Re: Help With School Report: Are Macs Safer Than PCs From Viruses?
- From: Michelle Ronn <micron@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 20:03:55 -0800
On 2005-12-03 19:37:00 -0800, news <nospamatall@xxxxxx> said:
Michelle Ronn said the following on 03/12/2005 08:12 pm:
On 2005-12-03 09:10:40 -0800, "G. Isenhart" <gisenhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
In article <2005120306540116807%micron@invalidnet>, Michelle Ronn <micron@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The rootkit is something the sony disks install on windows machines, and has been show to introduce vulnerabilities on those machines. So far no such vulnerability has been discovered resulting from the corresponding kernel extension for OS X. Most sources (if you do a web search) say that this is because of the difference in security models of the systems concerned.
No such vulnerability has been shown with the Mac version because no one has taken the root kit apart on the Mac version to the degree that Mark Russonovich did for the PC version.
in other words, it's not a problem on the mac, but is on the pc, case closed.
This is a HUGE security issue with OS/X. It bypasses all security to get installed. What are you thinking?
It bypasses exactly the same security as Virtual Pc and Toast, and a host of other software from 'reputable' sources on a par with Sony. In exactly the same way. As far a I know, only Sony lies to the user in order to get a .kext installed. This is a Trusting Reputable Sources problem, or a Gullible User problem,
Completly agree with you this far.
not an OS X security problem. If a hole was opened up by the .kext, then it would become an OS X security problem. That's how things evolve in security.
Your point falls apart here. OS X security is an architecture. Just like any other OS security. The fact remains that a core component of this architecture relies on the user. Hence, the reason for the user log in. Just because it is not convenient for the user to be part of the security architecture, does not absolve the OS from having to verify the users mistakes.
This is an issue with the OS security architecture. It is a flaw in just about any user security architecture that I have seen. It is a weakness in the security of OS X.
I realize that Apple would get around this problem if they could, but the problem still remains.
<snip a lot, too much for human readers>
andy burned you with pure logic, deal with it. you need to answer is reply as to why OSX isn't affected and Linux is, but having a similar marketshare. that goes a long way to proving OSX is far more secure.
The market share of Linux says nothing about the security of OS/X. That is logic. Comparing two items with no relation, and not showing a relation is faulty logic.
I showed how Linux DOES say something about YOUR assertion. You are still evading this question. The two items, Linux and OS X DO have many relationships, in this context the relevant one is market share, or number of users, which is similar. You stated that a virus could not propagate on OS X because it would not be able to find hosts to infect, because of the 'low' number of OS X installations. This is logically refuted by showing that another OS with a similar installed base, Linux, DOES have viruses. This eliminates number of users as a reason for lack of viruses, and leaves you with the problem of accounting for your bad use of logic, and of finding some other way to prove whatever it is you're trying to prove.
I do not have numbers for the following points: 1) number if Linux clients on the net 2) number of Linux servers on the net 3) number of OS X clients on the net 4) number of OS X servers on the net 5) number of known viruses in the wild out there for Linux I DO have number of known viruses in the wild for OS X, which is 0.
I do not feel comfortable getting into an arguement where I need 6 pieces of data, and I only have 1.
I do also know that it is very easy to get Linux code to run on OS X. You left that out.
I do not know the relationship between the installed bases of the two systems.
I do read that the installed base of Linux web servers is quite large, but I do not have a number.
Therefore, unless you can deliver some quantifiable data here, your argument does not hold up.
But it's obviously too much for you so I probably won't bother any more, unless you become less repetitive and robotic.
So they stopped because of safari. Is that out of politeness towards apple, or because users were using safari instead of explorer (i.e. "stopped using explorer"), which was my point in the first place? I mean what you did there was like:
The same is true of Microsoft internet explorer. You have to have an admin password to install it and you have to know 'something' is being installed. Obviously no matter how secure an Os is it can't protect the user from himself. Discerning users stopped using Internet Explorer, hence it died out on the Mac platform. Users preferred a browser that enabled them to control waste of bandwidth rather than assist the bandwidth wasters.
Microsoft Internet Explorer on the Mac died for two reasons. 1) Apple started producing Safari. 2) as a result of #1, Microsoft stopped producing Internet Explorer.
somewhat correct on #1, but MS stopped producing all versions of standalone IE at the same time. so it's kinda hard to say if Safari had much to do with it.
Other than the fact that MS publically announced that they were stopping IE development specifically because of Safari. Sorta clears that one up.
"Why did you come inside?" "Because I was getting wet." "No you came in because it started raining."
The actual answer, to your reference above, is that they came in because it started raining. MSFT announced they were going to stop doing IE for the Mac before Safari shipped. You can see the dates on CNET from the MSFT announcement, and the later date where Safari 1.0 is shipping.
There may have been beta users of Safari, but it was not officially available at the time that MSFT made the announcement.
Andy
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Mac Mini Replacement
- Next by Date: Re: Mac Mini Replacement
- Previous by thread: Re: Help With School Report: Are Macs Safer Than PCs From Viruses?
- Next by thread: Re: Help With School Report: Are Macs Safer Than PCs From Viruses?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
