spyware on macs ?
asdf
that happens in internet explorer and even seems to happen on firefox -
i'm pissed enough that i may buy an apple. anyways a few questions:
why the fuck to the O/S makers ( microsoft and whoever else ) allow
this spyware shit on the operating system or in the browser ???
does apple allow this spyware shit in it's O/S or browsers ?
are the o/s companies doing anything about it ???
asdf
Oxford
the easy answer is Windows was never intended to be on a Network, it
started life as an Island, and still is, a snake & bug infested Island.
OSX owes it's roots to the very beginnings of Worldwide Networks, so
it's basically impossible (the way apple ships macs) for a virus to even
enter a Mac, much less "spread". Thus, no viruses or spyware.
If a serious piece of spyware or "virus" was ever to infect a Mac it
could only live 7 days, the default "update option on macs" there is
some hints that Apple could even invoke a fix immediately if needed.
So add all that up, then factor in the fact MS doesn't have a lot of
skills in programming or os design and you can quickly see the situation
windows users find themselves in... that's the story.
asdf
the everyday computer user. the everyday pc user is sick and tired of
constantly running anti spyware software, constantly buying
anti-spyware software, constantly having internet explorer freeze.
people that aren't mac users and know very little about computers are
beginning to hear the word that apples don't have these problems. this
is really going to start hitting pc makers in the pocketbook.
asdf
TheLetterK
> hi - i've been a long time windows user but b/c of all the spyware shit
> that happens in internet explorer and even seems to happen on firefox -
> i'm pissed enough that i may buy an apple. anyways a few questions:
> why the fuck to the O/S makers ( microsoft and whoever else ) allow
> this spyware shit on the operating system or in the browser ???
> does apple allow this spyware shit in it's O/S or browsers ?
It's not really a question of 'allow', as it is 'too sparse a userbase
to justify the cost'.
> are the o/s companies doing anything about it ???
Seriously working on the problem? No. That would require some
fundamental changes in the way software licensing works, how software is
distributed, and what guidelines are accepted by the third party
developers--that, and the userbase would have to be educated.
Instead they will opt for the too-late approach of writing spyware
'cleaners' to remove spyware after it's already been contracted. As
Symantec has demonstrated with viruses, this is a battle that will never
be won.
TheLetterK
> "asdf" <qjohn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>hi - i've been a long time windows user but b/c of all the spyware shit
>>that happens in internet explorer and even seems to happen on firefox -
>>i'm pissed enough that i may buy an apple. anyways a few questions:
>>why the fuck to the O/S makers ( microsoft and whoever else ) allow
>>this spyware shit on the operating system or in the browser ???
>>does apple allow this spyware shit in it's O/S or browsers ?
>>are the o/s companies doing anything about it ???
>
>
> the easy answer is Windows was never intended to be on a Network, it
> started life as an Island, and still is, a snake & bug infested Island.
>
> OSX owes it's roots to the very beginnings of Worldwide Networks,
Not really.
> so
> it's basically impossible (the way apple ships macs) for a virus to even
> enter a Mac, much less "spread". Thus, no viruses or spyware.
Oxtard, I think you need to go back on your medication. There aren't any
viruses in the wild for OS X right now (I take it back, there are some
Office macro viruses that target OS X), but mostly because hitting such
a sparse userbase is exponentially more difficult than it is to hit Windows.
>
> If a serious piece of spyware or "virus" was ever to infect a Mac it
> could only live 7 days, the default "update option on macs" there is
> some hints that Apple could even invoke a fix immediately if needed.
Unless the virus carried a serious payload.
>
> So add all that up, then factor in the fact MS doesn't have a lot of
> skills in programming or os design and you can quickly see the situation
> windows users find themselves in... that's the story.
Microsoft's best coders: The admins over in the Linux labs.
l e o
Don't lie. After installing Tiger, I've been getting security updates
almost every week.
macsuc...@yahoo.com
What sites are you visiting to give you so much spyware? I have never
seen any on my PC. Have you considered removing Internet Explorer and
all of the other useless programs and services that come with XP by
default? Might solve your problems.
Anyway, I would not advise you to try switching to Apple. Mac OS is an
extremely high maintenance operating system that constantly requires
you to repair disk permissions, run disk utilities from a DVD, install
software patches, delete .plist files, and reinstall the entire system
every few months. Your hardware will also be vastly underpowered unless
you opt for an iMac or Powermac.
Steve Hix
They seem to have stayed ahead of the bottom-feeding malware writers.
Jim Lee Jr.
macsuc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> asdf wrote:
> > Hi, I've been a long time windows user but because of all the spyware shit
> > that happens in Internet Explorer and even seems to happen on Firefox.
> > I'm pissed enough that i may buy an Apple. Anyway, a few questions:
> > why the fuck to the OS makers (Microsoft and whoever else) allow
> > this spyware shit on the operating system or in the browser?
> > Does Apple allow this spyware shit in its OS or browsers?
> > Are the OS companies doing anything about it?
>
> What sites are you visiting to give you so much spyware? I have never
> seen any on my PC. Have you considered removing Internet Explorer and
> all of the other useless programs and services that come with XP by
> default? Might solve your problems.
Try turning on your PeeCee, or connecting it to the Net.
> Anyway, I would not advise you to try switching to Apple. Mac OS is an
> extremely high maintenance operating system that constantly requires
> you to repair disk permissions, run disk utilities from a DVD, install
> software patches, delete .plist files, and reinstall the entire system
> every few months.
Since when is Windoze maintenance any better? At least there is no Mac
malware, like there is for Windoze.
--
Microsoft and Windoze: The combination that made computing dangerous.
Apple and OS X: The combination that made computing insanely great.
"VISTA" an acronym for the top five Windows problems: Viruses,
Intrusions, Spyware, Trojans and Adware.
Fred Garvin
>
> Don't lie. After installing Tiger, I've been getting security updates
> almost every week.
Now THAT is complete bullshit.
--
Chris: "Dad, what's a blowhole for?"
Peter: "I'll tell you what it's NOT for and then you'll know why I can
never go back to Sea World."
Fred Garvin
> Anyway, I would not advise you to try switching to Apple. Mac OS is an
> extremely high maintenance operating system that constantly requires
> you to repair disk permissions, run disk utilities from a DVD, install
> software patches, delete .plist files, and reinstall the entire system
> every few months. Your hardware will also be vastly underpowered unless
> you opt for an iMac or Powermac.
More total bullshit. No surprise.
--
PCs, like air-conditioners, are useless when you open Windows.
Oxford
> > so
> > it's basically impossible (the way apple ships macs) for a virus to even
> > enter a Mac, much less "spread". Thus, no viruses or spyware.
> Oxtard, I think you need to go back on your medication. There aren't any
> viruses in the wild for OS X right now (I take it back, there are some
> Office macro viruses that target OS X), but mostly because hitting such
> a sparse userbase is exponentially more difficult than it is to hit Windows.
marketshare has very little to do with it, the reason is far more
technical in nature, the fact is a good 15 million osx macs are
connected to the net 24/7/365, so don't you think "one measly virus"
would of infected the population by now? OSX is designed differently
than Windows of any version, so it's basically impossible to remotely
enter a mac, much less have a breach of one machine "spread" to
others... it's a better system, deal with it.
> > If a serious piece of spyware or "virus" was ever to infect a Mac it
> > could only live 7 days, the default "update option on macs" there is
> > some hints that Apple could even invoke a fix immediately if needed.
> Unless the virus carried a serious payload.
That's a pretty big if...
> > So add all that up, then factor in the fact MS doesn't have a lot of
> > skills in programming or os design and you can quickly see the situation
> > windows users find themselves in... that's the story.
> Microsoft's best coders: The admins over in the Linux labs.
nah, microsoft is design by committee, they don't have the time to
manage linux machines
Oxford
> > So add all that up, then factor in the fact MS doesn't have a lot of
> > skills in programming or os design and you can quickly see the situation
> > windows users find themselves in... that's the story.
>
> Don't lie. After installing Tiger, I've been getting security updates
> almost every week.
would you rather have spyware? take your pick.
George Graves
You are so wrong that I don't even know where to begin. OSX is, without
a doubt, the worlds most TROUBLE-FREE operating system. I've been
running OSX for more than FIVE YEARS (since the Public Beta in September
2000). In all that time, I've repaired permissions ONCE. I've never EVER
run any disk utilities, Mac HDDs don't get fragmented so one doesn't
have to run a defrag program. As for patches. They are occasional and
take about 5 minutes to install. They often fix problems and security
holes BEFORE they cause problems or get exploited, and I've never had to
reinstall the entire system nor delete any .plist files.
Also in all that time I've never had OSX crash, a lock-up, a slowdown, a
freeze, a virus, or a Trojan horse.
And since you have NO IDEA of what you are talking about, you also don't
seem to know that ALL Macs made since 1993 are PowerMacs.
So, admit it asshole, you've never owned, used or even seen a Macintosh,
now, have you? C'mon you might as well 'fess up because what you wrote
above tells everybody here that you are full of shit!
So don't pay any attention to anything said by this idiot who calls
himself "macsucks". It would be like asking an orangoutang his opinion
on nuclear fusion and for the same reason.
macsuc...@yahoo.com
Well, I have, and aside from the very rare reinstall, none of the above
has ever occurred with Windows. I don't even have defrag on my hard
drive and stopped installing patches for XP ages ago.
With the Mac, I have no choice. Updates come in on an automatic
schedule, and install all manner of things I have no use for. (iPods,
iPod phones, security updates that you claim I don't need, etc.) iTunes
has gone through 3-4 updates in the last few weeks alone, and so almost
every time I open it I need to click on yet another licensing
agreement. OS components mysteriously stop working and the Apple
Geniuses can only recommend that I perform an archive install, although
lately they have suggested that reformatting would be a better option.
>
> Also in all that time I've never had OSX crash, a lock-up, a slowdown, a
> freeze, a virus, or a Trojan horse.
You have already admitted to your Mac crashing. Need me to Google it up
for you?
>
> And since you have NO IDEA of what you are talking about, you also don't
> seem to know that ALL Macs made since 1993 are PowerMacs.
Yet another semantic game.
>
> So, admit it asshole, you've never owned, used or even seen a Macintosh,
> now, have you? C'mon you might as well 'fess up because what you wrote
> above tells everybody here that you are full of shit!
Haha!
Mr. T
> Well, I have, and aside from the very rare reinstall, none of the above
> has ever occurred with Windows. I don't even have defrag on my hard
> drive and stopped installing patches for XP ages ago.
it hasn't ever happened on OSX if you had a clue how to operate a mac.
> With the Mac, I have no choice. Updates come in on an automatic
> schedule, and install all manner of things I have no use for. (iPods,
> iPod phones, security updates that you claim I don't need, etc.)
you can simply turn off auto updating, it's not that hard. and for
updates you don't need, just select them, then in the menu bar there is
the option to ignore them in the future.
> iTunes
> has gone through 3-4 updates in the last few weeks alone, and so almost
> every time I open it I need to click on yet another licensing
> agreement.
then don't update so often, that's fully up to you.
> OS components mysteriously stop working and the Apple
> Geniuses can only recommend that I perform an archive install, although
> lately they have suggested that reformatting would be a better option.
wrong, stuff doesn't "mysteriously" stop working, you probably caused
the problem somehow. and no, the geniuses wouldn't tell you to format
unless you really were an idiot.
> > Also in all that time I've never had OSX crash, a lock-up, a slowdown, a
> > freeze, a virus, or a Trojan horse.
>
> You have already admitted to your Mac crashing. Need me to Google it up
> for you?
correct, the mac won't crash, yes an app can hang but you can always
force quit it. at least in panther and tiger that is the case.
> > So don't pay any attention to anything said by this idiot who calls
> > himself "macsucks". It would be like asking an orangoutang his opinion
> > on nuclear fusion and for the same reason.
macsucks is making lots of this up, he is probably trolling help forums
then finding a problem, then calling it his own.
George Graves
macsuc...@yahoo.com wrote:
You are digging your hole ever deeper. None of the things that appear in
Software Update NEED to be either downloaded or installed. You do have a
choice, just don't install 'em.
> (iPods,
> iPod phones, security updates that you claim I don't need, etc.)
iPod phones? Like you, I have no need, so I didn't install the driver.
As far as security updates are concerned, its called closing the corral
gate before the horses escape. But I know plenty of people who have
never installed any of them. Guess what? They've never had any security
problems. So, no, strictly speaking it looks like you don't really need
them, but what the hell an ounce of prevention and all that.
> iTunes
> has gone through 3-4 updates in the last few weeks alone, and so almost
> every time I open it I need to click on yet another licensing
> agreement.
So what? The updates obviously improve some part of iTunes. Be
proactive, read what the update does, and if you don't need what it
does, don't install the update. I mean its not like Microsoft, which
releases a piece of software and NEVER fixes the bugs or improves the
functionality until the next FOR SALE iteration comes out. Then there
are the literally thousands of security plugs that MS has shipped for XP
since it was introduced. So you seem to be the pot calling the kettle
black.
> OS components mysteriously stop working and the Apple
> Geniuses can only recommend that I perform an archive install, although
> lately they have suggested that reformatting would be a better option.
I've never had the problem, and I'm pretty sure that you haven't either.
> > Also in all that time I've never had OSX crash, a lock-up, a slowdown, a
> > freeze, a virus, or a Trojan horse.
>
> You have already admitted to your Mac crashing. Need me to Google it up
> for you?
Please. Because other than one kernel panic due to out of spec DRAM when
I first installed OSX, I've never had OSX crash. NEVER.
> > And since you have NO IDEA of what you are talking about, you also don't
> > seem to know that ALL Macs made since 1993 are PowerMacs.
>
> Yet another semantic game.
No at all. Since all Macs are PowerMacs, we have no idea what you are
talking about when you refer to iMacs and Powermacs. The purpose of
language is to communicate, not to obfuscate. When you use the wrong
term, you are not communicating. And by using the term Powermac as you
did, nobody has any idea what you are trying to say and it shows your
ignorance of the platform.
> > So, admit it asshole, you've never owned, used or even seen a Macintosh,
> > now, have you? C'mon you might as well 'fess up because what you wrote
> > above tells everybody here that you are full of shit!
>
> Haha!
Notice he did not refute anything I said.
George Graves
GreyCloud
It is just a M$ problem. I don't have that problem under OS
X, Solaris or OpenVMS.
What did you expect from monopoly crapware?
GreyCloud
You should follow your own advice.
I've only had one download since Upgrading to Tiger.
GreyCloud
Youuu'llll beeee sooooorrrrrryyyyyy!!!!
>
> With the Mac, I have no choice. Updates come in on an automatic
> schedule, and install all manner of things I have no use for. (iPods,
> iPod phones, security updates that you claim I don't need, etc.) iTunes
> has gone through 3-4 updates in the last few weeks alone, and so almost
> every time I open it I need to click on yet another licensing
> agreement. OS components mysteriously stop working and the Apple
> Geniuses can only recommend that I perform an archive install, although
> lately they have suggested that reformatting would be a better option.
>
Sure, more lies.
You have either the option to install or to quit. It's that
simple.
macsuc...@yahoo.com
> > > a doubt, the worlds most TROUBLE-FREE operating system. I've been
> > > running OSX for more than FIVE YEARS (since the Public Beta in September
> > > 2000). In all that time, I've repaired permissions ONCE. I've never EVER
> > > run any disk utilities, Mac HDDs don't get fragmented so one doesn't
> > > have to run a defrag program. As for patches. They are occasional and
> > > take about 5 minutes to install. They often fix problems and security
> > > holes BEFORE they cause problems or get exploited, and I've never had to
> > > reinstall the entire system nor delete any .plist files.
> >
> > Well, I have, and aside from the very rare reinstall, none of the above
> > has ever occurred with Windows. I don't even have defrag on my hard
> > drive and stopped installing patches for XP ages ago.
> >
> > With the Mac, I have no choice. Updates come in on an automatic
> > schedule, and install all manner of things I have no use for.
>
> You are digging your hole ever deeper. None of the things that appear in
> Software Update NEED to be either downloaded or installed. You do have a
> choice, just don't install 'em.
They will just pop up again later. It is a nuisance either way.
>
> > (iPods,
> > iPod phones, security updates that you claim I don't need, etc.)
>
> iPod phones? Like you, I have no need, so I didn't install the driver.
> As far as security updates are concerned, its called closing the corral
> gate before the horses escape. But I know plenty of people who have
> never installed any of them. Guess what? They've never had any security
> problems. So, no, strictly speaking it looks like you don't really need
> them, but what the hell an ounce of prevention and all that.
>
>
>
> > iTunes
> > has gone through 3-4 updates in the last few weeks alone, and so almost
> > every time I open it I need to click on yet another licensing
> > agreement.
>
> So what? The updates obviously improve some part of iTunes. Be
> proactive, read what the update does, and if you don't need what it
> does, don't install the update. I mean its not like Microsoft, which
> releases a piece of software and NEVER fixes the bugs or improves the
> functionality until the next FOR SALE iteration comes out. Then there
> are the literally thousands of security plugs that MS has shipped for XP
> since it was introduced. So you seem to be the pot calling the kettle
> black.
