ie8 fix
madison

Zero Day

Ryan Naraine, Emil Protalinski and Dancho Danchev

Malware affiliate bounty: Infect a Mac, earn 43 cents

By | September 25, 2009, 6:03am PDT

Summary: A new malware affiliate program has been discovered offering 43c for every infected Mac machine.

GENEVA — In a sign that cyber-criminals are investing more time and resources into attacks against Apple’s Mac users, a new malware affiliate program has been discovered offering 43c for every infected Mac machine.

During an eye-opening presentation at the VB Conference 2009 conference here, Sophos Labs researcher Dmitry Samosseikko provided a glimpse into the “Partnerka,” a Russian network of spam and malware affiliates that have turned their attention to the Mac platform — using social engineering tricks to load fake codecs and scareware programs.

Samosseiko discussed the “codec-partnerka,” which is dedicated solely to the sale and promotion of fake Mac software.

[ SEE: Mac Attack: Porn video lures dropping DNS-changer Trojan ]

He pointed to a site called Mac-codec.com (now offline) which was offering $0.43 for each malicious install, a price tag that suggests the Mac platform is becoming more and more lucrative to online crime gangs.

The site was also offering various promotional materials in the form of MacOS video players, a sign that the investment is just more than tricking users into paying for fake security software.

In the past, we have seen the use of porn video lures to trick Mac users into downloadiing and installing  DNS changer Trojans.

The DNS changer Trojans typically change the Mac’s DNS server (the server that is used to look up the correspondences between domain names and IP addresses for web sites and other Internet services). When this new, malicious, DNS server is active, it hijacks some web requests, leading users to phishing web sites (for sites such as Ebay, PayPal and some banks), or simply to web pages displaying ads for other pornographic web sites.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Ryan Naraine is a journalist and social media enthusiast specializing in Internet and computer security issues.

Disclosure

Ryan Naraine

The most important disclosure is of my employment with Kaspersky Lab as a member of the global research and analysis team. Kaspersky Lab is a global company specializing in anti-malware and secure content management technologies. I do not own stocks or other investments in any technology company.

Biography

Ryan Naraine

Ryan Naraine is a journalist and social media enthusiast specializing in Internet and computer security issues. He is currently security evangelist at Kaspersky Lab, an anti-malware company with operations around the globe. He is taking a leadership role in developing the company's online community initiative around secure content management technologies.

Prior to joining Kaspersky Lab, Ryan was Editor-at-Large/Security at eWEEK, leading the magazine's and Web site's coverage of Internet and computer security issues and managing the popular SecurityWatch blog, covering the daily threats, vulnerabilities and IT security technologies. He also covered IT security, hacker attacks and secure content management topics for Jupiter Media's internetnetnews.com.

Ryan can be reached at naraine SHIFT 2 gmail.com. For daily updates on Ryan's activities, follow him on Twitter.

289
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Malware affiliate bounty: Infect a Mac, earn 43 cents
birumut Updated - 2nd May 2011
Well done! Thank you very much for professional templates and community edition
seslisohbet seslichat
0 Votes
+ -
It has begun...
vulpine@... 25th Sep 2009
Now to see how long it will take before the Mac is as beset by malware as
Windows.
Oh, there's no doubt malware is coming to OS X ... but Windows has
long suffered from basic design flaws that make it much easier to
attack the platform.

Microsoft has put some good measures in place to update their OS
technology to prevent some of it, but they've been saddled with the
needs for backwards compatibility with programs that only run when
those new features are crippled or disabled first.

(For example, anyone trying to use older versions of Quickbooks on a
Windows Vista machine has to essentially disable all of the new
security in Vista before it will run properly. That's because, like many
older Windows programs, QB assumed it was ok to write to registry
locations that were later declared "off limits" for applications to
modify.)

Honestly, the Mac has always had an advantage here, because with a
far smaller base of users, and less software to have to be concerned
with in the first place - they can make more radical changes, more
rapidly, and just dump backwards compatibility whenever it causes
them big problems.

