Apple releases Security Update 2007-005

59 Comments

Apple StoreApple today released Security Update 2007-005 which is recommended for all users and improves the security of the following components:

• bind
• CarbonCore
• CoreGraphics
• crontabs
• fetchmail
• file
• iChat
• mDNSResponder
• PPP
• ruby
• screen
• texinfo
• VPN

Security Update 2007-004 has been incorporated into this security update.

Security Update 2007-005 is available via Software Update and also via standalone installers:

• Security Update 2007-005 (10.3.9 Client) – 42.5MB
• Security Update 2007-005 (10.3.9 Server) – 56MB
• Security Update 2007-005 (PPC) – 15.7MB
• Security Update 2007-005 (Universal) – 29.2MB

59 Comments

  5. Vista doesn’t need service packs. Vista is rock-solid, unlike your 30-year old BSD based joke for an operating system you Apple lemmings call OS X. What a dinosaur.

    All of you Mac losers are waiting with baited breath for Vista to be hacked. Well I have news for you: you are going to wait a long, long time. Vista is an impenetrable fortress. I’ve been running Vista for months without any malware or uninvited intrusion.

    Another day, another Security Update for OS X. When is Apple ever going to get it right?

    Your potential. Our passion.™

    Reply

  7. I love when the Mac has security patches, it’s Apple keeping on top of security, but when Microsoft have them, there patching their weak virus/spyware ridden software lol.

    Apple fans are saying when Apple update it’s a good thing but when Microsoft do it, it’s a failures for having to do so!

    Reply

  11. Quoted from Zune Tang:

    Vista doesn’t need service packs. Vista is rock-solid, unlike your 30-year old BSD based joke for an operating system you Apple lemmings call OS X. What a dinosaur.

    All of you Mac losers are waiting with baited breath for Vista to be hacked. Well I have news for you: you are going to wait a long, long time. Vista is an impenetrable fortress. I’ve been running Vista for months without any malware or uninvited intrusion.

    Another day, another Security Update for OS X. When is Apple ever going to get it right?

    Your potential. Our passion.™

    Lol, your kidding right? Your actually comparing that closed source crap from Microsoft to the open archietechure of Unix opern source? Vista is rock solid? Have you been hiding under a rock for hte last 5 months? Its already been hacked mate, we dont need to wait for it…

    here are some links for you that Vista hs been hacked:

    1. http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/security?-nope/vista-hacked-again-this-time-even-more-effectively-261639.php

    2. http://www.pcretailmag.com/news/27105/Vista-hacked

    3. http://vista.blorge.com/2007/05/18/new-vista-hack-requires-no-serial-key/

    Not only that, Vista has also been hacked to the UAC level, to automatically authorize malicious code to be run.

    Vista is an impenetrable fortress? Thats not what the tech community is saying, lol. Apple is being proactive about security updates…not wait until they receive the malaware, cause panic…and then in chaos come out with an update….thats Microsoft’s typical route of approach to security. Did you know that Microsoft was readying service pack 1 before Vista was even released?

    Reply

  13. “Apple fans are saying when Apple update it’s a good thing but when Microsoft do it, it’s a failures for having to do so!”

    Apple updates security BEFORE there’s an attack.

    Microsoft updates security AFTER Vista’s been attacked.

    Reply

  17. Why, oh why, do people not get Zune Tang?

    Irony is a literary or rhetorical device, in which there is a gap or incongruity between what a speaker or a writer says and what is generally understood (either at the time, or in the later context of history). Irony may also arise from a discordance between acts and results, especially if it is striking, and seen by an outside audience.

    More generally, irony is understood as an aesthetic valuation by an audience, which relies on a sharp discordance between the real and the ideal, and which is variously applied to texts, speech, events, acts, and even fashion. All the different senses of irony revolve around the perceived notion of an incongruity, or a gap, between an understanding of reality, or expectation of a reality, and what actually happens.

    Reply

  19. Actually I wonder if Zune Tang has a latent crush on Stever Balmer! ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />. They are both trolls afer all.

    Reply

  20. “Vista doesn’t need service packs. Vista is rock-solid, unlike your 30-year old BSD based joke for an operating system you Apple lemmings call OS X. What a dinosaur.”

