New Get a Mac Ads

[Eddyisgreat]

I guess it's not enough hearing it from Apple themselves to satisfy you.

I'm searching Apple's website right now and can't find any links to virus laden disk images. I'd love a proof of concept. Can you point me to one?

 

[nazuk]

Tired same old stereotype pushing lie filled crap.

It's the constant perpetuation of the mac user as the trendy, smug arrogant *** that does much damage to the Mac brand.

Furthermore, it's the continued lies in these adverts that also does the same. People watching it will go "Well - I've not had 1000's of viruses, and I'm £1000 better off than buying a 17" mac laptop"

The adverts make me cringe. They make me embarrassed to own a mac.

You always appear to be bitter in your posts.

If you don't like it, get out of the kitchen.

 

[lex750]

No one has questioned who is selling more volume right now, so what's your point?

If you knew anything about PCs and Macs you would know that the basic architecture makes the Mac more secure. It has nothing to do with numbers.

Why is it that insecure PC guys feel the need to come on here and distort the truth about Macs to make themselves feel better about using PCs?

My point is a comment on your senseless post.

"Apple had 90% of the over $1000 computer market in the US in June, so why doesn't it have a comparable percentage of viruses?"

Or did you forget it already?

 

[lex750]

I'm searching Apple's website right now and can't find any links to virus laden disk images. I'd love a proof of concept. Can you point me to one?

Why don't you quote my entire post. See the link. I'm not making this up dude.

Is a Mac safe from PC viruses?

"Yes, a Mac is 100 percent safe from viruses designed to attack PCs. And although no computer connected to the Internet is completely immune to all viruses and spyware, the Mac is built on a solid UNIX foundation and designed with security in mind. The Mac web browser, Safari, alerts you whenever you’re downloading an application — even if it’s disguised as a picture or movie file. And Apple continually makes free security updates available for Mac owners. You can even have them download automatically."

http://www.apple.com/getamac/faq/

I guess it's not enough hearing it from Apple themselves to satisfy you.

 

[itsmenyc]

Is a Mac safe from PC viruses?

"Yes, a Mac is 100 percent safe from viruses designed to attack PCs. And although no computer connected to the Internet is completely immune to all viruses and spyware, the Mac is built on a solid UNIX foundation and designed with security in mind. The Mac web browser, Safari, alerts you whenever you’re downloading an application — even if it’s disguised as a picture or movie file. And Apple continually makes free security updates available for Mac owners. You can even have them download automatically."

http://www.apple.com/getamac/faq/

I guess it's not enough hearing it from Apple themselves to satisfy you.

We're all still waiting for that Mac virus you claim exists that proves your claim that Apple is guilty of false advertising...

 

[Eddyisgreat]

Why don't you quote my entire post. See the link. I'm not making this up dude.

Is a Mac safe from PC viruses?

"Yes, a Mac is 100 percent safe from viruses designed to attack PCs. And although no computer connected to the Internet is completely immune to all viruses and spyware, the Mac is built on a solid UNIX foundation and designed with security in mind. The Mac web browser, Safari, alerts you whenever you’re downloading an application — even if it’s disguised as a picture or movie file. And Apple continually makes free security updates available for Mac owners. You can even have them download automatically."

http://www.apple.com/getamac/faq/

I guess it's not enough hearing it from Apple themselves to satisfy you.

That's exactly what I thought. Yeah, it came straight from the horses mouth that OS X isn't immune to viruses. Ok, I get that.

Show me one.

Don't tell me they exist. Don't tell me they are out there, roaming around the interwebz waiting to infect Mac boxen.

Show me one.
I'll apologize all over this forum for your convenience, after you can show me a self replicating virus. I'll give props to anyone who shows me an actual virus.

itsmenyc lets just drop the argument with this guy. Its clear he can't show us something that he so admittedly believes exists.

 

[DMann]

That's exactly what I thought. Yeah, it came straight from the horses mouth that OS X isn't immune to viruses. Ok, I get that.

Show me one.

Don't tell me they exist. Don't tell me they are out there, roaming around the interwebz waiting to infect Mac boxen.

Show me one.
I'll apologize all over this forum for your convenience, after you can show me a self replication virus. I'll give props to anyone who shows me an actual virus.

Hats off gentlemen, I believe we have found one:

lex750​

 

[Eddyisgreat]

Hats off gentlemen, I believe we have found one:

lex750​

He must work for Intego. They need to push their "anti-virus" some how.

Its been fun guys. Lex, still waiting for one. If you show me one i'll put in my sig "Lex750 wasn't lying. Viruses do exist!1!!!" and i'll you'll have converted ALOT of forum members.

