Hack a Mac, get $10,000
Snit
-----
TippingPoint, which runs the Zero Day Initiative bug bounty
program, is offering to pay $10,000 to the hacker who
commandeers one of two MacBooks. The target computers are
connected to a wireless access point and fully patched,
including the update for 25 vulnerabilities that Apple
released on Thursday.
-----
Any guesses as to how long it will take someone to get the prize? And why
don't we see these type of contests for Windows?
--
€ Nuclear arms are arms
€ OS X's Command+Scroll wheel function does not exist in default XP
€ Technical competence and intelligence are not the same thing
Elijah Baley
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> <http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9710845-7.html>
> -----
> TippingPoint, which runs the Zero Day Initiative bug bounty
> program, is offering to pay $10,000 to the hacker who
> commandeers one of two MacBooks. The target computers are
> connected to a wireless access point and fully patched,
> including the update for 25 vulnerabilities that Apple
> released on Thursday.
> -----
>
> Any guesses as to how long it will take someone to get the prize? And why
> don't we see these type of contests for Windows?
Ok Edwin, Mayor, Zara, Tom Elam, et al, here's your chance to prove how
bad OS X really is. Let us know when you have collected the $10,000.00.
Show us an image of the check. It's put up or shut up time.
Be sure to let us know how you are progressing in your efforts to hack
the Macbooks.
--
"Momma always said, "Stupid is as stupid does."" -Forest Gump
"You can't fix stupid." -Jim White, local radio personality
Edwin
> In article <C24DA557.7DE3F%C...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
>
> Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > <http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9710845-7.html>
> > -----
> > TippingPoint, which runs the Zero Day Initiative bug bounty
> > program, is offering to pay $10,000 to the hacker who
> > commandeers one of two MacBooks. The target computers are
> > connected to a wireless access point and fully patched,
> > including the update for 25 vulnerabilities that Apple
> > released on Thursday.
> > -----
>
> > Any guesses as to how long it will take someone to get the prize? And why
> > don't we see these type of contests for Windows?
>
> Ok Edwin, Mayor, Zara, Tom Elam, et al, here's your chance to prove how
> bad OS X really is. Let us know when you have collected the $10,000.00.
> Show us an image of the check. It's put up or shut up time.
>
> Be sure to let us know how you are progressing in your efforts to hack
> the Macbooks.
What makes you think any of us are malicious hackers who would write
viruses or malware even if we could?
Steve Carroll
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
If you could and were provided a place to do it legally where the payoff is
$10,000, why not?
--
"None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
"You should take one of my IT classes some day." - Snit
Jim
In this particular case you and your cohorts would be "permitted
hackers" and not malicious ones. Besides you'd be $10,000 richer, prove
your point and have all sorts of credibility applied to your arguments
and ranting here in the NG. Just think of the PC you could buy with
$10,000 even the 8 core Mac that's shipping.
Snit
lije-52C464.0...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com on 4/20/07 5:39 AM:
> In article <C24DA557.7DE3F%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> <http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9710845-7.html>
>> -----
>> TippingPoint, which runs the Zero Day Initiative bug bounty
>> program, is offering to pay $10,000 to the hacker who
>> commandeers one of two MacBooks. The target computers are
>> connected to a wireless access point and fully patched,
>> including the update for 25 vulnerabilities that Apple
>> released on Thursday.
>> -----
>>
>> Any guesses as to how long it will take someone to get the prize? And why
>> don't we see these type of contests for Windows?
>
> Ok Edwin, Mayor, Zara, Tom Elam, et al, here's your chance to prove how
> bad OS X really is. Let us know when you have collected the $10,000.00.
> Show us an image of the check. It's put up or shut up time.
>
> Be sure to let us know how you are progressing in your efforts to hack
> the Macbooks.
Not only will they fail... my guess is the money will go unclaimed.
--
€ Deleting from a *Save* dialog is not a sign of well done design
€ A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking
Snit
1177076361.2...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com on 4/20/07 6:39 AM:
Cash.
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ The word "ouch" is not a sure sign of agreement.
Snit
jpolaski-36BF12...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 4/20/07 8:12 AM:
Edwin? Gain credibility? LOL!
Edwin
> In article <1177076361.238298.293...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 20, 7:39 am, Elijah Baley <l...@foundation.org> wrote:
> > > In article <C24DA557.7DE3F%C...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
>
> > > Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > > > <http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9710845-7.html>
> > > > -----
> > > > TippingPoint, which runs the Zero Day Initiative bug bounty
> > > > program, is offering to pay $10,000 to the hacker who
> > > > commandeers one of two MacBooks. The target computers are
> > > > connected to a wireless access point and fully patched,
> > > > including the update for 25 vulnerabilities that Apple
> > > > released on Thursday.
> > > > -----
>
> > > > Any guesses as to how long it will take someone to get the prize? And why
> > > > don't we see these type of contests for Windows?
>
> > > Ok Edwin, Mayor, Zara, Tom Elam, et al, here's your chance to prove how
> > > bad OS X really is. Let us know when you have collected the $10,000.00.
> > > Show us an image of the check. It's put up or shut up time.
>
> > > Be sure to let us know how you are progressing in your efforts to hack
> > > the Macbooks.
>
> > What makes you think any of us are malicious hackers who would write
> > viruses or malware even if we could?
>
> If you could
Why did Elijah assume we could?
> and were provided a place to do it legally where the payoff is
> $10,000, why not?
If I had such criminal skills, and the inclination to use them, I
could get a lot more than $10,000, without publicly revealing myself.
Edwin
> In article <1177076361.238298.293...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 7:39 am, Elijah Baley <l...@foundation.org> wrote:
> > > In article <C24DA557.7DE3F%C...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
>
> > > Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > > > <http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9710845-7.html>
> > > > -----
> > > > TippingPoint, which runs the Zero Day Initiative bug bounty
> > > > program, is offering to pay $10,000 to the hacker who
> > > > commandeers one of two MacBooks. The target computers are
> > > > connected to a wireless access point and fully patched,
> > > > including the update for 25 vulnerabilities that Apple
> > > > released on Thursday.
> > > > -----
>
> > > > Any guesses as to how long it will take someone to get the prize? And why
> > > > don't we see these type of contests for Windows?
>
> > > Ok Edwin, Mayor, Zara, Tom Elam, et al, here's your chance to prove how
> > > bad OS X really is. Let us know when you have collected the $10,000.00.
> > > Show us an image of the check. It's put up or shut up time.
>
> > > Be sure to let us know how you are progressing in your efforts to hack
> > > the Macbooks.
>
> > What makes you think any of us are malicious hackers who would write
> > viruses or malware even if we could?
>
> In this particular case you and your cohorts would be "permitted
> hackers" and not malicious ones.
I would need the mindset and skills of a malicious hacker, and the
only way to get those is to be one.
> Besides you'd be $10,000 richer,
Others would quietly pay a lot more than that to aquire the use of Mac
malware.
> prove
> your point and have all sorts of credibility applied to your arguments
> and ranting here in the NG.
If I put that together with $0.65 I can buy a cup of coffee.
> Just think of the PC you could buy with
> $10,000 even the 8 core Mac that's shipping.
When I think of what I could buy for $10,000, a personal computer is
nowhere to be found on the list.
Snit
>>> What makes you think any of us are malicious hackers who would write
>>> viruses or malware even if we could?
>>
>> If you could
>
> Why did Elijah assume we could?
>
>> and were provided a place to do it legally where the payoff is
>> $10,000, why not?
>
> If I had such criminal skills, and the inclination to use them, I
> could get a lot more than $10,000, without publicly revealing myself.
And yet there is no reason to think anyone *ever* has... not with anything
involving breaking into a Mac.
Funny, eh. Did you realize you were just showing how secure you think Macs
are?
--
€ Different version numbers refer to different versions
€ Macs are Macs and Apple is still making and selling Macs
€ The early IBM PCs and Commodores shipped with an OS in ROM
Peter Hayes
Which of course begs the question why hasn't it been done already if
it's such a profitable line of "work"?
> > Just think of the PC you could buy with
> > $10,000 even the 8 core Mac that's shipping.
>
> When I think of what I could buy for $10,000, a personal computer is
> nowhere to be found on the list.
I'd go along with that... :-)
--
Immunity is better than innoculation.
Peter
Edwin
> "Edwin" <thorn...@juno.com> stated in post
> 1177082724.349244.253...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com on 4/20/07 8:25 AM:
>
> >>> What makes you think any of us are malicious hackers who would write
> >>> viruses or malware even if we could?
>
> >> If you could
>
> > Why did Elijah assume we could?
>
> >> and were provided a place to do it legally where the payoff is
> >> $10,000, why not?
>
> > If I had such criminal skills, and the inclination to use them, I
> > could get a lot more than $10,000, without publicly revealing myself.
