Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(International Business Times)   Macs are just as vulnerable to hacks as PCs   ( ibtimes.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Operating system, Macintosh, necessary firmware updates, Apple Inc., Mac OS, consumers necessary firmware, out-of-date firmware, built-in software  
•       •       •

1953 clicks; posted to Geek » on 01 Oct 2017 at 7:25 AM (10 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



95 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2017-10-01 05:24:18 AM  
4.2% of two-year-old computers *may* be vulnerable. "Just as vulnerable". Right.
 
2017-10-01 07:26:54 AM  
Macs are just as vulnerable, yes. Windows machines have a higher likelihood of attacks though, because of the higher marker share
 
2017-10-01 07:51:38 AM  
Bragging about Macs and less vulnerable is like me bragging about Linux and being less vulnerable...yeah, we're not really less vulnerable, just single digit market percentage...ain't nobody got time to write a virus for single digit market percentage...especially since the exploit being targeted will be patched within 24 hours of being disclosed to the public on most major Linux distributions.

Or, you know, run Windows where exploits cross generations and OS versions.  I still come across the occasional article about Windows 7/8/10 running into Windows 3.1/95 era bugs...because, you know, an OS still dealing with bugs from the early 90s is what I want to run to do secure, financial transactions and keep me private.

Hacking-wise, Linux and Macs are like high end cars and Windows is like a 1990 Toyota Camry.  You can steal a Ferrari or a BMW, but it's 1000x easier to steal a 1990 Toyota Camry since they can be started and driven off with nothing but long fingernails...keys aren't required in that car...seriously, I used to own one.
 
2017-10-01 08:22:35 AM  
Fark needs a "no shiat Sherlock" tag, because the obvious tag exploded into a million Romeros.
 
2017-10-01 08:26:25 AM  
Rather amusing. When I was working with Apple computers in the '80s, they were the worse for infections. People loaded any crap they came across. Since this was a government job, only the support team was authorized to add software, but cleanups and rebuilds were a daily thing.

/NASA "manager" was the worst offender, her system rarely ran for more than a week before she added something that crashed it.
 
2017-10-01 08:41:58 AM  
EVERYTHING can be hacked.  It's just a matter of who wants to hack what and how often.  That is all.
 
2017-10-01 08:51:25 AM  
One of the attacks that specifically makes use of out-of-date firmware is the Thunderstrike attack, which allows a malicious actor to take control of the machine by inserting an ethernet adapter into a Mac's Thunderbolt port to deliver a malicious payload

Don't leave your older Macbook unattended at Starbucks
 
2017-10-01 09:06:29 AM  
How did the whole "Mac" and "PC" nomenclature come about, anyway? If it's hardware, wouldn't the better comparison have been "Apple" and "IBM" or "Intel"? And why does it persist when it seems to now refer to "OSX" vs "Windows"?
 
2017-10-01 09:12:35 AM  

hashtag.acronym: just single digit market percentage


On what planet is Linux a single-digit market percentage? Sure, for desktop computing, they are. But for backend stuff- y'know, for the systems that hold valuable data- they are the world. Also, for IoT devices- if you're building a botnet, it's waaaaay easier to build that botnet out of shiattly secured coffee makers that connect to the Internet for some idiotic reason.

But there's only so much an OS can do to control its threat surface- code/data separation, ASLR, robust privilege models, etc. At the end of the day though, it's on the actually used software to provide sufficient security. For example, the Equifax hack used a Struts vuln that happened entirely in application-space. No OS could defend you against that.

Now, that said, macOS does something that only Apple could get away with, that honestly does make your device more secure: in its default configuration, it won't run unsigned code. No OS should run a binary without a valid cryptographic signature from a known source. Apple, sadly, doesn't go far enough- you can still run Unix-style executables without a signature, but no application bundles (which means it's good enough to keep users from hurting themselves, but doesn't stop a determined attacker).
 
2017-10-01 09:21:57 AM  

natazha: Rather amusing. When I was working with Apple computers in the '80s, they were the worse for infections. People loaded any crap they came across. Since this was a government job, only the support team was authorized to add software, but cleanups and rebuilds were a daily thing.

/NASA "manager" was the worst offender, her system rarely ran for more than a week before she added something that crashed it.


Oddly enough the majority of Apple Computers in the 1980s, and very few people had hard drives for them and they were frightfully expensive.  There only a handful(most were variants of each other) I think maybe 20, and most just introduced a counter into the boot sector that after a certain number of boots would display a message"hey, your computer was hacked by whatever elite cool guy user group" and did not real home.  I think there were like 2 that destroyed the disk.

There were no "rebuilds" because the the OS was resident on each floppy you booted from, so literally turning the computer off and putting another disk in would solve your problem.  Due to technological limitations the virus was quarantined to the disk.  Because when you turned off the computer, well the memory was wiped.

There were around 3 or so viruses for the mac, and a few variants of each.

I think you just might be full of shiat.
 
2017-10-01 09:27:25 AM  

skozlaw: How did the whole "Mac" and "PC" nomenclature come about, anyway? If it's hardware, wouldn't the better comparison have been "Apple" and "IBM" or "Intel"? And why does it persist when it seems to now refer to "OSX" vs "Windows"?


It originated in the 80s when basically anyone could build PCs and their peripherals but Apple was super proprietary about their format. There was a time when if you owned an Apple computer you had to use an Apple HD, printer, etc. Other formats existed (Atari, Commodore, etc.) but PCs composed the majority of the market with Apple a very distant second. Apple's defense of this policy was that it was necessary to maintain quality and ensure the computers were easy to use (DOS based PCs were not exactly user friendly), however it can't be ignored that Apple computers and accessories were far more expensive than comparable PCs (for example, when I upgraded to a PC from my Atari in 1990 the comparable Apple was over 3 times the cost).

Prior to the iPod and iPhone this was a common description of Apple's proprietary strategy:

Arrogance
Produces
Profit
Losing
Entity
 
2017-10-01 09:30:01 AM  
It's not just that Macs or less vulnerable, its more than that just on a worthwhile Target. Sure you can get some buddies little dinky music program to shut down and steal their "Beats", or lock some artist out of their digital files. But there's no real valuable information on most Macs.

It's not just the smaller market share, it's also the "why bother" infecting some douchebag hipster's Mac. If they can afford a Mac in the first place, they will probably just throw it out and buy a new one, cuz that's what Apple users do. It's not like you can repair or upgrade them.
 
2017-10-01 09:32:26 AM  

Tyrosine: their peripherals but Apple was super proprietary about their format


Well, I think more than that, Apple was super unwilling to adopt other people's proprietary formats. That's why they went with Firewire over USB at points. USB was alsoproprietary, but Intel was more open about licensing it (because they wanted adoption). It's why they adopted SCSI. And while the ADB was definitely proprietary, at the time, it's not like there was much of a mass-market, widely adopted protocol out there for peripherals.
 
2017-10-01 09:33:01 AM  

t3knomanser: hashtag.acronym: just single digit market percentage

On what planet is Linux a single-digit market percentage? Sure, for desktop computing, they are. But for backend stuff- y'know, for the systems that hold valuable data- they are the world. Also, for IoT devices- if you're building a botnet, it's waaaaay easier to build that botnet out of shiattly secured coffee makers that connect to the Internet for some idiotic reason.

But there's only so much an OS can do to control its threat surface- code/data separation, ASLR, robust privilege models, etc. At the end of the day though, it's on the actually used software to provide sufficient security. For example, the Equifax hack used a Struts vuln that happened entirely in application-space. No OS could defend you against that.

Now, that said, macOS does something that only Apple could get away with, that honestly does make your device more secure: in its default configuration, it won't run unsigned code. No OS should run a binary without a valid cryptographic signature from a known source. Apple, sadly, doesn't go far enough- you can still run Unix-style executables without a signature, but no application bundles (which means it's good enough to keep users from hurting themselves, but doesn't stop a determined attacker).


The problem with Apple computers are not really the computers, but the user base.

About .001 know what they are doing.  That includes "creatives" and people who cry out "I have been using the Mac since 1984, and I  all every Apple product, hey how do I search for a file?".

They also have a false sense of security and will install anything from any site.  "Your Flash player is not up to date?" And since they do not know how to check it under preferences in Safari they install it, and boom they get creepy crawlers.  The worst being Mac Keep which pretends to optimize their machines, then strange stuff starts happening and an official looking Apple logo and page pops up and says they have been infected to call Apple, then they get some Indian guy who has them download a Citrix client who opens up Terminal and shows them random directories and points out "problems" meanwhile the guy is grabbing their keychain with all of their personal data, while extracting 199 bucks off their credit card for "cleaning the computer".  Mac users are the worse for social engineering and phishing.

