Warning for Internet Explorer users

[Gogar]

Hey, I just had fun setting the hook; I knew someone would go off.

That's definitely some interesting reading, for sure.

Feeling that you're "superior" because of something like a computer is silly. Next thing you're going to tell me that some people believe they're 'superior' because of . . . . I don't know . . . . the cars they drive or something.

[SlowToady]

edit: Are you aware that Windows NT has a POSIX subsystem? And that technically Windows NT could be certified as UNIX, were MS to submit it for testing? Oh I'm sure it wouldn't pass as-is, and would need some development, but nonetheless. And you're aware that Apple didn't even WRITE OS-X? It's based off the BSD kernel, which was developed at Berkley. Actually it's based off NeXTSTEP, which uses a modified Mach derived BSD kernel. Are you aware of the HUGE similarities between Windows NT and DEC/Compaq VMS/OpenVMS? Did you know that Dave Cutler, lead engineer for Dec, left DEC for Microsoft, with 20 engineers and developers in tow to work on NT, and that they are internally very similar? Or that NT was written to be processor/platform independent, and in fact, is? NT has run on more platforms than Mac OS -any-revision ever has.

NT is awesome. You want to ***** about virus, bad software, stuff crashing, crappy drivers, blame third party vendors because your beef lies there. Blame hacky, crappy developers who can't figure out how to write software that doesn't require Administrator access, doesn't have to write to NT system folders, and can't figure out how to open Registry keys in Read Only mode.

Sorry for the rant, but people spouting off about which OS is better, and how anything UNIX based is the way to go in all cases, annoy the hell out of me. Mostly because they almost NEVER know what they're talking about.

Disclaimer: I run Solaris 10 on my desktop, for general computing and software development. I run varies NT machines. And Plan9. No MS Fanboy-ism here.

Originally Posted by Justin S

I'll take anything UNIX based over windows ANY day. Don't get me wrong, Windows works very well when it is NOT plugged into a network.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by SlowToady

Congratulations on knowing nothing of what you speak.

edit: Are you aware that Windows NT has a POSIX subsystem? And that technically Windows NT could be certified as UNIX, were MS to submit it for testing? Oh I'm sure it wouldn't pass as-is, and would need some development, but nonetheless. And you're aware that Apple didn't even WRITE OS-X? It's based off the BSD kernel, which was developed at Berkley. Actually it's based off NeXTSTEP, which uses a modified Mach derived BSD kernel. Are you aware of the HUGE similarities between Windows NT and DEC/Compaq VMS/OpenVMS? Did you know that Dave Cutler, lead engineer for Dec, left DEC for Microsoft, with 20 engineers and developers in tow to work on NT, and that they are internally very similar? Or that NT was written to be processor/platform independent, and in fact, is? NT has run on more platforms than Mac OS -any-revision ever has.

NT is awesome. You want to ***** about virus, bad software, stuff crashing, crappy drivers, blame third party vendors because your beef lies there. Blame hacky, crappy developers who can't figure out how to write software that doesn't require Administrator access, doesn't have to write to NT system folders, and can't figure out how to open Registry keys in Read Only mode.

Sorry for the rant, but people spouting off about which OS is better, and how anything UNIX based is the way to go in all cases, annoy the hell out of me. Mostly because they almost NEVER know what they're talking about.

Disclaimer: I run Solaris 10 on my desktop, for general computing and software development. I run varies NT machines. And Plan9. No MS Fanboy-ism here.

Geeze; and to think some of us Mac folk get heck for an "attitude".

[kstar]

Originally Posted by Gogar

Hey, I just had fun setting the hook; I knew someone would go off.

That's definitely some interesting reading, for sure.

Feeling that you're "superior" because of something like a computer is silly. Next thing you're going to tell me that some people believe they're 'superior' because of . . . . I don't know . . . . the cars they drive or something.

Yeah, nice work with the Apple logo.

I think the balls sailed clear off the monkey.

