ie8 fix
madison

Zero Day

Ryan Naraine, Emil Protalinski and Dancho Danchev

New Mac OS X email worm discovered

By | May 7, 2009, 1:14pm PDT

Summary: A newly discovered email worm dubbed OSX/Tored-A once again puts the spotlight on the potential worm-ability, and malware spreading tactics targeting Apple’s OS X. The worm propagates through emails harvested from infected hosts, and has a backdoor functionality allowing its author to perform the following actions if a successful remote connection is established - attempts to [...]

A newly discovered email worm dubbed OSX/Tored-A once again puts the spotlight on the potential worm-ability, and malware spreading tactics targeting Apple’s OS X.

The worm propagates through emails harvested from infected hosts, and has a backdoor functionality allowing its author to perform the following actions if a successful remote connection is established - attempts to create a botnet, has keylogging functionality, and can also perform DDoS attacks as well as send spam,

Despite the similarities of its features with the ones of OSX.Trojan.iServices.A (the iBotnet OS X malware), Tored is not currently spreading in the wild, in fact some vendors are calling it lame and state that it will never spread successfully due to the bugs in its code, next to the the spelling mistakes within the messages it uses for email spreading:

“OSX/Tored is different, however, because it is an email-aware worm which attempts to scoop up email addresses from your infected Mac computer and forward it to others. Its intended purpose, and presumed origin, is revealed in the opening comments of its RealBasic source code:

/ First Mac OS X Botnet
/Backdoor.OSX.Raedbot.C ,Reconnaissance worm/bot
/(c) Ag_Raed , Tunisia

Bugs in the worm’s code, however, mean it is unlikely that you will ever encounter it, even if the author had taken the time to correct the many spelling mistakes in the emails it tries to send. So don’t lose too much sleep.”

Excluding such notable OS X pieces of malware such as last year’s ARDAgent-based trojan exploiting a local root escalation vulnerability in Mac OS X 10.4 and 10.5, the rest of the newly discovered OS X malware continues relying on social engineering tactics (fake codecs such as CodecUpdate.v1.18.dmg; License.v.3.411.dmg etc.) in order to spread.

For instance, OSX.RSPlug.D, OSX.RSPlug.E and OSX.Trojan.PokerStealer all pretend to be harmless applications, and OSX.TrojanKit.Malez requires that the attacker must already have access to the host in order to backdoor it.

Recently, Jon Oltsik speculated thatWithin the next 18 months, Apple will begin recommending that Macintosh users install Internet security software on all systems.

What do you think? Talkback.

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

Topics

Dancho Danchev is an independent security consultant and cyber threats analyst, with extensive experience in open source intelligence gathering, malware and cybercrime incident response.

Disclosure

Dancho Danchev

More details on Dancho Danchev's current and past professional affiliations, can be found in his LinkedIn profile.

Biography

Dancho Danchev

Dancho Danchev is an independent security consultant and cyber threats analyst, with extensive experience in open source intelligence gathering, and cybercrime incident response. He's been an active security blogger since 2007, and maintains a popular security blog sharing real-time threats intelligence data with the rest of the community on a daily basis. More details on Dancho Danchev's current and past professional affiliations, can be found in his LinkedIn profile. You can also follow him on Twitter

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
305
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: New Mac OS X email worm discovered
lovedong 13th Sep
Thank you! Thank you! replica watches
0 Votes
+ -
I think...
OhTheHumanity 7th May 2009
I have been saying this for a long time. Mac users are so vulnerable not because of the OS per say but the attitude of Mac users. They take those commercials and eat it up and act like it could never happen to them. To think that in 2009 there is still internet attached devices that do not have security software in place is ludicris. Mac and Linux both at this point since they are becoming more visible on the net these days.
0 Votes
+ -
Linux is fine
T1Oracle 7th May 2009
Only social engineering is going to compromise a Linux system. You have to be root to change anything important on a Linux system.
0 Votes
+ -
A bit naive
NoFunDon Updated - 7th May 2009
Unfortunately for Linux, social engineering works pretty well unless the user is well informed.

