Login:
Password:
Lost Password?
Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

Symantec Reports on Mac OS X Virus

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

November 3, 2006, 1:33 PM

Security firm Symantec on Friday detailed a new proof-of-concept virus that has surfaced for Mac OS X. Although the malware is not in the wild and is rated a very low risk, researchers say it highlights the fact that no operating system is immune from viruses.

Dubbed OSX.Macarena, the virus infects files in the current folder on the compromised computer. Symantec has updated its definition files to remove the virus and repair the files, although it's unlikely even one Mac OS X system has been affected as of yet.

Apple has long touted the security of its operating system as a key advantage over Windows, which has seen a constant bombardment of viruses and other malware for years. Although such proof-of-concept viruses have appeared in the past, Macs have been spared from actual real world attacks.

But that doesn't mean users should let their guard down says Swa Frantzen from the SANS Internet Storm Center. "To be honest the virus is no big deal in itself. But it is yet another warning for a lot of parties involved," said Frantzen, who noted there is no "magic shield" for the Mac.

"As we said before the ability to have viruses and all sorts of other malware is inherently available in all modern operating systems, Mac, Linux, BSD, ... included," Frantzen added. "It is a warning to get antivirus protection for those Macs, even if the shopkeeper told you you do not need it, even if there are no viruses in the wild today."

Add a Comment (83 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By treworld

posted Nov 6, 2006 - 8:09 PM

It's about time! (Get ready to laugh...)

I DIDN'T THINK THAT SYMANTEC WOULD BE ADVANCE ENOUGH TO DETECT ITSELF...

Lol. =)

If you didn't get that joke, then you're way too serious about this. Go outside and smoke a tree then come back to re-read it.

Score: 0

By RejZoR

posted Nov 5, 2006 - 7:13 PM

It's all about share each OS has. As simple as that, proven many times by me and so far i was never wrong. There is no such thing as "it's that secure". Whats ~500 security engineers (and i doubt ANY software company has so many of them) from one company against few milions of hackers, crackers and programmers worldwide?
What people make, that people break. This rule worked so far and it doesn't look like it's gonna stop working anytime soon...

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Nov 6, 2006 - 12:48 PM

nope...

And folks simply stating this same vapid claim 10 or 100 or 1000 times will not change the OS design differences that render this statement false and make this old claim of "well its just 'cause nobody can be bothered to write such a trivial piece of malware" valid.

Nor is it a statement that OSX is invulnerable! It simply means that OSX is MUCH more resistant by virtue of its fundamental design to malware than is Windows.

Score: 0

By betanewsfileforum

edited Nov 6, 2006 - 5:14 AM

http://software.silicon....0003100,39163844,00.htm

where the virus writer admits it is much more difficult to write malware for Mac OS X and that even after that it does not work.

"It's all about share each OS has" is one of the most stupid things circulating in the brain of Windows users. For as long as you ignore facts, ignore OS design differences, ignore other OSes has put since decades lots of efforts to make their system less fragile you are simply giving Microsoft an excuse and a way out: "We are as secure as the others, we only are more under attack than others".

Inherently it is Windows users fault as well. They show Microsoft they understand little about OS security and they gobble whatever spin doctors says to justify Windows shortcomings.

It is your OS, it is your s***, for as long as you drink kool-aid from Redmond ("it's only the relative share") you'll have your load of s***.

With comments such as RejZoR one tends to believe that you Windows-only users are a lost cause and just a herd of $ cows for Microsoft. Wake up and open your eyes. At least TRY to be informed and read about security frameworks and design solutions in UNIX dedicated to security that are ALL non-existent on Windows.

"it's all about share... As simple as that". Sorry pal, it is not as simple as that. THAT is as simpleton as you can be.

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

posted Nov 6, 2006 - 9:22 AM

"where the virus writer admits it is much more difficult to write malware for Mac OS X and that even after that it does not work."

As you said it, it's more difficult, not impossible. There is no such thing as bullet proof software. It has been proven many many time. When the reward is high, there will someone to break it. When Mac get enough market shares, hackers will pay more attention to it. But that if it get there.

Score: 0

By melkor

posted Nov 4, 2006 - 9:48 AM

About time that cherry got popped. :P

Score: 0

By betanewsfileforum

edited Nov 4, 2006 - 5:50 PM

ROFLMAO

Frustration must be sky high if Windows fanboys cheer for nothing.

Let's see, a couple proof-of-concepts against over 100k malware variations. Indeed, something has popped big time. Since years.

Score: 0

By betanewsfileforum

posted Nov 3, 2006 - 6:57 PM

Anyway,

nice to chat with all of you. Happy hour is coming. So long fellas. Don't catch a cold.

Score: 0

By betanewsfileforum

edited Nov 3, 2006 - 5:54 PM

This just came in, as proof of "No one cares or notice about Macs" and FUDs. On SANS even:

http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?storyid=1817

A "remote" root in Mac OS X 10.3 & 10.4 with full source code available.

it is making the news and probably it will be bounced from site to site with people reporting "Sky is falling, Macs are just as vulnerable as Windows".

Too bad it is the same, single Bluetooth vulnerability that was covered months ago, was only a proof-of-concept (i.e., not an in-the-wild attack), and even when it was released had already been patched on all versions of Mac OS X 10.3.x and 10.4.x since June of *2005*. So any machine that had patched even once in the prior *year* wouldn't have been vulnerable. I don't know why this SANS post just popped up a couple of days ago calling it a "0day", unless we're getting really lax with what our definitions of a "0day" is...

So, yeah, no "FUD", I guess. Just a hugely incorrect post about rehashing really, really old news.

So sad. You Windows apologetics chaps are loyal AND blind to the point of retardation. If it wasn't so sad it would be funny.

The real problem is that Window insecurity affects everyone: lines down, services down, servers down. It is just a big liability to the whole internet community.

PS
Thanks for the line. Very appropriate for anyone trying to defend Windows security...

Score: 0

By betanewsfileforum

edited Nov 3, 2006 - 5:37 PM

Anyway, I agree with the article above when it says the ability in any modern operating system to have malware is present. The issue that is most important is how easy it is to spread that malware.

If for every infection you need to have physical access to the machine or the user has to be convinced to cooperate and create ad-hoc the environment so that malware could be installed what kind of infection rate would you get? To make any craker in the world puke.

If it does not spread with little to none intervention, if you cannot expect to infect a second machine just because a first one has been infected, what is the point of spending effort in trying to infect that very first machine?