[Justin S]

Originally Posted by SlowToady

Congratulations on knowing nothing of what you speak.

edit: Are you aware that Windows NT has a POSIX subsystem? And that technically Windows NT could be certified as UNIX, were MS to submit it for testing? Oh I'm sure it wouldn't pass as-is, and would need some development, but nonetheless. And you're aware that Apple didn't even WRITE OS-X? It's based off the BSD kernel, which was developed at Berkley. Actually it's based off NeXTSTEP, which uses a modified Mach derived BSD kernel. Are you aware of the HUGE similarities between Windows NT and DEC/Compaq VMS/OpenVMS? Did you know that Dave Cutler, lead engineer for Dec, left DEC for Microsoft, with 20 engineers and developers in tow to work on NT, and that they are internally very similar? Or that NT was written to be processor/platform independent, and in fact, is? NT has run on more platforms than Mac OS -any-revision ever has.

NT is awesome. You want to ***** about virus, bad software, stuff crashing, crappy drivers, blame third party vendors because your beef lies there. Blame hacky, crappy developers who can't figure out how to write software that doesn't require Administrator access, doesn't have to write to NT system folders, and can't figure out how to open Registry keys in Read Only mode.

Sorry for the rant, but people spouting off about which OS is better, and how anything UNIX based is the way to go in all cases, annoy the hell out of me. Mostly because they almost NEVER know what they're talking about.

Disclaimer: I run Solaris 10 on my desktop, for general computing and software development. I run varies NT machines. And Plan9. No MS Fanboy-ism here.

It is based off of NeXTSTEP, which was designed by NeXT. If I recall correctly, NeXT was owned by Steve Jobs, one of the co-founders of Apple. The company had a lot of Ex-Apple engineers, and then went back to Apple once they were bought out. So, technically Apple did write SOME of OS X.

I wasn't trying to say which OS was better, I just wanted to point out how difficult it is to install something malicious on os x.

[SlowToady]

As I mentioned in my post. Steve left Apple, started NeXT, which built NeXTSTEP off of a modified Mach 3.0 microkernel. Apple acquired rights to NeXT when the company folded.

Ok, so Apple wrote a (relatively small) portion of OS-X. I already admitted that. Pretty much "theirs" only by rights, not by development. But anyway...

Microsoft did the whole UNIX, thing, too. Way before OS-X. Way before Windows, even. Microsoft XENIX.

Further UNIX doesn't really mean anything anymore. There was a time when UNIX was actually the NAME of an Operating System. Now it's a certification that is given to Operating Systems whose companies pay lots of money to have tested to conform to UNIX standards by the company that owns the UNIX trademark. It's meaningless. An Operating System doesn't even have to be based off some original ATT UNIX code to be UNIX. As I mentioned, NT could be certified UNIX, that POSIX subsystem and what not.

And, given that UNIX doesn't actually mean anything anymore, what's so great about UNIX? It's an antiquated, outdated model of computing, it's from the 60s! (Yes, I'm aware NT goes back about as far.) Nothing UNIX does is new, or revolutionary, as much as the OS-X and GNU/Linux fanboys wants it to be so. Plan9, by Bell Labs, now that is a modern, well thought-out OS design. Avoids a lot of mistakes UNIX made, and continues to make.

But, alas, my only point here is that OS-X is not necessarily better than NT, and is certainly no better just because it's UNIX branded. You want to blame NT problems on someone, like I said, ***** at 3rd party developers, not MS.

Off my soapbox now

[SlowToady]

I can't have an attitude, I'm campless:-D

Originally Posted by kstar

Geeze; and to think some of us Mac folk get heck for an "attitude".

[kstar]

I think the following is a realistic, reasonable and non-confrontational representation of OS X vs. Windows re viruses, with my emphasis in bold:

Mac OS X, mythically immune to common computer plagues, has actually always welcomed antivirus software. Or, uh, maybe not. Confused? No worries—here's how OS X and Windows differ on resisting viruses and other nasties.

It's not a matter of opinion: OS X is less susceptible to catching a cold than Windows. So is Linux, for that matter. There are two major reasons (and Steve Jobs' pee actually isn't one of them). First, Windows is on 89.6 percent of the world's computers, while OS X is on just 8.9 percent of them. Second, the Unix architecture that OS X and Linux are based on is inherently more secure than Windows, particularly pre-Vista versions. (If these reasons are familiar to you, you may not know the subtler side-effects of each reason that strengthen the case even more, so read on.)