>
> And yet there is no reason to think anyone *ever* has... not with anything
> involving breaking into a Mac.
Yes there is. If criminals believe there is money to be had cracking
Macs, they'll do it, and they'll use all the holes Macs have in their
security to do it.
> Funny, eh. Did you realize you were just showing how secure you think Macs
> are?
I did no such thing.
Snit
1hwvo6a.ci1a8bgj9wd1N%noti...@btinternet.com on 4/20/07 8:54 AM:
>>>> What makes you think any of us are malicious hackers who would write
>>>> viruses or malware even if we could?
>>>
>>> In this particular case you and your cohorts would be "permitted
>>> hackers" and not malicious ones.
>>
>> I would need the mindset and skills of a malicious hacker, and the
>> only way to get those is to be one.
>>
>>> Besides you'd be $10,000 richer,
>>
>> Others would quietly pay a lot more than that to aquire the use of Mac
>> malware.
>
> Which of course begs the question why hasn't it been done already if
> it's such a profitable line of "work"?
I noted that as well... I look forward to seeing Edwin's creativity as he
back pedals. :)
Edwin
That question has already been answered. There aren't enough Macs to
make such work profitable. Viruses and malware are too complicated
to write for current OSs just for the thrill of doing it. It takes
the motivation of ill-gotten gains to get those written nowadays.
> > > Just think of the PC you could buy with
> > > $10,000 even the 8 core Mac that's shipping.
>
> > When I think of what I could buy for $10,000, a personal computer is
> > nowhere to be found on the list.
>
> I'd go along with that... :-)
:-)
Snit
> On Apr 20, 10:42 am, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> "Edwin" <thorn...@juno.com> stated in post
>> 1177082724.349244.253...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com on 4/20/07 8:25 AM:
>>
>>>>> What makes you think any of us are malicious hackers who would write
>>>>> viruses or malware even if we could?
>>
>>>> If you could
>>
>>> Why did Elijah assume we could?
>>
>>>> and were provided a place to do it legally where the payoff is
>>>> $10,000, why not?
>>
>>> If I had such criminal skills, and the inclination to use them, I
>>> could get a lot more than $10,000, without publicly revealing myself.
>>
>> And yet there is no reason to think anyone *ever* has... not with anything
>> involving breaking into a Mac.
>
> Yes there is. If criminals believe there is money to be had cracking
> Macs, they'll do it, and they'll use all the holes Macs have in their
> security to do it.
And yet they have not been able to - not with any example you can point to.
Macs must be very, very secure to be able to prevent that, eh?
>> Funny, eh. Did you realize you were just showing how secure you think Macs
>> are?
>
> I did no such thing.
>
I did not say you realized you did so. :)
--
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The path "~/users/username/library/widget" is not common on any OS
€ The term "all widgets" does not specify a specific subgroup of widgets
Snit
>>>> Besides you'd be $10,000 richer,
>>
>>> Others would quietly pay a lot more than that to aquire the use of Mac
>>> malware.
>>
>> Which of course begs the question why hasn't it been done already if
>> it's such a profitable line of "work"?
>
> That question has already been answered. There aren't enough Macs to
> make such work profitable. Viruses and malware are too complicated
> to write for current OSs just for the thrill of doing it. It takes
> the motivation of ill-gotten gains to get those written nowadays.
But $10,000 is not enough. Great!
Even with people artificially inflating the incentive people are not
breaking into Macs. As a Mac user, that means I am much, much safer than
those who use Windows.
Thanks for clearing that up!
--
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ Dreamweaver and GoLive are professional web development applications
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
nospam
> <http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9710845-7.html>
> -----
> TippingPoint, which runs the Zero Day Initiative bug bounty
> program, is offering to pay $10,000 to the hacker who
> commandeers one of two MacBooks. The target computers are
> connected to a wireless access point and fully patched,
> including the update for 25 vulnerabilities that Apple
> released on Thursday.
> -----
>
> Any guesses as to how long it will take someone to get the prize? And why
> don't we see these type of contests for Windows?
>
>
MuahMan
"Jim" <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote in message
news:jpolaski-36BF12...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
I'll pay any Maccie $20,000 to hack my Vista or XP boxes. So when can I
expect it to be hacked Mactards? BRING IT!
MuahMan
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1177083158.5...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
:) Ducati Hyper Motard!!!!! $10K
Steve Carroll
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
I dunno... ask him.
>
> > and were provided a place to do it legally where the payoff is
> > $10,000, why not?
>
> If I had such criminal skills, and the inclination to use them, I
> could get a lot more than $10,000, without publicly revealing myself.
Why, Edwin... is this your testament as to how tough it'd be to hack OSX? ;)
Snit
4/20/07 9:12 AM:
Sure they would... whoever was able to quote some text in a file first.
--
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Snit
HcudnWjzPOJ2e7Xb...@adelphia.com on 4/20/07 9:13 AM:
Make the contest public on a major news site such as news.com.
--
€ Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
€ Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
MuahMan
"Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C24E3854.7DEDC%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
No I don't want to be hacked by the general public. I want to hacked by one
of pyscho gun-toting Maccies!
Jimtard apparently thinks it's easy, and all you Maccies constantly say how
easy it is to hack XP/Vista. So put your money where your mouth is. Who
wants the IP?
>
> --
> ? Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
> ? Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
> ? Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
>
>
>
>
Peter Hayes
> On Apr 20, 10:54 am, notinu...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> > Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 20, 10:12 am, Jim <jpola...@NOync.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Besides you'd be $10,000 richer,
> >
> > > Others would quietly pay a lot more than that to aquire the use of Mac
> > > malware.
> >
> > Which of course begs the question why hasn't it been done already if
> > it's such a profitable line of "work"?
>
> That question has already been answered. There aren't enough Macs to
> make such work profitable.
Yet you claim that "others would quietly pay a lot more than that to
aquire the use of Mac malware." Ergo, it must be a valuable commodity
despite the relatively small number of Macs, meaning "there aren't
enough Macs to make such work profitable" is no answer at all.
The answer, of course, is that it is just too difficult.
Snit
I understand why you would not put your Windows machine in the same position
that Mac is... the risk is just too great. No argument here.
--
€ There is no known malware that attacks OS X in the wild
€ There are two general types of PCs: Macs and PCs (odd naming conventions!)
€ Mac OS X 10.x.x is a version of Mac OS
Edwin
> "Edwin" <thorn...@juno.com> stated in post
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 10:42 am, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> "Edwin" <thorn...@juno.com> stated in post
> >> 1177082724.349244.253...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com on 4/20/07 8:25 AM:
>
> >>>>> What makes you think any of us are malicious hackers who would write
> >>>>> viruses or malware even if we could?
>
> >>>> If you could
>
> >>> Why did Elijah assume we could?
>
> >>>> and were provided a place to do it legally where the payoff is
> >>>> $10,000, why not?
>
> >>> If I had such criminal skills, and the inclination to use them, I
> >>> could get a lot more than $10,000, without publicly revealing myself.
>
> >> And yet there is no reason to think anyone *ever* has... not with anything
> >> involving breaking into a Mac.
>
> > Yes there is. If criminals believe there is money to be had cracking
> > Macs, they'll do it, and they'll use all the holes Macs have in their
> > security to do it.
>
> And yet they have not been able to -
All you know is that nobody has tried.
> not with any example you can point to.
Those who can will not be pointing to their examples.
> Macs must be very, very secure to be able to prevent that, eh?
Security holes do not make a system "very, very secure," nor do they
prevent attacks.
> >> Funny, eh. Did you realize you were just showing how secure you think Macs
> >> are?
>
> > I did no such thing.
>
> I did not say you realized you did so. :)
I did no such thing regardless of what you have to say on the subject.
Edwin
> In article <1177082724.349244.253...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
I did. He doesn't seem inclined to answer.
>
> > > and were provided a place to do it legally where the payoff is
> > > $10,000, why not?
>
> > If I had such criminal skills, and the inclination to use them, I
> > could get a lot more than $10,000, without publicly revealing myself.
>
> Why, Edwin... is this your testament as to how tough it'd be to hack OSX? ;)
Any modern OS is tough to hack. Windows is no cakewalk to hack
either, what you read in this group notwithstanding.
Peter Hayes
> Any modern OS is tough to hack. Windows is no cakewalk to hack
> either, what you read in this group notwithstanding.
When XP was released it was like an old barn with rotting timbers and a
rusty padlock on the door. Gradually over the years the worst of the
timbers have been renewed, and with Vista the padlock has been replaced
with a combination lock.
Snit
> On Apr 20, 11:06 am, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> "Edwin" <thorn...@juno.com> stated in post
>> 1177084658.169477.83...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com on 4/20/07 8:57 AM:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 20, 10:42 am, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> "Edwin" <thorn...@juno.com> stated in post
>>>> 1177082724.349244.253...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com on 4/20/07 8:25 AM:
>>
>>>>>>> What makes you think any of us are malicious hackers who would write
>>>>>>> viruses or malware even if we could?
