News - Apple to users: installed malware? You're on your own

[Agent]

This isn't really a question of "Will Apple patch OSX or provide free security tools". It's should apple provide telephone technical support for removing user installed malware?

Of course they shouldn't, it's crazy to expect them too. Microsoft wouldn't either - at best they would say "go and download/user windows defender", they wouldn't sit there and walk a user through removing some malicious software step by step.

Not only do Microsoft provide a technical support phone line for removing viruses / malware / whatever, they do it for free.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCsafety

Granted, US only, but it's there.

[Spud1]

OK I take it back then, surprised they offer it but I guess they have had to with all the bad PR windows gets for malware infection rates Microsoft hardware support has always impressed me, never experienced their software support personally but it figures to be on the same level as their hardware division.

I still think it's unreasonable to attack apple over their stance on this though, but hey I will be in the minority here I am sure, people love to jump on them any chance they get

[crossy]

Surely anyone who does get infected with the crap and loses important data has a decent case for legal action, blatant false advertising on apples behalf?

for the malware to infect your Mac you need to enter your administrator password.

Nope, I would have thought that even a half-decent Apple defence lawyer could argue that there's an element of negligence in there. Okay there's maybe a counter-claim that this isn't negligence unless Apple warned about the importance of root.

So, Apple's out is that the malware is installed by the user and not a fault with the OS as such, so, the problem is the Mac user and not the system...

Eminently reasonable, given that the user has to grant those elevated privileges needed - as the poster on the wall of the "contact centre" I used to support said "lord, give us the strength to deal with the stupidity of 'users'!".
Much as I despise Apple's big, red "Sue You" button approach, I think in this case that they've got right on their side. Okay, it might be sensible for them to just re-emphasise to their customers what constitutes "sensible" use. Prop's to Microsoft in this respect, it's now damned difficult to justify running as an admin account, Win7's security framework is (imho) pretty slick, and there's a lot of good tools and info readily available on their site. Similarly the Linux distro's - e.g. Ubuntu make it pretty plain that you shouldn't sudo install 3rd party software unless you can be sure it's okay.
Here's a question to the Macista's - am I right in thinking that it's some kind of gksudo tool that's used to grant the elevated permissions? (I've only used Windows and Linux boxes, so I'm curious to know).

Apple "Geniuses" are nothing of the sort and their word can never be taken to be true

Given the evidence of my one encounter with same, I came to the conclusion that the "Genius" title was used ironically. But then again, I guess "Useless, Patronising B^st^rd" as a job title wouldn't attract many applicants...

By the way, I'll argue the case to have some form of anti-malware product on my kit - even the Android and Linux stuff, (belt-n-braces to trap any Windows malware that slips through). Yes, sensible operating process is probably the better answer, but if concentration slips, it's nice to know that there's potentially something in place that can kick in. Plus it's not like AV-software is major league expensive these days - especially if you're clever about how you renew, or there's some quite good free stuff available. I think if I had a Mac for serious use then I'd be looking to put some anti-malware on it, even though - with a Unix basis - it should be relatively easy to operate "securely".

[scaryjim]

The really abhorent bit about this, and no-one seems to have mentioned it, is:

... Apple reps should "neither confirm nor deny whether the customer's computer is infected or not." ...

You can make a good case for them saying "not out fault, not going to patch, go to the app store and buy some AV software / removal tools and sort it out yourself" - it's pretty poor customer service IMNSHO, given that Apple sell Macs on the whole ecosystem and support sturcture rather than just as a piece of hardware, but you can see why they'd say it.

On the other hand, telling your customer service reps that they aren't allowed to tell a customer what's wrong with their computer strike me as abhorent - they're simultaneously sweeping the mess under the carpet and burying their heads in the sand. Given the iPhone 4 aerial issues, the repeated date / time / alarm issues, and now this, you have to wonder what's going on at Apple HQ...

[.havoc]

Resists... urge... to... laugh

*Tries...


Fails...


wets himself in the process...*



It was worth it!

[.havoc]

Microsoft provide an operating system, Apple provide a complete package, there is a difference.

Microsoft released tools like MSE because many many users lacked even basic levels of protection and they have a reasonable channel (Windows Update) through which they could just offer to install it.

Tbh, Apple computers should be treated like your TV or dishwasher, in that Apple should provide all necessary help except where its due to incorrect use and user damage.

And within that complete package is an operating system.

What's your point?

Apple customers already DO get treated like that! And i actually sympathise with them. They buy the systems thinking they are getting something simple and easy to use yet it has the full potential to be more painful than something they are familiar with.

Microsoft are not only pro-active in the security of your system but in the progression of security on the net in general. And by this i dont mean just peddling you software (which you get for FREE! Apple - take notice you tight bastards!) but they actually try and educate the userbase on how to be safe. Nothing fixes a problem more efficiently than tackling the source - the user - Apple hasnt seem to of realised this yet.

