Warning on Mac bug!

Apparently there is a serious bug within the Mac OS! Link to BBC web page: -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6187302.stm

 

Wow...that's great news. Now people know that (1) the Mac OS can have some bugs like Windows, (2) that all code is written by people who aren't perfect (and no one is), and (3) others are still working to improve software.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but software will always have it's bugs. It's just a matter of how severe they are and who tries to take advantage of them. This isn't the first time a Mac had a bug, and will not be the last. But there will always be fixes!

Honestly, this is not really a hot topic. Bugs happen.

 

Well, considering the stance many Mac zealots take that Mac is inherently safe "because it's Unix", and Windows isn't, I'd say this is an important piece of news. You're right, in itself it's nothing special. It's not the first security flaw found in Mac OS, and it definitely won't be the last one either.

But it's important to remind people that no matter what the name of their OS is, no matter whether or not it's derived from *nix, it is not, and will never be, bulletproof

 

Generally, i think macs are easier to hack and get viruses IF someone out there is willing to do it (u hear windows are more vulnerable and such but the truth is, more ppl is screwing up windows than mac). But i really curse this type of ppl.

 

i knew about this early last week. its not deathly. turn off one the open safe files after downloading option in safari if you are really paranoid about it.

 

Lunateck, based on what do you believe that macs are easier to hack and make viruses for? Sure Windows has more marketshare, but I think you achieve much more notoriety getting a bug on mac than windows. Mac OS X isn't perfect, but I'm not sure where you get your claim that it's easier to hack than windows. Every tiny flaw in macs that are pointed out make big news, whereas for windows...

 

Yes, OS X IS more secure because it's using *nic / Unix kernal.
but even Unix has bugs. This really isnt' anything new.
Using the excuse that Windows is unsecure just because it holds a large market share and if any other OS took over majority marketshare would become insecure is... really a poor argument, with no real basis.

 

This bug as well as another announced just after this one require, as usual, that you be running as admin, I believe. That means if you are running as a limited user, which you should be, you have nothing to worry about. The reason all of these bugs are making news is that it would be a huge story for an actual OS X virus. All the news outlets want to have that scoop.

 

I wanted to comment on the whole bigger marketshare thing. I've always thought this was an extremely poor argument. If someone was to write a virus/malware/etc and had to choose between a successful attack on windows vs. mac why not choose the mac? You'd get an enormous amount of fame, notoriety, everything. Mac seems like the better target, this whole "more people use windows" doesn't really cut well for me.

 

oin..,

I have to say that I agree with you 100% on that. Any virus writer worth his / her pennies would go for the harder challenge.

 

Erm, not from my experience.
The goal of hacking is to effect the largest number of systems, do the most damage. The won't achieve fame by making a virus for a mac. There are already a few, but they don't really work very well from what I understand.

If a hacker said 'yeah, i created a virus for a mac that effected 100 macs' no one would really care. If another hacker said 'i made a virus that crashed 5 million servers and 6 million desktops', guess who would be more famous.

No one would care about the macs, they would care about the larger damage done by a windows virus.

 

That is true, but what oin is saying is someone creating the first major OS X virus. One that actually spreads and makes some noise. That would be bigger news than any Windows virus.

 

Yeah, I dunno. I just don't see any hackers really wanting to go after OS X. Look at how long Unix has been out, where are the viruses for that?
It would be more lucrative for them to do a pure Unix virus (not that they probably wouldn't carry over between systems). If a virus writer was going for real fame, making the first Unix virus I would be what would do it.
After all, Unix is still used for a lot of servers out there. Doing a virus for a mac wouldn't effect that much as there aren't a ton of Apple servers.

I should have stated what I was saying about the 2 viruses in my previous post, I was thikning fo them going out at the same time. While a major OS X virus would get news, if there was a larger, more damaging windows virus, I still think that would be more noteworthy. Simply due to damage ratio, but I don't mean to say that the OS X virus would be ignored.
I would be a big thing for the anti mac fans though. I think thats where it would be the most noteworty, because many anti mac people I've talked to have the opinion that 1 mac virus is worse than a million windows viruses.

 

Well, that was my thought anyway. After seeing this, it is somewat true that if macs got major virus infection, it would hit the headline bigger than windows since it's like everyday business for windows.

(I m anti-microsoft, but no grudge for windows. Weird relationship.....)

 

just fire up software update now. they just released the fix for the dmg issue among many others.

 

I would say that just proves it is harder to develop virus for UNIX-based systems than for Windows. It is not impossible , for sure; but they simply won't spread as much as Windows virus do, for a multitude of reasons. As you said, Unix in its various forms is used in a lot of servers, and if people just wanted to hit the biggest number they would sure target them.