 

[lex750]

We're all still waiting for that Mac virus you claim exists that proves your claim that Apple is guilty of false advertising...

If Mac don't get viruses malware trojans or whatever you want to call it.

Then why was this found in Snow Leopard?

http://blog.intego.com/2009/08/25/snow-leopard-contains-an-antivirus/

Looks to me like virus, malware, trojan protection to me.

 

[Swiss Apple]

The virus scaremongering is starting to get really really old. I've been using Windows for 15 years and have had perhaps 3 viruses, all of which were addressed using an anti-virus program. If you're selective with what you download and take basic precautions there is no reason why you should get a virus. As for "Just working", thats pretty subjective.

 

[itsmenyc]

Apple needs to start making some kind of 'ingenious' ads now - smarter ads like Volkswagen (in Europe anyway) that reflect in a clever way the smarter design and overall better experience.

This snide superiority stuff is getting a little vulgar now. Really, I don't want to see anymore of them.

If it were only so easy... i am constantly countering people who insist that Macs also have viruses plus all the other typical BS Microsoft disinformation. It's amazing how consistent the untruths are.

How are they snide? The Microsoft ads are intentionally misleading and obnoxious. The Apple ads are a humorous response.

 

[Eddyisgreat]

If Mac don't get viruses malware trojans or whatever you want to call it.

Then why was this found in Snow Leopard?

http://blog.intego.com/2009/08/25/snow-leopard-contains-an-antivirus/

Looks to me like virus, malware, trojan protection.

What? Apple had the balls to use what looks to be Heuristics to detect known trojans? The sky is falling oh noes1!11!!11! Great. So if a virus DOES show up Apple won't be able to do a darn thing about it as far as dmg's and downloaded files are concerned. Viruses replicate without user interaction through exploits in the OS , of which we havn't seen OS X suffer from; atleast not on any type of scale. Again, Marware and trojans are user installed.

Intego is just pissed off that Apple has such a feature standard. Now they won't be able to peddle their warez when a built in solution will be just as robust.

 

[lex750]

What? Apple had the balls to use what looks to be Heuristics to detect known trojans? The sky is falling oh noes1!11!!11! Great. So if a virus DOES show up Apple won't be able to do a darn thing about it as far as dmg's and downloaded files are concerned. Viruses replicate without user interaction through exploits in the OS , of which we havn't seen OS X suffer from; atleast not on any type of scale. Again, Marware and trojans are user installed.

Intego is just pissed off that Apple has such a feature standard. Now they won't be able to peddle their warez when a built in solution will be just as robust.

Mac OS X: The First Virus

http://www.spamlaws.com/mac-virus.html

I guess Apple sees the writing on the wall. To bad their users don't.

 

[itsmenyc]

The virus scaremongering is starting to get really really old. I've been using Windows for 15 years and have had perhaps 3 viruses, all of which were addressed using an anti-virus program. If you're selective with what you download and take basic precautions there is no reason why you should get a virus. As for "Just working", thats pretty subjective.

Consider yourself lucky then. I have IT friends who have had serious virus and crash problems. Not fun...

 

[DMann]

Mac OS X: The First Virus

http://www.spamlaws.com/mac-virus.html

I guess Apple sees the writing on the wall. To bad their users don't.

Too bad it was an unsuccessful attempt at a trojan exploit, not a virus. -zip

 

[Eddyisgreat]

Mac OS X: The First Virus

http://www.spamlaws.com/mac-virus.html

I guess Apple sees the writing on the wall. To bad their users don't.

On February 16, 2006, SophosLabs announced the detection of the very first virus written for the Mac OS X platform. OSXLeap-A, often referred to as OSX/Oompa-A, is an infection that spreads via the Macintosh iChat instant messaging system. It operates by forwarding itself as a "LATESTPICS.TGZ" file to the contacts on the buddy list of an infected user. When the archived file is opened, its contents are disguised with a graphic icon in JPEG format, which attempts to trick the recipient into believing it is a harmless file. The virus uses the "OOMPA" text as a marker in the forks of the infected program which prevents it from compromising the same files.

I'm not quoting the rest cuz its pretty irrelevent. I know this guy calls it a virus but I have a question;

Let me get this straight. Let me get this 100% crystal clear cause i'm not sure if i'm really hearing this right and if I am, its blowing my mind.

You're telling me I have to run this program on my first box, then for each of my other macs to get infected I have to go to every other box, open ichat, wait for the compromised machine to send me a file, then accept this file, then execute it?

Oh, my, god.

That's one doozy of a virus. I guess you showed me . How could I ever have doubted you?

