Large Prize Offered For Writing Mac Virus 669
Mordant writes "Some experienced Mac developers are offering a $25K prize to the first person to successfully infect two 'naked' Internet-connected Macs running stock Apple software. The best part is that if any Symantec employee succeeds in infecting the Macs, the prize goes up to $50K (Symantec has been fanning the flames of totally bogus "Macs aren't more secure, it's just that Windows is a bigger target" technical-equivalence propaganda)!" Update: 03/26 20:24 GMT by Z : Well, that was quick. Jack Campbell has cancelled the contest, after he "...was contacted by a large number of Mac users, and Mac software professionals who shared their thinking with me about the contest."
Stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
1) If a virus has spread over every Mac on the Internet, then it's harmful.
2) Many people would say that ANY virus is harmful, just by virtue of it being a virus (spreading, infecting.)
3) I'm so sure it's worth $50,000 for Symantec to finally put that "Antivirus companies don't write viruses" myth to bed.
4) We're going to use antivirus software to determine if we've been infected... which will only catch previously known viruses.
5) Hey you guy that wrote the virus that spread to every Mac on the Internet: just identify yourself afterwards, and we'll pay you.
Re:Stupid (Score:2)
Re:Stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Informative)
Hartman: Private Joker, do you believe in the Virgin Mary?
Joker: Sir, no sir!
Hartman: Well Private Joker! I don't believe I heard you correctly.
Joker: Sir, the private said "No sir!", sir!
Hartman: Well, you little maggot, you make me want to vomit!
...
Hartman: Are you trying to OFFEND me?
Joker: Sir, negative sir! Sir, the private believes that any answer he gives will be wrong, and the senior drill instructor will beat him harder if he reverses himself, sir!
Hartman: Who's your squad leader, scumbag?
Joker: Sir, the private's leader is Private Snowball, sir.
Hartman: Private Snowball!
Snowball: Sir! Private Snowball reporting as ordered, sir!
Hartman: Private Snowball, you're fired! Private Joker is promoted to squad leader.
Snowball: Sir, aye aye sir!
Hartman: Disapear scumbag!
Snowball: Sir, aye aye sir!
Hartman: Private Pyle!
Pyle: Sir, Private Pyle reporting as ordered, sir!
Hartman: Private Pyle, from now on, Private Joker is your new squad leader, and you WILL bunk with him. He'll teach you everything, he'll teach you how to pee!
Pyle: Sir, yes sir!
Hartman: Private Joker is silly and he's he ignorant, but he's got guts, and guts is enough.
Re:Stupid (Score:3, Informative)
I RTFA twice, and nowhere does it say anything about the contest goal being to "infect every Mac" or even set thvirus loose in the "wild." It DOES say that the object was to infect TWO Macs with a HARMLESS virus.
FTFA: "...sponsoring a contest that challenges virus writers to actually prove that they can introduce a harmless virus into two modern OS X Macs."
Re:Stupid (Score:4, Informative)
Let me help you out.
Here's my paraphrasing of the individual claims, from memory. I'd quote better, but oh look, they've cancelled already.
-We have two Macs on different Internet connections. We won't tell you the IPs.
-We're going to check for the next couple of months and see if they are infected, just by being on the Internet.
-(Vague statements about being successful enough in the wild)
Leaving alone the email vector, which I've agreed elsewhere is(was) viable, how do the viruses get onto their two Macs? Has to be both, mind you.
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Stupid Publicity Stunt (Score:5, Informative)
"Mac Virus Contest" is a totally bogus bit of
showmanship. ( From the: "Even bad publicity
is still publicity" Department ):
DVForge Virus Prize 2005
The Contest That, Sadly, WIll Never Be
Contest goal: To lay to rest, once and
for all, the myths surrounding the lack
of spreading computer virii on the
Macintosh OS X operating system, by
sponsoring a contest that challenges
virus writers to actually prove that
they can introduce a harmless virus
into two modern OS X Macs.
That was the goal of a contest
announced recently by DVForge, but,
due to a variety of influencing factors
was cancelled shortly after having been
announced.
A Statement About The Contest Cancellation
"In response to the statements put forth
this past week by Symantec Corporation
suggesting that Mac users are at
substantial risk to infections from viruses,
our company crafted and announced a contest
that would have paid a $25,000 prize for
the successful creation of such a virus,"
said Jack Campbell, DVForge, Inc. CEO,
"During the first several hours after making
the public announcement, I was contacted by
a large number of Mac users, and Mac software
professionals who shared their thinking with
me about the contest. A few of these people
are extremely well-regarded experts in the
field of Mac OS X security. So, I have taken
their advice very seriously, and have made
the difficult decision to cancel our contest.
I have been convinced that the risk of a virus
on the OS X platform is not zero, although it
is remarkably close to zero. More importantly,
I have been convinced that there may be legality
issues stemming from such a contest, beyond
those terminated by our own legal counsel,
prior to announcing the contest. So, despite
my personal distaste for what some companies
have done to take advantage of virus fears
among the Mac community, and my own inclination
to make a bold statement in response to those
fears, I have responsible choice but to retract
the contest, effective immediately."
