Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security Businesses Apple

Large Prize Offered For Writing Mac Virus 669

Posted by Zonk from the come-get-some dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Large Prize Offered For Writing Mac Virus More

Large Prize Offered For Writing Mac Virus

Comments Filter:

  • Stupid (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ryanr ( 30917 ) * <ryan@thievco.com> on Saturday March 26, 2005 @01:37PM (#12054920) Homepage Journal
    This has got to be one of the stupidest contests of this type I've heard about.

    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.
    • Their silly and their ignorant but theve got guts and sometimes guts is enough.

      • Re:Stupid (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ryanr ( 30917 ) *
        Guts for whom? The virus author who has the balls to infect every Mac, and then claim responsibility?

        • Re:Stupid (Score:5, Informative)

          by interiot ( 50685 ) on Saturday March 26, 2005 @02:25PM (#12055268) Homepage
          It's a quote from Full Metal Jacket [imdb.com] directed by Stanley Kubrick:

          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)

          by TFGeditor ( 737839 )
          "The virus author who has the balls to infect every Mac..."

          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)

            by ryanr ( 30917 ) * <ryan@thievco.com> on Saturday March 26, 2005 @03:39PM (#12055827) Homepage Journal
            No the article doesn't say that explicitly, you'd have to understand how viruses spread, and make a logical connection to get there.

            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)

        by Ohreally_factor ( 593551 ) on Saturday March 26, 2005 @02:03PM (#12055125) Journal
        DVforge is owned by one Jack Cambell [jackwhispers.com], a known con artist and admirer of publicity stunts. This is exactly that and nothing more: a publicity stunt.d I'd be very surprised if 1) either of the two computers actually exist, 2) the prize money exists, 3) if the computers exist and the prize money exists, then Jack will ever pay up if someone wins.

        • Re:Stupid Publicity Stunt (Score:5, Informative)

          by quarkscat ( 697644 ) on Saturday March 26, 2005 @03:18PM (#12055669)
          A quick visit to the website reveals that their
          "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 (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Zeinfeld ( 263942 )
          DVforge is owned by one Jack Cambell, a known con artist and admirer of publicity stunts. This is exactly that and nothing more: a publicity stunt.d I'd be very surprised if 1) either of the two computers actually exist, 2) the prize money exists, 3) if the computers exist and the prize money exists, then Jack will ever pay up if someone wins.

          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)

            by It'sYerMam ( 762418 ) <thefishface@gmaGINSBERGil.com minus poet> on Saturday March 26, 2005 @05:19PM (#12056395) Homepage
            Oh you say, no fair pointing at third party software bugs, they don't count. Well sure they do

            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)

        by iCEBaLM ( 34905 ) on Saturday March 26, 2005 @02:09PM (#12055163)
        s/their/they're/
        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)

      by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Saturday March 26, 2005 @01:42PM (#12054953) Homepage Journal
      well. the contest is REALLY about finding a remote exploit hole in a mac.

      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)

        by ryanr ( 30917 ) *
        If they gave the IPs for the Macs in question, you could go fo that route. There are ways to find out of course, but that doesn't seem to be what they are after, by my reading. Who wants to start attacking random Macs, on the assumption that they are the right ones? Well, and be able to claim the prize after...

        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)

        by mamladm ( 867366 ) on Saturday March 26, 2005 @02:59PM (#12055545) Homepage
        Sending an executable as a mail attachment is easy, but fooling a user into launching is is much harder on the Mac than it is on Windows.

        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)

          by DragonHawk ( 21256 ) on Saturday March 26, 2005 @05:24PM (#12056421) Homepage Journal
          "Somebody would have to be incredibly naive to ignore all the warnings and still proceed."

          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!".
          • 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.

            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

    • I initially had the same thought - but that's not really the point. Part of the contest rules state that you have to infect their two Macs.

    • Re:Stupid (Score:3, Insightful)

      by lphuberdeau ( 774176 )

      $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)

      by khasim ( 1285 ) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Saturday March 26, 2005 @01:52PM (#12055037)
      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.
      Their people should be among the best qualified to show how easy it is to infect a Mac.