You need enlightenment on how real worms drop their payload. A famous example :

Conficker E 2009-04-07
NetBIOS
Exploits MS08-067 vulnerability in Server service[35]
NetBIOS push
Patches MS08-067 to open reinfection backdoor in Server service
P2P push/pull
Uses custom protocol to scan for infected peers via UDP, then transfer via TCP[32]
Blocks DNS lookups
Disables AutoUpdate
Kills anti-malware
Scans for and terminates processes with names of anti-malware, patch or diagnostic utilities at one-second intervals[36]
Updates local copy of Conficker C to Conficker D[37]
Downloads and installs malware payload:
Waledac spambot[35]
SpyProtect 2009 scareware[38]
Removes self on 3 May 2009 (but leaves remaining copy of Conficker D)[39]

See the part where it doesn't say that a user run application dropped the payload, but rather an exploited vulnerability which the virus itself utilizes? Keep watching:

Initial infection
Variants A, B, C and E exploit a vulnerability in the Server Service on Windows computers, in which an already-infected source computer uses a specially-crafted RPC request to force a buffer overflow and execute shellcode on the target computer.[40] On the source computer, the worm runs an HTTP server on a port between 1024 and 10000; the target shellcode connects back to this HTTP server to download a copy of the worm in DLL form, which it then attaches to svchost.exe.[31] Variants B and later may attach instead to a running services.exe or Windows Explorer process.[24]
Variants B and C can remotely execute copies of themselves through the ADMIN$ share on computers visible over NetBIOS. If the share is password-protected, a dictionary attack is attempted, potentially generating large amounts of network traffic and tripping user account lockout policies.[41]
Variants B and C place a copy of their DLL form on any attached removable media (such as USB flash drives), from which they can then infect new hosts through the Windows AutoRun mechanism.[9]
To start itself at system boot, the worm saves a copy of its DLL form to a random filename in the Windows system folder, then adds registry keys to have svchost.exe invoke that DLL as an invisible network service.[24]
[edit]Payload propagation
The worm has several mechanisms for pushing or pulling executable payloads over the network. These payloads are used by the worm to update itself to newer variants, and to install additional malware.
Variant A generates a list of 250 domain names every day across five TLDs. The domain names are generated from a pseudo-random number generator seeded with the current date to ensure that every copy of the worm generates the same names each day. The worm then attempts an HTTP connection to each domain name in turn, expecting from any of them a signed payload.[24]
Variant B increases the number of TLDs to eight, and has a generator tweaked to produce domain names disjoint from those of A.[24]
To counter the worm's use of pseudorandom domain names, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and several TLD registries began in February 2009 a coordinated barring of transfers and registrations for these domains.[42] Variant D counters this by generating daily a pool of 50000 domains across 110 TLDs, from which it randomly chooses 500 to attempt for that day. The generated domain names were also shortened from 8-11 to 4-9 characters to make them more difficult to detect with heuristics. This new pull mechanism (which was disabled until April 1)[25][34] is unlikely to propagate payloads to more than 1% of infected hosts per day, but is expected to function as a seeding mechanism for the worm's peer-to-peer network.[27] The shorter generated names, however, are expected to collide with 150-200 existing domains per day, potentially causing a distributed denial of service attack (DDoS) on sites serving those domains.[43]
Variant C creates a named pipe, over which it can push URLs for downloadable payloads to other infected hosts on a local area network.[34]
Variants B, C and E perform in-memory patches to NetBIOS-related DLLs to close MS08-067 and watch for re-infection attempts through the same vulnerability. Re-infection from more recent versions of Conficker are allowed through, effectively turning the vulnerability into a propagation backdoor.[30]
Variants D and E create an ad-hoc peer-to-peer network to push and pull payloads over the wider Internet. This aspect of the worm is heavily obfuscated in code and not fully understood, but has been observed to use large-scale UDP scanning to build up a peer list of infected hosts and TCP for subsequent transfers of signed payloads. To make analysis more difficult, port numbers for connections are hashed from the IP address of each peer.[32][34]
[edit]Armoring
To prevent payloads from being hijacked, variant A payloads are first SHA1-hashed and RC4-encrypted with the 512-bit hash as a key. The hash is then RSA-signed with a 1024-bit private key.[31] The payload is unpacked and executed only if its signature verifies with a public key embedded in the worm. Variants B and later use MD6 as their hash function and increase the size of the RSA key to 4096 bits.[34]
[edit]Self-defense
Variant C of the worm resets System Restore points and disables a number of system services such as Windows Automatic Update, Windows Security Center, Windows Defender and Windows Error Reporting.[44] Processes matching a predefined list of antiviral, diagnostic or system patching tools are watched for and terminated.[45] An in-memory patch is also applied to the system resolver DLL to block lookups of hostnames related to antivirus software vendors and the Windows Update service.[34]
[edit]End action
Variant E of the worm was the first to use its base of infected computers for an ulterior purpose.[38] It downloads and installs, from a web server hosted in Ukraine, two additional payloads:[46]
Waledac, a spambot otherwise known to propagate through e-mail attachments.[47] Waledac operates similarly to the 2008 Storm worm and is believed to be written by the same authors.[48][49]
SpyProtect 2009, a scareware anti-virus product.[50]

