[bastion]

jaykay, on 28 June 2012 - 01:19 AM, said:

Just wonder if this announcement causes new thinking on previous discussions/postings

"Apple drops virus immunity claim for Macs
"Apple has dropped claims on its website that Mac computers do not get viruses, after hundreds of thousands of machines were hijacked by a Trojan."

I'd be interested in the source of these quotes. Apple never claimed that the Mac was immune to viruses. Nor did anyone in this thread from almost a year and a half ago. No one told you that Macs couldn't get viruses or other forms of malware. I would've called out anyone that did in that I was involved in the Usenet discussion that led to the creation of the first proof-of-concept Trojan horse for OS X nearly 7 years prior to your initial post. What we said, in the then-present tense, was that the threat of malware and spyware on the Mac was not sigificant enough for us to feel that the real detrimental effects of anti-malware software were justified. Macnuke's original response to you - that the user is the weak link - remains true.

Remember this?

"A very recent article in the Sunday Times (UK) reported that many Apps contained tracker/key logger/spyware."

I still stand by *my* initial response: That statement does not dine at the same table as reality. I still assert that anyone making such a claim bears the burden of providing supporting evidence rather than just tossing it off and letting fear and speculation run rampant.

Now: Does the appearance of Flashback several months ago require the opinions expressed early last year to be revisited? I would say no, on the technicality that I think such opinions should be revisited regularly regardless. Approaches to computer security must be able to evolve over time as the change in threats do. Has the reality of Flashback led to an actual change in those opinions? Not for me.

[jaykay]

Sorry - forgot to say - the quotes and full article are published on Macworld UK site.

[gothicdev]

jaykay, on 28 June 2012 - 06:33 AM, said:

Sorry - forgot to say - the quotes and full article are published on Macworld UK site.

Can you provide URL? That would help the jury decide...
A search in the flavor tracker OR "key logger" OR spyware "Sunday Times" site:www.macworld.co.uk did not yield any results.

[bastion]

gothicdev, on 03 July 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

jaykay, on 28 June 2012 - 06:33 AM, said:

Sorry - forgot to say - the quotes and full article are published on Macworld UK site.

Can you provide URL? That would help the jury decide...
A search in the flavor tracker OR "key logger" OR spyware "Sunday Times" site:www.macworld.co.uk did not yield any results.

That's because it's actually from The Telegraph.

http://www.telegraph...m-for-Macs.html

The body of the article is substantially more possessed of that attribute we call "correctness" than the headline jaykay reproducd.

[macnuke]

really... each and every one of these are self inflicted.
none install without direct user clicking an OK somewhere.

so while they are issues....

they are all only issues to people who don't pay attention to what they are clicking on.

seriously.

This post has been edited by macnuke: 03 July 2012 - 03:48 PM

[bastion]

macnuke, on 03 July 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

really... each and every one of these are self inflicted.
none install without direct user clicking an OK somewhere.

so while they are issues....

they are all only issues to people who don't pay attention to what they are clicking on.

seriously.

Actually there have been two pieces of malware this year that installed themselves without user interaction. Both exploited the same Java vulnerability, although admittedly the second one appeared after Apple had released their patch. The earlier one was a variant of an older attack that did require user interaction. I believe (though I haven't double-checked) the non-interactive version of it showed up between Oracle's patch release and Apple's, taking advantage of the lag in closing the now-publicized hole.