DVForge, Inc. supports honesty and integrity by
manufacturers in all public communication. And,
we strongly discourage the use of exaggeration,
innuendo, or loosely stated claims in an effort
to increase sales of a company's products. We
believe in accurate, fair marketing statements,
and in allowing an accurately informed public to
then make its own decisions about purchasing,
or not purchasing, a company's products or
services. We implore all Mac industry businesses
to support these same values.
We do not endorse the creation or distribution
of computer viruses. U.S. and international law,
as well as simple good judgment forbid the
transmission of computer viruses.
Re:Stupid Publicity Stunt (Score:3, Funny)
Something tells me these "experts" are also mathematicians from MIT [oreillynet.com].
Jack Cambell is another Darl McBride, except he lacks Darl's credibility
Re:Stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
From the site: More importantly, I have been convinced that there may be legality issues stemming from such a contest, beyond those determined by our own legal cou
Re:Stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
It is not correct, however, to blame Apple for the bugs in Apache. When people rant about bugs in IE, they blame Microsoft and the IE developers. When people rant about bugs in firefox, they don't complain to Torvalds, do they?
This competition was about the bugs on Macs, and the accusations that Macs are as vulnerable as Windows PCs. Third party software is not "Macs." The competition compares OS X and Windows, not OS X with [product] and Windows with [product.] However, it would be valid to blame vulnerable first-party software - such as Finder, or IE.
Re:Stupid (Score:4, Funny)
s/theve/they've/
Remember kids, if you can replace your their or there with "they are" and have it make sense, it's really "they're". If you can replace your "theve" (?) with "they have" and have it make sense, it's really "they've". Contractions!
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
because that's what it burns down to, making it self replicating wouldn't be much of an addition.
but why bother.. just send a chain letter with an executable for mac.. that amounts to what is some of windows viruses nowadays anyways(and that's what all symbian viruses are and they're getting awful lot of attention - they're just self replicating 'mailers' that the user needs to install themselfs).. and points out that a system that has no holes doesn't really protect you from everything(it doesn't protect the user if the user WANTS to install the software, which many do).
Re:Stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
They HAVE actually left a practical attack vector, should someone want to try. They will accept email, but not open attachments. They have left open the vector of client-side holes in their emai
Not as easy as you think (Score:5, Insightful)
Unlike Windows, the MacOS uses filesystem embedded filetype and resource fork information to determine what kind of file a file is. You can't just change the filename into photo.jpg or letter.doc to make the attachment look like a photo or a word document. If it is an executable, the Mac will show it as such.
This means you will have to convince the user that the ececutable in question comes from a trusted source and that it is safe to launch. Even then, MacOS X will open a dialog that explains to the user that this is the first time this application is about to be launched, that it might be dangerous and then ask if the user wants to proceed. At that point most Mac users will cancel if they are not sure what this application is and where it came from.
But even if they proceed to launch the application, then the application still won't be able to install anything on the user's machine. If it tries to do that, the user will again be notified that some software is about to be installed and that an administrator password is required to do so.
Somebody would have to be incredibly naive to ignore all the warnings and still proceed.
This type of attack is rather unlikely to be successful in causing a spreading of the trojan. The propagation mechanism is far too weak. The news about such an attack will be all over the net before the trojan had a chance to propagate.
If anybody is to succeed with an attack against the Mac, it would have to be an exploit of some security flaw in the OS or in a privileged application.
Not as hard as you think (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and if ignorance really was bliss, the world would be one hell of a lot happier then it actually is.
I'm an IT consultant.
I've watched countless users sit there and click though endless dialogs warning them about how they're about to unleash bubonic plague upon the world or whatever. These people regard warnings as a hassle, something to be dismissed as quickly as possible. They do not regard them as an actual warning. Warnings are something that apply to other people.
If you change the default button to be the "safe" option, they click-and-close, try again and click-and-close, try again and click the other button and continue. They don't do this by reading the dialogs, they do this because if it didn't work the first two times they tried the first button, then it must be the other one.
If you require users to enter in "please destroy all my data" on the keyboard before running something, they will happily do that, to. While asking me why it asks them that.
If you require them to type a password, they'll type that in upon request, too. Look at how successful phishing scams are.
If all this fails to get some badware on the computer, users will seek out things like "Hotbar", "Gator", "Comet Cursor", "Bonzai Buddy", and so on, and try to install them.
People just don't want to have to think. That's the ultimate problem.
There's no doubt that the average MS-Windows system, as deployed, is hideously insecure. However, experience has shown me that even if you lock the system down well, users will still try and destroy it.
I've found the only way to keep users from compromising the security of their system is to remove their ability to do so. Then they just complain to me constantly that they cannot install all their badware. But then I can just tell them "Tough!".
Re:Not as hard as you think (Score:3, Informative)
That's a direct result of the design of Windows. Whenever i use Windows, I am constantly amazed at the number of stupid dialog boxes one has to click through, t
RE: on Macs and poor dialog boxes (Score:3, Interesting)
I've found that to be entirely false as often as it's true. Basically, a wash....
