Why Do People Think MAC OSX Has Built-in AV?

Apple . . .
The hype company d00d.

 

There was some speculation SnowLeopard (Apple's current Mac operating system) can/could detect malware when it was released, but as far as I've read, it was only able to detect 2 threats, far less than the number of OSX malware in the wild. I haven't read anything recent about it though, so perhaps it may have been speculation and pulled, or still there, only crap - as they took so long to acknowledge let alone fix the fakeAV problem its users had for weeks.

The intricate details and processing of it I do not know, but the following URLs indicated SnowLeopard had the ability:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer...rovides-virus-protection-snow-leopard-upgrade
http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2009/08/28/snow-leopard-malware-protection/ (57 seconds into the video shows the malware being blocked by Apple)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/25/snow_leopard_malware_protection/
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/apple-adds-malware-blocker-in-snow-leopard/4104
http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/2009/08/yes_snow_leopard_includes_anti.php

I wouldn't trust it though as in the recent FakeAV spat Apple took too long to acknowledge the problem (typical Apple behaviour really) and release a fix. It also misses many OSX malware as far as I've read.

 

Generally, folks are wrong when they think OS X has built-in AV. But the thing that saves them is that so far, there haven't been any widespread problems with Mac Users and malware...as far as is generally known.

Most of these people have either directly experienced malware/anti-malware related problems while using MS Windows, or they know plenty of other people who have. It's easy to see why people might misunderstand things, and jump to incorrect conclusions.

Although the OS X version most everyone uses does not have AV built-in, the server version of Mac OS X DOES have AV "built-in". It's ClamAV, and it's configured for the email server.

Also, Apple has had some anti-malware included in some of their products.

 

If I was a malware writer I would target Macs.

1 the users are affluent (that's why they pay so much more for the white toys)
2 the users are ignorant about security related issues (that's why they pay so much more for the white toys)
3 the users are gullible (that's why they pay so much more for the white toys)

 

If I were a malware writer I'd target windows... because that's where all of the money is.

edit: And if you want to talk about OSX pricing you should make a separate topic. They're not nearly as unfairly priced as they used to be.

 

a clamav scanning agent for the MTA is a far cry from what the OP is discussing. if it's like every *nix build of clam, you pipe attachments through it as they're received, it scans and passes to the files to user mailboxes. not really comparable to "built-in AV" as in the context of this thread.

 

Another big possibility is that people are looking way too much on comparing the same screen sizes, same hardware etc. when it's not about that. I personally believe that is the biggest reason. It's not even close about the screen size and/or hardware - it's about the OS. People just seem to ignore this or simply not think about it.

My two cents

 

A lot of it is the hardware though. You won't find a PC with battery life like a mac unless it's lacking in some other area. PC's just aren't built that way. And if they ever are (specific cases like Envy or some Samsungs and ThinkPads) they too are sold at a high premium.

Operating systems have too many variables and subjective traits. It's impossible to compare.

 

is not easier target to a mac user with no security measures for your money needs?

 

Uh, no. Do you know of any major corporations running OSX?

 

your money needs are bigger!...lol

 

Well if we're talking purely about potential profit why would I go after Grandma and her savings and brand new Macbook Pro when there's Giant Corporation X running Windows XP?

 

Yes, it is.

No, it isn't.

 

Macs are nothing more than marketing products.
The hardware is the same as in a Toshiba or an Asus.
The OS brings nothing more than Windows does; in fact it brings less.

But, please, spend your money where your heart is... the Mac experience

 

Can you back that statement up? I realize they're all manufactured in the same place but find me specs in a PC that meet up with a Mac.

laptop*

and take battery life into account... people always forget to...

 

Those numbers refer to exploits against Adobe software, not overall malware. That headline is ridiculous.

 

You misunderstood. The OS - Mac OS that is - is utilizing its hardware resources better than Windows will ever do. That's what I've understood, and it makes sense. They employ these performance features and go into detail on them in their release notes, and Mac OS X runs on specific hardware, now why could that be... well I think it's because then they can utilize that specific hardware to its limit!

There you go

 

is there any evidence that supports that OSX makes better use of hardware than linux,bsd,windows or anyother operating system?

since the intel transition the only real difference between mac and pc is the actual packaging of the hardware and shipped operating system.

pc and mac both use intel processers and eiether intel,amd or nvidia graphics.

in theory OSX should be more stable because apple only supplies a limited set of hardware.

the problem with apple is that they dont support their os for very long.

apple should be able to provide longer os support because of a limited range of models. im shocked that osx lion wont work on the first set of intel core processers. other operating systems have no issues working on those processers. imo its just another way to fob off people to buy a new mac.

 

I get your point, but what in YOUR opinion is a long support-cycle?

 

XP's.

 

Nice one. I still run it as we speak but for very many compatibility reasons, I think W7 is a great OS as well.

 

I re read the article, and I don't think it is ridiculous.

 

Update about OS X Lion. It appears now the many corporate pentesters I listen to have said that OS X Lion is finally now safer then Windows 7. Lion finally gave us true memory randomization and some other security tweaks that one pentester said he is having a hard time hacking into, were he could just walk right in on Leopard and Snow Leopard. Even Charlie Miller thinks Lion took a leap forward on security.

Good to see that with the acquisition of David Rice and the prodding of Charlie Miller Apple has finally moved to increase security of OS X. Security was always last on Apples plate of things to add to OS X.

 

Isn't it simply ASLR? Windows has that. Any it's programatically avoidable/ bypassable.

The idea behind ASLR, DEP, SEHOP... they're all just trying to reduce the sheer vast number of exploits. It's wonderful and I love them but it only takes a single proper exploit to gain access to the system. Rather than attempting to remove as many exploits as possible they should be (and this applies to all OS's) expecting their systems to be exploited and then adding in measures that deal with exploits.

Sandboxing is one such mechanism. Even if you exploit an application or the system if everything is separated and has no access the exploit is severely limited.

There are other security methods.

Still, as I said, ASLR is great.

 

About time. Too bad it`s bloated (ex. 2 GB min RAM lol) though.