Re: New Patch Fixes 43 Flaws In OS X, Many Serious

Daniel Johnson wrote:

"GreyCloud" <mist@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:OeCdnU545MmD-vrZnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Daniel Johnson wrote:

This is, I think, a strong argument that Mac OS X *is not*
resistant to viruses or anything like that.

It isn't?? How could we tell?


Well, one way is to see what it's advocates have to
say about. OS X had technical measures to protect itself,
I would expect Mac advocates to tout them. But they
do not.


Because it is inherent to UNIX?
And simply because they don't see any problems?
Simplicity itself. You make simple concepts into hard ones.

[snip- psychoanalysing MS]


No, facts are facts. There are over 114,000 viruses against 0 for Macs.
Speaks for itself.

It must be something exogenous to the product itself;
it may be the Mac's very low marketshare, or perhaps
some charactaristics of the users who use Macs.

Or the fact that Unix is just quite a bit more difficult to intrude upon than Windows.


Is it? In what way?

Read Stephens book on UNIX programming and you'll find out why.
The answer is too long to post... that's why I suggest to you to read the most acclaimed book on UNIX. (Note: it covers OS X as well).



It seems the wintrolls just can't get enough intestinal foritude to admit to this simple fact that Windows isn't Unix and has problems with security.


Mac OS X is not a Unix.

Yes it is. It isn't UNIX®. Read the book.


It is Unix compatible, but that's mostly bad from a security
point of view: you get to have things like setuid-root programs
and so on.

Proof?


It is not like the implementation owes much to any Unix.

I would not lose much sleep over the design defects Mac OS X
has gotten for the sake of Unix-compatibility. I would be
concerned over the stuff Apple has done on their own.

Consider the dashboard debacle that occured at the launch of
Tiger (10.4). That revealed a astonishingly cavalier attitude towards
security. And to add to that, they didn't get the problem fixed
until 10.4.2! And *even now*, when the implementation is not so
buggy, it's still less secure than ActiveX.

[snip]



All that you have said is from ignorance of Unix.
Go read the book and then come back. You'll find out just how UNIX OS X is.



--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What do folks think of this article?
    ... deal of FUD (just as any article that obscure "security experts" use to ... was when Internet access using Windows became commonplace. ... The fact that there were only few Mac viruses (there were a few, ... That UNIX attracts hackers is simply untrue, ...
    (FreeBSD-Security)
  • Re: New Patch Fixes 43 Flaws In OS X, Many Serious
    ... I would expect Mac advocates to tout them. ... Or the fact that Unix is just quite a bit more difficult to intrude upon ... but that's mostly bad from a security ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: www.folkmap.co.uk
    ... >> concept of security by obscurity when referring to his use of a Mac. ... Classic Mac O/S is no longer supported by browsers plug-ins and systems ... geared to Win and Unix based Mac. ...
    (uk.music.folk)
  • Re: The Myth of the secure Mac
    ... >>>have admin'd Unix, PC, Mac and Mainframe networks for 20 years. ... >>>false sense of security. ... Apple intend it to. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Linux Distribution Recomendation
    ... A normal Linux or UNIX system is a system which provides the standard UNIX ... The security policy is imposed by the system, ... UNIX normally does not have any MAC, ...
    (Security-Basics)