You Mac’s Got a Trojan? Ha, Ha!
Sometimes we at Apple Matters write articles about the same things, like MacWorlds, new releases and other significant events. Chris Seibold wrote his own take on the Mac trojan issue yesterday and so I hope you're not too tired of the Mac trojan hoo-ha to sit through another about it, because I think this is a significant event, even though some may see it as a negative one. Actually, personally I think it's great.
My favorite story this week was about bit torrent versions of iWork and Photoshop carrying a trojan that would take over your Mac and use it maliciously. I have little time for anyone who's illegaly copying software at the best of times, so this story made me laugh out loud. As John B, a reader on Apple Insider, said, "Poetic justice", and another, Janus, said "Karma!". I couldn't agree more.
Trojans of course have another name in IT circles: "Idiot detectors". It is a generalization, because some trojans are very sneaky, but most times trojans get on a person's computer because they're just plain stupid (the person, that is, not the trojans or the computer).
And you can't protect a computer, not even a Mac, from stupidity. Installing something from an unreliable source is probably one of the most stupid things you can do on a computer. When it comes to trojans, you're only as safe as your security. And like the poor citizens of Troy found out, despite having impenetrable walls, the weakest point in your security is some idiots brain.
If this incident makes you wonder if you should run out and buy an anti-virus software for your Mac, think again. AV software can protect you from a known trojan, as it will scan applications before launching them. However, trojans are idiot driven. If you don't want to encounter one, save your money and play it safe. Further, no AV software can protect you from new threats, so AV software makers are always playing catchup. Which means, if you own a PC and have decent AV software, you're only protected from the known threats. On a Pc that is zillions, on a Mac... viruses for OS X count in the zeros, and trojans you cancount on one hand. And if that had is attached to a smart person, trojans shouldn't be a threat to you.
This incident again highlights the security of the Mac from viruses. It shows that no one has yet been able to successfully crack the Mac to build a self-initiating and self-propagating threat, which is what a virus is. The best they can manage is a trojan which relies on idiots to initialize it and propagate it.
I trust that I am preaching to the converted, as Apple Matters readers are known for their higher intellect, although I doubt anyone would own up to getting stung anyway, so we'll never know if there's some not so bright people readers here!
The interesting thing about this whole occurence is it stirs up the question of software pricing again. That I'll save for another day, but I will say, whether you agree with the cost of software or or not, stealing doesn't change the law. Otherwise shoplifting would have been legalized (or made everything free) years ago.
I'm against pirating software, which is the main reason I am glad this has happened. But it's also good because to me it again demonstrates the security of the Mac. Whoever wrote this trojan would dearly have loved to make it a virus, but that obviously wasn't possible, they needed some idiots to help.
So we can agree to disagree on the priniciples behind stealing software, but if you're prepared to take the risk and then get burnt, well, I just have to quote Nelson Muntz and say "Ha, ha!"
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
Chris, excellent article. These are the same points I’ve been putting forward every time a Windows user hears about a Mac Trojan and says “see, Macs have viruses just like PCs”.
The sad fact (and I hate to sound like a PC bigot, but facts are facts) is that in general Windows users seem to be more ignorant about computers and malware than are Mac users. This is ironic considering the deluge of viruses and other malware that Windows users contend with, and accept as a way of life, every day.
Because of Mac OS X’s UNIX underpinnings we have never had even one virus in the almost ten years that we have been using OS X. And it’s highly unlikely that there will ever be one.
In contrast, Windows users are affected (and infected) by many thousands of viruses, and new ones are popping up each day. And yet, they totally disregard this “Microsoft tax”, even when it means losing the use of their computers and having important files accessed or deleted without their knowledge.
And Windows users accuse Mac users of blindly following Apple and not seeing the “light”??? WTF!
I have to strongly disagree with you Harvey. I have spent many years supporting both platforms and, in general, the average user is the same regardless of platform. My argument has always been that Apple does a better job, out of the box, of taking care of these users. Those kinds of reckless comments are as silly as some of the koolaid drinking apple zelot comments from the other side and distract from any real conversation.
Wundryn, contrary to your belief that “Apple does a better job, out of the box, of taking care of these users.”, Apple does not do any more than Microsoft does in educating it’s users about the operating system they are using.
My comment about the differences between Mac and Windows users is from experience. Most Mac users I have had contact with know a lot more about the hardware and operating system they use than the Windows user I have known.
Most Mac users I know are aware of the difference between a virus and a Trojan, but to most Windows users they are considered to be the same thing. Most Mac users I know understand that you don’t install suspicious looking software or respond to email from Nigerian princes.
Typo:
“Most Mac users I have had contact with know a lot more about the hardware and operating system they use than the Windows user I have known.”
Should read:
“Most Mac users I have had contact with know a lot more about the hardware and operating system they use than the Windows users I have known.”
You know, Harvey and Danny, I cut an entire paragraph from this article where I suggested that Mac users are more intelligent than PC users. I decided though I couldn’t really substantiate that, so left it out.
