Mac OS X - world's safest computer (OS) [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Mac OS X - world's safest computer (OS)


FThorn
11-02-2004, 11:07
Tired of pop-ups? Viruses (ii)? Trojans? Spyware?

I know that my 6 Macs have never SEEN a virus, pop-up, trojan or spyware.

This study concludes that Mac OS X is the safest OS out there....


http://www.mi2g.com/cgi/mi2g/press/021104.php

http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=10035

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/65331/os-x-is-worlds-most-secure-operating-system-report-concludes.html

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/11/02.6.shtml

AAshooter
11-02-2004, 11:45
. . . and Beta is technically superior to VHS! ;f

RonC
11-02-2004, 11:54
Yep. Marketing consistently trumps technology.

MikeG22
11-02-2004, 16:32
Sure have seen alot of security alerts come out for OSX lately though....

FThorn
11-02-2004, 19:57
Originally posted by MikeG22
Sure have seen alot of security alerts come out for OSX lately though....


Not really. And what little has been out is getting fixed quickly by Apple.

The fact remains the same.

I have no third party software 'protecting' my Macs, whereas Windows PCs you will DIE without them.

Halo
11-02-2004, 20:10
The Mac operating system does have some intrinsic advantages, true, but also realize it's not nearly the juicy target that Windows is. If you manage to get 90% of the home computer market, then let's talk about no viruses on the Mac ;)

PurchGuru
11-02-2004, 21:11
I have to agree with Halo. The threats are proportional to the size of the user base ... Windows, Linux and then Apple.

fastvfr
11-02-2004, 23:09
The fact is, any properly installed Linux kernel is FAR safer to use than OS X Panther will ever be.

It is nothing but a freeky version of *Nix known as 'Darwin'...and I know for sure that it is nowhere near as secure as a lot of other OS's I use.

Even a patched and hardened copy of XP that is set up properly with the applications that you are apparently horrified of, like AVG, SpyBot 1.3, and a firewall. My GF's copy has run for over three years as solidly as any Linux box I have, with zero viruses and only a few 'cookies' showing up in its monthly checkup scans.

Three years of XP SP1a, on ADSL, and no problems whatsoever. Plus, LOADS of excellent software is available for XP.

Why, may I ask, do you think it is a good idea to pay 3X what the system's hardware is worth in order to fight an obsolete OS that is dumbed-down to the point of being like Mandrake 1.01 on bad acid? Panther has a LOT of nasty habits even without viruses and it also has few if any decent 3D games available for it!

I mean, what is the point of subjecting yourself to that?!

Just because Steve Jobs told us to?! You know, I totally ignored him; perhaps you should consider taking that stance as well.

Of the two dozen or so clients I have that use MacOS'es, mostly 8 or 9, but a few have paid the upgrade fees and run 10.1 or 10.3, most of them seem to think that Windows users have it SOOOO much worse ,and a couple of ex-clients even went so far as to call me a liar when I told them that viruses are something only ignorant Windows users get; they were somehow convinced that ALL PC's get hundreds of viruses a day! And these poor dummies were dealing with ten times the BS from their Mac than I see on the average VIRUSED PC!!

So don't take this as a flame, but please don't spead misinformation, friend. OS X 10.3 is nearly okay; usable and stable for the most part...but not even close to the caliber of OS that a well-maintained Debian 2.6.8_i686 kernel or a well-managed XP represents.

And if you give me that, "Well, my camera wouldn't work on 153 different Windows PC's, but it ran automagically from my Powerbook!" line from the commercials, I will let loose some goodies from some of my tech calls that will REALLY undermine your position! So, how about we don't go there.

The fact remains that people are fundamentally lazy, and when a person gets used to Apple machines, they aren't normally comfortable on a PC, and vice versa. I honestly think that is the real root of all this Fan-Boy stuff.

And, as much as I abhor their business practices, at least M$ does not charge you to patch your OS. WMP8 to WMP10? No problem. None of this absolutely evil "Thank you SOOO much for upgrading your OS, Sir! Oh, you want to update iLife3 to iLife4? Certainly! That'll be ANOTHER $50, puhleeeze!" crap.

;Q :( ;Q :( ;Q

Good luck,

FastVFR

PS. Oh, and BTW, there are more exploits for OS X than for half a dozen different Linux kernels combined. Or hadn't you heard about those?

RonC
11-03-2004, 09:46
fastvfr wrote: "Why, may I ask, do you think it is a good idea to pay 3X what the system's hardware is worth in order to fight an obsolete OS that is dumbed-down"

I don't know your experience or knowledge but I trust Walter Mossberg's, the technology editor for the Wall Street Journal. His and my experiences with the Mac seem to be at serious variance with yours.

If you compare feature to feature with any major computer maker, like Dell, the Mac is not overpriced and nowhere near 3X. Rather the price is the same or a little less for comparable hardware.

"So don't take this as a flame, but please don't spead misinformation"

Tennessee Slim
11-03-2004, 12:10
My neighbor has the world's safest automobile. It's an '88 T-Bird sitting up on blocks, 200 feet from the nearest road. Catch my drift? ;)

AAshooter
11-03-2004, 19:28
Originally posted by Tennessee Slim
My neighbor has the world's safest automobile. It's an '88 T-Bird sitting up on blocks, 200 feet from the nearest road. Catch my drift? ;)

I'm a little slow at these things but I am not sure I did.^8 ^8 ^8

Tennessee Slim
11-03-2004, 20:13
Originally posted by AAshooter
I'm a little slow at these things but I am not sure I did.^8 ^8 ^8
The fact that some yahoo considers OSX the safest OS on earth doesn’t do much to alleviate its other shortcomings. A junker sitting on cinderblocks might be collision-proof but it just doesn't do what I generally buy cars for.

FThorn
11-03-2004, 21:27
your comments aren't very enlightened.

fastvfr
11-04-2004, 02:22
Originally posted by RonC
fastvfr wrote: "Why, may I ask, do you think it is a good idea to pay 3X what the system's hardware is worth in order to fight an obsolete OS that is dumbed-down"

I don't know your experience or knowledge but I trust Walter Mossberg's, the technology editor for the Wall Street Journal. His and my experiences with the Mac seem to be at serious variance with yours.

If you compare feature to feature with any major computer maker, like Dell, the Mac is not overpriced and nowhere near 3X. Rather the price is the same or a little less for comparable hardware.

"So don't take this as a flame, but please don't spead misinformation"

Heh heh.

Apple G5: $3,000. (http://www.lowendmac.com/ppc/g5.html) ...and that is with only 2.0GHz worth of processing power...

Dell 8250: $2873 (http://http://www.epinions.com/content_79172636292) for their "top of the line", which is still a POS by power-user standards...I mean, a 64MB Ti4200 graphics card in a nearly $2900 PC?!? Mine cost far less than half of that, and it has a 256MB, 256-bit 5900 Ultra in it...which is about 15X more powerful.

See, YOUR Mac, if it is a decent, newer G5 model, has about $1100 in parts in it - if you have the dual procs and two HDD's installed, as well as a DVD burner and a CD-RW.

And it cost you, what, about $3500 or so?! $1100 X 3 = $3300.

And that Dell's guts are worth maybe $900 at most. But that is the components' retail prices; Dell buys the cheapest parts available by the trainload. As does Apple. So for Dell, $900 X 3 = $2700...three times its true equipment cost.

Now consider mine; this PC will eat any G5 or Dell on the market for breakfast...and with a $100 gaming case its parts (all bleeding-edge at the time, BTW) cost only $1300 - with shipping.

Along with XP Pro and five other non-M$ OSes figured in, I might add.

So not only can a PC be made to be as safe if not SAFER than an OS X machine, but it is far more flexible and can easily be built for the price of the components and the OSes you decide to use. And you do not need to buy hardware or apps you'll never use; instead you can just upgrade for more power or functionality.

Which leads me to another thing...why don't people upgrade their Apple machines with 3rd party hardware to keep them useful?

Because they can't. By design and quite possibly by malice aforethought. What a bargain. ;Q

And as far as Mr. Mossberg goes, he's not exactly on the front lines of computer repair, is he? "Why shouldn't a computer work just like refrigerator or a toaster?" is one of his most intelligent quotes, is it not?

I concede; I can't see any reason to upgrade a toaster, either...but as it inevitably will, your Mac will one day lack the power needed to process larger, more intensive apps, and it will begin to take too long to do its job.

That is when Mr. Mossberg and Mr. Jobs will just smile and tell you that your $3500 machine is obsolete, and advise you to spend $4000 more for a NEW Mac, so it will run your apps properly. What a crock.

With a proper PC, a bit of added RAM or a CPU swap (normally $300 or so) gives your PC a new lease on life, and you will have inexpensively created a far better PC from your old one, one that is truly the equivalent of a newer model, without needlessly having to repurchase every component.

Apple's Planned Obsolescence is something of a scam, if you hadn't noticed....

And from what I have seen and heard, there are more people who agree with my views on this than with Wally M.'s.

I am glad your Macs are working out for you; just please don't try to suggest that they are better than a PC in any way. Because they aren't; not in price, power, safety or functionality do they hold a candle to what a PC is capable of.

If they were better, more people would use them.

RonC
11-04-2004, 07:38
I will respectfully disagree with you.

Clock cycles are not a measure of efficiency. Since the RISC architecture used by Apple can do the same real work in 1/2 to 1/3 the number of clock cycles of an Intel engine, clock rate is not a measure of anything, except obsolete architecture.

As with many PC folks, going all the way back to DOS days, you seem to be more enthralled with the fact that you can tinker with the hardware internals and the software than the amount of real work you can do. (Remember the gyrations to get TSRs into hi memory?)

Here, our PCs are on a 3 year replacement cycle. Talk about built in obsolescence.

Sorry, this thread is about security. Regardless of the cause, the thread starter's original comment is correct. You can debate whether that will be true in the future all you want.

CranialCrusader
11-05-2004, 00:00
Originally posted by fastvfr
Heh heh.

Apple G5: $3,000. (http://www.lowendmac.com/ppc/g5.html) ...and that is with only 2.0GHz worth of processing power...



WRONG!!!!!! You need to check for the latest updates. This has been out for a while. I expect them to go to dual 3.0's soon.

<b>DUAL</b> 2.5 GHz 64 bit processors for $3000 from the Apple store. Far different than that link you gave.

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/72302/wo/xI6xkyutVFkj2nydKGUYNizuhAr/1.0.9.1.0.6.21.1.3.21.3.1.1.0


CranialCrusader

Tennessee Slim
11-05-2004, 08:29
Originally posted by CranialCrusader
...<b>DUAL</b> 2.5 GHz 64 bit processors for $3000 from the Apple store....
To understand what a bargain that is, you only need check the price on a 64-bit Intel slug.

RonC
11-05-2004, 08:38
Tennessee Slim:

Just out of curiosity, what do you usually buy cars...uh...computers for?

Tennessee Slim
11-05-2004, 12:20
Originally posted by RonC
Tennessee Slim:

Just out of curiosity, what do you usually buy cars...uh...computers for?
Same thing. Grin factor.

pwrtool45
11-05-2004, 13:03
Since the RISC architecture used by Apple can do the same real work in 1/2 to 1/3 the number of clock cycles of an Intel engine, clock rate is not a measure of anything, except obsolete architecture.

I'm curious about this. How is having larger code with fewer hardware-level instructions more efficient? I've never done any PPC ASM since I don't have anything with that arch to check it out (nor do I know of any free shell accounts on machines which allow access to an assembler and linker). I do know, however, that it's called *reduced* instruction set for a reason. CISC processors, like the intel x86s, have a larger microcode vocabulary. Having done x86 ASM, I really appreciate things like SHR, SHL, and IMUL, which I don't think are available in PPC ASM. Any advantage in theoretical efficiency has to overcome the fact that developers are limited to simplistic solutions (by comparison).

The PPC arch seems to be popular with embedded manufacturers, but I tend to think it's more because of the accountants than the developers. I know I would be supremely annoyed to wake up one day and find out that I have to do a project in C++, but half the standard library has been overridden and I can't use it.