    I am assuming that this Zune_Tang guy is a joke, since there seriously could not be a real person this stupid. But in case he is for real…

    Zune_Tang,

    Some of us actually MAKE MONEY with our computers!

    Just because Vista can handle your 24/7 porn site surfing, doesn’t make it a viable choice for those of us who actually use our computers to earn a living.

    If you actually had something of value to contribute with your computer, I seriously doubt you would be able to get anything done on Windows. Leave alone on the worst version of Windows to date…VISTA.

    Like I said… There can’t really be someone out there so utterly stupid as this guy… Right?

    Reply

  21. Safari is snappier!

    Actually, my machine (PowerBook G4) rebooted twice, and then was dead slow starting up.

    It felt just like the Vista machine I tried to use the other day. Man, was that annoying. Programs were crashing right in front of me. The OS wasn’t smart enough to know that it wasn’t connected to the Internet. And boy, was it slow… the list goes on and on.

    Reply

  27. Installed, then rebooted, it HOSED MY MAC

    Got the spinning wheel of death, the G5 based iMac then turboed the fans, I held the power button down and rebooted, I survived.

    Still haven checked everything out yet. Still on shaky ground here.

    I don’t install anything, especially with admin powers. No gimmicks or OS changes.

    Oh god I hope this machine is ok, it’s not mine.

    Reply

  32. @ sigh
    <quote>
    Why, oh why, do people not get Zune Tang?

    Irony is a literary or rhetorical device, in which there is a gap or incongruity between what a speaker or a writer says and what is generally understood (either at the time, or in the later context of history). Irony may also arise from a discordance between acts and results, especially if it is striking, and seen by an outside audience.

    More generally, irony is understood as an aesthetic valuation by an audience, which relies on a sharp discordance between the real and the ideal, and which is variously applied to texts, speech, events, acts, and even fashion. All the different senses of irony revolve around the perceived notion of an incongruity, or a gap, between an understanding of reality, or expectation of a reality, and what actually happens.
    <quote>

    Gawd, someone that gets it.

    Sometimes/ often, it’s like dealing with Cletus Delroy Spuckler reading these responses. Oh well it is the intranets…
    D’oh!

    Reply

  33. Umm… why would you hit the power button before letting it finish? How long did you wait? The update rebooted twice – and it sat there for a while before it finished. I certainly would wait at least 15 minutes before hitting the power button during an update.

    Hitting the power button before it finishes is hardly Apple’s fault. 😐

    Reply

  36. This brings the total patches for 2007 to 109

    God, it’s just like Windows… 🙁

    Oh please. I don’t know what’s worse, the lemmings or the Chicken Littles.

    Listen, the sky is NOT falling. Apple releases their fixes PROactively, ahead of any problems, while MS releases theirs REactively in an attempt to keep the ship above water. Big, big difference.

    Now let’s talk some meaningful numbers. Give me a comparison of the number of live viruses and in-the-wild vulnerabilities, for both OS X and Windows.

    Now, is Mac still “just like Windows”?

    Reply

  38. <i> I’ve been running Vista for months without any malware or uninvited intrusion.<i>

    ZT, you’re such a turd. But for anyone who thinks you’re serious:

    Wake Vista out of the screen saver, connect it to the Internet, and wait.
    Then get back to us with your results.

    Reply

  42. Why, oh why, do people not get Zune Tang?

    Uh, because he’s not funny? Because everything he says is indistinguishable from any real Windows troll? Seriously, how do you know he’s not serious? Has he ever admitted that he’s just doing shtick?

    I don’t appreciate bullsh*t like Zune Tang, and Sputnik before him. If you’re going to do satire, at least make it convincing satire. Say something silly for sh*t’s sake. Parroting Windows troll talking points just makes you a Windows troll, not a satirist.

    Reply

  45. Mac OS X has its roots on BSD Unix and Mach-O, being the evolution of the NEXT operating system.

    Uhmm let’s see what we’ve got here:

    • bind – NON Apple sw. Apple is simply proactively applying security improvements coming from the Open Source community.
    • CarbonCore – Apple sw. Carbon is there to allow a smooth transition of old applications into Mac OS X. Carbon permits a good degree of forward and backward compatibility between source code written to run on the older and now dated Classic Mac OS (Version 8.1 and later), and the newer Mac OS X. Apple still looks at improving security in what in essence is support for legacy applications.

