found.
And NT is an incredably robust architechture, that has evolved greatly since it's early years. Vista introduced several new security models and completley changed the way the OS operates, read up on it. And NT is actually more like 17-18 years old, which means absolutely nothing.

As long as Windows depends on the DLLhell, Registry and System32 and pretty much everything its handled, it will still be insecure. UNIX based OS's have a clear advantage, no I am not saying this to support OS X. It is a blunt truth. However, I think Linux is much more secure than OS X, but that last statement is IMO.
Now you've gone off the rocker and have just started spouting out things you've heard, without any actual understanding of what they are. Without sourcing some online website to look it up, do you know *exactly* why it was called "DLLhell", what caused it, and why it's an irrelevent thing to even bring up today?
 

clevin

macrumors G3
Aug 6, 2006
9,095
1
Its unbelievable how erroneous some information here are.

Its fine you dont like microsoft, its fine you are apple fanboy. But to spread false information like these, is just incredible.

Please, if you want to state a "fact" while don't even know what you are talking about. either wiki them before you make them, or add some statement such as "I heard.." , "my impression is ....".

False accusation is not gonna help anything, except portray apple people as ill-informed.
 

Mousse

macrumors 68040
Apr 7, 2008
3,652
7,091
Flea Bottom, King's Landing
The only way to make a truly secure computer is to isolate it - no internet connection or movement of software of any kind (disks, flash drives, etc.)

Yep. That's how I run my WinXP system. No Internet on that puppy, so no need for spy-ware/ad-ware/virus blocker. It runs pretty quick for a Pentium III (faster than my Core2 at work loaded down with 10 different copies of said spy-ware/ad-ware/virus blockers.:() Good thing I use Tiger for my home Internet needs.

From the article:
we broke a lot of the compatibility issues to lock down user account controls, to lock down the ability to manipulate states and all the things

If I reading that right, basically you can't do squat unless you're logged in as Administrator. Maybe I'm reading between the lines too much.
 

martychang

macrumors regular
Sep 3, 2007
191
0
No chance. The Windows kernel makes it weak, not the actual OS. Linux and Mac OS X both utilize UNIX foundations. Windows relies on ancient kernel coding. Not a chance. Heck, I already got a a few viruses on my beta copy of Windows 7.

Uhhh, the exact opposite brah. The NT kernel is beyond fine, and the NT security model is a bit more complicated, but technically IS more flexible than UNIX, while affording "full" protective capabilities.

The problem is as another poster stated, legacy BS for businesses. Software from single user systems like Win 98/ME/95 and DOS still needs to run for businesses, and as such the system has provisions for old, awful code that assumes it has every right to use everything it wants. Loopholes for exploits are everywhere because of it, it's just and endless wild goose chase. The only way to solve it is to make a pure NT OS, which isn't likely to happen any time soon.
 

Consultant

macrumors G5
Jun 27, 2007
13,314
36
I don't doubt it. Even Vista and XP are secure now. Comes across as a bit of a challenge to hackers, though. Some will undoubtedly try much harder to crack W7 than Leopard or SL.

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/042309-researchers-show-how-to-take.html

The security researcher that hacked the macs at pwn2own claims Macs are the least secure. I am sure he knows a thing or two about security.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2941

Wrong. He says Macs are safer than Windows.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article...ntest_winner_macs_are_safer_than_windows.html
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,434
12,250
UK
Let's not forget that Bill Gates promised zero viruses for Vista too...

And Vista is far more difficult to attack than XP, you need user intervention which means any system can be attacked.


That's just down to obscurity so Mac OS X is safer. Windows is more secure.
 

stainlessliquid

macrumors 68000
Sep 22, 2006
1,622
0
Let's not forget that Bill Gates promised zero viruses for Vista too...
Well when was the last actual virus to infect Vista? Real viruses are not used anymore because today's OS's are too secure. Technically speaking he was right, but everyone calls trojans and worms viruses now so realistically speaking he was wrong. Trojans are by far the most popular virus and are what everyone complains about, but theres no stopping them since they are installed by user stupidity. All those people who switched to Mac because of viruses on Windows are going to be in the same situation once trojans start popping up for OS X.

How is he wrong? He didnt say Macs are less safe, he said they are less secure, the same thing the expert said.

Since viruses are used for financial gain Macs are safe for now. They wont be forever though and once they see that theres money to be made from Mac users its going to hit them hard, it will probably end up like Windows 98 with Apple being forced to create an entirely new operating system to fix the security issues.
 

macfan881

macrumors 68020
Feb 22, 2006
2,345
0
i can never take that seriously when some one says Windows and secure :D i think the Pittsburgh pirates have a better shot at winning a world series than windows ever being secure :p
 

amd4me

macrumors 6502
Nov 19, 2006
364
0
Remember when they said the Xbox360 would be unhackable?

star-wars-darth-vader-sense-1.jpg
 

dsnort

macrumors 68000
Jan 28, 2006
1,904
68
In persona non grata
Ok, so look what I found tonight while I was browsing. This ought to be interesting. Wonder what Apple may do....New Apple Commercial?:)

This already a well accepted argument in the Mac vs. Windows debate.

The security researcher that hacked the macs at pwn2own claims Macs are the least secure. I am sure he knows a thing or two about security.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2941

And has absolutely no vested interest.

However, I think Linux is much more secure than OS X, but that last statement is IMO.

Linuxes biggest enemy is.... uh.... Linux! Synaptic package manager is great for what it covers, but I recently tried to add a program that was not in SPM. The installation instructions covered 2.3 printed pages. ( I gave up, I have better things to do with my time!)
 

cuestakid

macrumors 68000
Jun 14, 2006
1,785
49
San Fran
so i was perusing the feature comparison of the different versions. I read something a tad frightening. Based upon this comparison, encrypting File System (EFS) is now essentially a premium feature in windows. That is, you must purchase the Professional or if you can the Enterprise or Ultimate versions in order to use this feature. Furthermore, Bitlocker Hard Drive encryption is only in Enterprise and Ultimate versions. Based on this finding, I really dont know how Microsoft can make such a bold statement when not even the most expensive retail version of Windows 7 will give people a key security feature.


See here for a complete comparison.
http://www.winsupersite.com/win7/win7_skus_compare.asp
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.