      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.
      1) If a virus has spread over every Mac on the Internet, then it's harmful.
      That's an awful big "if".
      4) We're going to use antivirus software to determine if we've been infected... which will only catch previously known viruses.
      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.
      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.
      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.
  • and how long untill a mac virus pisses off the wrong person and they get done for giving money to "cyber-terrorists"?

  • I am going to laugh... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bob670 ( 645306 ) on Saturday March 26, 2005 @01:41PM (#12054941)
    for days when someone suceeds at this. Never dare someone to do stuff like this, it is just too tempting of a target.

  • Balance (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fish34 ( 636162 ) on Saturday March 26, 2005 @01:41PM (#12054944)
    Nice balanced submission you got there. As far as I'm aware there is no conclusive evidence that shows Macs are inherently more secure and would not suffer the virus problem that Windows does if it had Windows' market share. Note that a lot of the virus problem comes from users showing bad practice (clicking 'Yes' to install things they really shouldn't, opening attachments they really shouldn't). I wouldn't be suprised if Mac users were on average more savy, and this could contribute.

    • Re:Balance (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Anyone want to dig up the Slashdot story from way back where a OS X Mac users machine was "infected" because the guy downloaded and proceeded to run "Office for Mac" (which was mysteriously less then 1MB) off a P2P network, and found out every folder he had rights to was deleted (the program was just a shell script that was likely written by an 8 year who had just discovered that they existed and that you could use the delete command in them).

      Puts things in perspective: If a user downloading and voluntarel

    • Re:Balance (Score:5, Informative)

      by Snocone ( 158524 ) on Saturday March 26, 2005 @01:55PM (#12055067) Homepage
      As far as I'm aware there is no conclusive evidence that shows Macs are inherently more secure and would not suffer the virus problem that Windows does if it had Windows' market share.

      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)

        by IamTheRealMike ( 537420 ) on Saturday March 26, 2005 @02:09PM (#12055161)
        Being based on BSD has nothing to do with anything, the userland/desktop space is where most exploits have been in recent years and the Aqua shell is no more free from exploits than Explorer is.

        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)

          by node 3 ( 115640 ) on Saturday March 26, 2005 @04:59PM (#12056292)
          Being based on BSD has nothing to do with anything,

          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)

        by groomed ( 202061 ) on Saturday March 26, 2005 @03:40PM (#12055841)
        The conclusive evidence is that OS X is a flavour of *BSD.

        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, Interesting)

      by willCode4Beer.com ( 783783 )
      I know I'm fanning the flames here but....
      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)

        by kevcol ( 3467 )
        I'll bite. :-)

        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)

          by kevcol ( 3467 )
          Whoops- must clarify:

          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)

      by tehshen ( 794722 ) <tehshen@gmail.com> on Saturday March 26, 2005 @01:56PM (#12055075)
      clicking 'Yes' to install things they really shouldn't

      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]
    • "As far as I'm aware there is no conclusive evidence that shows Macs are inherently more secure and would not suffer the virus problem that Windows does if it had Windows' market share."

      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:Balance (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Planesdragon ( 210349 )
      As far as I'm aware there is no conclusive evidence that shows Macs are inherently more secure

      It's a question of expert knowledge. Not being an expert, though, I can still extrapolate an argument:
      1. BSD was built with "security" in mind.
      2. Windows was built with "compatability" in mind.
      3. Mac OS X was built on top of BSD, as a way to make BSD more "usable".

      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)

      by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) * on Saturday March 26, 2005 @03:06PM (#12055587)
      On this subject, I recently answered a query raised during a Chronicle of Higher Education colloquy. I believe it touches on the major issues here.

      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)

    by Winckle ( 870180 )
    At what point does a virus become hamless and benign, i'm interested in what the /. community think so fthat statement.
    • If you think about it carefully, any such virus will be wasting bandwidth and processing time.