    • CoreGraphics – Apple sw. I wonder whether the big steps forward security-wise implemented in Leopard now can trickle down into Tiger as well. Leopard is now feature-complete, and WWDC is days away now.

    • crontabs – non Apple sw. Open Source community improvements
    • fetchmail – non Apple sw. Open Source community improvements
    • file – non Apple sw. Open Source community improvements
    • iChat – Apple sw. Same comment as for CoreGraphics
    • mDNSResponder – non Apple sw. Open Source community improvements
    • PPP – non Apple sw. Open Source community improvements
    • ruby – non Apple sw. Open Source community improvements
    • screen – non Apple sw. Open Source community improvements
    • texinfo – non Apple sw. Open Source community improvements
    • VPN – non entirely Apple sw. Open Source community improvements

    It is amazing to read some people considering releases of Security Patches as a weakness. Security is a MOVING TARGET, people after attempts at breaching security examine OS and API source code constantly to find new and innovative ways to crack into a system. ONLY possible way for a system to stay secure is to improve the security PROACTIVELY, doing the very same detailed scrutiny of crackers but with the goal of removing potential security breaches. The Open Source community has simply non equal in that respect.

    It is also true that Microsoft traditionally tries to close the doors after the cows escaped the barns, which is the ultimate definition of betraying paying customers. OK, Microsoft must know the majority of its customers are pirates and thieves hence adopts the attitude we all know, with its policy of “By default you must be a thief: prove you are not” in all its customer treatment.

    Reactivity in security means you are a joke, or you are not considering security an important thing. Again, if MS customers are by default thieves, who cares if they lose data?

    MS in recent times has changed a bit but still silly. The Tuesday update is a stupid thing. It always gives AT LEAST a week time for crackers to implement and exploit. It usually takes hours to do that.

    Apple is proactive and when forced to react (MOAB, recent Quicktime Advisory) it reacts in matter of hours.

    I am smug? Might be but we have reasons to be smug.

    The security improvements touch 13 areas. To me that is simply put:

    Apple: 13
    crackers and malware writers: 0

    Hardly MS will be ever be capable of being ahead of malware. At best it can catch up better and follow from a shorter distance. Windows is so much ridden with old code (in Vista as well) and so much spaghetti-code that even MS engineers know they simply have Mission Impossible. They have a sinking boat and the only things they can do is putting more and more pumps to clear the water that keeps coming.

    Reply

  47. There is a difference between being proactive and being reactive….Apple is always proactive towards potential vulnerabilities….Mircosoft on the other hand…is always reactive towards exploits. Apple patches up potential flaws before it is taken advantage of….while Microsoft patches up after the system is taken advantage of and turned into a botnet (in many cases).

    Apple’s direction towards security is tremendously better than what Microsoft’s approach towards security is…which is a mere joke of a job at most, and when you pay $300 for an operating system in Microsoft’s case…it is considered almost criminal to have this much exploits.

    Reply

  48. OK, Listen up!

    When you really believe in something or someone, it’s just human nature to downplay and make up logical excuses for their errors.

    The latest one from the Mac religious types in defense of Apple’s rather bad OS coding of Mac OS X is “they fix vulnerabilities proactively, before a exploit occurs”.

    Well this sounds all fine and dandy, but the fact is they don’t. The Mac security community is helping Apple find bugs, which means that Apple don’t do a good enough job themselves.

    So what’s wrong you say?

    Well if the good buys are finding vulnerabilities, so are the BAD GUYS.

    The Good Guys tell Apple and don’t use the vulnerabilities.

    The bad guys don’t tell Apple and use the vulnerabilities for a exploit which they keep a closely guarded secret or sell for a profit (US Army and FBI buys them), especially from the mark. So they certainly don’t announce their presence in your machine with irregularities that will give people and the online community notice, like spreading viruses and spam.

    I’ll tell you the truth, on my sworn oath. I have been infected by malware of some-types on my Mac OS X machines. It’s by being super-observant and monitoring the packets with a hardware sniffer instead of something based on software.

    When I notice unusual behavior or when a Security Update is needed, I disconnect from the internet (as a exploit could piggyback on a update or before one). I c-boot from a OS install disk which is write protected and completely Erase w/Zero the internal hard drive (and other drives if they have been connected) and completely reinstall the OS and software update from a disk, not online. This means I have to download the OS update from a secure machine, usually another computer with a different IP address.