(Apple isn't stuck, for example, with a US military and big government
contracts that declare "We're NOT going to upgrade for X more years!",
and has to build their business model around those customers.)
(For example, anyone trying to use older versions of Quickbooks on a Windows Vista machine has to essentially disable all of the new security in Vista before it will run properly. That's because, like many older Windows programs, QB assumed it was ok to write to registry locations that were later declared "off limits" for applications to modify.)

This is an example of a developer using poor coding practices (and not just from a security point of view). The areas you refer to were not "later declared off limits" but were always that way. At least since Windows 2000 if not since Windows NT 3.1.

Mac users need to stop confusing application developer poor habits with inherent weaknesses in Windows' security design. Windows' security design has been quite good since Windows NT 3.1 was released in 1993. And it has been improved with later releases.
0 Votes
+ -
That *is* a design flaw - the developer environment is part of the whole
equation. Blaming the problem on the developer is similar to blaming typical
configuration problems on the user. It's *possible* to get it right - why
don't they?

Was Quickbooks built by a bunch of teenagers in a garage? I doubt it - I'll
bet they were all experienced professionals. Yet still they didn't manage to
get it right. Just like the Windows users, Windows developers just keep
failing to get it completely right. Clearly Windows users and developers
need to WORK HARDER to live up to the expectations set for them by
Windows.

Meanwhile, those panty-waisted Mac users and developers can get soft and
flabby on that OS that is designed with the idea of making sense to the user
and developer - making it easier for them. What a bunch of losers.
0 Votes
+ -
The systems didn't "ask" for such a design.
ye Updated - 25th Sep 2009
We can see as much because later versions of QuickBooks don't work the same way as previous versions. If Intuit is able to write proper code (at least from the perspective of LUP) in their current software what prevented them from doing it in their earlier software?

As to why developers wrote so much poor I don't know. It is simply amazing how much of it is/was out there. Microsoft published best coding practices prior to Windows 2000 being released. In fact it was required to obtain Windows certification. Those practices include writing for LUP. Anyone following those best practices would not have had any problem with LUP. Period.

It's a developer problem. And the fact software has been correctly written once Microsoft began "enforcing" LUP demonstrates as much. QuickBooks is a prime example.
0 Votes
+ -
You seem to forget...
RocketEater 25th Sep 2009
that most of this software was written originally for Windows 95 where the concept of permissions was unknown. I'm sure all Intuit did was re-jig a few things and re-compile. The first version of Quicken that I got that actually did basic things like create the user's data file in the user's data space was 2008. I still remember a version QuickTax that *required* you to *run* the software using an admin account in XP - totally insane. I think when Vista came out, Intuit knew they had to re-write it or face a users revolt.
0 Votes
+ -
No, I did not forget.
ye 25th Sep 2009
I've made this exact argument myself. However the framework existed in Windows 95 even if it wasn't enforced by the OS. There existed user home folders and an HKCU registry hive (along with HKLM). Had developers written their code to this framework it would have been forward compaatible.

And maybe that last part is the answer: They want you to pay for an upgrade.
0 Votes
+ -
It's quite simple ...
de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023 25th Sep 2009
... because, before Vista, many Windows users ran as admin, few users tripped over the issue with apps writing to protected areas of the registry and file system.

When Vista arrived and (by default) ran all users (even those who are members of the admin group) as non-admin users, apps started to fail. Lots of apps. Lots and lots of apps ... from vendors who never got around to correcting their misbehaving apps.

And then the tide turned. Those many apps had to be fixed and patched.

Today, we all enjoy a much safer environment because most Windows apps have been patched to run fine on Vista by changing the code to only write to user-specific areas of the registry and file system in normal use.
0 Votes
+ -
Why?
Lester Young 25th Sep 2009
Same reason so many IT services are dependent on IE6. Same reason there's a death grip on XP in so many circles. Stick with old familiar habits from the Win9x days no matter what. Play chicken with Microsoft over updated standards. If Microsoft doesn't swerve first, howl about them breaking software. Never mind that in most industries that kind of behavior would cost people their jobs.
0 Votes
+ -
Two things
stano360 25th Sep 2009
First of all, as a Quickbooks user, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a bunch of teenagers in a garage. Secondly, Quickbooks doesn't even work on Mac's (if it does it's a recent development).