RonC
11-05-2004, 14:54
Pwrtool45

Here, check this out.
Simplified explanation... (http://cse.stanford.edu/class/sophomore-college/projects-00/risc/risccisc/)

Tennessee Slim
11-05-2004, 15:02
Maybe this (http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3997) will help.

Nephilim
11-05-2004, 22:33
I'm pretty sure that security through obscurity is no way to go.

pwrtool45
11-06-2004, 09:12
Sorry, not a big fan of osnews. The first link, though, appears to be to a 200-level ASM class where the professor likes RISC. Fair enough, since my ASM prof was the exact opposite. However, I still can't buy the idea that sticking to mostly register-to-register instructions (which are unarguably faster) compensates for the bloated code and lack of complex instructions. Even if you stay in the CPU, multiplying a large number by 8 is still lots of work. Going to RAM and shifting a few times to get the same result isn't going to be appreciably slower. CISC goes to RAM more often, true, but I can't see RISC's sole advantage making up for its shortcomings.

Like so many other things, they're different. Personally, I can imagine a host of other things I'd rather do than purposefully reduce the efficiency of my tools-- but that's just me. The author seems to want to CISC bash, which is fine. But, taken to its logical extreme, I suppose anything other than writing in hex and PEEKing and POKEing into memory is "high level" and worthy of contempt.

T. Harless
11-06-2004, 23:21
I can say that my dual G5 is the baddest asssed Photoshop machine I've ever sat at and a 23" Cinema Display is a beautiful thing. 5k is a chunk but I think it was well spent. Todd

morpheusfx
11-11-2004, 16:05
Go Todd.
Good post.
That's about all that needs to be said.
Wait til you get some aftereffects running on that bad boy.
Gotta get 2 displays though.
That makes one helluva workstation.
Impresses clients too.

mwheeler
11-13-2004, 10:30
I was shocked when I received the latest issue of Consumer Reports and their recommendations for personal computers. They have been a steadfast bastion of recommending Windows computers for years. This month's buyer's guide for laptops/desktops leads with a detailed explanation of their headline: "It May Be Time to Reconsider Macs".

Yes, I know this is not a computer tech publication. It is more mainstream. But they do not accept advertising, so I think we can rule out paid promotion.

So maybe... just maybe, mind you.... there is something to what they are writing regarding Macs?

Incidentally... regarding MS not charging license fees/upgrades, etc. Ever hear of Microsoft's CALs? Also, price out a name-brand Windows server and an Xserve. Include all of the CALs and other licensing fees and report back here...

FThorn
11-14-2004, 09:55
Again, I started this thread with a simple suposition.

In my 15 years of owning macs, I have never had a virus. I have never had a trojan. I have never had pop-ups or hijacks, etc.

In my job of 11 years, we have many Windows desktops and servers. I am responsible for whole or part of many hundreds of these computers. I have thousands of users that I support software applications for. All these run on Windows.

I can say that it is a DAILY STRUGGLE for our company to manage over 10,000 desktops and servers against virus, trojan, and hijacks. We lost millions of dollars to one virus that took us out for three days. And it affected YOU, since almost every person in the US is in our database or has a son/daughter in our database.

We contract and employ many highly paid companies and people to control the daily menace of Windows incursions.

I don't give a damn if someone does not like Macs or vice versa.

unixglocker
11-15-2004, 00:58
No shell. No remote exploits.

FThorn
12-10-2004, 16:32
http://news.com.com/Who+says+safe+computing+must+remain+a+pipe+dream/2010-1071-5482340.html

David_G17
12-10-2004, 17:05
mine at home is safer (i'm at work). it's not even plugged in. heck, it's not even assembled.

i dare anybody to hack it.;g

mwheeler
12-12-2004, 10:29
Not only were Win XP and OS X security tested in this "live" attachment to the Internet, they also put Microtel Linspire (Linux) into the mix:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/computersecurity/hacking/2004-11-29-honeypot_x.htm

FThorn
12-12-2004, 15:17
That article says that ONLY Windows OSes were compromised.

Not Mac OS X.

Another anecdotal story that does not say Mac OS X is NOT safe, at least. It says it seems safe to me, at least.

Thanks.

mwheeler
12-12-2004, 15:41
Even further... did you note that the OS X system did NOT have it's internal software firewall enabled? (XP did.)

FThorn
12-12-2004, 15:45
I missed that note. Good catch and interesting, as well.

c5367
12-23-2004, 06:45
I've been using Macs for about 2 years now. No viruses, no popups, spyware, trojans...nada. Safari tag teamed with Pithhelmet renders unwanted cookies, banner adds, and other forms of browser borne obnoxiousness a thing of the past. Camino works great too.

Sure, its anecdotal evidence, but my experience with OS X has been thoroughly positive, while the XP machine I used to run has been gutted for parts. I've tried both, and i know which works best for me. It may very well be security through obscurity, but its still security.

FThorn
12-23-2004, 07:26
Good to hear it. I just started using pith helmet, too. Great app.

geoffinak
12-31-2004, 20:41
One of Apples biggest advantages, The Mac Operating System, is written just for Macs. So the OS and the hardware fit perfect.

I have new Macs but I also have a 10 year old D.T the first Power P.C. line, a 6100. They originally shipped with 15 MB of built in memory. In 1994 when I bought the 6100, I upped the memory with 40 megs of ram, cost $1,300.00. Remember those days? WOW!

Anyway in 1998 there was a card that took me from 66MHZ to 300 MHZ cost about $125.00. I also upgraded the ram at the same time to 265 megs, cost 120.00 . Time to do this 5 minutes. Also put in a bigger hard drive

Max ram was 65, when built, however as the memory sticks got more powerful the machine took the memory upgrades, processor speed from 66 to 300 no problem.

So my 10 year old Mac which runs almost 24/7, while not a speed demon will run all the software I bought over the last 10 years and any Apple OS from the early 90s up to and including system 9. System 10 Apple gave you a UNIX on your D.T. Even OS X-10.3 gives you the ability to use the older software

All Macs are highly upgradeable after 3 to 5 years when tech is roaring ahead and leaving you behind. Cards to speed up the processor or the video on older machines are always built, by the best vendors. They know it will not sell if it's junk. There is a long life and a high resale value.

The windows OS must try to operate on a variety of hardware, from the cheap Wintel machines, that one week use this hardware and next week switch to this vendor because it's cheaper. Apple does not switch vendors that way, vendors must meet Apples specs.

So the Windows folks have to try and write an OS that works on just about any piece crap box up to to your higher end hardware. So the code is so bloated, sloppy and it runs over the sides. This is one of the reasons that Wintels have more OS or program problems. It is not surprising that so many people have so many problems and they can not fix certain items themselves and need such heavy tech support.

Not to mention Bill Gates is biggest impedance to software development in the world. He never created a thing in his life, he stole Apples GUI after Steve gave it to him for the week end. Bill marketed the software to produce more money, not a better product. Gates will buy, crush or do anything to stop the flow of technology that might might tip his empire a bit. He beat the monoply rap, I suppose MS and so many MS employees donating to the sitting monarch helped with that. That is why people really dislike the man, he stops progress.

No one has thought that this country is so dependant on Windows, well glad I can use both systems software on the same computer if I have to. Windows will not run Mac

John Gruber puts it right:
"Argungs ing that it’s technically possible that the Mac could suffer just as many security exploits as Windows is like arguing that a good neighborhood could suddenly find itself strewn with garbage and plagued by vandalism and serious crime. Possible, yes, but not likely. The security disparity between the Mac and Windows isn’t so much about technical possibilities as it is about what people will tolerate.

And Mac users don’t tolerate crap."

Have you ever heard of a Mac user switcing to Windows by choice ?
Ever look at the things Apple makes and how the style is cutting edge and then copied, even items not computer related.ngs.



Geoff

Windows 95:
32-bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to
an 8-bit operating system originally coded for a 4-bit
microprocessor, written by a 2-bit company that can't stand
1-bit of competition.

geoffinak
01-01-2005, 02:37
Originally posted by fastvfr
Heh heh.
1.Now consider mine; this PC will eat any G5 or Dell on the market for So not only can a PC be made to be as safe if not SAFER than an OS X machine, but it is far more flexible and can easily be built for the price of the components and the OSes you decide to use. And you do not need to buy hardware or apps you'll never use; instead you can just upgrade for more power or functionality.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Babble all you do is babble, show me the facts on Photoshop blurs, layers rendering and blends, real time functions, with out facts you are yelling fire but no one is listening.
Tell you what, you take your Stock PC beast to Apple and beat there stock G5 on standard testing and see who wins. PC magazine would love that, lots of bucks for you.

2. Which leads me to another thing...why don't people upgrade their Apple
Because they can't. By design and quite possibly by malice aforethought. What a bargain. ;Q
___________________________________________________________________________
Because you do not understand Macs. 95% of all Macs are made so the processor, ram, wireless, hard drive are all customer installable if you wish and the directions are in the manual that came with the Mac to do these things. So we do not have to go to PC store and get ripped off for something easier then change a spark plug. You know nothing about Macs.

3. With a proper PC, a bit of added RAM or a CPU swap (normally $300 or so) gives your PC a new lease on life, and you will have inexpensively created a far better PC from your old one, one that is truly the equivalent of a newer model, without needlessly having to repurchase every component.
_________________________________________________________________________
Gee really look above and and look below, it will inform you a bit, everything you list,a Mac can do, usually less expensive, unless on eBay.

4. Apples Planned Obsolescence is something of a scam, if you hadn't noticed....
__________________________________________________________________________
Oh Ya that is why Apple when they first started OS X 10.1 and has matured to OS X 10.3 will run software all the way back to system 7 about 1994 . Also runs the new software for Apple that is built around and for OS X 10.3 as well. So where is the planned obsolesce. I get a HUGE software leap the power of UNIX on your lap top or Desk Top. Plus I get to use my old software if I wish. Also remember that the Apple OS gives you a complete package written tightly as it only works on a Mac. With AppleWorks similar to Office but less robust about 40 % of what office could do. Fine for a small business or home, school work.
A mail program that will filter spam after a few days of use, can run multiple accounts that feed into one or multiple accounts that have there own Mail Box. PDF to transfer any document into text and pictures and PDF forms, that can be typed on, attach or place a picture. iTunes iCal iMovie Garage Band, Quicken iPhoto, iMovie. It goes on, for wireless use airport. The idea is you open it up, you plug it in, attach to your modem, or Ethernet Port for high speed DSL or Cable and it just works. They are wrapping the iLife into one application but for last 3 years I have gotten these apps as part of the OS. The new iBooks I just got my kids had all this installed including garage band which lets you create music not goofy music, quality that will be used in movies.. Microsoft also makes a Mac only copy of MS Office, if you really need this. In some large businesses applications you might need it. However my daughter is in pre-med at UW and needed MS Office for 1 class. They move to PDF files is really rolling. They can be edited, there cross platform capable and the Profs love them.


5. I am glad your Macs are working out for you; just please don't try to suggest that they are better than a PC in any way. Because they aren't; not in price, power, safety or functionality do they hold a candle to what a PC is capable of.
__________________________________________________________________________
Your position is presented with what facts. You sitting there in your shorts eating cookies just spewing stuff out with no facts, this and that but no facts.
Your statements are totally unfounded and with no proof. Show numbers.
You know nothing about of Macs except the same old lame stuff and sorry but it just zipped right by ya while intel was yawning.
Not enough games, ughhhh only the best get ported to the Mac, so less but what do you do, play games 10 hours a day. My son in college plays quake, sort of the measuring stick for speed and video on computers.On a 1 GHZ eMac he is happy and competative, according to his real world test.. eMac is Apples lowest entry model. A refurb I got a year ago had a 17" monitor 1-Gig of memory a 80 gig hard drive, a superdrive that reads and writes or rewrites CDs and DVDs a 3 year Apple care plan=$650.00 free shipping. Included the latest OS, not a watered down "home version" Looked like new and by the numbers was not out long. Not a complaint in the year. Apples refurb policy, if you don't like it in 10 days give them a call and another will be sent out. After that standard warranty just like the new ones. Pretty good deals as they go over them very well.