Everything works exactly the same as it did before I updated. The only
difference lately is a new version of Quicktime which contains some new
video codec a Mac Mini can't even use.
>
>
> > OS components mysteriously stop working and the Apple
> > Geniuses can only recommend that I perform an archive install, although
> > lately they have suggested that reformatting would be a better option.
>
> I've never had the problem, and I'm pretty sure that you haven't either.
So if you have never had a problem, then it doesn't exist. Okay.
>
> > > Also in all that time I've never had OSX crash, a lock-up, a slowdown, a
> > > freeze, a virus, or a Trojan horse.
> >
> > You have already admitted to your Mac crashing. Need me to Google it up
> > for you?
>
> Please. Because other than one kernel panic due to out of spec DRAM when
> I first installed OSX, I've never had OSX crash. NEVER.
You just contradicted your earlier statement that you've "never had OSX
crash."
>
> > > And since you have NO IDEA of what you are talking about, you also don't
> > > seem to know that ALL Macs made since 1993 are PowerMacs.
> >
> > Yet another semantic game.
>
> No at all. Since all Macs are PowerMacs, we have no idea what you are
> talking about when you refer to iMacs and Powermacs. The purpose of
> language is to communicate, not to obfuscate. When you use the wrong
> term, you are not communicating. And by using the term Powermac as you
> did, nobody has any idea what you are trying to say and it shows your
> ignorance of the platform.
>
> > > So, admit it asshole, you've never owned, used or even seen a Macintosh,
> > > now, have you? C'mon you might as well 'fess up because what you wrote
> > > above tells everybody here that you are full of shit!
> >
> > Haha!
>
> Notice he did not refute anything I said.
Why don't you read the message headers, and see if that doesn't refute
things for you?
macsuc...@yahoo.com
> > has ever occurred with Windows. I don't even have defrag on my hard
> > drive and stopped installing patches for XP ages ago.
>
> Youuu'llll beeee sooooorrrrrryyyyyy!!!!
Yawn.
>
> >
> > With the Mac, I have no choice. Updates come in on an automatic
> > schedule, and install all manner of things I have no use for. (iPods,
> > iPod phones, security updates that you claim I don't need, etc.) iTunes
> > has gone through 3-4 updates in the last few weeks alone, and so almost
> > every time I open it I need to click on yet another licensing
> > agreement. OS components mysteriously stop working and the Apple
> > Geniuses can only recommend that I perform an archive install, although
> > lately they have suggested that reformatting would be a better option.
> >
>
> Sure, more lies.
> You have either the option to install or to quit. It's that
> simple.
Then they just pop up again later.
GreyCloud
>
> > > Well, I have, and aside from the very rare reinstall, none of the above
> > > has ever occurred with Windows. I don't even have defrag on my hard
> > > drive and stopped installing patches for XP ages ago.
> >
> > Youuu'llll beeee sooooorrrrrryyyyyy!!!!
>
> Yawn.
>
Careful there... sweaty ballmer might get horny watching
you.
But in all seriousness, XP Pro does have a defragmentation
program under the System selection.
> >
> > >
> > > With the Mac, I have no choice. Updates come in on an automatic
> > > schedule, and install all manner of things I have no use for. (iPods,
> > > iPod phones, security updates that you claim I don't need, etc.) iTunes
> > > has gone through 3-4 updates in the last few weeks alone, and so almost
> > > every time I open it I need to click on yet another licensing
> > > agreement. OS components mysteriously stop working and the Apple
> > > Geniuses can only recommend that I perform an archive install, although
> > > lately they have suggested that reformatting would be a better option.
> > >
> >
> > Sure, more lies.
> > You have either the option to install or to quit. It's that
> > simple.
>
> Then they just pop up again later.
Like only once every other week. Unlike XP, you get
pestered to death.
You should have seen XP have a shit fit when I did a system
recover... all XP wanted to do was phone home and try to
download, again, the system updates immediately.... it
wouldn't even allow a shutdown until it did. That's when I
pulled the cat-5 cable out of the HPs ass. Then it shut up.
But the HP has been turned in for a full refund. Eat your
heart out M$.
GreyCloud
> > You are digging your hole ever deeper. None of the things that appear in
> > Software Update NEED to be either downloaded or installed. You do have a
> > choice, just don't install 'em.
>
> They will just pop up again later. It is a nuisance either way.
>
GUFFAW!!! NUISANCE??? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!
Now let me tell you about nuisances... XP is so whiney, that
you have to spend half of your mouse clicks shutting the
damned thing up, with all the noisey little dialog boxes.
TheLetterK
> TheLetterK <thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>so
>>>it's basically impossible (the way apple ships macs) for a virus to even
>>>enter a Mac, much less "spread". Thus, no viruses or spyware.
>>
>>Oxtard, I think you need to go back on your medication. There aren't any
>>viruses in the wild for OS X right now (I take it back, there are some
>>Office macro viruses that target OS X), but mostly because hitting such
>>a sparse userbase is exponentially more difficult than it is to hit Windows.
>
>
> marketshare has very little to do with it,
however, is everything.
Let's take a sample, shall we?
10000000000000010000
The zeros are Windows boxes, the ones are Macs. Now, which platform do
you think is easier to target? Each victim you get will act as another
carrier of the virus. Now, the Macs will have to connect with other Macs
(a relatively rare event) to spread the virus--the Windows boxes, on the
other hand, can pretty much just pick an active address at random and
get a viable target.
> the reason is far more
> technical in nature,
Well, if you consider statistics to be 'technical'.
> the fact is a good 15 million osx macs are
> connected to the net 24/7/365, so don't you think "one measly virus"
> would of infected the population by now?
One did. The fake word installer virus.
> OSX is designed differently
> than Windows of any version,
Which does not imbue some magical immunity to viruses.
> so it's basically impossible to remotely
> enter a mac,
Well, if you feel so secure, leave your Mac outside your firewall and
post your IP addy for the world to see.
> much less have a breach of one machine "spread" to
> others... it's a better system, deal with it.
It's statistics, deal with it.
>
>
>>>If a serious piece of spyware or "virus" was ever to infect a Mac it
>>>could only live 7 days, the default "update option on macs" there is
>>>some hints that Apple could even invoke a fix immediately if needed.
>>
>>Unless the virus carried a serious payload.
>
>
> That's a pretty big if...
Not really.
>
>
>>>So add all that up, then factor in the fact MS doesn't have a lot of
>>>skills in programming or os design and you can quickly see the situation
>>>windows users find themselves in... that's the story.
>>
>>Microsoft's best coders: The admins over in the Linux labs.
>
>
> nah, microsoft is design by committee, they don't have the time to
> manage linux machines
Nonsense, they run a Linux lab. It's a well known fact. Scouting out
their opposition, and all.
Oxford
> > marketshare has very little to do with it,
> Your right, marketshare is irrelivent. Share of the installed userbase,
> however, is everything.
>
> Let's take a sample, shall we?
>
> 10000000000000010000
>
> The zeros are Windows boxes, the ones are Macs. Now, which platform do
> you think is easier to target? Each victim you get will act as another
> carrier of the virus. Now, the Macs will have to connect with other Macs
> (a relatively rare event) to spread the virus--the Windows boxes, on the
> other hand, can pretty much just pick an active address at random and
> get a viable target.
but we aren't talking about "ease of target" we are talking about "ease
to infect", if this so called "userbase" percentage was flipped, and MS
had 4% and Apple 92%... 100% of the Viruses will still only be on
Windows. It's a technical reason OSX doesn't get viruses, not a "target"
based one. A virus writer would get far more notoriety by infecting OSX
with it's "1st" virus, than he would by doing the "64,001st" Windows
virus. Why hasn't anyone stepped forward? Reason? They can't.
> > the reason is far more
> > technical in nature,
> Well, if you consider statistics to be 'technical'.
Stats have very little to do with it, if 100% of the macs were not on
the net, then you might have a point, but a good 80% are on the net, and
ZERO have been infected over 4.5 years of use.
> > the fact is a good 15 million osx macs are
> > connected to the net 24/7/365, so don't you think "one measly virus"
> > would of infected the population by now?
> One did. The fake word installer virus.
post a reference, bet you can't
> > OSX is designed differently
> > than Windows of any version,
> Which does not imbue some magical immunity to viruses.
no, but there are some serious security mistakes in windows. in OSX, not
so much.
> > so it's basically impossible to remotely
> > enter a mac,
> Well, if you feel so secure, leave your Mac outside your firewall and
> post your IP addy for the world to see.
firewalls are for wimps, they are basically unneeded on OSX. my systems
are always on, no passwords, sharing is on, come get me or any mac user
for that matter.
> >>>If a serious piece of spyware or "virus" was ever to infect a Mac it
> >>>could only live 7 days, the default "update option on macs" there is
> >>>some hints that Apple could even invoke a fix immediately if needed.
> >>
> >>Unless the virus carried a serious payload.
> >
> > That's a pretty big if...
> Not really.
then why hasn't it happened with OSX being so prominent on the net?
> > nah, microsoft is design by committee, they don't have the time to
> > manage linux machines
> Nonsense, they run a Linux lab. It's a well known fact. Scouting out
> their opposition, and all.
and they had an apple // lab, LISA lab, Mac Lab, NeXT lab, nothing new
there.
the real reason(s) OSX is so secure...
1) 30+ years of unix, Live 24/7 network development. No other consumer
OS is this battle tested on the Internet.
2) Known insecure networking ports are turned off by default.
3) Automatic Software Update is turned on by default.
4) All administrative actions require a password. In other words, for
Virus to move from machine to machine, a Virus writer must go into every
house/office then figure out the user's password, then hit return. (now
you know why there are Zero viruses on Macs)
5) Root administrator account is turned off by default.
6) Apple's quick response with security patches.
7) The open source nature of the operating system allows flexibility. If
Apple doesn't provide the patch quickly enough I can download the source
code and install it myself.
8) Like Windows, Mac OS X provides an easy to use user interface which
exposes many of its unix underpinnings making it easier to administrate
for beginners.
9) Mac OS X by default supports secure encryption and communication
protocols for authentication: Kerberos, SSH, VPN, MS-CHAP2, DIGEST-MD5,
CRAM-MD5, DHX, OTP, SMB-NT, APOP.
Many of these features are cited by the National Security Agency as
pluses in favor of Mac OS X. You can read it about in their publication:
http://www.nsa.gov/snac/os/applemac/osx_client_final_v.1.pdf
Finally, many of Mac OS X's security problems are only theoretical and
can never materialize, nor propagate in the wild. Apple contracts
agencies to find security holes in its operating system before the
hackers do. They work with the CERT (http://www.cert.org/) and the
FreeBSD community (http://www.freebsd.org/security/) to address security
issues. They also belong to FIRST (http://www.first.org/). In short
Apple takes security seriously and if you work with Macs as I do you'd
know it too.
macsuc...@yahoo.com
You mean like the little boxes to save or print your documents? Every
OS has those.
Also what noise are you complaining about, did you set up sound effects
or something?
macsuc...@yahoo.com
GreyCloud wrote:
> macsuc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > > Well, I have, and aside from the very rare reinstall, none of the above
> > > > has ever occurred with Windows. I don't even have defrag on my hard
> > > > drive and stopped installing patches for XP ages ago.
> > >
> > > Youuu'llll beeee sooooorrrrrryyyyyy!!!!
> >
> > Yawn.
> >
>
> Careful there... sweaty ballmer might get horny watching
> you.
>
> But in all seriousness, XP Pro does have a defragmentation
> program under the System selection.
Not after you delete it.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > With the Mac, I have no choice. Updates come in on an automatic
> > > > schedule, and install all manner of things I have no use for. (iPods,
> > > > iPod phones, security updates that you claim I don't need, etc.) iTunes
> > > > has gone through 3-4 updates in the last few weeks alone, and so almost
> > > > every time I open it I need to click on yet another licensing
> > > > agreement. OS components mysteriously stop working and the Apple
> > > > Geniuses can only recommend that I perform an archive install, although
> > > > lately they have suggested that reformatting would be a better option.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sure, more lies.
> > > You have either the option to install or to quit. It's that
> > > simple.
> >
> > Then they just pop up again later.
>
> Like only once every other week. Unlike XP, you get
> pestered to death.
> You should have seen XP have a shit fit when I did a system
> recover... all XP wanted to do was phone home and try to
> download, again, the system updates immediately.... it
> wouldn't even allow a shutdown until it did. That's when I
> pulled the cat-5 cable out of the HPs ass. Then it shut up.
> But the HP has been turned in for a full refund. Eat your
> heart out M$.
I just turned updates off under services, and never saw it again. Any
chance that Mac OS has a similar option?
TheLetterK
> TheLetterK <thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>marketshare has very little to do with it,
>>
>>Your right, marketshare is irrelivent. Share of the installed userbase,
>>however, is everything.
>>
>>Let's take a sample, shall we?
>>
>>10000000000000010000
>>
>>The zeros are Windows boxes, the ones are Macs. Now, which platform do
>>you think is easier to target? Each victim you get will act as another
>>carrier of the virus. Now, the Macs will have to connect with other Macs
>>(a relatively rare event) to spread the virus--the Windows boxes, on the
>>other hand, can pretty much just pick an active address at random and
>>get a viable target.
>
>
> but we aren't talking about "ease of target" we are talking about "ease
> to infect",
try to attack OS X in the first place? Whatever virus they release will
spread slowly, and attack a more difficult (but not, by any means,
impenetrable) target in the process. Why would they bother when Windows
targets are so much more prevelent and easier to compromise?
> if this so called "userbase" percentage was flipped, and MS
> had 4% and Apple 92%... 100% of the Viruses will still only be on
> Windows.
I'd imagine the split would be something like 2%/98% in 'favor' of OS X.
The Windows viruses would die out very quickly.
> It's a technical reason OSX doesn't get viruses,
Right--the statistical difficulty of actually infecting large numbers of
completely defenseless OS X boxes. It's just too rare a target for
virus writers to bother with.
> not a "target"
> based one. A virus writer would get far more notoriety by infecting OSX
> with it's "1st" virus, than he would by doing the "64,001st" Windows
> virus. Why hasn't anyone stepped forward? Reason? They can't.
You probably thought the emperor was actually wearing something didn't you?
>
>
>>>the reason is far more
>>>technical in nature,
>>
>>Well, if you consider statistics to be 'technical'.
>
>
> Stats have very little to do with it, if 100% of the macs were not on
> the net, then you might have a point, but a good 80% are on the net, and
> ZERO have been infected over 4.5 years of use.
Yes, with a userbase that hovers somewhere below 5%. Thus, it's a
difficult target to hit, simply because each potential target is so
rare. It would be like a human virus that could only *possibly* effect 5
out of 100 people.
>
>
>>>the fact is a good 15 million osx macs are
>>>connected to the net 24/7/365, so don't you think "one measly virus"
>>>would of infected the population by now?
>>
>>One did. The fake word installer virus.
>
>
> post a reference, bet you can't
http://secunia.com/virus_information/9393/as.mw2004.trojan/
Exploits the naming vulnerability in OS X.
>
>
>>>OSX is designed differently
>>>than Windows of any version,
>>
>>Which does not imbue some magical immunity to viruses.
>
>
> no, but there are some serious security mistakes in windows. in OSX, not
> so much.
The mistakes Microsoft made were assuming that technical superiority is
more effective than simple (but less versitile) procedures. Windows *is*
technically more secure than OS X is. In practice, securing it is so far
beyond the average user that it might as well be swiss cheese.
This ties into the reasons I think ACLs are a bad idea on desktop boxes.
Too complex for the average user to bother with.
>
>
>>>so it's basically impossible to remotely
>>>enter a mac,
>>
>>Well, if you feel so secure, leave your Mac outside your firewall and
>>post your IP addy for the world to see.
>
>
> firewalls are for wimps, they are basically unneeded on OSX.
That's why Apple includes one?
> my systems
> are always on, no passwords, sharing is on, come get me or any mac user
> for that matter.
I wouldn't even consider it--but post your IP addy out here. I wonder
how long it would take for someone you annoyed to bring down your
unsecured Mac. Probably not very long, considering just how open OS X
actually is by default.
>
>
>>>>>If a serious piece of spyware or "virus" was ever to infect a Mac it
>>>>>could only live 7 days, the default "update option on macs" there is
>>>>>some hints that Apple could even invoke a fix immediately if needed.
>>>>
>>>>Unless the virus carried a serious payload.
>>>
>>>That's a pretty big if...
>>
>>Not really.
>
>
> then why hasn't it happened with OSX being so prominent on the net?
Is it? 80% of less than 3% of the systems out there is not very prominant.
>
>
>>>nah, microsoft is design by committee, they don't have the time to
>>>manage linux machines
>>
>>Nonsense, they run a Linux lab. It's a well known fact. Scouting out
>>their opposition, and all.
>
>
> and they had an apple // lab, LISA lab, Mac Lab, NeXT lab, nothing new
> there.
>
> the real reason(s) OSX is so secure...