There are lots of reasons I like my Mac, but an equal number of reasons to dislike it. Until somebody really "gets it all right", I feel like my best option is to
Re:Not as hard as you think (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not as easy as you think (Score:4, Insightful)
If you haven't seen this, then you either haven't launched any new applications since this feature was introduced, or you are running an older version of OSX. I can't tell you exactly when this was introduced, but it has been around for a while now - my best guess would be sometime between 10.3.3 and 10.3.7.
As far as your assertion of "stupid users" who will click on anything and proceed regardless of how many warnings they are being given, is concerned I tend to think that it is not the "stupidity" of users but the presentation of alerts by the OS which makes a big difference.
Remember that there have been attempts of trojans for OSX not so long ago and they didn't cause a major impact. I seem to remember that only one person reported to have launched a hostile script and getting hit as a result.
In my opinion the way the alerts are being presented makes a big difference. I believe that Microsoft could improve the security of Windows users significantly if only they worked out how to properly alert people, how to design alerts in such a way that even lazy folks who always click through will have to stop and think before they click.
Re:Not as easy as you think (Score:4, Informative)
This thread has the wrong idea about how this feature works. The dialog does not appear the first time any app is launched. It only appears if you try to open a document or URL that results in the Finder having to launch an app that you have never launched before. There are very few legitimate situations where you would have to do this, so it's quite likely that some users have never seen the message before.
This dialog is meant to deter the following exploit:
Re:Easier than you think (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice theory, but here's a few more points for you:
Postscript has been around two decades now, and AFAIK the only "virus" ever reported written it couldn't do anything but reset your Apple Laserwriter password. If you think you can write a Postscript program which reformats my hard drive, talks to my mail client, or even just brings up a dialogue box on my screen that says "Hi, I'm PostScript!", you're welcome to start hackin' now.
Re:Easier than you think (Score:3, Informative)
NeXT figured out that this could potentially be a gigantic security hole and switched off file access from display postscript.
Re:Stupid (Score:2)
Re:Stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
$50,000 might not be enough for Symantec, but I think quite a few employees would enjoy such a... christmas bonus.
They should be the experts. (Score:4, Interesting)
Would you accept the word of a locksmith telling you that your current locks aren't sufficient and that you should give him lots more money to put new locks on your house if he cannot SHOW you how easy it is for him to pick your current locks?
It's time for Symantec to put up or shut up. Either Macs do need their software AND they can prove it or they're just pushing their software with lies.That's an awful big "if".That's a real problem. Either the virus writer has to modify an existing virus so that its signature is picked up, or send the virus software companies a copy of his virus so they can update their signature files.That's about how it will go.
Either someone has to show how it can be done, or Symantec needs to shutup about how vulnerable Macs are.
Personally, I don't see much of a problem there.
Worms attack through ports.
Viruses load themselves into memory and infect other files.
Trojans only run when you launch them.
From the article, it looks as if they're hunting for worms or exploitable holes in apps. But the most common Windows-side issues now are trojans emailing themselves to everyone.
Re:They should be the experts. (Score:3, Funny)
and.. (Score:2)
I am going to laugh... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It would only make OSX more secure (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, if you're talking about worms, yes most spread through security holes in the system, and those can be fixed. But there are many classes of malware where the security "hole" is the human doing work. And those are very hard, if not impossible to prevent.
Balance (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Balance (Score:3, Informative)
Puts things in perspective: If a user downloading and voluntarel
Re:Balance (Score:5, Informative)
The conclusive evidence is that OS X is a flavour of *BSD.
If that doesn't strike you as conclusive, then feel free to explain how it is that Apache running on *BSD has such a better security record than IIS running on Windows, despite the fact that the Apache setup has, always has had, and most likely always will have too, a market share far greater than that of IIS.
That certainly strikes *me* as being a pretty compelling counterargument to the greater market share theory of hacker victimization, anyway...
Re:Balance (Score:4, Insightful)
In particular, appfolders have had some pretty nasty broken-by-design security exploits like the URL handler variants where an internet enabled DMG would self-mount itself into the filing system and automatically reconfigure URL schemes in Safari, all without the user doing anything other than visiting a web page. I think (hope) they fixed that but it was still several months until all the holes and variants of this technique were "fixed" (really just hacked around). The help system exploits Apple suffered were similar in nature.
Essentially, Apple haven't proven themselves any more skilled at designing secure desktops than Microsoft have. That said, this sort of competition is fairly pointless: being able to "infect" a machine with no action taken by the user boils down to finding buffer/heap overflows and the like in running software. Many viruses propogate with a bit of help from the user, even if all that involves is surfing the web.
Re:Balance (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you serious? It's a significant swath of the OS that you don't have to worry about!
the userland/desktop space is where most exploits have been in recent years
Wrong. Most 'theoretical' exploits have been in the BSD/OSS side of OS X. Absolutely none of those 'theoretical' exploits have been known to have been actually 'exploited' (all you've had was a 'click this to test' proof-of-concept).
the Aqua shell is no more free from exploits than Explorer is.