The other thing is Mac users rarely update their OS's, most have figured out how to turn off the nag screen, so they freak out when their back has deprecated their version of their browser and cannot login, and they say"no one ever told me I had to update".

Windows converts to Os X are easier to deal with, they are used to poking around, updating, taking instruction.
 
2017-10-01 09:36:35 AM  

t3knomanser: Tyrosine: their peripherals but Apple was super proprietary about their format

Well, I think more than that, Apple was super unwilling to adopt other people's proprietary formats. That's why they went with Firewire over USB at points. USB was alsoproprietary, but Intel was more open about licensing it (because they wanted adoption). It's why they adopted SCSI. And while the ADB was definitely proprietary, at the time, it's not like there was much of a mass-market, widely adopted protocol out there for peripherals.


Firewire was great, but Apple wanted to charge a buck for every firewire port manufactured from the manufacturer, they killed it with cost.
 
2017-10-01 09:40:53 AM  

theflatline: natazha: Rather amusing. When I was working with Apple computers in the '80s, they were the worse for infections. People loaded any crap they came across. Since this was a government job, only the support team was authorized to add software, but cleanups and rebuilds were a daily thing.

/NASA "manager" was the worst offender, her system rarely ran for more than a week before she added something that crashed it.

Oddly enough the majority of Apple Computers in the 1980s, and very few people had hard drives for them and they were frightfully expensive.  There only a handful(most were variants of each other) I think maybe 20, and most just introduced a counter into the boot sector that after a certain number of boots would display a message"hey, your computer was hacked by whatever elite cool guy user group" and did not real home.  I think there were like 2 that destroyed the disk.

There were no "rebuilds" because the the OS was resident on each floppy you booted from, so literally turning the computer off and putting another disk in would solve your problem.  Due to technological limitations the virus was quarantined to the disk.  Because when you turned off the computer, well the memory was wiped.

There were around 3 or so viruses for the mac, and a few variants of each.

I think you just might be full of shiat.


Depends on how you define "Apple computers" and "The 80s."

Are you talking about Apple II computers in the early 80s? Or the Mac computers that followed the debut of the Mac Plus?

Because after the Mac Plus came out, people often had external or internal HyperDrives that held between 5 mb and 20mb. And that worked our rather well compared to how it used to be.
 
2017-10-01 09:45:47 AM  

Tyrosine: skozlaw: How did the whole "Mac" and "PC" nomenclature come about, anyway? If it's hardware, wouldn't the better comparison have been "Apple" and "IBM" or "Intel"? And why does it persist when it seems to now refer to "OSX" vs "Windows"?

It originated in the 80s when basically anyone could build PCs and their peripherals but Apple was super proprietary about their format. There was a time when if you owned an Apple computer you had to use an Apple HD, printer, etc. Other formats existed (Atari, Commodore, etc.) but PCs composed the majority of the market with Apple a very distant second. Apple's defense of this policy was that it was necessary to maintain quality and ensure the computers were easy to use (DOS based PCs were not exactly user friendly), however it can't be ignored that Apple computers and accessories were far more expensive than comparable PCs (for example, when I upgraded to a PC from my Atari in 1990 the comparable Apple was over 3 times the cost).

Prior to the iPod and iPhone this was a common description of Apple's proprietary strategy:

Arrogance
Produces
Profit
Losing
Entity


Yeah. The aforementioned HyperDrive for MacPlus computers.

Word has it that, when Apple's tech geniuses saw how engineers for HyperDrive had created a bootable internal hard drive for the Mac Plus, their response was: "You're not supposed to be able to do that..."
 
2017-10-01 09:46:29 AM  

t3knomanser: Tyrosine: their peripherals but Apple was super proprietary about their format

Well, I think more than that, Apple was super unwilling to adopt other people's proprietary formats. That's why they went with Firewire over USB at points. USB was alsoproprietary, but Intel was more open about licensing it (because they wanted adoption). It's why they adopted SCSI. And while the ADB was definitely proprietary, at the time, it's not like there was much of a mass-market, widely adopted protocol out there for peripherals.


I see that as two sides of the same problem. They wanted to create a product that they would have 100% control over which precludes using other formats and licensing others to use your format. This problem still exists within the company as seen by their boneheaded resistance to a common standard for charging cables in Europe.
 
2017-10-01 09:50:03 AM  

theflatline: Firewire was great, but Apple wanted to charge a buck for every firewire port manufactured from the manufacturer, they killed it with cost.


You mean MPEG LA, not Apple. MPEG LA holds all the patents on Firewire and related technologies. Apple designed the product, yes, but they partnered with many other companies to actually make it something to be sold. Firewire was just plain more complicated than USB, and that was the larger bottleneck- the hardware to handle Firewire was more complex.

Originally, nobody thought of them as competing protocols- Firewire was for high speed data transfer, USB was for peripherals. The low cost of implementing USB though meant that everyone used it for data transfer, despite being much slower than Firewire until the mid-late 2000s.
 
2017-10-01 09:51:35 AM  

Tyrosine: skozlaw: How did the whole "Mac" and "PC" nomenclature come about, anyway? If it's hardware, wouldn't the better comparison have been "Apple" and "IBM" or "Intel"? And why does it persist when it seems to now refer to "OSX" vs "Windows"?

It originated in the 80s when basically anyone could build PCs and their peripherals but Apple was super proprietary about their format. There was a time when if you owned an Apple computer you had to use an Apple HD, printer, etc. Other formats existed (Atari, Commodore, etc.) but PCs composed the majority of the market with Apple a very distant second. Apple's defense of this policy was that it was necessary to maintain quality and ensure the computers were easy to use (DOS based PCs were not exactly user friendly), however it can't be ignored that Apple computers and accessories were far more expensive than comparable PCs (for example, when I upgraded to a PC from my Atari in 1990 the comparable Apple was over 3 times the cost).

Prior to the iPod and iPhone this was a common description of Apple's proprietary strategy:

Arrogance
Produces
Profit
Losing
Entity


Hardly anyone was building their own PC's in the 80s, most personal home computers were Apples and Commodores.

It originated as part of a the IBM 5150.  It was called the IBM Personal Computer (PC).  IBM based an entire product line around the name as did peripheral makers.

And for the majority of the 1980s Apples and IBM's were in the same price range.  Only in the late 1980s when you started seeing "clones" come out that prices dropped.  But other than adding a Sound Blaster, a graphic card, or ram people were upgrading on their own, but hardly anyone was building a box(outside of universities and even then it was rare.  That really started in the 1990s.  The one company that really sold kits was HeathKit and even Zenith, but I never saw one in the wild.

PC's became cheaper because Phoenix clean roomed the PC Bios. Because IBM was suing everyone for copyright violation who made a PC without licensing their BIOS(which they did really want to do).  And you really only starting seeing clones around 87-88.

The Apple Lisa was over priced and junk, and Apple was too expensive in the early 1990s.

Actually, the Apple 2 line, which was used in schools and homes across the country, was built to be completely open and you could get any part from literally thousands of third party companies.

You might want to learn a little more computer history.
 
2017-10-01 09:56:06 AM  

veale728: Macs are just as vulnerable, yes. Windows machines have a higher likelihood of attacks though, because of the higher marker share


Aren't macs even more vulnerable, since idiots who think they are virus proof may neglect anti-virus software and conmon sense tips to prevent infection?
 
2017-10-01 09:58:55 AM  

Candygram4Mongo: theflatline: natazha: Rather amusing. When I was working with Apple computers in the '80s, they were the worse for infections. People loaded any crap they came across. Since this was a government job, only the support team was authorized to add software, but cleanups and rebuilds were a daily thing.

/NASA "manager" was the worst offender, her system rarely ran for more than a week before she added something that crashed it.

Oddly enough the majority of Apple Computers in the 1980s, and very few people had hard drives for them and they were frightfully expensive.  There only a handful(most were variants of each other) I think maybe 20, and most just introduced a counter into the boot sector that after a certain number of boots would display a message"hey, your computer was hacked by whatever elite cool guy user group" and did not real home.  I think there were like 2 that destroyed the disk.

There were no "rebuilds" because the the OS was resident on each floppy you booted from, so literally turning the computer off and putting another disk in would solve your problem.  Due to technological limitations the virus was quarantined to the disk.  Because when you turned off the computer, well the memory was wiped.

There were around 3 or so viruses for the mac, and a few variants of each.

I think you just might be full of shiat.

Depends on how you define "Apple computers" and "The 80s."