But I do seriously suspect it. And there is a very simple reason for it. Mac are more expensive.(Next week’s article will explain why the’re more expensive.) Which means someone buying a Mac will likely be of a higher socio-economic status, will have researched their purchase more thoroughly and, as Mac support is much thinner on the ground, are more likely to have the knowledge,intelligence and confidence to support it themselves if necessary.
As PCs are cheap and common, it’s actually reassuring to people who aren’t so bright when it comes to computers. They can always ask their kid or their neighbour for help - which as we know isn’t always the best idea. They are also more likely to trust the salesman selling all the bells and whistles ("which the Mac doesn’t have” says the salesman). And who buy that line have got no hope of understanding quality, TCO etc.
So the simple greater upfront cost of the Mac is going drive those with lesser computer intelligence to the PC.
Thus, a higher ratio of people who really should “put it back in the box and return it because you’re not smart enough to own a computer”, to quote the old urban myth, will be using PCs than Macs. Sadly though, this trojan story demonstrates we do have quite a few on Macs now.
“The sad fact (and I hate to sound like a PC bigot, but facts are facts) is that in general Windows users seem to be more ignorant about computers and malware than are Mac users.”
Really? Because in my experience, Mac users tend to be blind kool-aid drinking morons with a deluded sense of self-importance and narcissism.
Facts are facts.
“But I do seriously suspect it. And there is a very simple reason for it. Mac are more expensive.”
Of course they are. But implicit in ALL of these arguments, as bigoted as they are, is the substantiation that Macs are only secure because they are obscure. Flip the market share, and Macs become as malware-ridden as Windows.
I was about to ask Beeblebrox to “substantiate” his claim that Macs would be as malware-ridden as Windows if the market share were reversed, but then I read what s/he had written immediately before:
“But implicit in ALL of these arguments, as bigoted as they are, is the substantiation that Macs are only secure because they are obscure.”
Could you rephrase that? What is “implicit substantiation”?
I suspect though, Beb, I suggested in the piece, that this incident is a trojan, not a virus, that it proves the Mac is significantly more secure.
Ideally, if you were behind this, you would want it to be self-propagating, i.e., a virus. The faact it’s not suggests that it’s not possible to write a virus for the Mac.
I wouldn’t go as far to suggest that, Chris. Frankly, the vast majority of Windows malware are trojans. OS exploits eventually get closed. User exploits rarely go away (there’s no patch to cure the desire to get something for nothing, or to see people naked and having sex).
That said, those trojans were very crude. They were just piggybacked on a crack app, and in an installer package. This looks to be more like a test to see if it is worth ones while to try to infect a Mac. If so, I expect more sophisticated exploits to come.
I really do not think the fact that Macs are more expensive say much of anything about the technical intelligence of the buyer. Years ago, I read an article in the NY Times about a obviously well-off fellow whose solution to a PC that had became overwhelm with malware was to buy another PC. (And I don’t mean switch to a Mac.) That is not something one can do regularly unless you’re flush with wealth, even when PCs only cost $400. Arguably Macs do appeal to the technical set (programmers, developers, etc.) who would know how to keep Macs trojan free, but Apple sells to the Gucci crowd. “World’s thinnest, sleekest laptop etc.” It’s a lifestyle product. Those people would not be any more technically inclined than anyone else, despite spending more money for stuff.
Here’s a pretty sardonic opinion elaborating on this.
Which is why I didn’t include it in my original piece - I knew it wasn’t a strong argument.
Although I’m not necessarily saying they’re more technically inclined, I’m not suggesting Mac users are all border line nerds and geeks.
Also, Sterling, like your previous comment - very interesting thought.
Beeblebrox, you are one of the ignorant people I was referring to. Thanks for proving my point
There have been way too many articles written by supposed computer experts that just don’t know what they are talking about when referring to Macs. Here is a prime example I found on the Web today. It’s one of the many articles by Windows users who continue to propagate the false information about Macs that Windows users believe, simply because they don’t know what they are talking about:
http://www.computing.co.uk/computing/comment/2235315/becoming-mac-convert-4430368
Mac users know more about not only their own computers, but also about Windows, while Windows users (in general) know nothing about Macs (or they know a lot of false information). The reason is simple. Mac users are either former Windows users, or they are forced to use Windows computers at work. This is why Mac users can compare the Mac experience to the Windows experience, and why they choose to stick with Macs.
On the other hand, Windows users in general have had no real first-hand exposure over an extended period using Macs. When they choose to stick with Windows it’s usually because they have very little or totally false knowledge of Macs.
“Beeblebrox, you are one of the ignorant people I was referring to. Thanks for proving my point”
I’m a Mac user, genius. And you certainly proved mine.
“Ideally, if you were behind this, you would want it to be self-propagating, i.e., a virus. The faact it’s not suggests that it’s not possible to write a virus for the Mac.”
Chris, that is a totally specious claim. You make a baseless assumption about the malware writer (that he/she was trying to write a virus) and then base another assumption off that (that it is therefore more difficult to write a virus for the Mac).
As Sterling said, malware writers gave up on destructive virii long ago in favor of more profitable malware that create zombie machines they can control.