“Daines was browsing the Web when he clicked on a series of links that promised pictures of an unreleased update to his computer’s operating system. Instead, a window opened on the screen and strange commands ran as if the machine was under the control of someone – or something – else. Daines was the victim of a computer virus. Such headaches are hardly unusual on PCs running Windows. Daines, however, was using a Mac – a machine often touted as being immune to such risks.” Remember boys and girls, this story is published on MSNBC.
The traditional media is just really slow to pickup on the stories that sites like OSnews, Slashdot, TUAW, and etc ran a few months ago (Feb… I think)
This is new news to them, old news to us.
They have editors and limited print space.
Overall I think they’re pretty timely on this one.
Dare I say more and who said the Mac/Linux/unix was immune?
I think that NBC bought out MS’ portion of their partership and will be changing the name shortly. So basically they are MS in name only and have nothing to do with that network.
I was under the impression NBC just bought out the TV parts of MSNBC but the website is still shared. Am I wrong? Can someone shed some light?
I think that NBC bought out MS’ portion of their partership and will be changing the name shortly. So basically they are MS in name only and have nothing to do with that network.
MS still owns half of the web presence. They just let NBC have a majority in the TV network. However, MS has never had any editorial control over NBC News. Suggesting bias because of the MSN in MSNBC is naive, especially when this story is put out by the AP and MSNBC is just reprinting it.
Here’s a non-MS affiliated site with the same story:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06120/685686-96.stm
However, MS has never had any editorial control over NBC News. Suggesting bias because of the MSN in MSNBC is naive, especially when this story is put out by the AP and MSNBC is just reprinting it.
I don’t think that Thom was suggesting that there IS bias, rather he was acting as a good editor and pointing out possible biases. I’d expect a good editor to point out the same on a really favorible article on Pixar from an ABC website (ABC being owned by Disney), even if it was an AP story.
A Google News search shows that MSNBC was the first place to print the story. This is possibly, and probably, coincedence, but something a good editor should point out nonetheless.
I don’t think that Thom was suggesting that there IS bias, rather he was acting as a good editor and pointing out possible biases. I’d expect a good editor to point out the same on a really favorible article on Pixar from an ABC website (ABC being owned by Disney), even if it was an AP story.
Can you point me to other articles on OSNews with similar attributions pointing out possible biases? I can’t remember ever seeing any, especially for MS/Windows articles from likely biased sources. Also, isn’t it enough that MSNBC themselves point out in the article “(MSNBC.com is a Microsoft – NBC joint venture.)”?
A Google News search shows that MSNBC was the first place to print the story. This is possibly, and probably, coincedence, but something a good editor should point out nonetheless.
Whether or not they were the first to post (and are you be certain, given other publications have given the article different titles ?) does not change the fact that it’s an AP reprint. The implication from Thom was there may be bias given MSN’s affiliation when, in fact, there was no affiliation. Plus, as stated earlier, MS has nothing to do with the editorial process at MSNBC.
Okay, first off, be happy that they’ve started. Secondly, bias can be more than just the content of a story, it can be evident in a chosen amalgum of news stories.
As for the third point, Microsoft retains partial ownership of the MSNBC web portal. Some people might want to believe that there is a bias, and so Thom’s note would help them out if they were too deficient to hover over the link. Other people don’t really care. I’m one of the latter; I wasn’t going to read the article, anyway, because it’s probably rubbish. And that aspect has nothing to do with MS.
If anything, the bias is towards Symantec and McAfee 😉
Its a software after all….so it will be susceptible to malicious users. There I said it.
Yes but they neglect to mention that this particular piece of malware would of required your Admin password…
Depends what they want malware to do. There are plenty of things (like set up a spam relay or DDoS client) which don’t need the Admin password.
There are plenty of things (like set up a spam relay or DDoS client) which don’t need the Admin password
Excuse-me ?
DDoS ? Spam relay ?
To be even remotely useful, these actions require access to ports inferior to 1024, which DO REQUIRE ADMIN rights on any Unix I know.
So no, sorry man, what you say is still complete BS.
double post. Sorry
Edited 2006-05-03 15:10
What do they need to bind to ports below 1024 for? I just tell my malware to bind to a port above 1024. I can configure my mail client to connect to SMTP on port 2500 if I want. relaying mail to another mail server listening to port 25 doesn’t require admin rights. Same concept is true for DDoS. There is nothing magical about the ports below 1024 that the ports above cannot do.
I still hold that what I say isn’t “complete BS”.
He and at least one other person who clicked on the links were infected by what security experts call the first-ever virus for Mac OS X, the operating system that has shipped with every Mac sold since 2001 and has survived virtually unscathed from the onslaught of malware unleashed on the Internet in recent years.
Wow! If I understand this quote, the author is saying that in 5 years there have only been two Macs known to be infected with a virus. As suryad points out, all software is susceptible. So the headline should be how incredibly safe Macs are.
of course macs are immune!!
silly people!! Apple dont use code made by mere humans, that could have flaws!
(sorry, I felt it deserved a high level of sarcasm :-p)
even these “experts” need to realise that if it requires user intervention, it is not a true virus.
Mac/unix/linux/bsd users are still safer than Windows users.. by order of several magnitudes
Orders of magintude? I believe an order of magnitude is 10 and you are *CLAIMING* several orders of magintude here.
Would you care to share how and where you obtained those figures?
sorry, you are correct…
Mac OS X has about hmmm 1 virus
Windows has over 150,000
so it is a magnitude of 15000
even in astronomy, that is a massive amount
hahahaha very funny raver31
that backfired on linuxhater a bit there.
but I concur, Windows has 150,000 virus variants and MAC/LINUX/BSD users can count the amount of virus on one hand of a Simpson character.
I’m surprised you can count that high seing that your IQ is only 2.
That 150,000 number seems quite exact. I’m still waiting for the evidence to support your claim….
By the way, why would someone write a virus for a piece of crap software (linux/BSD) that no one really uses. I mean come on, everyone knows that *nix on the desktop only makes up less than 3%. Just because no viruses exist for *nix doesn’t mean it is secure.
Get a life loser.
That 150,000 number seems quite exact. I’m still waiting for the evidence to support your claim….
are you that stupid that you do not know how to use Google search ?
or are you confused because you used MSN search, and it said there was ZERO virus’s for Windows ?
By the way, why would someone write a virus for a piece of crap software (linux/BSD) that no one really uses. I mean come on, everyone knows that *nix on the desktop only makes up less than 3%.
Less than 3% of all cars are Porsche, are Porsche a piece of shit just because everyone else drives Fords ?
You sir, are showing the classic signs of “sheep mentality”, you want to be a part of the crowd and do everything, everyone else does. you are not an individual. See a therapist about that man.
Just because no viruses exist for *nix doesn’t mean it is secure.
There are virus for *nix. BUT, it is still secure. *nix has been built from the ground up to be a multi-user system, and each user has no rights to the files of others. It is done correctly in *nix.
Under Windows I can set up users…. to a degree.
User 1 can open User 2 files etc. User 2 can bork the whole hard disk if he so pleases. It is a half-assed attempt at multi-user.
*nix has no email clients or web browsers so far deep into the system that it does not work properly without them.
*nix will not run ActiveX
*nix does not let javascript emails run amok.
*nix will not let a program install itself over a webpage
*nix will not elevate a wmv up to an executable
*nix will not make files executable without intervention
So, although there are virus for Linux in the wild, getting them to actually work is the hassle, rather than the audience size.
Lastly, you said;
“Get a life loser.”, now, you either Get a clue, or go back to Slashdot.
That 150,000 number seems quite exact. I’m still waiting for the evidence to support your claim….
are you that stupid that you do not know how to use Google search ?
or are you confused because you used MSN search, and it said there was ZERO virus’s for Windows ?
By the way, why would someone write a virus for a piece of crap software (linux/BSD) that no one really uses. I mean come on, everyone knows that *nix on the desktop only makes up less than 3%.
Less than 3% of all cars are Porsche, are Porsche a piece of shit just because everyone else drives Fords ?
You sir, are showing the classic signs of “sheep mentality”, you want to be a part of the crowd and do everything, everyone else does. you are not an individual. See a therapist about that man.
Just because no viruses exist for *nix doesn’t mean it is secure.
There are virus for *nix. BUT, it is still secure. *nix has been built from the ground up to be a multi-user system, and each user has no rights to the files of others. It is done correctly in *nix.
Under Windows I can set up users…. to a degree.
User 1 can open User 2 files etc. User 2 can bork the whole hard disk if he so pleases. It is a half-assed attempt at multi-user.
*nix has no email clients or web browsers so far deep into the system that it does not work properly without them.
*nix will not run ActiveX
*nix does not let javascript emails run amok.
*nix will not let a program install itself over a webpage
*nix will not elevate a wmv up to an executable
*nix will not make files executable without intervention
So, although there are virus for Linux in the wild, getting them to actually work is the hassle, rather than the audience size.
Lastly, you said;
“Get a life loser.”, now, you either Get a clue, or go back to Slashdot.
Yes porsche is a piece of sh*t.
You said: Under Windows I can set up users…. to a degree.
User 1 can open User 2 files etc. User 2 can bork the whole hard disk if he so pleases. It is a half-assed attempt at multi-user.
You are totally ignorant. You have never used Windows in your life. That statement you made is absolutely false. You really should use Windows before you bash it, idiot!
If *nix (esp Linux) is so secure, why is it that there are massive (20MB+) downloads from yum/synaptic repositories to “fix bugs and security vulnerablilities” on a weekly basis? Hmmm?
A windows update is never that big and it is never that frequent. The OSS community spends all of it time cleaning up the crap code that they pass off as “secure” software.
Here’s my claim: Windows is by far the most bullet proof OS around. Hands down! No OS is as well tested as Windows.
Your claim: 150,000 viruses in the wild attacking Windows constantly.
I’ve been a loyal (and happy) Windows user for over 10 years and I have never, ever gotten a virus. NEVER! If you have so many problems with Windows, maybe you should look in the mirror and ask yourself “What the hell is wrong with me that I can’t make my wonderful and simple Windows OS work, but my over designed, bloated and complex Linux OS makes me happy! (while being totally insecure).”
You need help man.
Now you’re funny
)
If *nix (esp Linux) is so secure, why is it that there are massive (20MB+) downloads from yum/synaptic repositories to “fix bugs and security vulnerablilities” on a weekly basis? Hmmm?
Out of the top of my head :
– because they are secure, and so have the secure process of plugging security hole
– because Linux distros include at least a thousand times more apps than Windows and maintain security for this load of software
– because binary distro being what they are, send back the entire package, even if the change was 3 characters in the source
A windows update is never that big and it is never that frequent. The OSS community spends all of it time cleaning up the crap code that they pass off as “secure” software.
MS decided to make them monthly, because they were too frequent, living you instead with a 0day exploited OS for 1 month, sometimes more.
I’ve been a loyal (and happy) Windows user for over 10 years and I have never, ever gotten a virus. NEVER! If you have so many problems with Windows, maybe you should look in the mirror and ask yourself “What the hell is wrong with me that I can’t make my wonderful and simple Windows OS work, but my over designed, bloated and complex Linux OS makes me happy! (while being totally insecure).”
All guys like you impress me, given that Windows had several 0day exploits in these 10 years, that were used by viruses to infect PC before they even got patched.
Your life must have been tedious to achieve this. You see, me, on Linux, achieve the same result without doing anything tedious, that’s the difference.
All guys like you impress me, given that Windows had several 0day exploits in these 10 years, that were used by viruses to infect PC before they even got patched.
Your life must have been tedious to achieve this. You see, me, on Linux, achieve the same result without doing anything tedious, that’s the difference.
——
I’m not going to claim 0 viruses in 10 years of Windows, but I will say that in the last 5 or so years I’ve never had a problem with viruses or spyware. Its really not that tedius. Just have an anti virus running in the background and a monthly spyware scan (just a few clicks of the mose to do) and I’m all set. I could probably just set as a schduled task for the spyware. Of course, you do need to be on the look out for e-mail viruses but thats just as simple as not opening an attachment that you werent expecting.
I guess to some Linux/Mac users that may sound tedius. If that is all I need to do in order to be a happy Windows user then I consider it a fair trade. IMO, each OS has their own set of headaches. For me, the headaches I have in Windows are more tolerable than the ones Linux and Mac OS give me.
Ok, am I the only one who thinks this doesn’t makes sense?
And besides, it’s not like Mac users browse the web as root; do they?
And if the user entered root mode because of a webpage then he/she deserved to get the Mac pwned.
Edited 2006-05-01 16:54
In a world of ones and zeroes, there are not guarantees. Yes, Macs are immune to most viruses – but mostly because they are usually directly targeted at Microsoft products. Macs can pass viruses around to peers (like Typhoid Mary). And yes, they are created by human programmers – therefore they can be attacked by human programmers. This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone – except the gullible Mac users that believe everything Apple tells them.
I deal with Apple Federal, and I’m not impressed – they exaggerate (and lie) like everyone else.
“In a world of ones and zeroes…”
The line for movie trailer voiceovers forms over there. Congratulations on being the first in this thread to make the “swims like a duck” fallacy that all OSes are fundamentally identical under the hood because they have similar interfaces.
Dealing with sales reps does not give you nerd street cred here.
Sorry, you may have missed my point.
If it runs, it can crash. I don’t care about the interface(s), that’s irrelevant. The point is – and I know you’ll find this trite – no computer is immune to everything. Given enough time and resources, any system can be brought down (assuming there is an access point) and Apple’s claim to fame is viral immunity. A better claim would be ‘viral resistance’.
“Dealing with sales reps does not give you nerd street cred here.”
Good. But I didn’t ask for any, so…. …thanks? I guess?
I would still brand UNIX/POSIX systems virus immune. What this discussion is really about is trojans. UNIX/POSIX systems are “trojan resistant” borrowing your usage. Trojans rely on user ignorance to spread or infect. That’s something that neither Apple, Microsoft, nor [insert OS organization here] will ever be able to solve 100%.
>> If it runs, it can crash. I don’t care about the interface(s), that’s >>irrelevant. The point is – and I know you’ll find this trite – no >>computer is immune to everything.
Some are more immune than others. Some cars have higher crash test ratings than others (Unix Linux BSD OS X); and some cars explode when they are rear-ended (Windows). So just because you drive a car with it’s gas tank located in the trunk, does not mean its just as good as a high-saftey rated vehicle. Despite the fact that a high crash test safety rating will not save your life if you hit a semi head on at 70mph.
>>Given enough time and resources, any system can be brought down >>(assuming there is an access point) and Apple’s claim to fame is >>viral immunity. A better claim would be ‘viral resistance’.
Apples claim to fame is a premium hardware/software bundle at a premium and sometimes competitive price. Every OS has access points, some are discrete hidden cubby holes and other hangar entrances with busted hinges.
It’s lovely, the lack of real detail being reported on these vulnerabilities. The lack of detail proves:
Sensationalism and/or stupidity, both or either preying on the ignorance of the masses.
Mac OS X will eventually get some real viruses; but it will NEVER catch up with Windows in quality or quantity of viruses.
I’m assuming you were in some agreement, so thanks for quoting and not bashing.
Regarding the exploits: the more details you provide about the exploit, the more likely people are to abuse them. It’s a two-edged sword, because you want to provide details to solve the problem – but not give attackers the bomb code.
So far, Mac has been fortunate because of their market share – so few users makes a less appetizing target. Now they’re moving to Intel chips which are more familiar to hackers – and they already know what to attack there. Mac issues will be on an exponential rise because until recently, little attention was paid to security because little was needed. It was already based on BSD (sort-of), and Apple fell asleep at the wheel thinking they had inherent immunity to all attacks. We’ll see some real quality attacks in the next few years, guaranteed.
I’d actuall like to take this opportunity to pull my foot out of my mouth (or at least a toe)…
Boot from a read-only live CD. If you can’t write, you can’t very well corrupt either…
My bad.
Maybe, but I think ‘Immune’ is still too strong of a word. It implies that nothing will or can infect it, which still isn’t true. Now I do agree with your statement about trojans, however that issue is determined by the user sitting at the machine. You’re correct in that trojans prey on ignorant users, however most *nix users (as a blanket statement) are far more educated about this type of thing than the everyday Windows or Mac user, so as a result – trojans are less likely to be opened by those operators. And as most hackers prefer *nix platforms (philosophically), fewer attacks are targeted at them. Just give Linux time to become the dominant OS, and I can guarantee *nix attacks will start to appear just like the Apple ones.
And few binaries are portable across all *nix platforms, so trojans also face another hurtle – but nothing’s impossible, just harder to do.
For example! Jeff (oddfellow) needs to get off of my computer!!!
…or at least log out when he’s done! That would be my ignorant butt not paying attention to simple things on the screen….
See, I can be a stupid user too – I didn’t check the default user when I replied to a post! …duh..
The FUD-mill continues to turn. Both MS and Apple are at potentially vulnerable points in their history. Apple with the switch to intel and MS with one their most troubled OS releases to date. However unlike MS, Apple has been on the rise lately with explosive potential with the macintels, hence the constant attack by proxy on what is percieved to be one of the Macs greatest selling points for consumers.
If Windows and OsX were countries :
Windows would be a disease-ridden third world hell-hole. Sure the elite are healthy, but the majority are dying in the streets spreading disease as they stumble around knee-high in waste.
OsX would be a scandinavian country where disease and plague are an aberration and there’s world class prevention and care for all.
Sure both countries have diseases, but in which would you rather live ?
You forgot the ‘United States of Linux Distros”
I live in Knoppington CD…
…sorry, that’s really corny and stupid of me.
OsX would be a scandinavian country where disease and plague are an aberration and there’s world class prevention and care for all.
And where any attempt to try to show any initiative or to do anything that hasn’t been centrally planed by the government will be met with disdain and harsh taxes.
And yes I’ve lived in two Scandinavian countries.
…If Apple and Microsoft were countries….
Apple would be Cuba. It would be a tiny little country getting an amazing amount of attention. There would be a party line which no-one believed but everyone chanted all the time; it would make periodic 180 degree turns, to loud proclamations that it had always been the same; there’d be great annual rallies in Red Square, endless ranting speeches from the Great Leader, constantly changing myths of the early days of the revolution; the conquest of Latin America would always be progressing but the conquered territory would always be about the same or shrinking; every now and again their would be leadership purges for obscure reasons leading to wild press speculation. Most of all, it would be boring.
Microsoft would be the rest of the world….
No operating system is immune to viruses and other attacks, including OS X. So that headline — which I’ve seen repeated on several sites today — sets up a false premise and then happily demolishes it.
Ignoring the technical merits of OS X and Linux, the primary reason they’ve been unbothered by malicious attacks is their tiny market share. People seeking to do harm or to gain attention will go after the biggest target. Right now, that’s Window’s. If Windows suddenly became the most secure OS in history, it would still be the target of the most attacks.
Ignoring the technical merits of OS X and Linux, the primary reason they’ve been unbothered by malicious attacks is their tiny market share. People seeking to do harm or to gain attention will go after the biggest target.
obviously, you still take your daily dose of crap that certain companies feed you.
This analogy has benn proven wrong over and over and over again. It is NOTHING to do with market share. Windows is flawed by design.
It is was purely on market share, then why are all the Apache servers not getting defaced hundreds of times more than the IIS ones ?
Come on, Apache shares are like 80% of the internet servers, and IIS is on maybe 15%…. how come IIS is getting attacked more ?
Windows was designed as a single-user stand-alone system, and needs to be re-written properly.
This analogy has benn proven wrong over and over and over again.
Proven? Really? I’ve mainly seen it argued against by those who apparently skipped Junior high math and think that the relationship between marketshare and “malicious activity” would be linear.
It is was purely on market share, then why are all the Apache servers not getting defaced hundreds of times more than the IIS ones ?
The original poster never said “purely,” he said “primary reason,” so I’m gonna go ahead and call strawman argument.
Come on, Apache shares are like 80% of the internet servers, and IIS is on maybe 15%…. how come IIS is getting attacked more ?
So your solution to countering a facile argument is… to present an equally facile argument?
yes, to show the impunity of the argument in the first place.
Ignoring the technical merits of OS X and Linux, the primary reason they’ve been unbothered by malicious attacks is their tiny market share.
I disagree. The primary reason that most viruses haven’t hit OSX and Linux are that the vast majority are targeted to Microsoft Networking Protocols, Active X controls, and security holes because of running as Administrator.
People seeking to do harm or to gain attention will go after the biggest target.
They go after Microsoft because they also know the code isn’t secure, not soley because Windows is a big target.
If Windows suddenly became the most secure OS in history, it would still be the target of the most attacks.
You’re describing an event that up until this date (and that includes the use of Vista) hasn’t happened. Microsoft won’t be secure because they would have to write Windows from the ground up to do it.
//and security holes because of running as Administrator.//
uhh … you’re kinda proving his point of “flawed by design” there …
IMO it is a mix of Windows being flawed and that it has a huge huge presence in the market. Both combined together make it a malware writer’s paradise.
What browser was Daines using?
What site was he visiting?
Was he logged in as Admin?
What, exactly did the virus do?
Was it the shell script auto-execute vunerability? (Did he not have his current updates installed? Has somebody found another hole and exploited it?)
To me, this article is crying “the sky is falling” but not giving any kind of useful clues about how to avoid this sort of problem.
Remember boys and girls, this story is published on MSNBC.
And? What’s your point? I’ve seen quite a few articles on MSNBC stating some bad news for Windows and Microsoft. Don’t assume because its msnbc that they will be negative to all other operating systems except their own.
I can’t understand how anyone here can take “a window opened on the screen and strange commands ran as if the machine was under the control of someone – or something – else” seriously. That’s the kind of stuff you see in the movies for kids.
Current Macs (OS X 10.4) aren’t immune to virii but have been known not to be avulnerable as other (MS) OSs.
In this instance, or example of someone caught with their pants down, is not really a virus. The offending code needs to have access and thus propmts you for your system admin password. So, personally, I really don’t think this constites a virus, maybe malware.
It’s like unlocking the front door of your house so a theif can have access. While there are some dim witted people out there, this really ain’t something to worry about.
OMHO Jb
The offending code needs to have access and thus propmts you for your system admin password.
this is the 2nd time I’ve seen this kind of a statement.
Is there a name for this bit of offending code? How do you know it authenticates to run? (Have you encountered it? If so, what site is serving it?)
(Because IIRC, the problem with the Safari exploit was that it would auto execute just by you surfing to the page.)
So Macs are no longer immune to viruses? When were they ever? Viruses are computer code. Macs were immune to running computer code?
This is a storm in a teacup. If it was worth attacking Mac users, and if fast spread was guaranteed, I’m sure we’d see some real viruses come out for OS X.
Stop press! Macs no longer immune to viruses! Also, Pope no longer Protestant, Bears no longer pooping in toilets, and sky no longer green!
Idiots.
Who is Daines and when did this happen? This fake-Leopard-screenshot trojan was all over the news in mid-February, and has been patched, so why is it being re-hashed now? How do we even know he’s a real person and really had this happen to him? Since I’ve seen this article printed almost word-for-word on different news sites credited to different “journalists”, it’s pretty obvious there’s a PR firm behind this. I wonder who’s paying that firm?
Can we avoid using the “boys and girls” phrase in articles from now on? I think I speak for quite a few people when I say that it’s a tad obnoxious.
Can we refrain from using the phrase “a tad obnoxious” as us boys and girls find it a bit too mature when there is OS bashing afoot.
I believe that at least 40% of the news carried on local channels are just lies and propagandas of rich or powerful people. So, I highly doubt such news
…has the courage to point out the fact that Macs (like all computer OSes) are not immune to attacks (despite what osnews.com and others will tell you).
Slashdot, osnews, etc… want you to think *ONLY* windows is affected by such problems; not lily white (and perfect ) linux and Macs — oh no!
They are pulling the wool over your eyes (again).
but it is ONLY Windows that has these problems, and if you took your head out of your ass for 5 minutes, you would see this.
but wait.
with a name like linuxhater, and your pro-microsoft rantings, I would bet a months wages you actually DO use Linux and don’t have Windows anywhere near your PC.
you just like to see people argue.
OR
you really are thick as a brick and do not know how to USE anything but WIndows
yeah, that Linuxh8r does seem a bit dim… I mean, he takes his news from msnbc… MSnbc ,,,, Microsoft(Network Broadcasting Corporation), and he expects it to be fair on competitors..
and his arguments are always weak, at least we got a laugh when we read what Linux Is Poo used to say…
where are you Poo, come back, all is forgiven
etc etc
yeah, that Linuxh8r does seem a bit dim… I mean, he takes his news from msnbc… MSnbc ,,,, Microsoft(Network Broadcasting Corporation), and he expects it to be fair on competitors..
It’s Microsoft Network/National Broadcasting Company. And he has no reason to expect it to be unfair about competitors. MS is not writing copy — and neither was MSNBC in this case. It’s an AP story.
where are you Poo, come back, all is forgiven
He´s still out there but now he calls himself Tom K and since then has been considerably more polite on his postings regarding Linux (even if he still thinks of it as… Well, poo! :-))
Did I mention Linux is crap?
Sure I’ve used it on and off for over 10 years. I’ve installed it for many clients. Heck, I’ve even installed it for myself on a dell laptop and got the wireless working with ndiswrapper and wpa_supplicant. I’ve installed many distros (arch being the best so far). But none are even close to the quality of Windows.
I suspect you don’t use Windows. That’s what makes you such an idiot.
He has said before here that he does not use WIndows, so what? That will not make him an idiot, far from it in fact.
you however, with your “many clients” crap, clearly demonstrate that you have not got a job. And you needed ndiswrapper to get wireless working ? how many years ago was that ? and why make a point of it anyway ?
I installed Windows the other day and needed to get drivers for my nvidia card and for a speedtouch dsl modem. So what ?
Stop making a dick out of yourself little boy, shut up and come back when you have learned a thing or two
It’s Malware, it’s not a Virus, not a trojan, it’s Malware.
If something needs this type of Intervention to install and propagate onto systems, then it’s Malware.
Compared to Windows how you don’t even need to do anything, apart from plug the computer into the Internet.
Vs Mac that you have to do 5 steps in between for it to infect and input passwords.
Calling a virus something that needs a user to actually enter the administrator password to install it is just stupid! Oh boy, there’s a new virus that infects all mobile phones, just drop the phone in a glass of water!! bah
The single most significant thing that will affect Mac security is its switch to commodity Intel processors. The fact of the matter is that most of the world runs Wintel; hence, most malware writers cut their teeth on Wintel. With dual-boot capabilities, malware writers can easily shift their attention back and forth; in fact, I will not be surprised if we start to see proof of concept malware using Universal Binaries sometime soon (attacking shared weaknesses in things such as libjpeg, etc, on both platforms.
Another thing that people should keep in mind is that both Windows and Macs have been vulnerable to numerous kernel BOs. Using one of these unpatched vectors, it isn’t necessary to have the root/ADMINISTRATOR password. Just my few cents.
Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows CE; PPC; 240×320; HP iPAQ h6300)
… On the Mac it requires user intervention, Apple really need to improve in this area…
I wouldn’t be surprised to see a few Mac viruses, I suspect people are going to keep drilling harder at it to help Microsoft save face.
I can tell you I’d trust OS X before Windows on the basis that the former should have inherited a proper permission system, whereas any notion of a permission system in the later is a joke; however, it’s not worth arguing over yet IMO. Let time take it’s course and save your judgements for when Mac OS X and Windows have similarly sized slices on the install base pie chart.
MSNBC offered almost no detail on the sequence of events which led to this infection by the way, it’s impossible to tell from their description if it the software or the user was at fault.
IMO, any OS in the hands if a technical idiot is going to open itself up to viruses and other problems. A growing userbase for Apple is sure to attract more virus/spyware writers. Average users that dont know how to keep a computer secure is only going to make things worse.
“By the end of 2005, there were 114,000 known viruses for PCs. In March 2006 alone, there were 850 new threats detected against Windows. Zero for Mac. While no computer connected to the Internet will ever be 100% immune from attack, Mac OS X has helped the Mac keep its clean bill of health with a superior UNIX foundation and security features that go above and beyond the norm for PCs. When you get a Mac, only your enthusiasm is contagious.“
I’m really, really shocked
and I can never trust MAC OS X again
It isn’t immune to one virus!
But okay, even if windows has 1001 viruses and MAC OS X only has one (yet) it is something to care about
First off, it’s an AP article. Secondly, no computer is “immune” to virii… it just happens that non-Windows machines are immune to Windows virii.
Part of the argument in the article is the fact that Macs are moving to Intel processors and that is making them more succeptible. Rubbish.