>>
>>>>>> If you could
>>
>>>>> Why did Elijah assume we could?
>>
>>>>>> and were provided a place to do it legally where the payoff is
>>>>>> $10,000, why not?
>>
>>>>> If I had such criminal skills, and the inclination to use them, I
>>>>> could get a lot more than $10,000, without publicly revealing myself.
>>
>>>> And yet there is no reason to think anyone *ever* has... not with anything
>>>> involving breaking into a Mac.
>>
>>> Yes there is. If criminals believe there is money to be had cracking
>>> Macs, they'll do it, and they'll use all the holes Macs have in their
>>> security to do it.
>>
>> And yet they have not been able to -
>
> All you know is that nobody has tried.
>
>> not with any example you can point to.
>
> Those who can will not be pointing to their examples.
Just as those who hack Windows machines do not advertise the fact, either...
but with Windows it is a relatively common event.
>
>> Macs must be very, very secure to be able to prevent that, eh?
>
> Security holes do not make a system "very, very secure," nor do they
> prevent attacks.
Nor has anyone said so... but as even you have noted, though we may disagree
as to why, folks on the Mac are far, far less likely to be hacked than those
on Windows.
>>>> Funny, eh. Did you realize you were just showing how secure you think Macs
>>>> are?
>>
>>> I did no such thing.
>>
>> I did not say you realized you did so. :)
>
> I did no such thing regardless of what you have to say on the subject.
>
You can believe what you want, Edwin.
Edwin
> Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 20, 10:54 am, notinu...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> > > Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 20, 10:12 am, Jim <jpola...@NOync.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Besides you'd be $10,000 richer,
>
> > > > Others would quietly pay a lot more than that to aquire the use of Mac
> > > > malware.
>
> > > Which of course begs the question why hasn't it been done already if
> > > it's such a profitable line of "work"?
>
> > That question has already been answered. There aren't enough Macs to
> > make such work profitable.
>
> Yet you claim that "others would quietly pay a lot more than that to
> aquire the use of Mac malware."
Criminals who would stand the chance of stealling a large sum of money
would pay for it.
> Ergo, it must be a valuable commodity
> despite the relatively small number of Macs, meaning "there aren't
> enough Macs to make such work profitable" is no answer at all.
Actually it is, because what I was thinking of when I wrote that is
adware, pop-up windows, tracking cookies, etc.
> The answer, of course, is that it is just too difficult.
It's too difficult on Windows as well, but their are enough Windows
users to make it profitable.
Edwin
> Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> > Any modern OS is tough to hack. Windows is no cakewalk to hack
> > either, what you read in this group notwithstanding.
>
> When XP was released it was like an old barn with rotting timbers and a
> rusty padlock on the door. Gradually over the years the worst of the
> timbers have been renewed, and with Vista the padlock has been replaced
> with a combination lock.
It may make Mac Advocate feel good to believe such things, but they're
simply not true.
Edwin
> "Edwin" <thorn...@juno.com> stated in post
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 11:06 am, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> "Edwin" <thorn...@juno.com> stated in post
> >> 1177084658.169477.83...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com on 4/20/07 8:57 AM:
>
> >>> On Apr 20, 10:42 am, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>>> "Edwin" <thorn...@juno.com> stated in post
> >>>> 1177082724.349244.253...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com on 4/20/07 8:25 AM:
>
> >>>>>>> What makes you think any of us are malicious hackers who would write
> >>>>>>> viruses or malware even if we could?
>
> >>>>>> If you could
>
> >>>>> Why did Elijah assume we could?
>
> >>>>>> and were provided a place to do it legally where the payoff is
> >>>>>> $10,000, why not?
>
> >>>>> If I had such criminal skills, and the inclination to use them, I
> >>>>> could get a lot more than $10,000, without publicly revealing myself.
>
> >>>> And yet there is no reason to think anyone *ever* has... not with anything
> >>>> involving breaking into a Mac.
>
> >>> Yes there is. If criminals believe there is money to be had cracking
> >>> Macs, they'll do it, and they'll use all the holes Macs have in their
> >>> security to do it.
>
> >> And yet they have not been able to -
>
> > All you know is that nobody has tried.
>
> >> not with any example you can point to.
>
> > Those who can will not be pointing to their examples.
>
> Just as those who hack Windows machines do not advertise the fact, either...
Yes.
> but with Windows it is a relatively common event.
Because the large number of Windows boxes make the effort worthwhile.
> >> Macs must be very, very secure to be able to prevent that, eh?
>
> > Security holes do not make a system "very, very secure," nor do they
> > prevent attacks.
>
> Nor has anyone said so...
Yes you have. You claim "Macs must be very, very secure to be able
to prevent that" in spite of all of their security holes.
> but as even you have noted, though we may disagree
> as to why, folks on the Mac are far, far less likely to be hacked than those
> on Windows.
Your believe in Mac security seems to rely on some form of magical
abilities...
> >>>> Funny, eh. Did you realize you were just showing how secure you think Macs
> >>>> are?
>
> >>> I did no such thing.
>
> >> I did not say you realized you did so. :)
>
> > I did no such thing regardless of what you have to say on the subject.
>
> You can believe what you want, Edwin.
I know I wasn't showing "how secure I think Macs are," regardless of
what you have to say about anything.
Snit
While we may not agree on the reasons, at least we agree that with Windows
it is relatively common to have them be hacked, and with Macs it is not.
Good to see we are starting from a basic level of agreement.
>
>>>> Macs must be very, very secure to be able to prevent that, eh?
>>
>>> Security holes do not make a system "very, very secure," nor do they
>>> prevent attacks.
>>
>> Nor has anyone said so...
>
> Yes you have. You claim "Macs must be very, very secure to be able
> to prevent that" in spite of all of their security holes.
Your inability to understand what you read is noted: I *never* said *any*
security holes make a system "very, very secure".
>> but as even you have noted, though we may disagree
>> as to why, folks on the Mac are far, far less likely to be hacked than those
>> on Windows.
>
> Your believe in Mac security seems to rely on some form of magical
> abilities...
You are not my spokesperson. What is it with you trolls? Why do you feel
the need to make up beliefs for those you troll? Oh, wait, the answer is
obvious... you want to find flaws with those you troll but you are not
capable.
>
>>>>>> Funny, eh. Did you realize you were just showing how secure you think
>>>>>> Macs
>>>>>> are?
>>
>>>>> I did no such thing.
>>
>>>> I did not say you realized you did so. :)
>>
>>> I did no such thing regardless of what you have to say on the subject.
>>
>> You can believe what you want, Edwin.
>
> I know I wasn't showing "how secure I think Macs are," regardless of
> what you have to say about anything.
>
You have agreed that they are less likely to be hacked. That means Mac
users' system's are more secure. Simple.
--
€ It is OK to email yourself files and store them there for a few weeks
€ No legislation supercedes the Constitution (unless it amends it)
€ Apple's video format is not far from NTSC DVD and good enough for most
Snit
At least you realize Macs are less likely to be compromised by malware or
direct attack. Good to see that level of agreement on this issue.
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ The word "ouch" is not a sure sign of agreement.
Edwin
> "Edwin" <thorn...@juno.com> stated in post
Which means nothing on its own.
> Good to see we are starting from a basic level of agreement.
Nothing has been gained.
>
>
> >>>> Macs must be very, very secure to be able to prevent that, eh?
>
> >>> Security holes do not make a system "very, very secure," nor do they
> >>> prevent attacks.
>
> >> Nor has anyone said so...
>
> > Yes you have. You claim "Macs must be very, very secure to be able
> > to prevent that" in spite of all of their security holes.
>
> Your inability to understand what you read is noted:
You mistakely assume I share your shortcomings.
> I *never* said *any*
> security holes make a system "very, very secure".
Yes you did. Reread above.
> >> but as even you have noted, though we may disagree
> >> as to why, folks on the Mac are far, far less likely to be hacked than those
> >> on Windows.
>
> > Your belief in Mac security seems to rely on some form of magical
> > abilities...
>
> You are not my spokesperson.
Nor do I need to be.
> What is it with you trolls?
What is it with a troll like you calling everybody else trolls?
> Why do you feel
> the need to make up beliefs for those you troll?
I don't.
> Oh, wait, the answer is
> obvious... you want to find flaws with those you troll but you are not
> capable.
You're wrong... as usual.
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>> Funny, eh. Did you realize you were just showing how secure you think
> >>>>>> Macs
> >>>>>> are?
>
> >>>>> I did no such thing.
>
> >>>> I did not say you realized you did so. :)
>
> >>> I did no such thing regardless of what you have to say on the subject.
>
> >> You can believe what you want, Edwin.