Are you talking about Apple II computers in the early 80s? Or the Mac computers that followed the debut of the Mac Plus?

Because after the Mac Plus came out, people often had external or internal HyperDrives that held between 5 mb and 20mb. And that worked our rather well compared to how it used to be.


Apple sold the Apple 2 variants up until the 1990s, they were the preferred model of choice.  However, in my post I went over that the mac did have viruses as well, there were not "tons of them" there like three, and most were a variant of the Hypercard virus, and one went over early networks.

You could get hard drives for Apple 2's before even the Mac came out.
 
2017-10-01 10:02:10 AM  

kbronsito: veale728: Macs are just as vulnerable, yes. Windows machines have a higher likelihood of attacks though, because of the higher marker share

Aren't macs even more vulnerable, since idiots who think they are virus proof may neglect anti-virus software and conmon sense tips to prevent infection?


It is not so much antivirus software it is them installing anything a website suggests.
 
2017-10-01 10:19:23 AM  
Heh, I've been reading "Macs are just as vulnerable as PCs" headlines for 20 years.

In a lab? Sure.

In the real world? I'll believe it when I see it.
 
2017-10-01 10:31:20 AM  

Skyrmion: Heh, I've been reading "Macs are just as vulnerable as PCs" headlines for 20 years.

In a lab? Sure.

In the real world? I'll believe it when I see it.


While not as vulnerable as PCs most mac users run their systems wide open and install anything.  And yes, it happens all the time.

Apple officially recommends malwarebytes.  And they never recommend third parties.
 
2017-10-01 10:40:37 AM  

kbronsito: Aren't macs even more vulnerable, since idiots who think they are virus proof may neglect anti-virus software and conmon sense tips to prevent infection?


Macs are susceptible to trojans and other malware, just as any other platform is. This is because it's the user, not the machine, that is the key factor.

However, due to its inherently more secure OS, the Mac is currently much less susceptible to viruses - i.e. malicious code that can enter a computer without user intervention - if at all.

I've been running various versions of OS X for more than a decade with zero virus protection and have never had a single virus. I'm not saying it won't happen; I'm just saying it hasn't yet.
 
2017-10-01 10:42:54 AM  
I used to run the network for a very large science museum and research institution. We had a large collection of Macs for the graphics department and PCs running Windows just about everywhere else.

Windows has a well deserved reputation for being and infection laden pile of shiat. Back in the late 90s/early 2000s they insisted on embedding a lot of application functions into the OS itself. They were trying to take over the Internet, and by making Outlook and Explorer parts of the OS they were hoping to skirt Anti-trust laws.

Because those two programs were "inside the sanctum", breaking into through, say, the address book could lead to total system pwn. There were also some questionable design decisions that went into Visual Basic, the system registry, and the way drivers interact with the system core (or actually had to replace parts) that meant there was no way to secure a windows machine that was powered on.

I remember one virus that was so bad you couldn't do a clean install and get through system update before the machine was re-infected.

Windows has gotten a lot better. But it still leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.

/Uses a Mac at home
 
2017-10-01 10:51:12 AM  

Evil Twin Skippy: I used to run the network for a very large science museum and research institution. We had a large collection of Macs for the graphics department and PCs running Windows just about everywhere else.

Windows has a well deserved reputation for being and infection laden pile of shiat. Back in the late 90s/early 2000s they insisted on embedding a lot of application functions into the OS itself. They were trying to take over the Internet, and by making Outlook and Explorer parts of the OS they were hoping to skirt Anti-trust laws.

Because those two programs were "inside the sanctum", breaking into through, say, the address book could lead to total system pwn. There were also some questionable design decisions that went into Visual Basic, the system registry, and the way drivers interact with the system core (or actually had to replace parts) that meant there was no way to secure a windows machine that was powered on.

I remember one virus that was so bad you couldn't do a clean install and get through system update before the machine was re-infected.

Windows has gotten a lot better. But it still leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.

/Uses a Mac at home


Format the drives and you are golden on windows, there as a Virus that made it self resident in the bios, but MS did not create the BIOS, so you cannot blame it on them.

MBR viruses have been killed since windows 2000, but you could get them if you multibooted and older OS with 2000 on up.
 
2017-10-01 11:12:07 AM  

t3knomanser: hashtag.acronym: just single digit market percentage

On what planet is Linux a single-digit market percentage? Sure, for desktop computing, they are. But for backend stuff- y'know, for the systems that hold valuable data- they are the world. Also, for IoT devices- if you're building a botnet, it's waaaaay easier to build that botnet out of shiattly secured coffee makers that connect to the Internet for some idiotic reason.

But there's only so much an OS can do to control its threat surface- code/data separation, ASLR, robust privilege models, etc. At the end of the day though, it's on the actually used software to provide sufficient security. For example, the Equifax hack used a Struts vuln that happened entirely in application-space. No OS could defend you against that.

Now, that said, macOS does something that only Apple could get away with, that honestly does make your device more secure: in its default configuration, it won't run unsigned code. No OS should run a binary without a valid cryptographic signature from a known source. Apple, sadly, doesn't go far enough- you can still run Unix-style executables without a signature, but no application bundles (which means it's good enough to keep users from hurting themselves, but doesn't stop a determined attacker).


I was referring to desktop usage.  If a server or backend Linux maintainer isn't using an up-to-date LTS kernel at the minimum they're doing it wrong and deserve what happens to them.  Cent & Debian are easy to learn, free to use, & run old ass LTS software with assloads of security patches...Need or want paid technical support?  Fedora...There, I've solved damn near every companies' Linux server security issues.  Oh, your software is old, out-of-date, and needs old ass software & OS's to run?  Sandbox it all in a VM or, you know, pay programmers to write new software...

I don't think the IoT or phones count....products with old kernels and shiatty to non-existent update services are going to be vulnerable regardless of the underlying software or OS.

Most Linux distros, by default, only allow a root or root-level user to install programs from places with valid cryptographic signatures and they have the same Unix-style executable limitation that macOS has.  In that same style, they are also set up so that only certain users with certain permissions can do certain things....or you need to be a root user or given permission to actually do something that will break your system.  Mainstream Linux isn't any different than macOS in that regard (or *BSD or damn near any other open source or Unix-based OS for that matter).

That said, I'm unsure if there is a Linux distro that checks every binary\library\thing ran against a cryptographic hashtable before being loaded/ran to ensure it is what was compiled upstream and is unaltered.  Probably one out there, but it's nothing I've ever bothered looking into.
 
2017-10-01 11:12:18 AM  

theflatline: Evil Twin Skippy: I used to run the network for a very large science museum and research institution. We had a large collection of Macs for the graphics department and PCs running Windows just about everywhere else.

Windows has a well deserved reputation for being and infection laden pile of shiat. Back in the late 90s/early 2000s they insisted on embedding a lot of application functions into the OS itself. They were trying to take over the Internet, and by making Outlook and Explorer parts of the OS they were hoping to skirt Anti-trust laws.

Because those two programs were "inside the sanctum", breaking into through, say, the address book could lead to total system pwn. There were also some questionable design decisions that went into Visual Basic, the system registry, and the way drivers interact with the system core (or actually had to replace parts) that meant there was no way to secure a windows machine that was powered on.

I remember one virus that was so bad you couldn't do a clean install and get through system update before the machine was re-infected.

Windows has gotten a lot better. But it still leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.

/Uses a Mac at home

Format the drives and you are golden on windows, there as a Virus that made it self resident in the bios, but MS did not create the BIOS, so you cannot blame it on them.

MBR viruses have been killed since windows 2000, but you could get them if you multibooted and older OS with 2000 on up.


No, this was a network virus that requires a service pack to cure because it broke in through a vulnerability in the network stack. At the time, offline updates were unheard of. And having hundreds of machines in circulation on the local network, you could never be sure you got all of them. We would bring in a machine that was giving up trouble and reformat it. And that is what landed us where we were at.

Trust me child, I knew what the fark I am talking about.

(And after that day we would ghost any machine we were boot strapping with a copy of the OS that had been patched. Fortunately we were using all Dells and we had a site license for Windows.)
 
2017-10-01 11:13:27 AM  
Oh sweet - it's this thread again?
 
2017-10-01 11:16:55 AM  

chawco: It's not just that Macs or less vulnerable, its more than that just on a worthwhile Target. Sure you can get some buddies little dinky music program to shut down and steal their "Beats", or lock some artist out of their digital files. But there's no real valuable information on most Macs.

