• _bug0ut@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Probably because windows and Linux users aren’t searching for free Mac apps. While I agree that it would probably be difficult to implement an attack like this for Linux (partly because it’s Linux and partly because it’s userbase is generally more technically apt), Windows has been susceptible to viruses since the dawn of time because users just install random shit on autopilot and click through installers without checking what extra bloat is included (which is often malware disguised as an extra third party program). I don’t think I agree that this specifically is Apples fault. No one blames Windows or Linux distros for user error and poor security practices.

    Google’s fault for not vetting the ads they let through? For sure. The users fault for not paying attention while installing the app and just clicking through the request to bypass Gatekeeper and then entering their system password when a pop up randomly asks for it for no discernible reason? Absolutely.

    What should Apple do to fix this? Lock the machine down to the point where users aren’t allowed to have admin privileges on their own machine?

    • The_Mixer_Dude@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • _bug0ut@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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:

        The ads are legitimate and paid for but disguise themselves as the website or software the user is searching for.

        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.com and 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 actually tradingsview.com

        I’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

        • The_Mixer_Dude@lemmus.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think your should read again. You seemed to understand the parts separately but when they came together you got a bit confused

          • _bug0ut@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

            • The_Mixer_Dude@lemmus.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              1 year ago

              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

              • _bug0ut@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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!

                • The_Mixer_Dude@lemmus.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I mean, at the end of the day the malware is being allowed to install on the computer is it not?

                  • _bug0ut@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.

      • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • The_Mixer_Dude@lemmus.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          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

          • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

      • NotSpez@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • NotSpez@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

          • NotSpez@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            It is, isn’t it? Glad that we need to worry about imaginary points even less on this site than on Reddit.