If it does not spread, and exponentially spread, forget about even trying: it is not malware. It is a joke, and a bad one even.

Score: 0

By Nick33

edited Nov 3, 2006 - 4:38 PM

Hmmm ... I was never stupid enough to think that OS X was "immune from" malware. Heck, it would be possible to do enough damage without, say, a vulnerability that allows elevation of privileges: all someone would have to do is to induce the unwary to download something and run it.

But it does *not* follow that because I know full well that there are theoretical possibilities, and real dangers, I should run out like a headless chicken and buy an AV scanner for my Mac. It's irrelevant to me what this spokesman's mythical being "the [sic] shopkeeper" thinks. In fact, my guess is that many shops would be only too keen to sell me a product I don't need, that wastes my CPU cycles, and that could itself cause me problems, as long as they got the sale.

Joanna Rutskowsa, a world authority on the internals of both Windows and Linux, does not run an AV program even on Windows. Neither do many other experts in the field.

http://www.eweek.com/art...2/0,1895,2040760,00.asp

How much less does one need to do so on the Mac, which is not merely more secure by design but which has too small a market share to be of much interest to anyone wanting to write malware? The fact of the matter is, understanding and sensible caution are a better protection than an AV program. I do, in fact, run an AV program on my Windows box - I use NOD32, not trash from Symantec - but it's probably of less help than running as a limited user, switching services off you don't need, not running JavaScript willy-nilly, and all the rest of it. A program can't replace someone's intelligent understanding of what he's doing. And, in any case, AV programs (some reasonably good heuristic abilities in the better ones aside) are only as effective as their last set of definitions.

And this guy wants me to buy a program for a platform that has just about no malware in the wild for it! And its not even as if this would be a cost-free option in stability - or even security - terms. (Some AV products only recently - coincidentally, they were from (guess who) Symantec - actually introduced vulnerabilities into the systems they were running on, owing to bugs in the code.)

In short: no thank you, Frantzen. My wallet stays in my pocket.

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Nov 5, 2006 - 7:55 PM

"The fact of the matter is, understanding and sensible caution are a better protection than an AV program."

True enough: and that's why I don't run AV on my own box. I know how to avoid virus infections and prevent them ever being an issue. So far I'm 5 years running without a virus, despite daily Internet use.

Yet every other PC in the house has AV, because I'm not using those ones. ;)

If I had a Mac, I wouldn't be bothered with AV either - even if it wasn't just my PC exclusively. There's not a significant enough threat to warrant massively compromising my computer's performance. Particularly when no AV suite current can protect against all threats - proof in how many machines I debug every week. :P

Score: 0

By os11

posted Nov 3, 2006 - 4:24 PM

Another false warning with the sole purpose of selling Anti-Virus software. Technically, OSX users DO NOT need anti-virus software for the simple reason there is "technically" no way for a virus to spread within the construct of OSX. It's a UNIX OS, in no way related to Windows.

the sooner everyone learns this, the quicker everyone can learn to ignore these false reports of "just another clean room" example.

Apple does all security at the OS level, not the USER level, so if there is a problem, run OSX software update, but buying "anti-virus" software only remains a figment of the PC Windows era, never needed if you have a Mac.

OSX is based on Unix PEOPLE! PLEASE UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON HERE. The "USER" is totally separated from the OS!

Windows & Microsoft Products are the ENTIRE problem of Virues, and current day Security, they was poorly programmed, and are in NO relation to better made OSs and Applications such as exists with OSX.

If the world was FLIPPED and OSX had 90% share and Windows had 10%, 100% of the Virus, Security problem would STILL only be on Windows! OSX is THAT Secure. IT has ZERO Viruses for a REASON!

OSX does not suffer from these issues, it was designed and built to be ON a NETWORK, and has decades more real world use than Windows could ever hope to have. OSX is FAR more tested! Think about it!

If you never want security issues, get OSX, it's SECURE by Unix based - DESIGN, if you don't, waste money and TIME by running Windows.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Nov 3, 2006 - 10:49 PM

In all fairness, UNIX is NOT inherently more secure than Windows.

Rather it has been through a series of design considerations, most notably sandboxing, and more thorough quality best practices that have generally resulted in a more secure environment... As anyone familiar with HP-UX can testify with the rather nasty hole uncovered not too long ago in their environment!

The irony is that while Windows folk want to point out that UNIX has indeed had its share of security holes, the UNIX community has responded with much more mature techniques and best practices.

It is a theme where MS seems more intent on spending marketing dollars for white papers talking about a concepts rather than actually implimenting the concepts.

Score: 0

By dhjdhj

posted Nov 3, 2006 - 11:12 PM

Uhm....that's WHY it's inherently more secure than Windows!

-----
Rather it has been through a series of design considerations, most notably sandboxing, and more thorough quality best practices that have generally resulted in a more secure environment...

Score: 0

By dragonboy2006a

posted Nov 3, 2006 - 5:02 PM

os11:

"Technically" is one thing. But in the reality, there is term called "human error".

Eventhough, the security runs at the OS level, if you manage to break that hole maybe by poor written code, you will be able to escalate the privilege from user to become super user and hence, can do any things.

So whether it false warning or not, it will happen, just time.

As long as there is enhancement to the system, there will be prone to "mistakes". They are just human.

Score: 0

By betanewsfileforum

edited Nov 3, 2006 - 5:25 PM

-- , you will be able to escalate the privilege from user to become super user and hence, can do any things. --

root (or the super user), different from Unix, in OS X is not there. One has to explicitly create it. Privilege escalations on a vanilla OS X do not work in that there is no user 'root', nor it is needed for normal operations so that users would *feel* the need to create it.

How many Mac users know how to enable and create the super user? Those who know I bet have the ways to protect themselves just fine.

Score: 0

By sapridyne

edited Nov 4, 2006 - 7:40 AM

The root user is there, just disabled through the GUI. Booting in single-user (aka root) mode is still available, as is an admin user being able to sudo. Just a clarification.

Many system services need root access to be able to run, not to mention thousands of core system files are owned by root.

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Nov 3, 2006 - 4:41 PM

If the world was FLIPPED and OSX had 90% share and Windows had 10%, 100% of the Virus, Security problem would STILL only be on Windows! OSX is THAT Secure. IT has ZERO Viruses for a REASON!
If you really believe that, word for word, then you are the definition of blind, zealous, Mac fanatic.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Nov 3, 2006 - 10:36 PM

Wrong. Read below and discover the concept of a 'sandbox'. A technique that still stymies those who still play in them and chose to argue OS design on emotional grounds rather than OS design best practices.