>
> 1) 30+ years of unix, Live 24/7 network development. No other consumer
> OS is this battle tested on the Internet.
OS X isn't particularly 'battle tested'. It uses a kernel that was,
until OS X came out, extremely rare. It's only saving grace is the use
of the FreeBSD tools. However, FreeBSD is probably the least secure of
all of the BSD distributions... OS X is even less so for the inclusion
of new and untested software, as well as a relatively untested kernel.
>
> 2) Known insecure networking ports are turned off by default.
Go run an nmap scan against an OS X box with the firewall turned off
(this is it's default state, by the way).
>
> 3) Automatic Software Update is turned on by default.
The same is true for most consumer operating systems these days. It's a
good thing too, because OS X has plenty of holes OOTB.
>
> 4) All administrative actions require a password.
Nothing special here. Even Windows does this, assuming you don't do
something silly like run as administrator.
> In other words, for
> Virus to move from machine to machine, a Virus writer must go into every
> house/office then figure out the user's password, then hit return. (now
> you know why there are Zero viruses on Macs)
Hardly. There are plenty of methods of falsifying or circumventing such
a security procedure. A simple keylogger would solve that problem.
There's also the tried-and-true method of just misnaming an installer
and sending it to the user with a message like 'Click me for hawt pr0n!'.
>
> 5) Root administrator account is turned off by default.
Unfortunately, if someone managed to exploit the user into revealing
their password... this precaution would do no good.
>
> 6) Apple's quick response with security patches.
Apple can't patch user stupidity.
>
> 7) The open source nature of the operating system allows flexibility. If
> Apple doesn't provide the patch quickly enough I can download the source
> code and install it myself.
You keep right on thinking that. Who am I to tell little kids santa
doesn't actually exist?
>
> 8) Like Windows, Mac OS X provides an easy to use user interface which
> exposes many of its unix underpinnings making it easier to administrate
> for beginners.
OS X's administration UI is pretty simplistic--it doesn't handle any
sort of vaguely difficult tasks. Well, OS X Server is probably better
about that--but I don't have a copy so I can't make judgement there.
>
> 9) Mac OS X by default supports secure encryption and communication
> protocols for authentication: Kerberos, SSH, VPN, MS-CHAP2, DIGEST-MD5,
> CRAM-MD5, DHX, OTP, SMB-NT, APOP.
And this prevents the user from being exploited... how?
>
> Many of these features are cited by the National Security Agency as
> pluses in favor of Mac OS X. You can read it about in their publication:
> http://www.nsa.gov/snac/os/applemac/osx_client_final_v.1.pdf
'Security buzzwords for idiots'.
>
> Finally, many of Mac OS X's security problems are only theoretical and
> can never materialize, nor propagate in the wild.
That's right--propogation difficulties are what keep viruses off OS X.
It's difficult not because OS X is especially secure, but because OS X
is just so rare.
> Apple contracts
> agencies to find security holes in its operating system before the
> hackers do.
So does Microsoft. It doesn't make Windows a shining pillar of security,
now does it?
> They work with the CERT (http://www.cert.org/) and the
> FreeBSD community (http://www.freebsd.org/security/) to address security
> issues. They also belong to FIRST (http://www.first.org/). In short
> Apple takes security seriously and if you work with Macs as I do you'd
> know it too.
I do work with Macs, this is why I have absolutely no faith in Apple
when it comes to dealing with security threats.
TheLetterK
> asdf wrote:
>
>>hi - i've been a long time windows user but b/c of all the spyware shit
>>that happens in internet explorer and even seems to happen on firefox -
>>i'm pissed enough that i may buy an apple. anyways a few questions:
>>why the fuck to the O/S makers ( microsoft and whoever else ) allow
>>this spyware shit on the operating system or in the browser ???
>>does apple allow this spyware shit in it's O/S or browsers ?
>>are the o/s companies doing anything about it ???
>
>
> What sites are you visiting to give you so much spyware? I have never
> seen any on my PC. Have you considered removing Internet Explorer and
> all of the other useless programs and services that come with XP by
> default? Might solve your problems.
do is render it hopelessly irreprable.
>
> Anyway, I would not advise you to try switching to Apple. Mac OS is an
> extremely high maintenance operating system
Do you get high before posting? That's the only reason I could think to
explain the above comment
> that constantly requires
> you to repair disk permissions,
No permission repairs in the last 9 months, on two different Macs.
> run disk utilities from a DVD,
I've never found a need to run disk utilities, on either of my Macs, ever.
> install
> software patches,
Have to do this on any OS.
> delete .plist files,
If something goes wrong, it's not a common occurance. I've found
occasion to do so three times in the last two years on both Macs.
> and reinstall the entire system
> every few months.
I've reinstalled OS X exactly twice--10.1 to 10.2, and 10.2 to 10.3.
> Your hardware will also be vastly underpowered unless
> you opt for an iMac or Powermac.
Or an iBook, or a Mac mini, or a Powerbook.
TheLetterK
first one to make that clear... But kernel panics are not exactly the
most rare of events. Lockups are usually pretty rare, but slowdowns
abound when the spinning beach ball of death's around.
TheLetterK
> GreyCloud wrote:
>
>>macsuc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>>You are digging your hole ever deeper. None of the things that appear in
>>>>Software Update NEED to be either downloaded or installed. You do have a
>>>>choice, just don't install 'em.
>>>
>>>They will just pop up again later. It is a nuisance either way.
>>>
>>
>>GUFFAW!!! NUISANCE??? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!
>>
>>Now let me tell you about nuisances... XP is so whiney, that
>>you have to spend half of your mouse clicks shutting the
>>damned thing up, with all the noisey little dialog boxes.
>
>
> You mean like the little boxes to save or print your documents? Every
> OS has those.
you do work. They're especially bad when you can't ignore them.
macsuc...@yahoo.com
> > What sites are you visiting to give you so much spyware? I have never
> > seen any on my PC. Have you considered removing Internet Explorer and
> > all of the other useless programs and services that come with XP by
> > default? Might solve your problems.
> Removing Internet Explorer from XP is neigh impossible. The best you can
> do is render it hopelessly irreprable.
Well guess what, I did. Runs much better without it.
>
> >
> > Anyway, I would not advise you to try switching to Apple. Mac OS is an
> > extremely high maintenance operating system
> Do you get high before posting? That's the only reason I could think to
> explain the above comment
The original poster was considering switching because of Windows
maintenance. I just want him to know that he will not find OS X to be
any better in this regard.
>
> > that constantly requires
> > you to repair disk permissions,
> No permission repairs in the last 9 months, on two different Macs.
>
> > run disk utilities from a DVD,
> I've never found a need to run disk utilities, on either of my Macs, ever.
Well, I have.
>
> > install
> > software patches,
> Have to do this on any OS.
On Windows you can just disable it. Is there a way to do this on Macs?
>
> > delete .plist files,
> If something goes wrong, it's not a common occurance. I've found
> occasion to do so three times in the last two years on both Macs.
I have to do this constantly.
>
> > and reinstall the entire system
> > every few months.
> I've reinstalled OS X exactly twice--10.1 to 10.2, and 10.2 to 10.3.
I've reinstalled twice in the last six months.
>
> > Your hardware will also be vastly underpowered unless
> > you opt for an iMac or Powermac.
> Or an iBook, or a Mac mini, or a Powerbook.
Only if your needs consist of simple word processing and e-mail.
Otherwise a Mini is not sufficient.
macsuc...@yahoo.com
What kind of warnings do you see? Do you mean like when an application
crashes?
Mr. T
> > > Anyway, I would not advise you to try switching to Apple. Mac OS is an
> > > extremely high maintenance operating system
> > Do you get high before posting? That's the only reason I could think to
> > explain the above comment
>
> The original poster was considering switching because of Windows
> maintenance. I just want him to know that he will not find OS X to be
> any better in this regard.
osx is basically maintenance free, you are making these problems, just
leave the os to do what it does, don't mess with it and you'll be fine.
> > > that constantly requires
> > > you to repair disk permissions,
> > No permission repairs in the last 9 months, on two different Macs.
> >
> > > run disk utilities from a DVD,
> > I've never found a need to run disk utilities, on either of my Macs, ever.
>
> Well, I have.
don't. throw away your utilities disk, it will do you good. you seem
like the type of idiot that buys a nice new car, then takes poor
knowledge of how this new car works and starts pulling wires, hoses,
belts, loads it with a cord of wood, takes a shotgun to the windows,
rips up the seats, pours in diesel when it requires regular unleaded.
THEN wonders why it doesn't work very well. leave the inter workings of
your mac alone, and it will run much better.
> > > install
> > > software patches,
> > Have to do this on any OS.
>
> On Windows you can just disable it. Is there a way to do this on Macs?
yes, of course, look in your system prefs under software update,
uncheck, auto update. done.
> > > delete .plist files,
> > If something goes wrong, it's not a common occurance. I've found
> > occasion to do so three times in the last two years on both Macs.
>
> I have to do this constantly.
no you don't, you only do that since you don't know what you are doing,
there is very little chance removing a .plist file has helped you.
> > > and reinstall the entire system
> > > every few months.
> > I've reinstalled OS X exactly twice--10.1 to 10.2, and 10.2 to 10.3.
>
> I've reinstalled twice in the last six months.
and BOTH times were totally unnessaary, you should of just done an
archive and install. you don't know what you are doing, it's very clear.
> > > Your hardware will also be vastly underpowered unless
> > > you opt for an iMac or Powermac.
> > Or an iBook, or a Mac mini, or a Powerbook.
>
> Only if your needs consist of simple word processing and e-mail.
> Otherwise a Mini is not sufficient.
wrong, the mini is fine for many standard tasks.
Dibley Fanshaw
macsuc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I just turned updates off under services, and never saw it again. Any
> chance that Mac OS has a similar option?
The Software Updater Preferences have Please check options for
Daily/Weekly/Monthly or Off(manual)
You then have options to uncheck any updaters you don't need with the
ability to update in the background, update and keep packages, or
download only.
--
Dibley
(minimalist sig....oh damn!)
Dibley Fanshaw
macsuc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Only if your needs consist of simple word processing and e-mail.
> Otherwise a Mini is not sufficient.
The Mini is effectively an iBook with a supercharged video out (what has
Steve got up his sleeve to justify the Mini's maximum screen resolution
of 1920x1200, available only with the 23" Display which costs around 5x
the Mini.)
A Mini can do virtually anything an iBook is good for (except drive two
displays concurrently). The only thing this 12" iBook has problems with
is iDVD (no internal drive) although it cheerfully backs up to an
external DVD drive.
Fred Garvin
>
> Don't lie. After installing Tiger, I've been getting security updates
> almost every week.
You are full of shit. Completely and you know it.
--
Chris: "Dad, what's a blowhole for?"
Peter: "I'll tell you what it's NOT for and then you'll know why I can
never go back to Sea World."
Fred Garvin
>
> Well, I have, and aside from the very rare reinstall, none of the above
> has ever occurred with Windows. I don't even have defrag on my hard
> drive and stopped installing patches for XP ages ago.
>
> With the Mac, I have no choice. Updates come in on an automatic
> schedule, and install all manner of things I have no use for.
>
Bullshit. If auto is turned on you can turn it off, mine was not turned
on. You can also select what you want downloaed and installed, you
don't have to install everything. Why BS people, they can see you're
full of it.
(iPods,
> iPod phones, security updates that you claim I don't need, etc.) iTunes
> has gone through 3-4 updates in the last few weeks alone, and so almost
> every time I open it I need to click on yet another licensing
> agreement. OS components mysteriously stop working and the Apple
> Geniuses can only recommend that I perform an archive install, although
> lately they have suggested that reformatting would be a better option.
>
>
Nonsense, no itunes update has screwed up my Mac mini. NONE OF THEM.
--
PCs, like air-conditioners, are useless when you open Windows.
Fred Garvin
>
> I just turned updates off under services, and never saw it again. Any
> chance that Mac OS has a similar option?
Naturally it does. Stop spread FUD.
Travelinman
Dibley Fanshaw <dfan...@paradise.co.nz> wrote:
> In article <1130220573....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> macsuc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Only if your needs consist of simple word processing and e-mail.
> > Otherwise a Mini is not sufficient.
>
> The Mini is effectively an iBook with a supercharged video out (what has
> Steve got up his sleeve to justify the Mini's maximum screen resolution
> of 1920x1200, available only with the 23" Display which costs around 5x
> the Mini.)
Or a Dell monitor which costs $800 on sale. Or a high end HDTV (not
quite 1920x1200, but close)
>
> A Mini can do virtually anything an iBook is good for (except drive two
> displays concurrently). The only thing this 12" iBook has problems with
> is iDVD (no internal drive) although it cheerfully backs up to an
> external DVD drive.
Well, the mini also doesn't operate on battery power like the iBook.
That's the major difference.
macsuc...@yahoo.com
Despite your best efforts to troll, at least you knew how to turn off
the updates. Thanks.
Mr. T
> > and BOTH times were totally unnessaary, you should of just done an
> > archive and install. you don't know what you are doing, it's very clear.
> >
> > > > > Your hardware will also be vastly underpowered unless
> > > > > you opt for an iMac or Powermac.
> > > > Or an iBook, or a Mac mini, or a Powerbook.
> > >
> > > Only if your needs consist of simple word processing and e-mail.
> > > Otherwise a Mini is not sufficient.
> >
> > wrong, the mini is fine for many standard tasks.
>
> Despite your best efforts to troll, at least you knew how to turn off
> the updates. Thanks.
you are the one with the phantom mac mini problems, not us.
George Graves
macsuc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > You are so wrong that I don't even know where to begin. OSX is, without
> > > > a doubt, the worlds most TROUBLE-FREE operating system. I've been
> > > > running OSX for more than FIVE YEARS (since the Public Beta in September
> > > > 2000). In all that time, I've repaired permissions ONCE. I've never EVER
> > > > run any disk utilities, Mac HDDs don't get fragmented so one doesn't
> > > > have to run a defrag program. As for patches. They are occasional and
> > > > take about 5 minutes to install. They often fix problems and security
> > > > holes BEFORE they cause problems or get exploited, and I've never had to
> > > > reinstall the entire system nor delete any .plist files.
> > >
> > > Well, I have, and aside from the very rare reinstall, none of the above
> > > has ever occurred with Windows. I don't even have defrag on my hard
> > > drive and stopped installing patches for XP ages ago.
> > >
> > > With the Mac, I have no choice. Updates come in on an automatic
> > > schedule, and install all manner of things I have no use for.
> >
> > You are digging your hole ever deeper. None of the things that appear in
> > Software Update NEED to be either downloaded or installed. You do have a
> > choice, just don't install 'em.
>
> They will just pop up again later. It is a nuisance either way.
That's a matter of opinion. If you don't install them, they eventually
stop showing up. Secondly, I think its a good thing to know what
software is available, and thirdly, doesn't WinBlows do the same thing?
> >
> > > (iPods,
> > > iPod phones, security updates that you claim I don't need, etc.)
> >
> > iPod phones? Like you, I have no need, so I didn't install the driver.
> > As far as security updates are concerned, its called closing the corral
> > gate before the horses escape. But I know plenty of people who have
> > never installed any of them. Guess what? They've never had any security
> > problems. So, no, strictly speaking it looks like you don't really need
> > them, but what the hell an ounce of prevention and all that.
> >
> >
> >
> > > iTunes
> > > has gone through 3-4 updates in the last few weeks alone, and so almost
> > > every time I open it I need to click on yet another licensing
> > > agreement.
> >
> > So what? The updates obviously improve some part of iTunes. Be
> > proactive, read what the update does, and if you don't need what it
> > does, don't install the update. I mean its not like Microsoft, which
> > releases a piece of software and NEVER fixes the bugs or improves the
> > functionality until the next FOR SALE iteration comes out. Then there
> > are the literally thousands of security plugs that MS has shipped for XP
> > since it was introduced. So you seem to be the pot calling the kettle
> > black.
>
> Everything works exactly the same as it did before I updated. The only
> difference lately is a new version of Quicktime which contains some new
> video codec a Mac Mini can't even use.
Just because you can't see the improvement or don't use it, doesn't mean
that its not there.
>
> >
> >
> > > OS components mysteriously stop working and the Apple
> > > Geniuses can only recommend that I perform an archive install, although
> > > lately they have suggested that reformatting would be a better option.
> >
> > I've never had the problem, and I'm pretty sure that you haven't either.
>
> So if you have never had a problem, then it doesn't exist. Okay.
I have lots of friends with Macs. Many of them are completely computer
illiterate and would certainly count on me to keep their computers
running. They rarely have any problems either, and none of them have had
the ones that you just told a prospective newbie that ALL Macs have.
That's my beef with you.
>
> >
> > > > Also in all that time I've never had OSX crash, a lock-up, a slowdown, a
> > > > freeze, a virus, or a Trojan horse.
> > >
> > > You have already admitted to your Mac crashing. Need me to Google it up
> > > for you?
> >
> > Please. Because other than one kernel panic due to out of spec DRAM when
> > I first installed OSX, I've never had OSX crash. NEVER.
>
> You just contradicted your earlier statement that you've "never had OSX
> crash."