This is a true worm/virus (not really interchangable but whatever). I was actually kinda impressed. The news media went WILD with this one. Y2K all over again. Even I was on my toes as I had family and friends hitting me up asking whether or not they were safe. Good times, good times

It still stands; If I have to infect my own box, with a mouse and keyboard it ain't no [sic] virus/worm.

 

[djellison]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517610,00.html

http://www.spamlaws.com/mac-virus.html

FWIW - Never had a PC virus. Install Avast - it's free, has a tiny system footprint, problem solved. Infact, on my XP64 workstation, I've not even bothered with that as I don't send/receive email. There are several AV solutions available for the Mac...are they just snake oil?

 

[frabber]

pro windows advertisement

This is a pro windows advertisement.
That mac guy looks boring.
Apple thinks he is trendy.
The windows guy is where it's at.

 

[DMann]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517610,00.html

http://www.spamlaws.com/mac-virus.html

FWIW - Never had a PC virus. Install Avast - it's free, has a tiny system footprint, problem solved. Infact, on my XP64 workstation, I've not even bothered with that as I don't send/receive email. There are several AV solutions available for the Mac...are they just snake oil?

That would be a carry over from OS 9, which, with it's miniscule market share, actually had hundreds of viruses - so much for the 'Marketshare Myth.' The architecture of OS X (UNIX) makes writing successful viruses significantly more difficult, however, so an AV is not a necessity at this time.

 

[djellison]

Those two links, however, are stories of an OS X virus, in 2009.

 

[djchuckc27]

hey these are all good points... the "mac vs. pc" ads are okay... but i agree, apple needs a marketing refresh...

it's not VS anymore.. mac already won. time to talk about the greatness of the machine itself... the new macbook pro is just too sick to be true.

plus windows put themselves in a corner, how can they convince xp/vista users that the 7 os won't be another p.o.s. like vista? it looks pretty, but it's still windows. plus, windows is low-balling itself with their low cost ads. mac has the ball, they need to run with it instead of playing the same field as windows..

talk about hardware, software.. how mac is the future of computing!!!

SL FRIDAY!

 

[DMann]

This is a pro windows advertisement.
That mac guy looks boring.
Apple thinks he is trendy.
The windows guy is where it's at.

 

[DMann]

Those two links, however, are stories of an OS X virus, in 2009.

The top one is about 'the little virus that couldn't' in 2009, and the bottom one is about 'the little trojan that couldn't' in 2006.

 

[surferfromuk]

If it were only so easy... i am constantly countering people who insist that Macs also have viruses plus all the other typical BS Microsoft disinformation. It's amazing how consistent the untruths are.

How are they snide? The Microsoft ads are intentionally misleading and obnoxious. The Apple ads are a humorous response.

You know the way these Ad's are going we're eventually going to see PC taking a pooh into a potty and tipping it over a model Globe of the Earth. Mac asks 'what are you doing PC?' and PC answers 'Oh just what we've been doing for the last 30 years'. Mac shakes his head, puts on his rubber gloves, get's a bucket of soapy water and starts scrubbing the globe clean...

 

[celtikmind]

Had a Windows PC that got a virus, once. Had another where the harddisk failed. Got really tired of computers not working.

Bought a Mac (uMBP) thinking quality. First one had pixel defects, on another replacement the dvd was broken. Had a third which overheated and burned itself up. Sold the forth when all Apple offered was 'we're sorry'.

What to do?

Thought about giving Apple one more chance (without any their 'so fabulous support') due to me using Mac's in the years past. Read about SATA problems and the lack of dedicated graphic cards (which would accelerate their coming OS).

Tried Windows 7. Accepted the one or two flaws of running Windows. Bought a new Windows laptop and with the money saved, a trip. Is still happy with that decision when reading the story about continuing troubles with harddrives and other news at MR.

Make an ad about that!

True story, believe or not. I really don't give if you do or not, since it doesn't change my situation in any way. That, and I'm tired of 'Apple loyalists' who used Mac's for two months and behave like Apple is the answer to all computing woes.

I'm very wary around Apple these days, the quality and the focus on what previously made the Mac so special went out the window(s) when the iPhone appeared.

So to me these ads are nothing but another stain by the 'modern', greedy Apple on the quality and reputation made by previous employees.

In short - bleh.