[Biscuit]

Nope, I would have thought that even a half-decent Apple defence lawyer could argue that there's an element of negligence in there. Okay there's maybe a counter-claim that this isn't negligence unless Apple warned about the importance of root.

Eminently reasonable, given that the user has to grant those elevated privileges needed - as the poster on the wall of the "contact centre" I used to support said "lord, give us the strength to deal with the stupidity of 'users'!".
Much as I despise Apple's big, red "Sue You" button approach, I think in this case that they've got right on their side. Okay, it might be sensible for them to just re-emphasise to their customers what constitutes "sensible" use. Prop's to Microsoft in this respect, it's now damned difficult to justify running as an admin account, Win7's security framework is (imho) pretty slick, and there's a lot of good tools and info readily available on their site. Similarly the Linux distro's - e.g. Ubuntu make it pretty plain that you shouldn't sudo install 3rd party software unless you can be sure it's okay.
Here's a question to the Macista's - am I right in thinking that it's some kind of gksudo tool that's used to grant the elevated permissions? (I've only used Windows and Linux boxes, so I'm curious to know).

Given the evidence of my one encounter with same, I came to the conclusion that the "Genius" title was used ironically. But then again, I guess "Useless, Patronising B^st^rd" as a job title wouldn't attract many applicants...

By the way, I'll argue the case to have some form of anti-malware product on my kit - even the Android and Linux stuff, (belt-n-braces to trap any Windows malware that slips through). Yes, sensible operating process is probably the better answer, but if concentration slips, it's nice to know that there's potentially something in place that can kick in. Plus it's not like AV-software is major league expensive these days - especially if you're clever about how you renew, or there's some quite good free stuff available. I think if I had a Mac for serious use then I'd be looking to put some anti-malware on it, even though - with a Unix basis - it should be relatively easy to operate "securely".

I dont unerstand how they can have that argument at all, how can a user know he is being negligent if he is told to assume nothing can go wrong? You cant sell a product basically telling people it doesnt matter if you are a bit negligent as the OS is bomb proof and then when this kind of attitude proves to be false and the OS flops, use negligence as a reason to wriggle out of it being Apples fault. I cannot wrap my head around it, there is no way out of this for apple without them admitting they have been at fault in some way... well no they could always just act completely oblivious and pretend the issue isnt there, which is what they will do no doubt.

[crossy]

I dont unerstand how they can have that argument at all, how can a user know he is being negligent if he is told to assume nothing can go wrong? You cant sell a product basically telling people it doesnt matter if you are a bit negligent as the OS is bomb proof and then when this kind of attitude proves to be false and the OS flops, use negligence as a reason to wriggle out of it being Apples fault.

Yep, apologies here - it's been pointed out to me that I assumed (wrongly?) that Apple's documentation highlighted that granting "root" permissions gives full access to the box. Obviously if this wasn't the case then Apple's standing on unsafe ground. Ignoring the blame game, I'm not exactly impressed with the 'deaf monkey' approach that Apple's taking.

I cannot wrap my head around it, there is no way out of this for apple without them admitting they have been at fault in some way... well no they could always just act completely oblivious and pretend the issue isnt there, which is what they will do no doubt.

Hmm, you might be onto something here - if they admit to some (minor) fault then you can guarantee that some US legal vulture will be filing papers as fast as possible.

I'm sure that there's a spin that could be bought to bear to a "clarification" from Apple. You know ... "As a service to our users, here's some advice...". Either that or ship a patch that changes the rights granting message to "This can damage your computer. Are you sure?" ... "Are you really sure?" ... "Last chance, are you really, really sure?"

Don't know whether to be pleased or not that no-ones dived into the discussion claiming that this justifies Apple's "walled garden" approach in their app store.

[Whiternoise]

Here's a question to the Macista's - am I right in thinking that it's some kind of gksudo tool that's used to grant the elevated permissions? (I've only used Windows and Linux boxes, so I'm curious to know).

Sudo works as you'd expect in the terminal, pretty much the same as all *nix systems.

The dialogue boxes that you get when you want to install an Application are something of Apple's invention - specifically there's an Authorisation Services API which you can hook into if you're writing a program that requires elevated permissions. Whether deep down it uses sudo in some way, I have no idea.

As for a rights granting message, this already exists; before you open anything that was downloaded from the net, you get a confirm/deny dialogue box warning you that it may harm your computer.

[Splash]

Nope, I would have thought that even a half-decent Apple defence lawyer could argue that there's an element of negligence in there. Okay there's maybe a counter-claim that this isn't negligence unless Apple warned about the importance of root.

But... Apple told me that I couldn't get a virus, so I could happily install whatever malicious crud I like and it wouldn't affect me in my bubble.

I've nothing against the OS in particular. Most of the hardware is pretty decent from experience too. What I do have issues with is the way it's marketed and the web of lies painted as truth.