90
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
90 points (95.0% liked)
Apple
17431 readers
213 users here now
Welcome
to the largest Apple community on Lemmy. This is the place where we talk about everything Apple, from iOS to the exciting upcoming Apple Vision Pro. Feel free to join the discussion!
Rules:
- No NSFW Content
- No Hate Speech or Personal Attacks
- No Ads / Spamming
Self promotion is only allowed in the pinned monthly thread
Communities of Interest:
Apple Hardware
Apple TV
Apple Watch
iPad
iPhone
Mac
Vintage Apple
Apple Software
iOS
iPadOS
macOS
tvOS
watchOS
Shortcuts
Xcode
Community banner courtesy of u/Antsomnia.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Actually it seems you may have made some mistakes in researching causes of viruses. Viruses have infected Windows machines more in the past as it is a larger target, there are far far more Windows users than Apple and Linux users by a large large margin which means you have a higher target for your attack. MacOS makes up about 7% of the operating system market at its peak and Linux hovers are 2-3% so planning a virus to affect one is not a great idea unless.... Microsoft's security started to become so strong that malware developers now have to seek the open vulnerabilities (see op). Since that's not understood we can move on
As far as the article indicates the ad itself was not actually a Google fault whatsoever, it actually appears as a Google ad though. The malware itself is installed by other means entirely but the user themselves, the relation to Google here is that the malware already installed on the machine disguises itself as a Google ad. Really, honestly, read the article next time. This is 100% standard malware attack on an unprotected system.
I'm not sure where I said anything about the reason any of those platforms get viruses because you're right, Windows was often more targeted because its footprint was massive by comparison (whole lotta end users out there, but also tons of domain controllers and enterprise systems running it) - I'm not arguing that.
AMOS itself is distributed in all kinds of ways including phishing, being bundled into crap no-name software, shady ads, tainted torrents, whatever. You still have to be tricked into downloading whatever it is that infects your machine with it.
As to this partially being Google's fault, from the article itself:
In the given example, it sounds like the ad was for Trading View, a pretty popular stock market charting platform, but the ad itself took users to
trabingviews.comand it looked like a clone or Trading View's site or some kind of landing page that purported to be a download for a desktop client. In the Malwarebytes article I share below, the fake URL purporting to be Trading View's website is actuallytradingsview.comI'm not exactly sure where you're getting the idea that this was a fake ad caused by malware pre-existing. These are "legit" Google ads that are bought and paid for and not quality checked by Google before they display them.
Here's the article directly from Malwarebytes, the folks who kindly did the write up the author of the above article is talking about:
https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/threat-intelligence/2023/09/atomic-macos-stealer-delivered-via-malvertising
I think your should read again. You seemed to understand the parts separately but when they came together you got a bit confused
My guy, I don't know what you want from me. A Google ad is purchased in a legitimate manner, but the ad itself actually links to a page where you download malware.
You answered really fast, so you clearly didn't read the actual source material I linked at the bottom - specifically the Distribution section.
It was already explained in the original article. It's not what you want to believe but it is the actual situation and I'm not gonna spend forever writing a response because it won't actually change the fact of you reading things
The "original" article is the one I linked - the one written by the actual security researchers at MalwareBytes who did the research on this malware and then provided the detailed write up (which is what security researchers do). The one shared in the OP is referencing that article.
But it's all good. All you had to do was tell me you can't read and I would've backed out of this thread like 2 responses ago. :) Have a great night!
I mean, at the end of the day the malware is being allowed to install on the computer is it not?
Explicitly by the users negligence, same as any negligent user installing some freeware on windows and ending up with BonziBuddy and 34 search bars in their browser. Or alternately, by clicking "Ignore" on on an alert in their AV and proceeding with the installation anyway.
Sure but actually no as that literally wouldn't be able to happen on windows. Windows will immediately quarantine any flagged files and they won't be able to launch without the user having to jump through some rather extravagant hoops. Since you mentioned bonzibuddy and search bars I'm gonna go ahead and assume you haven't looked at a Windows PC in the last 15 or more years so I guess that would explain your misunderstanding on this subject
My main PC is a windows PC (mainly for video games and music production). I also have a Macbook for my work as a (currently) Lead Systems Automation Engineer for a large global company (14 years in the industry, 3.5 of those was me "taking a break" and going into Infosec specifically to first do endpoint/end-user security, then moving into container and cloud security) a personal Macbook, as well as a few Linux laptops I use to write code and do other tech-related things because I prefer MacOS and Linux for that kind of work. I'm well-exposed to most operating systems and have a working knowledge of how security works, both in a professional setting as well as a personal one.