It has nothing to do with the ease of programming, it permissions. How many Windows users install programs that are not certified by MS? I do all the time. That is not a possibility on a Mac is it?
0 Votes
+ -
Pure ignorance of the Mac
use_what_works_4_U 25th Sep 2009
Secondly, Quickbooks doesn't even work on Mac's (if it does it's a recent development).
Define "recent". Quickbooks has been available and functional on the Mac platform for at least 6 years. True, it has a bad reputation as crappy software, but my sister has been running a very successful business with it for 3 years and I have seen it running on Macs since '03.

How many Windows users install programs that are not certified by MS? I do all the time. That is not a possibility on a Mac is it?
I do it all the time on my Macs. Apple provides development tools for the Mac that have a great reputation, but if you can write code for *Nix, you can very often compile that same code for OSX which is built on Darwin, an open source OS based on BSD unix. http://www.opensource.apple.com/

Many people writing for the Mac are members of Apple's Developer program, but many are not. Regardless there is NO vetting program for Mac software. You write it, you release it, we decide if we want it.

Apple does review iPhone/iPod applications, but talk about an Apples to Oranges comparison!

Your point of ease of programming vs. permissions is, I believe, valid. Your supporting facts where the Mac is concerned are just plain wrong, though.
While the OP is incorrect the Mac version is woefully lacking features compared to the Windows versions.
0 Votes
+ -
Some ignorance of Quicken/Quickbooks
vulpine@... 25th Sep 2009
I won't argue that Quicken/Quickbooks is back on the Mac, but
it wasn't all that long ago that Intuit stopped developing to the
Mac because they believed Apple was going down for the
count. There was no Mac version of Quicken/Quickbooks for
about five years.

Why did they change their minds? Apple's sales numbers
jumped over 800% in just 10 years. Yes, I know--800% of a
million units is only 8 million units... but that number is still
growing on an annual basis. The growth of Windows machines
hasn't been as large, even though they sell far more units.
0 Votes
+ -
Very well put.
0 Votes
+ -
But wrong. nt
ye 25th Sep 2009
.
0 Votes
+ -
Breaking the rules...
Wolfie2K3 Updated - 25th Sep 2009
That *is* a design flaw - the developer environment is part of the whole equation. Blaming the problem on the developer is similar to blaming typical configuration problems on the user. It's *possible* to get it right - why don't they?

If you're told you can only drive on the RIGHT side of the road, and you insist on driving on the left - maybe because you grew up in the UK, Australia or Japan - what can you expect to happen? You can get into accidents as you run head on into another vehicle. You can get tickets, get arrested, etc...

Just because you're used to doing something doesn't make it RIGHT.

In 2001, Microsoft published a list of best practices for coding programs for XP. In it, Microsoft told everyone NOT to use the registry to pass on messages between modules. Writing willy-nilly to the registry can cause all manner of problems - like registry corruption, and such.

It took Intuit 6 years to comply with that. They'd probably STILL be doing it their way if Vista had not come along and forced them to change their habits.

Was QB concocted by a couple of teens in a garage? No. But it may as well have been given their refusal to comply with best programming practices that were published half a decade previously.
0 Votes
+ -
Windows vs Mac...
prof123 Updated - 25th Sep 2009
It is important to distinguish 2 types of attacks. One is when a trojan or malware is installed (executed) without the user knowledge. This is an exploit of a bug in the OS such as buffer overflow.

The second type of attack is to trick the user to install something that he thinks is doing "A" when in reality it is doing "B".

Most attacks on OS X are of type 2 where a user is tricked to install something. This is not a flaw in the OS. It is as if a driver in a BMW decides to drive on the wrong side of the street, it is not the fault of BMW if a mishap happens. On OS X you must always sign in with an admin password before any installation, so this is another clue.

In Windows, on the other hand, it easy to make attacks of both types. When installing or running any any EXE file, there is no need to explicitly enter your password, it is simply a YES/NO choice, where many users make the wrong choice.
0 Votes
+ -
Re: Windows vs Mac..
JT82 25th Sep 2009
"On OS X you must always sign in with an admin password before any installation, so this is another clue." "When installing or running any any EXE file, there is no need to explicitly enter your password, it is simply a YES/NO choice, where many users make the wrong choice."