That's a matter of opinion too. The problem I had was hardware, It
happened during the initial transition from OS9 to OSX and after the
hardware problem was resolved, I've never had another kernel panic or
crash in FIVE YEARS. I'd say that kind of reliability and
"bullet-proof-ness" is pretty impressive.
> > > > And since you have NO IDEA of what you are talking about, you also don't
> > > > seem to know that ALL Macs made since 1993 are PowerMacs.
> > >
> > > Yet another semantic game.
> >
> > No at all. Since all Macs are PowerMacs, we have no idea what you are
> > talking about when you refer to iMacs and Powermacs. The purpose of
> > language is to communicate, not to obfuscate. When you use the wrong
> > term, you are not communicating. And by using the term Powermac as you
> > did, nobody has any idea what you are trying to say and it shows your
> > ignorance of the platform.
Note lack of response
> > > > So, admit it asshole, you've never owned, used or even seen a Macintosh,
> > > > now, have you? C'mon you might as well 'fess up because what you wrote
> > > > above tells everybody here that you are full of shit!
> > >
> > > Haha!
> >
> > Notice he did not refute anything I said.
>
> Why don't you read the message headers, and see if that doesn't refute
> things for you?
I challenged that you know nothing about Macs and you don't respond? I'd
say that tells me all I need to know.
Look, I don't care that you don't like Macs. Its a free country, and
you're welcome to like and dislike whatever you want. But the OP came
here looking for information about Macs, and you fed him lies, half
truths and distortions. Macs do not require constant permissions repair,
constant HDD maintenance, constant OS reinstalls, etc like you said they
do. And no Mac user here is going to let you get away with saying that
they do. Its that simple
GreyCloud
>
> GreyCloud wrote:
> > macsuc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Well, I have, and aside from the very rare reinstall, none of the above
> > > > > has ever occurred with Windows. I don't even have defrag on my hard
> > > > > drive and stopped installing patches for XP ages ago.
> > > >
> > > > Youuu'llll beeee sooooorrrrrryyyyyy!!!!
> > >
> > > Yawn.
> > >
> >
> > Careful there... sweaty ballmer might get horny watching
> > you.
> >
> > But in all seriousness, XP Pro does have a defragmentation
> > program under the System selection.
>
> Not after you delete it.
>
You'll regret that move.
But... it is your computer.
> >
> > Like only once every other week. Unlike XP, you get
> > pestered to death.
> > You should have seen XP have a shit fit when I did a system
> > recover... all XP wanted to do was phone home and try to
> > download, again, the system updates immediately.... it
> > wouldn't even allow a shutdown until it did. That's when I
> > pulled the cat-5 cable out of the HPs ass. Then it shut up.
> > But the HP has been turned in for a full refund. Eat your
> > heart out M$.
>
> I just turned updates off under services, and never saw it again. Any
> chance that Mac OS has a similar option?
Funny then that the other windows fanatics will then say
that you didn't keep your machine patched and thats why you
got a trojan or virus.
Under OS X I don't have to worry about those problems.
And the update... doesn't happen near as often as under XP.
It is simple and easy. If you don't want it, you just click
quit and no hassles. With XP, the stupid thing comes back
in about an hour asking you again... it gets to be like an
old bitch that'll nag until you do.
GreyCloud
Oh... worse than just that. When you are on a LAN, do I
care if joe blows network printer runs out of paper?? Why
should it tell me??
GreyCloud
That's the one. I was running Visual Studio and up pops
this stupid ad wanting me to upgrade Symantecs virus
checker. I clicked it off. Then another popup shows about
donating money to weatherbug.
XP was looking more like a advertising circus than a
computing environment. Yet the Intel P4-D was a pretty good
processor... a waste of good sand if you ask me.
GreyCloud
Yeah, those too. Funny that XP stays up, but M$ apps keep
crashing.
GreyCloud
I've seen those early on when I bought the wife the mac.
But after a few critical updates, these have become fewer in
numbers and less often. I'v yet to see the o/s crash tho.
I've seen the o/s become locked up due to crashreporter, due
to Safari, and get into a deadlock with looupd, but that was
remedied by downloading unlockd to watch over crashreporter.
George Graves
> > >
> > > What sites are you visiting to give you so much spyware? I have never
> > > seen any on my PC. Have you considered removing Internet Explorer and
> > > all of the other useless programs and services that come with XP by
> > > default? Might solve your problems.
> > Removing Internet Explorer from XP is neigh impossible. The best you can
> > do is render it hopelessly irreprable.
>
> Well guess what, I did. Runs much better without it.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Anyway, I would not advise you to try switching to Apple. Mac OS is an
> > > extremely high maintenance operating system
> > Do you get high before posting? That's the only reason I could think to
> > explain the above comment
>
> The original poster was considering switching because of Windows
> maintenance. I just want him to know that he will not find OS X to be
> any better in this regard.
But you're wrong. macs are MUCH better in this regard.
>
> >
> > > that constantly requires
> > > you to repair disk permissions,
> > No permission repairs in the last 9 months, on two different Macs.
> >
> > > run disk utilities from a DVD,
> > I've never found a need to run disk utilities, on either of my Macs, ever.
>
> Well, I have.
Permit to doubt......
> > > install
> > > software patches,
> > Have to do this on any OS.
>
> On Windows you can just disable it. Is there a way to do this on Macs?
Yes there is. Just open Software Update (under the blue Apple menu),
choose preferences from the "Software Update" menu and unclick the box
next to "Check for updates".
As I suspected, the problems that you are telling people are OSX faults
are actually cockpit problems caused by an incompetent pilot - you.
> > > delete .plist files,
> > If something goes wrong, it's not a common occurance. I've found
> > occasion to do so three times in the last two years on both Macs.
>
> I have to do this constantly.
>
> >
> > > and reinstall the entire system
> > > every few months.
> > I've reinstalled OS X exactly twice--10.1 to 10.2, and 10.2 to 10.3.
>
> I've reinstalled twice in the last six months.
So your incompetence is somehow a Mac problem?
> > > Your hardware will also be vastly underpowered unless
> > > you opt for an iMac or Powermac.
> > Or an iBook, or a Mac mini, or a Powerbook.
>
> Only if your needs consist of simple word processing and e-mail.
> Otherwise a Mini is not sufficient.
Not sufficient for what? I've a friend who successfully and happily
edits video on his Mini and finds it more than acceptable in the
performance department. My Powerbook is slower than any Mini model and I
find it acceptable for any task I need to do with it (although my dual
G5 tower is much faster).
George Graves
"Mr. T" <tee...@arm-lt.com> wrote:
> macsuc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > Anyway, I would not advise you to try switching to Apple. Mac OS is an
> > > > extremely high maintenance operating system
> > > Do you get high before posting? That's the only reason I could think to
> > > explain the above comment
> >
> > The original poster was considering switching because of Windows
> > maintenance. I just want him to know that he will not find OS X to be
> > any better in this regard.
>
> osx is basically maintenance free,
absolutely!
> you are making these problems, just
> leave the os to do what it does, don't mess with it and you'll be fine.
It's obvious that he has no idea what he's doing. I suspect that he's
one of these people (like Pratt) who insists that Macs work like Windows
and tries to force it to do so when it doesn't. He couldn't even figure
out how to turn off "Software Update".
George Graves
macsuc...@yahoo.com wrote:
He's not trolling. He's telling you the truth. Your Mac problems are
mostly YOUR problems, not OSX's.
Oxford
> > but we aren't talking about "ease of target" we are talking about "ease
> > to infect",
> The two concepts are very closely related. Why would any virus writer
> try to attack OS X in the first place? Whatever virus they release will
> spread slowly, and attack a more difficult (but not, by any means,
> impenetrable) target in the process. Why would they bother when Windows
> targets are so much more prevelent and easier to compromise?
hogwash, an easy target is what gets hit the most, it has nothing to do
with "marketshare". if OSX was "equally" easy to "hit" it would
"equally" be "hit".
> > It's a technical reason OSX doesn't get viruses,
> Right--the statistical difficulty of actually infecting large numbers of
> completely defenseless OS X boxes. It's just too rare a target for
> virus writers to bother with.
this isn't about statistics, it about "ease of target". get that through
your thick head.
> >>>the reason is far more
> >>>technical in nature,
> >>
> >>Well, if you consider statistics to be 'technical'.
i've already proven it's not related to any "statistics".
> > Stats have very little to do with it, if 100% of the macs were not on
> > the net, then you might have a point, but a good 80% are on the net, and
> > ZERO have been infected over 4.5 years of use.
> Yes, with a userbase that hovers somewhere below 5%. Thus, it's a
> difficult target to hit, simply because each potential target is so
> rare. It would be like a human virus that could only *possibly* effect 5
> out of 100 people.
it's not any more difficult to hit than 5% of exposed windows machines.
plus you are are completely forgetting, 95% of the windows machines sold
are not on the internet, only about 60% are online, the way that so
called "5%" of macs are. lots and lots of pcs are never tied to the
internet. cash registers, signage, dumb factory terminals, etc, etc,
etc, etc.
> >>>the fact is a good 15 million osx macs are
> >>>connected to the net 24/7/365, so don't you think "one measly virus"
> >>>would of infected the population by now?
> >>
> >>One did. The fake word installer virus.
> >
> > post a reference, bet you can't
> http://secunia.com/virus_information/9393/as.mw2004.trojan/
and that isn't a virus, read the link before you post next time.
> > no, but there are some serious security mistakes in windows. in OSX, not
> > so much.
> The mistakes Microsoft made were assuming that technical superiority is
> more effective than simple (but less versitile) procedures. Windows *is*
> technically more secure than OS X is. In practice, securing it is so far
> beyond the average user that it might as well be swiss cheese.
Really? then please explain why there are 64,00+ viruses for MS based
PCs and NONE for OSX? It seems you completely forgot to think before
writing your comment.
> >>>so it's basically impossible to remotely
> >>>enter a mac,
> >>
> >>Well, if you feel so secure, leave your Mac outside your firewall and
> >>post your IP addy for the world to see.
go knock on this IP, 70.57.60.154 it's open, why can't you get in? hum?
> > firewalls are for wimps, they are basically unneeded on OSX.
> That's why Apple includes one?
Apple has to bow to the ignorant, not having one would be a missing
"check off" item, so the people that don't understand security would be
mistakenly afraid. It's sad really when MS's weaknesses forces honest
companies to cheapen up their products.
> > my systems
> > are always on, no passwords, sharing is on, come get me or any mac user
> > for that matter.
> I wouldn't even consider it--but post your IP addy out here. I wonder
> how long it would take for someone you annoyed to bring down your
> unsecured Mac. Probably not very long, considering just how open OS X
> actually is by default.
You must be paranoid, I have hundreds of machines with no passwords, no
firewalls, all work perfectly, none have been breached. It's the
difference of OSX compared to Linux or Windows.
> > 1) 30+ years of unix, Live 24/7 network development. No other consumer
> > OS is this battle tested on the Internet.
> OS X isn't particularly 'battle tested'. It uses a kernel that was,
> until OS X came out, extremely rare. It's only saving grace is the use
> of the FreeBSD tools. However, FreeBSD is probably the least secure of
> all of the BSD distributions... OS X is even less so for the inclusion
> of new and untested software, as well as a relatively untested kernel.
On a worldwide network it certainly is the most battle tested consumer
OS. sure if you are sitting in front of the machine and have a startup
CD, there is a way in, but a virus writer would be awfully busy trying
to do that worldwide.
> > 2) Known insecure networking ports are turned off by default.
> Go run an nmap scan against an OS X box with the firewall turned off
> (this is it's default state, by the way).
Great, you can attack my printer! go for it... gosh, that's were I store
all my gold! Maybe you could have my printer, print fake $$ and have it
automatically mail them to yourself? That seems about the level of your
intelligence on this matter. Bottom line, there is nothing you can do to
break into a default OSX install, it's locked down tight.
> > 3) Automatic Software Update is turned on by default.
> The same is true for most consumer operating systems these days. It's a
> good thing too, because OS X has plenty of holes OOTB.
Where are these holes? waiting...
> > 4) All administrative actions require a password.
> Nothing special here. Even Windows does this, assuming you don't do
> something silly like run as administrator.
Most everyone on a Mac runs as an Admin, but Apple was smart enough to
separate the privs of this user from a high level "root" user. MS, not
so much.
> > In other words, for
> > Virus to move from machine to machine, a Virus writer must go into every
> > house/office then figure out the user's password, then hit return. (now
> > you know why there are Zero viruses on Macs)
> Hardly. There are plenty of methods of falsifying or circumventing such
> a security procedure. A simple keylogger would solve that problem.
> There's also the tried-and-true method of just misnaming an installer
> and sending it to the user with a message like 'Click me for hawt pr0n!'.
How is a keylogger going to help you if you don't have access to the
system? you really need to think things through before you post. Sending
a trojan installer isn't going to "install it" you still need to type a
password, so unless the user knew you, you couldn't get in.
> > 5) Root administrator account is turned off by default.
> Unfortunately, if someone managed to exploit the user into revealing
> their password... this precaution would do no good.
Which is the same for any system.
> > 6) Apple's quick response with security patches.
> Apple can't patch user stupidity.
Which is the same for any system.
> > 9) Mac OS X by default supports secure encryption and communication
> > protocols for authentication: Kerberos, SSH, VPN, MS-CHAP2, DIGEST-MD5,
> > CRAM-MD5, DHX, OTP, SMB-NT, APOP.
> And this prevents the user from being exploited... how?
ease, by using Kerberos, SSH, VPN, MS-CHAP2, DIGEST-MD5, CRAM-MD5, DHX,
OTP, SMB-NT, APOP.
> > Finally, many of Mac OS X's security problems are only theoretical and
> > can never materialize, nor propagate in the wild.
> That's right--propogation difficulties are what keep viruses off OS X.
> It's difficult not because OS X is especially secure, but because OS X
> is just so rare.
Nah, it's because OSX is impossible to breach, after 4.5 years of
trying, nobody has gotten in.
> > They work with the CERT (http://www.cert.org/) and the
> > FreeBSD community (http://www.freebsd.org/security/) to address security
> > issues. They also belong to FIRST (http://www.first.org/). In short
> > Apple takes security seriously and if you work with Macs as I do you'd
> > know it too.
> I do work with Macs, this is why I have absolutely no faith in Apple
> when it comes to dealing with security threats.
And now describe your latest "threat" that caused a breach of security
using OSX, bet you can't.
macsuc...@yahoo.com
>
> That's a matter of opinion. If you don't install them, they eventually
> stop showing up. Secondly, I think its a good thing to know what
> software is available, and thirdly, doesn't WinBlows do the same thing?
Well with Windows I already had updates turned off. Now that I have
done the same on the Mac, it is basically the same thing.
>
> > >
> > Everything works exactly the same as it did before I updated. The only
> > difference lately is a new version of Quicktime which contains some new
> > video codec a Mac Mini can't even use.
>
> Just because you can't see the improvement or don't use it, doesn't mean
> that its not there.
Oh, I get it. Apple gives you improvements that you cannot see or use,
so you have no idea whether or not they are actually helping or even
exist. This is yet another reason to not bother with the updates.
> I have lots of friends with Macs. Many of them are completely computer
> illiterate and would certainly count on me to keep their computers
> running. They rarely have any problems either, and none of them have had
> the ones that you just told a prospective newbie that ALL Macs have.
> That's my beef with you.
Too bad.
> That's a matter of opinion too. The problem I had was hardware, It
> happened during the initial transition from OS9 to OSX and after the
> hardware problem was resolved, I've never had another kernel panic or
> crash in FIVE YEARS. I'd say that kind of reliability and
> "bullet-proof-ness" is pretty impressive.
I don't see kernel panics either, just endless application/finder
crashes. While its true that the OS itself does not crash often, it is
still inconvenient and something that rarely happens on my PCs.
> > >
> > > No at all. Since all Macs are PowerMacs, we have no idea what you are
> > > talking about when you refer to iMacs and Powermacs. The purpose of
> > > language is to communicate, not to obfuscate. When you use the wrong
> > > term, you are not communicating. And by using the term Powermac as you
> > > did, nobody has any idea what you are trying to say and it shows your
> > > ignorance of the platform.
>
> Note lack of response
Why would I bother arguing with you over your semantic games?
>
>
> > > > > So, admit it asshole, you've never owned, used or even seen a Macintosh,
> > > > > now, have you? C'mon you might as well 'fess up because what you wrote
> > > > > above tells everybody here that you are full of shit!
> > > >
> > > > Haha!
> > >
> > > Notice he did not refute anything I said.
> >
> > Why don't you read the message headers, and see if that doesn't refute
> > things for you?
>
> I challenged that you know nothing about Macs and you don't respond? I'd
> say that tells me all I need to know.
You also claimed that I had never owned, used, or even seen a
Macintosh, when clearly I have. I'd say that tells all that anyone
needs to know about you.