That's absurd. Aqua isn't what you use every day to visit untrusted sites with, while Explorer is. That makes it harder to exploit, which makes it inherently more secure.
I think (hope) they fixed that but it was still several months until all the holes and variants of this technique were "fixed" (really just hacked around).
The 'hack' fixes came out the same day, Apple's fix was about two weeks later, primarily because it wasn't a 'patch', it was a change in the policy for running apps from Safari.
Essentially, Apple haven't proven themselves any more skilled at designing secure desktops than Microsoft have.
Except for the fact that there have been *zero* malicious exploits for OS X.
Zero, none, el zip-o, a big goose egg (like the one on your face).
Re:Balance (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a meaningless statement. It is unclear what bearing the BSD heritage has on the ability of OS X to thwart the kind of trojan/malware attacks that Windows users are subjected to.
If that doesn't strike you as conclusive, then feel free to explain how it is that Apache running on *BSD has such a better security record than IIS running on Windows
Without knowing which versions of Apache, BSD, IIS and Windows you are referring to, it is impossible to establish whether your assertion that the Apache/BSD combo is more secure than the IIS/Windows combo is actually true.
And even if it were universally true, it is unclear what bearing any purported security benefit of Apache/BSD over IIS/Windows has on the ability of OS X to thwart the mostly email-propagated attacks that Windows users are subjected to.
That certainly strikes *me* as being a pretty compelling counterargument to the greater market share theory of hacker victimization, anyway...
If you think a non-sequitur based on unsubstantiated premises qualifies as a "compelling counterargument" of any sort, I suppose.
Re:Balance (Score:3, Informative)
That's laughably absurd. Please understand I don't say this with malice, but you are ignorant. Please open yourself to learning before speaking on subjects you are ignorant of.
They all have integrated networking, more or less elaborate means of access control, a pretty GUI and some utility apps
Oh, you mean they are all OS's? I guess Firefox and IE are equally exploitable as well, since they both "are integrated multimedia/hyperlink g
Re:Balance (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes.
Which version of Apache is more popular than IIS? IIS 4.0 runs on NT 4.0. IIS 5.0 runs on W2K. IIS 6.0 runs on W2K3. All run on x86. That's it. Apache, OTOH, runs on Solaris, IRIX, HP/UX, Linux (all gazillion varients of it), and even Windows. It runs on Sparc, Itanium, x86, MIPS, etc. Then there's two major code threads. With how many releases within each thread?
There are two and only tw
Re:Balance (Score:3, Interesting)
If Mac users are more "savy" then why is the Mac designed to be so "easy to use" and built so that "non-techies" can use it. I'm constantly told it has one mouse button because two are too difficult to use.
Are you saying that prople who can't figure out how to use more than one mouse button are "savy" ?
I'm heading for my bunker now, as I hear the missles com...
Re:Balance (Score:3, Insightful)
My first computer purchase was a Mac back in 89 (though I used TRS-80 and Apple ][ in school and at home/family computer before that).
I used Mac exclusively up until around System 7 days, by which time my Mac Plus was over the hill and moved to cheaper x86 computers for Windows and Linux. I used Macs at work exclusively for a couple of years around 96-98 and at that time, this "savvy" user loved the applications, but hated the random freezes. For me, it was never a 'one button issue', I alwa
Re:Balance (Score:3, Informative)
System 7 days, by which time my Mac Plus
Noting of course, Mac Plus could not run System 7, but I fequently used other Macs at college and work that did.
Re:Balance (Score:5, Informative)
Macs use verbs in dialog boxes, instead of 'Yes', 'No' and 'Cancel'. The button to install software on a Mac would be 'Install Software', not 'Yes', so clueless users have a better sense of what they are doing.
Discussed better here [xvsxp.com]
No conclusive evidence (Score:3, Informative)
As far as I'm aware there is no conclusive evidence that the "Windows Market Share" theory of exploitation holds any water at all. From a _design_ perspective Windows has been shown to be less secure than other operating systems. Wether it's targetted or not has no effect how secure Windows actually is! It just brings t
Re:No conclusive evidence (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think this is the most importaint factor. For example, spammers want to send spam. If they can easily exploit a system that only has a small fraction of the market and achieve their goals than I think they would do that. I mean, they will take the path of least resistence that still meets their needs. If Windows is both a vast and easy target, more the better. But if Macs or Linux were easy to exploit there are probobly enough of these systems
Re:No conclusive evidence (Score:4, Insightful)
Which may or may not be do to Windows market share. It may also not have to do with any one factor. The problem I see is when Windows zealots use the market share argument exlusively to defend Windows.
I'm really trying to extract your point from your post and not having much success.
How is Classic MacOS and DOS less secure? DOS had zero internet connectivity out of the box. Even if you added a TCP/IP stack there were no services you were going to run on DOS. If you ran Windows 3.1 or something you could run Netscape I think. But then, here we are with Windows (actually, DOS) again with about the same market share as Windows has today and no rampent network exploit problem. So again, I'm not sure what your getting at.