Well on a home machine, no, the default response for UAC is just Cancel/Allow. Figuring if they required the user to put their password in (if required to even log on) it would be more of a hardship for the user. Mac requires this password to be put in, just like Linux does.

Not sure of the point you are trying to make but UAC isnt any less powerful than the password entry screen you are talking about. In fact - UAC in someways is more powerful because it lets the user know what is going on.
0 Votes
+ -
Windows UAC
vulpine@... 25th Sep 2009
While in essence you are correct now, JT82, when Vista first
came out, the UAC was so pervasive and annoying, that people
simply got into the habit of clicking 'allow' for everything. Even
now, every time I activate a new application, or sometimes just
a different function within an already-running application,
Vista pops up a dialog windows saying, "X application wants to
start. If you did not activate this application, please press
Cancel below. If you did, please press Accept."

Ok, so I paraphrased slightly. The point is, the UAC in Windows
is still very annoying and is developing the habit of 'click first
and read dialog later' in its users, to the point of making them
even more susceptible to the kinds of Social Engineering
attacks now prevalent in the malware environment.

This isn't to say that the Mac doesn't do something similar--
the first time any new downloaded app is booted, Apple asks if
you are sure you want to open it. If you say 'yes,' then you
don't get harassed by that dialog again until an update or
upgrade changes the flag to say it's an all-new install. The
security is there, but it neither annoys with its frequency nor
compromises with habit-forming regularity.
0 Votes
+ -
Developers began writing code which works properly with LUP. Aside from some minor tweaking in SP1 to reduce UAC prompts by the OS UAC hasn't changed. It's the applications that have.
0 Votes
+ -
Not good.
jdbukis@... 25th Sep 2009
Because a script could launch the app and get it to run without any problem then! Which is an issue, effectivly this means that the password scheme is Mac Osx is inferior to uac by some way.
0 Votes
+ -
Anything from the internet
proadventurer 25th Sep 2009
Even if I download a photo or spreadsheet and open it from my desktop Mac asks if I really want to open something I downloaded from the internet. I don't mind at all. Much nicer then UAC on m$
0 Votes
+ -
Mac vs. PC(a true analysis)
OhTheHumanity Updated - 25th Sep 2009
I haven't worried about my systems being remotely exploited in a long time. Most infections on windows today is social engineering just the same.

Anyone with a brain can see that Apple is patching remote code execution holes much more than Windows is patching these types of holes. Don't believe me? Do your freaking research and stop assuming you know what you are talking about. IBM X-Force can assist with the research if you don't feel like manually doing it. Every OS has these issues and you just can't come to grips with reality.

I am not here to defend windows to the death, but I am here to set the record straight for so many that assume over and over again the facts in their own mind.
0 Votes
+ -
Well Said - nt
ItsTheBottomLine 25th Sep 2009
nt
0 Votes
+ -
One LARGE hole in your assertions
JoeBob_z 25th Sep 2009
You know how to protect yourself and your system. While most users
are (at best) bringing knives to the gun fight, you've got nuclear
weapons and a navy SEAL team. I wouldn't worry either. For most
every OS X threat, all the user has to worry about is not looking away
when the other guy says, "Look! It's Haley's comet!" A typical Windows
user has a lot more to worry about, and doesn't have to be complicit
to have harm come to their computer.

I suspect one BIG reason Apple is patching more remote code
execution holes is because they actually WANT to do it. They are
(relatively) proactive in addressing potential problems. Unlike MS,
which fixes singular, discrete vulnerabilities, Apple looks for variants
on the same theme, and fixes them as well. They understand this is
one of the reasons people buy Macs.
In its default configuration Windows is just as, if not more, secure than the Mac.
0 Votes
+ -
Priceless
honeymonster 25th Sep 2009
daMan25 wrote this: " but I am here to set
the record straight for so many that assume
over and over again the facts in their own
mind. "

And the second answer is just that . You
assume and assert from Apple marketing
material.