As to functionality -That's why Macs are used in movies, commercials, magazine layouts, the tough stuff at the top end. The beauty is the top end works as well and easy as the bottom end and I could get that same G5. Your numbers get screwy as you place anything and everything at production cost. When the extra RAM, hard Drives airport are all customer installable. You just open the side of the G5 and it's all right there to add, replace, take with you.
Macs are made to service easily. If a part goes wrong, much easier to send a part then to ship a G5. Unless you live near a Apple Store.

If you love to tear apart computers, figure out why software glitches stop your computer dead in the water, because one software will not work with another one opened., need drivers that are not available. Call tech support and wait for hours for someone to read off a card in some far east country Then windows is for you.

If you want a computer to do the things you need a computer to do day in and day out without reading huge manuals because the software is designed intuitively get a Mac,

6. If they were better, more people would use them.
________________________________________________________________________
I could not think of a better ending to your spew of unfounded facts.
Thank You made it for me. Because most people use P.Cs,
Then it must be the right way.
Oh yes, truly the american way, if their doing it, we should do it.
Just like the majority of people who think guns are for the military.
Assault weapons should be banned-what's a assault weapon, well you know.
Does the constitution give you the right to own a gun, well not really.
Those are answers most people give.
People who eat themselves to death at fast food places and die from heart disease and wonder why.
People who are apathetic to what is happening to our lost rights under the guise of fear.
So I will base everything I do on what most people do. I can see why you believe what you believe. All I ask is stop spreading bunk about the Mac when you know nothing about the Mac. It's clear that you state a general dislike for the Mac, but don't spread FUD. It only takes away from what you may really good which is Windows which of course will not go away, until the day the computers stood still. Pretty crazy how so much is tied to one system. Oh one more thing I have used multiple macs from 1984, never a virus or anything I did not want. On the side I run a list to help people sick with Adrenal problems, 8 filters to keep out the barbarians and hundreds of people looking to get in.
Good Luck to all. I understand different views and what system you use does not bother me, just don't tank another without knowledge. You notice I have not bad mouthed Windows, well maybe because everyone else does, naaa, that was already said. Hey it's the 1st post of the new year, probably not
Geoff

FThorn
05-16-2006, 08:21
More insight from Symantec...

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/shopper/news/87203/symantec-advises-to-buy-a-mac.html

Symantec advises to buy a Mac 11:22AM
The CEO of security firm Symantec has advised computer buyers to pick up a Mac.

'We think more people ought to buy them,' John Thompson told the Future in Review conference yesterday.

He described Windows as a 'target-rich' environment for malware writers and hackers, but warned that those same people might change their tack if Macs become more widespread.

'We shouldn't assume that any one technology at any layer is sufficient to protect our notion of a connected world,' he said.

However if any technology comes close, it is Mac OS X, at least according to technology consultant and former CEO of Mac product maker DVForge, Jack Campbell.

'Just over one-year ago, my company, DVForge, announced a $25,000 prize for the first virus developer who could infect two Powermac [sic] G5 computers located in our office,' he writes in his blog.

'Well, more than a year has passed. And, surprisingly (or not, to some of us), there is still not one self-replicating virus in the wild that attacks the Mac OS X operating system. That's right, folks... not one. Not the first. Ever. Never. Zero,' he says.

'When I announced the OS X Virus Contest, OS X had been on the market for four years, with still not one single in the wild virus. Now, it has been more than five years. And, guess what?... still not one in the wild virus!.'
Simon Aughton

metallic
05-19-2006, 20:12
I'm sorry, I would hardly describe OS X as the world's safest computer operating system, especially considering the number of high profile security holes that have turned up in recent months, not the least to be the discovery of a security hole in Safari and OS X that would allow a shell script to be downloaded and automatically executed by simply visiting a website. Makes you wonder what else is waiting to be found.

Now, if you want to argue that OS X is more secure than Windows XP then I would probably agree for the meantime. But as Apple increases its market share, I expect there to be a lot more security problems.

unixglocker
05-20-2006, 02:14
The funny thing is I use both MacOS and Windows. There have been times in the last four years where I was 100% Windows. I use no anti virus/malware/blah blah software, do not use Exploiter or Outbreak, occasional check for presence of virus with Avast BART *bootable CD, does not install antivirus. I have never had a virus on a Windows box. To me it seems possible that a large part of windows virus problems are caused by the fact that A. Windows is used by the vast majority of users. B. The Vast Majority are complete cluetards that will connect a windows box to a network with a real address / Surf two letter TLD's / click on anything, can't identify a threat because they can't read, etc. The Mac buyers are generally much better informed than that.

hwyhobo
05-20-2006, 10:17
Most of the so-called viruses on a PC are really just retarded scripted email attachments.

You know, if you sent email to some people and told them that by clicking on a command below they would qualify to win a milion dollars, and if that command said in plain English "format hard disk", they would still click on it. There is no cure for stupid.

metallic
05-20-2006, 19:58
Originally posted by hwyhobo
Most of the so-called viruses on a PC are really just retarded scripted email attachments.

You know, if you sent email to some people and told them that by clicking on a command below they would qualify to win a milion dollars, and if that command said in plain English "format hard disk", they would still click on it. There is no cure for stupid.

For a while, there was a gag email going around stating it was a mexican email virus. The directions in the email body actually called for you to format your own hard drive.

neeko
05-20-2006, 20:25
BSD is a far more secure operating system architecture than OSX

unixglocker
05-20-2006, 23:55
Originally posted by neeko
BSD is a far more secure operating system architecture than OSX


Uh? OSX is BSD based. I hop back and forth from OSX to FreeBSD very comfortably.

metallic
05-21-2006, 17:39
Originally posted by unixglocker
Uh? OSX is BSD based. I hop back and forth from OSX to FreeBSD very comfortably.

The kernels are very different. BSD is more like a kernel personality than anything.

unixglocker
05-21-2006, 19:03
What is a kernel personality? I've heard it described a lot of ways and that's one I've never heard.

Originally posted by metallic
The kernels are very different. BSD is more like a kernel personality than anything.

neeko
05-21-2006, 19:25
OSX is a proprietary operating system, BSD is open source.

metallic
05-21-2006, 20:00
Originally posted by unixglocker
What is a kernel personality? I've heard it described a lot of ways and that's one I've never heard.

This (http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/KernelProgramming/Architecture/chapter_3_section_3.html) probably does a better job of explaining it than I can. Basically, with a kernel personality you are trying to make one kernel look and behave like an entirely different kernel by building a compatible API on top of it. That's how I would describe it.

unixglocker
05-23-2006, 02:58
Originally posted by neeko
OSX is a proprietary operating system, BSD is open source.

Partially true, but not entirely true.

unixglocker
05-23-2006, 03:04
Yep, good link. What I was thinking about though was the locations of things and syntax of commands, that makes it easier on me to use MacOSX and FreeBSD. Other than where MacOSX uses these whackass plist XML files for some configs and even that I'm getting used to, hard to avoid XML now.

Originally posted by metallic
This (http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/KernelProgramming/Architecture/chapter_3_section_3.html) probably does a better job of explaining it than I can. Basically, with a kernel personality you are trying to make one kernel look and behave like an entirely different kernel by building a compatible API on top of it. That's how I would describe it.

metallic
05-24-2006, 01:36
Originally posted by unixglocker
Yep, good link. What I was thinking about though was the locations of things and syntax of commands, that makes it easier on me to use MacOSX and FreeBSD. Other than where MacOSX uses these whackass plist XML files for some configs and even that I'm getting used to, hard to avoid XML now.

I haven't really messed around a lot with OS X from the command line yet. From the exposure I have had so far, I've been pretty comfortable with my primarily Linux background. Right now, I have two Intel Mac Minis still in their boxes at work. I should be getting more exposure to OS X than I would probably have ever wanted in a few weeks when I start work on a driver to access our client's weather station hardware from OS X. And it shouldn't be too long after I finish an expensive move into a house next month that I will have a shiny new Apple laptop at home.

But either way, the move from Linux to OS X was less of a shock than the move from Linux to Solaris. The lack of GNU utilities on Solaris by default is driving me absolutely nuts whenever I have to login to the Solaris 8 server at work. The other assorted tiny differences from what I am used to only exacerbates the problem further.

metallic
05-24-2006, 02:29
Originally posted by FThorn
More insight from Symantec...

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/shopper/news/87203/symantec-advises-to-buy-a-mac.html

Symantec advises to buy a Mac 11:22AM
The CEO of security firm Symantec has advised computer buyers to pick up a Mac.

'We think more people ought to buy them,' John Thompson told the Future in Review conference yesterday.

He described Windows as a 'target-rich' environment for malware writers and hackers, but warned that those same people might change their tack if Macs become more widespread.

'We shouldn't assume that any one technology at any layer is sufficient to protect our notion of a connected world,' he said.

However if any technology comes close, it is Mac OS X, at least according to technology consultant and former CEO of Mac product maker DVForge, Jack Campbell.

'Just over one-year ago, my company, DVForge, announced a $25,000 prize for the first virus developer who could infect two Powermac [sic] G5 computers located in our office,' he writes in his blog.

'Well, more than a year has passed. And, surprisingly (or not, to some of us), there is still not one self-replicating virus in the wild that attacks the Mac OS X operating system. That's right, folks... not one. Not the first. Ever. Never. Zero,' he says.

'When I announced the OS X Virus Contest, OS X had been on the market for four years, with still not one single in the wild virus. Now, it has been more than five years. And, guess what?... still not one in the wild virus!.'
Simon Aughton

I wouldn't read too much into that. Symantec is deathly afraid of Microsoft's impending move into the anti-virus market and is afraid of how that will affect the home users of its anti-virus software. With Symantec's somewhat recent merger with Veritas, I would expect Symantec to focus more on its corporate and enterprise customer base and let Microsoft slowly make inroads into its consumer business.

And as for viruses, there can be a big difference between a self-replicating and a self-propagating virus. There is already a self-replicating virus that sends itself to contacts on the victim's iChat contact list but is not self-propagating. It still relies on some user interaction in order to infect the target system. This type of propagation also happens to be the most common vector of infection for viruses in the Windows world. The virus in question has been labeled OSX/Leap.A!worm.im and I would very much consider it as having been "in the wild" at one point. It even attacks the operating system by infecting binary files on the system. Now all there needs to be is a single remote exploit found in OS X and the door for a self-propagating virus that affects OS X will be wide open.

unixglocker
05-24-2006, 03:41
Yep. Having to bootstrap a Solaris box without BSD ports or whatever package manager you like on Linux is a PITA. Usually nobody's got one Solaris box though and they're jumpstarting a setup this is already setup or mounting GNU tools from somewhere else. I'm not active on Solaris and I would assume that there is some easier way now to install GNU stuff. Getting back into Solaris this month though, doing some stuff inside a grid container for somebody, that should be interesting. Solaris is pretty easy and enjoyable once you get over some initial it's different from Linux shock. I was there once, now I really don't care, one OS or the other it all works the same, some do some things better than the other, none of them is perfect and somebody's usually got the edge in one way or another.

The only thing I find missing in MacOSX is that it's got that misleading X in the title but you can't remote display apps like you can in X. This is a big ugly limit that even XP actually has some basic ability to handle. And then I get started on that eMac they used to sell that doesn't have anything to do with emacs, grrrr.

Originally posted by metallic
I haven't really messed around a lot with OS X from the command line yet. From the exposure I have had so far, I've been pretty comfortable with my primarily Linux background. Right now, I have two Intel Mac Minis still in their boxes at work. I should be getting more exposure to OS X than I would probably have ever wanted in a few weeks when I start work on a driver to access our client's weather station hardware from OS X. And it shouldn't be too long after I finish an expensive move into a house next month that I will have a shiny new Apple laptop at home.