>
> > I know I wasn't showing "how secure I think Macs are," regardless of
> > what you have to say about anything.
>
> You have agreed that they are less likely to be hacked. That means Mac
> users' system's are more secure.
No it doesn't.
> Simple.
Yes, you are.
Snit
Your circus is boring.
PC Guy
> <http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9710845-7.html>
> -----
> TippingPoint, which runs the Zero Day Initiative bug bounty
> program, is offering to pay $10,000 to the hacker who
> commandeers one of two MacBooks. The target computers are
> connected to a wireless access point and fully patched,
> including the update for 25 vulnerabilities that Apple
> released on Thursday.
> -----
>
> Any guesses as to how long it will take someone to get the prize? And why
> don't we see these type of contests for Windows?
What a completely lame "contest". When was the last time a Windows system
got hacked merely sitting on a network? Pre-summer 2003 when SP2 was
released?
Snit
NP2dnV6zRbwlgLTb...@comcast.com on 4/20/07 1:09 PM:
Care to make a similar contest with a Vista machine?
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Snit, running again, when he does not reply to every part of post.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
mr-6C24D9.22...@News.Individual.NET on 4/20/07 1:39 PM:
>> Your circus is boring.
>
> Snit, running again, when he does not reply to every part of post.
>
Do you think his circus is interesting? I do not... and a stated so.
Oh, your trolling is noted.
Steve Carroll
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-6C24D9.22...@News.Individual.NET on 4/20/07 1:39 PM:
>
> >> Your circus is boring.
> >
> > Snit, running again, when he does not reply to every part of post.
> >
> Do you think his circus is interesting? I do not... and a stated so.
>
> Oh, your trolling is noted.
He's obviously just pointing out your blatant hypocrisy.
Edwin
> "Edwin" <thorn...@juno.com> stated in post
Due to there not being enough Macs around to make such attacks
worthwhile.
> Good to see that level of agreement on this issue.
I'm glad you agree that the Mac is no more secure from attack than
Windows is.
MuahMan
Of course, you state the obvious. Mac market share is so utterly miniscule
that as a hacker it would be hard to even find a mac at all. Finding a Mac
on the internet is like finding a needle in the worlds biggest haystack!
Edwin
> "MuahMan" <muah...@yahoo.com> stated in post
> yt2dnYSK9foGc7XbnZ2dnUVZ_q-vn...@adelphia.com on 4/20/07 9:45 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Snit" <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> >news:C24E3854.7DEDC%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> >> "MuahMan" <muah...@yahoo.com> stated in post
> >> HcudnWjzPOJ2e7XbnZ2dnUVZ_rikn...@adelphia.com on 4/20/07 9:13 AM:
>
> >>> "Jim" <jpola...@NOync.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:jpolaski-36BF12...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> >>>> In article <1177076361.238298.293...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
No, that would make his risk much less, but how would he eliminate 90%
of the World's Windows boxes, so his Windows machine could be in the
same 5% market share spot the Mac is in?
> No argument here.
You never had any argument, if restrict yourself to counting arguments
that make sense.
Edwin
> "Edwin" <thorn...@juno.com> stated in post
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 7:39 am, Elijah Baley <l...@foundation.org> wrote:
> >> In article <C24DA557.7DE3F%C...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
>
> >> Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>> <http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9710845-7.html>
> >>> -----
> >>> TippingPoint, which runs the Zero Day Initiative bug bounty
> >>> program, is offering to pay $10,000 to the hacker who
> >>> commandeers one of two MacBooks. The target computers are
> >>> connected to a wireless access point and fully patched,
> >>> including the update for 25 vulnerabilities that Apple
> >>> released on Thursday.
> >>> -----
>
> >>> Any guesses as to how long it will take someone to get the prize? And why
> >>> don't we see these type of contests for Windows?
>
> >> Ok Edwin, Mayor, Zara, Tom Elam, et al, here's your chance to prove how
> >> bad OS X really is. Let us know when you have collected the $10,000.00.
> >> Show us an image of the check. It's put up or shut up time.
>
> >> Be sure to let us know how you are progressing in your efforts to hack
> >> the Macbooks.
>
> > What makes you think any of us are malicious hackers who would write
> > viruses or malware even if we could?
>
You mistakenly assume I share your willingness to do anything for cash.
Sandman
> >> Your circus is boring.
> >
> > Snit, running again, when he does not reply to every part of post.
>
> Do you think his circus is interesting? I do not... and a stated so.
Yet when we snip ad ignore your circus, you get upset. Ironic, isn't
it?
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
>>> It's too difficult on Windows as well, but their are enough Windows
>>> users to make it profitable.
>>>
>> At least you realize Macs are less likely to be compromised by malware or
>> direct attack. Good to see that level of agreement on this issue.
>>
>
> Of course, you state the obvious. Mac market share is so utterly miniscule
> that as a hacker it would be hard to even find a mac at all. Finding a Mac
> on the internet is like finding a needle in the worlds biggest haystack!
While we disagree on the reasons, again, it is good we agree Mac users are
simply far, far less likely to be the victim of any form of malware or
direct attack.
That is a clear benefit for Mac users.
Snit
>>> It's too difficult on Windows as well, but their are enough Windows
>>> users to make it profitable.
>>
>> At least you realize Macs are less likely to be compromised by >
>> malware or direct attack.
>
> Due to there not being enough Macs around to make such attacks
> worthwhile.
We can disagree on the reason... just happy to see we agree on the fact.
Thanks.
>
>> Good to see that level of agreement on this issue.
>
> I'm glad you agree that the Mac is no more secure from attack than
> Windows is.
The Mac is less likely to suffer from an attack... not sure how else you
would measure how secure it is. Care to elaborate?
--
€ Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
€ Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
Snit
You circus is boring.
Snit
>>> What makes you think any of us are malicious hackers who would write
>>> viruses or malware even if we could?
>>
>> Cash.
>
> You mistakenly assume I share your willingness to do anything for cash.
>
Your false assumption is noted... and you do things for attention, not cash,
right:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c1feb64fbdbc6257>
"I am just getting hungry or looking for attention:
I eat dog shit to get attention." - Edwin
What a lovely quote from you... care to beg for my attention by claiming it
is "forged" again... even though I linked to the post you authored it? LOL!
--
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Snit
You did not answer the question... but you did spew lies. Funny, eh?
--
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
€ Photoshop is an image editing application
MuahMan
> "MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> stated in post
> cvKdnV6wFIb9sLTb...@adelphia.com on 4/20/07 2:13 PM:
>
>>>> It's too difficult on Windows as well, but their are enough Windows
>>>> users to make it profitable.
>>>>
>>> At least you realize Macs are less likely to be compromised by malware
>>> or
>>> direct attack. Good to see that level of agreement on this issue.
>>>
>>
>> Of course, you state the obvious. Mac market share is so utterly
>> miniscule
>> that as a hacker it would be hard to even find a mac at all. Finding a
>> Mac
>> on the internet is like finding a needle in the worlds biggest haystack!
>
> While we disagree on the reasons, again, it is good we agree Mac users are
> simply far, far less likely to be the victim of any form of malware or
> direct attack.
>
> That is a clear benefit for Mac users.
>
>
Again. You have now stated the same obvious fact three times in a row. You
are insane are likely to go on a shooting rampage at any moment. Seek help
immediately! Mac users are insane....
Yes, of course Macs are less prone to attacks, because there aren't any. No
hacker could find a Mac on the internet, how can you hack something you
can't find?
> --
> ? Teaching is a "real job"
> ? The path "~/users/username/library/widget" is not common on any OS
> ? The term "all widgets" does not specify a specific subgroup of widgets
>
>
>
>
Snit
>
> "Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C24E7F8B.7DF8F%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> "MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> stated in post
>> cvKdnV6wFIb9sLTb...@adelphia.com on 4/20/07 2:13 PM:
>>
>>>>> It's too difficult on Windows as well, but their are enough Windows
>>>>> users to make it profitable.
>>>>>
>>>> At least you realize Macs are less likely to be compromised by malware
>>>> or
>>>> direct attack. Good to see that level of agreement on this issue.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Of course, you state the obvious. Mac market share is so utterly
>>> miniscule
>>> that as a hacker it would be hard to even find a mac at all. Finding a
>>> Mac
>>> on the internet is like finding a needle in the worlds biggest haystack!
>>
>> While we disagree on the reasons, again, it is good we agree Mac users are
>> simply far, far less likely to be the victim of any form of malware or
>> direct attack.
>>
>> That is a clear benefit for Mac users.
>>
>>
>
> Again. You have now stated the same obvious fact three times in a row.
I am glad you agree that it is not only true that Mac users are far less
likely to be the target of such an attack but that you *also* agree that
this is a clear benefit for Mac users.