The fact that Windows is exploted is proof that it is insecure. That is my point. Speculating that Linux or Mac would be just as insecure if they had the same market share is just speculation. It also ignores the possiblity that a system that was easier, or even as easy, to exploit as Windows but had a smaller market share might also be exploited. So the fact that Linux and Mac exploits are not a pandemic does not mean that they are just as insecure as Windows. It's not "fact-free hystrionics", it's just observation and logic.
Now if you think Linux is insecure because Windows is exploited maybe you can elaborate on why that is so I can better understand what your getting at. If on the other hand your arguing something else, please don't confuse it with my argument because you make me feel like you are'nt really paying attention to what I am saying.
Kind Regards
Re:Balance (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a question of expert knowledge. Not being an expert, though, I can still extrapolate an argument:
If 1, 2, and 3 are true, and we do not have a case where Apple greatly reduced BSD's security, then we should assume that Mac OS X is more secure than w
Mac OS X is more secure, period. (Score:5, Informative)
Question from Lisa L. Spangenberg, UCLA:
Given that there are no viruses or Trojan horses for the current Macintosh system, OS X 10.3, and given that it is essentially UNIX, and given that the most common applications (Microsoft Office Suite, Adobe applications) work very well on OS X, why don't more institutions adopt Macs and encourage faculty to use them?
Gregory A. Jackson:
Well, first of all, there are viruses and Trojans that afflict MacOS, witness Apple's periodic release of security fixes to counteract them.
First, that isn't true, regarding viruses. To date, there are no known viruses that specifically target Mac OS X. Last week's "trojan" was nothing more than an application with a different icon and misleading name that displayed a dialog box (which was an example posted to a USENET Mac programming group to illustrate this fact that has been known and possible on Mac OS for over twenty years; an antivirus vendor apparently thought this an appropriate time to dress it up, incorrectly, as some new, terrible exploit easily adapted for malicious means, when in reality it's nothing more than an application).
If you're referring more broadly to security issues in general, almost all of the security and security-related updates for Mac OS X to date have been updates for primarily server-type services that ship with the OS, all of which are disabled by default, and the lion's share of which are never even enabled, much less touched, on the vast majority of systems. I'm not saying that they should be ignored, but Apple's comprehensive and swift response to the most minor security issues does not rise to the level of the staggeringly numerous, sometimes completely automated, remote exploits, worms, and so on for Windows. It is no longer possible to even get through a full installation Windows XP on a machine connected to a public network without it being exploited before you even have a chance to patch it.
It's definitely possible for Mac OS X to have viruses, worms, trojans, and other malware - Mac OS X is not invulnerable, and no sensible person would claim it to be. But the underlying philosophical design principles are fundamentally more secure than Windows, period. Since the major ingredient for the success of a worm or virus is some ability to spread, witness the fact that there is no way with anything built into Mac OS X to perform automated propagation of a virus, and no current known ways to exploit a machine remotely, not to mention that potentially exploitable network services are disabled to begin with anyway (and remain that way unless explicitly enabled), a stark contrast to Windows. Any hope for automatic propagation would require a comparatively high level of sophistication, and perhaps even its own mail server - not to mention some intrinsic vulnerability to exploit. On the other hand, there are still, to this moment, unfixed vulnerabilities in certain versions of Outlook that will spread certain virus variants simply by previewing a message, and nothing more. There is simply no equivalent to this on any other platform. Microsoft's track record and attitude on security (though admittedly much improved) versus other vendors speaks volumes on this topic.
It takes work and thought to do security, and do it right. Ease of use and security aren't mutually exclusive. The key is to make security easy to use, and Apple has so far been on the right road with Mac OS X.
But the small installed base of Macs makes them an unexciting, low-visibility target for the bad guys, and so the weaknesses don't get exploited much.
The marketshare argument only goes so far. This seems to be a version of the "Macs have no software" argument. It is indeed true that they are targeted less for this reason. But the argument that it's straight cause-and-effect is disingenuous
"Harmless and Benign" (Score:2, Insightful)
No such thing? (Score:2)
Worse, they aren't just proposing attacks on the specific machines, but rather that you have to put your virus into the wild. That way, it will waste EVERYONE's bandwidth and processing time while it spreads enough to infect those needles in the haystack that is the internet-at-large.
Just brilliant.
Re:"Harmless and Benign" (Score:3, Insightful)
"Experienced Mac developers" my ass. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:"Experienced Mac developers" my ass. (Score:2)
He canceled the contest (Score:5, Informative)
What a HUGE surprise. The linked page now explains, almost sorrowfully, why he decided to call it off. Read the last paragraph for a real laugh.
And we've got a winner! (Score:5, Funny)
Even a virus would be more useful.
Re:And we've got a winner! (Score:5, Funny)
here's how it goes (Score:2, Funny)
2. fine print in employment contract says that virus effectively belongs to symantec.
3. symantec keeps the money and comes out in the black on mac antivir software for once!
This strikes me as irresponsible. (Score:4, Interesting)
If you got a virus to them this way, I think the $25k would only begin to cover your legal bills.