>
> Look, I don't care that you don't like Macs. Its a free country, and
> you're welcome to like and dislike whatever you want. But the OP came
> here looking for information about Macs, and you fed him lies, half
> truths and distortions. Macs do not require constant permissions repair,
> constant HDD maintenance, constant OS reinstalls, etc like you said they
> do. And no Mac user here is going to let you get away with saying that
> they do. Its that simple
You cannot deny facts.
TheLetterK
>>>What sites are you visiting to give you so much spyware? I have never
>>>seen any on my PC. Have you considered removing Internet Explorer and
>>>all of the other useless programs and services that come with XP by
>>>default? Might solve your problems.
>>
>>Removing Internet Explorer from XP is neigh impossible. The best you can
>>do is render it hopelessly irreprable.
>
>
> Well guess what, I did. Runs much better without it.
of other things call on components from IE.
>
>
>>>Anyway, I would not advise you to try switching to Apple. Mac OS is an
>>>extremely high maintenance operating system
>>
>>Do you get high before posting? That's the only reason I could think to
>>explain the above comment
>
>
> The original poster was considering switching because of Windows
> maintenance. I just want him to know that he will not find OS X to be
> any better in this regard.
Why would he not? Is he different from every other switcher?
>
>
>>>that constantly requires
>>>you to repair disk permissions,
>>
>>No permission repairs in the last 9 months, on two different Macs.
>>
>>
>>>run disk utilities from a DVD,
>>
>>I've never found a need to run disk utilities, on either of my Macs, ever.
>
>
> Well, I have.
Any you are in the extreme minority.
>
>
>>>install
>>>software patches,
>>
>>Have to do this on any OS.
>
>
> On Windows you can just disable it. Is there a way to do this on Macs?
Yes. Uncheck the box that says 'automatic system update' in System
Preferences.
>
>
>>>delete .plist files,
>>
>>If something goes wrong, it's not a common occurance. I've found
>>occasion to do so three times in the last two years on both Macs.
>
>
> I have to do this constantly.
Yet again you live with the extreme minority.
>
>
>>>and reinstall the entire system
>>>every few months.
>>
>>I've reinstalled OS X exactly twice--10.1 to 10.2, and 10.2 to 10.3.
>
>
> I've reinstalled twice in the last six months.
I'm beginning to think that you are not just a troll, but also an idiot.
>
>
>>>Your hardware will also be vastly underpowered unless
>>>you opt for an iMac or Powermac.
>>
>>Or an iBook, or a Mac mini, or a Powerbook.
>
>
> Only if your needs consist of simple word processing and e-mail.
> Otherwise a Mini is not sufficient.
My needs extend beyond basic word processing and e-mail. A mini is quite
a bit more powerful than my current Macs.
TheLetterK
that, for some strange reason, Microsoft allows to steal window focus.
They're all over the place.
Travelinman
macsuc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > Look, I don't care that you don't like Macs. Its a free country, and
> > you're welcome to like and dislike whatever you want. But the OP came
> > here looking for information about Macs, and you fed him lies, half
> > truths and distortions. Macs do not require constant permissions repair,
> > constant HDD maintenance, constant OS reinstalls, etc like you said they
> > do. And no Mac user here is going to let you get away with saying that
> > they do. Its that simple
>
> You cannot deny facts.
When are you going to provide some?
TheLetterK
> TheLetterK <thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>but we aren't talking about "ease of target" we are talking about "ease
>>>to infect",
>>
>>The two concepts are very closely related. Why would any virus writer
>>try to attack OS X in the first place? Whatever virus they release will
>>spread slowly, and attack a more difficult (but not, by any means,
>>impenetrable) target in the process. Why would they bother when Windows
>>targets are so much more prevelent and easier to compromise?
>
>
> hogwash, an easy target is what gets hit the most, it has nothing to do
> with "marketshare". if OSX was "equally" easy to "hit" it would
> "equally" be "hit".
agree with your assessment.
>
>
>>>It's a technical reason OSX doesn't get viruses,
>>
>>Right--the statistical difficulty of actually infecting large numbers of
>> completely defenseless OS X boxes. It's just too rare a target for
>>virus writers to bother with.
>
>
> this isn't about statistics, it about "ease of target". get that through
> your thick head.
Statistics plays a huge role in determining infection rates and
probability of being targeted.
>
>
>>>>>the reason is far more
>>>>>technical in nature,
>>>>
>>>>Well, if you consider statistics to be 'technical'.
>
>
> i've already proven it's not related to any "statistics".
No, you've asserted that it is not related to statistics. 'Proof' would
require some sort of credible supporting evidence. Something you have
yet to provide.
>
>
>>>Stats have very little to do with it, if 100% of the macs were not on
>>>the net, then you might have a point, but a good 80% are on the net, and
>>>ZERO have been infected over 4.5 years of use.
>>
>>Yes, with a userbase that hovers somewhere below 5%. Thus, it's a
>>difficult target to hit, simply because each potential target is so
>>rare. It would be like a human virus that could only *possibly* effect 5
>>out of 100 people.
>
>
> it's not any more difficult to hit than 5% of exposed windows machines.
Yes, yes it is. Each 'node' would take ~20 times longer to find for a
Mac virus than it would for a Windows virus. This is due to Apple's low
share of the userbase. Virus propogation times would slow to a crawl,
simply because there aren't very many Macs to act as zombies for virus
propogation.
> plus you are are completely forgetting, 95% of the windows machines sold
> are not on the internet,
Can you prove this? I didn't think so.
> only about 60% are online, the way that so
> called "5%" of macs are. lots and lots of pcs are never tied to the
> internet. cash registers, signage, dumb factory terminals, etc, etc,
> etc, etc.
Yes, many are not. But the vast majority are.
>
>
>>>>>the fact is a good 15 million osx macs are
>>>>>connected to the net 24/7/365, so don't you think "one measly virus"
>>>>>would of infected the population by now?
>>>>
>>>>One did. The fake word installer virus.
>>>
>>>post a reference, bet you can't
>>
>>http://secunia.com/virus_information/9393/as.mw2004.trojan/
>
>
> and that isn't a virus, read the link before you post next time.
Playing with semantics now? Well, by that logic Windows doesn't have
very many viruses either--they're almost all worms and trojans.
>
>
>>>no, but there are some serious security mistakes in windows. in OSX, not
>>>so much.
>>
>>The mistakes Microsoft made were assuming that technical superiority is
>>more effective than simple (but less versitile) procedures. Windows *is*
>>technically more secure than OS X is. In practice, securing it is so far
>>beyond the average user that it might as well be swiss cheese.
>
>
> Really? then please explain why there are 64,00+ viruses for MS based
> PCs and NONE for OSX? It seems you completely forgot to think before
> writing your comment.
Because propogation time for Mac viruses is prohibitively high, the
target 'audience' is miniscule, and the task is a bit more difficult?
>
>
>>>>>so it's basically impossible to remotely
>>>>>enter a mac,
>>>>
>>>>Well, if you feel so secure, leave your Mac outside your firewall and
>>>>post your IP addy for the world to see.
>
>
> go knock on this IP, 70.57.60.154 it's open, why can't you get in? hum?
It's illegal, you know.
>
>
>>>firewalls are for wimps, they are basically unneeded on OSX.
>>
>>That's why Apple includes one?
>
>
> Apple has to bow to the ignorant, not having one would be a missing
> "check off" item, so the people that don't understand security would be
> mistakenly afraid. It's sad really when MS's weaknesses forces honest
> companies to cheapen up their products.
I, for one, am glad that Apple did show a bit of foresight and chose to
include a good firewall by default. Now, if they could just be bothered
to turn it on by default... I'm doubly glad that you aren't
administrator for any of my boxes. Your lack of knowledge regarding
security is appaling, as is your trust in Apple to provide solutions.
>
>
>>>my systems
>>>are always on, no passwords, sharing is on, come get me or any mac user
>>>for that matter.
>>
>>I wouldn't even consider it--but post your IP addy out here. I wonder
>>how long it would take for someone you annoyed to bring down your
>>unsecured Mac. Probably not very long, considering just how open OS X
>>actually is by default.
>
>
> You must be paranoid, I have hundreds of machines with no passwords, no
> firewalls, all work perfectly, none have been breached. It's the
> difference of OSX compared to Linux or Windows.
Right, keep digging that hole oxtard.
>
>
>>>1) 30+ years of unix, Live 24/7 network development. No other consumer
>>>OS is this battle tested on the Internet.
>>
>>OS X isn't particularly 'battle tested'. It uses a kernel that was,
>>until OS X came out, extremely rare. It's only saving grace is the use
>>of the FreeBSD tools. However, FreeBSD is probably the least secure of
>>all of the BSD distributions... OS X is even less so for the inclusion
>>of new and untested software, as well as a relatively untested kernel.
>
>
> On a worldwide network it certainly is the most battle tested consumer
> OS.
Can you justify this statement, or is just another example of your
favored tactic--'proof by declaration'.
> sure if you are sitting in front of the machine and have a startup
> CD, there is a way in, but a virus writer would be awfully busy trying
> to do that worldwide.
I can exploit my own Macs fairly easily--it's how you shore up their
defenses you know.
>
>
>>>2) Known insecure networking ports are turned off by default.
>>
>>Go run an nmap scan against an OS X box with the firewall turned off
>>(this is it's default state, by the way).
>
>
> Great, you can attack my printer!
No, a malicious cracker could attack your *printer service*. If there is
a vulnerability in this component, then it could allow the attacker
access to the machine as a whole. And there is more than just a printer
service running.
> go for it... gosh, that's were I store
> all my gold! Maybe you could have my printer, print fake $$ and have it
> automatically mail them to yourself? That seems about the level of your
> intelligence on this matter. Bottom line, there is nothing you can do to
> break into a default OSX install, it's locked down tight.
Oxtard, can you become any more of an idiot? It must be a challenge to
continually lower the bar.
>
>
>>>3) Automatic Software Update is turned on by default.
>>
>>The same is true for most consumer operating systems these days. It's a
>>good thing too, because OS X has plenty of holes OOTB.
>
>
> Where are these holes? waiting...
Let's see... in the last security update for 10.4.2, the following holes
were patched:
* ImageIO
CVE-ID: CAN-2005-2747
Available for: Mac OS X v10.4.2, Mac OS X Server v10.4.2
Impact: Viewing a maliciously-crafted GIF image may result in
arbitrary code execution.
Description: By carefully crafting a corrupt GIF image, an
attacker can trigger a buffer overflow in ImageIO which may result in
arbitrary code execution. Several components of Mac OS X utilize ImageIO
including WebCore and Safari. This update addresses the issue by
performing additional validation of images.
CVE-ID: CAN-2005-2746
Available for: Mac OS X v10.3.9, Mac OS X Server v10.3.9, Mac OS
X v10.4.2, Mac OS X Server v10.4.2
Impact: When using auto-reply rules, Mail.app may expose the
contents of encrypted messages.
Description: Mail.app includes the contents of messages when
processing auto-reply rules. If a message being processed was encrypted,
the automatically generated response will include the decrypted message
contents. This could allow an attacker to intercept the message. This
update addresses the issue by ensuring that unencrypted responses to
encrypted messages are not generated. Credit to Norbert Rittel of Rittel
Consulting for reporting this issue.
CVE-ID: CAN-2005-2745
Available for: Mac OS X v10.3.9, Mac OS X Server v10.3.9
Impact: Using Kerberos Version 5 for SMTP authentication Mail.app
may disclose sensitive information.
Description: When using SMTP authentication with Kerberos Version
5, Mail.app may append un-initialized memory to a message. This update
addresses the issue by updating Mail.app. Credit to the MIT Kerberos
team for reporting this issue. This issue was resolved in Mac OS X
v10.4.2 by Security Update 2005-007.
* malloc
CVE-ID: CAN-2005-2748
Available for: Mac OS X v10.3.9, Mac OS X Server v10.3.9, Mac OS
X v10.4.2, Mac OS X Server v10.4.2
Impact: Insecure file handling may result in local privilege
escalation.
Description: When certain environmental variables are set to
enable debugging of application memory allocation, files with diagnostic
information are created insecurely. This could allow a malicious local
user to alter arbitrary files. This update addresses the issue by
disallowing malloc debugging in privileged programs. Credit to Ilja van
Sprundel of Suresec LTD for reporting this issue.
* QuickDraw Manager
CVE-ID: CAN-2005-2744
Available for: Mac OS X v10.3.9, Mac OS X Server v10.3.9, Mac OS
X v10.4.2, Mac OS X Server v10.4.2
Impact: Viewing a maliciously-crafted PICT image may result in
arbitrary code execution.
Description: By carefully crafting a corrupt PICT image, an
attacker can trigger a buffer overflow in QuickDraw Manager which may
result in arbitrary code execution. Several components of Mac OS X
utilize QuickDraw Manager, including Safari, Mail, and Finder. This
update addresses the issue by performing additional validation of
images. Credit to Henrik Dalgaard of Echo One for reporting this issue.
* QuickTime for Java
CVE-ID: CAN-2005-2743
Available for: Mac OS X v10.3.9, Mac OS X Server v10.3.9
Impact: An untrusted applet may gain elevated privileges.
Description: The Java extensions bundled with QuickTime 6.52 and
earlier allow untrusted applets to call arbitrary functions from system
libraries. This update addresses the issue by limiting these calls to
trusted applets. Systems running QuickTime 7 or later are not affected
by this issue. Systems running Mac OS X v10.4 or later are also not
affected by this issue. Credit to Dino Dai Zovi for reporting this issue.
* Ruby
CVE-ID: CAN-2005-1992
Available for: Mac OS X v10.4.2, Mac OS X Server v10.4.2
Impact: Ruby applications utilizing the xmlrpc module may be
vulnerable to arbitrary code execution.
Description: The Ruby xmlrpc/utils module utilizes the method
Module#public_instance_methods to determine which methods may be invoked
remotely using XML-RPC. A change between different versions of Ruby
caused this method list to unintentionally include methods that may be
used to execute arbitrary Ruby code. This update addresses the issue by
updating the xmlrpc/utils module. This issue does not affect systems
prior to Mac OS X v10.4.
* Safari
CVE-ID: CAN-2005-2524
Available for: Mac OS X v10.3.9, Mac OS X Server v10.3.9
Impact: Maliciously crafted web archives could potentially allow
cross-site scripting.
Description: It is possible to view web archives served from
remote sites in Safari. Maliciously crafted web archives may be rendered
as content from sites they did not server them. This update prevents
remote web archives from being loaded. Safari web archives were
introduced in Safari 2.0. This issue was resolved in Mac OS X v10.4.2 by
Security Update 2005-007.
* SecurityAgent
CVE-ID: CAN-2005-2742
Available for: Mac OS X v10.4.2, Mac OS X Server v10.4.2
Impact: A user with physical access to the system may be able to
bypass the "Require password to wake this computer from sleep or screen
saver" setting.
Description: Under certain situations, the "Switch User..."
button may appear even though the "Enable fast user switching" setting
is disabled. This could cause the currently logged-in user's desktop to
be displayed without authentication. This update prevents the "Switch
User..." button from appearing when inappropriate. This issue does not
affect systems prior to Mac OS X v10.4. Credit to Luke Fowler of the
Indiana University Global Research Network Operations Center for
reporting this issue.
* securityd
CVE-ID: CAN-2005-2741
Available for: Mac OS X v10.3.9, Mac OS X Server v10.3.9, Mac OS
X v10.4.2, Mac OS X Server v10.4.2
Impact: Malicious users may grant themselves rights to manipulate
arbitrary files or perform other privileged actions.
Description: Authorization Services allows unprivileged users to
grant certain rights that should be restricted to administrators, which
may lead to privilege escalation. This update addresses the issue by
adding restrictions to which rights unprivileged users can grant themselves.
>
>
>>>4) All administrative actions require a password.
>>
>>Nothing special here. Even Windows does this, assuming you don't do
>>something silly like run as administrator.
>
>
> Most everyone on a Mac runs as an Admin, but Apple was smart enough to
> separate the privs of this user from a high level "root" user. MS, not
> so much.
Unfortunately, this same user can easily execute code as root on OS X.
It just requires a password, which is so insanely easy to harvest I
don't know where to begin. The naming vulnerability on OS X allows for
all sorts of easy vectors of attack. All you have to do is convince the
user that the package in question is a legitimate package. If, for
example, you disguised a password harvester as an installer package few
people would realize they were being exploited.
This is a long standing vulnerability in OS X, that Apple has known
about for years now.
>
>
>>>In other words, for
>>>Virus to move from machine to machine, a Virus writer must go into every
>>>house/office then figure out the user's password, then hit return. (now
>>>you know why there are Zero viruses on Macs)
>>
>>Hardly. There are plenty of methods of falsifying or circumventing such
>>a security procedure. A simple keylogger would solve that problem.
>>There's also the tried-and-true method of just misnaming an installer
>>and sending it to the user with a message like 'Click me for hawt pr0n!'.
>
>
> How is a keylogger going to help you if you don't have access to the
> system?
If someone packaged a keylogger as some silly bit of freeware that
required authentication to install, I guarantee you that they would get
idiots to run it and reveal their admin password.
> you really need to think things through before you post. Sending
> a trojan installer isn't going to "install it" you still need to type a
> password, so unless the user knew you, you couldn't get in.