" I suspect one BIG reason Apple is patching
more remote code execution holes is because
they actually WANT to do it. They are
(relatively) proactive in addressing potential
problems. "

Except for the latest patch which actually
did credit Apple themselves for
some of the vulnerability discoveries,
Apple never discovers vulnerabilities on
their own. They are no more proactive than
Microsoft. Microsoft who actually has a working
quality control process in place which has led
Windows to be the operating system with the
fewest vulnerabilities.

And what do you mean by Apple being "relatively
proactive?" Something like this: Apple gets
bruised in vulnerability report :
http://www.infoworld.com/d/security-
central/apple-gets-bruised-in-vulnerability-
report-805

Or Apple Mac less secure than Windows in
2007 :
http://www.builderau.com.au/news/soa/Apple-Mac-
less-secure-than-Windows-in-2007-
/0,339028227,339284674,00.htm

Or read this one:
http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/200814
/583/Blackhat-Is-Apple-lacking-in-the-security-
department

Quote: " Researchers Stefan Frei and Bernard
Tellenback of the Computer Engineering and
Networks Laboratory (TIK) at the Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology studied the patch
performance of Microsoft and Apple from January
2002 to January 2008 and presented their
findings at Blackhat this week. The results
offer some bad news for Apple. "

" Apple only exceeded a 20% 0-day patch rate
starting 2004 while Microsoft is well above
that rate since the beginning of our
observation on January 2002 . It so appears
that Microsoft is ahead of Apple with respect
to their vulnerability handling processes and
the relation to the security community "

You were saying?

" Unlike MS, which fixes singular, discrete
vulnerabilities, Apple looks for variants on
the same theme, and fixes them as well. They
understand this is one of the reasons people
buy Macs. "

Excuse me, but where did you pull this BS from?
Citation needed, please. And no , Apple
marketing material will not do.

Truth is, both MS and Apple do what they can to
avoid vulnerabilities. It's just that Microsoft
is much better at it. So much that Windows
consistently experiences only a third of
the vulnerabilities compared to OSX.


"Apple's patch process a mess, say
researchers
Constant updating shows Mac OS X isn't ready
for the enterprise"
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9115288/
Apple_s_patch_process_a_mess_say_researchers
That was exactly a year ago. It hasn't changed
since then.

You doing exactly what daMan25 was warning
against. You are just going with "facts" in
your own mind - derived from Apple marketing.
Please go find some real, trustworthy data on
those assertions.

Priceless
0 Votes
+ -
Blind Faith
djchandler 25th Sep 2009
See my post elsewhere.
0 Votes
+ -
honeymonster relies on swiss dimwittedness
HerbertH_02 Updated - 25th Sep 2009
You really dare to quote Frei's and Tallenbach's paper, the dumbest paper ever published? That's funny!

Their methodology is laughable. The funniest thing I found is this:

# Selection of vulnerabilities
We only use data related to vulnerabilities which we could positively attribute to a vendor. Surprisingly, linking a vulnerability to a vendor is a non trivial task when done on large scale. Measuring the performance of a vendors? patching process we are only interested in vulnerabilities the specific vendor is responsible to produce a patch for. This excludes vulnerabilities of third-party tools, software, and libraries that might be included in Microsoft or Apple products.We therefore limit this analysis to vulnerabilities for which they have published a patch because this indicates that they felt responsible for doing so. Every attempt to broaden the number of vulnerabilities would introduce a bias (a) when deciding if a certain vulnerability should be attributed to a vendor; and (b) if the severity/risk of the vulnerability justifies inclusion into the analysis. If a vendor releases a patch for a vulnerability he has positively and unmistakenly taken responsibility for it, with respect to the origin of the vulnerability and the security impact.


http://www.techzoom.net/publications/0-day_patch_exposing_vendors_(in)security_performance/index.en

What does that mean? Quite simple: If you don't fix your vulnerabilities, you are not responsible!

Do Microsoft and Apple fix their vulnerabilities? Let's see!

