本周的Jackass:Larry Seltzer

拉里·塞尔策(Larry Seltzer)在一篇题为“eWeek”的评论文章中写道:Mac景观:充满空洞的威胁?“:

The verdict is in: OS X is as insecure as anything out there, but somehow nobody — including attackers — cares.


When it first came out in July, Symantec’s report “The Mac OS X Threat Landscape: An Overview” revealed a collection of vulnerabilities and potential attacks that rivaled any major operating system (at least in their shipping versions).

更新版本, released earlier this week, reinforces these conclusions, and in fact things are getting worse.

事实上,赛门铁克的报告很有意思,并且在很大程度上是公平的1它确实列出了各种已知漏洞和针对Mac OS X的潜在攻击区域,但报告中没有任何内容表明整个“集合”可以与任何其他操作系统相媲美该文件也没有表明,自2006年7月报告的初始版本以来,关于Mac OS X的安全性已经变得更糟。

赛门铁克的报告证明,Mac OS X在某种程度上并不是神奇的无懈可击或对安全漏洞的免疫,这是一个从来没有人,只有愚蠢的人所支持的立场Seltzer的逻辑似乎是操作系统无法攻击或易受攻击,而且由于Mac OS X易受攻击,这意味着它与Windows处于相同的位置。

这让Seltzer解释了为什么Mac OS X没有遭受与Windows或其他系统相当数量的实际攻击的问题。

OK! I’m sold! Mac OS X has myriad opportunity for attackSo where are all the attacks? How come there aren’t armies of Mac botnets? Why aren’t there scores of new malware samples for the Mac every day?

The report focuses its attention on the obvious answer, the standard one for this question: The Mac is less popular, so there’s less incentive to write exploits and malware for it. There’s as much reason to believe this as ever, since overall Mac market share hasn’t moved much in the last few years, in spite of stories about its tremendous growth.

第一,什么stories about its tremendous market share growth? Seriously — where are these stories?

其次,鉴于Mac OS X具有约占美国市场份额的6%为什么全球范围内有2%或3%的人,Mac OS X在实际安全漏洞中的份额如何 - 不仅仅是潜在的漏洞,还包括实际的恶意间谍软件,病毒,蠕虫,广告软件等- 是有效的percent? That’s the real question.

如果你的论点是在经济上不可行 - 即为什么任何间谍软件/广告软件作者都会针对Mac OS X而不是垄断大小的Windows市场?— then how do you explain the non-malware Mac software market? Now maybe it’s true — I really don’t know — that Windows has 95 percent of the total OS market share but更多超过95%的软件也许操作系统市场的垄断份额反过来会在软件市场中产生更大比例的不成比例但Mac OS X在恶意软件市场的份额并不仅仅是不成比例的低 - 几乎为零。

And if you’re not talking about economics, if you’re talking about malware written out of spite or maliciousness, or from socially maladjusted frigtards — then it’s even more baffling why Mac OS X’s malware market share hovers near zero (as did the classic Mac OS’s a decade ago)If there’s one firm conclusion to be drawn from the MacBook Wi-Fi hack fiasco in August, it’s that you can get a hell of a lot more attention for a Mac OS X exploit that you never even release or prove actually exists than you can get for an actual released-into-the-wild Windows exploit.


There are even fewer Linux or Solaris systems out there, and they get attacked all the time, both through kernel vulnerabilities and application bugsWhat explains this difference? Perhaps those who research and write attacks are more familiar with Linux and SolarisPerhaps these systems are more likely to be servers and therefore more easily targeted for attack.

如果Mac OS X受到保护,因为它主要不是用作服务器操作系统,那么如何解释Windows的非服务器安全问题呢?

Perhaps these systems are more likely to be business systems and are therefore a better target.


我还是难过All of these explanations make sense, and somehow they’re all unsatisfyingOne thing is clear: Mac users are really lucky so far.

他们不满意因为他们根本没有任何意义Seltzer的结论是,Mac用户只是因为他们一直都是安全的幸运? The explanation that makes sense is the obvious one: that Mac OS X really is more secure and better designed不是这样的完全安全不是这样的完美设计并不是说它完全不受攻击,因为它受到魔法妖精的保护只是它更好。


  1. 仅举一个赛门铁克报告不那么公平和准确的方面的例子,请考虑内核攻击研究部分中的这一段:

    在Blackhat [SIC] 2006, David Maynor and Johnny Cache also demonstrated the possibility of successfully exploiting remote kernel vulnerabilities in wireless drivers to execute a supplied payload. The demonstration was done on a Mac OS X laptopThe payload or exploit used in the attack was never released.

    毋庸置疑,对于那些常规的万博manbetx贴吧读者来说,这个传奇并不是对Mac OS X安全性的严厉控诉“The payload or exploit used in the attack” not only was never released, it was never demonstrated to expert observers. ↩︎

  2. 我真的很喜欢我对“常规”的定义(即non-computer-nerd) person in this one. ↩︎

以前: 'Beta'不是借口
下一个: 针刺