Hardly. As the sucess of mass mailer worms has demonstrated, people are
idiots. Your average Mac user is even *less* savvy when it comes to
security, simply because most think they live in some perfect world with
a fully secure operating system.
>
>
>>>5) Root administrator account is turned off by default.
>>
>>Unfortunately, if someone managed to exploit the user into revealing
>>their password... this precaution would do no good.
>
>
> Which is the same for any system.
Yet you still claim OS X is especially secure... why?
>
>
>>>6) Apple's quick response with security patches.
>>
>>Apple can't patch user stupidity.
>
>
> Which is the same for any system.
Yet you still claim OS X is especially secure... why?
>
>
>>>9) Mac OS X by default supports secure encryption and communication
>>>protocols for authentication: Kerberos, SSH, VPN, MS-CHAP2, DIGEST-MD5,
>>>CRAM-MD5, DHX, OTP, SMB-NT, APOP.
>>
>>And this prevents the user from being exploited... how?
>
>
> ease, by using Kerberos, SSH, VPN, MS-CHAP2, DIGEST-MD5, CRAM-MD5, DHX,
> OTP, SMB-NT, APOP.
You still haven't explained how this prevents the *user* from being
exploited.
>
>
>>>Finally, many of Mac OS X's security problems are only theoretical and
>>>can never materialize, nor propagate in the wild.
>>
>>That's right--propogation difficulties are what keep viruses off OS X.
>>It's difficult not because OS X is especially secure, but because OS X
>>is just so rare.
>
>
> Nah, it's because OSX is too rare to bother with--after 4.5 years of
> not caring, nobody has gotten in.
Corrected.
>
>
>>>They work with the CERT (http://www.cert.org/) and the
>>>FreeBSD community (http://www.freebsd.org/security/) to address security
>>>issues. They also belong to FIRST (http://www.first.org/). In short
>>>Apple takes security seriously and if you work with Macs as I do you'd
>>>know it too.
>>
>>I do work with Macs, this is why I have absolutely no faith in Apple
>>when it comes to dealing with security threats.
>
>
> And now describe your latest "threat" that caused a breach of security
> using OSX, bet you can't.
Your right, I can't. But that is because of the statistical difficulty
of needing to expliot an OS X box.
macsuc...@yahoo.com
TheLetterK wrote:
> macsuc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>What sites are you visiting to give you so much spyware? I have never
> >>>seen any on my PC. Have you considered removing Internet Explorer and
> >>>all of the other useless programs and services that come with XP by
> >>>default? Might solve your problems.
> >>
> >>Removing Internet Explorer from XP is neigh impossible. The best you can
> >>do is render it hopelessly irreprable.
> >
> >
> > Well guess what, I did. Runs much better without it.
> That, I doubt. Internet Explorer is a rather critical part of XP--lots
> of other things call on components from IE.
None of those components are anything you actually need. IE is not as
critical as Microsoft pretends it to be.
>
> >
> >
> >>>Anyway, I would not advise you to try switching to Apple. Mac OS is an
> >>>extremely high maintenance operating system
> >>
> >>Do you get high before posting? That's the only reason I could think to
> >>explain the above comment
> >
> >
> > The original poster was considering switching because of Windows
> > maintenance. I just want him to know that he will not find OS X to be
> > any better in this regard.
> Why would he not? Is he different from every other switcher?
Yawn.
>
> >
> >
> >>>that constantly requires
> >>>you to repair disk permissions,
> >>
> >>No permission repairs in the last 9 months, on two different Macs.
> >>
> >>
> >>>run disk utilities from a DVD,
> >>
> >>I've never found a need to run disk utilities, on either of my Macs, ever.
> >
> >
> > Well, I have.
> Any you are in the extreme minority.
Everyone who owns a Mac is in the extreme minority.
>
> >
> >
> >>>install
> >>>software patches,
> >>
> >>Have to do this on any OS.
> >
> >
> > On Windows you can just disable it. Is there a way to do this on Macs?
> Yes. Uncheck the box that says 'automatic system update' in System
> Preferences.
I have done so, thank you to you and everyone else who mentioned this.
>
> >
> >
> >>>delete .plist files,
> >>
> >>If something goes wrong, it's not a common occurance. I've found
> >>occasion to do so three times in the last two years on both Macs.
> >
> >
> > I have to do this constantly.
> Yet again you live with the extreme minority.
....
>
> >
> >
> >>>and reinstall the entire system
> >>>every few months.
> >>
> >>I've reinstalled OS X exactly twice--10.1 to 10.2, and 10.2 to 10.3.
> >
> >
> > I've reinstalled twice in the last six months.
> I'm beginning to think that you are not just a troll, but also an idiot.
Yawn.
>
> >
> >
> >>>Your hardware will also be vastly underpowered unless
> >>>you opt for an iMac or Powermac.
> >>
> >>Or an iBook, or a Mac mini, or a Powerbook.
> >
> >
> > Only if your needs consist of simple word processing and e-mail.
> > Otherwise a Mini is not sufficient.
> My needs extend beyond basic word processing and e-mail. A mini is quite
> a bit more powerful than my current Macs.
What are your needs?
macsuc...@yahoo.com
I have never seen anything like that. I do find it amusing though that
your one example of this from XP is a message from an Apple program
bugging you to update -- which is exactly the same thing I was
complaining about in OS X.
George Graves
> > > They will just pop up again later. It is a nuisance either way.
> >
> > That's a matter of opinion. If you don't install them, they eventually
> > stop showing up. Secondly, I think its a good thing to know what
> > software is available, and thirdly, doesn't WinBlows do the same thing?
>
> Well with Windows I already had updates turned off. Now that I have
> done the same on the Mac, it is basically the same thing.
> >
> > > >
> > > Everything works exactly the same as it did before I updated. The only
> > > difference lately is a new version of Quicktime which contains some new
> > > video codec a Mac Mini can't even use.
> >
> > Just because you can't see the improvement or don't use it, doesn't mean
> > that its not there.
>
> Oh, I get it.
You get NOTHING.
> Apple gives you improvements that you cannot see or use,
No, Apple gives you improvements that YOU might not see or use, or
perhaps I might not see them or use them, but some people might. Often
they're bug fixes and if they way you use iTunes, if you don't encounter
those bugs, you won't see any difference. Is this stuff too difficult
for you to understand or what?
> so you have no idea whether or not they are actually helping or even
> exist. This is yet another reason to not bother with the updates.
Bug fixes are often invisible to many users who never encounter the
bugs. Are you too stupid to understand this? So what it amounts to is
that you want Apple to be like Microsoft, and NEVER fix any bugs?
> > I have lots of friends with Macs. Many of them are completely computer
> > illiterate and would certainly count on me to keep their computers
> > running. They rarely have any problems either, and none of them have had
> > the ones that you just told a prospective newbie that ALL Macs have.
> > That's my beef with you.
>
> Too bad.
Yeah, for YOU and your lies.
> > That's a matter of opinion too. The problem I had was hardware, It
> > happened during the initial transition from OS9 to OSX and after the
> > hardware problem was resolved, I've never had another kernel panic or
> > crash in FIVE YEARS. I'd say that kind of reliability and
> > "bullet-proof-ness" is pretty impressive.
>
> I don't see kernel panics either, just endless application/finder
> crashes.
What the hell are you running? My finder never crashes, neither do apps.
> While its true that the OS itself does not crash often, it is
> still inconvenient and something that rarely happens on my PCs.
>
> > > >
> > > > No at all. Since all Macs are PowerMacs, we have no idea what you are
> > > > talking about when you refer to iMacs and Powermacs. The purpose of
> > > > language is to communicate, not to obfuscate. When you use the wrong
> > > > term, you are not communicating. And by using the term Powermac as you
> > > > did, nobody has any idea what you are trying to say and it shows your
> > > > ignorance of the platform.
> >
> > Note lack of response
>
> Why would I bother arguing with you over your semantic games?
Because I'd like to know JUST WTF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT when you use the
term "Powermac"!
> > > > > > So, admit it asshole, you've never owned, used or even seen a
> > > > > > Macintosh,
> > > > > > now, have you? C'mon you might as well 'fess up because what you
> > > > > > wrote
> > > > > > above tells everybody here that you are full of shit!
> > > > >
> > > > > Haha!
> > > >
> > > > Notice he did not refute anything I said.
> > >
> > > Why don't you read the message headers, and see if that doesn't refute
> > > things for you?
> >
> > I challenged that you know nothing about Macs and you don't respond? I'd
> > say that tells me all I need to know.
>
> You also claimed that I had never owned, used, or even seen a
> Macintosh, when clearly I have. I'd say that tells all that anyone
> needs to know about you.
I don't look at headers, so crucify me.
> >
> > Look, I don't care that you don't like Macs. Its a free country, and
> > you're welcome to like and dislike whatever you want. But the OP came
> > here looking for information about Macs, and you fed him lies, half
> > truths and distortions. Macs do not require constant permissions repair,
> > constant HDD maintenance, constant OS reinstalls, etc like you said they
> > do. And no Mac user here is going to let you get away with saying that
> > they do. Its that simple
>
> You cannot deny facts.
And I don't. You just have shown any. Your scenarios are highly
unlikely, and, on top of that, anyone who comes here with a handle like
'Macsuck' is hardly conducive to any reasonable conversation.
Oxford
> > hogwash, an easy target is what gets hit the most, it has nothing to do
> > with "marketshare". if OSX was "equally" easy to "hit" it would
> > "equally" be "hit".
> Can you back up this assertion? No one in the security field seems to
> agree with your assessment.
funny that... IT security people concerned about job security :) fact
is, if everyone was able to switch over to OSX tonight, it would solve
the entire virus problem in 24 hours... and most all those "security"
people would be out of a job, funny that! OSX is a rock, there is no
way in or a way to propagate malicious code and that's been proven over
and over and over...
> > this isn't about statistics, it about "ease of target". get that through
> > your thick head.
> Statistics plays a huge role in determining infection rates and
> probability of being targeted.
stats have nothing to do with the ease or "dis-ease" of breaking into a
machine. the only stat you need to understand is OSX is immune to
viruses, that's been proven, over and over and over and over.
> > it's not any more difficult to hit than 5% of exposed windows machines.
> Yes, yes it is. Each 'node' would take ~20 times longer to find for a
> Mac virus than it would for a Windows virus. This is due to Apple's low
> share of the userbase. Virus propogation times would slow to a crawl,
> simply because there aren't very many Macs to act as zombies for virus
> propogation.
20 times longer of a few seconds isn't much, you need to learn more
about statistics that's all.
> > plus you are are completely forgetting, 95% of the windows machines sold
> > are not on the internet,
> Can you prove this? I didn't think so.
no, and I never said I could, but we know many PCs are never openly
connected to the web/internet.
> > only about 60% are online, the way that so
> > called "5%" of macs are. lots and lots of pcs are never tied to the
> > internet. cash registers, signage, dumb factory terminals, etc, etc,
> > etc, etc.
> Yes, many are not. But the vast majority are.
60% of that 95% or so...
> > and that isn't a virus, read the link before you post next time.
> Playing with semantics now? Well, by that logic Windows doesn't have
> very many viruses either--they're almost all worms and trojans.
so secunia is playing with "semantics"? they call it a trojan, not a
virus, you were the one that mistakenly thought it was a virus.
"Description:
Trojan Characteristics: This trojan was distributed in a file called
"Microsoft Word 2004 OSX Web Install", hence the name. (Note - the name
can be easily changed and alone can be an indicator of neither malware
presence nor absence)."
> > Really? then please explain why there are 64,00+ viruses for MS based
> > PCs and NONE for OSX? It seems you completely forgot to think before
> > writing your comment.
> Because propogation time for Mac viruses is prohibitively high, the
> target 'audience' is miniscule, and the task is a bit more difficult?
not within a large population of macs, take a campus for example, some
departments are fully mac based, still no viruses, or any of the media
companies or even Apple, they are probably the largest single
installation with 14,000 or so macs, why haven't they ever been hit if
it's..... so easy?
face the facts, osx isn't prone to viruses no matter what you do.
> > go knock on this IP, 70.57.60.153 it's open, why can't you get in? hum?
> It's illegal, you know.
flying a kite in the rain is too, who cares, you can't get into that
machine can you... figures, it's running OSX.
> > Apple has to bow to the ignorant, not having one would be a missing
> > "check off" item, so the people that don't understand security would be
> > mistakenly afraid. It's sad really when MS's weaknesses forces honest
> > companies to cheapen up their products.
> I, for one, am glad that Apple did show a bit of foresight and chose to
> include a good firewall by default. Now, if they could just be bothered
> to turn it on by default... I'm doubly glad that you aren't
> administrator for any of my boxes. Your lack of knowledge regarding
> security is appaling, as is your trust in Apple to provide solutions.
turning it on would cause unneeded disruption to the user, you don't
want that. if you are mentally unstable, turn it on, if not, leave it
off, realll simple. I deal with many, many more macs than you will ever
see, none have firewalls or in form of extra security, some users have
passwords, most do not, none will be infected or breached this year or
anytime in the future.
> > You must be paranoid, I have hundreds of machines with no passwords, no
> > firewalls, all work perfectly, none have been breached. It's the
> > difference of OSX compared to Linux or Windows.
> Right, keep digging that hole oxtard.
you're the one that seems overly concerned with non-issues, it's your
hole we are building, i'm just laughing at you as you shovel.
> > On a worldwide network it certainly is the most battle tested consumer
> > OS.
> Can you justify this statement, or is just another example of your
> favored tactic--'proof by declaration'.
easy, OSX is the top selling OS not based on Windows... Windows is
notoriously insecure, thus, OSX is the most battle tested consumer OS
there is. If you can think of another, please let me know, otherwise,
give it up already.
> > sure if you are sitting in front of the machine and have a startup
> > CD, there is a way in, but a virus writer would be awfully busy trying
> > to do that worldwide.
> I can exploit my own Macs fairly easily--it's how you shore up their
> defenses you know.
and what exactly needs shoring up? go ahead, exploit this mac, bet you
can't 70.57.60.153 (running tiger server just so you know)
> > Great, you can attack my printer!
> No, a malicious cracker could attack your *printer service*. If there is
> a vulnerability in this component, then it could allow the attacker
> access to the machine as a whole. And there is more than just a printer
> service running.
wrong, cackers can't magically jump through print services, into the
rest of the machine, it doesn't work like that. yes, there are more
running/open ports, but none of those ports have facilities to breach
the entire system.
> > go for it... gosh, that's were I store
> > all my gold! Maybe you could have my printer, print fake $$ and have it
> > automatically mail them to yourself? That seems about the level of your
> > intelligence on this matter. Bottom line, there is nothing you can do to
> > break into a default OSX install, it's locked down tight.
> Oxtard, can you become any more of an idiot? It must be a challenge to
> continually lower the bar.
that's funny, you seem to be the one failing on every comment you make,
you didn't know what a trojan was, couldn't breach a naked mac out on
the internet, thought someone could crack print services to take over a
mac, etc, etc.
> > Where are these holes? waiting...
> Let's see... in the last security update for 10.4.2, the following holes
> were patched:
>
> * ImageIO
>
> CVE-ID: CAN-2005-2747
>
> Available for: Mac OS X v10.4.2, Mac OS X Server v10.4.2
>
> Impact: Viewing a maliciously-crafted GIF image may result in
> arbitrary code execution.
>
> Description: By carefully crafting a corrupt GIF image, an
> attacker can trigger a buffer overflow in ImageIO which may result in
> arbitrary code execution. Several components of Mac OS X utilize ImageIO
> including WebCore and Safari. This update addresses the issue by
> performing additional validation of images.
was this ever an issue in the "wild"? no.
> * Mail
>
> CVE-ID: CAN-2005-2746
>
> Available for: Mac OS X v10.3.9, Mac OS X Server v10.3.9, Mac OS
> X v10.4.2, Mac OS X Server v10.4.2
>
> Impact: When using auto-reply rules, Mail.app may expose the
> contents of encrypted messages.
>
> Description: Mail.app includes the contents of messages when
> processing auto-reply rules. If a message being processed was encrypted,
> the automatically generated response will include the decrypted message
> contents. This could allow an attacker to intercept the message. This
> update addresses the issue by ensuring that unencrypted responses to
> encrypted messages are not generated. Credit to Norbert Rittel of Rittel
> Consulting for reporting this issue.
was this ever an issue in the "wild"? no.
the rest snipped for brevity.
> > Which is the same for any system.
> Yet you still claim OS X is especially secure... why?
still no serious breaches 4.5 years into use, OSX gets stronger ever day.
> > Which is the same for any system.
> Yet you still claim OS X is especially secure... why?
still no serious breaches 4.5 years into use, OSX gets stronger ever day.
> > And now describe your latest "threat" that caused a breach of security
> > using OSX, bet you can't.
> Your right, I can't. But that is because of the statistical difficulty
> of needing to expliot an OS X box.
