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

John Slade wrote:

"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?

First off, he told the vendor, right? So the vendor, say Apple, fixes it and makes a patch.
See the next url.



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.


The term to you may have multiple meanings, but not officially.
So where are the exploits for OS X?
Phishing doesn't count.


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?

Guffaw!! Just your FUD.



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.

No, you were proven wrong... and typical of wintrolls, they rebound back with more FUD.



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.

Your faulty wintroll logic. Guffaw!!



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.


Your faulty wintroll Logic. Guffaw!


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.

Try and post your drivel in alt.solaris.x86.
You'll get laughed at. Post your drivel in comp.os.vms... you'll get laughed at.



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.


But I do update. So does everyone else that I know of.
Sounds more like you are relating to windows users rather than OS X users.


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


It wasn't a virus,... it was a phishing scam. You wintrolls keep pushing your FUD.




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.

No, only when you download said code and follow thru with installation.
Windwoes does however run code automatically.

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.

Guffaw!!! More wintroll FUD.
The fact that you don't run OS X leaves you 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.

I'm laughing at you, the wintroll.



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.

You mean the 50 dummies that got screwed, but not infected. On windwoes, you can get infected without even knowing it. So the wintroll FUD marches on.
:-))



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.


Listen up and listen good, wintroll... there are no problems.
You are obviously confused with windwoes and its problems.


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?

No problems. I see you are still spewing FUD.


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

LOL. You guys are crazy...

No, just you.





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

Windows virues: 114,000+ and OS X 0.



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


We did... fixed.

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

Fixed.


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


Fixed.


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


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


Fixed.

I've never heard of an OS called M$? You mean Windows?

No, Windblowz aka windwoes.

? 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.


See what happens when one talks to a wintroll??? All you see is a wintroll spewing a lot of FUD. You're just jealous because OS X doesn't need any AV software or malware removal tools.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!
Now go find another newsgroup to infest, troll.



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