But either way, the move from Linux to OS X was less of a shock than the move from Linux to Solaris. The lack of GNU utilities on Solaris by default is driving me absolutely nuts whenever I have to login to the Solaris 8 server at work. The other assorted tiny differences from what I am used to only exacerbates the problem further.

hwyhobo
05-24-2006, 14:41
Originally posted by unixglocker
The only thing I find missing in MacOSX is that it's got that misleading X in the title but you can't remote display apps like you can in X.
That's why they read it as "Mac Oh eS Ten" ;)

Actually, I have another problem with it. I find the graphical interface unintuitive compared to X or even to Windows (I can hear Mac users' heads exploding now in the distance :laughing: ).

metallic
05-24-2006, 17:16
Originally posted by unixglocker
Yep. Having to bootstrap a Solaris box without BSD ports or whatever package manager you like on Linux is a PITA. Usually nobody's got one Solaris box though and they're jumpstarting a setup this is already setup or mounting GNU tools from somewhere else. I'm not active on Solaris and I would assume that there is some easier way now to install GNU stuff. Getting back into Solaris this month though, doing some stuff inside a grid container for somebody, that should be interesting. Solaris is pretty easy and enjoyable once you get over some initial it's different from Linux shock. I was there once, now I really don't care, one OS or the other it all works the same, some do some things better than the other, none of them is perfect and somebody's usually got the edge in one way or another.

The only thing I find missing in MacOSX is that it's got that misleading X in the title but you can't remote display apps like you can in X. This is a big ugly limit that even XP actually has some basic ability to handle. And then I get started on that eMac they used to sell that doesn't have anything to do with emacs, grrrr.

There is Apple Remote Desktop (http://www.apple.com/remotedesktop/) but it is not included with OS X. Expect to shell out $299 for the right to install it on 10 Macs.

NetNinja
05-26-2006, 23:52
Ok you are right Macs are the bestest computers in the world.

PC's are the bestest computers in the world.

My grandmother can beat up your father.

My pee pee is bigger than yours.

What was this orginal post about? The Macs are the safest computers?
Awesome!

The 1911 is the best pistol in the world. HK's stink.

:rollingeyes:

Glock21acp
05-27-2006, 15:12
my gf has a mac and i know why now that you guys say its the worlds safest computer because it doesn't work...its kinda hard to get a virus if you can't turn it on. Macs are the biggest pieces of crap ive ever seen if it wasn't for our college requiring them she would of never got one. Say away from mac hahah:cheers:

FThorn
05-27-2006, 15:20
Originally posted by Glock21acp
my gf has a mac and i know why now that you guys say its the worlds safest computer because it doesn't work...its kinda hard to get a virus if you can't turn it on. Macs are the biggest pieces of crap ive ever seen if it wasn't for our college requiring them she would of never got one. Say away from mac hahah:cheers:

If one is too dumb to operate a Mac, that's sad.

hwyhobo
05-27-2006, 16:33
Originally posted by FThorn
If one is too dumb to operate a Mac, that's sad.
There is absolutely nothing easier about the new Mac OS X than Windows or Linux, and this kind of contemptuous, misguided attitude toward users of other operating systems is the reason why Mac users are frequently disdained as religious zealots out of touch with reality.

Glock21acp
05-27-2006, 17:53
hahah trust me its easy to run mac if it will run....working a computer is not a problem on this end.

FThorn
05-27-2006, 17:54
Again, I am a user of OTHER SYSTEMS. I manage thousands of windows users and we have thousands of windows servers that are under our administration.

Again, a MAJORITY of my company's highest-technical windows admins use Mac OS X AT HOME.

But, if it was just the user using OS X, and they could not, then that is pretty sad. I suspect it's just more Mac bashing, though.

berniew
05-27-2006, 19:03
I started using computers with the Apple II's

I moved into the DOS world and Windows back in the 3.x days.

I switched to Macs and stuck with them from OS 6-8 and then got a job working on Windows machines and switched back

I am certified on and/or have managed 95/98/NT4/2000/XP/2003 etc etc. and I have test systems at work running Vista and the new Office

Recently after coming home to one too many 'the computer crashed again' (and yes I know how to fix and protect Windows systems) I decided to buy a mini for use at home and convince my work to buy me a MacBook Pro.

Given a choice I'd switch the company to Mac in a heartbeat.

FThorn
05-30-2006, 12:04
Another anecdotal lesson for Windows users:

http://wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/start.html?pg=6

You can click on all the pop-ups you want on a mac (oh wait...if they EXISTED :) ) , but you would still not trash your drive/os.

We had a virus knock thousands of PCs down once and it cost of millions, over three days. That was with a whole STAFF dedicated to protecting those assets against just that kind of stuff.

unixglocker
05-30-2006, 12:29
Yep, I bought it, it's good, planning to pay up for the new version to, but it doesn't let you display apps like X windows.

Originally posted by metallic
There is Apple Remote Desktop (http://www.apple.com/remotedesktop/) but it is not included with OS X. Expect to shell out $299 for the right to install it on 10 Macs.

FThorn
05-30-2006, 12:44
Well, (chicken of the) VNC is a free option. Just FYI.

metallic
05-30-2006, 21:03
Originally posted by FThorn
Another anecdotal lesson for Windows users:

http://wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/start.html?pg=6

You can click on all the pop-ups you want on a mac (oh wait...if they EXISTED :) ) , but you would still not trash your drive/os.

We had a virus knock thousands of PCs down once and it cost of millions, over three days. That was with a whole STAFF dedicated to protecting those assets against just that kind of stuff.

You could still trash your home directory. I'd be pretty pissed off if lost some work before I checked it into version control. Also, by default, the first user added to OS X is a member of the admin group. Given that members of this group can install applications and make changes to the root Library directory, I'm sure a member of this group could do some damage to the system.

LittleLebowski
06-05-2006, 17:27
I can't believe these comments. OS X is safer and far less likely to be compromised than Windows XP. That's the facts. I'll back them up if you like.

As far as ease of use, have any of you with the barely literate comments putting down OS X ever compared the install/uninstall process on Windows vs a Mac? Don't even get me started on the abomination known as the Windows Registry. Or IE being integrated into the OS.

LittleLebowski
06-05-2006, 17:37
Originally posted by hwyhobo
There is absolutely nothing easier about the new Mac OS X than Windows or Linux, and this kind of contemptuous, misguided attitude toward users of other operating systems is the reason why Mac users are frequently disdained as religious zealots out of touch with reality.

You have got to be kidding me. Are you actually saying the various CUPS frontends are easier to use on a Linux distribution than OS X? Are you saying the install/uninstall process is just as easy on Windows as it is on a Mac? Show me where you can setup Apache or FTP in one click on Windows out of the box.

I run Linux (Ubuntu), OpenBSD, and OS X. I deal with Windows at work. I think the average user might be able to be efficient with an already configured Linux desktop but I doubt they'd know how to do a killall and restart Evolution the first time it barfed. Let alone having to reinstall 3d acceleration every time they update their kernel. What about securing Windows? OS X is secure out of the box against malware. Have you ever had to cleanup a spyware infestation?

OS X is the most consistent OS to follow HIG guidelines. You can give a Mac to a user and once you show them Finder, the substitution of the Apple key for the Control key, and a few other little changes, they will be productive and secure as a user, not an Administrator on the local box.

Let's not even get started on all of the Windows apps you can't install properly without administrator rights. I think a lot of you haven't had experience administering Windows boxes in the enterprise.

LittleLebowski
06-05-2006, 17:50
Neeko, which BSD are you talking about? And which one do you run?

I think a lot of you are missing the point that OS X is the world's most secure and stable consumer grade OS. It's not OpenBSD but it is far more secure and stable than Windows plus it's easy to learn.

hwyhobo
06-06-2006, 09:24
Originally posted by LittleLebowski
You have got to be kidding me. Show me where you can setup Apache or FTP in one click on Windows out of the box.
We are talking about user's experience here and user's interface. Show me an average user who installs and configures Apache on his Mac.

I think the average user might be able to be efficient with an already configured Linux desktop but I doubt they'd know how to do a killall and restart Evolution the first time it barfed.
The first time any app barfs at you in Mac OS X, you're up the creek without a paddle, as there is precious little you can do or figure out in that overly insular environment short of desperation reinstall.

Let alone having to reinstall 3d acceleration every time they update their kernel.
Earth to LittleLebowski: get back down here. We are talking about users.

What about securing Windows? OS X is secure out of the box against malware. Have you ever had to cleanup a spyware infestation?
Earth to LittleLebowski: we've beaten this to death. We are talking about user experience now. Again, user experience.

OS X is the most consistent OS to follow HIG guidelines. You can give a Mac to a user and once you show them Finder, the substitution of the Apple key for the Control key, and a few other little changes, they will be productive and secure as a user, not an Administrator on the local box.
Don't make me laugh. I've seen too many people proficient on Windows and Linux who go gray in desperation after one day with a Mac. Finder? With the few functions in there? Oh, yeah, that will solve everything you need to do on the Mac.

Let's not even get started on all of the Windows apps you can't install properly without administrator rights.
First you're in love with isolating user environment so he does not pollute the machine with viruses and other crap, now you're complaining about having to be an admin on Windows to install apps? Come on.

I think a lot of you haven't had experience administering Windows boxes in the enterprise.
Earth to LittleLebowski: get back down here. What is the topic at hand? User experience and ease of use. Got it? I don't give a flying petunia about your experience administering Windows in the enterprise because it has NOTHING to do with the subject.

This is what happens when religion gets in the way of reading comprehension.

LittleLebowski
06-06-2006, 11:23
"Earth to LittleLebowski: get back down here. We are talking about users"

All of the "Earth tos" remind me of that movie Zoolander :D


Ah. So you mean users in the corporate sense because I'm pretty sure most home users use 3d acceleration. I also have a fear that many corporate users use email daily. Come to think of it, I'll go out on a limb here and say most home users use email as well. Question: do you know what Evolution is? Have you used it?


"The first time any app barfs at you in Mac OS X, you're up the creek without a paddle, as there is precious little you can do or figure out in that overly insular environment short of desperation reinstall." This statement doesn't make much sense to me. What's overly insular about it? If Entourage barfs, I can reinstall the app and save my data. Same thing with just about anything I install using fink or apt-get. Of course, I've never seen an app do that in OS X.


The only local browser that's made me go "gray in desparation" is Natilus. Of course YMMV. I'm speaking from personal experinece after I switched all of our execs and sales guys ot Macs. Very short learning curve. Once Office was installed and maybe Omnigraffle, we had no problems whatsoever. I see sales people with 70 day uptimes on their personal laptops. My local browsers of choice are Konqueror (the best by far!), Midnight COmmander, and Finder. Finder does everything I need it to and intuitively.

"First you're in love with isolating user environment so he does not pollute the machine with viruses and other crap, now you're complaining about having to be an admin on Windows to install apps? Come on."

You misconstrue. I love being able to scp something into a user's home directory on a *Nix and voila! the app is installed. I don't like having to interrupt a user's work session to remote desktop into their box, install something, reboot, and then, most likely have to run it once as Administrator just to make the Windows app work. As far as being worried about a user polluting a LAN with a virus, guilty as charged. Call me crazy on that one. Of course a Mac or Linux box wouldn't have that happen....

As far as isolating the user's environment, is that what you call running antispyware and antivirus?


"I don't give a flying petunia about your experience administering Windows in the enterprise because it has NOTHING to do with the subject."


Such language.... But it has plenty to do with it. Some minor problems in Windows excerbate themselves many times over administering Windows boxes. The install/uninstall process is FAR harder on a Windows box. Even pushed out through a GPO.

You obviously have a personal ax to grind with Mac users. Just so we're all on track here, do you believe Windows is easier to use, more stable, and more secure out of the box? What OS/computer would you recommend for a non-computer literate relative living out of driving distance?

By the way. I run a Mac at work. At home I have 2 Linux boxes and a OpenBSD firewall. No one has ever called me a Mac zealot before and I definitely don't qualify. Anti Microsoft yes. *Nix zealot yes. Plus I really, really hate trying to fix Windows boxes and explaining to people all of the stuff they need to run in the background just to surf the danged Web. That's not user friendly in my book. Is it in yours? Security IS a part of the user experience when insecurity derails the whole user experience.

bax@PlanetExpress:~$ cat /proc/version
Linux version 2.6.15-22-k7 (buildd@vernadsky) (gcc version 4.0.3 (Ubuntu 4.0.3-1ubuntu5)) #1 SMP PREEMPT Sun May 7 17:27:47 UTC 2006

LittleLebowski
06-06-2006, 11:41
Derek Zoolander: GUYS! Can we stop with the Earth to's?! (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:yGY-WDX6KXgJ:en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Zoolander+%22earth+to%22+zoolander&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox)

Getwild2
06-07-2006, 05:26
Originally posted by LittleLebowski
I think a lot of you are missing the point that OS X is the world's most secure and stable consumer grade OS. It's not OpenBSD but it is far more secure and stable than Windows plus it's easy to learn.
+1

Exactly what I was going to say.