I agree it is quite obvious... but there are times when people pretend that
Mac users do not have this advantage. Sorry if I have been repetitious, but
I want to make sure we are clearly on the same page here.
Even though you state claims that I disagree with, below, I am happy to see
we can reach at least some level of agreement.
> You are insane are likely to go on a shooting rampage at any moment. Seek help
> immediately! Mac users are insane....
>
> Yes, of course Macs are less prone to attacks, because there aren't any. No
> hacker could find a Mac on the internet, how can you hack something you can't
> find?
Just because you cannot find any does not mean a competent person could not.
--
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The path "~/users/username/library/widget" is not common on any OS
€ The term "all widgets" does not specify a specific subgroup of widgets
Edwin
> "Edwin" <thorn...@juno.com> stated in post
>
> >>> It's too difficult on Windows as well, but their are enough Windows
> >>> users to make it profitable.
>
> >> At least you realize Macs are less likely to be compromised by >
> >> malware or direct attack.
>
> > Due to there not being enough Macs around to make such attacks
> > worthwhile.
>
> We can disagree on the reason...
Only if you wish to ignore the facts.
> just happy to see we agree on the fact.
So we agree on the fact that Macs don't suffer attacks because nobody
is making attacks. If people were making attacks, the Mac would be no
safer than Windows is.
> Thanks.
Your welcome.
>
>
> >> Good to see that level of agreement on this issue.
>
> > I'm glad you agree that the Mac is no more secure from attack than
> > Windows is.
>
> The Mac is less likely to suffer from an attack...
Due to lack of people making attacks.
> not sure how else you
> would measure how secure it is. Care to elaborate?
By whether or not it has vulnerabilities. The Mac has truckloads of
them.
My door is secure because I lock it. Not because it's an Apple door
without a lock that nobody but me has tried to open yet.
Snit
> On Apr 20, 4:34 pm, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> "Edwin" <thorn...@juno.com> stated in post
>> 1177103681.072771.130...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com on 4/20/07 2:14 PM:
>>
>>>>> It's too difficult on Windows as well, but their are enough Windows
>>>>> users to make it profitable.
>>
>>>> At least you realize Macs are less likely to be compromised by
>>>> >
>>>> malware or direct attack.
>>
>>> Due to there not being enough Macs around to make such attacks
>>> worthwhile.
>>
>> We can disagree on the reason...
>
> Only if you wish to ignore the facts.
Your view of what is "fact", in general, is irrelevant.
>> just happy to see we agree on the fact.
>
> So we agree on the fact that Macs don't suffer attacks
Yes... though we disagree on the reasons. You state your views, below:
> because nobody is making attacks. If people were making attacks, the Mac
> would be no safer than Windows is.
Can you show support for this? Heck, people offer money for folks to make
such attacks!
>
>> Thanks.
>
> Your welcome.
>
>>
>>
>>>> Good to see that level of agreement on this issue.
>>
>>> I'm glad you agree that the Mac is no more secure from attack than
>>> Windows is.
>>
>> The Mac is less likely to suffer from an attack...
>
> Due to lack of people making attacks.
That may be a *part* of the reason. OK.
>> not sure how else you would measure how secure it is. Care to elaborate?
>
> By whether or not it has vulnerabilities. The Mac has truckloads of
> them.
How do *you* rate the danger of such vulnerabilities?
>
> My door is secure because I lock it. Not because it's an Apple door
> without a lock that nobody but me has tried to open yet.
If you think it is easy to break into a Mac, earn yourself a quick $10,000.
Easy money, right?
--
€ Deleting from a *Save* dialog is not a sign of well done design
€ A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking
Edwin
> "MuahMan" <muah...@yahoo.com> stated in post
>
> >>> It's too difficult on Windows as well, but their are enough Windows
> >>> users to make it profitable.
>
> >> At least you realize Macs are less likely to be compromised by malware or
> >> direct attack. Good to see that level of agreement on this issue.
>
> > Of course, you state the obvious. Mac market share is so utterly miniscule
> > that as a hacker it would be hard to even find a mac at all. Finding a Mac
> > on the internet is like finding a needle in the worlds biggest haystack!
>
> While we disagree on the reasons, again, it is good we agree Mac users are
> simply far, far less likely to be the victim of any form of malware or
> direct attack.
We can agree that the small number of Mac users does not make for an
attactive target.
> That is a clear benefit for Mac users.
So you have found benefit in obscurity. Good for you.
In the meantime, Windows will continue doing the Work of the World
(tm), and so suffer the criminal attacks that any prosperous and
industrious group is bound to attact. It is the penalty of greatness.
Snit
> On Apr 20, 4:32 pm, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> "MuahMan" <muah...@yahoo.com> stated in post
>> cvKdnV6wFIb9sLTbnZ2dneKdnZydn...@adelphia.com on 4/20/07 2:13 PM:
>>
>>>>> It's too difficult on Windows as well, but their are enough Windows
>>>>> users to make it profitable.
>>
>>>> At least you realize Macs are less likely to be compromised by malware or
>>>> direct attack. Good to see that level of agreement on this issue.
>>
>>> Of course, you state the obvious. Mac market share is so utterly miniscule
>>> that as a hacker it would be hard to even find a mac at all. Finding a Mac
>>> on the internet is like finding a needle in the worlds biggest haystack!
>>
>> While we disagree on the reasons, again, it is good we agree Mac users are
>> simply far, far less likely to be the victim of any form of malware or
>> direct attack.
>
> We can agree that the small number of Mac users does not make for an
> attactive target.
The Macs smaller market share, I would agree, plays a part. We disagree on
how large of a part, but I am OK with such a disagreement. As I said, I am
just happy to see you acknowledge this clear benefit for Mac users... the
lower risk of having their systems compromised.
>> That is a clear benefit for Mac users.
>
> So you have found benefit in obscurity. Good for you.
>
> In the meantime, Windows will continue doing the Work of the World
> (tm), and so suffer the criminal attacks that any prosperous and
> industrious group is bound to attact. It is the penalty of greatness.
Are you trying to excuse why you and the other trolls often troll me and
others who are acting in an honest and honorable way?
Edwin
> "Edwin" <thorn...@juno.com> stated in post
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 4:34 pm, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> "Edwin" <thorn...@juno.com> stated in post
> >> 1177103681.072771.130...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com on 4/20/07 2:14 PM:
>
> >>>>> It's too difficult on Windows as well, but their are enough Windows
> >>>>> users to make it profitable.
>
> >>>> At least you realize Macs are less likely to be compromised by
>
> >>>> malware or direct attack.
>
> >>> Due to there not being enough Macs around to make such attacks
> >>> worthwhile.
>
> >> We can disagree on the reason...
>
> > Only if you wish to ignore the facts.
>
> Your view of what is "fact", in general, is irrelevant.
Says the guy who wouldn't know a fact if he fell over one.
> >> just happy to see we agree on the fact.
>
> > So we agree on the fact that Macs don't suffer attacks because > > nobody is making attacks.
>
> Yes...
Thank you.
> though we disagree on the reasons. You state your views, below:
>
> > If people were making attacks, the Mac
> > would be no safer than Windows is.
>
> Can you show support for this?
You need support to show the Mac has a 2.5% market share?
> Heck, people offer money for folks to make
> such attacks!
Because there's no folks around doing it! They have to bribe them to
do it.
>
>
> >> Thanks.
>
> > Your welcome.
>
> >>>> Good to see that level of agreement on this issue.
>
> >>> I'm glad you agree that the Mac is no more secure from attack than
> >>> Windows is.
>
> >> The Mac is less likely to suffer from an attack...
>
> > Due to lack of people making attacks.
>
> That may be a *part* of the reason. OK.
That's the whole of the reason. Unless you think some sort of magic
is keeping anybody from using Mac security holes.
> >> not sure how else you would measure how secure it is. Care to elaborate?
>
> > By whether or not it has vulnerabilities. The Mac has truckloads of
> > them.
>
> How do *you* rate the danger of such vulnerabilities?
By whether or not they exist.
> > My door is secure because I lock it. Not because it's an Apple door
> > without a lock that nobody but me has tried to open yet.
>
> If you think it is easy to break into a Mac, earn yourself a quick $10,000.
> Easy money, right?
I didn't say it was easy, just that nobody is doing it.
Wayne Stuart
> <http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9710845-7.html>
> -----
> TippingPoint, which runs the Zero Day Initiative bug bounty
> program, is offering to pay $10,000 to the hacker who
> commandeers one of two MacBooks. The target computers are
> connected to a wireless access point and fully patched,
> including the update for 25 vulnerabilities that Apple
> released on Thursday.
> -----
>
> Any guesses as to how long it will take someone to get the prize? And why
> don't we see these type of contests for Windows?
One down, one to go...
