Re: Damn I'm Good!


NashtOn wrote:
Dave Fritzinger wrote:
MuahMan wrote:

"Josh McKee" <jtmckee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:jtmckee-74C111.16573623052006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Recently we had a Maccie post about a Windows "Zero-Day Word Attack".
This individual attempted to use this zero day exploit as evidence that
Windows advocates are being dishonest when they claim that they do not
succumb to malware. This was implied in the subject of the posting. This
individual went on to make the statement:

"The problem is you can't guarantee YOUR FRIENDS won't open something or
send something to YOU that your AV app can't see..."

The key being "that your AV app can't see". The reason for his statement
was, at the time, that the AV companies did not yet have definition
which could detect this piece of malware. Thus leaving a Windows user
open to attack. He brought up a good point, one that I identified just a
few short days prior: That AV software cannot protect you against
malware which is yet unknown or is known but has not yet been added to
the vendors definition files.

Yesterdat the following article appears regarding this particular
exploit:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1966017,00.asp

"Unofficial Registry Script Blunts MS Word Zero-Day Attack"

Reading the article we see the following recommendation:

""[O]rganizations and individuals who follow best-practice and log on
interactively as non-administrators are currently not at risk."

Hmmm...what is that? A recommendation to use a non-privileged account.
And that by doing so one is not at risk? Hmmm...seems like a
recommendation that I have given in the past. Oh yes, here it is:

"And, here's the kicker, my recommendations provide more of
a proactive than reactive approach to security. New malware has to be
identified and added to the malware definitions used by most
anti-malware software. Unfortunately someone has to be an "early
adopter" of the new malware before the anti-malware software products
can be updated. Mine suggestions would stop it dead in its tracks
without the need for any updates." - Josh McKee, 5/20/2006

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/faf1a3416b945f14
?dmode=source

Note the key concepts:

1. proactive than reactive approach to security
2. Mine suggestions would stop it dead in its tracks without the need
for any updates.

So while the Maccies are making foolish statements to the effect of "
"The only way is to open NOTHING sent to you even from work, from
well-intentioned friends who use PC's." I am merrily using my Windows
system without fear of attachments sent by strangers, friends, family,
or anyone else.

Maccies...are you getting the message yet?

Josh

They got the message a long time ago. But it's their last straw to grasp and
they can't let it go. All Mac users also DO and HAVE TO own Windows
machines to do the hundreds of tasks they can't complete on their Macs.
They know it only takes modicum of common sense to not get a virus. It's
nearly impossible to get one nowadays.


Pratt, you are a liar, plane and simple (well, yes, you are pretty
simple as well). I have pointed out all the things I do on my Macs, and
the fact that I rarely touch a PC in doing them. Again, these include
analyzing DNA sequences (for the purposes of designing PCR primers,
ascertaining clones are correct, comparing different protein and DNA
sequences, etc), prepare papers and grant proposals in Word, analyze
data in Excel, prepare posters in Canvas, use photoshop for image
analysis, prepare presentations in Powerpoint and/or Keynote, keep
track of my finances in Quicken, do electronic banking in Safari, etc.
I use a PC for exactly none of these things. The place I work is a
mostly PC shop, so scanning and documenting gels is done on a PC, but
those items can obviously be done on a Mac as well. I will admit that
the raw sequence data comes from a PC (not done in my lab), and that
PCs drive most of the DNA sequencers in use today. This is mainly
because the largest DNA sequencer producer, ABI, changed from Macs to
PCs in the '90s when they were taken over by Perkin-Elmer, a PC shop.

Also note that I really don't use iTunes all that much, and have never
bought a song from the iTMS. I do use iTunes to load my iPod, and to
manage my music, all of which is ripped from my CDs or from my vinyl
records, using an iMic and a program called Final Vinyl.


Funny how not a *single* Mac user downloads music illegally, or simply
doesn't admit to it.
Given that the vast majority of music is obtained via illegal downloads,
I find it difficult to believe that the sample is representative of the
population. Could they be lying (shudder)?



Now, try to tell the truth for once in your sad, inconsequential
existence.

Yeah Muahman, be a little more like Fritz who spends most of his time
begging for money in the form of grants from anybody he can.
According to this elitist "scientist"/lab tech, if you're not sequencing
DNA or trying to determine phylogeny, or live in Honolulu, your
existence is inconsequential.

Nicky, I didn't realize how much you hate me. What you are too blinded
to understand is that useful work gets done with that money that
scientists "beg' for.

BTW, doesn't your Christian religion say something about the obvious
hate you hold in your heart? Doesn't it also say something about lying,
such as you do on a regular basis (for examples, see above). I guess
you are just a failure as a Christian, Nicky.

Now, crawl back into you hole.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Giz Explains: Why OS X Shrugs Off Viruses Better Than Windows
    ... malware than the Mac, the Mac must have magic pixie dust (which Mac fans ... cannot explain) to protect it. ... They present "Unix" as a sort of totem, which is supposed to drive off malware like evil spirits. ... We can see that the product itself is a much softer target than Windows these days; we can see that Apple is not putting much effort into the technical side of security. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: My G5 & Leopard
    ... vast majority of all malware a user is likely to encounter... ... up to and including the 2.0GHz quad core Mac Pro. ... less than the 2 GHz quad core Mac Pro. ... "With a quad-core system and Windows low priority I/O there's no ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Damn Im Good!
    ... Windows advocates are being dishonest when they claim that they do not ... which could detect this piece of malware. ... All Mac users also DO and HAVE TO own Windows ... analyzing DNA sequences (for the purposes of designing PCR primers, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Mac Pro Price Trounces Dell
    ... research the specifics on the malware that I specifically mentioned, ... MB of graphics files in the public directories, ... higher ROI for the Macintosh Mac users still choose the PC. ... But yet he went and bought a Windows system for ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Damn Im Good!
    ... Windows advocates are being dishonest when they claim that they do not ... which could detect this piece of malware. ... machines to do the hundreds of tasks they can't complete on their Macs. ... analyzing DNA sequences (for the purposes of designing PCR primers, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)