Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Ransomware - has this made you rethink your platform choice
- Thread starter maflynn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Be aware however that the free version of Malwarebytes only offers detection. Only the paid version offers protection.
I use VoodooShield, Windows Defender and Malwarebytes (free) also MSDN Process Explorer linked to Virus Total. Never seen any issue, systems are pretty much bullet proof short of a physical attack.
Last edited:
the anti ransomware is not only a detector but blocker.
It is not 100% infallible but very good.
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/download/malwarebytes-anti-ransomware/
anti ransomware program in NOT same as malwarebytes anti malware which is another program completely.
And agree need the paid version of this one.
On windows ADWcleaner is a very very good free cleaner, now owned by malwarebytes.
It is not 100% infallible but very good.
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/download/malwarebytes-anti-ransomware/
anti ransomware program in NOT same as malwarebytes anti malware which is another program completely.
And agree need the paid version of this one.
On windows ADWcleaner is a very very good free cleaner, now owned by malwarebytes.
Absolutely no denying the fact that there are lesser attacks on the Mac OS compared to Windows. However, whether this is security via obscurity (on a relative scale compared to Windows) or whether the OSX is truly secure...I am not sure.
Regarding Windows 7...Windows was exploited and Microsoft released a patch for it. They did right. All OSs have bugs and weaknesses in them. That is a fact of all software systems.
Exactly OS X is just not on the radar, nor does Apple rush to fix. Kind of always thought if the "right" person wants to exploit OS X it will be a field day, as by far the vast majority of systems are unprotected. Never say never and all...
With Wannacry my own opinion is much is self inflicted, people & organisations chose not to update and or pay Microsoft to extend security features, and now many cry foul. So what to expect. Apple's tolerance on legacy iterations of OS X is far less reaching, already effectively culling Mavericks...
Q-6
Oh, but those point of sale Apps are so specialized, expensive and antiquated...
Every time I walk into a store running some stodgy old XP inventory/register app, I cringe for the poor people trying to cope with the stone age. They just switched software at my usual grocery store, and the new stuff is even clunkier/crashier than the old. Haven't seen the screen yet, but maybe they've updated to Windows Vista. Likely all they could afford.
No, but the increased threat of ransomware (to both Macs and PCs) has made me examine my backup strategies because of the potential latency of an infection and its ability to encrypt attached secondary storage, as you noted.
With my primary Mac I use as a workstation, I have always used Carbon Copy Cloner to make a bootable clone of the local SSD using a dedicated drive that I only plug in when creating the backup, and then power off/unplug after the backup is complete. Now I've added a second dedicated disk to do the same thing, and I make sure each clone is made at least a week apart from the other, both of which are kept offline and powered down at all times except when creating the clone. Should a ransomware infection with a time delay get the local SSD (and, consequently, any recent clones), I would have a second clone that is older and would likely have been made before the infection. Additionally, I've made more effort to keep offline & powered-off backups of many of my externals that I use continuously with the system, given a ransomware infection could potentially encrypt these secondary drives as well.
I'm doing a similar thing with one of my Windows machines using Bvckup 2.
My guess is that the probability of me facing a ransomware infection is a good bit lower than facing drive failure - however, much of my backup strategy is designed to prevent data loss from drive failure, so I figure I might as well also integrate methods to protect from data loss due to ransomware.
With my primary Mac I use as a workstation, I have always used Carbon Copy Cloner to make a bootable clone of the local SSD using a dedicated drive that I only plug in when creating the backup, and then power off/unplug after the backup is complete. Now I've added a second dedicated disk to do the same thing, and I make sure each clone is made at least a week apart from the other, both of which are kept offline and powered down at all times except when creating the clone. Should a ransomware infection with a time delay get the local SSD (and, consequently, any recent clones), I would have a second clone that is older and would likely have been made before the infection. Additionally, I've made more effort to keep offline & powered-off backups of many of my externals that I use continuously with the system, given a ransomware infection could potentially encrypt these secondary drives as well.
I'm doing a similar thing with one of my Windows machines using Bvckup 2.
My guess is that the probability of me facing a ransomware infection is a good bit lower than facing drive failure - however, much of my backup strategy is designed to prevent data loss from drive failure, so I figure I might as well also integrate methods to protect from data loss due to ransomware.
It doesn't give you the patch level (I did use the word "or"), so I stand by my comment. Besides, it was being reported by the NHS that many of their systems were out of date (XP etc...), so I am fairly confident in my report. Notice the number of Windows 10 affected.
"Or" indeed, as the patch that prevented the Wcry infection was issued in March.
Yes, Win10 was virtually unaffected due to the "pushy" nature of the OS. Heck, its upgrade/install was virtually ransomware itself.