What I'd wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
If you offer a $25,000 prize to someone who writes a virus, you are contracting someone to write a virus, and I would very much expect you are liable to be charged with computer crimes even if the person who writes the virus is never caught.
If you look at the link, these people have cancelled their contest. But the offer was still made. I am not sure canceling the contest is enough to get them out of legal liability of having offered cash to break the law. If someone attempts a mac virus in the next month, or some other timeframe that would make it likely to be a response to this "contest", I wonder what will happen to them.
Re:This strikes me as irresponsible. (Score:4, Informative)
Bah (Score:5, Insightful)
U got it backwards (Score:3, Funny)
Funny thing is, I think they will still win as Mac OSX is installed pretty secured.
Check out the Sponsor ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Something tells me it's unlikely you'd ever see the cash, even if you were to succeed.
Google for Jack Campbell and MacTable for more info on this guy's shady past.
Not reselling... (Score:3, Informative)
What he was doing was presenting others' furniture as his own design, taking all the credit for it, and showboating about how long it took him to design this gorgeous hunk of desk.
Except he had no hand in designing it, he wasn't building it, and he wasn't even an authorized outlet for the furniture in question. Hell, he didn't even take the pictures -- he lifted them straight from the manufacturer.
The shady business pr
What about the user? (Score:3, Interesting)
--
Want a free iPod? [freeipods.com]
Or try a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox. [freegamingsystems.com] (you only need 4 referrals)
Wired article as proof [wired.com]
C'mon... (Score:3, Informative)
While this statement may SOUND true, it's a fact, MAC OS X was built with more security in mind than Windows. Security was built into the OS from the ground up. That can't be said of Windows.
While making a statement such as "Macs can't have a virus" is false, I would say it would be more difficult to make one, than creating one for a Windows box, which seems like an Joe Shmoe can do.
How come? (Score:2, Interesting)
Some odd caveats (Score:2)
So if I create a virus that your scanning software can't detect I get squat?
Only a benign, harmless virus may win. Any virus entered in the contest that cause harm or damage in any way will be disqualified.
"In any way" sounds dubious, since anything I do to your system is potentially harmful. The odds are good that I'm displacing something if I'm planning to
smell like the LinuxPPC challenge (Score:2)
I'm in favour of things like this if they expose vulnerabilities that can be patched and closed, like honeypots. But I'm not in favour of these "in-your-face" types of contests and challenges. Usually leaves the challenger with eggs all over their face.
DVForge / MacMice? Great... (Score:4, Interesting)
So, I opened it up and here's what I found: http://www.nuxx.net/gallery/sightflex_troubleshoo
Great, huh? Nicely random scattered, poorly soldered wires in the base, not all twisted up like they are supposed to be in a FireWire cable.
I would have pursued the issue further, but the cheap plastic base of the device ended up breaking when I was moving it around one day. It seems that the flexible metal of the neck is just threaded into some fairly thin plastic in the base (again, see pictures [nuxx.net]) and the rather brittle plastic just up and broke one day.
Great idea, piss poor execution.
And, it is exactly becuase of this sort of product why I will never trust DVForge / MacMice again, no matter how noble the cause may be.
After my experience, I'd think that they are offering $25,000 in monopoly money. Note that they never say US Dollars, so you can't fault them if they pay up in fake bills.
Re:DVForge / MacMice? Great... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:DVForge / MacMice? Great... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, quality products.
Re:DVForge / MacMice? Great... (Score:3, Insightful)
This could be easy or hard, but I have an idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
While this is not a virus in the traditional sense, it could work in theory with some unsuspecting Mac users out there, like grandma or aunt Mae. And we all know that this couldn't happen to Slashdotters, not ever!
$50K for Symantec Employees not enough. (Score:5, Informative)
So from an economic standpoint I'd be seriously in the hole, trading in options and bonuses worth a hell of a lot more than the amount being offered from a rather shady source.
No way!
Re:$50K for Symantec Employees not enough. (Score:4, Insightful)
Hell, some idiot who barely knows how to cobble together some ActiveX controls in the Visual C++ IDE can make that sort of money as an annual salary. To someone who has been out in the real world for more than a couple of years, $50K represents maybe 9 months salary--which is hardly worth getting fired from your job for.
Re:$50K for Symantec Employees not enough. (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless you're a dirt-poor college student or someone who just graduated a few months ago, $50K really isn't that much when compared to your salary.
To someone who has been out in the real world for more than a couple of years, $50K represents maybe 9 months salary--which is hardly worth getting fired from your job for.
Wow, man, you need a good dose of the real world. For your sake I hope you don't get it, though. (The average salary in the US is $37,000. Hundreds of millions of us would strongly di
Root exploit _still_ not fixed (Score:4, Interesting)
So the summary claims that Mac OS X is technically more secure than Windows. Then why has this well-known root exploit in iSync [linuxsecurity.com] not been fixed even after several security updates and one system update, and despite that Apple has apparently been notified?
That worries me -- this bug is trivial to exploit from any user account (just compile and run). It smells like Microsoft-esque security practices.