It's not just the smaller market share, it's also the "why bother" infecting some douchebag hipster's Mac. If they can afford a Mac in the first place, they will probably just throw it out and buy a new one, cuz that's what Apple users do. It's not like you can repair or upgrade them.


img.fark.netView Full Size


Bunch of douche bag, self entitled NASA jerks. Probably just updating their iTunes collection or something.


I have newer 13'' Lenovo Yoga, which is a wonderful little computer. It's very quick, and the price was nice. But I have no illusions that I can have this repaired if it breaks, or of having the ability to do any upgrades to this notebook.
That is just the way of the portable market now. About the only machines that are up-gradable, or repairable, are gaming notebooks.

And no, I don't have any Apple notebooks. I just think it's stupid to fight over your choice of computer equipment.
 
2017-10-01 11:17:18 AM  

theflatline: While not as vulnerable as PCs most mac users run their systems wide open and install anything.


This simply isn't true. The default, out-of-the-box configuration for the Mac prevents users from running unsigned app bundles, signed with signatures authorized by Apple. You can't install anything that Apple doesn't approve of, unless you know how to change those settings- and I'm very skeptical of the idea that most users actually do that.

FlashHarry: However, due to its inherently more secure OS, the Mac is currently much less susceptible to viruses - i.e. malicious code that can enter a computer without user intervention - if at all.


This also isn't true. An OS doesn't provide "inherent security", since the largest threat surface is always going to be applications. I mean, honestly, there was just a published exploit where a non-privileged application can exfil all of the data in a user's Keychain (macOS's password management tool).
 
2017-10-01 11:22:38 AM  
Paging Charlie Miller.  Charlie Miller please come to the Geek tab.

Old news is old.   https://www.macworld.com/article/1132733/hack.html
 
2017-10-01 11:22:42 AM  

Evil Twin Skippy: theflatline: Evil Twin Skippy: I used to run the network for a very large science museum and research institution. We had a large collection of Macs for the graphics department and PCs running Windows just about everywhere else.

Windows has a well deserved reputation for being and infection laden pile of shiat. Back in the late 90s/early 2000s they insisted on embedding a lot of application functions into the OS itself. They were trying to take over the Internet, and by making Outlook and Explorer parts of the OS they were hoping to skirt Anti-trust laws.

Because those two programs were "inside the sanctum", breaking into through, say, the address book could lead to total system pwn. There were also some questionable design decisions that went into Visual Basic, the system registry, and the way drivers interact with the system core (or actually had to replace parts) that meant there was no way to secure a windows machine that was powered on.

I remember one virus that was so bad you couldn't do a clean install and get through system update before the machine was re-infected.

Windows has gotten a lot better. But it still leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.

/Uses a Mac at home

Format the drives and you are golden on windows, there as a Virus that made it self resident in the bios, but MS did not create the BIOS, so you cannot blame it on them.

MBR viruses have been killed since windows 2000, but you could get them if you multibooted and older OS with 2000 on up.

No, this was a network virus that requires a service pack to cure because it broke in through a vulnerability in the network stack. At the time, offline updates were unheard of. And having hundreds of machines in circulation on the local network, you could never be sure you got all of them. We would bring in a machine that was giving up trouble and reformat it. And that is what landed us where we were at.

Trust me child, I knew what the fark I am talking about.

(And after that day we would ghost any mac ...


You did not state that in your post.  You said that it was one that would infect you before a windows update would run, so using the parameters given my assumption of the "bios" virus was logical.  Because that was how it worked.

I would not have replied if you had posted the whole scenario.
 
2017-10-01 11:27:23 AM  
theflatline:

No your assumption of bios was not logical. I was talking about the operating system. I mentioned 2 network applications in particular. I mentioned the integration of application layer features into the operating system side of the house in particular.

You didn't bother to read. And then you called me on some esoteric bit of trivia.
 
2017-10-01 11:28:20 AM  
A firmware hack that impacts less than 5% of the Macs out there, requiring physical access and installation of a malicious thunderbolt device.   Shaking in my boots, I am.

Keeping the EFI from exploitation is important, but I'm far more worried right now about making sure my browser is secure.
 
2017-10-01 11:29:50 AM  

veale728: Macs are just as vulnerable, yes. Windows machines have a higher likelihood of attacks though, because of the higher marker share


This is why there are so many iOS attacks out there, right?

No, the difference between Windows and Mac OS is not just security through obscurity, but a different approach in default settings: Windows - and this unfortunately includes home installs - is pre-configured for enterprise environments. Want to save time sending your techs to your satellite office? We'll include remote administration and installation and have them on by default! Your corporate end user can just open the box, put the machine on your network, and you can install everything!
Great idea for IT departments, terrible for users.

By contrast, Mac OS is locked down by default. Want remote administration? Start it up, go into a two-layer deep settings menu, and then input an administrator password. IT hates it, because they can't trust Bob in Accounting to handle that. But it also means that Bob's Mac at home is immune to most hacks unless someone breaks into his house.
 
2017-10-01 11:30:01 AM  
Plus I'm one of those middle aged "veteran of the browser wars" who gets his panties in a bunch and insists that kids today don't understand what it was like then. And then swills some whiskey, and starts on yet another tale of the shiatty old days...
 
2017-10-01 11:33:36 AM  

boozehat: Paging Charlie Miller.  Charlie Miller please come to the Geek tab.

Old news is old.   https://www.macworld.com/article/1132733/hack.html


At some point you'd think Apple would save everyone a lot of time and just mail him a macbook every year so he doesn't have to go all the way to those pwn2own events.
 
2017-10-01 11:34:11 AM  
Who said Macs weren't vulnerable?  Only people I know who believed that were the ones who came to me to ask me to fix them while spouting that sales garbage.

Also, aren't Macs now really just underpowered as fark?
 
2017-10-01 11:39:13 AM  
Welcome to 2004.
 
2017-10-01 11:40:14 AM  

Guntram Shatterhand: Who said Macs weren't vulnerable?  Only people I know who believed that were the ones who came to me to ask me to fix them while spouting that sales garbage.

Also, aren't Macs now really just underpowered as fark?


Hee hee, its definitely THAT thread now.
Although I stopped buying macs more than 20 years ago, I recognize that have done some great things with them.
 
2017-10-01 11:40:32 AM  

theflatline: t3knomanser: hashtag.acronym: just single digit market percentage

On what planet is Linux a single-digit market percentage? Sure, for desktop computing, they are. But for backend stuff- y'know, for the systems that hold valuable data- they are the world. Also, for IoT devices- if you're building a botnet, it's waaaaay easier to build that botnet out of shiattly secured coffee makers that connect to the Internet for some idiotic reason.

But there's only so much an OS can do to control its threat surface- code/data separation, ASLR, robust privilege models, etc. At the end of the day though, it's on the actually used software to provide sufficient security. For example, the Equifax hack used a Struts vuln that happened entirely in application-space. No OS could defend you against that.

Now, that said, macOS does something that only Apple could get away with, that honestly does make your device more secure: in its default configuration, it won't run unsigned code. No OS should run a binary without a valid cryptographic signature from a known source. Apple, sadly, doesn't go far enough- you can still run Unix-style executables without a signature, but no application bundles (which means it's good enough to keep users from hurting themselves, but doesn't stop a determined attacker).

The problem with Apple computers are not really the computers, but the user base.

About .001 know what they are doing.  That includes "creatives" and people who cry out "I have been using the Mac since 1984, and I  all every Apple product, hey how do I search for a file?".

They also have a false sense of security and will install anything from any site.  "Your Flash player is not up to date?" And since they do not know how to check it under preferences in Safari they install it, and boom they get creepy crawlers.  The worst being Mac Keep which pretends to optimize their machines, then strange stuff starts happening and an official looking Apple logo and page pops up and says they have ...


The problem with believing that computers should "just work" is that it exonerates you of any responsibility. You don't need to know how to avoid viruses or update your OS, because the computer is just going to take care of everything and it'll be fine. The kind of thinking that equates computers with magic is abhorrent and extremely dangerous.
 
2017-10-01 11:42:20 AM  

t3knomanser: theflatline: While not as vulnerable as PCs most mac users run their systems wide open and install anything.

This simply isn't true. The default, out-of-the-box configuration for the Mac prevents users from running unsigned app bundles, signed with signatures authorized by Apple. You can't install anything that Apple doesn't approve of, unless you know how to change those settings- and I'm very skeptical of the idea that most users actually do that.

FlashHarry: However, due to its inherently more secure OS, the Mac is currently much less susceptible to viruses - i.e. malicious code that can enter a computer without user intervention - if at all.