18+ million machines, is hardly "rare" on the internet, there are large
pools of 100% mac, none ever compromised. if a breach were to happen, it
would have already occurred by now, OSX is extremely secure as shipped
and constantly being improved to even thwart "clean room based
theories", thus no current spyware, viruses, and probably never will be.
you can reply if you want, but this is my last post, you are too
paranoid to deal with.
TheLetterK
> TheLetterK <thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>hogwash, an easy target is what gets hit the most, it has nothing to do
>>>with "marketshare". if OSX was "equally" easy to "hit" it would
>>>"equally" be "hit".
>>
>>Can you back up this assertion? No one in the security field seems to
>>agree with your assessment.
>
>
> funny that... IT security people concerned about job security :) fact
> is, if everyone was able to switch over to OSX tonight, it would solve
> the entire virus problem in 24 hours... and most all those "security"
> people would be out of a job, funny that! OSX is a rock, there is no
> way in or a way to propagate malicious code and that's been proven over
> and over and over...
virus writers to target OS X instead of Windows.
>
>
>>>this isn't about statistics, it about "ease of target". get that through
>>>your thick head.
>>
>>Statistics plays a huge role in determining infection rates and
>>probability of being targeted.
>
>
> stats have nothing to do with the ease or "dis-ease" of breaking into a
> machine.
But they have *everything* to do with determining how susceptable a
machine is to infection by a virus.
> the only stat you need to understand is OSX is immune to
> viruses, that's been proven, over and over and over and over.
OS X has never been tested in this regard--no one has bothered to write
an OS X virus, save the Office macro viruses and that word installer trojan.
>
>
>>>it's not any more difficult to hit than 5% of exposed windows machines.
>>
>>Yes, yes it is. Each 'node' would take ~20 times longer to find for a
>>Mac virus than it would for a Windows virus. This is due to Apple's low
>>share of the userbase. Virus propogation times would slow to a crawl,
>>simply because there aren't very many Macs to act as zombies for virus
>>propogation.
>
>
> 20 times longer of a few seconds isn't much, you need to learn more
> about statistics that's all.
Actually, it is a long time. A minute here, and a minute there add up
very quickly when talking about millions of repetitions.
>
>
>>>plus you are are completely forgetting, 95% of the windows machines sold
>>>are not on the internet,
>>
>>Can you prove this? I didn't think so.
>
>
> no, and I never said I could, but we know many PCs are never openly
> connected to the web/internet.
But nowhere near 95% of the Windows boxes out there. Maybe 30%. *Maybe.*
>
>
>>>only about 60% are online, the way that so
>>>called "5%" of macs are. lots and lots of pcs are never tied to the
>>>internet. cash registers, signage, dumb factory terminals, etc, etc,
>>>etc, etc.
>>
>>Yes, many are not. But the vast majority are.
>
>
> 60% of that 95% or so...
>
>
>>>and that isn't a virus, read the link before you post next time.
>>
>>Playing with semantics now? Well, by that logic Windows doesn't have
>>very many viruses either--they're almost all worms and trojans.
>
>
> so secunia is playing with "semantics"? they call it a trojan, not a
> virus, you were the one that mistakenly thought it was a virus.
I was using the common term for virus, which includes worms, trojans,
backdoors, and other overtly malicious software.
>
> "Description:
>
> Trojan Characteristics: This trojan was distributed in a file called
> "Microsoft Word 2004 OSX Web Install", hence the name. (Note - the name
> can be easily changed and alone can be an indicator of neither malware
> presence nor absence)."
>
>
>>>Really? then please explain why there are 64,00+ viruses for MS based
>>>PCs and NONE for OSX? It seems you completely forgot to think before
>>>writing your comment.
>>
>>Because propogation time for Mac viruses is prohibitively high, the
>>target 'audience' is miniscule, and the task is a bit more difficult?
>
>
> not within a large population of macs, take a campus for example, some
> departments are fully mac based, still no viruses,
Who would bother to write one that would hit a few hundred machines?
> or any of the media
> companies
See above.
> or even Apple,
See above.
> they are probably the largest single
> installation with 14,000 or so macs, why haven't they ever been hit if
> it's..... so easy?
Because 14,000 Macs is a miniscule target?
>
> face the facts, osx isn't prone to viruses no matter what you do.
Yes, it is prone to them, were it to have a significant ahre of the
userbase. Say, 15%.
>
>
>>>go knock on this IP, 70.57.60.153 it's open, why can't you get in? hum?
>>
>>It's illegal, you know.
>
>
> flying a kite in the rain is too, who cares, you can't get into that
> machine can you... figures, it's running OSX.
Unless you consider flying a kite in the rain to be suicide, it's not
illegal.
I can compromise my iBook easily enough.
>
>
>>>Apple has to bow to the ignorant, not having one would be a missing
>>>"check off" item, so the people that don't understand security would be
>>>mistakenly afraid. It's sad really when MS's weaknesses forces honest
>>>companies to cheapen up their products.
>>
>>I, for one, am glad that Apple did show a bit of foresight and chose to
>>include a good firewall by default. Now, if they could just be bothered
>>to turn it on by default... I'm doubly glad that you aren't
>>administrator for any of my boxes. Your lack of knowledge regarding
>>security is appaling, as is your trust in Apple to provide solutions.
>
>
> turning it on would cause unneeded disruption to the user, you don't
> want that.
Yes, yes I do want that.
> if you are mentally unstable or ignorant, leave it off, if not, turn it
> o, realll simple.
Fixed.
> I deal with many, many more macs than you will ever
> see, none have firewalls or in form of extra security,
I can only thank the nondenominational diety(ies) that you do not have
my Mac's admin password.
> some users have
> passwords, most do not, none will be infected or breached this year or
> anytime in the future.
Keep telling yourself that, maybe it will make you feel better when your
fired for screwing up your job.
>
>
>>>You must be paranoid, I have hundreds of machines with no passwords, no
>>>firewalls, all work perfectly, none have been breached. It's the
>>>difference of OSX compared to Linux or Windows.
>>
>>Right, keep digging that hole oxtard.
>
>
> you're the one that seems overly concerned with non-issues, it's your
> hole we are building, i'm just laughing at you as you shovel.
I think most of us are laughing at your delusions, or have killfiled you
by now. Something I'm probably going to do shortly.
>
>
>>>On a worldwide network it certainly is the most battle tested consumer
>>>OS.
>>
>>Can you justify this statement, or is just another example of your
>>favored tactic--'proof by declaration'.
>
>
> easy, OSX is the top selling OS not based on Windows...
Incorrect, GNU/Linux outsells OS X, and that does not include free
downloads.
> Windows is
> notoriously insecure, thus, OSX is the most battle tested consumer OS
> there is.
No it isn't. It's hardly ever in a situation to be tested.
> If you can think of another, please let me know, otherwise,
> give it up already.
GNU/Linux is a consumer OS that has undergone much more rigorous testing.
>
>
>>>sure if you are sitting in front of the machine and have a startup
>>>CD, there is a way in, but a virus writer would be awfully busy trying
>>>to do that worldwide.
>>
>>I can exploit my own Macs fairly easily--it's how you shore up their
>>defenses you know.
>
>
> and what exactly needs shoring up?
OS X's swiss-cheese security.
> go ahead, exploit this mac, bet you
> can't 70.57.60.153 (running tiger server just so you know)
Why would I break the law to prove a point I already know to be true?
>
>
>>>Great, you can attack my printer!
>>
>>No, a malicious cracker could attack your *printer service*. If there is
>>a vulnerability in this component, then it could allow the attacker
>>access to the machine as a whole. And there is more than just a printer
>>service running.
>
>
> wrong, cackers can't magically jump through print services,
Right, they could possibly exploit vulnerabilities in the service.
> into the
> rest of the machine,
You seem to assume the vulnerability in question would not allow priv
elevation and/or arbitrary code exectuion.
> it doesn't work like that.
Your right--most of the time, the stupid user will just be tricked into
running the code for them.
> yes, there are more
> running/open ports, but none of those ports have facilities to breach
> the entire system.
Right--a word of warning to anyone wandering across this thread, ignore
oxtard here. He's an idiot.
>
>
>>>go for it... gosh, that's were I store
>>>all my gold! Maybe you could have my printer, print fake $$ and have it
>>>automatically mail them to yourself? That seems about the level of your
>>>intelligence on this matter. Bottom line, there is nothing you can do to
>>>break into a default OSX install, it's locked down tight.
>>
>>Oxtard, can you become any more of an idiot? It must be a challenge to
>>continually lower the bar.
>
>
> that's funny, you seem to be the one failing on every comment you make,
> you didn't know what a trojan was,
I didn't realize we were playing with semantics.
> couldn't breach a naked mac out on
> the internet,
More correctly, I didn't try.
> thought someone could crack print services to take over a
> mac,
thought someone could exploit a vulnerability in a printer service to
compromise a Mac.
> etc, etc.
>
>
>>>Where are these holes? waiting...
>>
>>Let's see... in the last security update for 10.4.2, the following holes
>>were patched:
>>
>> * ImageIO
>>
>> CVE-ID: CAN-2005-2747
>>
>> Available for: Mac OS X v10.4.2, Mac OS X Server v10.4.2
>>
>> Impact: Viewing a maliciously-crafted GIF image may result in
>>arbitrary code execution.
>>
>> Description: By carefully crafting a corrupt GIF image, an
>>attacker can trigger a buffer overflow in ImageIO which may result in
>>arbitrary code execution. Several components of Mac OS X utilize ImageIO
>>including WebCore and Safari. This update addresses the issue by
>>performing additional validation of images.
>
>
> was this ever an issue in the "wild"? no.
Could have been. This is a hole in your vaunted security.
>
>
>> * Mail
>>
>> CVE-ID: CAN-2005-2746
>>
>> Available for: Mac OS X v10.3.9, Mac OS X Server v10.3.9, Mac OS
>>X v10.4.2, Mac OS X Server v10.4.2
>>
>> Impact: When using auto-reply rules, Mail.app may expose the
>>contents of encrypted messages.
>>
>> Description: Mail.app includes the contents of messages when
>>processing auto-reply rules. If a message being processed was encrypted,
>>the automatically generated response will include the decrypted message
>>contents. This could allow an attacker to intercept the message. This
>>update addresses the issue by ensuring that unencrypted responses to
>>encrypted messages are not generated. Credit to Norbert Rittel of Rittel
>>Consulting for reporting this issue.
>
>
> was this ever an issue in the "wild"? no.
Could have been, this was a hole in your vaunted security.
>
> the rest snipped for brevity.
The rest were snipped because you realized how stupid your claim was.
>
>
>>>Which is the same for any system.
>>
>>Yet you still claim OS X is especially secure... why?
>
>
> still no serious breaches 4.5 years into use, OSX gets stronger ever day.
Asshat Linux has never been compromised either--by virtue of running on
exactly *one* system in the entire world.
>
>
>>>Which is the same for any system.
>>
>>Yet you still claim OS X is especially secure... why?
>
>
> still no serious breaches 4.5 years into use, OSX gets stronger ever day.
Asshat Linux has never been compromised either--by virtue of running on
exactly *one* system in the entire world.
>
>
>>>And now describe your latest "threat" that caused a breach of security
>>>using OSX, bet you can't.
>>
>>Your right, I can't. But that is because of the statistical difficulty
>>of needing to expliot an OS X box.
>
>
> 18+ million machines, is hardly "rare" on the internet,
Let's see, that's one Mac for every 20+ Windows machines... Yeah, that's
pretty rare.
> there are large
> pools of 100% mac, none ever compromised.
That is most certainly an incorrect assertion.
> if a breach were to happen, it
> would have already occurred by now,
Why? No one targets OS X, so why would you think a breech would occur?
> OSX is extremely secure as shipped
So is Asshat Linux. I dare you, try to break into it.
> and constantly being improved to even thwart "clean room based
> theories", thus no current spyware, viruses, and probably never will be.
You are correct--there never will be, because OS X will never attain a
significant percentage of the userbase.
>
> you can reply if you want, but this is my last post, you are too
> paranoid to deal with.
Thank god!
TheLetterK
> I do find it amusing though that
> your one example of this from XP is a message from an Apple program
> bugging you to update -- which is exactly the same thing I was
> complaining about in OS X.
You can disable it in both instances, but it is still annoying when it
pops up. It's poor design to allow warning messages to steal window
focus in *any* situation.
TheLetterK
> TheLetterK wrote:
>
>>macsuc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>What sites are you visiting to give you so much spyware? I have never
>>>>>seen any on my PC. Have you considered removing Internet Explorer and
>>>>>all of the other useless programs and services that come with XP by
>>>>>default? Might solve your problems.
>>>>
>>>>Removing Internet Explorer from XP is neigh impossible. The best you can
>>>>do is render it hopelessly irreprable.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well guess what, I did. Runs much better without it.
>>
>>That, I doubt. Internet Explorer is a rather critical part of XP--lots
>>of other things call on components from IE.
>
>
> None of those components are anything you actually need. IE is not as
> critical as Microsoft pretends it to be.
call on IE components (Windows Explorer, for example). Removal of IE
without first replacing it's functionality would result in a rather
crippled Windows box.
>
>
>>>
>>>>>Anyway, I would not advise you to try switching to Apple. Mac OS is an
>>>>>extremely high maintenance operating system
>>>>
>>>>Do you get high before posting? That's the only reason I could think to
>>>>explain the above comment
>>>
>>>
>>>The original poster was considering switching because of Windows
>>>maintenance. I just want him to know that he will not find OS X to be
>>>any better in this regard.
>>
>>Why would he not? Is he different from every other switcher?
>
>
> Yawn.
Yawn--that same thing I don't do when using OS X, because there are no
common maintanence procedures required.
>
>
>>>
>>>>>that constantly requires
>>>>>you to repair disk permissions,
>>>>
>>>>No permission repairs in the last 9 months, on two different Macs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>run disk utilities from a DVD,
>>>>
>>>>I've never found a need to run disk utilities, on either of my Macs, ever.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, I have.
>>
>>Any you are in the extreme minority.
>
>
> Everyone who owns a Mac is in the extreme minority.
How does that make you feel then, to realize you make up an
insignificant portion of an insignificant part of the computing world?
Need? At least a Pentium Pro with 32MiB of RAM.
Henry Flam
Why would I want to turn off the updates. I download what I want or need
at the rest go. Simple, just like the Mac.
GreyCloud
Uh, it is a bit different under OS X. In XP the damned
message dialog is up there right in the middle of your work
covering everything. Under OS X, down in the corner and not
in your face, is the jumping blue crystal ball. Much better
in my opinion.
GreyCloud
> > > Well guess what, I did. Runs much better without it.
You think you have deleted it, but you haven't.
> > That, I doubt. Internet Explorer is a rather critical part of XP--lots
> > of other things call on components from IE.
>
> None of those components are anything you actually need. IE is not as
> critical as Microsoft pretends it to be.
>
So, you know more than M$ about their o/s?
IE 6.0 is embedded in the system. Most of it gets loaded
upon boot time.
Lets see what happens when you delete those dlls.
TheLetterK
macsuc...@yahoo.com
GreyCloud wrote:
> macsuc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > Well guess what, I did. Runs much better without it.
>
> You think you have deleted it, but you haven't.
You think I haven't, but I have.
>
> > > That, I doubt. Internet Explorer is a rather critical part of XP--lots
> > > of other things call on components from IE.
> >
> > None of those components are anything you actually need. IE is not as
> > critical as Microsoft pretends it to be.
> >
>
> So, you know more than M$ about their o/s?
>
> IE 6.0 is embedded in the system. Most of it gets loaded
> upon boot time.
> Lets see what happens when you delete those dlls.
Boot time is cut in half.
macsuc...@yahoo.com
Not after you turn off Windows File Protection they aren't.
macsuc...@yahoo.com
TheLetterK wrote:
> macsuc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > TheLetterK wrote:
> >
> >>macsuc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>What sites are you visiting to give you so much spyware? I have never
> >>>>>seen any on my PC. Have you considered removing Internet Explorer and
> >>>>>all of the other useless programs and services that come with XP by
> >>>>>default? Might solve your problems.
> >>>>
> >>>>Removing Internet Explorer from XP is neigh impossible. The best you can
> >>>>do is render it hopelessly irreprable.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Well guess what, I did. Runs much better without it.
> >>
> >>That, I doubt. Internet Explorer is a rather critical part of XP--lots
> >>of other things call on components from IE.
> >
> >
> > None of those components are anything you actually need. IE is not as
> > critical as Microsoft pretends it to be.
> Well, Windows Update is rather critical... There are many thing that do
> call on IE components (Windows Explorer, for example). Removal of IE
> without first replacing it's functionality would result in a rather
> crippled Windows box.
Windows Explorer is not one of them. Apparently you have never tried
this.
So your needs extend beyond basic word processing/e-mail, but your
needs can be handled by a Pentium Pro with 32MB ram? What kind of
applications/tasks are you running?
macsuc...@yahoo.com
If you agree with me that the updates are nothing that I will ever see
or use, why would I care about downloading them?
>
> > > I have lots of friends with Macs. Many of them are completely computer
> > > illiterate and would certainly count on me to keep their computers
> > > running. They rarely have any problems either, and none of them have had
> > > the ones that you just told a prospective newbie that ALL Macs have.
