Users who Dugg This
Alois Larc
33 Followers
Sean Deady
0 Followers
Daniel Ellul
48 Followers
Dino Dogan
163 Followers
johnchristopher36
57 Followers
Sudhir Rawat
734 Followers
adamrteece
0 Followers
Closed AccountApr 12, 2007
All viruses, spyware and malware are now created specifically to generate profit. The best way to make such profit is going after the vast majority of people and whatever platform they happen to be using, and guess what, it sure as hell ain't mac!Its quite ironic actually, because the sophistication of the majority of mac owners is so low that they'd be a very easy target, and will enter their admin passwords and stuff without a 2nd thought as soon as something prompts them to.
Closed AccountApr 12, 2007
i'm digging you up out of spite. hope it hurts so good.
honkfrogApr 12, 2007
While I'm a known Apple-disliker (and have been since the Apple II), I had to digg you down because you don't seem to be able to form coherent sentences with any backup to support your thoughts.Here's a short guide for people that want to stand up against the Mac Cult:Back your facts up. I'm not even talking about citing studies and reports; I'm talking about *any* backup. Empirical is cool. You're talking to Digg users, not defending your doctorate.An example could be "Apple products have crashed far more often for me than any other brand, including PPC macs, x86 macs, and ipods." or, "Of course Apple products are insecure. There have been numerous exploits made available. The fact that the exploits exist and it takes Apple an average of 2 months to patch flaws, and yet nothing major has been published, is proof that the security professionals don't care as much about OSX as they do about Windows."My personal favorite is: "I haven't had a virus infect me since I got a boot sector virus on my IBM Olivetti 8086 from a school diskette."Then you can add in comments about how many exploits can do freaky things regardless of the operating system on top of it. Such as finding flash-rom and eeprom chips on the motherboard to plant the payload, then getting the graphics card to execute the code. Oops!I realize that I'm probably going to be dugg (digged?) down for saying this next bit, but didn't Bill Gates state that their internal security team finds new severe exploits in OSX every day? If that's true, (and I'd like to believe so) then it's even more evidence that OSX is just as bad a product as everything else.Look, if nothing else, just look up osx on the US-CERT page.
j01101010Apr 12, 2007
I believe that for an intelligent person that isn't a prime target (just a joe-schmo, not a business), its not that hard to avoid viruses on any OS. It has been at least 3 years since i got a virus on my Windows XP machine (I've had it for 6), 1 and half for my OS X machine (had it for 3), and I've never gotten a virus on my Linux machine (only had it for about 8 months).If you pay attention to what you're doing, you probably wont get a virus.
blackeagleApr 12, 2007
and yet i still dont want a mac
meatmcguffinApr 13, 2007
@DustonWell aware, although on Microsoft's side, the entire OS is proprietry running relativly new code only MS has access to. The most important kernal bits of OS X are built upon open, standards compliant, multi-decade tested, tried and true code. It just so happens these important bits are responsible for things like speed, fuctionality and security.Strange, huh?
zdigglerApr 14, 2007
sudo ./install-spyware-that-sit-in-startuppassword : ********
zdigglerApr 14, 2007
I'm trying to find a way on Unbutu so that I don't have to do that damn f**king SUDO crap everytime I want to do something!!!!!!!!!
advfsApr 15, 2007
One of the security features they are talking about in relation to "Protected Memory" is that a certain user owns the process and the memory used by that process. Other users are unable to write (or read ) to (from) it. In earlier versions of Windows, there were no users so any process could write to the memory used by any other process. Protected memory does enhance stability, but it also enhances security.
clyde2801Apr 17, 2007
Suck it, you trolling, twelve year old, virus ridden, windows apologists!
