If you have an iPad, watch for malware...

Jstas

...there is apparently new malware out there that disguises itself as an iTunes update email and installs a bit of malware that compromises the iPad and allows unfettered access to all kinds of data.

If you get an unsolicited email to update iTunes, don't do it.

http://www.crn.com.au/News/173074,backdoor-malware-targets-apple-ipad.aspx

Huck344

Thanks for the heads up. My wife has an iPad and has a tendency to load anything that an email tells her to do. I've already taken her laptop in 3 times. Hopefully, this will prevent her from getting the malware!

bigaudiofanatic

Thank you for the info even though I do not have one.

RuSsMaN

Unfettered?

Jstas

RuSsMaN wrote: »

Unfettered?

un·fet·ter (ŭn-fět'ər)
tr.v. un·fet·tered, un·fet·ter·ing, un·fet·ters
To set free or keep free from restrictions or bonds.

RuSsMaN

I know the word, it just sounds, odd.

Jstas

Row ads

audiobliss

Cables do NOT make a difference!

cstmar01

audiobliss wrote: »

Cables do NOT make a difference!

huh?

audiobliss

DSkip wrote: »

But this doesn't make any sense. Apple is invincible when it comes to viruses, isn't it?

cstmar01 wrote: »

huh?

Just doing my part to stir the pot!

AsSiMiLaTeD

Everybody know Apple stuff can't get viruses, that's unpossible!

bigaudiofanatic

They can get viruses BUT people do not know about the coding of unix as much as they know about windows code. This guy just made it because he knew. Basically if you know how to make a virus and know unix they can make a virus for mac.

cnh

Keiko wrote: »

Very possible.

John, the article says Mac users are unaffected, but wouldn't any Apple computer with iTunes installed be susceptible to this malware?

I would be interested in this as we now have an ipod Touch and my daughter is the owner....so itunes is, unfortunately everywhere....it's like the F-n Borg that program...it's main task is to ASSILMILATE anything that is not itunes???

Damn I 'hate' that!!

cnh

Jstas

bigaudiofanatic wrote: »

They can get viruses BUT people do not know about the coding of unix as much as they know about windows code. This guy just made it because he knew. Basically if you know how to make a virus and know UNIX they can make a virus for mac.

No, sorry, that's very wrong. Macs do not use UNIX. They use a flavor of Linux that they have modified to suit their needs. While the basic structure is Linux, they have modified greatly how things are handled. Very many people know UNIX very well. You have to know some level of programming to use UNIX effectively. The problem for virus writers is that UNIX's inherent defense is it's very strong permissions system. Properly set up, there is no way around it unless you have a root disc and access to the console you are trying to break in to. Or, if you can build a package and wage a successful phishing scheme by getting someone to download and install your malware.

You can make a virus for any OS. But if you don't have the permissions to install and run that software, you're getting nowhere. Macs circumvent the permissions system to make life easy for the user. That's all well and good but it comes with inherent issues like weakened security.

Keiko wrote: »

Very possible.

John, the article says Mac users are unaffected, but wouldn't any Apple computer with iTunes installed be susceptible to this malware?

I really have no idea. It may not be so because I don't think the iPad runs MacOS but rather a beefed up version of what is powering the iPhone, iPod and iTouch. I don't follow Macs that much at all. I have never seen them as anything more than a wind-up toy for basic computing needs that the nuclear family would need, built for the consumer. I live and work in commercial environments and there really isn't much that Mac offers that interests me. Well, except for the fiber-channel arrays and xServe stuff. That's some snazzy stuff there for not a whole ton of cash...comparatively.

John30_30

Jstas wrote: »

No, sorry, that's very wrong. Macs do not use UNIX. They use a flavor of Linux that they have modified to suit their needs. While the basic structure is Linux, they have modified greatly how things are handled. Very many people know UNIX very well. You have to know some level of programming to use UNIX effectively. The problem for virus writers is that UNIX's inherent defense is it's very strong permissions system. Properly set up, there is no way around it unless you have a root disc and access to the console you are trying to break in to. Or, if you can build a package and wage a successful phishing scheme by getting someone to download and install your malware.

No, you're wrong, John. Mac OSX is built on BSD, which is straight-up Unix. They have not modified a thing except created that Fisher-Price shell. And that makes those Apple coders geniuses.

Jstas

John30_30 wrote: »

No, you're wrong, John. Mac OSX is built on BSD, which is straight-up Unix. They have not modified a thing except created that Fisher-Price shell. And that makes those Apple coders geniuses.

Ummm, you know what? You keep posting that BS and it's wrong. In 1988, Mac had A/UX which was based on a BSD kernel.

But that fell through and Apple started NeXT in a collaboration with Sun Microsystems. The UNIX based system was POSIX compliant but failed miserably in the market place in all but government applications because of the Government requirement of POSIX compatibility. If anything, that version of the Mac OS was based on Solaris which is System V not BSD.