      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.
    • Proof of concept, with no payload and ability to spread scaled down, and easy to remove.

  • "Experienced Mac developers" my ass. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by qengho ( 54305 ) on Saturday March 26, 2005 @01:42PM (#12054952)
    This is the notorious Jack Campbell [macintouch.com], one of the shadiest characters around. It's undoubtedly a publicity stunt for his business. What a jerk.

  • And we've got a winner! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Flounder ( 42112 ) * on Saturday March 26, 2005 @01:42PM (#12054954)
    Microsoft Word 6.0 for Mac

    Even a virus would be more useful.

  • 1. symantec employee writes mac virus.
    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! ..or maybe not :)

  • This strikes me as irresponsible. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MillionthMonkey ( 240664 ) on Saturday March 26, 2005 @01:43PM (#12054961)
    They aren't asking for source code to the virus, or the virus to be sent to them (and only to them) in a polite form, they're leaving two Macs exposed to the net and expecting to pick a winner by what their virus scanning software finds. You claim the money by sending them a 32 character string that appears in the virus.

    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)

      by mcc ( 14761 ) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Saturday March 26, 2005 @03:26PM (#12055728) Homepage
      If you contract and pay someone to kill someone else, you are held liable in their murder. I'd assume if you contract and pay someone to write a virus, you're liable for whatever computer crimes are broken as well.

      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.

  • Bah (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dachannien ( 617929 ) on Saturday March 26, 2005 @01:44PM (#12054970)
    A computer is only as secure as its user. Are they going to man these two naked Macs with total noobs, to make it a fair contest?
    • To make life interesting, they were going to run those two macs with total naked noobs, to make it a fair contest.

      Funny thing is, I think they will still win as Mac OSX is installed pretty secured.

  • Check out the Sponsor ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Socket Scientist ( 777417 ) on Saturday March 26, 2005 @01:44PM (#12054974)
    ... before wasting your time.

    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.

  • What about the user? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by PxM ( 855264 ) on Saturday March 26, 2005 @01:44PM (#12054976)
    Since the majority of viruses, spyware, and other crap are due to user inaction, this isn't really a fair metric about the overall security. However, it is good to compare against the Windows survival time which is measured in minutes [sans.org]. This does show that Apple has its default security setup as "paranoid with multiple tin foil hats) compared to Windows XP's default setup. A more interesting test would compare how hard it is to get spyware onto a user's computer via the default webbrowser since that seems to be the primary vector these days. However, this is problematic since it's heavily dependent on user stupidity.

    --
    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)

    by _PimpDaddy7_ ( 415866 ) on Saturday March 26, 2005 @01:45PM (#12054981)
    "Macs aren't more secure, it's just that Windows is a bigger target"

    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)

    by John Seminal ( 698722 )
    They double the reward from $25,000 to $50,000 if a Symantec employee writes the virus? Most companies that run these kinds of events prohibit employees from entering because the risk of cheating is too great. Who is to say some employee from Symantec gets a hold of an entry, and changes it slightly and then submits the entry as his own? Wasn't Mcdonalds involved in an insider game scam? http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/08/21/monopoly.a r rests/ [cnn.com]
  • Each day, we will scan both Powermacs for the presence of an OS X native executable virus, using a commercially available virus scanning utility.

    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
  • Sounds similar to the linuxPPC challenge when LinuxPPC Inc put a Power Mac 9500 on the net in response to the Microsoft server demo. That one, IIRC, still came out in favour of linux and the older less capable Power Mac.

    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)

    by nuxx ( 10153 ) on Saturday March 26, 2005 @01:55PM (#12055060) Homepage
    Too bad this is being sponsored by a manufacturer of rather poor-quality products. For example, they make a product called the SightFlex [dvforge.com] which appears to be the ideal iSight [apple.com] stand. So, I bought one... The camera caused all sorts of problems on the FireWire bus, so I contacted Jack at MacMice. The long thread of emails ended in my not receiving a response to a request for a working product, although Jack did suggest opening up the SightFlex and wrapping aluminum foil around the wires in the base.