This also isn't true. An OS doesn't provide "inherent security", since the largest threat surface is always going to be applications. I mean, honestly, there was just a published exploit where a non-privileged application can exfil all of the data in a user's Keychain (macOS's password management tool).


Only in Sierra did that change.

Previously. Most clicked anywhere the first time messages them to go there and select anywhere.  It was a one time change.

support.apple.comView Full Size


Now, in Sierra the option was removed, so when you try to install an unknown source the system tells you to go to system preferences to install it, and behold, you just hit the open button.  Most users you know cannot hit the open button?

images.techhive.comView Full Size

And this third pic.  Is my desk, albeit messy since I work from home.  But if you enlarge the badge hanging from the lamp.  You might see my employer.

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-10-01 11:46:01 AM  

Guntram Shatterhand: Who said Macs weren't vulnerable?  Only people I know who believed that were the ones who came to me to ask me to fix them while spouting that sales garbage.

Also, aren't Macs now really just underpowered as fark?


Those are just the ones that are 10 years old and still running. My 2015 MacBook is still outrunning the top of the line simulation servers we have at the office.

And that is running our software through an emulator to boot. Our product is a Windows app. I develop on a VM so I can keep a snapshot of the OS around for debugging and or recovery from "windows update bricked my machine" syndrome.
 
2017-10-01 11:55:00 AM  

chawco: It's not just that Macs or less vulnerable, its more than that just on a worthwhile Target. Sure you can get some buddies little dinky music program to shut down and steal their "Beats", or lock some artist out of their digital files. But there's no real valuable information on most Macs.

It's not just the smaller market share, it's also the "why bother" infecting some douchebag hipster's Mac. If they can afford a Mac in the first place, they will probably just throw it out and buy a new one, cuz that's what Apple users do. It's not like you can repair or upgrade them.


I'm using a Mac laptop with DIY upgraded memory and an aftermarket battery. It'll be my last, though. The latest ones seem to have the battery glued in, and the memory cards are soldered to the motherboard.
 
2017-10-01 12:07:48 PM  
forgotmydamnusername:

Despite replacing my MacBook in 2016, a bought a 2015 model. Precisely for that reason. Well that and they didn't put nearly enough plugs on when they switched to USB-C
 
2017-10-01 12:08:18 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: chawco: It's not just that Macs or less vulnerable, its more than that just on a worthwhile Target. Sure you can get some buddies little dinky music program to shut down and steal their "Beats", or lock some artist out of their digital files. But there's no real valuable information on most Macs.

It's not just the smaller market share, it's also the "why bother" infecting some douchebag hipster's Mac. If they can afford a Mac in the first place, they will probably just throw it out and buy a new one, cuz that's what Apple users do. It's not like you can repair or upgrade them.

[img.fark.net image 616x342]

Bunch of douche bag, self entitled NASA jerks. Probably just updating their iTunes collection or something.


I have newer 13'' Lenovo Yoga, which is a wonderful little computer. It's very quick, and the price was nice. But I have no illusions that I can have this repaired if it breaks, or of having the ability to do any upgrades to this notebook.
That is just the way of the portable market now. About the only machines that are up-gradable, or repairable, are gaming notebooks.

And no, I don't have any Apple notebooks. I just think it's stupid to fight over your choice of computer equipment.


Damn damn it, now I am dogmatically required to hate those NASA guys

Thanks a lot! And hey, for all you know they are making pretty pictures for press releases! Everyone knows JPL uses Linux!
 
2017-10-01 12:08:20 PM  

joshiz: 4.2% of two-year-old computers *may* be vulnerable. "Just as vulnerable". Right.


BSABSVD!
 
2017-10-01 12:08:53 PM  

FlashHarry: kbronsito: Aren't macs even more vulnerable, since idiots who think they are virus proof may neglect anti-virus software and conmon sense tips to prevent infection?

Macs are susceptible to trojans and other malware, just as any other platform is. This is because it's the user, not the machine, that is the key factor.

However, due to its inherently more secure OS, the Mac is currently much less susceptible to viruses - i.e. malicious code that can enter a computer without user intervention - if at all.

I've been running various versions of OS X for more than a decade with zero virus protection and have never had a single virus. I'm not saying it won't happen; I'm just saying it hasn't yet.


I was using virus in a layman way that includes all malicious software. But even if we split virus, trojan, malware... don't most antivirus software also check for a lot of malware and Trojans? When you say you have no AV, do you have nothing or do you run stuff like spybot and whatnot to specifically just target the malware/Trojan risks?
 
2017-10-01 12:25:34 PM  

Tyrosine: skozlaw: How did the whole "Mac" and "PC" nomenclature come about, anyway? If it's hardware, wouldn't the better comparison have been "Apple" and "IBM" or "Intel"? And why does it persist when it seems to now refer to "OSX" vs "Windows"?

It originated in the 80s when basically anyone could build PCs and their peripherals but Apple was super proprietary about their format. There was a time when if you owned an Apple computer you had to use an Apple HD, printer, etc. Other formats existed (Atari, Commodore, etc.) but PCs composed the majority of the market with Apple a very distant second. Apple's defense of this policy was that it was necessary to maintain quality and ensure the computers were easy to use (DOS based PCs were not exactly user friendly), however it can't be ignored that Apple computers and accessories were far more expensive than comparable PCs (for example, when I upgraded to a PC from my Atari in 1990 the comparable Apple was over 3 times the cost).

Prior to the iPod and iPhone this was a common description of Apple's proprietary strategy:

Arrogance
Produces
Profit
Losing
Entity


The same company sitting on hundreds of billions in cash, has no debt, and makes obscene profits every year.
 
2017-10-01 12:40:59 PM  
Same as it ever was
 
2017-10-01 12:41:17 PM  

Kit Fister: Tyrosine: skozlaw: How did the whole "Mac" and "PC" nomenclature come about, anyway? If it's hardware, wouldn't the better comparison have been "Apple" and "IBM" or "Intel"? And why does it persist when it seems to now refer to "OSX" vs "Windows"?

It originated in the 80s when basically anyone could build PCs and their peripherals but Apple was super proprietary about their format. There was a time when if you owned an Apple computer you had to use an Apple HD, printer, etc. Other formats existed (Atari, Commodore, etc.) but PCs composed the majority of the market with Apple a very distant second. Apple's defense of this policy was that it was necessary to maintain quality and ensure the computers were easy to use (DOS based PCs were not exactly user friendly), however it can't be ignored that Apple computers and accessories were far more expensive than comparable PCs (for example, when I upgraded to a PC from my Atari in 1990 the comparable Apple was over 3 times the cost).

Prior to the iPod and iPhone this was a common description of Apple's proprietary strategy:

Arrogance
Produces
Profit
Losing
Entity

The same company sitting on hundreds of billions in cash, has no debt, and makes obscene profits every year.


The bulk of that money was made selling phones and music players. When they were strictly a computer maker, at one point in the early '90s, they lost so much market share to Wintel machines, they farking near went under. They were so desperate they let Jobs come back, after having effectively booted him out of the company a few years previously.
 
2017-10-01 12:43:59 PM  

forgotmydamnusername: Kit Fister: Tyrosine: skozlaw: How did the whole "Mac" and "PC" nomenclature come about, anyway? If it's hardware, wouldn't the better comparison have been "Apple" and "IBM" or "Intel"? And why does it persist when it seems to now refer to "OSX" vs "Windows"?

It originated in the 80s when basically anyone could build PCs and their peripherals but Apple was super proprietary about their format. There was a time when if you owned an Apple computer you had to use an Apple HD, printer, etc. Other formats existed (Atari, Commodore, etc.) but PCs composed the majority of the market with Apple a very distant second. Apple's defense of this policy was that it was necessary to maintain quality and ensure the computers were easy to use (DOS based PCs were not exactly user friendly), however it can't be ignored that Apple computers and accessories were far more expensive than comparable PCs (for example, when I upgraded to a PC from my Atari in 1990 the comparable Apple was over 3 times the cost).

Prior to the iPod and iPhone this was a common description of Apple's proprietary strategy:

Arrogance
Produces
Profit
Losing
Entity

The same company sitting on hundreds of billions in cash, has no debt, and makes obscene profits every year.

The bulk of that money was made selling phones and music players. When they were strictly a computer maker, at one point in the early '90s, they lost so much market share to Wintel machines, they farking near went under. They were so desperate they let Jobs come back, after having effectively booted him out of the company a few years previously.


And that matters, why? Given the prevalence of mobile devices in business these days, and the shift to mobile platforms for a *lot* of things, i think their early and strong establishment in the mobile market made absolute sense.  They make money where a lot of traditional computing companies are facing flagging computer sales.
 