And then, when you are bored with trashing the Mac, you might want to enlighten us as to why OpenBSD is considered the most secure OS on the market.
And then you might want to tally the relative similarities and differences between Windows, OSX and OpenBSD.

Score: 0

By Grazer

edited Nov 6, 2006 - 1:50 AM

Wrong.
So, you actually believe there would not be a single virus for OS X if it had 90% marketshare? Even though with 90% of the marketshare, Windows still doesn't have 100% of the viruses. You apparently agree that if it had 10% it would have 100%.

... the concept of a 'sandbox'...
Oh, you mean the concept that only the things in the sandbox can be hurt. "I'm sorry maam, all your personal files were deleted, including your all your photos, music, legal documents, term papers, etc ... but your computer still boots."

And then, when you are bored with trashing the Mac, you might want to enlighten us as to why OpenBSD is considered the most secure OS on the market.
And then you might want to tally the relative similarities and differences between Windows, OSX and OpenBSD.
Nah, I'll leave it to you so you can feel smart. And once again, where have you seen me "trash the Mac"?

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Nov 6, 2006 - 12:39 PM

"All your personal files were deleted"

When you find out what you think you are talking about, come back.
We were talking about UNIX security and the Mac implemntation if the OS...at least some of us were. What you are talkign about only you know, but unfirtunately it does not reflect the current design model for the systems mentioned.

But then you display a total lack of any understanding regarding OS level design - just your own personal emotional issues. I guess that is why you responded to the mention of a sandbox. No wonder you are upset.

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Nov 6, 2006 - 3:10 PM

I'm not the one getting upset or emotional in the least. Unlike you, I do not need to insinuate knowledge which I may or may not possess, am capable of conceding a point to others when they have one, and capable of admitting I am wrong when it has been shown to me that I am. I feel no need to resort to making false claims about my knowledge nor false claims of others posting histories to feel smarter or better about myself. I generally try not to make conscious underestimations of others knowledge or intellect unless they conduct themselves in ways contrary to their own claims.

My level of familiarity with OS design is not in question here, or at least was not until you tried to change the topic away from your own erroneous claim of "wrong". Do you still believe that if Windows has only 10% market share, somehow the non-Windows viruses will disappear?

Score: 0

By betanewsfileforum

posted Nov 4, 2006 - 3:37 AM

Adding to this, anyone to guess who is behind Unix development in OS X?

Jordan Hubbard.

Unix people know him, Mac OS X might but should, Windows users: google for him.

Score: 0

By os11

posted Nov 3, 2006 - 4:13 PM

another false warning with the sole purpose of selling Anti-Virus software. Technically, OSX users DO NOT need anti-virus software. there is "technically" no way for a virus to spread within the construct of OSX.

the sooner everyone learns that, the quicker everyone can learn to ignore these false reports, of just another "clean room" example.

Apple does all security at the OS level, not the USER level, so if there is a problem, run OSX software update, but buying "anti-virus" software only remains a figment of the PC Windows era, never needed if you have a Mac.

Score: 0

By domino360

posted Nov 6, 2006 - 11:39 PM

It's naive to assume immunity when no one has that guarantee.
Regardless of that, OSX is still safer than Windows.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Nov 3, 2006 - 10:34 PM

OSX does it on both levels via a technique known as 'sandboxing'.

And why MS has not simply ported SUDO over to Windows for user management as they have been doing via IBM supplied UNIX code since XP simply boggles the mind.

Score: 0

By slamm

edited Nov 3, 2006 - 3:55 PM

the problem is that NAV and other anti-virus programs for the mac have caused more problems for mac users than viruses or other worms. Until there is a serious virus in the wild i don't think that it makes sense for OSX users to make their systems more vulnerable and unstable by installing anti-virus software.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Nov 3, 2006 - 3:21 PM

The fact that it is not in the wild indicates that the MacOS, at least at the moment, still APPEARS to be the more secure one. Now, I still think the main reason for that is because it is less "popular" than Windows, but maybe it is more secure. How can we tell unless something like blaster comes out for it?

Score: 0

By betanewsfileforum

edited Nov 3, 2006 - 3:25 PM

Mac OS X is a combination of FreeBSD Unix and Mach-O. One should not even question the fact that any Unix IS more secure than Windows.
Really, It should be a nobrainer.

Popularity has little impact, vulnerability and how easy is to spread malware is all that counts. Apache web server are by far the most popular and by far the most secure.

Score: 0

By IceyKola

posted Nov 3, 2006 - 3:51 PM

I'm sure popularity has a big impact, but it's no secret that Windows (prior to Vista) had horrible security. Time will tell if Vista gets the same bombardment, and success rate (for the viruses). But the truth also is, the majority of these spyware infections is due to plain old human stupidity. MS has gone the step to prompt you when something is about to install itself so you can say no. And they have added hard drive and registry virtualization to prevent or lessen the damage of spyware infesting itself. They are on the right track. Windows Vista may be as secore, or more secure than MacOS. I don't know if Mac OS has things to protect the system drive from malware writing all over it. But then again, they don't really need it since no one bothers with it.

Score: 0

By betanewsfileforum

edited Nov 3, 2006 - 4:18 PM

You know that virus for Vista have surfaced already, and that with just 10k beta versions released to beta testers.

If it is vulnerable and it allows easy spreading it will be targeted because it is easy. Just because you can do it.

I think ludicrous anyone could honestly believe that Mac OS X do not have viruses because over 20 million users are a *small* target? There has been so-called security expert saying that they would stick a cigarette in the eyes of smug Mac users just to prove they can be infected and still people believe that it can be done but it does not happen because Macs out there are so few? Pleease.

Ridiculous.

Maybe you should read a bit on the security frameworks common to Unix OSes and read about the additional security steps Mac OS X has on top of those common to any Unix.

Score: 0

By rayz66

posted Nov 4, 2006 - 3:46 AM


I think ludicrous anyone could honestly believe that Mac OS X do not have viruses because over 20 million users are a *small* target?

20 million users is a *tiny* target compared to the number of Windows machines in use. And since malware writing is big business, you are naturally going to devote resources to where you get the most coverage.
The other problem is that to write a Mac virus, you need to buy a Mac; seems like a lot to fork out just to annoy a relatively small user base.

And speaking of numbers; here's another one.