FWIW, my temporary fix was to revoke the vulnerable file's setuid and execute permissions:
(Note: omit any spurious spaces and linebreaks Slashdots inserts here.)
More experienced in deception than development (Score:5, Interesting)
Why don't Microsoft do this? (Score:3, Funny)
Cancelled (Score:3, Informative)
And this is why I use Mac OS X (Score:5, Informative)
When choosing a computer, I took into consideration:
1) What I need it to do.
2) How I plan to interact with it.
3) How much effort I need to put into maintaining it.
3a) How much effort I need to put into making sure my machine stays mine (i.e. not compromised by some bored malcontent.)
So, over the course of several decades, I test-drove a few different machines, running different OSs (disclosure: I ran DOS and Windows variants up to and including XP, various Linux distributions, and Mac OS X.) It became glaringly obvious that OS X was far and away the OS of choice for the amount of time and effort I intend to invest in using and maintaing my computer.
I'm not a BSD advocate or a network security guru because, quite frankly, the subjects absolutely bore me to tears. However, even I can appreciate the simple, quiet wisdom of turning most networking services OFF on a fresh install of an OS (as does OS X.) Just think how much more secure our computing environment would be if people only enabled the services they absolutely needed.
What a maroon! The real problem... (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with Symantec's FUD bombs isn't that it's impossible to infect a Mac, it's that Symantec's software doesn't patch exploits... it just catches known malware (well, except for spyware, that's apparently OK) after it's already got to you... hopefully before it has a chance to run.
So the problem is... unless there's an actual virus out in the wild, there's nothing for Symantec's software to check for.
And since it hooks into the OS, at a fairly deep level, any bugs or incompatibilities in their software are effectively new system bugs. So they can only make your computer less reliable and stable. It's not sensible to install AV software in the absence of viruses. It can't possibly help, it can only hurt.
Already been done, an OSX virus (Score:4, Informative)
There are others such as Renepo.B [symantec.com]
MacOS MW2004 Trojan [symantec.com], MP3 Concept [symantec.com], Opener [macintouch.com], and a sound driver virus [harmony-central.com].
I think clearly the only virus myth about OSX, is the myth that OSX has no viruses that can infect it. Apparently there are at least several examples of OSX viruses, and that number seems to grow. It may even double every year.
I've always felt that using a computer without virus protection was like having unprotected sex without a condom with multiple partners. Back in the old days, when they used to say that the Commodore Amiga had no viruses, and that only MS-DOS suffered from viruses, Amigas got their own viruses that infected their systems. Usually it was one of those Amiga demo programs that people downloaded from BBSes to show off the Amiga's graphics and sound. Someone would infect it with a virus and pass it around. Amiga users felt that the Amiga virus was a myth, and many got hit. Now I see the same thing happen for OSX, only OSX is on the Internet and is subject to more danagers than the BBS world once offered.
So yes, the facts speak for Symantec, that OSX viruses exist, and possibly they could grow in number.
This bone-headed stunt of offering a contest to virus infect two Macs only shows how gullable people are. It was a phoney contest.
Jack has been active lately ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Jack has been active lately. He is notorious in the Mac Community.
Everyone should read my article [jackwhispers.com] on his company and past in the Mac Community. It's called: Catch Me If You Can Part II: The True Story Behind MacMice
Make sure to also see the about section [jackwhispers.com] to gain clarity on who writes Jackwhispers and why.
/. post ignores reality as usual (Score:3, Interesting)
"Symantec has been fanning the flames of totally bogus "Macs aren't more secure, it's just that Windows is a bigger target" technical-equivalence propaganda"
Of course, in the article, the Symatec claim is actually backed up.
from Symantec article:
"In its seventh bi-annual Internet Security Threat Report, Symantec said over the past year, security researchers had discovered at least 37 serious vulnerabilities in the Mac OS X system."
"Apple Computer has become a target for new attacks... The appearance of a rootkit109 called Opener in October 2004, serves to illustrate the growth in vulnerability research on the OS X platform..."
"Symantec's concerns were echoed by James Turner, security analyst at Frost & Sullivan Australia, who said many of the people who bought Apple products were not concerned about security, which left them wide open to attack."
"Look at where mobile viruses are going and they are not targeting Microsoft - they are targeting the market leader, which is Symbian,"
This was a lose-lose contest (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:In other news, Microsoft... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In other news, Microsoft... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Windows as secure as OSX? (Score:2)
Re:Windows as secure as OSX? (Score:4, Funny)
I'm calling Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
I am calling bullshit on this obvious lie. You had a clean instal, behind a firewall, with all the service packs installed, and in just 10 minutes after that with a direct connection to the net, someone infected it with spyware? That has to be bullshit.
I have been running Windows 2000 for years, and there is no spyware. And I am not doing anything special. I make sure to fdisk the mbr before an instal, just to make sure someone did not hide something on the hard drive before the instal. I do the instal off-line. Add a software firewall, then connect through a router to the net to get the service packs. I have never had any spyware on my system ever. I disable active-x from IE, and when I did my instal the only net protocol I install is tcp/ip, I do not instal the other 2- client or file & printer sharing.