My preference, open source. Free, easy to use, lots of documentation. I don't knock Mac users; I knock Windoze users but sadly they are the majority. Me, I run Linux Ubuntu but plan to run OpenBSD in the near future.

unixglocker
06-08-2006, 02:44
Windows User Says, I don't have any problems, I just run AdaZapper, ViroMaster, Zippazappa, Ziptedodah, HippadephoopEradicator, ThingadieFirewall. There's no need for all that pain when you could just run Ubuntu or MacOSX.

From what I've seen of the typical windows end user, I'd say that Windows is completely unusable by the average person.

Getwild2
06-08-2006, 06:23
Originally posted by unixglocker
Windows User Says, I don't have any problems, I just run AdaZapper, ViroMaster, Zippazappa, Ziptedodah, HippadephoopEradicator, ThingadieFirewall. There's no need for all that pain when you could just run Ubuntu.
:laughabove: :laughabove: :laughabove: :laughabove:

unixglocker, may I quote this in my sig? It is priceless! :supergrin:

Getwild2
06-08-2006, 06:23
Deleted, accidental double post

neeko
06-17-2006, 07:34
Mac OS X hacked in under 30 minutes

Monday, March 06 2006 @ 02:43 PM EST

AppleGaining root access to a Mac is "easy pickings," according to an individual who won an OS X hacking challenge last month by gaining root control of a machine using an unpublished security vulnerability.

On Feb. 22, a Sweden-based Mac enthusiast set up his Mac Mini as a server and invited hackers to break through the computer's security and gain root control, which would allow the attacker to take charge of the computer and delete files and folders or install applications.

Within hours of going live, the "rm-my-mac" competition was over. The challenger posted this message on his Web site: "This sucks. Six hours later this poor little Mac was owned and this page got defaced."

The hacker who won the challenge, who asked ZDNet Australia to identify him only as "gwerdna," said he gained root control of the Mac in less than 30 minutes.

"It probably took about 20 or 30 minutes to get root on the box. Initially I tried looking around the box for certain misconfigurations and other obvious things but then I decided to use some unpublished exploits--of which there are a lot for Mac OS X," gwerdna told ZDNet Australia.

According to gwerdna, the hacked Mac could have been better protected, but it would not have stopped him because he exploited a vulnerability that has not yet been made public or patched by Apple.

"The rm-my-mac challenge was setup similar to how you would have a Mac acting as a server--with various remote services running and local access to users… There are various Mac OS X hardening guides out there that could have been used to harden the machine, however, it wouldn't have stopped the vulnerability I used to gain access.

"There are only limited things you can do with unknown and unpublished vulnerabilities. One is to use additional hardening patches--good examples for Linux are the PaX patch and the grsecurity patches. They provide numerous hardening options on the system, and implement non-executable memory, which prevent memory based corruption exploits," gwerdna said.

Gwerdna concluded that OS X contains "easy pickings" when it comes to vulnerabilities that could allow hackers to break into Apple's operating system.

"Mac OS X is easy pickings for bug finders. That said, it doesn't have the market share to really interest most serious bug finders," gwerdna added.

Apple's OS X has come under fire in recent weeks with the appearance of two viruses and a number of serious security flaws, which have since been patched by the Mac maker.

In January, security researcher Neil Archibald, who has already been credited with finding numerous vulnerabilities in OS X, told ZDNet Australia that he knows of numerous security vulnerabilities in Apple's operating system that could be exploited by attackers.

"The only thing which has kept Mac OS X relatively safe up until now is the fact that the market share is significantly lower than that of Microsoft Windows or the more common UNIX platforms...If this situation was to change, in my opinion, things could be a lot worse on Mac OS X than they currently are on other operating systems," said Archibald at the time.

An Apple Australia representative said Monday the company was unable to comment at this stage. Apple in the U.S. could not be reached for comment.

Munir Kotadia of ZDNet Australia
CNet News

http://www.securityteam.us/article.php/200603061443505

Kevin108
06-17-2006, 08:28
Originally posted by FThorn
[B]Tired of pop-ups? Viruses (ii)? Trojans? Spyware?

I know that my 6 Macs have never SEEN a virus, pop-up, trojan or spyware.

You have to install Boot Camp but you can make them run on a Mac too. :supergrin:

berniew
06-17-2006, 15:34
Debunked

http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/businessweek_apple_should_hire_security_czar_to_combat_uninformed_media_fud/

"The pseudo break-in and misleading reports didn't sit well with Dave Schroeder, a network systems engineer and Mac enthusiast at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. He's been outspoken on the issue of Mac security, portraying recent reports as overblown. So he set up his own challenge, inviting the world to hack a Web page -- the very page he used to tell the world about the challenge -- running on a Mac Mini he set up as a Web server... For 38 hours, nothing worked. The Mac Mini held its ground against the worst that the multitudes could throw against it. The contest ended earlier than originally planned and even appears to have gotten Schroeder in trouble with his employer, since it wasn't sanctioned by the university. I'm hearing he may face some kind disciplinary action. The University of Wisconsin apparently isn't interested in such a real-world ad-hoc test, no matter how successful and harmless it proved to be. Schroeder wasn't available for comment."

Originally posted by neeko
Mac OS X hacked in under 30 minutes

Monday, March 06 2006 @ 02:43 PM EST

AppleGaining root access to a Mac is "easy pickings," according to an individual who won an OS X hacking challenge last month by gaining root control of a machine using an unpublished security vulnerability.

On Feb. 22, a Sweden-based Mac enthusiast set up his Mac Mini as a server and invited hackers to break through the computer's security and gain root control, which would allow the attacker to take charge of the computer and delete files and folders or install applications.

Within hours of going live, the "rm-my-mac" competition was over. The challenger posted this message on his Web site: "This sucks. Six hours later this poor little Mac was owned and this page got defaced."

The hacker who won the challenge, who asked ZDNet Australia to identify him only as "gwerdna," said he gained root control of the Mac in less than 30 minutes.

"It probably took about 20 or 30 minutes to get root on the box. Initially I tried looking around the box for certain misconfigurations and other obvious things but then I decided to use some unpublished exploits--of which there are a lot for Mac OS X," gwerdna told ZDNet Australia.

According to gwerdna, the hacked Mac could have been better protected, but it would not have stopped him because he exploited a vulnerability that has not yet been made public or patched by Apple.

"The rm-my-mac challenge was setup similar to how you would have a Mac acting as a server--with various remote services running and local access to users… There are various Mac OS X hardening guides out there that could have been used to harden the machine, however, it wouldn't have stopped the vulnerability I used to gain access.

"There are only limited things you can do with unknown and unpublished vulnerabilities. One is to use additional hardening patches--good examples for Linux are the PaX patch and the grsecurity patches. They provide numerous hardening options on the system, and implement non-executable memory, which prevent memory based corruption exploits," gwerdna said.

Gwerdna concluded that OS X contains "easy pickings" when it comes to vulnerabilities that could allow hackers to break into Apple's operating system.

"Mac OS X is easy pickings for bug finders. That said, it doesn't have the market share to really interest most serious bug finders," gwerdna added.

Apple's OS X has come under fire in recent weeks with the appearance of two viruses and a number of serious security flaws, which have since been patched by the Mac maker.

In January, security researcher Neil Archibald, who has already been credited with finding numerous vulnerabilities in OS X, told ZDNet Australia that he knows of numerous security vulnerabilities in Apple's operating system that could be exploited by attackers.

"The only thing which has kept Mac OS X relatively safe up until now is the fact that the market share is significantly lower than that of Microsoft Windows or the more common UNIX platforms...If this situation was to change, in my opinion, things could be a lot worse on Mac OS X than they currently are on other operating systems," said Archibald at the time.

An Apple Australia representative said Monday the company was unable to comment at this stage. Apple in the U.S. could not be reached for comment.

Munir Kotadia of ZDNet Australia
CNet News

http://www.securityteam.us/article.php/200603061443505

Kevin108
06-18-2006, 15:32
I was thinking about this again and I decided the safest OS in the world is something that runs on a LiveCD such as PCLinux or the Kubuntu DVD. NO system files can be changed in this situation and no matter what happens, as soon as you restart the computer, everything is brand new once again.

neeko
06-18-2006, 16:02
Or just run your OS virtualized in a sandbox environment

Originally posted by Kevin108
I was thinking about this again and I decided the safest OS in the world is something that runs on a LiveCD such as PCLinux or the Kubuntu DVD. NO system files can be changed in this situation and no matter what happens, as soon as you restart the computer, everything is brand new once again.

berniew
06-19-2006, 12:55
What about users opening Word (now excel) docs?

VMs are great tools, but the Windows model is fundamentally flawed.

Originally posted by neeko
Or just run your OS virtualized in a sandbox environment

berniew
06-19-2006, 12:56
Originally posted by Kevin108
I was thinking about this again and I decided the safest OS in the world is Etch A Sketch.


There I fixed it...

:supergrin:

FThorn
07-05-2006, 08:16
another "Mac is safest" article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5150508.stm

Security threats to PCs with Microsoft Windows have increased so much that computer users should consider using a Mac, says a leading security firm.

Sophos security said that the 10 most commonly found pieces of malicious software all targeted Windows machines.

In contrast, it said, none of the "malware" were capable of infecting the Mac OS X operating system.

Microsoft has pledged that the latest version of its operating system, known as Vista, will be its most secure yet.

"It is our goal to give PC users the control and confidence they need so they can continue to get the most out of their PCs," a Microsoft spokesperson said.

"Windows Vista contains a number of new safety features that, taken together, are designed to make Windows PCs more secure and online experiences safer."

Microsoft said that security on Vista would be an integral part of the operating system rather than an add-on like in previous systems.

Top threats

The advice from Sophos was given as it released a report, detailing the security threats posed to computers so far in 2006.

The report says that there has been a vast drop in malicious software like viruses and worms.


Black MacBook
It seems likely that Macs will continue to be the safer place for computer users for some time to come
Graham Cluley, Sophos
However, the company warns that there has been a sharp increase in the number of Trojans. It said that 82% of new security threats this year were from these programs.

Trojans are pieces of malicious software that are hidden in other legitimate programs such as downloaded screensavers.

The Trojan may collect financial information or allow the infected computer to be controlled remotely for sending spam or launching web attacks.

"The continuing rise of malware will concern many - the criminals responsible are obviously making money from their code, otherwise they'd give up the game," said Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant at Sophos.

Mac flaws

Although Trojans dominate the list of security threats, the most widespread problem was the Sober-Z worm.

The worm, which was spread by e-mail, infected people's computers and tried to turn off security settings. It replicated by looking for other e-mail addresses on the computers' hard drives.
At its peak, the worm accounted for one in every 13 e-mails being sent.

The worm infected computers running the Windows operating system, but was not designed to infect Apple Macs.

"It seems likely that Macs will continue to be the safer place for computer users for some time to come," said Mr Cluley.

"[That is] something that home users may wish to consider if they're deliberating about the next computer they should purchase," he added.

Earlier this year, a security flaw in the way that Macs downloaded files was identified; while three concept viruses and a worm written specifically for Apple computers were also discovered.

The viruses were never released into the "wild" and posed little security threat.

vinniej123
07-05-2006, 09:47
Originally posted by unixglocker
The funny thing is I use both MacOS and Windows. There have been times in the last four years where I was 100% Windows. I use no anti virus/malware/blah blah software, do not use Exploiter or Outbreak, occasional check for presence of virus with Avast BART *bootable CD, does not install antivirus. I have never had a virus on a Windows box. To me it seems possible that a large part of windows virus problems are caused by the fact that A. Windows is used by the vast majority of users. B. The Vast Majority are complete cluetards that will connect a windows box to a network with a real address / Surf two letter TLD's / click on anything, can't identify a threat because they can't read, etc. The Mac buyers are generally much better informed than that.
I agree completely. I have used a PC of some sort since I was single digit age, and I have yet to get a virus (and until several months ago I never ran any kind of firewall/virus scan/spyware program). It has a lot to do with how stupid the user is. If I get an e-mail from someone I don't know or with a strange subject, I just press delete. Also you can save yourself alot of trouble by avoiding certain websites. People are just stupid for the most part.

and back to this post....
Originally posted by NetNinja

.......My grandmother can beat up your father.

