Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Hijacking a Macbook in 60 Seconds or Less

  • Subject: Re: Hijacking a Macbook in 60 Seconds or Less
  • From: Hadron Quark <hadron@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 12:59:40 +0200
  • Cancel-lock: sha1:6st8M9tKaNZpsX2XxpSpmS8QCio=
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • References: <1154672009.513707.79090@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <2531889.OEGiB8sodE@schestowitz.com> <87mzakc3ki.fsf@mail.com> <1154685185.689553.72190@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
  • User-agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)
  • Xref: news.mcc.ac.uk comp.os.linux.advocacy:1136643
"nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>  > And should go a long way to stop people thinking that all *IX
>> deriviatives are somehow attack proof.
> I don't mind people learning that *ix systems are not immune to attack,
> and I think that if they (OS X and/or Linux) obtain a larger market
> share on the desktop, the number of attacks on them will go up.
> What I mind is MS FUD claim that the *only* reason Windows machines
> receive 99+% of the malware is because of their dominant share of the
> desktop.  A lot of people buy this, and think that malware is just a

Well, its certainly not the only reason. It is, however, part of the reason.

> fact of life when you use computers.  The fact is that MS never cared
> about security, and they made endless bad design decisions in Windows
> from a security standpoint, until they started to wise up a couple of
> years ago, after Windows malware practically brought the whole internet
> to a halt.  I think they're sincere in improving security now, but
> whether they can do it on the Windows code base remains to be seen
> (when some experience with Vista starts to accumulate).  They do have a
> lipstick-on-the-pig problem here, and I predict that while security in
> Vista will be better than in XP, it will never cease to be a daily
> headache for users in a way that it is not for OS X and Linux users,
> even if the latter obtain 50% of the market.

You do tend to exaggerate. I used windows for years in a technical
programming role and never got a single virus. Why? Because I never ran
attached executables and always scanned regularly. While windows *is*
bad, its not as black as sometimes it is painted.

> The guy in the article is angry at Apple's ads for claiming that they
> are malware-free (that's why he picked on Macs for his demo), but from
> the standpoint of the average user, it's true, if you use Macs, and
> follow their easy security advice, you just don't have trouble with
> malware.  It's a whole different experience, and in that respect I'm
> glad that Apple is making average users understand that they don't have
> to suffer the malware problems endemic to Windows.

Well, imagine if that attack was done "en masse" - it would "appear" to
be a different story.

But, generally, you are, of course, right.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index