<http://cansecwest.com/post/2007-04-20-14:54:00.First_Mac_Hacked>
One OSX box has been owned! At this point all we can say is there is an
exploitable flaw in Safari which can be triggered within a malicious web
page. Of course all of the latest security patches have been applied.
This one is 0day folks. Technical details will be forthcoming as the
winner works out the release. There is still one more Mac to go. (the
same flaw cannot be used again, but other Safari bugs are allowed)
Just to review the rules, the first box required a flaw that allows the
attacker to get a shell with user level privilages. The second box,
still up for grabs, requires the same, plus the attacker needs to get
root.
Oops!
--
This message was brought to you by Wayne Stuart - Have a nice day!
Snit
> On Apr 20, 5:32 pm, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> "Edwin" <thorn...@juno.com> stated in post
>> 1177108049.310458.147...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com on 4/20/07 3:27 PM:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 20, 4:34 pm, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> "Edwin" <thorn...@juno.com> stated in post
>>>> 1177103681.072771.130...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com on 4/20/07 2:14 PM:
>>
>>>>>>> It's too difficult on Windows as well, but their are enough Windows
>>>>>>> users to make it profitable.
>>
>>>>>> At least you realize Macs are less likely to be compromised by
>>
>>>>>> malware or direct attack.
>>
>>>>> Due to there not being enough Macs around to make such attacks
>>>>> worthwhile.
>>
>>>> We can disagree on the reason...
>>
>>> Only if you wish to ignore the facts.
>>
>> Your view of what is "fact", in general, is irrelevant.
>
> Says the guy who wouldn't know a fact if he fell over one.
Your trolling is noted.
>
>>>> just happy to see we agree on the fact.
>>
>>> So we agree on the fact that Macs don't suffer attacks because > >
>>> nobody is making attacks.
>>
>> Yes... though we disagree on the reasons. You state your views, below:
>
> Thank you.
You are welcome... (I put the sentence back together that you, I would hope,
accidentally snipped in half)
>>
>>
>>> If people were making attacks, the Mac
>>> would be no safer than Windows is.
>>
>> Can you show support for this?
>
> You need support to show the Mac has a 2.5% market share?
Sure... but I would prefer if you would first support your claim that you
state, above:
If people were making attacks, the Mac would be no safer than
Windows is.
Why did you move the goal posts?
>> Heck, people offer money for folks to make such attacks!
>
> Because there's no folks around doing it! They have to bribe them to
> do it.
LOL! That is... an interesting take on things. Funny... thanks!
>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>
>>> Your welcome.
>>
>>>>>> Good to see that level of agreement on this issue.
>>
>>>>> I'm glad you agree that the Mac is no more secure from attack than
>>>>> Windows is.
>>
>>>> The Mac is less likely to suffer from an attack...
>>
>>> Due to lack of people making attacks.
>>
>> That may be a *part* of the reason. OK.
>
> That's the whole of the reason. Unless you think some sort of magic
> is keeping anybody from using Mac security holes.
Thanks for sharing your views on this... I find them funny.
>>>> not sure how else you would measure how secure it is. Care to elaborate?
>>
>>> By whether or not it has vulnerabilities. The Mac has truckloads of
>>> them.
>>
>> How do *you* rate the danger of such vulnerabilities?
>
> By whether or not they exist.
OK... I accept that is how you do it. People who are knowledgeable on the
topic realize not all vulnerabilities are of the same level of danger.
>>> My door is secure because I lock it. Not because it's an Apple door
>>> without a lock that nobody but me has tried to open yet.
>>
>> If you think it is easy to break into a Mac, earn yourself a quick $10,000.
>> Easy money, right?
>
> I didn't say it was easy, just that nobody is doing it.
>
Even when they are offered money? Um... OK. Thanks for sharing your views
on that.
--
€ It is OK to email yourself files and store them there for a few weeks
€ No legislation supercedes the Constitution (unless it amends it)
€ Apple's video format is not far from NTSC DVD and good enough for most
PC Guy
wrote:
>"PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> stated in post
>NP2dnV6zRbwlgLTb...@comcast.com on 4/20/07 1:09 PM:
>
>>
>> "Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
>> news:C24DA557.7DE3F%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>>> <http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9710845-7.html>
>>> -----
>>> TippingPoint, which runs the Zero Day Initiative bug bounty
>>> program, is offering to pay $10,000 to the hacker who
>>> commandeers one of two MacBooks. The target computers are
>>> connected to a wireless access point and fully patched,
>>> including the update for 25 vulnerabilities that Apple
>>> released on Thursday.
>>> -----
>>>
>>> Any guesses as to how long it will take someone to get the prize? And why
>>> don't we see these type of contests for Windows?
>>
>> What a completely lame "contest". When was the last time a Windows system
>> got hacked merely sitting on a network? Pre-summer 2003 when SP2 was
>> released?
>>
>Care to make a similar contest with a Vista machine?
I believe that someone in this forum has already proposed that at
twice the bounty and all you can do is make excuses. So what would be
the point?
Edwin
> "MuahMan" <muah...@yahoo.com> stated in post
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Snit" <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> >news:C24E7F8B.7DF8F%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...> >> cvKdnV6wFIb9sLTbnZ2dneKdnZydn...@adelphia.com on 4/20/07 2:13 PM:
>
> >>>>> It's too difficult on Windows as well, but their are enough Windows
> >>>>> users to make it profitable.
>
> >>>> At least you realize Macs are less likely to be compromised by malware
> >>>> or
> >>>> direct attack. Good to see that level of agreement on this issue.
>
> >>> Of course, you state the obvious. Mac market share is so utterly
> >>> miniscule
> >>> that as a hacker it would be hard to even find a mac at all. Finding a
> >>> Mac
> >>> on the internet is like finding a needle in the worlds biggest haystack!
>
> >> While we disagree on the reasons, again, it is good we agree Mac users are
> >> simply far, far less likely to be the victim of any form of malware or
> >> direct attack.
We can agree the lack of attackers makes for a lack of attacks. Sort
of like how a little town in the middle of Kansas doesn't have street
gangs, or bank robbers, etc.
> >> That is a clear benefit for Mac users.
>
> > Again. You have now stated the same obvious fact three times in a row.
>
> I am glad you agree that it is not only true that Mac users are far less
> likely to be the target of such an attack but that you *also* agree that
> this is a clear benefit for Mac users.
Yes, he can see how obscurity has benefitted you. Now all you have
to do is try to talk as many people as you can out of buying Macs, so
you don't risk losing your "clear benefit."
> I agree it is quite obvious... but there are times when people pretend that
> Mac users do not have this advantage. Sorry if I have been repetitious, but
> I want to make sure we are clearly on the same page here.
>
> Even though you state claims that I disagree with, below, I am happy to see
> we can reach at least some level of agreement.
We can agree that the obscurity of the Mac doesn't make it an
attractive target for attackers.
> > You are insane are likely to go on a shooting rampage at any moment. Seek help
> > immediately! Mac users are insane....
>
> > Yes, of course Macs are less prone to attacks, because there aren't any. No
> > hacker could find a Mac on the internet, how can you hack something you can't
> > find?
>
> Just because you cannot find any does not mean a competent person > could not.
Why would he bother?
Snit
1hww76u.llnniu9foe61N%m...@privacy.net on 4/20/07 3:44 PM:
Ouch!
Snit
I do not believe anyone in this forum has made such a proposal... one where
it is announced on a well known site such as the Mac one was. By the way...
check the site to see how the Mac contest is going. :)
Snit
You cannot tell me what I agree with in the absence of my making such a
claim. You are not my spokesperson.
Edwin
> "Edwin" <thorn...@juno.com> stated in post
>
> >>> What makes you think any of us are malicious hackers who would write
> >>> viruses or malware even if we could?
>
> >> Cash.
>
> > You mistakenly assume I share your willingness to do anything for cash.
>
> Your false assumption is noted...
I made no false assumption. You gave cash as a reason to commit
criminal acts, I did not.
> and you do things for attention, not cash,
You mistakenly assume I share your motivations.
[snip of Snit's lies and forgeries]
PC Guy
wrote:
Why does it have to be announced on a well known site?
> By the way... check the site to see how the Mac contest is going. :)
As far as I can tell it isn't going. That's the problem: Very few
people are interested.
Snit
> On Apr 20, 4:35 pm, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> "Edwin" <thorn...@juno.com> stated in post
>> 1177104057.242673.231...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com on 4/20/07 2:20 PM:
>>
>>>>> What makes you think any of us are malicious hackers who would write
>>>>> viruses or malware even if we could?
>>
>>>> Cash.
>>
>>> You mistakenly assume I share your willingness to do anything for cash.
>>
>> Your false assumption is noted...
>
> I made no false assumption.
Ok, you made no false assumption, you simply lied... and you quote it,
above. You dishonestly claimed I would do "anything for case". That is a
bald-faced lie. You, Edwin, are a liar.