Macs did not get a new UNIX or Linux based OS until OS X came along and guess what, that's not based on BSD. It had some features of FreeBSD and NetBSD worked in but it was based on the Mach Kernel. Know who made that? It wasn't the Berkley in the Berkley Standard Distribution that BSD stands for. Nope, it was Carnegie Mellon. The programming interface they used to make OS X? OPENSTEP. OPENSTEP was developed by NeXT in a joint project with Sun Microsystems and incorporated much of the Solaris/System V environment.

There is no BSD work in Mac OS. A few features does not qualify as basing the entire OS on BSD. I'm sorry to burst your bubble but Mac OS has more in common with GNUHurd distribution than anything else. GNUHurd is a UNIX-like kernel meant to replace UNIX. It's been under development since 1990. It was developed by the GNU Project of the Free Software Foundation. It's more closely related to a Mandrake release than any UNIX distro.

Sorry, but you're wrong. And you probably think I'm jerk. But I don't care 'cause I destroyed trivia night at my local watering hole and won a gift certificate and tickets to a Phillies game.

John30_30

Jstas wrote: »

Ummm, you know what? You keep posting that BS and it's wrong. In 1988, Mac had A/UX which was based on a BSD kernel.

But that fell through and Apple started NeXT in a collaboration with Sun Microsystems. The UNIX based system was POSIX compliant but failed miserably in the market place in all but government applications because of the Government requirement of POSIX compatibility. If anything, that version of the Mac OS was based on Solaris which is System V not BSD.

Macs did not get a new UNIX or Linux based OS until OS X came along and guess what, that's not based on BSD. It had some features of FreeBSD and NetBSD worked in but it was based on the Mach Kernel. Know who made that? It wasn't the Berkley in the Berkley Standard Distribution that BSD stands for. Nope, it was Carnegie Mellon. The programming interface they used to make OS X? OPENSTEP. OPENSTEP was developed by NeXT in a joint project with Sun Microsystems and incorporated much of the Solaris/System V environment.

There is no BSD work in Mac OS. A few features does not qualify as basing the entire OS on BSD. I'm sorry to burst your bubble but Mac OS has more in common with GNUHurd distribution than anything else. GNUHurd is a UNIX-like kernel meant to replace UNIX. It's been under development since 1990. It was developed by the GNU Project of the Free Software Foundation. It's more closely related to a Mandrake release than any UNIX distro.

Sorry, but you're wrong. And you probably think I'm jerk. But I don't care 'cause I destroyed trivia night at my local watering hole and won a gift certificate and tickets to a Phillies game.

You mention Mach and Carnegie-Mellon like it's a bad thing. CMU is a Geek center of the universe.
If you said there's no BSD work in Mac OS at your local watering hole you'd lose. FreeBSD is BSD, not linux.
OSX book

Also, fwiw, I don't think you're a jerk, you do your trivia homework most of the time and I find alot of your posts informative and entertaining. I'd rather have a friendly argument with you about this stuff that probably doesn't mean anything to anyone else on the forum, than read 75% of the other posts.

Automotive stuff, you win hands down. Woodworking, I'll clean your clock every day of the week. And Wardsweb will clean mine, he's that crazy good, and I had stuff I built published in some magazines back in the day. Computer hardware, maybe too close to call.

Pure BSD? I'll back off that a few steps. You know enough about kernel architecture to get the diagram from that URL?
If you do, you know you're wrong. There's no linux in Mac OSX, and there's tons of BSD permeating the kernel and even its API.
wiki Architecture_of_Mac_OS_X

And if you think linux is some kind of **** or inferior version of Unix, you need to study up on both.
It is no easier nor harder than Unix to corrupt, its permission structure is identical. Also, it is no less stable than Unix, and most flavors are quite a bit more user-friendly as Server OS's.
Here's a good comparison site for linux vs. FreeBSD.

http://www.wikivs.com/wiki/FreeBSD_vs_Linux

You can see how interchangeable they are, yet FreeBSD is BSD.

Jstas

Dude, shut up. I'm not going to argue it with you, you're harping on insignificant points and putting words in my mouth. There is no argument, everything I have stated anyone with a keyboard and a search engine can find what I speak of. I verified all my information before I posted and I have a good deal of knowledge in the UNIX/Linux would from hard earned experience in professional environments. I use several different flavors of Linus and UNIX on a daily basis. I am, how would you say it?...familiar with them.

You also have no clue where my realms of expertise lie. If this is just about a genitalia measuring contest then you can have at it. I'm not going to participate.

Sami

OSX can not be based on Linux for a simple reason, GNU license. BSD license permits commercial use without releasing your source code. If OSX was built on Linux it would require Apple to release their OSX source code to the public. Whether OSX is OpenBSD with add-ons I am not going to debate but if I had to say OpenBSD or Linux, it's definitely OpenBSD.

GNU license is very restrictive, one of its objectives actually since it promotes Open Source Software (OSS). BSD and MIT licenses are quite liberal in contrast.