Still not tracking your point, my comment is still correct. A patch was issued and firms failed to install. I am a Windows admin and keep a tight run on my patching efforts as every admin should do; none of my systems were affected. Perhaps these companies and individuals should think harder about their security efforts, that is not Microsoft's fault.
Last edited:
Personally, I've never subscribed to the security through obscurity theory. I've seen studies that suggest Mac users are more affluent and spend more which would make them, in my opinion, more attractive targets for anyone looking to profit.
If you are only looking at home users. However, that last exploit hit compaines and government agencies which are a more lucrative target than a home Apple user.
Well, they were not lucrative enough to fork over the cash to Microsoft for the fix...
I rethought Windows a long time ago for my family needs.
My wife and kid are on iPads, with an older MBP for her business needs. I am on a rMBP + iPad for the most part, and a Linux PC for gaming. I consciously elected to limit the number of games available to me rather than running anything from Microsoft at home.
Sane computing habits include not giving administrative rights to anyone who doesn't know how to properly administer a computer, and definitely not using an administrative account for daily tasks. In UNIX-like systems like macOS and sudo-enabled Linux distributions, you actually are prompted for a password even though your user is a member of the right groups, but Windows still is a little too eager to "help" you by letting you simply press "Allow" in too many situations.
Also, backups are a must. You don't have the data if it isn't stored in multiple versions, in multiple places. In macOS, TimeMachine to a large enough drive is enough for most needs. In Windows I've been recommending people to use Veeam's free tool Endpoint Backup, which works similarly. At home, the 3-2-1 rule may be slightly overkill for most data (3 copies, on 2 kinds of media, with at least 1 copy off-site), but it should be considered.
Wonder, if the average user does know what to do besides let updates run.
I heard that these days you can get infected by an email, even, if you don't open it.
Link requires a subscription and the patch that was released was done in March. The "held back" patch I suspect that the article is talking about is for XP, an OS that is no longer supported. That being said, MS decided to release a patch for it.
Again, you can't convince me this is anything but the fault of the system owners. If you are still running an non supported OS, you are putting your system at risk (even OS X). If you are running a current version and aren't patching it, you are putting your system at risk. How hard is this to follow?
https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/13/...-xp-security-patch-wannacry-ransomware-attack
Yes. The article is about the XP patch. It was held back for the purpose of trying to profit from those still running XP. It was released after the widespread wanna cry outbreak and more damage control than good will. So, it was either pay Microsoft their ransom or be vulnerable to ransomware. Lose-lose in my book.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just saying I don't subscribe to the security through obscurity theory. The topic asks whether this outbreak has made me rethink my platform choice and, no, it has not. I'm as confident in macOS today as ever. I don't have the same level of confidence in Windows. How hard is that to follow?
Think your statement is really too harsh and over simplifying the situation. Just exactly how long should a provider be expected to support an OS? End of the day it costs to develop, as it costs to maintain legacy software. Organisations had options, they actively chose not to act, which frankly speaks volumes. From my understanding Microsoft issued several options for the support of it's legacy OS. Put it this way do you work for free? I certainly don't, equally I am not absolutely mercenary.
OS X 10.6 remains to be my favourite iteration of Apple's desktop OS, equally I never expected Apple to support it infinitum. Want to be secure in our current digital age? there's is a cost; organisations & individuals need to run current and up to date software. Personally not a massive advocate of Microsoft, equally I don't see them as the villain here...
Q-6
It is a fallacy and there is no obscurity. If a person running Snow Leopard has a security issue, you are saying Apple will address it? I have news for you, they won't and I am sure there are gaps that can be exploited. It is an old OS that is no longer supported. XP support is long gone and Microsoft owes anyone running it nothing. They have been warned and told many time to upgrade. Why should a company be forced to continue to support a product that is 15 years old. Again, the question you should be asking is why firms and government agencies are still using it?
I don't know the right answer for how long an OS should be supported. All I know is that a fix existed and it was held back because they wanted to profit from it.
Someone earlier in the thread suggested that the reason why there are less attacks on macOS may be the result of security through obscurity and that's what I was disputing. I felt that studies have been made that show Mac users to be more affluent and, therefore, better targets for criminals looking to profit.
That's when someone said companies are even more lucrative... Well, they didn't have the funds to pay for the fix that Microsoft was trying to sell and they they didn't spend to upgrade to newer versions of Windows....
That is a very entitled attitude. Microsoft has to dust and pay developers to patch that system and gen provide free support? That makes no sense. Sorry, but I'm still bewildered why there are people using an outdated OS.
Of course when an OS loses support, government and companies should move away from it. That's only logical. Why don't they? I can't answer that. You'll have to ask them.
Your argument was that government and companies are more lucrative and better targets. Maybe... But if they are so lucrative, why don't they upgrade to newer, supported OSes?