Re: Is Windows 98 SE More Secure Than OS X?


"GreyCloud" <mist@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:XPWdnUp_iem-ahDZnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
John Slade wrote:

"GreyCloud" <mist@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Lsmdnd65jamKbRHZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

John Slade wrote:


Once again, the holes did exist and could be exploited by bad hackers.

But do you know this? I doubt it very much.


Yea I know it. It's called proof of concept. The holes exist so they
issue a patch. If it was impossible to exploit then there would be no
patch.


Proof of concept and an actual exploit are two different animals.


No they aren't. I think you should know that the people who are
exploiting these things are working for Apple. Apple then patches what is
exploited. It's the same thing AV software makers do.

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/P/proof_of_concept_virus.html

A proof of concept virus is written by an individual with advanced
programming skills, usually to 'show off' their programming talents or to
point out a vulnerability in a specific software. Usually authors of
proof-of-concept viruses will send these programs to an anti-virus
software developer, and the programmer would be more apt to produce a
blueprint on how the virus would work, rather than launching the virus
maliciously.

That's what I said. Now what if he released it maliciously?


http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Security+exploit

An exploit is a common term in the computer security community to refer to
a piece of software that takes advantage of a bug, glitch or
vulnerability, leading to privilege escalation or denial of service on a
computer system.


That's a valid definition. I'm just trying to make you understand the
context I'm using it in. I know what an exploit is and the term has multiple
meanings. However when an exploit is attacked, it's been exploited.



If one finds a hole and provides proof of concept, then it can be fixed.


How can you prove the concept of OS X being hakced? You hack it in a
lab. Now the reason it's not hacked in the wild is, drumroll, nobody
hardly uses Macs in the wild.


Typical wintroll logic.
Read the above links.


Typical kook logic. You just posted a link that says proof of concept
is someone writing a viurs in a lab that attacks a particular OS. Damn, are
you crazy?


Name the patch numbers and what was it precisely that Apple patched?



I'll do you one better I'll actually show you the particular
security holes that are marked "Extreme Criticality" by Secunia.

< snip for brevity >

And all fixed. But no exploits in the wild.
Whys that?


BING BING BING There goes my COQA detector again. Now the challenge
was that I would provide the patch numbers so the question of it baing
patched was not in question. So when I provide the evidence that you ask
for, you then cop out and say "Duh it wasn't hacked" I wonder why since
it was there long before the patch.


No, that's your cluelessness alarm going off. You are clueless.

Can't rebut the argument because he knows I'm right.



Damn! I look at this patch and quite a few of these say "execute
arbitrary code". That could mean anthing including malware like
keyloggers, viruses and spyware. Man that's a lot of vulnerablities.
When I update my Windows system, it usually fixes a few things and
maybe a critical on here and there. *** this OS X with all those
"highly critical" vulnerablities in just one patch seems to speak of a
very unsecure OS according to Mac people who parrot every exploit found
in Windows even if it was NEVER exploited. This is Apple's OS X
Security Update number 2006-003.


Yet no one has ever experienced it. It is much harder to do than you
think.


BING BING BING Another COQA detected. You nefer said I had to prove
that it was exploited. You just said they had to exist and I proved you
wrong. Now that we know that there are MULTIPLE critical security holes
in OS X yet to be patched, why has nobody exploited them? It's because
nobody hardly uses Macs in the world. When is this going to sink in?


You are clueless.

Can't rebut the argument because he knows I'm right.



Now that was just two of the patches. I won't go into the others.
Now I expect the whiners to start trying to qualify these now that I
answered your question. They're going to say stuff like "duh nobody
used that exploit to attack." That's becaue, drumroll please, nobody
hardly uses OS X and hackers attack OSes that are POPULAR.



Guffaw!!! But still the fact that the Unix part of OS X does keep check
on processes and just seems to stop them. It used to be that there were
fundamental errors documented given to programmers things that you don't
do when writing code... security holes. The apps can be fixed to prevent
that. But it seems to take M$ forever to fix theirs and the problems
just keep hitting users.