270 million

That's the number of machines that MS checked for viruses and the like with its Malicious Software Removal Tool.
Results from the tool run showed that of those 270 million, approximately 5.7million had malicious software on them.
That's an infection rate of just over 2%.

There is a big difference between the number of viruses 'available' on Windows (must be close to 20,000) and the number of folk actually getting infected (round about 2%). Unsurprisingly, if a machine was found to be infected, the chances are it would have more than one virus on it.
That's users for you .... :-/

Score: 0

By betanewsfileforum

edited Nov 5, 2006 - 6:33 AM

You do know that the tool covers an extremely small db of possible malware, right?

Have you counted the number of virus and worms the tool was looking for? You do not need a calculator to keep the count.

Nothing to take from the effort. Microsoft has gone quite a way and XP SP2 is definitely safer than the vanilla one but the tunnel is VERY long. Moreover, that 2% is the residual infection, not the infection rate. An attack as BLASTER was rated at something like 60% at time of peak infection. Do you seriously think institutions like the US Coast Guards could have closed business with only 2% of their systems out of game?

If at each major attack to Windows only 2% of the machines would suffer some damage we would have Microsoft claim (and rightly so) to have won the war against malware. We are very far from that scenario. And Windows users (corporate as well) would yawn at the next news of a new malware for Windows in the wild. Pretty much like Unix/OS X users smile when news such as this from Symantec, or the recycled old soup news from SANS, make surface: "new proof-of-concept on OS X". Do'h.

There are white papers around about possible attacks on Unix and OS X describing proof-of-concepts. That is not an issue nor debatable. Open Source community is releasing security improvements since not less than 40 years, and at every new updated (being ssh, ssl, postifx, sendmail, etc) makes it ever more difficult to go from the proof-of-concept status to anything that has at least a non-zero chance to provoke anything different from a big laugh from the online community.

Even the Black Hat "announcement" of a way to crack a Mac backfired big time and the authors have been seriously questioned, and at times ridiculed, on publications worldwide.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Nov 3, 2006 - 6:22 PM

"You know that virus for Vista have surfaced already, and that with just 10k beta versions released to beta testers."

Yeah, right. If viruses were out specifically for Vista, Betanews would have been posting half a dozen articles about it by now. Nope, no Vista viruses yet.

Now, I'm 100% sure there will be Vista viruses, but not nearly as bad as XP.

"I think ludicrous anyone could honestly believe that Mac OS X do not have viruses because over 20 million users are a *small* target?"

Even more ridiculous is the abundant lack of understanfding you have about Microsoft.

1. Microsoft Windows was ORIGINALLY DESIGNED to be the easiest, most available way to run your computer.

2. Windows 2000/XP were designed to allow home users and businesses to browse the internet and to make internet usage as easy and painless as possible, while having adequate security. Of course, the security was nowhere near tight, so we had those virus problems. Blaster tells the story, and there will be a "blaster" wake up call for the Mac, only because the Mac people are just as arrogant as you are about it.

If hackers break into bank security systems, and these banks usually use Linux--duh?? *nix is designed for a secure intranet, and not for "easy" internet access, hence of course it seems more secure--but try surfing the web and you'll find things are much easier on a windows pc than they are on other OS's--hence the problem! Try to balance ease of use with security, there's Windows, while most *nix versions must be secure. If not, then the feature will be disabled. Thing is, in Windows, you cannot simply disable a feature without getting hell from the users.

Fact is, *nix and Windows are apples and oranges, but MAC and Windows are both oranges. Base MacOS on Unix all you want, Mac is not *nix! So quit saying I'm "ludicrous" for thinking MacOS != *nix, dude.

Score: 0

By dhjdhj

edited Nov 4, 2006 - 12:15 PM

Are you Rush Limbaugh in disguise or something?
Stop writing nonsense, please.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Nov 6, 2006 - 3:43 PM

"Are you Rush Limbaugh in disguise or something?
Stop writing nonsense, please."

That was the comment I found to be funney. I mention things so that you will at least know there is a fundamental difference in Microsoft's approach to the market versus everyone else--whether good or bad--and it makes it harder to secure than other OSes in general.

Microsoft wants everything to be easy, the problem is making everything easy while ensuring it is extremely difficult to exploit the "usability" as a weapon against it. Unix is designed to be a secure and powerful solution for IT guys, and ease of use is not the PRIMARY focus (though recently the focus has been changing).

Question: Is MacOs Unix?

Answer: No--try copying it and installing it on a network of PCs and see if Apple doesn't blow the whistle...if it was Unix, it would either be open-sourced or specifically branded as Unix. I have no doubt it is based off of Unix at its core, but it is less Unix today than it has ever been--heck, Windows XP is not Windows NT 4.0 even though Windows 2000 is "based" on NT 4.0 and Windows XP is "based" on Windows 2000.

"As we said before the ability to have viruses and all sorts of other malware is inherently available in all modern operating systems, Mac, Linux, BSD, ... included," Frantzen added. "It is a warning to get antivirus protection for those Macs, even if the shopkeeper told you you do not need it, even if there are no viruses in the wild today."

Notice it mentions Linux, Macs, and BSD as separate entities.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Nov 3, 2006 - 9:53 PM

OSX is not UNIX? Well, only if you stand on the trademark issue.
Where do you guys get this stuff?

This is one example where there is nothing to be served by debating the issue. Laughter is the only appropriate response.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Nov 6, 2006 - 3:50 PM

"OSX is not UNIX? Well, only if you stand on the trademark issue.
Where do you guys get this stuff?"

It's just me, not "you guys". Well, others may agree with me, but I am not writing under this screen name as any other person, just me.

To answer the first question, read the article, read my previous post, and for goodness sake just think about it objectively for a moment. If it was Unix, why is it not called "Apple's Unix OSX" or "Linux AppleHat" "Apple Unix"? No, it is based on unix at it's core, but OSX != Unix.

Score: 0

By betanewsfileforum

edited Nov 3, 2006 - 6:39 PM

-- Fact is, *nix and Windows are apples and oranges, but MAC and Windows are both oranges. Base MacOS on Unix all you want, Mac is not *nix! So quit saying I'm "ludicrous" for thinking MacOS != *nix, dude. --

LOL, Mac OS X is these very same days going through the Open Group certification for Unix Certified OS stamp. You know what the Open Group is, right?

You are so full of it it is really funny. Thanks for the laugh.

LOL, "Mac is not Unix". This is the best!