2017-10-01 12:46:22 PM  

Kit Fister: forgotmydamnusername: Kit Fister: Tyrosine: skozlaw: How did the whole "Mac" and "PC" nomenclature come about, anyway? If it's hardware, wouldn't the better comparison have been "Apple" and "IBM" or "Intel"? And why does it persist when it seems to now refer to "OSX" vs "Windows"?

It originated in the 80s when basically anyone could build PCs and their peripherals but Apple was super proprietary about their format. There was a time when if you owned an Apple computer you had to use an Apple HD, printer, etc. Other formats existed (Atari, Commodore, etc.) but PCs composed the majority of the market with Apple a very distant second. Apple's defense of this policy was that it was necessary to maintain quality and ensure the computers were easy to use (DOS based PCs were not exactly user friendly), however it can't be ignored that Apple computers and accessories were far more expensive than comparable PCs (for example, when I upgraded to a PC from my Atari in 1990 the comparable Apple was over 3 times the cost).

Prior to the iPod and iPhone this was a common description of Apple's proprietary strategy:

Arrogance
Produces
Profit
Losing
Entity

The same company sitting on hundreds of billions in cash, has no debt, and makes obscene profits every year.

The bulk of that money was made selling phones and music players. When they were strictly a computer maker, at one point in the early '90s, they lost so much market share to Wintel machines, they farking near went under. They were so desperate they let Jobs come back, after having effectively booted him out of the company a few years previously.

And that matters, why? Given the prevalence of mobile devices in business these days, and the shift to mobile platforms for a *lot* of things, i think their early and strong establishment in the mobile market made absolute sense.  They make money where a lot of traditional computing companies are facing flagging computer sales.


Point of it flew waaay over your head, I guess. The post you were responding to referred to Apple's pre iPhone business model.
 
2017-10-01 12:58:52 PM  

veale728: Macs are just as vulnerable, yes. Windows machines have a higher likelihood of attacks though, because of the higher marker share


It has nothing to do with marker (sic) share.  Linux and Macs get the same number of attacks these days.  However - you are more likely to find an out of date Windows box than an out of date linux or Mac just due to historical reasons.

/so please stop pushing this fallacy
//these days you are more likely to find an out of date cable box to exploit than Windows
 
2017-10-01 01:13:42 PM  
I just built a PC to replace my decade-old imac, so i'm getting a kick out of this thread. It was half as expensive as a similarly-powered imac. windows 10 wasn't nearly as noxious as I expected.

i guess i could have build a "hackintosh" but i like stability

/seriously Apple, just release an upgradable non-crazy-expensive-"pro" computer, and I'll come running back.
//no one needs a "razor-thin" imac and all the compromises that entails.
 
2017-10-01 02:22:34 PM  
 
2017-10-01 02:23:16 PM  

Guntram Shatterhand: Who said Macs weren't vulnerable?  Only people I know who believed that were the ones who came to me to ask me to fix them while spouting that sales garbage.

Also, aren't Macs now really just underpowered as Fark?


I am still using my late 2011 15" MacBook Pro when I travel. I upgraded it with max possible RAM and a 1T drive. I'm upgrading to High Sierra even as I type. I also use my 4 year old iPad. At home I have a 2012 Mac Mini and. 2015 TimeCapsule. All are plenty powerful for most of what I do right now, which is image manipulation and website creation for my business. I've had really good luck with Macs lasting a long time, and I have owned a lot of them since 1987.
 
2017-10-01 02:32:39 PM  
theflatline:   The one company that really sold kits was HeathKit and even Zenith, but I never saw one in the wild.

My first home computer was the Heath H-89 'All-In-One'.  Built it from kit with a soldering iron.  It was their H-19 terminal kit with an extra CPU board, connectors for floppy controller and I/O port cards, and one internal floppy drive.  Built it, it worked first time, and I loved it.

Ran CP/M 2.2.  I had Microsoft Basic and Microsoft FORTRAN for it.  I later replaced it with Heathkit's H-241 (AT clone with a '286, and MS-DOS 2.2).  God, I miss Heathkit.

Heath had a firmware feature I wish to God everyone in the industry had adopted.  With their IBM-compatibles, they added a 'Monitor ROM' that had many nifty features, among which was a very simple user interface to let the user select not only which drive to boot from, but which partition on that drive to boot.  Dual booting that (or triple, or quad) was bulletproof.
 
2017-10-01 02:38:47 PM  

Tax Boy: I just built a PC to replace my decade-old imac, so i'm getting a kick out of this thread. It was half as expensive as a similarly-powered imac. windows 10 wasn't nearly as noxious as I expected.

i guess i could have build a "hackintosh" but i like stability

/seriously Apple, just release an upgradable non-crazy-expensive-"pro" computer, and I'll come running back.
//no one needs a "razor-thin" imac and all the compromises that entails.


That.  I'd love to use an Apple computer.  They seem to have a pretty good OS.  But I'll keep building custom until that day comes or buying Xeon workstations 2nd hand.

I've had good results with used HP Z series and Dell T series: under $600, plenty of room for upgrade, can run any OS including Hackintosh with the right GPU, and even the oldest ones are still competitive for gaming with the fastest processors (which cost under $100 a piece nowadays....I paid $125 for two x5687's....fastest available processor for that generation except for the rare x5698).  I'll take server grade parts and error controlled memory over the instability and extra speed with box store PC's and/or gaming parts (except for my GPU of course; gotta have a gaming GPU).
 
2017-10-01 02:50:38 PM  

theflatline: I think you just might be full of shiat.


This was a government project, all of the computers had hard disks. Were you even an embryo in the '80s?
 
2017-10-01 03:04:40 PM  

gingerjet: veale728: Macs are just as vulnerable, yes. Windows machines have a higher likelihood of attacks though, because of the higher marker share

It has nothing to do with marker (sic) share.  Linux and Macs get the same number of attacks these days.  However - you are more likely to find an out of date Windows box than an out of date linux or Mac just due to historical reasons.

/so please stop pushing this fallacy
//these days you are more likely to find an out of date cable box to exploit than Windows


Not really.

I work in a department in Apple that is based on Wireless Multi Media products(apple tv, routers, homekit) but we are part of a project called continuity.   Most of us started in IOS, then went to OS X, then to WMM.  The idea of us is for users who want all of their Apple gear to work as advertised(working together), so they do not have to be transferred around.  I also backfill for IOS and OS X.

I probably see more El Capitan than Sierra, and still about 5 people a day with Yosemite.

We have a couple big drivers.

1.Safari stopped working with websites because it is a deprecated version that needs to be updated via an OS X update.
2.Customer wants to use Itunes with Iphone and IOS 10 and above need a certain version.
3.Old people wanting to use Home Kit to control their lights and thermostat.
4.The one thing people figure out how to do is turn off the automatic update notifications.
Then you have people who are running versions of professional software that are perfectly fine, but will not work with newer versions without them having to pay Adobe or whoever for the update.  Musicians are a big example

People who refuse to give up Aperture.

And for most people their computer is just an appliance.

Also there are two update mechanisms and the majority of Apple users are only aware of one.

The first is if you go to about this Mac, and do check for updates.  It only updates the version you are running if there is an update out there.  It will not update to the new os.  It will bring you to the App store and show you the update for that version.  So if you are running Sierra and check for updates, it will only show you the 12.7 version for Sierra.

The second is f you want the new os( High Sierra) you have to go to the App Store, sign in with your Apple ID, download it and then install it.

The majority os users just hit check for updates, see none offered so they think they are good to go.

OS X is pretty secure but  the majority of our users do not update, and most are still running whatever came out of the box.  Because it just works.
 
2017-10-01 03:50:51 PM  

natazha: theflatline: I think you just might be full of shiat.

This was a government project, all of the computers had hard disks. Were you even an embryo in the '80s?


I was born in 1969.  First computer was an Apple 2, I been in IT working in it since I was 15.  And I work for Apple.

The odd thing is you say they all hard drives, they just might have.  But you also say that users did not know what they were doing.

Installing software on a networked drive was not for the faint of heart or the average user in those times.
 
2017-10-01 04:28:59 PM  

theflatline: ...the IBM 5150...


I always thought early PC users were insane.
 
2017-10-01 05:23:19 PM  

theflatline: I probably see more El Capitan than Sierra, and still about 5 people a day with Yosemite.


I just got my hands on a 2007 Mac running 10.5.8. Is it worth dropping $20 on 10.6 and updating to 10.11?
 