thegreendollarApr 27, 2007
K, 2 quick thoughts:A. Those that criticize Apple are “Apple haters” Fan boy… I work with Linux (my preferred OS but hey), I work with Windows, I work with Macs, I work with BSD, guess what all operating systems have holes and flaws, and anything running ones and zeros can be exploited or infected (i.e. Macs can get viruses); pick your poison and role with it. Stop talking about your computer like it’s a religion; use what works best for your situation, secure it the best you can, find a way to mitigate the risks and role with it. Some are inherently more secure but may not work as well in certain situations or organizations. It doesn’t matter what OS your organization is running if the people running it, or running within it are moron. B. Hackers/Malicious coders are into hacking/virus coding due to their egos. Welcome to the 21st Century, most malicious code is not intended to say look at me I am god and reek havoc (put away that stupid Hackers movie and try living in reality), it’s all about profit. Granted there may be occasional script kiddies that is all about the peeing contest, but that’s not the real threat, they can usually be stopped by simply patching your boxes and maintaining a relatively secure network. The real threat are the real hackers, the people thinking I can get paid if I get a couple thousand zombie machines and have them occasionally send out spam, or rent them out to nefarious group A. It’s not about the ego; it’s about the green man. Is Apple a smaller target? YesWhy? Less market share is a reason; more people are beginning to buy apple due to the new OS X & its Darwin core but are there less? YESAnother reason is because Microsoft pissed a lot of people off. Microsoft is the big fish and you can’t be the big fish in any industry without pissing people off, and stepping on some toes. I think a lot of stuff they do & have done is stupid. I do by the way feel the same way about some things that Apple done. They’re both pirates, can any one say Xerox PARC. In short pls – breath… grab a logger, enjoy the funny mac commercials and don’t get your knickers in a twist.Cheers :)
jakv5Apr 28, 2007
It's also the broken windows theory... If you head to the Bronx and throw and brick through a window of a building that already has many broken windows then (unless a cop watches you do it) now one is going to do anything. If you head to a fancy suburb and throw a brick through a window there will probably be a federal investigation.If a hacker rights a small virus to a mac then there will be huge public outcry and he will be hunted down... but if he writes one for windows he'll probably get away without much notice.
Closed AccountJun 10, 2007
This article is just stupid. Here's a simple fact: No one use Mac, which only means no one would give a damn.
johnnysoftwareAug 31, 2010
Security is relative and while Macs include some better-designed security features than on Windows. Take for instance how the two operating systems handle the simple task of asking the user if it is okay with them to perform an action. Macs do it more cleanly, understanding there is an overall option being performed and to be allowed/disallowed - not piecemeal.
Macs omit dangerous features like ActiveX and auto-running programs upon mounting a removable/remote file system. Those are feasures that have repeatedly harmed tens of millions of Windows systems.
However, both Apple and Microsoft currently sell their retail computer systems with Adobe Flash installed in them. Apple articulated its concerns about Flash clearly in the technical trade press. However, as far as I know neither company directly put them in writing to consumers.
Both Mac OS X and MS Windows have repeatedly had problems with image codecs that are part of the operating system as well. Since web browsers normally display images unbidden by the user as part of the page loading/rendering process, this seems to pose an unabated concern.
While Mac OS X is far safer than the classic versions of Mac OS that preceded it, the same can be said about 32-bit Windows that Microsoft introduced in 1993 (Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Vista, and Windows 7). They seem generally more secure than the 16-bit versions of Windows that came out before 1993.
The article seems to put 32-bit Windows operating systems on the same level of trustworthiness as older versions of Windows by implicitly lumping them together, while treating Mac OS and Mac OS X as radically different.
Granted, there is much more leap forward between the two Mac operating systems. The introduction of Unix, isolated processes, ACLs (access control links), a richer file system, separation of kernel from user space, modern device driver architecture, and so on were big leaps forward for Apple's computers and they did that transition in just a few years.
It is really worth looking at the security features and failings of both operating systems, point-by-point, side-by-side. Clearly, Windows is not bearing up against the attacks it faces to prevent successful ones from becoming commonplace. The author is right, Macs are not obscure. They are well known and make up about one out of ten or twenty of general purpose computers sold.
Microsoft needs to get Windows under control so that successful attacks against it are as rare as they are against the Macintosh. Apple has been outspoken about security problems in some vendor products when they are severe, certain, and show signs of growing worse over a long period of time. Microsoft might want to do the same.
While some can argue that Apple taking a couple of months to fix a security flaw that has been identified is a long time, getting Windows to that point would be an improvement, actually.
A number of exploits took place last year against Windows vulnerabilities found/reported by outsiders a half a year to a year or more prior to the event. In one case, this was because work did not start on an exploit until maybe a year after receiving the report - and only after a successful exploit was spreading in the wild. In other cases, the fixes were started quickly but then languished in testing for well over a quarter year - more than an entire season.
Cybercrooks are the tortoise that has outrun the hare. Even MS-DOS had its problems going back at least a decade. But cybercrooks have crippled & robbed Windows systems to a surprising degree the past half decade. A lot has been promised to get things back under control but when you look around, things are not quite back under control. If the reason for the stark difference in how much both OSes get successfully attacked is luck, Windows seems to have a lot less of it.