BING BING BING Another COQA. Now he's finally admitting to the
multiple holes in OS X but it's ok because... Well MS takes a long time
to patch theirs. Ok so I guess you're saying that Apple fixes holes
quickly. Now how long did it take them to patch that hole in Safari?
Since you made the claim, you obviously know how long it takes MS and
Apple individually. I'd love to hear you back this up. Are you up to the
challenge or will you run from this?



You are clueless.

Can't rebut the argument because he knows I'm right. He didn't even
back up what he says. He claims MS takes a longer time that Apple yet he
doesn't say how long it takes.


Why do you think nobody even tried? I mean damn are you that fucking
stupid?

No, but you seem to be quite stupid.


I'm smart enough to know why nobody has attacke the multiple
security holes in OS X. Now let's do something. Let's count ahead from
the last time Apple issued patches for severe or highly critical
vulnerablities in OS X. When they issue another one for highly or
severely critical vulnerabilites, count the days that those holes were
there without being patched for someone to try and exploit them. Then
ask yourself why nobody did.


Because they don't understand the underpinnings of OS X... Unix.


Horse***. Many Unix programmers out there. Unix is all over the
place. It's uses to run many an ISP.


And a UNIX programmer will call your bluff as well.

Guffaw!!


Ok where is he/she? In fact I'll repost this claim by me along with
your claim that UNIX programmers don't understand UNIX. I dare you to post
this in a UNIX advocacy group. If you don't I will and will post the results
here. This should be funny.


This is where most people fail to realize that the kernel won't just give
an unknown process rights to do what it wants. For instance, in a user
account, the process can just do and do a 'cd /' and then do a rm *.
Just won't happen as the process won't have that right to do so.


But in OS X. Safari can run programs automatically and so can other
programs that make up OS X. In fact the one virus that got on some Macs
got on the Macs by just visiting a web site and clicking on a picture. I
know you're going to say it never happened so I'll post the story of the
Mac virus/worm hybrid once again to show you that it has been EXPLOITED
in the wild.


Already been fixed, so quit beating a dead horse.

No it isn't fixed on computers that aren't upgraded. And it can be
turned on and off. The only fix is the default setting.


http://blogs.msdn.com/nadyne/archive/2006/02/15/533022.aspx

Yea that Mac advocate who wrote this has the balls and humilty to
admit there is a Mac virus, trojan or worm in the wild. BTW Have you
heard about the second OS X virus? Here fool read this.

http://www.scmagazine.com/us/news/article/541952/second-mac-virus-wild

Now That's two viruses or trojans or worms in a year. So I guess you
now have to eat crow. Will you admit you were wrong? They were both in
the wild too.


Then why hasn't anybody complained about them yet?
Because it has been already fixed.

People who were infected complained. In fact the story was broken by
them complaining about the first virus. I thought you said that there were
no viruses? LOL





The biggest threat to any of these systems is PHP. That one needs to be
fixed and I wouldn't recommend using it until they do fix it.


And


most of these are found in the Apps.


Excuse number 1.


But the apps did have holes in them.


Yep, just like IE is an app and Outlook Express is an app. Apple
uses the same types of helper apps for OS X. I've shown vulnerablities
in Safari.

So? There is FireFox, Netscape and others to use that don't have this
problem.


We know that. However I just proved you wrong and won the argument.
Do you stop harping on Windows viruses and exploits because we also have
Firefox, Opera, Netscape and others? No you keep harping on Windows even
though the vast majority of exploits happen because of IE and OE. You're
a hypocrite.

Guffaw!! You didn't prove anything. You've jumped the gun and claim to
have won... yet you still do not understand Unix and the kernels control
over processes.
Windows is not written like Unix, so it has no rivals for being so poorly
designed.

Look, we know that OS X will allow code to be automatically run. Even a
"patched" OS X will allow this setting in Safari's launcher program. This is
the same reason why IE is easy to exploit because of a program it uses to
run code. You are totally clueless.