Weird, how comes I can just get any Unix program, fire up a shell on the Mac (a Unix shell) and do make && make install;
ah yes, I can use bash, csh, tcsh, and ksh even. Right on baby, not Unix. NOT UNIX. HAHHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAH.
Ah, and just do natively Unix programming on the Mac. Ah yes, definitely not Unix.

Ok, these comments from you really tell a lot. By a mile.

Thanks for wasting my time.

PS
Do yourself a favor, go to O'Reilly, you know what that is, right and buy yourself a book on Unix OS X. You have tons to learn dude.

PPS
So much not Unix that I may install on the Mac the entire Gnome or the entire KDE environment. Of course you know what they are, right?

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Nov 6, 2006 - 4:48 PM

If everyone posted that MacOS was Unix, it still would not be the case. I am saying this because there is absolutely no way of calling them equal, as they are fundamentally different. I have no doubt it will run hundreds if not thousands of Unix applications, just as Windows XP runs hundreds and thousands of Windows NT 4.0 applications. This isn't because I'm a stubborn hard-head that isn't willing to be proven wrong, it is because on this specific issue the evidence is clear.

If MacOS is Unix, then we are faced with a fundamental logic problem--if A=B, then B must = A, right? Well, since in this case B != A, then A must not be equal to B.

I'll even take this a step further: MacOs is not a flavor of unix, nor is unix a flavor of MacOS. Apple had no intention of making a new version of Unix, they wanted to make a new operating system based on a Unix architecture.

"LOL, Mac OS X is these very same days going through the Open Group certification for Unix Certified OS stamp. You know what the Open Group is, right?"

They will receive it too, I have little doubt, but since it is not a Unix Operating System, it shouldn't be.

I think that we can both agree Unix is not MacOs, but is MacOs a flavor of Unix? Well, MacOS is it's own operating system, and was heavily based on Unix code, but it was never supposed to be a new "flavor" of Unix. You would say yes, but I say no, so perhaps another analogy would help: In Windows XP's cmd.exe, I can use del, deltree, cd, dir--yet it is not MS-DOS, is it? Is it a FLAVOR of MS-DOS though? Hardley. Is it a FLAVOR of Windows NT? You could argue both ways on that as it is indirectly based off of NT 4.0's kernel.

Listen, at this point, arguing one way or the other would be futile--we look at the issue from such different angles that we would never agree on what we are seeing. For anybody to find me "ludicrous" for using logic to prove that A is not equal to B is what should strike viewers as ludicrous, if anything else. Never have I said MacOS is not based on Unix, but apparently you believe me to have said that...

Score: 0

By betanewsfileforum

edited Nov 3, 2006 - 6:46 PM

http://www.crime-research.org/news/05.08.2005/1407/

just do a google for "Vista virus". Controversial but still.

Score: 0

By betanewsfileforum

posted Nov 3, 2006 - 4:17 PM

BTW, the real matter is that anyone can write malware for Windows. Just google for "Windows virus kit" and you get literally thousands of applications that generate virus, worms, trojans for Windows. One just need to be able to understand instruction and in 30 minutes you could release malware for Windows without knowing a bit about it.

For Unix and Mac OS X you need a level of expertise that usually implies you have grown up far beyond idiocy and actually write in the Open Source community to provide patches to possible vulnerabilities.

Ever wondered why they talk about "script kiddies" in Windows? There are no script kiddies in Unix.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Nov 3, 2006 - 6:39 PM

"For Unix and Mac OS X you need a level of expertise that usually implies you have grown up far beyond idiocy and actually write in the Open Source community to provide patches to possible vulnerabilities."

Wow, I thought I just got off the political thread. Seriously, are you such a fanboy that you will call Microsoft users and hackers idiots? Listen to yourself. Since you have difficulty grasping the concept, let me reverse the situation and see how you react:

Since most Windows users have past the level of idiocy in regards to software, they use the software that is easy to break and easy to repair while the others use the software that is difficult to break but almost twice that much difficult to repair.

Does that upset you? Perhaps you should consider how you word things in the future, as you have just discredited your stance as one who believes what he does from experience rather than arrogance.

"Ever wondered why they talk about "script kiddies" in Windows? There are no script kiddies in Unix."

There will be, it is only a matter of time. They don't learn on *nix OS, they learn on Windows. If Unix/Linux ever makes a consumer-oriented OS (which they will never do, for the reasons I give here), it will have script kiddies.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Nov 3, 2006 - 10:52 PM

If only enthusiasm was sufficient to generate a virus.

Take a few minutes to learn about the architectural differences implimented in the OSes! And then wonder why MS has been so slow to impliment them.

Score: 0

By betanewsfileforum

posted Nov 3, 2006 - 6:54 PM

-- Wow, I thought I just got off the political thread. Seriously, are you such a fanboy that you will call Microsoft users and hackers idiots? --

Again you do not seem to get it and are trying to put words in my mouth: average age of crackers arrested? most are in high school still.

The access to virus writing capability for Windows requires a search in google and understand written instructions in english, not a formation in Windows.

-- Since most Windows users have past the level of idiocy in regards to software, they use the software that is easy to break and easy to repair while the others use the software that is difficult to break but almost twice that much difficult to repair. --

Upset? nope, it just shows you do not know what you are talking about. What would be difficult to repair? We have 40 Windows techies to pamper 4300 Windows PC. 2 Mac techies to pamper 2400 Macs.
Do the math on how much it costs to keep those Windows up and running wrt to the cost for the Macs.

-- There will be, it is only a matter of time. --
Matter of time? They had all the time of this world, Unix is much older and around than Windows. Or are you saying that kids will ditch Windows and start using a real OS?

-- If it... blah blah --
What a bunch of nonsense.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Nov 7, 2006 - 9:11 AM

Then remember this 'nonsense' when it happens. It will...

Score: 0

By GS5

posted Nov 3, 2006 - 2:56 PM

WOW!!! I'm shocked this never ever happens a virus discovered and reported by Symantec?!! LOL

"although it's unlikely even one Mac OS X system has been affected as of yet"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if there's a virus out there that already has a name doesn't that mean that at least on system was affected? Looks like Apple's MIB's are trying to cover up the fact that Mac OS is susceptible to viruses.

Score: 0

By betanewsfileforum

edited Nov 3, 2006 - 3:21 PM

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but if there's a virus out there that already has a name doesn't that mean that at least on system was affected?"