    This is the only way to be nearly 100% sure that you got a clean box from previous exploits.

    Because if your installing Security Updates after the fact, it’s really not much any good security wise, they are already in.

    In my last words, Apple should be ashamed of themselves for writing such a bad OS with presently 109 exploits and counting.

    Reply

  49. More Info and MacSecuriyMan: Stop confusing vulnerabilities with exploits. Either you’re FUDmeisters who are consciously trying to sow fear of real exploits among the less knowledgeable, who don’t realize that vulnerabilities are potential avenues for exploits to use (whether or not any actual exploits have been created yet to take advantage of them), or you’re idiots for not knowing the difference. There ARE NO exploits in the wild for Mac OS X.

    Reply

  50. I really wonder about some on here. Still questioning Zune Tang. Ffs. He is part of the furniture at this stage. Cant believe some people dont get him yet. ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”rolleyes” style=”border:0;” />

    Reply

  51. @ MacSecurityMan:

    There is a very clear distinction between “vulnerbility”, and “Exploit” mate. I dont think you understand that, considering you said there are 109 exploits for OS X…which would mean that there are 109 viruses in one forum or another for OS X….where in reality, there are 0.

    In order for an exploit, and for an ACTUAL genuine virus to be designed for OS X..it would somehow need to modify the system flies…which lies on another user permission level, known as root. This is extremely, extremely difficult to gain access to, and therefore, creating a true OS X virus is very, very difficult. Its not impossible, as no operating system is 100% safe, but taking history into consideration, ANY UNIX/BSD based operating system, such as OS X, and Linux…will be extremely secure.

    Reply

  52. Stop confusing vulnerabilities with exploits.

    MacSecurity Guy was correct with his post, the distinction betwen vunerability and exploits was plain to see.

    For those who don’t know…

    A vunerability is a security weakness that hasn’t been used, a exploit is one that has been used.

    In order to prove a vunerability, a exploit of it has to occur. “Proof of concept” Therefore the vunerability becomes a exploit.

    It doesn’t matter if the exploit hits one machine or a million. If’s it’s contained to “the lab” or “released in the wild”.

    One must conclude, from a security standpoint, that any vunerability has already become a exploit and currently being used in some fashion by the bad guys.

    There ARE NO exploits in the wild for Mac OS X.

    And by what basis are you concluding this?

    The Media? Does the media know when the last time you ripped a DVD?

    The Security Pro’s? Are they in every machine watching every process to confirm that?

    The Lack of Viruses? Who says a bad guy has to make a virus of a exploit? Couldn’t he just keep it to himself or few close friends and enjoy free reign in any Mac OS X box he/she chooses? Watching you through your iSight camera? Recording your keystrokes and website passwords?

    Did you know that it took Apple SEVERAL MONTHS to admit to and finally fix the URL handler exploits of Panther? The same exploit that was posted on Slashdot for hundreds of thousands of people to toy with?

    So far with this version of Mac OS X there are 109 vunerabilites that had to be fixed, a unusually high amount.

    Something is seriously wrong and one has to assume that the bad guys have plenty more and are currently using them in a limited, low key fashion.

    If Mac OS X was pirated and distributed as widely as Windows is, they certainly would have viruses at this point in history.

    Reply

  53. exploit

    In computer security, an unethical or illegal attack that takes advantage of some vulnerability.

    vulnerability

    A security exposure in an operating system or other system software or application software component. Before the Internet became mainstream and exposed every organization in the world to every attacker on the planet, vulnerabilities surely existed, but were not as often exploited.

    virus

    Software used to infect a computer. After the virus code is written, it is buried within an existing program. Once that program is executed, the virus code is activated and attaches copies of itself to other programs in the system. Infected programs copy the virus to other programs.

    Reply

  54. Just because there are no viruses for Mac OS X doesn’t mean there are no exploits of Mac OS X vunerabilities being used.

    Apple needs to do a better job of finding vunerabilities in their software before release and not depend upon the WhiteHat community exclusively.

    Apple has billions of dollars in profit, I’m sure they can easily afford the required manpower to secure their software.