At this stage most Linux users are well informed. But as any OS gains in popularity, the userbase becomes less and less so.
0 Votes
+ -
But there comes a point...
storm14k 8th May 2009
...when there is only so much you can do. I mean if a user WANTS to install something risky then you can't stop them. To be honest I think all of the OSes are coming to the point where all that can be done has.
0 Votes
+ -
Fortunately this can be prevented....
Sephoroth 11th May 2009
Though the amount of malware available for Linux can increase, I still believe many infections would be curbed due to the emphasis on software repositories. The main danger on Linux if user stupidity increases to levels where users are idiotic enough to add untrusted repositories OR if trusted repositories are breached and distribute infected programs.

That said, the other advantage Linux holds is the lack of "standards". Because there is no lone distro representing the entire Linux community nor is there any lone package management system, larger scale infections would be rather difficult.
0 Votes
+ -
You hit on the problem
baileysc 8th May 2009
But take it a step further.

The more popular an OS is the more it has to comply with user demand. Since that user demand will be from poorly informed users the demands will be to loosen security to make the OS easier to use.

This is why Windows will never require a password for its UAC prompts and will probably remove UAC altogher in home versions. People just get annoyed by them. Its no surprise that worst selling OS in Microsft history was also its most secure.

The average consumer wants their computer to be magically secure without having to be inconvenienced with passwords or the need for increased tech saviness. But outside of fantasy land, this isn't going to happen.

Linux will continue to be the most secure OS because its features are decided by factors other than sales. The commercial versions of Linux will probably grow increasingly less secure in the name of usuability (but actually to increase sales).
0 Votes
+ -
re: You hit on the problem
rtk Updated - 8th May 2009
This is why Windows will never require a password for its UAC prompts and will probably remove UAC altogher in home versions.

UAC requires a password for standard users, only administrators get the consent dialog rather than a password prompt.

UAC isn't going anywhere, it's a needed evolution. Remember that all the modern operating systems have a system for elevation, and always will from now on.

Don't make the mistake of thinking UAC is just the dialog box.

Its no surprise that worst selling OS in Microsft history was also its most secure.

You can't actually be suggesting Vista sales are poor, are you? In two years it owns over 20% of the market in usage.



0 Votes
+ -
uhm, i would
mojorison67@... 11th May 2009
"You can't actually be suggesting Vista sales are poor, are you? In two years it owns over 20% of the market in usage."

As it was made to replace an Operating System that owned 90% of the market then yes, I would say that Vista Sales are poor.
0 Votes
+ -
You and very few others
rtk 12th May 2009
doubling all versions of OS X and having 20 times the usage of Linux is a massive success, in only two years.

Did you expect the world to switch on day one? Doesn't happen in Mac or Linux land, why would you assume it'd happen for Microsoft?
0 Votes
+ -
I don't think that it is secret to anyone that the vast majority of Linux users are also typically computer savvy well beyond the average home computer user in general.

Right now for a hacker to focus on Linux they are facing a triple play against it being worth their while to even consider taking the time to create malware for Linux.

1. Small user base so even if your successful, its not much success.

2. Linux is generally more secure so if your going to try it, its not going to be the easiest target.

3. Linux users are typically more aware of internet social engineering pitfalls and as such are not going to often fall prey to such tactics, which may be the only real tactic with much chance of success.

BUT...if Linux did get more and more popular a couple of those issues fall. More users mean more success if you are successful. The more users there are the average computer savvy quotient shrinks as the over all user base increases and social engineering becomes a more likely method of achieving success.

Its just plain facts that if Linux wants to stay immune from attacks its going to have to keep a small user base or it will eventually start going the way of OSX.
0 Votes
+ -
Both OSX & Linux are based on UNIX.
ashdude Updated - 7th May 2009
Only social engineering is going to compromise a Linux system. You have to be root to change anything important on a Linux system.

You have to be root to change anything important in OSX too.

Oh... and OSX is actually a certified version of UNIX. Linux isn't.
and Linux is always the last at any security competition.
0 Votes
+ -
Linux is not UNIX.
Erroneous 8th May 2009
It was written from the ground up and works like/similar to UNIX.
0 Votes
+ -
It's close enough for conversational purposes though...nt
US Is ! Europe-ThankGod! 11th May 2009
nt
0 Votes
+ -
and proper security why it has been successfully attacked so many times.
Skyrocketing expenses on keeping Windows in a functioning state
should have scared away people from it, but I believe the monopoly has
somehow prevented it.

