Re: The Myth of the secure Mac

Oxford wrote: 
TheLetterK <theletterk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


1) new apps introduced into the system, must be approved by the user.

Which means exactly jack.


it's something none of the other systems employ, it's another barrier protecting OSX. 
As long as you don't count *Windows*, OS X, FreeBSD, or any other *nix.

And no, you can do a 'drag install' to your home directory with no authorization whatsoever.



2) highly interwoven support network that will flag any rogue code.

In Oxtard land maybe, back here in the real world the Mac userbase is no more protected than the Windows userbase is. They are simply fortunate that malware writers don't give a damn about Macs.


you'd be surprised how well tied every mac is into this network,
Why would I be surprised? I use a Mac on a network of Macs. It's not expecially network aware.

just because you don't understand it, doesn't make my comment incorrect.
I understood you very well, and I am definitely glad that you do *not* have admin access on any of my systems. You are a complete incompitant. Stick to usenet trolling.



3) a culture that avoids code not created by a mac based company.

Which does nothing to prevent Mac companies from bundling spyware. See; Limewire.


limewire is hardly a bastion of clean living, nor is it a "mac company".
They are a long time releaser of Mac software--and quite a few Mac users make use of their product.



4) separate user space from root, or other users/accounts on the system.

That's normal *nix procedure, and easy enough for a malicious cracker to bypass with a bit of thought.


yes, but even with lots of thought, you can't break the configuration that apple has devised. it's a chinese puzzle "by design". no other *nix is configured this way.
Well, you are correct--OS X is easier to root than most *nixes. But that is hardly supporting your claim. Have you changed positions again?



5) 7 day default OS update cycle.

That's a week where the Macs in question are open game.


or click "check now" to get the update immediately, easy, easy.
If a user has the presense of mind to do so. 90% of Mac users out there do not.



6) Abundance of positive Karma within the Mac community (smirk)

Not a technical protection.


I just thought you proclaimed "social" was "technical",
Social *engineering*. I suppose I can't expect you to understand basic English can I?

so you are now lying? or did you make a mistake on your other post?, you can't have it both ways. 
Are you purposely obtuse, or are you just a natural idiot?



7) Most com ports are closed by default, cannot be breached remotely.

Incorrect. As you have stated, a malicious cracker would simply have to wait for Apple to release a security update, then go hit all the unpatched Macs while that 7 day counter ticks by.


??? closed com ports have nothing to do with your response.
As a 'security expert' like yourself must know, there is a difference between a closed port, and a 'protected' port (Whatever term you use to describe such a state, stealthed, firewalled, whatever). Closed simply means there is no active process listening on the other side.

Apple can release a security update within minutes of a proceeding one, something you continue to overlook.
And still only catch the attention of 90% of the users after 7 days. What an ineffective update system.



8) Default Browser warns if an Application is to be downloaded.

Again, this does nothing to protect anything. End users are morons.


well, it means a good 60% or so that use OSX aren't going to be able to install your malware without double checking.
Hardly--installing an app on OS X is so simple even a monkey can do it. Even an *end user* can install an application on OS X. You've said so yourself in the past, though probably not in those specific words.

and no, very few mac users are morons. 
If by 'very few' you mean '90%'.

You are again, inserting a windows mentality into your argument, sorry, wrong group. 
Why would I be inserting a *Windows* mentality?



and many, many more.

In your head.


yes, and mac security experts worldwide...
I'm more a 'mac security expert' than you are, oxtard--yet I am a firm supporter of the idea that OS X is an open box when you open the box.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: MATLAB for Intel based Macs
    ... I have the same problem as natalia on my mbp with security update. ... i am totally new to mac. ... if i boot from the installation dvd and archive old system install ... installes a new system folder with a new Mac OS 10.4 system. ...
    (comp.soft-sys.matlab)
  • [kde-linux] Mouse Issues after latest security updae
    ... I'm running Fedora9 and KDE 4.2 within Vmware on a mac. ... then today at some point I let it install a new security update ... Now I can't click on the F-menu any longer at all. ...
    (KDE)
  • Re: The Myth of the secure Mac
    ... protecting OSX. ... back here in the real world the Mac userbase is no ... that apple has devised. ... release a security update within minutes of a proceeding one, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Bootable disk for OldWorld NuBus PB 5300?
    ... I was helping someone move and noticed that they had a PowerBook ... This PowerBook is my first Mac EVER. ... install hfsutils for your particular distro. ... Debian boot floppy in that wouldn't work and had to remove the floppy ...
    (comp.os.linux.powerpc)
  • Installing Leopard in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,8 9, ....steps
    ... embarking on a major Mac OS X upgrade is essential. ... to do this is to boot from the OS X Install DVD and run Disk Utility ... Some applications, iSync included, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)