However something tells me that you will continue to say these are
Windows problems and not problems with the apps alone. However you will
try to split hairs with the same kinds of apps in OS X.

They are windows problems in the sense that IE is part of the o/s and
cannot be removed without breaking the o/s. That's why people were urges
by SECUNIA to use FireFox.


Why are you stating the obvious? I guess since your argument was
crushed, you don't have anything else to say.


Guffaw!! Again, you are clueless.

You sure do laugh to yourself a lot.




But where are all this malware you keep talking about for OS X?


I've told you so many times that I think you're so brainwashed,
your brain won't allow you to see the posts that contain the
information. I've cited malware time and time again.


What malware? You mean something that got fixed a couple of years
ago??


Nope this year.

Already fixed.


Not if the user didn't upgrade. So I guess you won't cite any Windows
vulnerablity that has been patched even though there are users who
haven't applied those patches right? You're going to check every exploit
for Windows before you cite it since you're asking me to do the same
thing. We all know Greycloud here loves to abide by the rules he wants
others to follow. <Guffaw! Smirk! Hahah! ROTFLMAO!>

But all the users did upgrade. Do you have evidence that some users
didn't upgrade?

Yes, the dummies who got infected! You can't be serious. You think
every business keeps their machines updated? The handfull of businesses that
use OS X might use specialized software that might not work with a patch or
update. So they either don't upgrade or take a long time test their
specialized apps on a test bed.




Guffaw!!! Quit making up FUD.



Am I?


Yes, you are trying to distract people when the M$ house is on fire and
say look at the bit of smoke over in OS X.


Specifically, what did I make up?


All of your spinning to show how insecure OS X is, yet no one is having
problems.

Oh nobody is having problems? Dude, I just told you about two viruses
in the wild. "In the wild" means that some user has been unwillingly
infected.



I've yet to have any problems with OS X.


Once again, just because you don't have problems doesn't mean they
exist.


I'm not saying that a problem may be there,


As well you shouldn't but you did challenge me to find the patches
for these problems and numbers. Obviously you thought it would be hard
to find them.


And the fact that the patches exist is telling, isn't it.


Yes because it shows that more patches will come out for UNPATCHED
security holes in OS X. That proves my point more than it proves yours.
You had to add the qualifications as I met your challenges for
information. The loser of the argument does that.

Guffaw!!! I only asked for your proof to find the patches. What you
overlooked is that the patches covered the problems. So that is why no
one is having any problems.

Nobody having problems? You know that's BS right?

http://macscan.securemac.com/list.php

LOL. You guys are crazy...





but no one has exploited anything yet. Which makes it rather obvious
that so far nothing has happened.



BING! BING! BING! That's my COQA detector at work. COQA=Cop Out
Qualification Addition. You see what this person just did. He
challenged me to find holes, he realized I might find some so now he's
saying they don't count because nobody exploited them. However that was
not in his original claim. He's trying to weasle out.

Guffaw!!! DING! DING! DING! No malware, no viruses, no worms, no
trojans on OS X.


Lie, lie, lie. Do I have to post it again in the same message.
Everyone knows that there is malware in the wild for OS X except the Mac
Kooks like you. Here I'll post it again since you seem to forget.


Guffaw!!! Wintroll.alt.kooks is over there ----------------->>>

http://macscan.securemac.com/list.php


http://www.scmagazine.com/us/news/article/541952/second-mac-virus-wild

http://blogs.msdn.com/nadyne/archive/2006/02/15/533022.aspx

That's two.




Now will this person apply the same rules to Windows? Is he going
to show that every single vulnerablity, patched and unpatched, has been
exploited in Windows? I don't think so. You see he's saying that just
because a vulnerablity in Windows exists, that means it's not secure.

It means it exists, but no exploit yet.


Liar.