The Zero Day Initiative reports that Apple's oldest and highly severe security hole is since 253 days known to the vendor (but not disclosed to the public) and still unpatched. That's impressive. Even more impressive is Microsoft's record: Their oldest security hole is gaping since 613 days. That's awesome. Luckily they are not resonsible.

http://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/upcoming/

Secunia reports 4 % unpatched vulnerabilities in OS X, 12 % (that's also awesome!!) in XP and 7 % in Vista.

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/96/?task=statistics
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/22/?task=statistics
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/13223/?task=statistics

Microsoft seems to be no eager patcher. But there's no need to worry, they are not responsible!



0 Votes
+ -
@ ye
Pete "athynz" Athens 25th Sep 2009
In its default configuration Windows is just as, if not more, secure than the Mac.

Okay now show us a PC running a default configuration... other than the ones sitting at BestBuy or other retail stores.
Because when it wasn't secure by default that's all we could argue. Now
that it's secure by default we're not supposed to. So which is it?

Oh, and if someone makes it less secure that's not a failing of Windows.
0 Votes
+ -
@HerbertH_02
Snooki_smoosh_smoosh 28th Sep 2009
you forgot linux

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/2719/?task=statistics

5% unpatched

And as far as critical bugs, 0% Extremely, and 0% highly and only 18% come from remote code execution.

Oh by the way thanks for the links they're great...
0 Votes
+ -
Are you really this ignorant?
baileysc 29th Sep 2009
Apple is just now patching holes that were reported years ago. Apple has been as arrogant as its users when it comes to security. That is why the Mac is always the first to fall at EVERY hacker competition.

Apple comes out with "security" features like their firewall and recent malware detection that are basically worthless because they know that the majority of their user base is ignorant (from a technology standpoint) and will never look beyond the label.

Apple has the least secure OS on the market, and they are just now trying to play catch up. Windows had to do this several years ago when they pulled their developers off of Vista and had them take classes on building secure code. Apple is going to go through a similar period.
0 Votes
+ -
Apple can patch their much envied platform (ask Psystar! Or Microsoft who's copying it all the time!) until they bleed, Macs remain like Fort Knox compared to the average home for most people
(Windows).

Issues or bugs, who cares until they actually affect anybody, or especially wreak havoc as they have through Windows' almost entire sorry existence.

You really can't see the forrest for the trees, can you?
...prior to the exitence of the exploit. Conficker is one such prime example. Despite a patch being available before Conficker existed it still managed to infect a large number of systems.

Windows is secure. I know you don't want to face that reality but reality it is.
0 Votes
+ -
millions of people have suffered from the second rate platform no matter
what Microsoft have done, and exactly because MS never did it right to
begin with.

Microsoft Windows should have been banned from the internet because
of what it has caused us, botnets, viruses and all sorts of very expensive
consequences, if you can even spell that word.
Because they wouldn't be suffering had they applied the patch. They have no one to blame but themselves.
0 Votes
+ -
Hey genius.....
OhTheHumanity 25th Sep 2009
Use some logic in your huge head of yours and please explain to all us idiots why cyber crime networks that look to reap the profits would target an OS with around 4%(if that) of the global marketshare?

Outside the U.S. you will be stretched to find a Mac so please go on and explain why Mac is targeted just the same as Windows????

And please explain it logically so we can all understand, because I am not figuring it out and many others aren't either. Just maybe you can make us change our minds and see the light. I highly doubt you can though.

i.e. it could be argued that there's no money in going after the tight-fisted PC users, but a lot of it among the Mac users. So the market share alone is an old and tired appeal to numbers (Argumentum ad Populum,
do look it up). Bad argumentation.

http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/23/apple-claims-91-of-1000-pc-market-revenue-in-june/

Hey, I don't really care what you prefer to play with at home, but don't try to spread misinformation among readers here.
0 Votes
+ -
It's simply supply and demand. Why Macintosh users have such a difficult time accepting this is beyond me. Supply and demand is not the same as Argumentum ad Populum. Try to learn the difference.
0 Votes
+ -
@Mikael
OhTheHumanity 26th Sep 2009
Wow man you really convinced me with that line
of bull. That argument is whack. You think
that only rich people use Macs and only poor
tight ass people use Windows? LOL, you really
aren't that good at making an assessment.