I see the times are now changing, just like the technology, why the
Microsoft hegemony may not last for much longer, fortunately.
0 Votes
+ -
Please provide some numbers to back up this claim. If anything recent trends appear to indicate that more recent versions of Windows are easier to keep safe then previous iterations. Windows Vista has been the safest version of Windows to date. Or do you really want to argue that Windows XP offered a safer computing experience.
_________________________________
Oak-Tree.us/Blog
0 Votes
+ -
Expensive platform indeed
Mikael_z Updated - 9th May 2009
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14034-malicious-software-threatens-internet-economy.html

"The report cites evidence that around one in four personal computers in the US - or 59 million - is already infected with malware. A booming market in cyber attack software and services has also made attacks more sophisticated and cheaper to perform."

"A group of British banks put the cost of malware for 2006 at ?33.5 million, 90% higher than in 2004 and growing. But such estimates do not include indirect costs such as losing the trust of consumers, the OECD points out."


and that's only for those banks in GB.
Be sure to also read the OECD report, link provided last in the article as a reference.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/53/34/40724457.pdf

"One recent survey of 52 information technology professionals and managers estimated a slight decline in the direct damages associated with malware112 from EUR 12.2 billion in 2004, to EUR 10 billion in 2005, to EUR 9.3 billion in 2006. This decrease is largely attributed to the suspicion that indirect or secondary losses are actually increasing. Furthermore, the same survey found that most organisations tracked the frequency of malware incidents but not the financial impacts.

Another survey estimated the annual loss to United States businesses at USD 67.2 billion.

Although the malware related costs of security measures are considered proprietary, estimates provided by market players in a recent empirical study ranged from 6-10% of the capital cost of operations. No clear estimates of the effects of malware on operating expenses were available, although the study found that most organisations did experience such effects. There was evidence throughout the empirical research of concern that such effects are important, although no specific indication as to their magnitude is available.

The cost to individual consumers may be even more difficult to measure, however it is likely significant. One example is the United States where consumers paid as much USD 7.8 billion over two years to repair or replace information systems infected with viruses and spyware."
0 Votes
+ -
Apparently he does.
ye 9th May 2009
Or do you really want to argue that Windows XP offered a safer computing experience.

The two links he provided reference information from 2006 and 2007. Since Vista was released in late 2006 / early 2007 it's a safe bet the reports were based on Windows XP.
It shows perfectly clearly how expensive Microsoft's half-baked platform really is.

Fanbois don't need to educate themselves, they're usually ineducable, it's desired though that the rest of the world wake up from the decade long slumber with MS and see the truth.
0 Votes
+ -
"The two links he provided reference information from 2006 and 2007."

Just because the OECD report was published on March 6, 2008 does not mean the information it was based on was March 6, 2008 data. Note it specifically states:

"The report was declassified by the Committee for Information, Computer and Communications Policy (ICCP) on 6 March 2008."

A review through the report shows dates ranging from 2002 - 2007. I think it's safe to say Vista was not the OS on which this information was based.
0 Votes
+ -
and an estimated cost for that pest is over $9 billion.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=3207

Conficker is Vista capable:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conficker

Is the truth really so irrelevant to you? sad
A default installation of Vista wouldn't have become compromised unless the user took specific action. Not sure how many times this needs to be repeated to you guys.
0 Votes
+ -
@ye: Prove it!
Mikael_z 9th May 2009
Because the reports on studies certainly don't say anything of the sort.
By default the built in firewall blocks access to this service. Thus the worm cannot connect unless someone opens the service through the firewall.

Secondly the default configuration is to install patches. Since patch MS08-067 resolved the problem before Conficker was released a default configuration would have been patched automatically. If it was not someone took steps to change the default patch configuration.

You're welcome.
0 Votes
+ -
Firewall exceptions invites the worm
Mikael_z Updated - 9th May 2009
Unpatched Windows XP SP2, Vista and Server 2008 machines shipped out of the box with Windows' firewall enabled to block the vulnerable RPC (remote procedure call) interface, but the common firewall
exception that enables file and print sharing opened the door to Conficker, i.e. even with the firewall on with default settings you're screwed without the regular patching.

This suggests that the lousy security synonymous with Microsoft's second rate software is still there.
...configuration". Your post does nothing to change what I wrote. The user had to take steps to expose the affected service and disable automatic patching. That's two things they had to do. Not one, two.
0 Votes
+ -
Hilarious
Mikael_z 10th May 2009
File & printer sharing must be one of the most common configuration in
corporations and home networks. It's hilarious to note that Windows PCs
aren't safe even when doing something so simple and basic such as this.