Are you kidding? It never meant that. Moreover, if a Mac was indeed been infected (not affected) it would make the big headlines of all the major and minor publications, online, softcover and hardcover.
No one will ever need to ask whether a Mac has been infected by the first virus: every single human being on earth will be bombarded by pundits "SEE? WE TOLD YOU. HERE THE ONE: A MAC HAS BEEN INFECTED. THEY ARE NO BETTER THAN WINDOWS" and other idiotic remarks.

Moreover, since when Apple has a word with what Symantec publishes or not. Symantec has been spreading FUDs about Mac OS X vulnerability like crazy in the last months. Need to sell AV to Mac users.

Score: 0

By xprizex

posted Nov 3, 2006 - 5:27 PM

“No one will ever need to ask whether a Mac has been infected by the first virus”

THE FIRST VIRUS???
Dude, are on crack? delusional? or just stupid? That's probably what GS5 means with the MIB's cover-ups. Is it really that hard to admit that any and every OS is susceptible to viruses and exploits?!! You Apple fanatics are loyal to the point of retardation. If it wasn't so sad it would be funny.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Nov 3, 2006 - 10:27 PM

You might want to learn about the concept know as a "sandbox".

And no, it is not the apparatus in the backyard in which many of you still play.

A process which is placed inside a set of virtual walls, a 'sandbox', that are designed to prevent someone who breaks into the process from being able to break into the wider system.

The process is said to be able to 'play' inside the walls. That is, nothing the process does in regards to executing code is supposed to be able to breech the walls so you do not have to do a detailed audit of its code to be able to say certain things about its security.

Unix typically implements two core sandboxes. One is at the process level, and one is at the userid level.

Every Unix process is completely firewalled off from every other Unix process. One process cannot modify the address space of another. This is unlike Windows where a process can easily overwrite the address space of any other, leading to a crash.

A Unix process is owned by a particular userid. If the userid is not the root user, it serves to firewall the process off from processes owned by other users. The userid is also used to firewall off on-disk data.

So even if OSX is technically infected, the virus is unable to breach the sandbox to affect other areas of the OS. And by utilizing reasonable quality best practices, this should continue.

Now contrast this philosophy with a company that pervasively impliments a whiz bang technology like ActiveX that fails to provide for any authentication whatsoever and sells it as an innovation.

Score: 0

By betanewsfileforum

posted Nov 3, 2006 - 5:33 PM

You do not seem to get the point.

Sorry to be nasty with this comment:
Everyone can get a cold, but only those affected by AIDS die because of it.

The point is not to say that Unix (or Mac OS X ) are invulnerable. Your statement is the same as to say "everyone could die if they fall from high enough". It is just that with Windows you are walking on a rope high there, on Unix your are walking on the sidewalk.

Both can fall... I prefer walking on the sidewalk.

Score: 0

By xprizex

posted Nov 3, 2006 - 5:52 PM

OK, let's say for argument sake that Windows users are walking on a high rope. And Mac OS X users are walking on the sidewalk. At least the Windows user knows they're on a high rope and could fall off. But the Mac OS X users feel invincible and they forget that they can get trampled by a speeding bus when they fall of the sidewalk.

Score: 0

By betanewsfileforum

edited Nov 3, 2006 - 6:13 PM

xprizex, I honestly do not think so. I know many Mac users and many Windows users.

The first are always applying patches and updates immediately, patching or applying an update on OS X is a breeze that does not make Mac users think twice.
They are knowledgeable of Windows in that often they use it at work. Because they know and use both systems they are aware of Windows issues even more than Windows-only users and thence developed safe habits that apply on the Mac side as well.

On the Windows side: patches? I know many who do not even have the update system running. Microsoft itself estimate less than 20% — if I recollect correctly — of Windows installations are updated regularly.
Many have been ruined once by a patch that corrupted their system and have lost data. They usually wait too long till it is too late and get infected. They usually are among the least knowledgeable about computer virus/worms/trojans and how they work. They usually think they are safe because they have an antivirus installed last year or a firewall they believe stops virus and have surfing habits or even email habits that make me shiver.

The problem with the exponential infection rate on Windows rely on the fact that they usually do not realize they are walking on a high rope and believe honestly that everyone walk on a sidewalk, them included. After all it is Windows, the most common OS on the planet, thence it MUST be also the best, right? All those nonsense about other OSes providing a more secure environment: just delusional users: we are all in the same boat.

And they are watching down below in the hope of that speeding bus arriving...

Score: 0

By rayz66

posted Nov 4, 2006 - 3:13 AM

So as we've known all along, the problem is not so much the OS, but the users who don't apply the patches.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Nov 4, 2006 - 8:44 PM

I disagree.
While users are a common (universal?) source of problems, the fundamental architecture renders the environment either relatively immune or at greater risk. And for all the emotion and angst that so many express as they seek to make their emotional case for their environment of choice, the OSX environment is fundamentally more secure by design, while Windows if fundamentally flawed from a security point of view.

To understand this, one need only look as far as the design philosphy behind ActiveX where any proces identifying itself as a 'friend' is automatically authorized in the attempt to enable inoperative application communication (as opposed to interprocess communication) while the procedure is completely and utterly flawed in that it has NO ability to authenticate the call - thus there is no way to see if that which identifies itself as a 'friend' is actually who they say they are!

I mean, how difficult is it to enable malware to say "sure, I'm a friend" when asked? And this flaw is consistent throughout the environment.

But in fairness, this is a result of MS trying to simply make applications interact in the mid 90's before MS 'discovered' networks (as you will recall BillGates dismissed the Internet until his forced about-face!) while UNIX was fundamentally a network-oriented environment where technologies such as IPSec were being incorporated as a matter of fact in the OS at the same time (1995) MS was focused on incorporating fatally flawed technologies like ActiveX that effectly prevented authentication in an almost pervausive manner throughout the OS.

One platform (Windows) was amazed that apps could talk to each other on standalone boxes, while the other platform (UNIX) was well aware that in an integrated open networked environment where anyone could essentially go anywhere, that safeguards needed to be implimented.

The difference is NOT simply a matter of patches or even users (as UNIX addresses this issue pretty well too via Sudo and inheritance policies). Rather it is a fundamental question of design assumptions and subsequent implimentation of that design.

Score: 0

By betanewsfileforum

edited Nov 4, 2006 - 3:53 AM

It is the OS, how easy to penetrate and how easy to do pervasive damage once in and the fact that you risk to hurt yourself badly if you fall from a high rope, less so when you fall from ground level.

