Re: Attention Windows Users
- From: Garner Miller <garner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 04:46:02 GMT
In article <11rjsoafb0edp51@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Peter Duniho
<NpOeStPeAdM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> lol...your post is so full of incorrectness, it's hard to take anything you
> write on the topic seriously.
If you say so. :-)
> This is the FIRST time that an exploit has existed prior to a security
> patch.
You're kidding, right? While I'm fully aware that most of the
exploits today are created from the security patches, there have been
many exploits that *STILL* are not patched. My god, there are 17
unpatched flaws in Internet Explorer alone! Today!
This was written today:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10684853/
"The flaw, which allows hackers to infect computers using programs
maliciously inserted into seemingly innocuous image files, was first
discovered last week...
"Microsoft said in a security bulletin on its website that it was aware
that the vulnerability was being actively exploited. But by early
yesterday, it had NOT YET RELEASED an official patch to correct the
flaw."
> > After all, what hacker wouldn't want to be the one to create the
> > *first* Mac OS X virus ever, versus the 250th one this week?
>
> 250th? This *week*? Uh, right.
That's called an exaggeration. I'm sure you've seen them before.
<grin>
> That's hardly a compelling case that Windows is more vulnerable.
Go do some reading online. Article after article is out there that
discusses how many security vulnerabilities exist on Windows
specifically because of its poor security model. Don't take my word
for it (obviously you don't); go read what the security experts are
writing.
>
> > Here's one example of why it's so difficult to infect a Mac:
> > Applications run in user space, not system space.
>
> More incorrect technobabble. Applications run in "user space" on Mac,
> Linux, AND Windows. The primary difference is that Windows users are more
> likely to be running with administrator rights....
As are Mac users. The difference is that administrator rights under
Windows are analogous to the "root" user on unix and the Mac OS, and
that's a dangerous situation. The admin privileges *are* lesser on the
Mac OS, and don't put the core OS at risk.
> but a) there is nothing about Windows that requires this....
No, but it's how the standard installation sets up the first user, and
that's how most XP installations stay. That puts the average home
user, who doesn't know much about security, in a bad situation because
his machine's that much easier to hack.
> and b) Windows has plenty of very real market,
> backward compatibility reasons for this being the case.
Sure. And that backwards compatibility leaves the system wide open to
attacks, as we've already seen over and over.
>
> Prior to OS X, Mac didn't even *have* user-level security. By the time they
> got around to including user-level security in their OS, Apple was wise to
> the reasons for ensuring users default to not using admin rights.
I thought my post was the one so "full of incorrectness." Actually,
the default new user does have Administrator privileges on a Mac. The
difference is that an admin doesn't have access to make changes to the
core system the way a Win XP admin does. That's a *huge* difference.
> When NT was designed, users could be trusted and most computers were not connected
> to the Internet.
That's exactly right. And it's vulnerable because it wasn't designed
with that security in mind.
> ...the only real difference is that users are by
> default required to enter a password to install the software. Windows users
> can use the exact same kind of protection, and plenty of Mac users happily
> enter the password, thinking there's some good reason to install Sony's
> software.
But on Windows, the Sony software actually modifies the CD driver.
This *cannot* be done, even with Admin rights, on a Mac, because the
admin doesn't have the privileges to modify the core system. Only root
does, and root is disabled, as I mentioned before. Even if the user
did enter his password, the system would stop the installation because
of insufficient privileges.
> > (It did this even if you told it *not* to install, incidentally.)
>
> What you are referring to is the installer itself, written by the rootkit
> authors. In what way is that relevant at all to Windows or Microsoft?
It's relevant because Windows does nothing to protect the user from
rogue software like this. If I tell an installer "no" on a Mac system,
and it tries to install something anyway, the system will block it with
the password prompt. Windows does not have this security in place, and
because of that, the Sony software installs whether you want it to or
not. The default enabling of the CD autorun feature all but
guaranteed that this software would be installed on a user's machine,
whether they wanted it or not.
>
> > Even if you're the only user on your system, these barriers the OS puts
> > up also work to protect you from rogue software.
>
> Same thing in Windows.
Read my section above. If it's the same thing in Windows, it's broken,
because this software IS getting through.
> You must be reading a different article than I am. While the author clearly
> prefers the Mac aesthetic, he hardly is "praising how much better the Mac
> OS's security is".
"Mac OS X, meanwhile, was truly designed for excellent security, thanks
to its wonderful UNIX roots and clean architecture... Windows,
meanwhile, is a minefield of constant hacks and attacks...
Therefore, OS X is, in many ways, more secure than Windows is today."
I'm not sure what article you were reading.
> Your rant is laughable.
The fact remains that, for *whatever* reason, Mac OS X has enjoyed four
years and counting with NO viruses and spyware, while Windows users
have enjoyed somewhat less than a *thousand* of them this past year
alone (your figure, not mine). You attribute it to obscurity; I
attribute it to a significantly stronger security model.
My original reply was to rutgermartin@xxxxxxxxx, pointing out another
option besides the ones he offered: "stay off the internet" and "learn
linux." The sales numbers certainly back up that option:
fourth-quarter computer sales for Apple were up 48% from the previous
year. They're moving millions of machines per year; they're doing
something right.
Ah, well. I never intended this to be a religious war with you. If
that's how you want to pursue it, then nevermind; let's just agree to
disagree. I'm certainly not going to rush out and buy a Dell this week
any more than you're going to buy a PowerBook.
--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Clifton Park, NY =USA=
http://www.garnermiller.com/
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Attention Windows Users
- From: Peter Duniho
- Re: Attention Windows Users
- References:
- Re: Attention Windows Users
- From: rutgermartin
- Re: Attention Windows Users
- From: Garner Miller
- Re: Attention Windows Users
- From: Peter Duniho
- Re: Attention Windows Users
- From: Garner Miller
- Re: Attention Windows Users
- From: Peter Duniho
- Re: Attention Windows Users
- Prev by Date: Re: Melbourne FL airport -- approach
- Next by Date: Re: Another ADIZ violation?
- Previous by thread: Re: Attention Windows Users
- Next by thread: Re: Attention Windows Users
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