2017-10-01 05:42:37 PM  
Joke's on you. Subby. Your lame troll headline attracted the usual losers parroting propaganda, but we also got some knowledgeable people giving out real information.
 
2017-10-01 05:51:18 PM  

I Like Bread: theflatline: I probably see more El Capitan than Sierra, and still about 5 people a day with Yosemite.

I just got my hands on a 2007 Mac running 10.5.8. Is it worth dropping $20 on 10.6 and updating to 10.11?


20 bucks is nothing when it comes to computers. Check first to see if your model supports it, though.

I just Googled it, and it looks like Apple is still providing security updates for 10.11. As for 10.5.8, that's ancient history.
 
2017-10-01 06:10:12 PM  

cyberspacedout: I Like Bread: theflatline: I probably see more El Capitan than Sierra, and still about 5 people a day with Yosemite.

I just got my hands on a 2007 Mac running 10.5.8. Is it worth dropping $20 on 10.6 and updating to 10.11?

20 bucks is nothing when it comes to computers. Check first to see if your model supports it, though.

I just Googled it, and it looks like Apple is still providing security updates for 10.11. As for 10.5.8, that's ancient history.


I know my Mac can run 10.11, the question is whether it can run WELL. I installed an SSD so that ought to be a huge help. Normally I wouldn't bother but it seems a lot of programs (especially multiplatform ones that I use, which are still compatible with WinXP) need at least 10.6.
 
2017-10-01 06:11:37 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: chawco: It's not just that Macs or less vulnerable, its more than that just on a worthwhile Target. Sure you can get some buddies little dinky music program to shut down and steal their "Beats", or lock some artist out of their digital files. But there's no real valuable information on most Macs.

It's not just the smaller market share, it's also the "why bother" infecting some douchebag hipster's Mac. If they can afford a Mac in the first place, they will probably just throw it out and buy a new one, cuz that's what Apple users do. It's not like you can repair or upgrade them.

[img.fark.net image 616x342]

Bunch of douche bag, self entitled NASA jerks. Probably just updating their iTunes collection or something.


I have newer 13'' Lenovo Yoga, which is a wonderful little computer. It's very quick, and the price was nice. But I have no illusions that I can have this repaired if it breaks, or of having the ability to do any upgrades to this notebook.
That is just the way of the portable market now. About the only machines that are up-gradable, or repairable, are gaming notebooks.

And no, I don't have any Apple notebooks. I just think it's stupid to fight over your choice of computer equipment.


It's not evil companies trying to force you to buy new hardware - not completely. It's just that in order to make things smaller and lighter you have to fuse components together.
 
2017-10-01 06:24:54 PM  

cyberspacedout: I Like Bread: theflatline: I probably see more El Capitan than Sierra, and still about 5 people a day with Yosemite.

I just got my hands on a 2007 Mac running 10.5.8. Is it worth dropping $20 on 10.6 and updating to 10.11?

20 bucks is nothing when it comes to computers. Check first to see if your model supports it, though.

I just Googled it, and it looks like Apple is still providing security updates for 10.11. As for 10.5.8, that's ancient history.


The problem is that up until Mavericks each release was pretty optimized, and ran just as well across the board.  And I am not saying the new releases are not as optimized, but there have been a ton of additions to the OS that just bog down older boxes.
 
2017-10-01 06:33:34 PM  

theflatline: cyberspacedout: I Like Bread: theflatline: I probably see more El Capitan than Sierra, and still about 5 people a day with Yosemite.

I just got my hands on a 2007 Mac running 10.5.8. Is it worth dropping $20 on 10.6 and updating to 10.11?

20 bucks is nothing when it comes to computers. Check first to see if your model supports it, though.

I just Googled it, and it looks like Apple is still providing security updates for 10.11. As for 10.5.8, that's ancient history.

The problem is that up until Mavericks each release was pretty optimized, and ran just as well across the board.  And I am not saying the new releases are not as optimized, but there have been a ton of additions to the OS that just bog down older boxes.


The other issue is that from Mavericks on they assume you have an SSD, an assload of RAM, and a core i5/7 processor. (With 4-8 threads). Older Machines have a core2 (2 threads), hard drive, and sub-4gb of ram. They will run the software. Just not very well.
 
2017-10-01 06:41:50 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: theflatline: cyberspacedout: I Like Bread: theflatline: I probably see more El Capitan than Sierra, and still about 5 people a day with Yosemite.

I just got my hands on a 2007 Mac running 10.5.8. Is it worth dropping $20 on 10.6 and updating to 10.11?

20 bucks is nothing when it comes to computers. Check first to see if your model supports it, though.

I just Googled it, and it looks like Apple is still providing security updates for 10.11. As for 10.5.8, that's ancient history.

The problem is that up until Mavericks each release was pretty optimized, and ran just as well across the board.  And I am not saying the new releases are not as optimized, but there have been a ton of additions to the OS that just bog down older boxes.

The other issue is that from Mavericks on they assume you have an SSD, an assload of RAM, and a core i5/7 processor. (With 4-8 threads). Older Machines have a core2 (2 threads), hard drive, and sub-4gb of ram. They will run the software. Just not very well.


We were selling Imacs with 5400 drives this year.  My personal Imac came with one. I got it on the cheap, but I replaced it.

I have been running 7200 rpm drives in PCs for 17 years.

5400 less heat, reliable and slow as fark.

But apple has always had cooling issues since the apple 2.

People used to run them with the cases open, especially if you had any of the slots filled.

This Kensington fan was a huge seller.

cs.grinnell.eduView Full Size
ronpellegrinoselectronicartsproductions.orgView Full Size
 
2017-10-01 08:14:43 PM  
No shiat Sherlock
 
2017-10-01 08:20:08 PM  

griz13: No shiat Sherlock


img.fark.netView Full Size


I remember not using it for shiat, either
 
2017-10-01 10:10:31 PM  

FlashHarry: kbronsito: Aren't macs even more vulnerable, since idiots who think they are virus proof may neglect anti-virus software and conmon sense tips to prevent infection?

Macs are susceptible to trojans and other malware, just as any other platform is. This is because it's the user, not the machine, that is the key factor.

However, due to its inherently more secure OS, the Mac is currently much less susceptible to viruses - i.e. malicious code that can enter a computer without user intervention - if at all.

I've been running various versions of OS X for more than a decade with zero virus protection and have never had a single virus. I'm not saying it won't happen; I'm just saying it hasn't yet.


All I know is that every pc I ever had was was infected to some degree no matter how careful I was. About 8 years ago, I got fed up with having to refresh to the OS every three to six months and switched everything to Apple. I couldn't be happier.

I do have 1 high end gaming rig for VR work and a windows laptop for game development but I never put anything critical on either system. MS lost my trust ages ago.
 
2017-10-01 10:19:01 PM  

physt: FlashHarry: kbronsito: Aren't macs even more vulnerable, since idiots who think they are virus proof may neglect anti-virus software and conmon sense tips to prevent infection?

Macs are susceptible to trojans and other malware, just as any other platform is. This is because it's the user, not the machine, that is the key factor.

However, due to its inherently more secure OS, the Mac is currently much less susceptible to viruses - i.e. malicious code that can enter a computer without user intervention - if at all.

I've been running various versions of OS X for more than a decade with zero virus protection and have never had a single virus. I'm not saying it won't happen; I'm just saying it hasn't yet.

All I know is that every pc I ever had was was infected to some degree no matter how careful I was. About 8 years ago, I got fed up with having to refresh to the OS every three to six months and switched everything to Apple. I couldn't be happier.

I do have 1 high end gaming rig for VR work and a windows laptop for game development but I never put anything critical on either system. MS lost my trust ages ago.


Ignoring games (how can you do that), it has been relatively recent where I felt I needed to use windows for anything dev wise.  Much of game dev can be done pretty well on Apple machines though there are a small number of engines and toolkits that are windows only (including Microsoft Hololens which of course is Windows based).
 
2017-10-01 11:02:20 PM  
The real problem is there isn't much difference between the operating environment (the shiny bits like the window system) and the operating system (which deals with the hardware). Even the Operating System relies on the BIOS to do things that it shouldn't. The BIOS should have enough smarts to check some of the memory, load an boot image off the disk or network, display progress of that on a screen and then start the OS. The BIOS now is way smarter than it should be but it tends to be some of the worst written code on a computer. Once the security processors were added, it has been a complete mess of locked up code that no one should be able to access but those people who have found a way to get it, say it is so full of bugs, it should even compile with modern compilers.
 