Read the links.

http://macscan.securemac.com/list.php



However though the same type of vulnerablities in OS X exist, he's
saying OS X is "more secure than Windows. Now we see what a big tub of
bull*** this is. Fact is the ONLY thing that's keeping all those holes
in OS X from being exploited is obscurity.

So you think. Yet the fact that M$ takes too long to make the fixes is
when the word eventually gets out and the hackers start to hacking.
If M$ were able to respond a great deal faster, their problems would go
away, Nortons etal would disappear. But I doubt it now, as M$ sees an
advantage of making more money. Like taking lemons and making lemonade
eh??



Ok here we go with the lenght of time argument. Now how long does it
take Apple to fix a vulnerablity and how long does it take Microsoft?


A lot quicker obviously because no one is having problems.

http://macscan.securemac.com/list.php




You do know the difference between a vulnerability and an exploit?


Exploits are vulnerablities. When someone successfully attacks then
the vulnerablities are exploited. But hey I'm always open to new
meanings of words. Please explain the different meanings.


No, a vulnerability will have a potential to be an exploit when someone
figures out how to take advantage of a vulnerability. A major
difference.



They're the same thing essentially. An exploit is a vulnerablity
plain and simple. Exploit being a security hole. This hole can be
exploited or not.


Nope. You definitely got that one wrong.
A vulnerability is a discovery of a security hole.


So is an exploit.


If no one knows of it, then that is obscurity.


You're babbling.



You're clueless.


When that info gets out, and a hacker writes code to take advantage of
that vulnerability,


Or exploit...

then it becomes an

exploit.


No, it's exploited. Exploited means action has been taken. Exploit can
be a verb or a noun. So in this case an exploit is a vulnerability in a
given OS.


Go read the links I provided you.

Here I'll use them both so you can stop bringing this up and wasting
time.

Used as a noun:

An exploit was found in OS X that allows hackers to show Greycloud
is an idiot.

Used as a verb:

It is wrong for a knowledgable computer user to exploit the stupidity
and lack of knowlege of dumber computer users.


And also the difference between low risk and severe risk?



Yea some of the patches Apple puts out are critical pataches.
That means damage can be done by hackers if it isn't patched. Tell me
this, how do they actually find the holes in OS X at Apple?


Name the patch numbers that are considered critical patches.
The fact that no one got hacked makes your argument meaningless.
Keep pissing against the wind.


BING! BING! BING! Another COQA detected. Now this idiot has played
right into my hands. He's saying that because nobody wants to attack OS
X, the argument about vulnerablities in OS X is invalid. He's saying
that OS X's obscurity is what makes it secure. Now isn't that what
we've been saying all along? How long did it take this dummy to figure
it out? Years... That's a damned shame...

Yet no one that is using OS X is being bothered by your hyped up FUD.
No viruses, no worms, no trojans.
Windows 114,000 vs OS X 0.


Ok now how many of those 114,000 are for Windows and how many are
for the PC in general. Apple says on it's cite that numebr is for PC. Now
you also have to prove that all of those have been exploited like you're
asking me to do. Will you sort them out? I don't think you will, all you
will do is spew FUD. You seem not to even do that correctly so I'll help.

http://www.apple.com/getamac/viruses.html

Now the Apple site says 114,000 PC viruses. It does not say Windows
viruses. Now they went to a place called SOPHOS for the information. Now
let's check out how they break down the numbers. Oh wait, they want you
to give them your email address just to download their whitepaper on
viruses and such. So I guess we won't get it from them.

I wonder if Apple will take down the lie they have on their page now
that there are two viruses out there. I remember they lied about having
the "Most powerful home computer in the world."


And the fact that their patches make these two moot.

http://macscan.securemac.com/list.php


Again: M$ virsuses 114,000 vs OS X: 0

http://macscan.securemac.com/list.php

I've never heard of an OS called M$? You mean Windows? Now you see what
happens when you post the drivel from a computer maker who's spreading FUD
to sell computers. You wind up having your ass handed to you.

John



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

.