I guess you completely dismissed the fact that
most of the world's corporations have Windows
throughout their organizations making Windows
even that much more worthwhile as the number 1
target. Also I know many very well off people
that are using Windows, so maybe in your little
circle it may be true for you, but there is a
whole big world out there that you seem to just
ignore.
It's just that nobody has bothered to write exploits for them.

When installing or running any any EXE file, there is no need to explicitly enter your password, it is simply a YES/NO choice, where many users make the wrong choice.

If you're running as a standard user there is. Again I remind you that Admin Approval mode (Yes/No) was the result of customer feedback about UAC. That feedback stated users were not happy with having to enter a password for each UAC prompt. People were whining with having to push one extra button when it came to UAC. I can just imagine the howls we'd hear if a password was required.

Again: There's nothing inherently wrong with Windows security. The decisions Microsoft made were based on customer feedback (yes I know it's difficult to believe).
0 Votes
+ -
Check your facts a bit
mechBgon 25th Sep 2009
"In Windows, on the other hand, it easy to make attacks of both types. When installing or running any any EXE file, there is no need to explicitly enter your password, it is simply a YES/NO choice, where many users make the wrong choice."

What you're describing is what happens if you keep using your Vista/7 system's Admin account. Make a Standard User account for your daily-driver use, and you begin to get password prompts.

If you would prefer to have password prompts even when in the Admin account, that can be done. Fire up Local Security Policy, drill down to Local Policies > Security Options, and you can pick your preferred behavior in the User Account Control: Behavior of the elevation prompt for Administrators in Admin Approval Mode option. There are other UAC-related options there as well.
0 Votes
+ -
Type 2 scenario
fitguy7x5 25th Sep 2009
Your comparison to answering a Y/N question as to if you want to raise your level to Administrator in Windows as opposed to elevating your security by entering the root password in Mac or Linux is the same. If someone thinks they need to install something they will do either to allow it. They still don't know they're inviting a trojan until its way too late. Working in IT in a mixed environment of all three types of OS, I encounterd the same problems on all, not just windows. Most users aren't savvy enough to know what's happening in the background.
0 Votes
+ -
One small clarification.
ye 25th Sep 2009
Your comparison to answering a Y/N question as to if you want to raise your level to Administrator in Windows as opposed to elevating your security by entering the root password in Mac or Linux is the same.

Typically it's not the root password in OS X or UNIX but rather the users password. The end result is the same but there is a difference.
0 Votes
+ -
The admin password myth
joblak@... 25th Sep 2009
Count me as one of the clueless fools that used to believe the nonsense that you are safe on Mac since the user has to knowingly enter an admin password for any new application to chomp its teeth into the system. The truth is that while the OS may be more secure, the default apps that ship with it make it just as vulnerable as any other box. If you google for the 'Mac pwned' contests, you will see how simply visiting a malicious web page can allow an attacker full control of the system. Blame that on Safari and QuickTime.

The sad thing is that since most Mac users foolishly assume they are secure, they run no type of system monitor to reveal whether someone has already dug into their system.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes No doesn't matter...
deowll 26th Sep 2009
not unless they make you an admin.
0 Votes
+ -
No Type 1
rag@... 28th Sep 2009
Since OS X was introduced in 2001, there have been no instances of your Type 1.
0 Votes
+ -
But type one is possible.
ye 28th Sep 2009
Since OS X was introduced in 2001, there have been no instances of your Type 1.

Again most likely the result of small market share as opposed to cannot be done.
0 Votes
+ -
Hmm
Evilyn 28th Sep 2009
There were viruses for Mac before OS X. Not many, forty or so over the years. Half or better were macro viruses that only affected Macs running MS Word.

There are a LOT more folks using Macs today than there were in the days before OS X.

Fewer Mac users, but there were actual Mac viruses in the wild. If small market share was the only reason viruses don't exist for Mac OS X, then why did they exist pre-OS X, when the market share was much smaller?

I'm thinking it may have something to do with Unix.
0 Votes
+ -
Well done! Thank you very much for professional templates and community edition
seslisohbet seslichat

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix