22-03-2005 22:27									#31
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Asher Believe what myth? What is the point in investing time and energy into writing a virus to target something with 2% marketshare when you can hit something with 95%+ marketshare? It's a psychological question more than anything else. People who write viruses are out for fame or have an appetite for destruction, neither of which lend themselves to tiny marketshares...

While that's what I was saying.
All this is obvious to me, and Im asking if anybody really defends the other position (the myth you talk about)...
Did you even read my post?

	22-03-2005 22:29									#32
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Atahualpa Generally speaking, how old is Windows NT (which XP is based on, no?) and how old is Mac OS X?

Are you talking about the kernel or the OS itself?

Windows NT is mid-90s, Mach is from the mid-80s.

quote: But anyway a security flaw != a security flaw and 100 flaws can be less harmful than a single other. You're playing marketing department if you just compare numbers.

This is true to an extent -- for instance, a remote exploit versus local exploit.

It doesn't matter, there are remote exploits for virtually every system.

Hell, even the latest MacOS X patches fix remote buffer overflow vulnerabilities that allow arbitary code execution (not unlike Blaster...):

quote: # Cyrus IMAP Available for: Mac OS X Server v10.3.8 CVE-ID: CAN-2004-1011, CAN-2004-1012, CAN-2004-1013, CAN-2004-1015, CAN-2004-1067 Impact: Multiple vulnerabilities in Cyrus IMAP, including remotely exploitable denial of service and buffer overflows. Description: Cyrus IMAP is updated to version 2.2.12, which includes fixes for buffer overflows in fetchnews, backend, proxyd, and imapd. Further information is available from http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus/downlo...d/changes.html.

quote: Cyrus SASL Available for: Mac OS X v10.3.8, Mac OS X Server v10.3.8 CVE-ID: CAN-2002-1347, CAN-2004-0884 Impact: Multiple vulnerabilities in Cyrus SASL, including remote denial of service and possible remote code execution in applications that use this library. Description: Cyrus SASL is updated to address several security holes caused by improper data validation, memory allocation, and data handling.

quote: However I still doubt that in OS X there are such easily exploitable vulnerabilites such as the Blaster attack, which doesn't even require user action, just a connection to the internet and the absence of a firewall (which was deactivated by default in pre-SP2 and how many OEMs shipped with an enabled firewall???). Flaws like these make MS look stupid.

It was addressed and a fix made public 3 months before the attack happened. The user would need to have disabled automatic updates to be affected by this.

That doesn't make MS necessarily stupid, but the users affected.

It was a pretty embarrassing bug, but I don't think you understand much about it if you think MS is the only system that does that. RPC was actually first on Unix, not Windows.

MS overhauled RPC in SP2 and higher though, and should be much safer...not to mention the firewall.

You live, you learn.

Isn't OS X' firewall disabled by default, BTW?

	22-03-2005 22:30									#33
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Lul Thyme While that's what I was saying. All this is obvious to me, and Im asking if anybody really defends the other position (the myth you talk about)... Did you even read my post?

Your post wasn't very clear. That's why I asked for clarification.

I'm pretty sure more money is stolen from pickpockets as a whole than banks, for instance.

	22-03-2005 22:36									#34
	Got spare money?

This is common sense no matter how much the Mac zealots try to deny it.

	22-03-2005 22:55									#35
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Asher Your post wasn't very clear. That's why I asked for clarification. I'm pretty sure more money is stolen from pickpockets as a whole than banks, for instance.

Ok I guess the analogy wasn't all that clear but I meant just my pockets.
In any case as previous poster just said to, it is evidence.

	23-03-2005 00:30									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: This is true to an extent -- for instance, a remote exploit versus local exploit.

no, not just to an extent. For example when you compare windows RPC implementation bugs to application specific bugs....

quote: That doesn't make MS necessarily stupid, but the users affected.

MS profits from stupid users, so they have to deal with them. This is called a trade-off.
If you want to call their userbase stupid, but then OTOH praise how windows is easier for a stupid userbase...

	23-03-2005 00:36									#37
	Increase Your PM Length

I'm still amused by the fact that many Mac users, for example, Agathon, have said that there's no need to be worried about Mac security because it's Windows that has all the problems.

You can operate a computer without taking any elementary security precautions. You can also steer a car with your feet. Doesn't make it a good ****ing idea.

	23-03-2005 00:38									#38
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Atahualpa no, not just to an extent. For example when you compare windows RPC implementation bugs to application specific bugs....

Huh?

What's the difference between RPC implementation bugs (ie, a bundled program with the OS) and other "application specific bugs" for...programs bundled with the OS?

The only real differences are:
1) Is it a remote or a local exploit?
2) Is it included with the OS?
3) Is it enabled by default or not?

quote: MS profits from stupid users, so they have to deal with them. This is called a trade-off. If you want to call their userbase stupid, but then OTOH praise how windows is easier for a stupid userbase...

I don't understand what you want.

MS profits from ignorant users, but it also ships stuff like autoupdate to help those ignorant users. Users who intentionally disable mechanisms designed to thwart attacks and then get bitten by those attacks are stupid -- not ignorant -- and MS does not deserve full liability for that.

	23-03-2005 00:38									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Windows:

Mac OS:

	23-03-2005 00:38									#40
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I still don't see why we can't just license people to get on the INTARWEBS!

If you want on the internet, on the other hand, feel free.

Most users would be right at home on the INTARWEBS!

	23-03-2005 00:39									#41
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Q Cubed I'm still amused by the fact that many Mac users, for example, Agathon, have said that there's no need to be worried about Mac security because it's Windows that has all the problems. You can operate a computer without taking any elementary security precautions. You can also steer a car with your feet. Doesn't make it a good ****ing idea.

It's been proven time and time again in the computer world that security through paranoia > security through obscurity.

	23-03-2005 00:40									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Windows, secured
OS X, secured
Linux, secured

Give me gvim, firefox/opera, gaim, winamp/winampclones, and maybe mplayer/vlc, i'm good to go.

	23-03-2005 00:46									#43
	Put an end to popups!

quote: It's been proven time and time again in the computer world that security through paranoia > security through obscurity.

of course. it's just common sense. you can defeat both, but at least with the former, you've got a fighting chance:

security through paranoia: fort knox, with all of its defenses and what not.
security through obfuscation: all of fort knox's gold, buried somewhere near washington dc.

	23-03-2005 07:45									#44
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: There are huge fundamental flaws to the design of Windows

Namely? The article you posted was nothing but unsubstantiated opinion and tautologies like "security is..." which make no sense when you're being asked for specific examples.

	23-03-2005 07:53									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Q Cubed I'm still amused by the fact that many Mac users, for example, Agathon, have said that there's no need to be worried about Mac security because it's Windows that has all the problems. You can operate a computer without taking any elementary security precautions. You can also steer a car with your feet. Doesn't make it a good ****ing idea.

That's not what I've said. I don't run anti-virus software because there are no known viruses for my platform.

None.. nada.. zilch...

That's it.... why should I care about non-existent threats?

No-one has proved that OS X's relative security is down to marketshare. It may well be, but no one has proved that. Asher's response to this is to say that "it's obvious" to him -- but that doesn't make it true -- it's just speculation.

	23-03-2005 08:09									#46
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Agathon, you're playing a game of semantics.

You can't prove it one way or the other, it's time for you to leave behind the fantasy land of philosophy and enter the harsh world of reality.

Think: What makes OS X as a platform invulnerable to viruses?

Answer: Nothing.

Question: Why are there no viruses for Mac OS X?

My answer: It's a pointless target, no marketshare.

Your answer: ?

	23-03-2005 08:39									#47
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: You can't prove it one way or the other, it's time for you to leave behind the fantasy land of philosophy and enter the harsh world of reality.

In fairness, I'd consider a struggle to justify why we shouldn't all kill ourselves (the only pertinent philosophical question and the one it all boils down to) more important than which operating system you use to download your MILFs.

I'm sure it's a fascinating technical discussion, but does it actually matter, and will anyone remember it as anything but a waste of time in even 5/10/20 years time?

	23-03-2005 08:48									#48
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

You should do things because they are right, not because people will remember them in 5/10/20 years' time. So yeah, I'd take that approach to these retarded arguments.

Security through obscurity is a legitimate technique. It just shouldn't be relied upon.

SP

	23-03-2005 08:50									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: You should do things because they are right, not because people will remember them in 5/10/20 years' time. So yeah, I'd take that approach to these retarded arguments.

But you don't see people obsessing over their choice of teabag? Or at least you shouldn't...

	23-03-2005 09:03									#51
	Support Apolyton

Round teabags aren't nearly as useable as square teabags, mother****er. The square teabags may look less stylish, but the corners catch on the cup walls, so they don't just bob back up to the water surface like those trashy round teabags. Plus, square teabags are easier to assemble, so they don't come apart as easily as round teabags.

SP

	23-03-2005 09:08									#52
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

wow...

	23-03-2005 10:37									#53
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: The myth that software popularity doesn't affect number of vulnerabilities is a myth

I've never heard of this myth, but if it exists then it truly is one. If you're going to infect as many PCs as possible then surely it is rational to design your viruses against the most widespreadly used OS's, right?

	23-03-2005 20:18									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Asher Agathon, you're playing a game of semantics.

What an absurd statement.

quote: You can't prove it one way or the other, it's time for you to leave behind the fantasy land of philosophy and enter the harsh world of reality.

No-one has proved it one way or the other. Especially you.

quote: Think: What makes OS X as a platform invulnerable to viruses? Answer: Nothing.

Nobody said that. What makes it harder to install viruses or malware is that you need root access to install those things if they are to work properly. As a regular user you don't have that access. And if a program attempts to start for the first time without being directly started by the user, you will get a prompt.

The only OS X malware I'm aware of requires physical access to your machine to install.

quote: Question: Why are there no viruses for Mac OS X? My answer: It's a pointless target, no marketshare.

Why do you think that repeating yourself somehow answers the question? One could as well speculate that OS X's well-known virus free status makes it a more tempting target, and God knows there are plenty of Apple haters out there who would love to take it down. In that sense it is not a pointless target.

But it has been four years and nothing. Not one virus. IIRC there are other systems which have even less marketshare which have more viruses - that puts a spanner in your argument right there. The Classic OS had more viruses, for example.

Perhaps hackers are secretly in love with Jobs? Who knows..

I'm actually surprised that nothing has turned up yet. It's great for me. All that I care about are the facts - and the fact is that in practical terms OS X is light years more secure than Windows. Now that is a fact - you are much more likely to get a virus or piece of spyware on a platform that supports thousands of them than one in which there has yet to be identified a real threat.

[q]Your answer: ? [/QUOTE]

No idea. No-one has sufficient proof of what it is -- especially you. There could be various reasons, but no-one really knows which one is correct.

The fact that you bothered reporting what a company with a vested interest says on the matter is revealing. Of course Symantec are going to say this: no-one needs their mac products, so every year or so they publish an opinion saying how security threats are growing and people should be worried. It's been FUD in the past and likely is FUD now.

	23-03-2005 20:58									#55
	Tired of ads?

So behind all those words, here's a summary of your post:

1) It is possible for viruses to exist and spread on the Mac
2) The fact that there are none is unknown, and we can never know!

Is that right?

If so, I think it's a pretty blinding case of ignoring the obvious.

There is less useful software on the Mac, there are less harmful viruses on the Mac, both of them tie back to the pathetic marketshare.

	23-03-2005 21:31									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: 1) It is possible for viruses to exist and spread on the Mac 2) The fact that there are none is unknown, and we can never know!

1 is true. 2 is false.

Nice modal fallacy. I just said we don't really know, not that it is impossible for anyone to ever know.

At least I don't know and you don't appear to either from the "evidence" you have come up with (mainly speculation).

Nice of you to be taken in by Symantec's FUD though.

	23-03-2005 21:36									#57
	Put an end to popups!

I've had this opinion way before Symantec said anything about it, and it's also one that just makes sense from a reasoning standpoint.

If you're asserting it's possible to know (as in, prove), where od you get that idea?

It's a question of psychological motivation of social misfits who want to make a name for themselves.

Maybe you just don't understand the mindset of the typical cracker.

	24-03-2005 02:24									#58
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: I've had this opinion way before Symantec said anything about it, and it's also one that just makes sense from a reasoning standpoint.

Jesus Christ... aren't you the one who's always complaining that philosophers rely too much on reason instead of empirical confirmation?

There are many reasonable explanations for it. Perhaps all of them have some part to play, but you don't know and you are just speculating, so shut the **** up. If you want to do some serious research to find out why, go ahead. But don't pretend that your idle speculation is anything more than that.

	24-03-2005 02:30									#59
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Jesus Christ... aren't you the one who's always complaining that philosophers rely too much on reason instead of empirical confirmation?

If there's emperical confirmation, I'd love to hear it.

Not all cases have emperical evidence or confirmatoin available...it's not practical in all of them. This is one of your worst arguments of all time, for the record.

quote: There are many reasonable explanations for it.

So then shouldn't you be able to name them?

Simple question: If the OS is capable of viruses, why are there none? There is only one rational, reasonable reason for this. You assure me there are many, yet have not been able to mention them...

	24-03-2005 02:48									#60
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Not all cases have emperical evidence or confirmatoin available...it's not practical in all of them. This is one of your worst arguments of all time, for the record.

Then we should be sceptical instead of blindly assuming things like you do.

quote: So then shouldn't you be able to name them?

The following explanations seens just as plausible (in fact I think it is more plausible, since there are zero viruses for OS X, and OS 9 had quite a few, and had comparable numbers of users).

It's hard to get software to install itself on OS X in a way that would compromise a machine without root access (a password) or physical access to the machine (that's why the only bad stuff so far has been a trojan that must be manually installed).

If you don't have an admin account, you can't even get that far.

Even if you could, if you tried to start it, the system would warn you that the app was starting and you could prevent it from running.

quote: Simple question: If the OS is capable of viruses, why are there none?

Because "capable" is a vague term. Human beings are probably capable of travelling to Mars just as they are capable of going to the shops, but no one has yet done the former because its so much more difficult than the latter.

If we followed your logic it would be the case that Windows is only a swiss cheese operating system because of its popularity rather than its bad design or the lack of incentives to fix it properly.

Of course it is probably down to all three, but no-one really knows. That's why people still argue pointlessly about it.

But it's just dumb to say that it "must" be one to the exclusion of the others, which is what you are claiming, with flimsy evidence, in the other case.

But in the end it doesn't matter. In practical terms OS X is still more secure than Windows - for whatever reason.