It is a multiple factors scenario.

In two ER rooms I can have two patients, one with a broken spine, fractured skull and exposed tibia.

In the second room I have a patient with a fractured little finger.

Technically they both suffer from bone fractures. Technically all OSes can be broken into with enough knowledge and do damage.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Nov 4, 2006 - 8:46 PM

"Technically they both suffer from bone fractures. Technically all OSes can be broken into with enough knowledge and do damage."

I think the simplistic notion held by far too many that since all OSes can be compromised, that they are therefore all fundamentally flawed and therefore the same, completely misses the point.

This is akin to saying that a law poorly written that results in innocent people being put into jail without recourse is the same as a well written law that exhibits a reversed vowel typo in an isolated word that has no fundamental affect upon the surrounding meaning of the phrase in which it is located.

One can be fatal. The other requires whiteout. The real meaningful significance is in the practical real world results. And it is here that the difference could not be greater nor more fundamental.

The simple wiping of one's nose is not equivalent to terminal cancer, despite how cavalierly we can declare them all maladies.

Score: 0

By xprizex

posted Nov 3, 2006 - 7:22 PM

In my option 90% of the worlds computer users have an IQ of 1 when it comes to computers. I have never in my life lost valuable data due to a virus or even HD failure. From either Windows, Linux/Unix or my wife’s Mac. I always make sure that I have more than 2 regularly updated mirror images of my data. As for the rest of the world, the user is the biggest virus. Sure there are many viruses and exploits out there. But they only find there way on to the system via the user. So the people who usually complain about viruses aren’t brightest bulb in the chandelier. Not to say that it’s only the fault of the user but it is a huge part of it.

Score: 0

By betanewsfileforum

edited Nov 4, 2006 - 4:00 AM

Agree, that is why it is wrong for the 90% of users to be on Windows.
I use Windows, Linux and OS X myself. Never had a problem with any of those, but you and I do not make a statistics valid sample ;-)

Anyway, I am GLAD Windows is out there with all its shortcomings in security: it is by far the best AV for all other OSes. It will still be the best target even if its installed user base was to fall to 30%. It would still generate the highest absolute number of infections thence still the best target for malware writers.

-- . But they only find there way on to the system via the user.--
Not entirely true though, there are attacks on Windows that do not require any user intervention or presence of a user in order to do damage and/or spread. It is enough to be online.

Windows PCs zombies is a HUGE market, with thousands $ exchanged. The owners of those PCs have no idea they are not really the owners of their PC.

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Nov 3, 2006 - 8:17 PM

And to support that another way. I've worked on quite a few macs where the user alone, without the help of any viruses or malware, managed to gum up their system. Thats when it dawned on me that people could put files/icons on top of files/icons on top of files/icons...not that I have figured out a reason they would want to other than they do not know how to create a folder.

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

posted Nov 3, 2006 - 4:42 PM

Dude, chill. You are talking about the Mac, No one will notice if they are really infected. They have less than 4% of the market. In this 4%, how many really have the technical expertise know when they are infected?

Mac sell because it's able to run Windows. Before they start using Intel chip and with bootcamp, only hardcore Mac fans buy it.

Just my 2 cents. bash all you want.

Score: 0

By betanewsfileforum

edited Nov 3, 2006 - 5:17 PM

-- You are talking about the Mac, No one will notice if they are really infected. --

Funny, so called infection of Macs are among the most popular articles in the planet and when Apple just hints it has an announcement the whole IT world stops and wait. Not bad for something no one does notice.

-- Mac sell because it's able to run Windows. Before they start using Intel chip and with bootcamp, only hardcore Mac fans buy it. --

ehhmm let's see, Mac fans like NASA Langley Labs? CERN physicists? Virginia Tech? or the Mac fans at US ARMY with their XServe G5 cluster COLSA to compute aerodynamics on the next jetfighters?

All those Mac fans? Yep, I agree with you.

Score: 0

By rayz66

posted Nov 4, 2006 - 3:27 AM

-- Mac sell because it's able to run Windows. Before they start using Intel chip and with bootcamp, only hardcore Mac fans buy it. --

Pretty much, yep. Now it runs Windows, folk feel that it's safe to use them. After all, if Apple goes belly-up for whatever reason, they still have a machine that can run Windows. And MS is as pleased as punch; they get to flog another Windows license.

ehhmm let's see, Mac fans like NASA Langley Labs? CERN physicists? Virginia Tech? or the Mac fans at US ARMY with their XServe G5 cluster COLSA to compute aerodynamics on the next jetfighters?

All those Mac fans? Yep, I agree with you.


Dunno if they're necessarily fans of the Mac, or fans of the PPC, which they got at a knock down price when they bought Apple kit.

How many Xeon supercomputer clusters have Apple sold recently?

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Nov 4, 2006 - 8:51 PM

"Pretty much, yep. Now it runs Windows, folk feel that it's safe to use them."

You might want to rephrase that to now WINDOWS folks feel safe to buy them.

And as far as supercomputers? How many supercomputers are built from PCs - the chips actually mean little!

With the launch of the G5 Mac, Virginia Tech built the then 3rd most powerful supercomputer from standard issue Macs.

And that is in deference to the Beowolf clusters.

Oh, and the quad Xeon architecture will offer little to attract massively parallel implementation given the severly constrained contention issues facing Intel's bus architecture. (In fact, AMD has a jump on Intel with regards to this issue.)

And as far as chips, RISC (especially Power) still creams x86 in any tally of SC installations!

You might not want to be so cavalier in your incorrect claims next time.

Score: 0

By betanewsfileforum

edited Nov 4, 2006 - 4:11 AM

-- How many Xeon supercomputer clusters have Apple sold recently? --

you mean the server available to purchase since a couple of days? Now, I know Apple sells like hot cakes nowadays...

Are you sure you want to ask the same question in a year time?
Do you honestly think there are reasons not to?
I should point you to the technical features of the quad-Xeon Xserve and to the recent Anandtech article but I'll let you google for both.

-- knocked down price... Apple kit --
? What are you talking about? Just one example for all: Virginia Tech

Score: 0

By xprizex

posted Nov 3, 2006 - 5:59 PM

Bigfoot is just a myth so when there are sightings it's big news.
Same with Apple, they claim to have the most secure OS on the planet. So yeah, when there's problem with Mac OSX everyone wants to know what happened to the almighty Mac. Even if it doesn't affect the rest of the world

Score: 0

By betanewsfileforum

edited Nov 3, 2006 - 6:16 PM

Indeed, and as regularly it happens it is just another bigfoot claim. Nothing to see. I agree with you 100%.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Nov 4, 2006 - 2:09 PM

Getting malware or any other process to run in a sandbox is trivial. In that environment the difference between malware and a legitimate app is trivial.