    So, I opened it up and here's what I found: http://www.nuxx.net/gallery/sightflex_troubleshoot ing [nuxx.net]

    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. ;)

  • This could be easy or hard, but I have an idea... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by alchemist68 ( 550641 ) on Saturday March 26, 2005 @01:56PM (#12055070)
    AppleScript is a pretty powerful language. Someone might go about creating a MacOSX virus by writing it in AppleScript and disguising it as another program. For instance, the html-formatted email received in Mail would have the look and feel of Apple eNews and information letters with an attached Applescript. The AppleScript when activated pops up a window requesting the administrator password to do some check on the operating system, or to activate a security feature not turned on by default. The AppleScript then gathers all email addresses from Mail and AddressBook and sends itself to everyone in the databases, then the program does "rm -rf /*" as its final trick.

    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)

    by w3woody ( 44457 ) on Saturday March 26, 2005 @01:58PM (#12055093) Homepage
    It had better be more than $50K for a Symantec Employee: according to my employment contract, writing a virus will result in my immediate termination. Such termination also means that I forfit all my stock options, worth far more than $50K at this point. And not to mention a great paying job with annual bonuses worth about half the original award.

    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!

  • Root exploit _still_ not fixed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by McDutchie ( 151611 ) on Saturday March 26, 2005 @02:02PM (#12055123) Homepage

    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:

    $ chmod 644 /System/Library/SyncServices/SymbianConduit.bundle /Contents/Resources/
    mRouter

    (Note: omit any spurious spaces and linebreaks Slashdots inserts here.)

  • More experienced in deception than development (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sgb235 ( 686043 ) on Saturday March 26, 2005 @02:04PM (#12055133)
    Jack Campbell, who is behind this, has been behind a number of rather dubious projects. There's a page about him at Macintouch http://www.macintouch.com/mactable.html [macintouch.com].

  • Why don't Microsoft do this? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Xerp ( 768138 ) on Saturday March 26, 2005 @02:19PM (#12055213) Journal
    I mean, they are big on security, right? Perhaps they could offer $50k to someone who can write a virus that infects Microsoft Windows?

  • Cancelled (Score:3, Informative)

    by kryogen1x ( 838672 ) on Saturday March 26, 2005 @02:27PM (#12055279)
    RTFA. It's cancelled.

  • And this is why I use Mac OS X (Score:5, Informative)

    by boredman ( 169127 ) on Saturday March 26, 2005 @03:20PM (#12055682)
    I get no end of amusement from people claiming that Mac users buy Macs because "they don't know anything about computers," or something to that effect. The fact of the matter is, this particular Mac user sees his computer for what it is: an appliance. It's not a platform, a political party, or a religion. It's a machine, not entirely unlike a toaster or Cuisinart.

    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 an Ultramaroon!

    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)

    by Orion Blastar ( 457579 ) <orionblastar@@@gmail...com> on Saturday March 26, 2005 @05:03PM (#12056313) Homepage Journal
    named Switchback [lowendmac.com] which infected OSX Macs, but nobody noticed it.

    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)

    by adzoox ( 615327 ) * on Saturday March 26, 2005 @07:06PM (#12057019) Journal
    Wow, gone for a few minutes and you miss a lot.

    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)

    by geekee ( 591277 ) on Saturday March 26, 2005 @07:14PM (#12057059)
    from post:
    "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)

    by shodson ( 179450 ) on Saturday March 26, 2005 @08:34PM (#12057456) Homepage
    The fact that he shut it down ("chickened out") only gives credibility to the claim that "Windows is just a bigger target" crowd, which were not his intentions. If he kept the contest going, and the Macs had been infected, which probably would have happened eventually, then it would show that Macs are vulnerable too, which Mac software writers don't want, because Mac has benefited from the security lessons MSFT has learned the hard way and the perception, real or not, that Macs are more secure. Either way, it was a lose-lose for this guy and the Mac community.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close