I mention BonziBuddy and search bars because they're funny and to illustrate a simple point. The reality is that browser hijackers still very much exist (though they're not as prevalent as they used to be because browsers themselves have become more resilient over the years - nowadays, they're usually found in add-ons/extensions because its easier to fly under the radar that way).
For all the shady shit I've done on all of the above platforms, I've never had an issue. Specifically in Windows, Defender - which is still the de facto/standard security tool that comes bundled with Windows under the Windows Security tool suite - has not once flagged malware for me. I've found it with Avast and BitDefender, but Windows Defender simply isn't great for the things I do.
I also run ClamAV on the Macbook for ad-hoc scanning of things I download prior to running them. Why? Because I'm not a negligent user and I do at least the bare minimum in regards to good security practices.
In every one of the above cases/operating systems/platforms, there is always some kind of security tooling or framework involved (whether that's ClamAV on Mac, BitDefender or ClamAV or MalwareBytes or whatever on Windows, SELinux or AppArmor or ClamAV on Linux) that can and should be leveraged if you really want to be "safe."
In the case of AMOS and Macs, users are purposely bypassing Gatekeeper and proceeding without knowing wtf they're installing. As soon as Gatekeeper pops up like that, you should be on alert unless you know the software you're installing isn't signed, trust the source, and are willing to codesign it yourself.
You, on the other hand, clearly seem to have some kind of gripe against Macs (based off of your comments in this now far-too-long comment thread) and that kind of weird quasi-religious brand loyalty (or hatred) is a thing I'll never understand.
The fact that you're out on a public forum, spewing bad info/misinformation really says everything. Not that you care, but I'd have respected you more if you just admitted you were wrong and misread the bit about the Google ads. Instead, you decided to be confidently dumb and jump from hill to hill, prepared to die on each one of them.
I mean that's a lot of words to summarize you didn't really get what's going on. End result there is still no grounds on which to blame Google for any of this and the only one responsible here for protecting the user is Apple. No real way to slice it otherwise but I'll tell you this much, nobody is asking you to defend the biggest company in the world.
I'm not defending shit and frankly, I give up. That "a lot of words to summarize" was an offer of my credentials and experience doing engineering and information security work and you clearly showed, once again, that no one ever actually taught you how to read.
You're either incredibly stupid or trolling for responses and I'm not interested in dealing with either any further.
Yeah you blathered on about nonsense telling me your life story as if it matters. It doesn't, you can't try and throw weight around trying to say you have a more legitimate background and understanding and then be absolutely wrong about something. It's goddam insane, and you should feel bad for trying to manipulate people, it's not going to work with me but there are plenty of other people who do read the comments and you are doing nothing more than being manipulative. So STOP
Alright, quiet down, dummy. Conversation's over and the only thing you'll find by continuing to come back here is me further insulting you for not being able to read a simple sentence, understand it, and then getting all pissy about it when someone calls you on it. Go find an actual Apple fanboy to pull your shit with.
I hate to be the one to point this out for you but, I'm not the one getting pissy. I also have resorted to insulting people. Maybe it's time for you to reflect on this and take a break
An intellectually dishonest take at best. Just toss it on the pile of other undesirable qualities you've been shamelessly displaying in this thread.
You really need to take a deep breath and calm down
Your numbers are off. Apple was 7% of new computer sales but the install base was close to 20% because Macs last longer than PCs.
7% is percent market sale. Not sales. Mac's have very rapid EOL as you can't update to newer versions for reasons of revenue so you will so you will actually see more older PCs running than anything and with Mac's declining sales you will see fewer and fewer as time goes on especially since Intel mac's are losing support already
No, current Macs May have rapid EOL but prior to 2015 Macs were much more upgradable and lasted longer than comparable PCs. The 20% market share was during that period.
I haven’t been subscribed to this community for long. I feel every apple-critical comment gets downvoted a lot, suggesting this is more of an apple_blind_fandom than an apple enthusiast community.
Why can’t we critically object to elements of things we like? Thanks for your comments, I think adding nuance and counterarguments (in a respectful way) adds to this community.
This is a really poor example of a comment to highlight an apple bias. The parent commenter is objectively wrong on the topic; OSX security is similar to Linux security.
Thanks for pointing it out, I am a noob in technology so have no diea.
My point about a very strong bias still stands due to all kinds of experiences in the past though. As I said - I really think in general it is good to even be critical of products we are really fond of.
Care to elaborate on what OSX security and Linux security are?
There have been issues with Apple bot army's on lemmy just as they have on Reddit.
Rather ironic that your post is getting downvoted
It is, isn’t it? Glad that we need to worry about imaginary points even less on this site than on Reddit.