Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #57197 > unrolled thread

Survey: OS X vulnerabilities to malware

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Survey: OS X vulnerabilities to malware Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-27 17:36 -0500
    Re: Survey: OS X vulnerabilities to malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-27 23:37 +0000
      Re: Survey: OS X vulnerabilities to malware Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-27 18:39 -0500
        Re: Survey: OS X vulnerabilities to malware Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-27 23:54 +0000
          Re: Survey: OS X vulnerabilities to malware Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-27 19:51 -0500
    Re: Survey: OS X vulnerabilities to malware Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-02-28 07:31 -0800
      Re: Survey: OS X vulnerabilities to malware Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-28 16:44 -0500
    Re: Survey: OS X vulnerabilities to malware me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-02-28 16:32 +0000
      Re: Survey: OS X vulnerabilities to malware Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-28 16:45 -0500
    Re: Survey: OS X vulnerabilities to malware billy@MIX.COM - 2014-03-02 16:38 +0000

#57197 — Survey: OS X vulnerabilities to malware

Without getting into knicker twisting, please weight each statement.

0: don't agree

2: mostly disagree

5: somewhat agree

8:  strongly agree

10: agree

(and interim values as you see fit).

In your opinion:

  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- it is very hard to infect any given OS X machine with malware

- OS X is less likely to propagate a bug over a network, even if the 
network is mainly OS X clients

- It's easier to remove viruses from OS X machines.

- It's harder to get a rootkit onto an OS X machine

- OS X users operate mainly from non-admin accounts - so less vulnerable 
to a serious virus

- the user is the weakest line of defense against malware

- OS X is not targeted because there are far more Windows machines

- Eventually, OS X machines will require A/V software to the same degree 
as Windows does

- Apple's existing XProtect is all that is needed to be safe

- _________________ is a good malware program for OS X (or NONE).


Your own statements wrt OS X malware vulnerability:

  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#57211

On 2014-02-27, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> Without getting into knicker twisting, please weight each statement.

> Your own statements wrt OS X malware vulnerability:

Meh. Better things to do with my day.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57212

On 2014.02.27, 18:37 , Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2014-02-27, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Without getting into knicker twisting, please weight each statement.
>
>> Your own statements wrt OS X malware vulnerability:
>
> Meh. Better things to do with my day.

Would take you less time that a 'defense of Drobo' reply.

-- 
   Privacy has become an essential personal chore that most
   people are not trained to perform.
                  - Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57217

On 2014-02-27, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2014.02.27, 18:37 , Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2014-02-27, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> Without getting into knicker twisting, please weight each statement.
>>
>>> Your own statements wrt OS X malware vulnerability:
>>
>> Meh. Better things to do with my day.
>
> Would take you less time that a 'defense of Drobo' reply.

I wasn't aware you were the decider of how I should spend my time on
Usenet. SO SORRY! ; )

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57221

On 2014.02.27, 18:54 , Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2014-02-27, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2014.02.27, 18:37 , Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> On 2014-02-27, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Without getting into knicker twisting, please weight each statement.
>>>
>>>> Your own statements wrt OS X malware vulnerability:
>>>
>>> Meh. Better things to do with my day.
>>
>> Would take you less time that a 'defense of Drobo' reply.
>
> I wasn't aware you were the decider of how I should spend my time on
> Usenet. SO SORRY! ; )

So sensitive....

-- 
    ... it may be that "in the cloud" really isn't the best term
    for the services these companies offer.  What they really
    want is to have us "on the leash."
                   -David Pogue, Scientific American, 2014.02

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57240

Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> writes:

> Without getting into knicker twisting, please weight each statement.

Alan - I can see you are making some kind of joke, but I'm afraid the
punchline has sailed _way_ over my head.k

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57257

On 2014.02.28, 10:31 , Doug Anderson wrote:
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> writes:
>
>> Without getting into knicker twisting, please weight each statement.
>
> Alan - I can see you are making some kind of joke, but I'm afraid the
> punchline has sailed _way_ over my head.k


There is no saving you, I guess.


-- 
    ... it may be that "in the cloud" really isn't the best term
    for the services these companies offer.  What they really
    want is to have us "on the leash."
                   -David Pogue, Scientific American, 2014.02

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57246

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: 
> Without getting into knicker twisting, please weight each statement.

If this is serious and not a joke, who wants to know?

-- 
K.

Lang may your lum reek.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57258

On 2014.02.28, 11:32 , Király wrote:
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> Without getting into knicker twisting, please weight each statement.
>
> If this is serious and not a joke, who wants to know?

Me.  Maybe you.  Certainly others.

-- 
   Privacy has become an essential personal chore that most
   people are not trained to perform.
                  - Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57369

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> writes:

> Without getting into knicker twisting, please weight each statement.

I'll just offer a few thoughts...

> - it is very hard to infect any given OS X machine with malware

That depends on who is doing it.  As should be obvious now,
anyone who wants to slog through the open sources probably
would not have much trouble.  For example.

> - OS X is less likely to propagate a bug over a network, even if the 
> network is mainly OS X clients

Less likely than what - Windows?  Perhaps.

> - It's easier to remove viruses from OS X machines.

The filesystem is easier to grasp, but there are a massive amount
of plist and xml files, and much of their contents are essentially
undocumented.  Not to mention many of these are buried deep inside
various packages.  So, if the above is true, it is not by much.

> - It's harder to get a rootkit onto an OS X machine

Maybe with more recent OS versions.

> - OS X users operate mainly from non-admin accounts - so less vulnerable 
> to a serious virus

I think Windows users have the same option...?

> - the user is the weakest line of defense against malware

Looking at crappy web sites seems to be the biggest source of trouble.
The Web of trust add-on seems to be pretty good, although I've only had
it running a few weeks now.

> - OS X is not targeted because there are far more Windows machines

And there are more Windows exploits from which to build new ones.
 
> - Eventually, OS X machines will require A/V software to the same degree 
> as Windows does

Maybe...

> - Apple's existing XProtect is all that is needed to be safe

Apple seem to be somewhat slow in keeping up with new exploits.

> - _________________ is a good malware program for OS X (or NONE).

Sophos.

> Your own statements wrt OS X malware vulnerability:

The Flashback (I think it was called) problem was a bit of a surprise.

Everything is vulnerable, though, it just depends on how much effort
someone puts into cracking it.

Billy Y..
-- 
        sub     #'9+1   ,r0             ; convert ascii byte
	add     #9.+1   ,r0             ; to an integer
	bcc     20$                     ; not a number

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web