You know how it works. Someone decides to go after Apple in an online post, because putting Apple in the title is sure hit bait. So they create a situation to make it appear that Apple has done wrong, or is doing something that poses a danger to customers, or is vulnerable to danger. Or something or other.

The latest episode of blatant fear-mongering comes from a scribe who writes for the finance section of a major web portal. I prefer not to glorify such blogs with a direct link. If you must, Google it, but it doesn’t deserve a link.

So the latest story is about the Mac’s alleged susceptibility to malware. The article suggests that a new threat has somehow “burst” the bubble of Mac safety, when, of course, it doesn’t. The assumption has been that, of a sudden, the perfect Mac world has become less perfect. But it’s never been perfect.

The theory about the Mac’s new susceptibility to malware mischief is based on a March 6 post from virus researchers at Palo Alto Networks about the arrival of ransomware on the Mac platform. One wonders why the author waited eight days, but maybe to allow most people to forget the original story and how quickly the problem was resolved.

Now ransomware has occurred for years on the Windows platform. When the malware takes control, you are essentially locked out of using your computer unless and until you pay the piper, usually the cybercriminals who did the nasty deed. In this case, the outbreak impacted a Mac BitTorrent client known as Transmission. The infection was named ‘KeRanger.”

How the cybercriminals compromised the Transmission site wasn’t explained. But evidently two infected installers of the app, in the form of DMG files, were posted. Evidently they were signed with a valid app certificate issued to developers by Apple, so they would open under Gatekeeper on a Mac. Once installed, a file is run that, after three days, begins to encrypt some document and data files. The result is that the affected user would have to pay the equivalent of one bitcoin, with an estimated value of approximately $400, to get out from under this infection.

Shortly after being notified of the problem, Apple revoked the compromised certificate and updated XProtect, the antivirus signature feature of recent versions of OS X, to protect against the infected copies of Transmission. The installers were removed from the developer’s site and replaced with clean versions. So while some Mac users may have been harmed, it doesn’t appear to be many.

So, for all practical purposes, the possibility of infection no longer exists. But the article glosses over that fact in a brief sentence, and goes on to provide generic information on how to protect yourself from identity theft. No advice is offered about guarding against an infected app other than instilling security software. If this was meant to sell such apps, it does a poor job.

A better solution would be to be careful about the places you visit online, and the files you download. A BitTorrent app is routinely used to download illegal software and pirated music and movie files. So I suppose one could suggest that the customer deserves the consequences if they choose to go off the beaten track to download apps so they can engage in unethical behavior. But that wouldn’t be fair. The BitTorrent system can also be used for legitimate downloads.

It is quite possible the folks behind Transmission were careless about managing their site and their app’s source code. As of the time I’m writing this column, the site warns users about the problem, and urges them to download the fixed version. Unless someone has hacked their Mac to keep XProtect from updating or even working, nobody should be infected by the compromised version.

And even if you bought commercial antivirus software, it would still take a while for the virus signatures to be updated to guard against a new infection. You’d still be vulnerable until that happens, so it’s not an argument in favor of buying such an app.

More to the point, KeRanger isn’t the first episode of Mac malware. Don’t forget the Flashback Trojan Horse, which reportedly impacted several hundred thousand Macs in 2011, and that wasn’t the first instance either. But Flashback infected Java, which is not an Apple product, and there was little or no discernible damage other than the need to remove the malware. KeRanger compromised Transmission, a third-party app that Apple doesn’t offer in the App Store.

If you want to be especially careful about what you download, stick with the App Store or well-known independent publishers, and you’ll should be safe. But even authorized App Store software has had occasional problems, though they were quickly fixed, and none were as dangerous as the episode involving Transmission.

You’ll also want to be careful about clicking links in your email, even if that email pretends to come from a firm with whom you do business, such as your bank or other financial institution. I also get regular offers of free gift cards from major retailers, and they are equally bogus.

To be realistic, no personal computer can ever be 100% safe. But the Mac is still a far safer place to be than Windows, and no fear-mongering blogger is going to change that. OS X has been around for 15 years now, since 10.0 was released. Mac sales have grown many times since then, but the sky still isn’t falling.

The fight over whether Apple should be forced to somehow unlock an iPhone 5c used by a terrorist — and clearly other iPhones — continues unabated in the media. What would normally be a matter that would be dealt with in court hearings, focusing on obscure technical issues, has played out in the public arena with statements from Apple executives, the director of the FBI, the United States Attorney General and even the President.

