Forum Moderators: travelin cat
I would like to learn more about these exploits, however I am not surprised to hear that such High-vulnerabilities-weaknesse issues exist. Like anything "It will be hacked".
On a final note 37 (potentially growing) does not scare me as much compared to the daily exploits that appear on Microsoft's OS.
Anyone have any resources on these reported exploits?
They "have been confirmed by the vendor, which, in the Apple case, almost always means that the company has released a patch."
I find the Secunia Apple Page [secunia.com] to be much more informative than what I've been able to coax out of the Symantec site.
The only un-patched, known vulnerabilities in OSX apply to _local_ users. ie. people who already have an account on your Mac!
If you look at Linux security advisories you'll also see a few hundred - but nothing in the wild. Think of them as commentaries on problems that you'll never have to experience, unlike certain other platforms ;)
The only un-patched, known vulnerabilities in OSX apply to _local_ users. ie. people who already have an account on your Mac!That's bad enough! One security problem that's often overlooked is the threat your employes can be.
Think of them as commentaries on problems that you'll never have to experience, unlike certain other platformsI don't agree. It's just that most of the expoits are hard to use onlike under Windows where many of them rely on just writing an ActiveScript. Mac OS X did have a simply exploitable issue: [docs.info.apple.com...] Security Update 2004-06-07
On the other hand, Mac OS X has a much better way of handling access to the critical parts of the system than Windows. This means that most remote exploits will only run with the privileges of the local user, whereas many exploits on Windows usually start with a privilige escalation because the normal user is inadequately shielded from the critical parts of Windows.
If/when we start seeing successful attacks "in the wild," Symantec may not have to resort to FUD to drive sales. The article doesn't mention anything about Mac OS X box being maliciously compromised.
News about existing malware affected Mac OS X (I guess that basically means Macro viruses) would have been more useful. But I guess the threats posed by them is not so newsworthy.
I especially like the line, "the Macintosh operating system has not always been a safe haven," which is true (if not relevant) since there were viruses for pre-OS X Mac OS's.
If/when we start seeing successful attacks "in the wild," Symantec may not have to resort to FUD to drive sales. The article doesn't mention anything about Mac OS X box being maliciously compromised.
The report I read on Y! was basically FUD from Gartner and other sources - probably worried that if everyone switches to OSX they'll lose their market for anti-virus s/w.
I share the same opinion. I did not want to launch a flame, but could not help reflecting on the past when Symantec stopped paying attention to OS X. They made their money on Mac in the early days that is for sure… The fact that Symantec was a source reminded me of the Intego thing where they did the same PR strategy several months back.
BjarneDM
I find the Secunia Apple Page to be much more informative than what I've been able to coax out of the Symantec site.I have never seen this site before and I was amazed at all the data within that site, not just for OS X. Thanks for the info!
I try to remember how many years into OS X Apple is… It is still a newer platform, and as OS X continues to mature the stronger the platform will become I believe. However, on the flipside I feel the more candy Apple tosses into OS X the less stable and productive the OS will remain.
I personally wish Apple would offer a stripped down version of OS X without all the candy.
I have stripped out as much as I can on one box (which take a lot of time) and the performance remains much better than the two other boxes with the standard OS X package.
I have stripped out as much as I can on one box (which take a lot of time) and the performance remains much better than the two other boxes with the standard OS X package.
When you say "candy" you're talking about the unique elements of the GUI or something else? What have you stripped out that improved performance? I've seen hacks to kill window shadows for running OS X on bondi iMacs, but not heard of any others.
pay cold hard cash
Imagine how many people there are with the means and the motive to fund a virus for OS X? Think of the enemies that exist for this platform... It makes you wonder how many times virus writers have been contracted and failed to provide even a single working virus.
They are left to fund FUD reports that compare "numbers of bug fixes" in a way that implies that fixing more bugs means being less secure.
It makes you wonder how many times virus writers have been contracted and failed to provide even a single working virus.
Virus writers were able to write viruses for Pre-OS X Macs. There weren't a whole lot of viruses (I never got one) but they were out there. But since OS X? It's been slim pickings. I don't believe for a second that the "lack of popularity" of the Mac platform has been the reason that it is pretty much virus-free. Lack of popularity certainly didn't protect Macs from viruses before OS X.
"Company backs off bounty for Mac OS X virus
DVForge cited legal concerns in dropping its $25k offer"
wusses...