> > > That's my beef with you.
> >
> > Too bad.
>
> Yeah, for YOU and your lies.
>
> > > That's a matter of opinion too. The problem I had was hardware, It
> > > happened during the initial transition from OS9 to OSX and after the
> > > hardware problem was resolved, I've never had another kernel panic or
> > > crash in FIVE YEARS. I'd say that kind of reliability and
> > > "bullet-proof-ness" is pretty impressive.
> >
> > I don't see kernel panics either, just endless application/finder
> > crashes.
>
> What the hell are you running? My finder never crashes, neither do apps.
Sure.
>
> > While its true that the OS itself does not crash often, it is
> > still inconvenient and something that rarely happens on my PCs.
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > No at all. Since all Macs are PowerMacs, we have no idea what you are
> > > > > talking about when you refer to iMacs and Powermacs. The purpose of
> > > > > language is to communicate, not to obfuscate. When you use the wrong
> > > > > term, you are not communicating. And by using the term Powermac as you
> > > > > did, nobody has any idea what you are trying to say and it shows your
> > > > > ignorance of the platform.
> > >
> > > Note lack of response
> >
> > Why would I bother arguing with you over your semantic games?
>
> Because I'd like to know JUST WTF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT when you use the
> term "Powermac"!
Yawn.
>
> > > > > > > So, admit it asshole, you've never owned, used or even seen a
> > > > > > > Macintosh,
> > > > > > > now, have you? C'mon you might as well 'fess up because what you
> > > > > > > wrote
> > > > > > > above tells everybody here that you are full of shit!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Haha!
> > > > >
> > > > > Notice he did not refute anything I said.
> > > >
> > > > Why don't you read the message headers, and see if that doesn't refute
> > > > things for you?
> > >
> > > I challenged that you know nothing about Macs and you don't respond? I'd
> > > say that tells me all I need to know.
> >
> > You also claimed that I had never owned, used, or even seen a
> > Macintosh, when clearly I have. I'd say that tells all that anyone
> > needs to know about you.
>
> I don't look at headers, so crucify me.
If you didn't make so many assumptions and accusations, the headers
would never have been an issue.
Peter Hayes
TheLetterK <thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:
> Oxford wrote:
> >
> > face the facts, osx isn't prone to viruses no matter what you do.
> Yes, it is prone to them, were it to have a significant share of the
> userbase. Say, 15%.
Computer exploits have a lot in common with biological infections. The
population susceptible to infection has to be above a given level before
the infection becomes self-propogating and self-sustaining. The Windows
monoculture is an ideal breeding ground for such exploits, Linux and OSX
are not, simply because their 5% userbase share is insufficient to
propogate exploits.
There's other parallels, like Ebola, between biological viruses and
computer exploits.
> >>>go knock on this IP, 70.57.60.153 it's open, why can't you get in? hum?
> >>
> >>It's illegal, you know.
Oxtard should be grateful nobody posted this to alt.2600 or some of the
other hacking groups or he'd be fired so fast his ass would give off
sparks as it scraped along the ground on his way out the door.
> > I deal with many, many more macs than you will ever
> > see, none have firewalls or in form of extra security,
What are they? Old Quadras sitting in a redundant warehouse somewhere in
darkest Montana?
> >>>You must be paranoid, I have hundreds of machines with no passwords, no
> >>>firewalls, all work perfectly, none have been breached.
You have to put them online, you know.
> >>>It's the difference of OSX compared to Linux or Windows.
> >>
> >>Right, keep digging that hole oxtard.
> >
> >
> > you're the one that seems overly concerned with non-issues, it's your
> > hole we are building, i'm just laughing at you as you shovel.
> I think most of us are laughing at your delusions, or have killfiled you
> by now. Something I'm probably going to do shortly.
Yes, I've put him in the cooler for a few days, I now see just
secondhand posts.
Which is worse, a Wintroll spreading FUD about your favourite platform,
or someone so blind to its basic flaws it's having a negative impact on
platform advocacy?
> > go ahead, exploit this mac, bet you
> > can't 70.57.60.153 (running tiger server just so you know)
> Why would I break the law to prove a point I already know to be true?
Again, Oxtard should be grateful nobody posted this to some of the
hacking groups. Or have they...?
> > yes, there are more
> > running/open ports, but none of those ports have facilities to breach
> > the entire system.
> Right--a word of warning to anyone wandering across this thread, ignore
> oxtard here. He's an idiot.
Yes, he ignores completely the fact that Apple puts out security
updates. If OS X were as bomb-proof as he claims, why do Apple bother?
> > that's funny, you seem to be the one failing on every comment you make,
> > you didn't know what a trojan was,
> I didn't realize we were playing with semantics.
I use the word "exploits" - it avoids the semantic dancing.
--
Peter
macsuc...@yahoo.com
Maybe you can show me a screenshot of this happening on XP, because I
have no idea what you are talking about.
The jumping dock icons are very annoying. Any way to turn that off too?
Oxford
> > > go ahead, exploit this mac, bet you
> > > can't 70.57.60.153 (running tiger server just so you know)
> > Why would I break the law to prove a point I already know to be true?
>
> Again, Oxtard should be grateful nobody posted this to some of the
> hacking groups. Or have they...?
peter, you are so weak in discussion these subjects, no cracker, no
matter how skilled can break into OSX, the IP is right here, it's naked,
70.57.60.153 and nobody in the world can get in. Apple actually designed
security into OSX, something Linux / Windows can't do at the level of
Apple since they don't control the software and the shipping hardware.
I've included the kids over at 2600 into this thread, and we will find,
just as I've shown, they won't be able to crack that machine. OSX is a
rock, the best minds in the world have tried, nobody can get in.
> > > yes, there are more
> > > running/open ports, but none of those ports have facilities to breach
> > > the entire system.
> > Right--a word of warning to anyone wandering across this thread, ignore
> > oxtard here. He's an idiot.
>
> Yes, he ignores completely the fact that Apple puts out security
> updates. If OS X were as bomb-proof as he claims, why do Apple bother?
Yes, Apple is proactive, so you are saying that approach is wrong? It
certainly is better than what MS does and only tries to fix problems
once they occur. Apple has the opposite approach. If you notice none of
theses updates are actual exploits (if you prefer), they are only clean
room, theoretical in nature. Poor peter, he tries to use a Windows based
mentality to discuss OSX security. No wonder nobody believes him.
GreyCloud
Most clueless windows users don't.
> The jumping dock icons are very annoying. Any way to turn that off too?
It only bumps for a bit then just sits there like any other
icon. Not near as annoying as interrupting your work and
getting in your face.
GreyCloud
You are a liar.
macsuc...@yahoo.com
So half of your time is spent clicking on these dialog boxes, but you
can't provide one screenshot?
Perhaps they are only in your imagination.
>
> > The jumping dock icons are very annoying. Any way to turn that off too?
>
> It only bumps for a bit then just sits there like any other
> icon. Not near as annoying as interrupting your work and
> getting in your face.
No it doesn't. It keeps jumping until you click on it.
TheLetterK
> TheLetterK wrote:
>
>>macsuc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>TheLetterK wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>macsuc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>What sites are you visiting to give you so much spyware? I have never
>>>>>>>seen any on my PC. Have you considered removing Internet Explorer and
>>>>>>>all of the other useless programs and services that come with XP by
>>>>>>>default? Might solve your problems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Removing Internet Explorer from XP is neigh impossible. The best you can
>>>>>>do is render it hopelessly irreprable.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Well guess what, I did. Runs much better without it.
>>>>
>>>>That, I doubt. Internet Explorer is a rather critical part of XP--lots
>>>>of other things call on components from IE.
>>>
>>>
>>>None of those components are anything you actually need. IE is not as
>>>critical as Microsoft pretends it to be.
>>
>>Well, Windows Update is rather critical... There are many thing that do
>>call on IE components (Windows Explorer, for example). Removal of IE
>>without first replacing it's functionality would result in a rather
>>crippled Windows box.
>
>
> Windows Explorer is not one of them. Apparently you have never tried
> this.
remove it, and ended up having to run Litestep, find a replacement file
manager, and use a different browser. The lack of updates, however,
killed that expiriment.
Few people have *needs* beyond basic word processing and e-mail. It's
what people *want* that matters.
> but your
> needs can be handled by a Pentium Pro with 32MB ram? What kind of
> applications/tasks are you running?
The most system-intense task I do is compiling code. It would be *slow*
on the above system, but it is the minimum acceptable system.
macsuc...@yahoo.com
So because you couldn't figure something out, that makes it impossible.
Okay!
George Graves
macsuc...@yahoo.com wrote:
Did I say that I agreed with you? All I said is that sometimes not all
bug fixes are obvious to all users. As to whether or not you download
them, that's up to you. Nobody cares. Turn off Software Update and never
look at it again for all I, or anyone else cares.
>
> >
> > > > I have lots of friends with Macs. Many of them are completely computer
> > > > illiterate and would certainly count on me to keep their computers
> > > > running. They rarely have any problems either, and none of them have
> > > > had
> > > > the ones that you just told a prospective newbie that ALL Macs have.
> > > > That's my beef with you.
> > >
> > > Too bad.
> >
> > Yeah, for YOU and your lies.
> >
> > > > That's a matter of opinion too. The problem I had was hardware, It
> > > > happened during the initial transition from OS9 to OSX and after the
> > > > hardware problem was resolved, I've never had another kernel panic or
> > > > crash in FIVE YEARS. I'd say that kind of reliability and
> > > > "bullet-proof-ness" is pretty impressive.
> > >
> > > I don't see kernel panics either, just endless application/finder
> > > crashes.
> >
> > What the hell are you running? My finder never crashes, neither do apps.
>
> Sure.
That's right. FIVE Years, Mr. Mac Hater, FIVE YEARS. Put that in your
Windows pipe and smoke it.
> > > While its true that the OS itself does not crash often, it is
> > > still inconvenient and something that rarely happens on my PCs.
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No at all. Since all Macs are PowerMacs, we have no idea what you
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > talking about when you refer to iMacs and Powermacs. The purpose of
> > > > > > language is to communicate, not to obfuscate. When you use the
> > > > > > wrong
> > > > > > term, you are not communicating. And by using the term Powermac as
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > did, nobody has any idea what you are trying to say and it shows
> > > > > > your
> > > > > > ignorance of the platform.
> > > >
> > > > Note lack of response
> > >
> > > Why would I bother arguing with you over your semantic games?
> >
> > Because I'd like to know JUST WTF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT when you use the
> > term "Powermac"!
>
> Yawn.
I take that to mean that you don't know what you were talking about
either. Just as I suspected.
> > > > > > > > So, admit it asshole, you've never owned, used or even seen a
> > > > > > > > Macintosh,
> > > > > > > > now, have you? C'mon you might as well 'fess up because what
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > wrote
> > > > > > > > above tells everybody here that you are full of shit!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Haha!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Notice he did not refute anything I said.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why don't you read the message headers, and see if that doesn't
> > > > > refute
> > > > > things for you?
> > > >
> > > > I challenged that you know nothing about Macs and you don't respond?
> > > > I'd
> > > > say that tells me all I need to know.
> > >
> > > You also claimed that I had never owned, used, or even seen a
> > > Macintosh, when clearly I have. I'd say that tells all that anyone
> > > needs to know about you.
> >
> > I don't look at headers, so crucify me.
>
> If you didn't make so many assumptions and accusations, the headers
> would never have been an issue.
My assumption was based on your ignorance of the platform. You have
given me no reason to think that you are anything other than a
not-very-good troll.
macsuc...@yahoo.com
Because....?
TheLetterK
to do it, I found that IE was too heavily integrated into the rest of
the system to be easily removed. You can make it non-functional, but
removing it entirely is damn near impossible without first replacing
most of the userspace.
It's certainly not worth bothering with.
TheLetterK
it's not surprising.
macsuc...@yahoo.com
No it isn't. You just messed up and rendered your own system unusable.
macsuc...@yahoo.com
It certainly is worth bothering with if you want to speed up your
computer and not have to deal with Internet Explorer, possibly the
worst application ever made.
Anyway, you can find a good example of the process at www.vorck.com.
His instructions are for Windows 2000 but things are hardly any
different on XP. (There are plenty of sites explaining XP too, but none
go into quite the detail as Vorck.) Plus you only have to do it once,
if you need to reinstall later it comes right back to the IE-less
state. Unlike my Macs where I need to delete all of the iApps all over
again every time I reinstall.
Rick
> not_i...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
>> > > go ahead, exploit this mac, bet you
>> > > can't 70.57.60.153 (running tiger server just so you know)
>> > Why would I break the law to prove a point I already know to be true?
>>
>> Again, Oxtard should be grateful nobody posted this to some of the
>> hacking groups. Or have they...?
>
> peter, you are so weak in discussion these subjects, no cracker, no
> matter how skilled can break into OSX, the IP is right here, it's naked,
> 70.57.60.153 and nobody in the world can get in. Apple actually designed
> security into OSX, something Linux / Windows can't do at the level of
> Apple since they don't control the software and the shipping hardware.
You may now prove OS X is more secure than Linux.
(snip)
--
Rick
Flint
> TheLetterK <thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>so
>>>it's basically impossible (the way apple ships macs) for a virus to even
>>>enter a Mac, much less "spread". Thus, no viruses or spyware.
>>
>>Oxtard, I think you need to go back on your medication. There aren't any
>>viruses in the wild for OS X right now (I take it back, there are some
>>Office macro viruses that target OS X), but mostly because hitting such
>>a sparse userbase is exponentially more difficult than it is to hit Windows.
>
>
> marketshare has very little to do with it, the reason is far more
> technical in nature, the fact is a good 15 million osx macs are
> connected to the net 24/7/365, so don't you think "one measly virus"
> would of infected the population by now?
Not necessarilly.
> OSX is designed differently
> than Windows of any version, so it's basically impossible to remotely
> enter a mac, much less have a breach of one machine "spread" to
> others... it's a better system, deal with it.
>
>
>>>If a serious piece of spyware or "virus" was ever to infect a Mac it
>>>could only live 7 days, the default "update option on macs" there is
>>>some hints that Apple could even invoke a fix immediately if needed.
>>
>>Unless the virus carried a serious payload.
>
>
> That's a pretty big if...
Not at all. It's called a 'Trojan'.
-Rick
Flint
> Instead they will opt for the too-late approach of writing spyware
> 'cleaners' to remove spyware after it's already been contracted. As
> Symantec has demonstrated with viruses, this is a battle that will never
> be won.
This simply isn't true. These days, a *lot* of Windows Antimalware
takes a more proactive and preventative approach to malware infection.
Microsoft(Giant) Antispyware employs several active memory scanning
agents which will trap various infection/infestation events. F-Prot
Antivirus's FStop-W has an extremely aggressive (almost to a fault)
memory scanner/detection ability and a 'no execute' lock on infected
files it detects. AVG has an unrivaled email attachment scanner that
catches infected attachments.
It really isn't that difficult to set up an effective protection scheme
that pretty much eliminates infections. The problem is people are too
dam lazy to read the fucking simple docs, and take 5 minutes to tweak
their setup. The real root of the malware problems are the
intellectually lazy types who seem to think a device that works in a
complex manner, and does complex things, should require absolutely no
end user maintainence, and the 'gurus' who keeps fostering and
perpetuating this silly notion of shangrila computing. If a car
requires period oil changes, tire rotations, and tune-ups, what fucking
morons actually believe that computers don't require the same? Apple
and their disciples, that's who...
Travelinman
Rick <no...@nomail.com> wrote:
OS X has never had a virus or trojan in the wild. Linux has.
Case closed.
GreyCloud
How can I when I took the machine back in for a refund??
But then, maybe your XP games don't do that.
> Perhaps they are only in your imagination.
>
More like your cluelessness than anything else.
> >
> > > The jumping dock icons are very annoying. Any way to turn that off too?
> >
> > It only bumps for a bit then just sits there like any other
> > icon. Not near as annoying as interrupting your work and
> > getting in your face.
>
> No it doesn't. It keeps jumping until you click on it.
I'd say you are lying again.
GreyCloud
Because it is a published fact that you can't remove all of
internet exploder.
macsuc...@yahoo.com
Why not use google images or something to find an example? If this
really does happen all the time it shouldn't be hard.
macsuc...@yahoo.com
Obviously you have never tried it yourself, or you would not fall for
Microsoft's published lies.
Oxford
> > You may now prove OS X is more secure than Linux.
> >
> > (snip)
>
> OS X has never had a virus or trojan in the wild. Linux has.
>
> Case closed.
yes, that's plenty of proof, case closed is correct.
and nobody has broken into that mac, at 70.57.60.153... what is taking
so long? I thought TheLetterK, Peter said OSX wasn't secure, oops, they
were wrong as usual. So now we have even more proof, OSX is uncrackable,
case doubly closed.
yellowcake
ahm added to see if what you claim is true. NOTHING is unbreakable or
unhackable, not even the best OS in the world.
Where's Rikijo??? <kicks Buzz> Where's Rikijo??? Get crackin, bitch!!
yc