My pee pee is bigger than yours.

What was this orginal post about? .........

:rollingeyes:

LittleLebowski
07-05-2006, 09:53
Study of Linux, Mac, and Windows machines (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2004-11-29-honeypot_x.htm)

FThorn
07-14-2006, 07:35
Symantec blog = NO VIRUSES FOR MAC OS X

http://www.symantec.com/enterprise/security_response/weblog/2006/07/macinenterprise_mac_os_x_virus.html

Mac OS X: Viruses and Security
Researchers and engineers who are working in the security field must have strong constitutions—especially when it comes to weathering negative backlash and tired conspiracy theories whenever security and Mac OS X are mentioned in the same breath. With that in mind, in an effort to improve the quality of the dialogue, I would like to discuss some important issues regarding Mac OS X and security.

Let’s start with the hot-button issue of Mac OS X viruses. Simply put, at the time of writing this article, there are no file-infecting viruses that can infect Mac OS X. I see some of you raising a hand or two, wanting to ask me some “but, what about…” types of questions. Indeed, in February of this year, when OSX.Leap.A was discovered the news headlines declared that it was the “First ever first ever virus for Mac OS X!” Long before the digital ink dried on those simplistic and sensational headlines our Security Response team had determined that OSX.Leap.A was a worm, and not a file-infecting virus. Our Security Response Web site explains the differences between viruses and worms. Basically, viruses are designed to infect files within a single computer, while worms are designed to spread from one computer to another.

(The term “virus” is used so often as a generic reference to any malicious code that here at Symantec we tend to use more appropriate blanket terms like "security threat" and “malicious code.” Just how bad is the misuse of the term virus? Jason Jackson, my childhood friend and a specialist at Motorola wrote to me with his impression: “It's worse than calling all facial tissue ‘Kleenex’. It's almost like calling all paper products ‘Kleenex’.”)

Before you think that this is starting to look like an advocacy piece for Mac OS X, please remember that Mac OS X has been tested by worms, Trojan horses, rootkits, and other various security vulnerabilities. Most recently, in the wake of Apple releasing Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server 10.4.7 updates, Symantec released a high severity advisory through our DeepSight Threat Management System for all versions of Mac OS X 10.4.x prior to 10.4.7. Shortly thereafter, proof of concept code was released publicly which triggered a Category 1 threat advisory for OSX.Exploit.Launchd.

From the 30,000 foot viewpoint of the current security landscape, these Mac OS X security threats are almost completely lost in the shadows cast by the rocky security mountains of other platforms. However, no operating system is without imperfections, and no computer connected to the Internet will ever be 100% immune from attack. As Apple Computer points out: "A Mac running with factory settings will protect you from viruses much better than a PC, but it’s never a bad idea to run extra virus and security software."

As I tell my internal and external customers alike, just because there are no file-infecting viruses that can affect Mac OS X now, that doesn't mean there won't be a really nasty one released in the next five minutes. The likelihood of that happening is comparatively low and could be debated ad nauseam, but as Benjamin Franklin said: “A little neglect may breed great mischief: for want of a nail the shoe was lost; for want of a shoe the horse was lost; and for want of a horse the rider was lost.”

hwyhobo
07-14-2006, 10:58
Shouldn't this whole thread be in the Religion (http://www.glocktalk.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=55) section?

FThorn
07-14-2006, 15:10
these are measurable and as such proof. SO, I don't THINK so! :)
I'm just giving the OS X its fair reporting here, so people that are ignorant of OS X might learn about the good side. Kinda like telling Hi-Point gun owners about Glocks! :)

neeko
07-15-2006, 16:10
Black hats have OSX exploits.

LittleLebowski
07-15-2006, 16:21
OK. Name 2 of those exploits, Neeko.

neeko
07-15-2006, 17:04
Your understanding of what a black hat is lacking sir

LittleLebowski
07-16-2006, 10:28
Is it? What do I do for a living? You didn't answer my question either.

hotlunch
07-20-2006, 09:38
PC verses Mac is an argument that will never be won. I'm a PC user although recently I made a serious effort to check out Mac's and see what all the fuss was about. And since I work with people who actually work at the Apple store I was able to get alot of advice, but in the end none of their blathering about being virus-free convinced me to spend 3X what I did for my Dell. It was literally the first thing anyone from that store would say: "You won't get viruses." Okay, great, no viruses, now what else can a Mac do for me? Garage band?...wow...um...what else? My own web page?...wow...yeah...that's just what I need, a web page only myself and my mother will look at. Okay, what else? Tiger-Pro-iLife-WhatChaMACcallIt...wow...oh! I get an email program too??? Surely you jest! To think I can give you thousands of my hard earned dollars and get a Macbook in unattractive SOLID white (the black ones cost more for some reason, go figure) AND you'll include an email program? Why I've died and gone to heaven!--What? You have a VERY limited game selection. Oh that's okay. The social status bump-up in owning an Apple product is worth being stunted in the gaming arena. Besides, I'll be too cool sitting at Starbucks with my SOLID white macbook and ipod to care about being limited in gaming features--and word processing features (unless I BUY the MS Office software). All my PC friends won't mind when my MAC generated emails to them arrive looking like ancient Chinese script. That doesn't matter because as a tool who spent my parents hard earned dollars on this Apple product I won't care about the actual content of my emails, just that they've been written on a superior Apple product and all my PC friends will know it when they can't read my drivel and they'll be jealous and demand that their parents buy them a MAC.

Hmm, gues which one I went with, Apple or Dell?

My $500 Dell came with the same features as a $1500 Macbook. Even got the DVD burner comparable to Apple's touted "SuperDrive". For being able to save literally $1000 I was more than happy to deal with removing all the added garbage (AOL/McAfee/etc)that came preloaded. It was easy as pie to get good spyware/virus protection installed and takes none of my time to update, so the virus-free argument wasn't that much of a sway obviously.

I also didn't like the zealous sales pitches for every single stupid feature I WON'T use like iLIFE (no one could ever quite tell me what exactly that is) to iTUNES (there's a billion other music download sites and my Dell came with 2 programs already installed).

The other point that really got me was their weird warranty protection policy. They have these "genius bars" at their retail locations and if you own a Mac you can bring it in and get help. Needless to say there will more than likely be a wait which is totally understandable. What I didn't like was when Apple tried to sell me this "service" where if I paid them I think $100 bucks I would get a card and then when I came in with a problem I could flash the card and get bumped to the front of the line for service--yes, jumping over the Apple customers who were already waiting. I find this policy reprehensible and a complete insult to their base customers. Sure, other companies have expedited service policies but I never heard it promoted so vociferously and so callously as this, all with that cult-like Apple store, maniacal grin. Were I standing in line with a broken Mac and had someone skip me just because he was enough of a tool to buy the service upgrade (on TOP of the already over-priced AppleCare warranty) I'd be pissed beyond belief. It wouldn't be a pretty sight. I think this is the wrong way to treat your customers.

Apple is an ok product but doesn't have any special features that a PC product wouldn't have for 2/3 less the cost.

hwyhobo
07-20-2006, 12:47
Originally posted by hotlunch
PC verses Mac [...]
Nice job, hotlunch. Funny and right on. :)

FThorn
07-20-2006, 13:14
In case you missed the focus of this thread, it was solely about security, not a which one is better. I think the choice is obvious, too - and it's NOT windows. :)

I started this thread to show windows users that IF (and only IF) you are tired of viruses (At ALL - even a TINY BIT) and security, that there is one mainstream OS that's easily usable/purchased that is much better than Windows.

I keep adding tidbits as major sources add more credible reports to bolster the position, too.

If you want to discuss whey this app or that app makes you drool or shrug, you are welcome to start another thread which will quickly devolve since it's a matter of choice.

But, the ZERO viruses for OS X vs. those large numbers for Windows is just a fact that I was making folks aware of.

Again, I work in a top-ranked, financial corporation and a large % of our very, very techy people (that admin THOUSANDS of windows boxes) CHOOSE MAC OS X FOR HOME. These guys are as experienced and technically knowledable as you can get with all aspects of the OS. (not just consumer apps/toys) And they don't blink an eye and buy MACS. :)

LittleLebowski
07-20-2006, 14:27
I'd love to see the place where you can even get in line and have a Dell fixed right then and there by an American being paid fair wages. Apple's support is the best I've ever dealt with, bar none. I'm typing this from a 3 year old Mac that is still as fast the day I bought it and has been through 2 operating system upgrades without any loss of data. In less than 3 years you'll be buying another disposable, cheap Dell.

hwyhobo
07-20-2006, 15:23
Originally posted by LittleLebowski
Apple's support is the best I've ever dealt with, bar none.
You have got to be kidding me. A friend of mine had Mac OS X installed. He needed ISO-8859-2 character set support in his browser. He went to the "geniuses" at the Apple store. Three upgrades later (and $100+ they forced him to spent to "fix" it), it looks like a chicken drew the diacritical marks on his screen. It is laughable. They finally told him that to make it really work, he needs to upgrade yet again, but that he can't on this computer, so he needs to buy a new one.

You tell that story to any Windows user, and they will die laughing.

LittleLebowski
07-20-2006, 15:31
And what will a Mac user do when he's told he can't remove IE because it's built in the system? What will he do when he's told it's best to download antivirus/antispyware and install them with the updates before even daring to access the Internet? How about warning Macusers that banner ads on MySpace can compromise your entire system? How about telling a Mac user that there's no SSH, no pipes in the command line, and every time you upgrade Windows , you need faster hardware?

I'm going to enjoy this. I cannot believe someone's even trying to argue this one. There's a reason most IT guys prefer Macs. Have fun calling India and listening to someone read off of a script.

LittleLebowski
07-20-2006, 15:35
How about you put your money where your mouth is and throw up a Windows IIS server in stock configuration with NO addons (albeit fully updated) on the Internet? Macs have already met that challenge using the stock config and Apache. Be happy to provide the article if you're curious. Looking forward to seeing that public IP address.

hwyhobo
07-20-2006, 16:48
Originally posted by LittleLebowski
And what will a Mac user do when he's told he can't remove IE because it's built in the system?
Excellent comparison. Let's see, on the one hand we are talking about support for a feature that is essential to the user (and has been taken for granted on Windows for ages) and which feature cannot be obtained, on the other you are talking about having an extra that you don't need (and can easily install another browser if you wish - I haven't used IE in years).

There's a reason most IT guys prefer Macs.
Certainly not the ones I know. They prefer UNIX because they love to hack it and because it has all the servers you can imagine. Even though Mac OS X is UNIX-based, it is not quite the same. Also, while appreciating the insides of the OS, its usability to an average user is something different altogher. Otherwise we would have had Linux on every desktop.

Have fun calling India and listening to someone read off of a script.
I will neither call tech support in India nor go to see the "geniuses" at the Apple stores. Both are a waste of time. Online user support is must better than either of the two.

hwyhobo
07-20-2006, 16:50
Originally posted by LittleLebowski
How about you put your money where your mouth is and throw up a Windows IIS server in stock configuration with NO addons (albeit fully updated) on the Internet?
Where did this come from? Did I advocate it? No, thanks, I run my Apache on UNIX, where it belongs. And please don't start with how Mac OS X is BSD-based. Why should I bother with a proprietary derivative if I can use the proper OS.

LittleLebowski
07-20-2006, 17:31
I run IT for a 50 person .com that's about to be bought by a 850 person .com. Guess what all of the IT guys run?

Do I really need to Google for like problems in Windows that are essential to users?

There's plenty of problems that require call support. Hardware issues for example.

How is OS X not the same as UNIX? That's like saying Linux is not the same as UNIX. A more apt comparison is that they're all *nixes. As far as "all the servers on UNIX", what do you mean? Most Linux/BSD apps run on OS X.

hwyhobo
07-20-2006, 18:54
Originally posted by LittleLebowski
A more apt comparison is that they're all *nixes.
True, they are.