And not updating.... why are they so vulnerable in the first place?
File & printer sharing must be one of the most common configuration in corporations and home networks.

However it's irrelevant. As I said: You have to take steps to become infected. One of those steps is enabling file and print sharing. The other is disabling the automatic updates.

It's hilarious to note that Windows PCs
aren't safe even when doing something so simple and basic such as this.


Nor are other operating systems.

And not updating.... why are they so vulnerable in the first place?

Because the OS is written by people. People make mistakes. No OS is immune from bugs. Not even yours.
0 Votes
+ -
I love all these people...
Spiritusindomit@... 11th May 2009
who have never written a line of code in their lives, but think they're qualified to debate what is and isn't secure.
0 Votes
+ -
Buy it now
don@... 11th May 2009
and we'll fix that in the next release. Honest.
0 Votes
+ -
That was no accident. You are HILARIOUS...
xuniL_z Updated - 9th May 2009
Windows stayed away from using UNIX directly and that is the very reason that MS was able to literally blow away IBM, SUN, APPLE, NOVELL, AT&T, SCO, DIGITAL UNIX, NEXTSTEP, BSD/MACH and many others in the span of about FOUR YEARS. You are going to Tell the world they did that with a monopoly? They were just starting out dude. The took IBM on in a david vs. Goliath fashion and won. They were the heroes of the 90s against GIANT lockin of IBM and SUN. Maybe you are too old or too young to recall. But history is available to everyone.

Microsoft began on it's own in 1991 after splitting with IBM, the defacto standard PC and OS vendor of the entire 80s. Apple and the Unix brands were there, but with the 5000.00 Lisa and a total lack of clients from SUN and the Unixes, they made no headway into the SMB and home user markets. MS, starting around '91 concetrated on those markets and blew the rest of the field out of the water, with a new and genious approach that become wildly popular, not monopolistic.

After IBM splt with PC-DOS, OS/2 and an overwhelming lockin of the PC market in 1991, Microsoft and it's genius leader Bill Gates, in 4 years time had the most popular OS in the land.

Now if you are going to tell me that the fledgling Microsoft in 1991 had a monopoly and toppled and embarrased SUN, IBM, APPLE, SCO, SYSTEM V, NOVELL (coincidentally, NOVELL bought SYSTEM V from AT&T and tried to Mix that and NETWARE and failed MISERABLY around 1994), DIGITAL UNIX et al to no end, then please, entertain me with your story. It ought to be good how MS was born a monopoly and evil and wicked enough to overcome the entire IT industry that dominated the 80s and early 90s.

MS never "rode the back of IBM" whatsoever, they were partners and MS DOS was nothing more than a core OS, IBM held all of the utilities that made the OS useful. MS could have sold nothing much of value in all of the 80s becuase of it. A company would have needed to license their core OS components and build their own OS to gain any value from it.

Gates, being a genius saw that people wanted OPEN Architecture, not the proprietary to the metal brands like APPLE with even their own non tcp/ip protocols and mega expensive desktops, nor the LOCKIN of IBM's Hardware/software combo with microchannel and other proprietary LOCKIN technologies.

People forget that MS toppled a HUGE MONOPOLY when the beat out IBM with their open architecture idea, PCs with standards throughout meant HUGE savings for businesses who could manage and upgrade their own Servers and clients inhouse cheaply w/o being tied down to Expensive proprietary hardware from IBM, SUN, APPLE and others.

That was how MS won the war against UNIX and the LOCKIN of APPLE and SUN and esp. IBM.

To this day Windows is preferred on almost 90% of the PCs shipped.

Your statements about MS losing any market anytime soon are at best, laughable.

What you said have been posted time and time again for the last 20 years, maybe someday they really will be true. ha ha ha.

And if so, I suppose you'll still gloat. OMG Linux zealots are TOO funny.

They have literally kept Linux based systems from succeeding by embarrassing the true open source people who just want their to be more choice by going on rant filled crusades against MS and closed source as though they were Good vs. Evil, but they didn't realize their radical and freakish tactics were SCARING away most possible converts. And they forget that MS was already the winner of good (MS) verses Evil (IBM) in the 90s, or we'd all still be using microchannel and be locked into the hardware AND the OS like it still is to THIS DAY with Apple. Oh Lord, you just don't get it, do you.