Clear enough for you?
> You gave cash as a reason to commit
> criminal acts, I did not.
Yeah, criminals not care about money.
>> and you do things for attention, not cash,
>
> You mistakenly assume I share your motivations.
>
> [snip of Snit's lies and forgeries]
>
You snipped your own quote:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c1feb64fbdbc6257>
"I am just getting hungry or looking for attention:
I eat dog shit to get attention." - Edwin
You sure do run from your own words a lot... and you lied, again, when you
called it a forgery on *my* part.
PC Guy
wrote:
Assuming this is true will you finally acknowledge that the Macs low
market share doesn't offer enough incentive for malware authors to
target the platform and therefore the Macs "security" reputation is
built up obscurity rather than some inherent design characteristic?
Snit
For amazingly obvious reasons: the more people who see the offer the more
people who will try.
>> By the way... check the site to see how the Mac contest is going. :)
>
> As far as I can tell it isn't going. That's the problem: Very few
> people are interested.
Check the site again. :)
--
€ Nuclear arms are arms
€ OS X's Command+Scroll wheel function does not exist in default XP
€ Technical competence and intelligence are not the same thing
PC Guy
wrote:
But the offer isn't open to people over the Internet. From what I can
tell it's only available to people attending the conference. Therefore
I fail to see why publishing to a "well known site" would make the it
a comparable challenge.
>>> By the way... check the site to see how the Mac contest is going. :)
>>
>> As far as I can tell it isn't going. That's the problem: Very few
>> people are interested.
>
>Check the site again. :)
I saw that. Will you finally admit that, given sufficient incentive,
people will target the Macintosh?
Snit
I would not jump to unsupported conclusions, no... though I would say I am
surprised and disappointed.
Snit
>>>> I do not believe anyone in this forum has made such a proposal... one where
>>>> it is announced on a well known site such as the Mac one was.
>>>
>>> Why does it have to be announced on a well known site?
>>
>> For amazingly obvious reasons: the more people who see the offer the more
>> people who will try.
>
> But the offer isn't open to people over the Internet. From what I can
> tell it's only available to people attending the conference. Therefore
> I fail to see why publishing to a "well known site" would make the it
> a comparable challenge.
Ah, I stand corrected. OK, have the Windows machine contest for a similar
convention... one which attracts security specialists.
>
>>>> By the way... check the site to see how the Mac contest is going. :)
>>>
>>> As far as I can tell it isn't going. That's the problem: Very few
>>> people are interested.
>>
>> Check the site again. :)
>
> I saw that. Will you finally admit that, given sufficient incentive,
> people will target the Macintosh?
When have I ever disagreed with that?
PC Guy
wrote:
Why would this time be any different.
> though I would say I am surprised and disappointed.
Why? People have been telling Mactards for YEARS that the Mac is not
secure.
PC Guy
wrote:
>"PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> stated in post
>ahhi23tg2tsovca1r...@4ax.com on 4/20/07 4:03 PM:
>
>>>>> I do not believe anyone in this forum has made such a proposal... one where
>>>>> it is announced on a well known site such as the Mac one was.
>>>>
>>>> Why does it have to be announced on a well known site?
>>>
>>> For amazingly obvious reasons: the more people who see the offer the more
>>> people who will try.
>>
>> But the offer isn't open to people over the Internet. From what I can
>> tell it's only available to people attending the conference. Therefore
>> I fail to see why publishing to a "well known site" would make the it
>> a comparable challenge.
>
>Ah, I stand corrected. OK, have the Windows machine contest for a similar
>convention... one which attracts security specialists.
Why? Isn't the Mactards claim that Windows is so full of holes that
even a Mactard could compromise it? Take him up on his $20K offer. The
Mactards were clamouring on about how $10K should be enough incentive
and here he is offering TWICE that and not a single taker. Hmm???
>>
>>>>> By the way... check the site to see how the Mac contest is going. :)
>>>>
>>>> As far as I can tell it isn't going. That's the problem: Very few
>>>> people are interested.
>>>
>>> Check the site again. :)
>>
>> I saw that. Will you finally admit that, given sufficient incentive,
>> people will target the Macintosh?
>
>When have I ever disagreed with that?
Your insistance that OS X has some inherent security technology baked
in which prevents it from being exploited.
Snit
As I said, it would not. If you think otherwise feel free to point out
times I have.
>> though I would say I am surprised and disappointed.
>
> Why? People have been telling Mactards for YEARS that the Mac is not
> secure.
Who says that in general it is not?
--
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
nospam
> I'll pay any Maccie $20,000 to hack my Vista or XP boxes. So when can I
> expect it to be hacked Mactards? BRING IT!
>
In order to set up a thing like that you have to have the credibility
that you have the 20,000 to pay up.
Edwin
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-245E95.23280520042...@News.Individual.NET on 4/20/07 2:28 PM:
>
> > In article <C24E74E8.7DF64%C...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Your circus is boring.
>
> >>> Snit, running again, when he does not reply to every part of post.
>
> >> Do you think his circus is interesting? I do not... and a stated so.
>
> > Yet when we snip ad ignore your circus, you get upset. Ironic, isn't
> > it?
>
> You did not answer the question...
If you won't answer questions from others, why should anybody answer
your questions?
> but you did spew lies.
"You" means "Snit" above.
> Funny, eh?
Yes, you are.
Snit
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:06:34 -0700, Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> stated in post
>> ahhi23tg2tsovca1r...@4ax.com on 4/20/07 4:03 PM:
>>
>>>>>> I do not believe anyone in this forum has made such a proposal... one
>>>>>> where
>>>>>> it is announced on a well known site such as the Mac one was.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why does it have to be announced on a well known site?
>>>>
>>>> For amazingly obvious reasons: the more people who see the offer the more
>>>> people who will try.
>>>
>>> But the offer isn't open to people over the Internet. From what I can
>>> tell it's only available to people attending the conference. Therefore
>>> I fail to see why publishing to a "well known site" would make the it
>>> a comparable challenge.
>>
>> Ah, I stand corrected. OK, have the Windows machine contest for a similar
>> convention... one which attracts security specialists.
>
> Why? Isn't the Mactards claim that Windows is so full of holes that
> even a Mactard could compromise it?
I have no idea what your imaginary friends tell you. I know *I* have never
said that.
> Take him up on his $20K offer. The Mactards were clamouring on about how $10K
> should be enough incentive and here he is offering TWICE that and not a single
> taker. Hmm???
Is he offering that to a group of security specialists? Is he willing to
visit any website people point him to? Does he talk to your imaginary
friends?
>>>>>> By the way... check the site to see how the Mac contest is going. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as I can tell it isn't going. That's the problem: Very few
>>>>> people are interested.
>>>>
>>>> Check the site again. :)
>>>
>>> I saw that. Will you finally admit that, given sufficient incentive,
>>> people will target the Macintosh?
>>
>> When have I ever disagreed with that?
>
> Your insistance that OS X has some inherent security technology baked
> in which prevents it from being exploited.
When do you believe I have said that? Quote me. Please.
nospam
> "nospam" <nospa...@iol.ie> stated in post f0aop3$rhm$2...@aioe.org on
> 4/20/07 9:12 AM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> <http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9710845-7.html>
>>> -----
>>> TippingPoint, which runs the Zero Day Initiative bug bounty
>>> program, is offering to pay $10,000 to the hacker who
>>> commandeers one of two MacBooks. The target computers are
>>> connected to a wireless access point and fully patched,
>>> including the update for 25 vulnerabilities that Apple
>>> released on Thursday.
>>> -----
>>>
>>> Any guesses as to how long it will take someone to get the prize? And why
>>> don't we see these type of contests for Windows?
>>>
>>>
>
> Sure they would... whoever was able to quote some text in a file first.
>
>
So it would be more about who could get the email off fastest them!
nospam
> No I don't want to be hacked by the general public. I want to hacked by
> one of pyscho gun-toting Maccies!
Your private fantasies are not really appropriate for a comp. newsgroup...
Edwin
> "Edwin" <thorn...@juno.com> stated in post
Turnabout is fairplay. You're only getting back what you dish out.
Snit
4/20/07 4:22 PM:
:)
--
€ Deleting from a *Save* dialog is not a sign of well done design
€ A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking
Snit
Your trolling is noted.
--
€ Different version numbers refer to different versions
€ Macs are Macs and Apple is still making and selling Macs
€ The early IBM PCs and Commodores shipped with an OS in ROM
PC Guy
wrote:
Not that I'm aware of. Why does it make a difference?
> Is he willing to visit any website people point him to? Does he talk to your imaginary
>friends?
Not sure. I am. Can you give me some?
>>>>>>> By the way... check the site to see how the Mac contest is going. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As far as I can tell it isn't going. That's the problem: Very few
>>>>>> people are interested.