There are a few different ways that Microsoft's mammoth market share actually hurts Windows and helps OS X. For one, writing nastiness that the vast majority of the world's computers are susceptible to is a more efficient use of resources than writing the same evil for a sliver of the population. In biology, a more homogeneous population is more susceptible to a genocidal plague. Same principle applies to the vast, Windows-powered ecosystem. I don't mean someone could write a virus that wipes everybody out. Just that if everybody's running Windows, the population is a much easier target.

The flipside of this—which you might not have considered—is that most malware writers obviously use Windows. They're going to whip up code for the OS they're familiar with and know best. And more to that point, most of the tools and scripts used to wreak havoc on computers are written for Windows. The same ecosystem that provides the biggest, most susceptible audience also provides the most fertile breeding ground for the nasty executables.

But suppose this was some bizarro world where OS X was king. Would Microsoft run ads about how virus-plagued OS X was? Well, it would still be more prudent to run anti-virus software, since there'd be a lot more crap thrown at the Mac OS, but if malware acted mostly like it does today, it likely wouldn't have the same impact as it did on Windows pre-Vista.

A lot of that is because of the way permissions work in OS X vs. Windows. Basically, Unix-based systems are architected so that they require administrator privileges to modify the OS and are traditionally more strict in enforcing them. Critical areas are walled off from normal users—you see this when OS X asks for a password to install updates or change a system setting. A standard non-admin user account is restricted; bad software can't wreak much havoc at all without that password.

This is precisely what Vista's somewhat-maligned User Account Control attempts to replicate, limiting points of intrusion and requiring explicit user permission to get anywhere deep. On Windows, historically, the enforcement of these restrictions has been lax in the name of convenience.

This is not to say that OS X is invulnerable, by any means. The main applications folder is relatively unprotected, and any running app can write to it and most of what's inside. Coupled with OS X's app-bundling architecture, this makes it easier to replace program executables or sneak in a piggybacking one. Even then, however, the malware would need to elicit elevated permissions to do any hardcore damage to the core OS; it could, unfortunately, nuke your relatively unprotected Home folder though. Another point of vulnerability, or at least a pain point, according to Mac Forensics Lab, is OS X's centralized address book, which also has weak defenses. If the Home folder book did require the same level of permissions, it would be kinda unusable, because you'd have to elevate permissions to make any and every change.

This brings us to OS X's biggest security hole, the one that it actually shares with every operating system: you. It doesn't matter how good baked-in security is if a user throws out the welcome mat for whatever crap comes their way. On the flip side, you're also the first, and best, line of protection. Don't do anything stupid, and you'll be fine, anti-virus software or not—whatever OS you're running.

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/12/giz_explains_why_os_x_shrugs_off_viruses_off_bette r_than_windows-2.html

Security through (relative) obscurity and BSD underpinnings do offer an advantage against pre-Vista Windows, regardless of whomever from wherever contributed to writing the OS and whether or not they kissed Steve's ring.

While there may be an OSX "virus" (infects w/o user interaction) in the wild, I am not aware of it, although I am aware there are/have been trojans (infects with the help of user interaction).

FWIW and not meant to inflame! I know people that I consider very close friends and have even had relations with women who use MSFT OSs, and we get/got along just fine!



FWIW.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by SlowToady

I can't have an attitude, I'm campless:-D

I was just giving you a hard time.

[stealthn]

Man did you guys go off on a tangent, now get out of your mothers basement and go look at girls

Anyway several of my customers got hit with the exploit and we pushed Microsoft hard for a fix (as did several other countries). The real culprit is the end user as this was a user initiated exploit on the browser (you would have to go to a compromised site and it would exploit your browser)


The fun began when the blackhats/script kiddies found out how easy it was to exploit, then we were seeing 4 year old malware start surfacing. It was pretty funny (not)

Anyway patches have been tested and we found no issue with any browser based applications our clients run. MS has it in Windows update now so I would suggest updating your PC ASAP.

Happy Holidays Steve and Bill....