    Releasing shoddy code and depending upon the community to fix it has it’s drawbacks, the black hats have made a ruin of Mac OS X’s lengendary security.

    $10,000 anyone?

    Reply

  55. Quoted from “Popcorn and Peanuts”

    If Mac OS X was pirated and distributed as widely as Windows is, they certainly would have viruses at this point in history.

    OS 9 actually had a few known viruses…yes, they were infact viruses that did harm to system files. OS X on the other, having a userbase size that is several folds larger than OS 9… still has 0 viruses so far since its debut in 2001. The market share argument no longer holds true anymore. Its the fact that OS X is designed on a hybrid BSD/UNIX foundation, rather than a closed proprietory NT. ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />

    The power of community has so far proven successful hasen’t it? This is the same reason why Linux is preferred by an increasing number of users as opposed to Windows. Communal problem solving is always much greater and powerful than a closed method where only a very few know how the system works, therfore have a harder time finding and retaliating on the exploit. ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />

    Reply

  56. OS 9 actually had a few known viruses…yes, they were infact viruses that did harm to system files.

    OS 9 predated the internet and the early malware for it was transmitted via disk base medium.

    When the internet arrived, Apple was pretty much dead and nobody paid any attention to OS 9 in favor of the bountiful Windows machines.

    OS X on the other, having a userbase size that is several folds larger than OS 9… still has 0 viruses so far since its debut in 2001.

    Malware writers have learned now that if they release a virus for any OS that the repsonse to kill it would be immediate.

    Windows took longer to secure because it wasn’t designed for the internet so the malware writers had a larger window to gleam rewards for their efforts. They just took advantage of the time microsoft needed to secure their OS.

    Mac OS X on the other hand was designed to resist viruses better, before Windows. But now Microsoft has caught up and now even has less vunerabilities than Mac OS X.

    The market share argument no longer holds true anymore. Its the fact that OS X is designed on a hybrid BSD/UNIX foundation, rather than a closed proprietory NT.

    Doesn’t matter, it’s the attention to security that matters and the amount of workload required. If it’s a dozen qualified eyes from around the world or a dozen qualified eyes in Redmond or Cupertino. It’s still work, I rather have a command structure where people are motivated by their paycheck and ordered to work to find the bugs, this way it stays in house and not in the public domain.

    The power of community has so far proven successful hasen’t it? This is the same reason why Linux is preferred by an increasing number of users as opposed to Windows.

    Linux has it advantage because it’s free and more configurable than Windows. Windows has caught up in terms of security.

    Communal problem solving is always much greater and powerful than a closed method where only a very few know how the system works, therfore have a harder time finding and retaliating on the exploit.

    It’s because not enough qualitifed manpower was employed on the Cupertino end, Microsoft’s problem is that they took so long because of all the different hardware/software they need to support.

    I rather not have Mac OS X based upon open source, there is no motivation to disclose. On the other hand in closed source there is, the companies very survival.

    Reply

  57. OS 9 predated the internet and the early malware for it was transmitted via disk base medium.

    OS9 no where near predates the internet. The dot com bubble took place from 1995-1999, and OS9 ‘s introduction was in 1999, well after the internet established a significant role in modern computing. Moreover, early malware was not transmitted only via disk medium…it also transmitted online. There was a virus that was attached to one of the developer’s downloads at version tracker.com, and this explicitly affeced OS 9 through online replication only.


    Malware writers have learned now that if they release a virus for any OS that the repsonse to kill it would be immediate.

    Windows took longer to secure because it wasn’t designed for the internet so the malware writers had a larger window to gleam rewards for their efforts. They just took advantage of the time microsoft needed to secure their OS.

    Actually, even if the response to kill the virus is immediate, that sill does not negate the fact that there are still virus writers who still code malware for Windows. Windows took longer to secure because its NT stack was not mature, due to major restructuring form DOS in the early 90’s…not because it was not designed for the internet. Infact, Microsoft propogated that they invented the internet in the mid 90’s, with the introduction of Windows 95…when the credit in truth goes solely to Netscape.