Most Linux/BSD apps run on OS X.
But if that's my objective (to run a UNIX server), why would I want to pay through the nose for a proprietary implementation if I can get *BSD or Linux?

Out of curiosity, can I run unlimited user httpd or ftpd or streaming video server (etc) on a regular Mac OS X?

hwyhobo
07-20-2006, 18:57
Originally posted by LittleLebowski
Do I really need to Google for like problems in Windows that are essential to users? There's plenty of problems that require call support.
Sure, both plarforms have problems. That's the key. The "true believers" who proclaim absolute superiority of Mac OS X over Windows do a disservice to the cause because anyone with a clue knows it's bull, and is apt in the future to dismiss their other claims, however valid they might be.

FThorn
08-18-2006, 10:58
People almost go out of their way to make others THINK that Macs are just as vulnerable as Windows...

http://www.varbusiness.com/sections/news/breakingnews.jhtml?articleId=192201898


In a video presented at the Black Hat USA conference in early August, SecureWorks researcher David Maynor and Jon Ellch demonstrated hacking into a MacBook, setting off a flurry of press coverage about the insecurity of Wi-Fi-enabled computers from Apple and PC vendors.

Now it seems SecureWorks is backing away from its suggestion that MacBooks are just as vulnerable as other Wi-Fi-capable computers. The company has posted a disclaimer on its site to make it clear that the demonstration at Black Hat used a modified MacBook.

"This video presentation at Black Hat demonstrates vulnerabilities found in wireless device drivers," the disclaimer says. "Although an Apple MacBook was used as the demo platform, it was exploited through a third-party wireless device driver - not the original wireless device driver that ships with the MacBook. As part of a responsible disclosure policy, we are not disclosing the name of the third-party wireless device driver until a patch is available."

A responsible demonstration policy would have forbidden the installation of flawed drivers to make a point.


Apple sees the clarification as vindication. "Despite SecureWorks being quoted saying the Mac is threatened by the exploit demonstrated at Black Hat, they have provided no evidence that in fact it is," Apple spokesperson Lynn Fox said in a statement. "To the contrary, the SecureWorks demonstration used a third party USB 802.11 device " not the 802.11 hardware in the Mac " a device which uses a different chip and different software drivers than those on the Mac. To date, SecureWorks has not shared or demonstrated any code in relation to the Black Hat-demonstrated exploit that is relevant to the hardware and software that we ship."

tnoisaw
08-18-2006, 13:14
I love my Mac. I came over from the dark side. My brothers are still in the dark side and I always hear them complain about virus’s, crashes and Dell support (an oxymoron). Someday I’ll give my Mac to my daughter so I can get a new Mac.

Once you go Mac- you never go back!:)

neeko
08-18-2006, 13:19
Anyone read about the black hat conf demo of the Atheros sploits, pretty cool stuff.

David_G17
08-18-2006, 15:09
Originally posted by neeko
Anyone read about the black hat conf demo of the Atheros sploits, pretty cool stuff.

"Apple tells Macworld.com that the Wi-Fi exploit demonstrated at Black Hat 2006 in a video doesn't show a flaw in their hardware or software. A third-party USB adapter with different chips and drivers was used, and Apple says the two researchers haven't provided Apple with code or a demonstration showing a working exploit on Apple equipment. The researchers added a note at their Web site confirming that only an unnamed third-party adapter was used. This doesn't mean the researchers have no flaw to show, but rather that their nose-thumbing at Apple users who were too secure in their security was misplaced, at least at present. The researcher's claim that they were providing information to Apple now seems off-base, too."

http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/18/1323201&from=rss

:)

FThorn
09-01-2006, 05:47
Originally posted by neeko
Anyone read about the black hat conf demo of the Atheros sploits, pretty cool stuff.

You mean the faked one I posted about two just PRIOR to your posts? :):laughabove:

hwyhobo
09-01-2006, 07:27
Originally posted by tnoisaw
I love my Mac. I came over from the dark side.
That always made me wonder. People moving from one closed, proprietary OS to another closed, proprietary OS seeing it somehow as "coming out of the dark." The power of religion. ;)

tnoisaw
09-01-2006, 11:41
I still love my Mac. Even more when my brothers tell me their PC crashed... AGAIN!:banana: :tongueout: :banana:

neeko
09-04-2006, 19:38
Not fake.

Originally posted by FThorn
You mean the faked one I posted about two just PRIOR to your posts? :):laughabove:

berniew
09-08-2006, 18:18
Originally posted by neeko
Not fake.

Fake

http://www.tuaw.com/2006/08/18/secureworks-admits-to-falsifying-macbook-wireless-hack/

Fake

http://daringfireball.net/2006/09/challenge_update

FThorn
09-28-2006, 11:58
More Mac safety news:

http://www.zdnet.com.au/blogs/securifythis/soa/Symantec_quits_beating_the_OS_X_malware_drum/0,139033343,339271312,00.htm?ref=search

Symantec quits beating the 'OS X malware' drum

By Munir Kotadia, ZDNet Australia
27 September 2006 11:42 AM

The latest Internet Threat Survey from Symantec is a whopping 120 pages and unlike in its previous reports, the company has avoided any mention of malware for Apple's OS X.

Around 18 months ago, Symantec's seventh bi-annual Internet Security Threat Report warned Apple users that OS X was increasingly becoming a target for spyware.

At the time, Symantec said: "Out of the public eye for some time, it is now clear that the Mac OS is increasingly becoming a target for the malicious activity that is more commonly associated with Microsoft and various Unix-based operating systems".

However, since then, apart from Leap-A or the Oompa-Loompa virus, Mac users have enjoyed a seemingly uneventful time when it comes to malware. Of course Apple has, deservedly, been slated for its hardware troubles but that is another issue entirely.

In Symantec's latest report, which was published on Tuesday, the company talked about vulnerabilities in various browsers as well as the amount of time it took OS vendors to release patches. But there is no mention of spyware or Trojans targeting Apple's platform.

Symantec does say there was "evidence" of security researchers turning their attention to OS X.

"During this reporting period, 12 vulnerabilities were disclosed that affected Apple Safari. This is double the six reported in the second half of 2005 and triple the four that were disclosed in the first half of 2005. The sharp increase in the number of Apple Safari vulnerabilities over the past 12 months offers evidence that security researchers are increasingly turning their attention to Mac OS X."

So criminals, hackers and malware authors seem to be ignoring OS X but it is being inspected by researchers. I must confess, that makes me feel safer. I'd rather security researchers look for potential flaws than miscreants.

So what happened to the threat of Mac spyware? Has it gone? Have we been infected without knowing about it? Or is it simply not worth mentioning this time around?

It's a surprise really -- especially with MacBook and MacBook Pro sales booming, it would seem that Apple's platform has never been such an attractive target.

I have asked Symantec about the omission and am waiting for a response.

FThorn
09-28-2006, 11:59
http://www.zdnet.com.au/blogs/securifythis/soa/Symantec_s_OS_X_spyware_prediction_in_flames/0,139033343,339271367,00.htm?ref=search

Symantec's OS X spyware prediction in flames

By Munir Kotadia, ZDNet Australia
28 September 2006 05:46 PM

Symantec published its 10th Internet Threat Report this week and quietly admitted a few days later that its predictions of increasing Mac-targeted spyware threats have not been realised.

Unsurprisingly, Symantec didn't make any mention of its inaccurate prediction in the latest report, so I thought I would ask about the omission.

It seems Mac spyware was not mentioned this time around because there were no new dangerous Mac-related threats in the first six months of the year.

"Symantec didn't include the top 10 attackers or the top 10 malicious codes for this report. What they chose to do instead was to focus on the top 10 new attacks with malicious code and there were no threats that registered in the top 10 category that pertained to Mac OS X," according to a Symantec spokesperson.

"[Symantec] just focused on new attacks and Mac OS X wasn't [the target] of any of them," the spokesperson said.

Fanboy reaction
My previous blog entry seems to have stirred up some emotions at a certain Mac-focused Web site.

Unfortunately, the anonymous writer has misinterpreted my question to Symantec as disappointment that there was no mention of OS X malware.

Actually, I was pointing out that the company's predictions 18 months ago have been as accurate as Bill Gates' predictions about spam.

But the important point is this, regardless of how much people shove their head in the sand and scream "I must be safe because I have a Mac, I must be safe because I have a Mac", OS X does have security vulnerabilities. If it didn't, why would Apple release regular security patches? Luckily the system has been designed with security in mind, so vulnerabilities are very difficult to exploit and most require socially engineered user interaction.

Instead of publishing religious fanboy rants, maybe their time would be better spent reading about how Norton Anti-virus makes OS X less secure or why Bootcamp is an expensive downgrade for the Mac.

LittleLebowski
09-28-2006, 12:35
Originally posted by hwyhobo
Sure, both plarforms have problems. That's the key. The "true believers" who proclaim absolute superiority of Mac OS X over Windows do a disservice to the cause because anyone with a clue knows it's bull, and is apt in the future to dismiss their other claims, however valid they might be.

Surely you see the enormous difference, several orders of magnitude worse between Windows and OS X? OS X does not have a whole industry dedicated to securing it, hell OS X doesn't even have one spyware or MySpace exploit. There's vulnerabilities in both but there's a world of difference between the two.

Tennessee Slim
09-28-2006, 15:51
That’s because the life’s blood of hacking is boasting. Just like the purpose of terrorism is to terrorize, the purpose of hacking/cracking/virus coding is to exalt the perpetrator to star status among his fellow crackers.

But Mac owners, by and large, do not brag. If they did and got caught, they’d have their Green Peace membership revoked. Neither do they eat animal flesh or wear clothing made from animal byproducts. They do, however, wear Birkenstocks, drive Volvos and habitually patronize overpriced coffee shops. :clown:

geoffinak
10-02-2006, 00:01
Originally posted by Tennessee Slim
That’s because the life’s blood of hacking is boasting. Just like the purpose of terrorism is to terrorize, the purpose of hacking/cracking/virus coding is to exalt the perpetrator to star status among his fellow crackers.

The main reason is the hate Bill Gates, because Bill unlike Apple does not allow open source software,Bill buys up anything and everything that might even compete against him and if that does not work, sends a bunch of suits looking for the guys who are maybe thinking up the next greatest software and stops it , one way or the other. He is the biggest impedance to the invention of new software there is today and he is right in the pockets of the rest of the idiots running or I should say tearing apart our freedoms under the constitution. NOT the PAT 2

But Mac owners, by and large, do not brag.
We do not have too because we are working on our computers, not complaining cause the C drive just melted into the trojan...,


If they did and got caught, they’d have their Green Peace membership revoked.
I agree GP does go a little far for me sometimes too, but other times, they get it right.
Green peace issues are NOT always right. But some we should pay attention too.
In Alaska they protested ships from Japan, Korea and other such countries that slash and dash. That is they take nets that can be 200 miles long and drag up every sea animal, fish and bottom dweller there is. Now the Coast Fights this. Are you going to call the Coast Guard Wrong. The Coast Guard can only stop them in American waters. Or if their caught with the long nets. What happens when the Coast Guard shows up. They cut the net. Letting it drift all around the ocean entangling even more sea life.

Now that is worth fighting for. We need clean Oceans.

"Neither do they eat animal flesh or wear clothing made from animal byproducts."

Hey I shoot a Moose almost ever 2 years a Caribou or 2 and eat fresh Salmon and wear beaver hat. Who wants to argue about that.

"They do, however, wear Birkenstocks, drive Volvos and habitually patronize overpriced coffee shops."

Well I prefer bunny boots my self only if it gets cold below -50. Warmer then that I like my Packs. Birkenstocks, sometimes were a little slow to get that fancy stuff.

Did you know Volvo is the ONLY car company that does crash tests on Moose and they design their cars so if you hit a moose the occupants will survive.
A Moose can be 15 feet high and weigh 1300 pounds. In the Mat Su Valley outside Los Anchorage there are over 400 car moose hits a year. A pretty high number. Fairbanks a similar numbers and on the Kenai even more.

So pretty important to people who live where you have to have your wits about you a bit. Because if you get your powder wet. There is no close store to just jump on your snow go and at 50 below at midnight will be open.