YOur POST here and all like it are solely responsible for Linx and Unix based system to languish in single digit marketshare for ages.


As a windows user, all i can say is Thank YOU.
You've ensured Windows stay dominant by scaring children and ranting and raving to the point of literally scaring away business.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.
0 Votes
+ -
Revisionist History
Jkirk3279 10th May 2009
"Microsoft began on it's own in 1991 after splitting with IBM, the defacto standard PC and OS vendor of the entire 80s. Apple and the
Unix brands were there, but with the 5000.00 Lisa and a total lack of clients from SUN and the Unixes, they made no headway into
the SMB and home user market"


You're over-generalizing.

Before Microsoft's Hegemony, the IT sector was completely different. Like two different species: the big computers and everything
else.

Those were the days of the Big Iron. I was in college in '88 taking IT courses.

My teachers were still teaching the pre-PC way, even in 1988.

When there was a test on how to set up IT for a company, the preferred answer was dumb terminals and a leased line: one central
minicomputer at HQ running everything.

I tried to talk to the teacher about the inevitability of PC's taking over. I said the best way to set up a company was PC's at each
location, networked and updated nightly.

She just smiled and shook her head.

The UNIX market at the time was entirely professional, running minicomputers and the early DARPA Net.

This made it a small market. Small markets aren't powerful, no matter what their budget.

Don't ever let anyone tell you it's better to make $5,000 per client with only a thousand clients, rather than $100 per client with one
million clients.

And that's what Microsoft did. Rather than market to the professionals, they entered the same market Apple was serving:
individuals.

By selling a cheaper product, to people who were trying to cut corners and who didn't know any better, Microsoft captured a new
market space.

Apple hadn't exactly locked in the business market. Graphic design, yes. Desktop Publishing, certainly.

But accounting? No. Video games? Oh, heck no.

By capturing this new market Microsoft simply avoided the UNIX market. There was no confrontation as such.

And once there was an alternative to the Big Iron, Microsoft's influence changed the way businesses ran their IT departments.

The only true competitor at the time was Apple, and they weren't interested. It was securing the SMB space that gave Microsoft
their leverage.

Of course, history shows they built their brand copying from everybody. And I don't mean Apple.

They're not heroes. They're not innovators. They're bullies and thieves.

And like all bullies, they will get what they deserve eventually. Remember, they rose to power in a vacuum.

Now the Internet ironically returns us to the pre-PC days. Giant servers over communications lines, making it possible to run
applications remotely in the "cloud". Deja Vu.


Once Microsoft has some real competition, they'll have to really improve their game. Or the revenue stream they get from selling
"Office" will dry up.

When people have an alternative, especially one that's cheaper, they may just take it.

I don't expect M$ to die out, no. But their dominance will be gone. Their ability to force manufacturers to install only their
products will be gone.

What happens to a bully when no-one is afraid of him anymore?
and they saw a way to clean house on that market.

Being smart makes them "bullies"?

I don't get it sir.

When exactly did a small company become the bully? After the won the market right? Why did they win the market? They were the only ones smart enough to see the future of PCs and do something about it. That is wrong?
Are you saying they should have slowed down and told the Unix vendors, like SUN which was NOT a small company...hey, check out what we're doing, you can too. You have to build an OS that will run on x86 and we'll share the market with you, and hey Apple....quit tying your hardware to your software and join with us, there is a new market, a new day.
That's what they should have done?
Get outta here man. You still don't explain what was wrong with being a genius and having great foresight. you act like they shouldn't have tried to build a cheaper affordable PC, as though that was immoral and only Unix should be used. What kind of BS are you trying to feed us?
0 Votes
+ -
You obviously weren't there
paulzag 11th May 2009
You obviously weren't there. The IBM PC was released in October 1981 running MS-DOS 1.0, with 5.25" floppy drives (720kb capacity). So your history starts 10 years too late. No HDD were around then.

Microsoft bought DOS (or a CP/M variant) from Digital Research and licensed it to IBM. There was PC-DOS (rebranded MS-DOS) and finally DR-DOS (Digital Research/Novell) late to the party.

Windows 3 was the game changer. You still needed a DOS as Windows was only a GUI then and it didn't use TCP/IP - I remember installing 3rd party TCP/IP stacks on 100's of PC's just to get them to talk to the mainframes and the Apple Mac's (also running Appletalk).