Come on, when will all this anti-windows BS stop? The only reason people can hack it is because users don't instal service packs and because they open links in emails that use active-x. I gaurentee if those two problems are resolved, it will become 99.9% harder to infect a machine- a hacker would not just be able to run software, he would have to know your system and activly fight to get in, which would be too much work for him.
Re:I'm calling Bullshit (Score:3, Interesting)
maybe in that 10 minutes he went on and downloaded "dogsex3333.exe" or something.
Re:I'm calling Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
> I have been running Windows 2000 for years, and there is no
> spyware. And I am not doing anything special.
You're not doing anything special. nothing? but wait!
> make sure to fdisk the mbr before an instal
> Add a software firewall
> connect through a router
> disable active-x from IE
> the only net protocol I install is tcp/ip,
> I do not instal the other 2- client
> or file & printer sharing.
Oh *PLEASE*. You make a statement like "I am not doing anything special" then go on to state a half dozen special things you do to protect yourself. You're so used to continually performing workarounds to get past the deficiencies of windows that you can't see that you're doing it, even when you write it plainly in text.
"This is a safe neighbourhood, I've never been hurt and I do nothing special. I just have bars on all the windows, lock the shutters after 5pm, install bullet proof glass and don't make eye contact with anyone. See, perfectly safe. Not been hit yet."
> Come on, when will all this anti-windows BS stop?
When it deserves it.
The real problem with windows... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think Microsoft has changed a great deal in the past 5-10 years, and I think it might be our fault. When MS first came out with Windows 95, it was a HUGE improvment over Windows 3.1, it was made to be much easier to use. It trusted the user to do anything and everything. When Windows 98 came out, it
Re:Windows as secure as OSX? (Score:3, Informative)
If you only read the headline, you might think I was agreeing with your position. However, my results were that the SP2 box went untouched for a couple weeks. And that none of the boxes that were infected had spyware, they had worms. It's also extremely rare that spyware gets on via any other mechanism besides web browsing.
So, I'd be curious to see the data you have to back up your claim.
Re:Windows as secure as OSX? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Isn't this a crime? (Score:2)
Re:Totally Bogus? (Score:5, Insightful)
Tried to install any applications lately (like, say, OpenOffice)? The installer demands administrator access, and will REFUSE to continue unless it gets it. Even if you're only going to install it into /tmp or $HOME to check it out.
Try to compile F95 in GCC? You might be instructed to download a DMG of "up to date" cctools. But when you mount the drive, you get an installer, and this installer also demands administrator access, presumably so it can stomp on the tools already installed. And it's non-obvious where you go to get the source that will compile on the Mac so you can install it in a place of your own choosing.
Mac users are slowing being trained to be as dumb as MSWindows users. When the pretty little dialog asks for the administrator password, just provide it, otherwise you won't be able to play, and the maintainers of that package will mock you. Caution? What's that? Prudence? Soooo old-school. Paranoia? Get a life!
There's not much difference between being trained to grant a program administrative status every time it asks for it and running as the administrator all the time. It just adds a ten-second delay before your machine is compromised, and people can point at you and wonder aloud why you didn't _know_ what the program was going to do before it did it.
I'm not giving up my Mac in favor of anything out of Redmond. I just want a stick I can beat developers with when they write installers that demand administrative access and refuse to go further until they get it. If the user declines to give the administrative password, then let them choose where to install your software, and give them a README on what they can do "by hand" to integrate your software. IF they so choose.
Re:Totally Bogus? (Score:4, Informative)
"A critical security update is needed for your $RANDOM_APP. The update has been downloaded. Installing update..."
[Password Dialog Here]
Or somesuch.
I think that's the sort of thing a security-minded expert would prefer, and the average user would be overwhelmed by. Yes, it would. I believe that Debian kinda-sorta does this with "fakeroot". I'd like an actual sandbox... Yup! I've been pondering the need for this sort of thing for awhile. If it's clean enough, and robust enough, you can run _all_ of your applications in their own sandboxes. I think that this approach is simple enough to work for both the average home user and powerful enough to make a security guru happy. Exactly. And if you want to keep the changes, you can put it in $HOME/.sandboxes/appname, or, since we're on the Mac, perhaps $HOME/Sandboxes/Appname/...I like the way you're thinking.
Re:More Proof Symantec Writes Viruses (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know why I bother with the tin-foil hat brigade, but it is an explicit terminatable offense at Symantec to write--or help in writing--a virus. They just clean out your desk and have security escort you out of the building that day, no appeal. Your stock options and stock purchase plan options are immediately revoked, you lose back vacation pay, and you get no severence. Just a bootprint on your ass as you're kicked out the door.
But of course I'm part of the conspiracy, so you'll probably think I'm either a dupe or a lying spokes-hole.
I like being part of conspiracies; I worked many years ago for JPL in the same building the Weekly World News claimed housed an alien spacecraft that was being studied by the military--and the tinfoil hat brigade didn't believe me then when I told them it was just so much hokem...