Re: So there's no malware in the wild for Mac OS X?
- From: nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Duncan Kennedy)
- Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:21:34 +0100
Jim <jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2010-04-22, Duncan Kennedy <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:That's comforting to know, thanks - I'm on 10.6.2
Chris Ridd <chrisridd@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2010-04-22 02:04:22 +0100, Jaimie Vandenbergh said:
So even the protected machines are at continuous risk, this time from
trusted, permitted updates. On top of the general lousy computer
experience caused by AV scan-caused slowdown, this really shows that
running Windows is a case of lose-lose.
I don't remember where I read this, but it amused me: Failure is not an
option in Windows, it is built-in.
I've come across reports of this sort of thing before with Windows - on
the other hand were not some 10.6 systems in trouble after an upgrade
recently? And this with full control of the hardware unlike Windows.
As I understand it, the recent 10.6.3 update failed to update correctly if,
and only if, you were updating from 10.6.0
If you were coming from 10.6.1 or 10.6.2 then you were fine. They reissued
the update a day or two later.
--
duncank
.
- References:
- So there's no malware in the wild for Mac OS X?
- From: Conor
- Re: So there's no malware in the wild for Mac OS X?
- From: Jaimie Vandenbergh
- Re: So there's no malware in the wild for Mac OS X?
- From: Chris Ridd
- Re: So there's no malware in the wild for Mac OS X?
- From: Duncan Kennedy
- Re: So there's no malware in the wild for Mac OS X?
- From: Jim
- So there's no malware in the wild for Mac OS X?
- Prev by Date: Re: Infected XP computers unpatched
- Next by Date: Re: Infected XP computers unpatched
- Previous by thread: Re: So there's no malware in the wild for Mac OS X?
- Next by thread: Re: So there's no malware in the wild for Mac OS X?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