To be fair, President Obama didn’t actually discuss the case directly in his recent remarks on the subject at the South by Southwest music and tech conference in Austin, TX. Instead, he tried to be the great mediator, suggesting both sides get together and attempt to devise a solution that would protect individual privacy yet still allow law enforcement the opportunity to secure data that might help them fight criminals, perhaps prevent a possible terrorist attack.

Unfortunately, there are also examples of people talking past one another, and making statements that just aren’t so. That doesn’t help advance a dialog, although it would be better to settle things without having to consider the impact of a court order.

Continue Reading…

As Apple continues to fight the authorities over whether to develop a compromised version of iOS that would defeat encryption protections, some frightening prospects have arisen as to how far this can go. First of all, the claim that it’s all about one iPhone 5c used as a work phone by a terrorist has been shown to be false. In addition to another case in New York City, the authorities are waiting in the wings to unlock other iPhones should Apple lose this fight.

But that’s just the start of it. According to an interview at Univision with Apple VP of Internet Software and Services, Eddy Cue, all of the nightmares about hacking mobile handsets that you see on TV crime procedurals could also come to pass.

But even if Apple provides the requested software, consider this: Right now, if you have iOS 8 or iOS 9 installed, you are given 10 tries to unlock the device via a passcode, which is the method of last resort. If you cannot succeed on the 10th try, the device’s data is erased. Thus ends any attempt to recover the data.

Apple is being asked to remove that protection against brute force logins with a special version of iOS. What this would mean is that a computer could send repeating login requests with different passcode combinations to the iPhone, which is known as a brute force attack. Of course, if it’s locked with a six-digit passcode, it could take days to unlock it, allowing for instant repeats of different potential passcodes. Still, it would present a serious security problem if that new version of iOS got out.

And it would, especially if multiple iPhones were involved. Worse, with the U.S. government’s pretty dismal record of security, it’s quite possible that this “secret” unlocking code would find its way into the wild in short order. So criminals — and some unsavory governments — would also be able to compromise iPhone security. This is a key issue that those who claim it’s just for one iPhone choose to ignore. People who say “I have nothing to hide,” forget who might get access to that data. Hint: It won’t just be the good guys.

Still, the government’s latest response to Apple’s refusal to comply still maintains it’s all about one iPhone. Quite disingenuous I should think.

Now according to Cue, that move, should it succeed, may just be the beginning. Armed with that precedent, it’s possible that the U.S. government could demand that Apple implement all sorts of surveillance schemes on their devices. How many times have you seen a TV show or movie depicting the requisite computer nerd sending down some code and turning on a smartphone’s camera and mic? Imagine if the authorities — or criminals — were able to do the very same thing on your iPhone?

In the original James Bond movies, you’d often see 007 check a hotel room for evidence of hidden surveillance gear. Well, imagine if your smartphone became a surveillance device, and you not only wouldn’t know about it unless you looked real close, but you couldn’t stop it if it happened?

Now some of you might remember that entertaining Will Smith action flick, “Enemy of the State” where he portrays a lawyer being pursued around Washington, D.C. by a rogue government agent (played by Jon Voight). The use all sorts of surveillance gear and manage to track Smith and co-star Gene Hackman to an inch of their lives.

Now in 1998, when this film was released, the prospect of such an intrusive national security state might have seemed a little far-fetched. But if you watch the film today with an open mind, you’ll see how prescient the writers and producers really were. When you consider the Apple versus FBI case, you might see something just as frightening coming true.

It’s early in the game. Apple has a court date the very same week they are holding an Apple media event to introduce some new gear, presumably a 4-inch iPhone and an updated 9.7-inch iPad. But even if Apple doesn’t get the judge’s decision reversed, they will appeal. Even if they win, the government will appeal. This case could drag on for months or years before the U.S. Supreme Court makes a final decision, or knocks it back to the last appellate court to, in effect, affirm their ruling.

I wouldn’t even pretend to know how the courts are going to rule. We already have a Brooklyn-based judge who sided with Apple. Even if the west coast case provides a different conclusion — and the judge doesn’t use the New York case as precedent — it won’t be over.