Kill. Delete. Done.

What would be fascinating would be the development of malware that can successfully exploit a weakness in a well designed and implimented sandbox. I would be fascinated to learn about and to understand the internals, of such an exploit.

Score: 0

By johnathonm

posted Nov 3, 2006 - 4:30 PM

Ok jackasses,

Time for a history lesson:

1970-1980: XENIX
1980-1990: OS/2 / NT
1980-1990'S: Win NT
2000: Windows 2000
2002-2006: Windows XP
2003 -???: Windows 2003
2006 - ???: Vista

So all you pricks making Unix comments: Windows is at it's core Windows is based off of and a Unix derivative. It's all built ON the POSIX specifications.

Operating systems all share this common lineage and NT, which laid the foundation for 2000, which laid the foundation for XP, for 2003 and now Vista.

So "I LUB UNIX!!!!" and "I LUB MAX0S!!! and "FIREF0X RULS, IE DR00LS" never forget the vulnerabilities lie in A the user and B the distribution of the OS. There have been numerous studies that have demonstrated that Unix is as insecure, if not more insecure than Windows. Further, look at the size of the installation base, look at the range of applications that run on Windows vs Mac (OS X)vs your Unix of choice. Windows has a much larger critical mass than OSX or Unix. Further, many of the compromises are as a result of the user clicking X.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Nov 4, 2006 - 8:53 PM

You might be a bit more correct in saying that DOS was based upon UNIX, having taken their entire command structure from UNIX - albeit leaving 2/3 of the functionality behind.

And IEEE 1003 aka POSIX dates from around 1985-6. Critical mass? If you mean more small desktop computers run Windows fine. But then more home entertainment VCRs are VHS than studio Betamax/Cam units that dominated high end production studios. I am sure there is a point hidden here somewhere. But if you are trying to say that Windows is somehow a UNIX (or *NIX, as UNIX is a trademark and thus the term 'UNIX-like, as Pepsi is a CocaCola-like product) you need to do just a bit more homework.

And David Cutler author of DEC VMS and 'next generation VMS' subsequently called WNT (ironically named like HAL - after IBM refused to allow the use of their trademark in 2001SpaceOdyssey => (I-1, B-1, M-1 & V+1, M+1, S+1) toured rather extensively in the 90s discussing the architectural underpinnings of WNT, and the naming convention, and I'm sorry. But it was not based upon UNIX. But that is not to say that OS theory does not share many of the same underpinnings and abstract models.

Its fascinating how now the Windows fans are quick to try to attach their cart to UNIX.

And not to burst your bubble, but "The Portable Operating System for UNIX (POSIX) subsystem is not included with Windows XP or with Windows Server 2003... There is no support for POSIX or OS/2 programs in Microsoft Windows XP-based or in Microsoft Windows Server 2003-based operating systems."
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/308259

Do you guys just make this up as you go? Or is it just wishful thinking?

Score: 0

By Alvioli Spambark

edited Nov 3, 2006 - 5:04 PM

OK Johnathonm, time for courtesy lesson. If a lecturer came into his/her class and started a sentence with "OK jackasses..." how far do you think the class would be inclined to stay and listen?

And WE are the pricks? Why the over-defensive outrage? This isn't life or death.

The fact remains that Windows is not implemented in the same way as a traditional UNIX, in the sense that the OS and the user space are not separated by a sensible permissions system in Windows. Vista redresses this somewhat though, but still doesn't replicate this functionality entirely.

Where OS X does have a potential problem is with malign code forcing permissions escalation. This could in theory be cleverly worked into a buffer overflow exploit for example, and then a virus injected to affect the OS directly. Very tricky.

There, johnathonm, I managed to get a point across without insulting anyone. Now you try...

Score: 0

By betanewsfileforum

posted Nov 3, 2006 - 5:19 PM

-- This could in theory be cleverly worked into a buffer overflow exploit for example, --

Alvioli, you do know that the stack is not executable in OS X, right? A buffer overflow could spend millions years trying to inject code into the stack: it does not run.

Score: 0

By Alvioli Spambark

posted Nov 3, 2006 - 5:32 PM

No, I'll be honest, I didn't, but the more I learn about OS X the more I like it. I've learned something and no-one has been insulted! I'd sooner say something and be wrong - and then learn - than pretend I know. Progress.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Nov 4, 2006 - 1:33 PM

I will leave you to do a bit more research into the "inheritance" issue of child processes in OSX and UNIX.

This nice things about a sandboxed errant process is that the solution is limited to that specific process and the solution is as close as a simple kill and subsequent "delete" - without adversely effecting the underlying OS or the surrounding filesystem.

And mentioning 'kill'...

If only "kill" worked well in Windows! It seems that this is literally the most frequent command that fails as applications hang for whatever number of causes have resulted in a race/starved/confused/braindead Windows status resulting in the machine needing to be rebooted to 'reinitialize' the environment rather than being robust enough to reset/repair itself without catastrophic failure..

Score: 0

By betanewsfileforum

posted Nov 3, 2006 - 5:10 PM

-- There have been numerous studies that have demonstrated that Unix is as insecure, if not more insecure than Windows. --

LOL, maybe one or two and all paid by Microsoft.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Nov 3, 2006 - 10:17 PM

No, UNIX is not more fundamentally secure than Windows. But the fact that security has been a focus from the ground up in environments such as OpenBSD - arguably the MOST secure OS available, is a testimony to thorough quality processes that certain environments lack to an abysmal degree.

So why would anyone listen to MS discuss how to do security?

Score: 0

By betanewsfileforum

edited Nov 4, 2006 - 4:17 AM

fox, there are design choices and what you as well say "security has been a focus from the ground up" that makes for Unix to be fundamentally more secure that Windows.

Windows, at best, is a patched OS. Look at Vista: touted as the revolution from Redmond in OS. It is just a Windows XP SP3, SP4 at best, with eye-candy.
All that potentially could have brought hope to have a decent OS from Microsoft vanished with all the feature cut after feature cut.

The only OS that could be called as such from Microsoft is NT. When is again that the support is going to be discontinued?

Score: 0