Your on your own outside of Anchorage up here and C street is the middle of town.

I do not sip fancy hipped coffee but I do like to take my Mac when I HAVE to go outside and know that I will not be hacked while sitting in Seattle waiting for the plane to take me home.

Mac is not an elitist computer, Wintell they just sell stripped down walmart specials made from the cheapest parts of the week then sell you all this spy crap, virus junk, that does not work until the Virus is made then it's too late.

Wintell sells 20,000 programs that all are crap. The best programs and programming companies were first started for the Mac. There are over 2000 quality programs made for the mac. Heck you can even run windows on it now if you want. Straight from the box. When is that vista thing coming again and again. They have to wait to wait and see what Mac will bring out this spring with it's next release. So Vista is a bit off yet, plus you will have to have hardware upgrades for Vista. I can run OS X the complete new rewrite of the Apple Operating System on computers that are 8 years old. I can also run the older Apple OS on the same computer if I wish. So the obsolesce factor is very good. Each software upgrade does not mean a new computer. Although Apples hardware does upgrade very easily, especially the tower models.

The Mac has a UNIX core and Wintell is code on code on code for the lat 20 years.

Buy one try it, I have not met anyone who has seriously used it and said I do not like it I am going back to wintel. UNLESS they love to tinker and fix computers and play with that kind of stuff. Then that's cool. I get it. There is always something to tinker with on a Wintell

Me I like my Mac, it fits just like my 458 when I am near the coast and the forest is thick and the trail I am on is 2 feet deep, because the bears have made it over the last hundred years. It just sorta slips right up to my shoulder and works every time, no misfires. Thankfully never had to shoot one. I let him know I am coming but just visiting, because this is his house and I am just a visitor for the day, if allows and if he pleases.

So give it a try, until you have used it, you just do not get it. The computer just works, no messin around, logical, if your working a program 90% of the time the help section will lead you right through the problem by opening every step for you.
Plus you just have to appreciate quality.

Sorta why you buy a Glock is why you buy a Mac. They just work

Geoffinak

LittleLebowski
11-06-2006, 08:33
But Mac owners, by and large, do not brag. If they did and got caught, they’d have their Green Peace membership revoked. Neither do they eat animal flesh or wear clothing made from animal byproducts. They do, however, wear Birkenstocks, drive Volvos and habitually patronize overpriced coffee shops.

I do not resemble that remark. Of course most people I see in Starbucks are Windows users cursing aloud because they can't handle the immense task of updating their mid-life crisis MySpace page since their anitvirus/antispyware is not updated or they missed Microsoft's latest "critical" Internet Explorer security patch so they can reboot their machines for the 9th time in a morning :D

geoffinak
11-06-2006, 10:21
Originally posted by LittleLebowski
I do not resemble that remark. Of course most people I see in Starbucks are Windows users cursing aloud because they can't handle the immense task of updating their mid-life crisis MySpace page since their anitvirus/antispyware is not updated or they missed Microsoft's latest "critical" Internet Explorer security patch so they can reboot their machines for the 9th time in a morning :D
LMAO That is so true but Vista is on the way sometime, expect the next Mac OS in January, that will delay Vista even more while thy try to catch up again.
I just had 2 guests who stayed for a month, I had been telling them for years get a Mac. Well they get here and ask me can I fix their drive. I said , well I can change it out. No wipe it and reinstall the OS. How many times do you do this, ohh a couple times a month, it's no big deal. Just frustrating.

They used a couple of old Pismos I had with a fast HD and gig of RAM, they wanted to know where the pop ups where, how did they turn on the spy ware program and then why do they not lock up on me.

They each bought new MacBooks. Till you use them you just do not get them. Now the one said she is converting people and the other is so happy she has not had pop up since she bought it, she is going o write Steve.
There just comfortable and they kick butt now.
Geoffinak

FThorn
03-21-2007, 12:53
Another "safe" report:

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2186013/dearth-mac-malware-continues

Lack of Mac malware baffles experts

Exploit authors continue to ignore OS X
Shaun Nichols in California, vnunet.com 21 Mar 2007

Apple's Mac OS X remains almost completely free of any sort of malware threat despite several years of availability, a significant market share, and even an entire month dedicated to pointing out its flaws.

And security experts are not exactly sure why. In an article for the McAfee Avert Labs blog, security researcher Marius van Oers pointed out that Mac malware is "pretty much non-existent at the moment".

The researcher said that out of 236,000 known pieces of malicious software, only seven affect Mac OS X.

"With an estimated OS X market share of about five per cent on desktop systems we would expect to see more malware for OS X," said van Oers.

The Mac OS X system is not inherently more secure than other operating systems, according to the researcher.

The Unix/BSD code on which OS X is based is fairly well known, and van Oers noted that there are more than 700 pieces of malware targeting various Unix and Linux platforms.

Vulnerabilities in OS X are also plentiful. Apple's most recent update patched more than 30 security flaws.

But van Oers pointed out that many malware authors simply prefer to target the low-hanging fruit of a poorly maintained Windows system.

"Microsoft's Windows is dominant in the desktop market and it is clear why most malware is written for it," said van Oers.

"Also, prior to Vista, the various Windows versions were pretty much wide open, full access, making it relatively easy for malware to abuse."

The researcher warned, however, that the days of widespread attacks seeking to infect as many PCs as possible are over.

Old virus-style malware has been replaced by newer programs that aim to covertly infect specific groups of machines and build money-making botnets.

"Nowadays malware writers do not go for massive attacks but tend to focus on targeted attacks," explained van Oers.

"This is more worrisome then the poor malicious demonstrators that the OS X threats of Leap and Macarena really represent. Nevertheless it is clear that OS X malware is not taking off yet."

FThorn
03-21-2007, 12:54
http://www.applelinks.com/index.php/more/national_security_agency_gives_os_x_104_tiger_thumbs_up_os_x_odyssey_862/

National Security Agency Gives OS X 10.4 Tiger Thumbs-up - OS X Odyssey 862
Posted by Charles W. Moore on 03/21 at 10:56 AM
Related categories • News • Features • Hot Topics • OSX Odyssey
Comments • Tell-a-Friend • Print • Today's Headlines

The National Security Agency - the U.S. government's cryptologic organization, has given Mac OS X 10.4 a glowing endorsement for security.

According to Wikipedia,"Officially established on November 4, 1952, it is believed to be the world's largest intelligence-gathering agency. Responsible for the collection and analysis of foreign communications, it coordinates, directs, and performs highly specialized activities to produce foreign signals intelligence information, which involves a significant amount of cryptanalysis. It is also responsible for protecting U.S. government communications from similar agencies elsewhere, which involves a significant amount of cryptography."

In other words, the NSA is a bleeding-edge high-tech spy outfit, so their endorsement of an operating system's security carries a lot of weight.

In the introduction to its "Mac OS X Security Configuration For Version 10.4 or Later, Second Edition," the NSA says:

"As part of a change in our development strategy for security guidance, the National Security Agency does not intend to publish separate security guides for the Macintosh OS X operating system beyond that which was produced by the vendor, beginning with Tiger, OS X version 10.4.x. The recommendations in Apple's "Mac OS X Security Configuration For Version 10.4 or Later" and "Mac OS X Server Security Configuration For Version 10.4 or Later" track closely with the security level historically represented in the NSA guidelines. It is our belief that these guides establish the latest best practices for securing the products and recommend that traditional customers of our security recommendations use the Apple guides when securing Macintosh OS X 10.4.x and Macintosh OS X Server 10.4.x."

Mac OS X Security Configuration For Version 10.4 or Later, Second Edition (2.98MB) and
Mac OS X Server Security Configuration For Version 10.4 or Later, Second Edition (5.98MB) can be downloaded here:
http://www.nsa.gov/snac/downloads_macOSX10_4Server.cfm?MenuID=scg10.3.1.1

The NSA has also developed and published its own guide for Mac OS X 10.3 "Panther," which is also unclassified and a free download to be used by US government and other entities as a security baseline.

Apple Mac OS X v10.3.x "Panther" Security Configuration Guide (2533KB) and Apple Mac OS X Server v10.3.x "Panther" Security Configuration Guide (876KB) are available here:
http://www.nsa.gov/snac/downloads_macOSX10_3.cfm?MenuID=scg10.3.1.1

tous
03-21-2007, 14:37
How long have you worked for Apple? :tongueout:

RonC
03-21-2007, 17:47
So if you praise Apple or curse Windows you are in the employ of the respective manufacturers? I suspect there lots of 'oh drat' heard around Redmond.

FThorn
03-21-2007, 18:17
Originally posted by tous
How long have you worked for Apple? :tongueout:


I have never.

For anyone wanting to use a computer, safely, I am posting information for and against the Mac OS X as relevant news comes out.

So far, all GOOD NEWS for 23 years or so.

I personally have mac and windows and mac WITH windows (the new Intel macs run windows, too).

coverto
03-27-2007, 11:16
I'm a huge Mac fanboi, but I try to keep it real...

I will agree that the hardware is more expensive, often more difficult to upgrade, and a real pain to deal with when you have hardware problems, which I am dealing with again for the second time. I am not crazy about the company or its support policies, not crazy about Steve Jobs, and though I am the precise target market for an iPhone, I'd rather mock it than own it... at least for now.

I do a lot of the artsy-fartsy stuff that macs are good at, both for a living (advertising) and hobby (photography, music). I have zero interest in using anything else, and would heartily recommend a Mac to any average home user.

The best part of being a Mac guy? When I get asked by a coworker for advice or help on their ailing or dead-in-the-water home computer, as I have umpteen hundred times, I get to shrug and tell them that it's a Mac I sit behind all day in the office and can't really help them with their PC issues.

It occurs to me that I'm constantly encountering average folks who just want to do everyday things with a computer, who have machines that are choked with spyware/adware or otherwise compromised to the point where they have to call in someone to get it back up and running. I don't push Mac on such folk, but I usually think they'd be better off with one. Who cares if small market share is part of the reason for better security? It's a practical reality! Doh!

But I am also reminded that buying a Mac does NOT give you the keys to some pain-free fun happy land of computing Nirvana. I really tried to discourage my Dad from buying a computer at all (not to pick on poor old Dad, but you know the stereotype). I told him I could and would support him if he bought a Mac, which he did. He still calls me, unable to do the most basic things, like forward an email or restart a printer queue. I go to my folks' house to find he's drug applications (NOT shortcuts/aliases) out onto the desktop, managed to lock his desktop folder (THAT one really threw me for a loop at first, had me logging in as root only to be told I still didn't have permission to alter his desktop!!!). Basically, a user like this is going to be trouble no matter what machine he is unleashed on... anyway, I digress.


For me, it's gonna be a Mac, but I will try not to be too much of a fanboi about it. Try, anyway. I agree with someone who compared a Mac to a Glock - for me that is entirely apropos. Both fit my needs to a T, I can understand how to use and maintain them without blowing out a synapse or having to grow new ones, and though opinions will vary, both offer stable, reliable performance that is well above the average among competing products, in everyday, practical terms.

:)

RonC
03-27-2007, 11:44
Converto...well stated.

My son bought an iBook. Had memory problems virtually out of the box. Apple finally diagnosed and replaced. Now fast forward, two years. Lost contact with the soldered-in internal memory. Probably will require a mother board.

On the other hand, many years ago, when timesharing computers were all the range, some of us were allowed to purchase Macs. When I saw the older guys, where generally computer phobes, doing real, creative work, I knew Apple was on to something. My father-in-law bought one later in life an prepared lengthy National Electrical Code training slides, one by one using SuperPaint. This was not far from the days when one of our top engineers, familiar with MSDOS, asked why anyone would want to run more than one application at a time.

Apple is not perfect, Jobs was recently rated #6 of the top 100 in IT, and their computers run...and run...and run. I still have a Mac SE that until recently, I used to prepare my taxes. It still runs fine. Boots up in under 30 seconds, and has a whopping 4 meg of memory. I don't know of any PC of that vintage that are still useful.

All tht being said, remember you should identify the software first, then buy the computer that runs it. Today, there is not so much of an issue. Especially when you can buy one machine that will run OS X and Win XP or Vista.

Surf the new safely with OS X and run those specialized applications with Win.