News - Over 600,000 Apple Macs suffering from flashback

[HEXUS]

Flashback trojan and its variants run rampant on the Apple OS.

Read more.

[Roobubba]

"whilst others may cause crashing"

They've got some pretty stiff competition from Apple's own software on that front... Bloody slow, overpriced, unstable macs!

[miniyazz]

This article can't be right. Macs don't get malware? At least that's what my friends keep telling me. (Living in a house with three Macbooks, and next door has two)

[brasco]

Yeah this must be a fake Macs are invincible!!
It's still too small a market share for all the malwarez folk to focus on, the ones that do probably do well, but it's the phones I would start to worry about!

brasc

[crossy]

I know the article says that this is a Java-based browser exploit for Macs, but is it specifically targeting Safari? Reason I'm asking is that if this is a browser-independent exploit then I'm wondering if other platforms (in my case specifically Windows and Linux) would also be susceptible.

[brasco]

Most likely yes, but my guess is that most windows machines have AVs to catch the trojan itself, so don't infect them?

brasc

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

IIRC,older Mac OS versions have a limitation on what version of Java can be run.

[jim]

*Trying to feel sympathy*

[bradyjames]

I work with a guy who says it's impossible for macs to get infected.

[Skywalker]

Apple..anyone else sick of just hearing that name as of late?

@bradyjames - I hear that's no longer the case as Apple is no more ''such'' niche product (xOS) as it used to be

[kingpotnoodle]

I've said for ages that the first good Mac malware would run rampant, and all the zealots just laughed and said it wouldn't happen. Once you become enough of a soft target people will start to bother... for example say 10% of the market is Macs but because they are soft you achieve a 80% infection rate, however targeting the 85% of Windows PCs (granting 5% to Linux/other) you only achieve a 10% infection rate - suddenly it is no more lucrative to write the virus for Windows than it is for Mac, and knowing the Mac vulnerability is likely to be open for longer it becomes a better choice to target... of course all those numbers are just plucked out for example sake but Apple need to be careful, all that protects the sheen of security is that simple if:

IF (Mac install base * infection rate %) >= (Win install base * infection rate %) then TROUBLE

People who think malware writing has anything to do with brand loyalty or anti-Microsoft crusades are sadly deluded, most malware writers are pragmatic criminals in it for the money.

[cheesemp]

I've said for ages that the first good Mac malware would run rampant, and all the zealots just laughed and said it wouldn't happen. Once you become enough of a soft target people will start to bother... for example say 10% of the market is Macs but because they are soft you achieve a 80% infection rate, however targeting the 85% of Windows PCs (granting 5% to Linux/other) you only achieve a 10% infection rate - suddenly it is no more lucrative to write the virus for Windows than it is for Mac, and knowing the Mac vulnerability is likely to be open for longer it becomes a better choice to target... of course all those numbers are just plucked out for example sake but Apple need to be careful, all that protects the sheen of security is that simple if:

IF (Mac install base * infection rate %) >= (Win install base * infection rate %) then TROUBLE

People who think malware writing has anything to do with brand loyalty or anti-Microsoft crusades are sadly deluded, most malware writers are pragmatic criminals in it for the money.

I've always thought the same. Also lets face it malware developers have more experience with Windows currently. Once the 'price is right' and they start switching over to hitting Macs it could get very bad for Mac owners!

[watercooled]

The Apple OS is no more secure than current Windows OS's, as above, Windows has historically had more malware purely because it's the bigger target. Windows is now a far more secure OS than it's given credit for, except for when you get ignorant retards claiming to be pro's going round telling people to disable UAC and Windows update 'because they get in the way and a virus can click the yes button ' clearly demonstrating they know nothing about how it works or computer security in general. Similarly, about the biggest danger for Mac is the ignorant assumption that they're invincible, the people preaching that deserve all they get, but I feel sorry for the people who don't know any better.

You can make a system as secure as you want, and some idiot will still find a way to open it up.

[crossy]

I work with a guy who says it's impossible for macs to get infected.

IMHO, Mac's (and Linux boxes) are "probably" more resistant to viruses - down to the way that elevated privileges are (ab)used. On the other hand this is a trojan, not a virus, so all bets are off, (because it's relying on attacking a user, rather than the system).

Not even sure that the standard advice about using something "aggressively secure" like Chrome will work in this case.

You might want to do the d00d a favour and point 'im in the direction of this article!

[shaithis]

I've always thought the same. Also lets face it malware developers have more experience with Windows currently. Once the 'price is right' and they start switching over to hitting Macs it could get very bad for Mac owners!

With the rise in Hackintosh info on the net, it costs nothing for most people to dual boot OSX on their PC.....or even run a Mac VM.

[CK_1985]

Ah, sweet sweet Schadenfreude - this story absolutely made my morning. I've been forced to have the stupid 'macs don't get viruses' vs 'actually, no one can be bothered to make viruses for macs' debate SO many times, it's truly wonderful to finally be able to back up my position with hard facts.

Not that I'd ever condone the existence of viruses or anything, but I did so enjoy this...