Excel beat Lotus 1-2-3, Word beat Wordperfect, and Access beat dBase III once the Windows GUI was around. But the Microsoft products had impossibly fast load times (reportedly due to access to undocumented OS load features to give the edge).

Microsoft did NOT write, publish or stick to standards ever. They extended HTML with MS extensions. That's how they competed in the early days, vaporware announcements for competing products, extend standards with proprietary implementations, lock in customers, lock out competitors. Change formats between versions to force upgrades and break competing products.

Saying MS had open standards was and remains a lie. If you just rolled out dumb terminals or Macs or CP/M hobby computers, they'd work amongst themselves. There is no need for standards when everything is the same.

MS's monopolistic practices were documented ONCE they'd achieved market dominance. Killing Netscape was an early one - I was at MS during the Netscape war. Remember when Bill thought the Internet was a fad, targeted AOL and created MSN? Then he woke up and shifted the company focus. There's a book on it.

When did Linux attempt to compete with MS for Desktops during the time you describe?

Any way you look at it you're comment is full of inaccuracies and half truths.
0 Votes
+ -
Wrong.
xuniL_z 20th May 2009
What standards? Apple was not following standards then, but you ABMers love Apple cause it's BSD, which was paid for by taxpayer dollars 100%, just like SUN was at Stanford, which then the feds asked McNeally to form the private company and expand on the Darpa Unix that was paid for by me. I paid for all of that crap. Every bit of it. Me and every taxpayer in the U.S. paid the billions Darpa pumped into Unix.

Why would a company building open, and by open I mean they did not use proprietary hardware like Apple and SUN and IBM. They partnered and literally built companies that made standardized PCs that any user could buy new memory anywhere w/o having to pay the Apple piper or the IBM piper or the SUN piper. They were heros to everyone that finally could have a powerful machine at home but under Apple could not even come close to affording one. That's what I mean dude.

You ABMers are crazy. You always take the chunk right out of the middle where MS went from small company that broke from IBM, and should ahve been crushed by IBM (they tried and they are still trying) but they outmanuveured them to everyone's advantage.


Who cares how they made their OS fast and usable and loved by all? What is sinful about that? Just cause Unix makers weren't smart enough to branch out and build cheap machines for the "rest of us" makes them evil and dirty?


Good Lord, you really believe that, don't you?
And look at what SUN did to other Unix vendors. Look waht Apple has done to other music player vendors. They've locked the ipod to itunes just like the Mac to BSD/Mach they took as their own and THAT is robbery. THAT is cheating the consumer. Just like IBM and their proprietary hardware that you had to buy from IBM and IBM dealers was cheating the consumer. You didn't realize that? No, cause you were too busy buying PCs cause you could. Cause Bill Gates made them available to the entire world.

You and everyone like you just has a bug up your arse you didn't think of it, or your favorite GOVERNMENT paid Unix didn't stand a chance against Microsoft's progressive ideas.


What's so great about government standards? they were meant for Unix. This is not Unix. This is DOS and windows. Deal with it dude.
OMG.

0 Votes
+ -
1.> You're right, Windows does not resemble UNIX. This is one of the reason's Windows is more popular among home, business, and casual users.

2.> I have Windows Vista on my work PC (Business x64), my work laptop (Ultimate x86), and my home PC (Ultimat x64). In spite of what the Mac guy says on those "I'm a Mac" commercials, they all function quite well, with no issues. I have no "Skyrocketing expenses on keeping Windows in a functioning state."

Skyrocketing Expenses:
A.> Quiet, Dual-core PC with Intel MoBo and CPU, 4 GB ram, 250Gb RAID 1, 1GB GT9500, Sony DVD+RW - $450.
B.> Vista Ultimate x64 - $200.
C.> Hardware router/firewall - $75.
D.> Antivirus software - $30.
TOTAL "skyrocketing expenses" - $755. Similarly (but lesser) equipped iMac - $1500.

My computer is secure. A massive port scan from the Internet will not even detect a device at my public IP address. I could run my PC without anti-virus and not worry.

Besides, MACs don't get worms, trojans, and virii, right?
0 Votes
+ -
OSX AND Windows are based on Mach3
bklooste 8th May 2009
Windows is based on MAch 3 as well as OSX and both vendors de-emphasize the command line. You can still run the Unix/Posix subsystem in windows.