>>>>>
>>>>> Check the site again. :)
>>>>
>>>> I saw that. Will you finally admit that, given sufficient incentive,
>>>> people will target the Macintosh?
>>>
>>> When have I ever disagreed with that?
>>
>> Your insistance that OS X has some inherent security technology baked
>> in which prevents it from being exploited.
>
>When do you believe I have said that? Quote me. Please.
Who said you said it? It's your attitude that's sending that message.
nospam
>> While we may not agree on the reasons, at least we agree that with Windows
>> it is relatively common to have them be hacked, and with Macs it is not.
>
> Which means nothing on its own.
Means what it says.
PC Guy
wrote:
This thread would be a prime example of this attitude. Otherwise why
bother having posted about the contest? Hell, why bother having the
contest in the first place.
As it is Mactards can no longer claim that OS X has not been
compromised. But I'm sure over time this will be erased from their
memory and such claims will again surface.
PC Guy
I'll give you $20 if you can hack into my Vista system.
Snit
>> You cannot tell me what I agree with in the absence of my making such a
>> claim. You are not my spokesperson.
>
> Turnabout is fairplay. You're only getting back what you dish out.
Examples? Please!
--
€ There is no known malware that attacks OS X in the wild
€ There are two general types of PCs: Macs and PCs (odd naming conventions!)
€ Mac OS X 10.x.x is a version of Mac OS
Snit
>>>> Just because you cannot find any does not mean a competent person > could
>>>> not.
>>
>>> Why would he bother?
>>
>> You cannot tell me what I agree with in the absence of my making such a
>> claim. You are not my spokesperson.
>
> Turnabout is fairplay. You're only getting back what you dish out.
At least you admit that my characterization of your actions is correct.
Edwin
> "Edwin" <thorn...@juno.com> stated in post
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 4:32 pm, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> "MuahMan" <muah...@yahoo.com> stated in post
>
> >>>>> It's too difficult on Windows as well, but their are enough Windows
> >>>>> users to make it profitable.
>
> >>>> At least you realize Macs are less likely to be compromised by malware or
> >>>> direct attack. Good to see that level of agreement on this issue.
>
> >>> Of course, you state the obvious. Mac market share is so utterly miniscule
> >>> that as a hacker it would be hard to even find a mac at all. Finding a Mac
> >>> on the internet is like finding a needle in the worlds biggest haystack!
>
> >> While we disagree on the reasons, again, it is good we agree Mac users are
> >> simply far, far less likely to be the victim of any form of malware or
> >> direct attack.
>
> > attactive target.
>
> The Macs smaller market share, I would agree, plays a part.
The part that counts.
> We disagree on
> how large of a part, but I am OK with such a disagreement. As I said, I am
> just happy to see you acknowledge this clear benefit for Mac users... the
> lower risk of having their systems compromised.
The thing we must do is to discourage as many people as possible from
buying Macs. We have to keep its market share from going higher than
2.5%, to avoid drawing the attention of attackers, which would strip
the Mac of its "clear benefit." In fact, the benefit would become
even clearer if we could get Mac market share to drop to 1%.
You have your work cut out for you.
> >> That is a clear benefit for Mac users.
>
> > So you have found benefit in obscurity. Good for you.
>
> > In the meantime, Windows will continue doing the Work of the World
> > (tm), and so suffer the criminal attacks that any prosperous and
> > industrious group is bound to attact. It is the penalty of greatness.
>
> Are you trying to excuse why you and the other trolls often troll me and
> others who are acting in an honest and honorable way?
When I asked Honest and Honorable about you, they said you're a
stranger to them.
Edwin
> "Edwin" <thorn...@juno.com> stated in post
>
> >> You cannot tell me what I agree with in the absence of my making such a
> >> claim. You are not my spokesperson.
>
> > Turnabout is fairplay. You're only getting back what you dish out.
>
> Examples? Please!
Read this thread.
Jim
"MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Jim" <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote in message
> news:jpolaski-36BF12...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <1177076361.2...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Apr 20, 7:39 am, Elijah Baley <l...@foundation.org> wrote:
> >> > In article <C24DA557.7DE3F%C...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> >> >
> >> > Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> > > <http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9710845-7.html>
> >> > > -----
> >> > > TippingPoint, which runs the Zero Day Initiative bug bounty
> >> > > program, is offering to pay $10,000 to the hacker who
> >> > > commandeers one of two MacBooks. The target computers are
> >> > > connected to a wireless access point and fully patched,
> >> > > including the update for 25 vulnerabilities that Apple
> >> > > released on Thursday.
> >> > > -----
> >> >
> >> > > Any guesses as to how long it will take someone to get the prize?
> >> > > And why
> >> > > don't we see these type of contests for Windows?
> >> >
> >> > Ok Edwin, Mayor, Zara, Tom Elam, et al, here's your chance to prove how
> >> > bad OS X really is. Let us know when you have collected the $10,000.00.
> >> > Show us an image of the check. It's put up or shut up time.
> >> >
> >> > Be sure to let us know how you are progressing in your efforts to hack
> >> > the Macbooks.
> >>
> >> What makes you think any of us are malicious hackers who would write
> >> viruses or malware even if we could?
> >
> > In this particular case you and your cohorts would be "permitted
> > hackers" and not malicious ones. Besides you'd be $10,000 richer, prove
> > your point and have all sorts of credibility applied to your arguments
> > and ranting here in the NG. Just think of the PC you could buy with
> > $10,000 even the 8 core Mac that's shipping.
>
> I'll pay any Maccie $20,000 to hack my Vista or XP boxes. So when can I
> expect it to be hacked Mactards? BRING IT!
That's the not challenge of the thread dimwit.
nospam
>
> "Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C24E7F8B.7DF8F%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> "MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> stated in post
>> cvKdnV6wFIb9sLTb...@adelphia.com on 4/20/07 2:13 PM:
>>
>>>>> It's too difficult on Windows as well, but their are enough Windows
>>>>> users to make it profitable.
>>>>>
>>>> At least you realize Macs are less likely to be compromised by
>>>> malware or
>>>> direct attack. Good to see that level of agreement on this issue.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Of course, you state the obvious. Mac market share is so utterly
>>> miniscule
>>> that as a hacker it would be hard to even find a mac at all. Finding
>>> a Mac
>>> on the internet is like finding a needle in the worlds biggest haystack!
>>
>> While we disagree on the reasons, again, it is good we agree Mac users
>> are
>> simply far, far less likely to be the victim of any form of malware or
>> direct attack.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Seek help immediately! Mac users are insane....
>
> Yes, of course Macs are less prone to attacks, because there aren't
> any. No hacker could find a Mac on the internet, how can you hack
> something you can't find?
Even MuahMan agrees. What's happening?
Snit
>>> Why? Isn't the Mactards claim that Windows is so full of holes that
>>> even a Mactard could compromise it?
>>
>> I have no idea what your imaginary friends tell you. I know *I* have never
>> said that.
>>
>>> Take him up on his $20K offer. The Mactards were clamouring on about how
>>> $10K
>>> should be enough incentive and here he is offering TWICE that and not a
>>> single
>>> taker. Hmm???
>>
>> Is he offering that to a group of security specialists?
>
> Not that I'm aware of. Why does it make a difference?
Because that would make it similar to the Mac challenge.
>
>> Is he willing to visit any website people point him to? Does he talk to your
>> imaginary friends?
>
> Not sure. I am. Can you give me some?
None of mine even try...
>>>>>>>> By the way... check the site to see how the Mac contest is going. :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As far as I can tell it isn't going. That's the problem: Very few
>>>>>>> people are interested.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Check the site again. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> I saw that. Will you finally admit that, given sufficient incentive,
>>>>> people will target the Macintosh?
>>>>
>>>> When have I ever disagreed with that?
>>>
>>> Your insistance that OS X has some inherent security technology baked
>>> in which prevents it from being exploited.
>>
>> When do you believe I have said that? Quote me. Please.
>
> Who said you said it? It's your attitude that's sending that message.
Ah, so you are just making assumptions and saying it is my "insistence".
Odd that you would do that... can you explain why?
PC Guy
So?
Snit
>>> Why? People have been telling Mactards for YEARS that the Mac is not
>>> secure.
>>
>> Who says that in general it is not?
>
> This thread would be a prime example of this attitude. Otherwise why
> bother having posted about the contest? Hell, why bother having the
> contest in the first place.
As I have noted: if the Mac really has been hacked I am surprised and
disappointed.
> As it is Mactards can no longer claim that OS X has not been
> compromised. But I'm sure over time this will be erased from their
> memory and such claims will again surface.
I do not care what your imaginary friends tell you.
--
€ A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
€ Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry
PC Guy
Oh I think he's doing an excellent job in driving people away from the
Macintosh. If I were consider a Macintosh before I read his posts you
can damn well bet I wouldn't be afterwords.