2017-10-02 12:49:45 AM  
I remember when Mac commercials used to claim they didn't get viruses, and I guess they were told to knock that shiat off. A few years back I saw one of those "interview" commercials one of which included Standard Teenage Girl In Her Room saying "I like my Mac because I don't have to worry about viruses" and a small asterisk at the bottom said "does not get PC viruses". That's like Trojan saying if you use their product, you won't get feline AIDS.
 
2017-10-02 02:15:18 AM  
I've been required to use a Mac for the past six months, and I honestly don't get the love. It seems to have a lot of polish, and then a lot more that's just weird or broken.
For example:
VMWare Fusion performs like crap (may be a Fusion issue). And when it crashes, I need to hard reboot the entire OS to get it back up and running again.

The split screen is garbage. It only works for some apps, and when you enable it you are forced into a full screen context.

The lack of middle click without using a third party mouse.

The half ass mix of apple keybindings and non apple keybindings depending on what you are running (ie terminal)

Plus a hundred other "little things" that end up pushing me back into a Linux VM to get work done.

/Rant off
//The Ctrl left/right screen switching is pretty useful
 
2017-10-02 03:39:01 AM  

griz13: No shiat Sherlock


I can't tell you how many times I have been told "You can't hack a Mac!" by fanbois and the "Geniuses" at the Apple store. Riiight. I don't like the word "Hack." I prefer the term "Unauthorized remote access".
CSB: I bought an iMac in April of 2008. I left it at the Apple store overnight to have additional memory installed. Worst idea ever! The "Geniuses" created an Administrator password of "Admin" with a password of "12345". The default password for the Airport wireless network is "Airport Network. " It's common, published knowledge.
So my new iMac was remotely accessed by an unauthorized user while it was still in the Apple store because the "Geniuses" failed to follow basic security principles.
I get my shiny new iMac home and weird stuff is happening. I installed a nifty little program called "Little Snitch" which allows you to lock your system down and control which applications can go in and out via certain ports and protocols. Lots of stuff going on with my network-- all sorts of programs going OUT through the firewall, such as the currency converter. Really? Why would that program be trying to access the internet as I sat and watched what was going on? I don't remember all the others, it's been ten years.
So I dig through the log files. Even as a new Mac user, I could see that the setup logs did not match what the setup logs were supposed to look like, according to Apple's own documentation on their website.
I boxed that puppy up and went back to the store, explaining that the system had been compromised and that I wanted a refund. I showed them the log files and I explained what I thought had happened.
I heard those lovely words, "You can't hack a Mac!" and my request for a refund was denied. I had to explain to them the difference between a virus and unauthorized remote access. They looked at me as if I was from outer space. Geniuses, indeed.
I wrote to the Divisional office in Atlanta, again explaining what had happened and requesting a refund due to the security breach, I was sure the machine had been completely compromised and would never feel comfortable using it due to what the "Geniuses" had done when I left it there overnight. Again they refused.
I wrote to the home office in Cupertino, CA. This time, I wasn't so nice. I told them that their "Geniuses" were irresponsible idiots, and that I was sure that other systems had been compromised in a similar fashion, probably for years. I told them that I would spread the word, far and wide. I again requested a refund. I got a call from the Atlanta office a few days later, telling me I should bring the iMac into the store for a refund. That was the first and last time I purchased an Apple product, or set foot in an Apple store.
 
2017-10-02 04:10:59 AM  
They're not hacked because there's no black market for pulled pork recipes
 
2017-10-02 04:48:29 AM  
This just in:
Pears are tastier than Apples
 
2017-10-02 04:59:25 AM  

Fritriac: This just in:
Pears are tastier than Apples


fark pears.

--The Apple Council
 
2017-10-02 09:12:15 AM  

physt: FlashHarry: kbronsito: Aren't macs even more vulnerable, since idiots who think they are virus proof may neglect anti-virus software and conmon sense tips to prevent infection?

Macs are susceptible to trojans and other malware, just as any other platform is. This is because it's the user, not the machine, that is the key factor.

However, due to its inherently more secure OS, the Mac is currently much less susceptible to viruses - i.e. malicious code that can enter a computer without user intervention - if at all.

I've been running various versions of OS X for more than a decade with zero virus protection and have never had a single virus. I'm not saying it won't happen; I'm just saying it hasn't yet.

All I know is that every pc I ever had was was infected to some degree no matter how careful I was. About 8 years ago, I got fed up with having to refresh to the OS every three to six months and switched everything to Apple. I couldn't be happier.

I do have 1 high end gaming rig for VR work and a windows laptop for game development but I never put anything critical on either system. MS lost my trust ages ago.


If every pc you've ever had got infected that says a lot more about you than Microsoft.
 
2017-10-02 10:31:39 AM  
And squirrels are just as vulnerable to bullets as deer are.  But hunters typically go after deer because they're bigger and therefore provide more return on the investment. Same with Macs / PC's.  There are way more PC's so if you are developing malicious code it makes more sense to go after the big game.
 
2017-10-02 11:30:15 AM  
LOL
as someone who has support entire school sites of Macs...
The largest danger to macs come from the users. And once things do go wrong, good luck fixing it.

THE worst thing about OSX is the finder doesn't give you an accurate representation of the file structure of the hard drive.
That's just unconscionable.

Haven't run virus protection on my PC in about 15 years, haven't had an infection.
You are the reason your PC is having problems.
 
2017-10-02 11:50:41 AM  

mrsleep: LOL
as someone who has support entire school sites of Macs...
The largest danger to macs come from the users. And once things do go wrong, good luck fixing it.

THE worst thing about OSX is the finder doesn't give you an accurate representation of the file structure of the hard drive.
That's just unconscionable.

Haven't run virus protection on my PC in about 15 years, haven't had an infection.
You are the reason your PC is having problems.


I don't understand this criticism. Finder shows you the filesystem just fine. Go->Go to Folder-> "/" It's a fairly bog standard *nix layout with the system files locked down to read only unless you turn off SIP (don't turn off SIP).

You can manually type the location of hidden folders if you need to, otherwise you can enable the viewing of hidden files and folders, similar to what any consumer facing OS does.
 
2017-10-02 11:57:32 AM  

bingethinker: Joke's on you. Subby. Your lame troll headline attracted the usual losers parroting propaganda, but we also got some knowledgeable people giving out real information.


And then there's you.
Bad Religion - Ad Hominem (Album Version)
Youtube XgRLG1tl9DE
 
2017-10-02 12:58:10 PM  

Tergiversada: wrote to the home office in Cupertino, CA. This time, I wasn't so nice. I told them that their "Geniuses" were irresponsible idiots, and that I was sure that other systems had been compromised in a similar fashion, probably for years. I told them that I would spread the word, far and wide. I again requested a refund. I got a call from the Atlanta office a few days later, telling me I should bring the iMac into the store for a refund. That was the first and last time I purchased an Apple product, or set foot in an Apple store.


...and here you are spreading the word, far and wide (OK, relatively).  Bad deal for them all around. ;-)
 
2017-10-02 03:53:54 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: Plus I'm one of those middle aged "veteran of the browser wars" who gets his panties in a bunch and insists that kids today don't understand what it was like then. And then swills some whiskey, and starts on yet another tale of the shiatty old days...


Do you tell kids to get off your lawn? XD
 
2017-10-02 04:05:58 PM  

Rwa2play: Evil Twin Skippy: Plus I'm one of those middle aged "veteran of the browser wars" who gets his panties in a bunch and insists that kids today don't understand what it was like then. And then swills some whiskey, and starts on yet another tale of the shiatty old days...

Do you tell kids to get off your lawn? XD


Mental note... add lawn to my home page
 
2017-10-02 07:55:03 PM  

mrsleep: LOL
as someone who has support entire school sites of Macs...
The largest danger to macs come from the users. And once things do go wrong, good luck fixing it.

THE worst thing about OSX is the finder doesn't give you an accurate representation of the file structure of the hard drive.
That's just unconscionable.

Haven't run virus protection on my PC in about 15 years, haven't had an infection.
You are the reason your PC is having problems.


As a former MS employee who supported and still does support MS since 1993, finder is bog standtard.  You might need to learn something about Unix.
 
2017-10-02 08:45:12 PM  

Guntram Shatterhand: Who said Macs weren't vulnerable?  Only people I know who believed that were the ones who came to me to ask me to fix them while spouting that sales garbage.

Also, aren't Macs now really just underpowered as fark?


The answer is "it depends." Yes as comparable machines for the price, they are very underpowered, but at the same time the people who buy them the most, they are probably way overpowered for what they get used for ( taking notes in class, organizing playlists, Skype/FaceTime, text messaging )
 
Displayed 95 of 95 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report