Linux is different more like BSD or even System V with a few mach 3 features..
0 Votes
+ -
Wrong
honeymonster 9th May 2009
Where did you get that information?

Windows is definitely not based on Mach
3. Windows kernel is a clean-room
implementation of a hybrid kernel, i.e. not a
full-on micro-kernel and not a monolith (like
Linux) either.
0 Votes
+ -
Problem being...
Spiritusindomit@... 11th May 2009
OS X gives you root, no questions asked.
It's funny - when a 'drive by' virus attacks a Mac, or when a social engineering virus suceeds, well, then "the user was an idiot".

But if Grandma opens a gift card from a botnet, then suddenly Windows has no security.

How's that again?

== John ==
0 Votes
+ -
(sigh) John, John, John, when will you learn?
MGP2 Updated - 7th May 2009
ABMers don't like having a mirror held up in front of them which exposes their bias. Chances are, they'll now try to make you pay for that. devil
0 Votes
+ -
Sorry,,
cashaww 8th May 2009
But has one succeeded? If it has, was the system set up properly? I have
two people who have properly set up systems, and I have their root
password. This means they have to contact me to change anything.
Social engineering would have work had they actually known their root
passwords.
0 Votes
+ -
When it does, like OS X, you'll know it.
Until then, delight in knowing only geeks, or geek controlled installs are out there.

Someday, somebody besides a computer geek will need to know the root password.


0 Votes
+ -
No
epcraig Updated - 11th May 2009
No malware author is going to write malware for any Linux because no Linux distribution is likely ever to dominate Linux to even the extent OS X dominates PCs.
Linux might gain the market share OS X has, but no distribution is ever going to get more than a small share of Linux's small share.
No distro needs market share unless you're counting developers as the entire market.
Developers need user feedback no matter how they resent it, but there is no Linux market, especially not for the most benign adware.
Of course, if someone does get a Linux worm to spread I'll rethink, but probably not, as it's unlikely to threaten my superior (minority) distro. In truth, not even Ubuntu (presuming that's the newbie preferred distro) need be worried because malware authors ignore Linux users.
0 Votes
+ -
You make a fatal assumption
alaniane@... 11th May 2009
Every Linux distribution to a greater or lesser degree has a common base, the Linux kernel. If a cracker wanted to attack Linux at its broadest distribution point, he would attack the kernel. By finding a hole in the kernel then he wouldn't need to attack each individual distribution. Any distribution that used that particular kernel version would be vulnerable unless they specifically modified that portion of the kernel that was compromised.

Of course, most crackers are lazy by definition; therefore, they're going to after the easiest target with the best ROI. Why go through the hassel of learning a new OS and trying to compromise its security when you can still make a bucketload of money compromising the OS you're familiar with? Now, if it becomes harder and harder to crack the OS that's been your bread and butter or that OS's marketshare dwindles significantly then it might be worth turning your attention to the new OS.

Most crackers are not in it for the challenge, they're either in it for the "supposed prestige" or the money.
0 Votes
+ -
Sorry...
compudog 11th May 2009
now I'm confused. Your solution to people downloading or installing malware is for YOU to have their passwords and NOT THEM? I guess that would work. In Bizarro World.
0 Votes
+ -
Are you talking about yourself?
Rude Union 8th May 2009
Dude,

Commands like SUDO make it easy for people to use lower privilege level accounts. It works since people don't have a problem in Linux. Mac users also have this restricted level as well, so when they need software installed the OS asks for their elevated credentials.
Windows, on the other hand, does a p-ss poor job with RunAs. If you find that your install just started another install process which doesn't have elevated privileges then you're not alone. In this case it's just less of a pain for us to run as admins since much of the management software?s development hasn't taken to account admins might run their apps with lowered access credentials. I still have lots of admin tools that need an account with full admin access just to run properly in Windows.
And because of this I have to be super precise because one mistaken click and folder structures, e-mail, networking, etc for the company can be affected. This is the price we pay for working without a safety net in Windows.
Someone should do a survey of administrator mistakes that could have been avoided because admins have to run as Administrators (root) in Windows.
0 Votes
+ -
You must be talking about XP
wolf_z 8th May 2009
Because Vista doesn't have these problems. Another reason to leave XP? happy
0 Votes
+ -
That's right. UAC nanny screens
Wintel BSOD 8th May 2009
Finger wag....
0 Votes
+ -
Thank you! Thank you! replica watches

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