While I understand the desire to combat terrorism, and chase after criminals, how much of your privacy do you lose if you give the authorities nearly unfettered freedom to look at the stuff you’ve stored on your iPhone? Some of that data is already available courtesy of iCloud backups or cellular phone activity. That ought to be enough. At the end of the day, even if you didn’t mind the government having access, what about the terrifying possibility that those who gain access to your data might be the very criminals Apple once hoped to thwart when they added encryption to the iOS?

In 2010, I acquired a 17-inch MacBook Pro to replace a similar notebook purchased early in the Intel-based Mac era. I had grown so accustomed to using large displays when working in my home office that I wanted to duplicate as much of that experience as possible on the road.

Of course, I had to accept the downsides.

So, although light for a large notebook, that MacBook Pro weighs in at 6.6 pounds. Add to that the stuff that I consider essential, such as a hefty USB mic for on-site recordings, and my filled portable case weighs more than 10 pounds. It may not seem all that heavy, but when you lug it on your shoulder across the long pathways from security check-in to the gate at an airport, it can get to be really painful. Well, maybe I should not have purchased a case with straps that dug in to my shoulders, but this was supposed to be a product that was designed to minimize such symptoms.

In any case, I haven’t traveled all that much in recent years for lots of reasons. So the MacBook Pro doesn’t get a whole lot of use. But I did a couple of upgrades, because the slow hard drive just made routine operations take forever to complete. So I fitted it with a RAM upgrade from Other World Computing, from 4GB to 8GB, and one of their 480GB SSDs. The latter made the real difference, since so many functions depend on the speed of storage devices.

Now I have not felt the urge to replace that MacBook Pro. As a business investment, it wouldn’t make sense even if I had a spare two grand or so on hand for a 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display. But it does appear Apple is hastening the time when this computer will become obsolete.

So as of this week, it’s now a “vintage” product. Thus, it hasn’t been manufactured in more than five years, and is no longer eligible for service at, I presume, an Apple Store. There are two exceptions. If you bought a Mac in California or Turkey, they are eligible for service for up to seven years after being discontinued.

I can certainly understand Apple’s position. It would mean keeping parts on hand to service old hardware, which can represent an added expense. Just as important, it’s still possible to have it repaired, since third party dealers continue to provide service and parts. So I’m not feeling at all abandoned. Indeed, Apple has delivered far better support than I might have expected, since it runs OS X El Capitan with good performance and compatibility.

Even if the MacBook Pro required a brand new logic board or LCD, paying several hundred dollars is a far better choice than buying a new Mac. The RAM has a lifetime guarantee, and the SSD should deliver years of faithful service. So, even if it breaks, I should manage to get several more years of faithful service from it should I invest in a repair. Even when Apple stops delivering OS X updates, I’ll still be able to use the apps I want.

Remember, that my basic needs are Internet access to manage my sites and the server, word processing software for writing, and audio editing apps to record my radio shows.

I realize that some of you would like to see Apple support every single product they’ve manufactured forever, or at least as long as there is a decent user base. I don’t know how many of these MacBook Pros remain in service, but they were built at a time when Mac sales were considerably less than they are today; the total was 13.66 million in 2010. It’s around 20 million now. Even though notebooks account for the vast majority of sales, the 17-inch MacBook Pro was not a huge seller, which surely explains why Apple made the decision to stop building them.

As a practical matter, getting a 15-inch MacBook Pro would lighten the load by more than two pounds. Armed with a smaller case, and being less obsessive about what I take with me, would no doubt account for another pound or so. That would make a fairly big difference when I’m lugging it around. Indeed, I wouldn’t be surprised if Apple came out with a new generation model, perhaps descended from the 2015 MacBook, where weight was reduced by another pound or so.

Obviously an iPad Pro would be a cheaper and lighter alternatives. But it’s just not for me, at least not yet. The lack of apps and functionality makes it impossible to manage my workflow, although I suppose that could change if Apple opens up iOS to allow for additional features that would serve the needs of the broadcaster or podcaster. I cannot, for example, find any equivalent to Rogue Amoeba’s Audio Hijack. Being able to only run two apps at a time is not adequate; Apple should consider a quad-screen feature, managing four apps on an iPad Pro, for the next OS update.

For now, I’ll continue to enjoy my MacBook Pro. It’s in great shape, with only a few surface scratches on the case. I expect when I do sell it, it will command a decent price.