    The reason why Windows is not as secure as OS X goes all the way down to the kernel that both of the operating system run in. Windows runs on the NT kernel, while OS X runs on the Mach kernel

    Yes, the NT kernel (uKernel) is faster than the Mach kernel (Hybrid Kernel). There are advantages and disadvantages to both the kernel types though. For example the reason why the NT kernel is faster is because it adresses the hardware directly through a HAL (hardware abstraction layer) layer, therfore all the basic structures like processes, threads, device drivers and etc and also communication stacks…are simultaneously handled by a single object oriented kernel. What is the downside to this? well, It means that its stability is not that tight. Any tampering of the processes at the kernel level, will be enough to bring down the entire operating system during run-time in a flash (BSOD) or otherwise. Another good thing about the NT kernel though its that its portability features are excellent as a result, so it can be translated to other archietechures pretty easily.

    The Mach Kernel on the other hand, has its own advantages and disadvantages as well. Ill start with the disadvantage. Because it was originally developed for usage with neXT before OS X, it has the same history timeline as what the NT kernel has. The Mach Kernel function set are kept to a minimum. The way in which the Mach kernel works is such that there is one server to take care of the process management, one for managing memory issues, one for managing drivers, and so on and so forth. The cool thing about the Mach kernel is that it does not run in the main kernel space anymore. Therfore they would need authentification each time a software has to access the root kernel structure. This is where the advantage comes, in that the Mach kernel is more stable and secure than the NT kernel, while sacrificing some speed. This is why OS X is more secure, and much, much more resistant to malware.

    Another reason why OS X is more secure than Windows is becuase of the permissions levels. Anyone who uses Windows by default will run at admin level with superuser status. However, anyone by default in OS X, will not get access to root. So every time an application or script has to access root…it will need the admin password…and because of the way that the Mach Kernel works….this wont happen frequently. This is a critical step to ensure security, and this is still not properly implemented in Windows Vista. The UAC, honestly, with a lack of better words…is plain lame. All it does when you run as the default user (admin), is ask you to “cancel” or “allow”…only when you run as a limited user…which 90% of the windows population doesn’t…does it ask you for the system password. Its a good think that Microsoft took this step to ensure better security…but they never did it properly at all…thats the problem.

    Reply


  58. But now Microsoft has caught up and now even has less vunerabilities than Mac OS X

    Not even mate. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, its only been a mere 4 months until Vista was released…and already there are accounts of potential vulnerabilities that steer right at the UAC control. Secondly, as long as Windows continues to carry around unnecessary legacy code….there will always be a vulnerability, and in many cases, an exploit. This is yet another reason why OS X is more secure…because it doesnt carry legacy code from OS 9. Why should Vista support legacy apps and drivers that were intended for Windows 95? Thats just asking for a vulnerability if anything.


    Doesn’t matter, it’s the attention to security that matters and the amount of workload required. If it’s a dozen qualified eyes from around the world or a dozen qualified eyes in Redmond or Cupertino. It’s still work, I rather have a command structure where people are motivated by their paycheck and ordered to work to find the bugs, this way it stays in house and not in the public domain.

    The “crackers” and the virus writers out there simply take aim at the lowest hanging fruit, nothing more, nothing less…and that fruit is Windows. Its network stack and kernel structure is simply too easy (atleast so far) to take advantage of. Although Vista has stepped it up a bit, this still does not constitute the argument that Windows is now all of a sudden just as safe as OS X (not that you said it…but someone will eventually) .

    Think about it….if Apple is touting OS X has having superior security with a virus record of 0…for 6 years in a row…dont you think *some* individual would have attempted to prove Apple wrong, and actually create a virus for OS X? 6 years is a LONG time to prove Apple wrong. Imagine the fame that the individual would get…for creating the first virus for OS X. Why hasen’t anyone stepped up to this challenge, especially with apple having increased its footprint in the market from 05″ onwards? Your argument simply does not make sense, and is flawed from many perspectives. ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />


    Linux has it advantage because it’s free and more configurable than Windows. Windows has caught up in terms of security.

    Firslty, Windows has NOT caught up yet…saying that would mean they have no exploits so far…when infact Vista already has has one severe expploit which was just recently uncovered of the UAC being hacked and escalating the privelages to gain full system access. Here is the link:

    http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/index.cfm?RSS&newsid=9421

    See how flawed the UAC really is?
    Moreover, what good is security if the operating system is not user customizable to begin with? ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />

    Sorry for the long post. Had to make it clear. ;P

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.