Re: the exploit that wasn't

Steve de Mena (steven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) got drunk after typing this
drivel in news:462b0631$0$1360$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Tom Reestman wrote:
Steve de Mena (steven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) got drunk after typing this
drivel in news:462a664c$0$19452$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

DanielEran wrote:
And what about the others? Recall that this was a FULLY patched
system.
What about the other what?

The other Mac Book Pro? It was not compromised. There were two, and
only one was given away.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q2.07/616874CC-35CE-49D3-B
85 9-C2719B6FF352.html

Instead of discussing what happened at CanSecWest
we just get yet another anti-Microsoft rant,
rehashing the same old tired myths again and again.

Yawn.

Steve


Another knee-jerk dismissal of a RoughlyDrafted artice, I see.

How is the following not "discusssing what happened at CanSecWest"?

"...Gohring?s article clearly described a local exploit. There?s a
big difference between the remote exploits that made Windows infamous
for its insecurity and a local exploit of an application."

One sentence of news, followed by twice as much
text bashing Microsoft.


"Opening an email URL that exposes a security flaw in Safari is both
news to report and a problem for Apple to tackle, but reporting it as
a remote exploit is inaccurate, irresponsible, and sloppy journalism,
particularly for IDG's InfoWorld, which purports to be an authority
on computing."

I'd say that sums it up nicely, and his taking InfoWorld to task for
its misleading headline is perfectly valid.

Yes, and thats where he should have stopped. But
no....

As for the rest of the article, it goes on to bash Dragos Ruiu's
ridiculous statement (quoted in the IW article) regarding OS X
security, and does so well. It certainly does not change the accuracy
of the above.

Ruiu, as the principle organizer of the conference, specifically
brought Microsoft into a security discussion about Mac OS X. That was
about as dumb as it gets, and left the door open for RoughlyDrafted
to call it for the ridiculous statement that it is.

We hear again and again how "..Unix security has
been exhaustively researched by experts for
decades." Today I installed Sun Solaris 10 in a
virtual machine (Parallels) just to play with it.
I installed the 11/2006 u3 build. After it was
done it looked for updates and there were about 83
updates, the vast majority (75?) for security issues.

Steve



You do NOT measure an OS' security by how many patches there are for it.
That's ridiculous! And why act as if "secure" somehow means that
everything that ever needs to be patched has already been patched? No one
ever said that. It's yet another MS-defender artificial contruct to
detract from what counts.

MS defenders have spread this new way to "measure" security because they
lose (oh boy do they lose!) when measured by the only criteria that
counts: How many real, bona-fide attacks there have been in the wild. All
else is just statistical chest-thumping by people trying to hide the fact
that the purpose of security is to keep your system from being attacked
in the real world.

UNIX and UNIX-like systems have had something like 700 known viruses in
the wild, and I believe zero malware. MS Windows systems have had over
one hundred thousand, springing up a nine BILLION dollar industry to keep
them at bay. This industry has become so ingrained in the MS mind-set
that such users consider it "normal". But for other operating systems it
is most certainly not normal. And, yes, those other OS's are 100% correct
to tout that as a major, MAJOR advantage. It's not their fault that MS
users see it only as a binary operation, and can't tell the difference
between high risk even with costly and CPU-sucking AV/anti-malware
products running constantly, and minimal risk even without third-party
"protection".

Even Paul Thurrot, one of the biggest MS apologists on the planet, had
this to say about it:

"It's not hard to secure a PC. But you do have to secure a PC. I don't
secure my Macs. But I don't have to secure my Macs. There's something to
be said for that. Anyway, I just felt this needed to be said. There are
plenty of good reasons to use a PC, and certainly Windows Vista fixes a
lot of problems. But Macs are more secure than PCs. Obviously."

--
Tom
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: the exploit that wasnt
    ... brought Microsoft into a security discussion about Mac OS X. ... "It's not hard to secure a PC. ... But I don't have to secure my Macs. ... The number of security patches, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: the exploit that wasnt
    ... brought Microsoft into a security discussion about Mac OS X. ... "It's not hard to secure a PC. ... But I don't have to secure my Macs. ... MS-defenders moved them very recently to counting patches in a desparate attempt to paint UNIX as just as unsecure as their OS. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: the exploit that wasnt
    ... brought Microsoft into a security discussion about Mac OS X. ... "It's not hard to secure a PC. ... But I don't have to secure my Macs. ... The number of security patches, even greater than Windows lately, refutes that. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: the exploit that wasnt
    ... brought Microsoft into a security discussion about Mac OS X. ... "It's not hard to secure a PC. ... But I don't have to secure my Macs. ... The number of security patches, even greater than Windows lately, refutes that. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: the exploit that wasnt
    ... regarding OS X security, and does so well. ... "It's not hard to secure a PC. ... The number of security patches, even greater than Windows lately, refutes that. ... So then you would agree that Windows Vista is as secure as OS X? ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)