Max's Profile

Member since November 3, 2006

  • Name

    Max

Favorite Files

Recent Posts

  1. Comment - Symantec Reports on Mac OS X Virus

    (Nov 6, 2006 - 5:20 AM)

    fox, I think we are trying to split hairs ;-)

    but I agree with your take. Code is code, there is no inherent security in some code that another. But certain design choices have security in mind while others do not. It is pretty much about design.

    An OS (like Mac OS X) that can work perfectly without having a single port open required in order to work is more secure than an OS that works with many ports open even for intra-process communication.

    Using "inherently" is in the sense of your post: making choices in design and frameworks with security in mind or not.

  2. Comment - Symantec Reports on Mac OS X Virus

    (Nov 6, 2006 - 5:12 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.

  3. Comment - Symantec Reports on Mac OS X Virus

    (Nov 5, 2006 - 6:15 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.

  4. Comment - Symantec Reports on Mac OS X Virus

    (Nov 4, 2006 - 5:48 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.

  5. Comment - Symantec Reports on Mac OS X Virus

    (Nov 4, 2006 - 4:16 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?