MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

I'm no expert but that sounds like bollocks.

Quick, people are buying macs, think of an excuse to put them off!

Strangely written article that keeps setting up a certain scenario and then dispels the chances of it ever happening. It does seem as IOactive (quoted in the article) has more to lose if there is a defection from Windows to MAC, since they seem to be making a living off of the security woes that beleaguer MS users. BTW, Steve Wozniak ("The WoZ") join IOactive's Advisory Board in September '04!

Read this aloud to your IT staff: "Mac OS X users have had zero viruses in the over 5 years since Mac OS X debuted while Windows has been repeatedly decimated by viruses."

Expected reply? With fingers in ears and eyes shut, "LALALALALALALA - I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Apparently there are people writing in the business that are confusing the issue with why WIndows are getting viruses and why Macs are not. It's not the processor that is getting the virus it's the OS that is running the processor and that OS is Windows. On the other hand Mac OSX has never been proven to get a virus ever. Oh there are the FUD articles like this one that try and make it look like OSX is some how vunerable with these dumb theories but still no viruses. This does not have anything to do with the processor your running people. It's the operating system that is running on the hardware that has the security or lack of security in Microsoft's case that determines how vunerable your system is to viruses.

"Specific Windows buffer overflow vulnerabilities depend on the rigid stack-order execution and limited page protection inherent in the x86 architecture." —Paul Murphy

The design of Intel chips is old and decrepit. PPC is a new, clean-sheet-of-paper design. Too bad IBM didn't like all those super computers Apple was supplying.

Right on, Ampar.

You know,maybe there are aspects of the Intel chip that are of concern, but its such a small part of the story, like <1%. Its the OS, stupid.

Now, do you REALLY want to be able to boot Windows on your mac?

Same FUD, different day. What else is new. Meanwhile, those of us that have Macs now go on ahead worry free...

"Too bad IBM didn't like all those super computers Apple was supplying."

And too bad they couldn't ever make a PPC chip that didn't also contribute to global warming...

Motorolla PowerPC processors??? Here I thought they were made by IBM...idiot

Quick, who would you rather have predicting the future:

(1)Symantec
(2)eWeek
(3)Apple

John: If you're gonna use clear, simple logic, you're just going to frighten them more!


Arguing with a virus protection company is all about semantics.

MDN, I refuse to give their site the hits they are seeking. I will not read what these ignoramuses have to say.

What an idiot. Its not the processor. Its the OS. Linux has been running on Intel since 1991. How many viruses exist on Linux? 0.

The Intel lawyers should sue this eWeek guy for false statements about their product. Make him prove his claims.

Loru. You're the idiot. My Laptop has a PowerPC made by Motorola. Only G5's are made by IBM, everything up to the G4 was made by Motorola.

Although now Motorola spun off the PPC business into a business called Freescale I believe.

MDN:

Here is a story you ought to be covering.

"Telecommunications companies like AT&T;and Verizon are lobbying Congress for the right to control where you go on the Internet, how fast you get there, and how much you pay for the service. "

Go to http://www.commoncause.org/ and click "Hands Off My Internet

A related article on Salon is also worth reading:

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2005/10/18/broadband/index_np.html

To all of you saying "its not the processor, its the OS". This is mostly true.

However as mentioned in that article, Intel chips are far more susceptible to Buffer overruns than PowerPC are due to their architecture.

Buffer overruns are the #1 security hole in Linux on x86 for this reason.

I believe Intel have supposedly done something about this with their latest chips, but it should not be ignored.

So, a newbie buys an Intel Mac, someone gets Windows to run on Macs. They fill up their drive with Windows programs, etc and suddenly their Mac slows to a crawl and barely is usuable.

They decide that:

A. Windows sucks and is the root of all this evil and will never use it again.

or

B. I just spent $500 more for a mac and its no better than my old PC. It still has all the problems my PC had and I can't even run my games in OSX.

well, all of this is fine and dandy. Better for apple stock which are getting cheaper.

I'm wondering about the sudden attention OS X is getting from the so called analists now OSX is running on Intel. Why don't FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Linux, Solaris, etc, get as much attention from these analists? They too run on Intel, don't they? According to these security analists OS X will be susceptible to malicious code just because it's running on Intel hardware. Or perhaps these so called analists aren't really analists. Perhaps these analists don't really know what they are talking about. I think these analists don't understand anything about the underlying structure of Windows and the Unix like os's. Somewhere on this planet some guy starts talking about security issues and then all the "analists" just keep repeating these issues, without actually knowing what they're talking about.

Symantec latest news:

'OSX vulnerable to viruses acquired via LCD screens and keyboards'.

Ananlists are only that, predictors! they have no insite into the future.

Symantec sucks, I have never been able to properly use my computers throughout time with their software. Be it antivirus, parental guidence, etc... They just are no good. There are alternatives in the open source, you know...

FTFA: "Windows, Linux and Unix all use the x86 architecture" (pg2)

I'm sure that will come as a shock to those running Yellow Dog Linux or a variety if Unix flavors on Alpha, MIPS, PPC, etc.

[ ...we secretly replaced John's microprocessor with an x86 chip. Let's watch... ]

The article is a hack job. Two additional examples of sloppiness:

(a) "The move to Intel will end a 10-year relationship with Motorola" (pg1) -- I guess they missed the memo about Freescale. Probably busy with their TPS reports.

(b) Page 2 - they quote "David Mackey, director of security intelligence at IBM" without disclosing his conflict - people who don't know that IBM was part of the AIM alliance might be led to think they're a disinterested observer. The only other mention of IBM comes on page 3: "Security companies from IBM to Symantec Corp. have warned that attacks against OS X are on the rise..." -- I'm not sure I know which of those two companies would be more offended by being grouped with the other....

there is an easy answer to stupid articles like this. if the problem were with the hardware, then it would be intel issuing the bug fixes, not microsoft.

magic word: just, as in "just think about it for a second".

Think about this for a second (& read the article closely..again). These virus writing scum will have more and maybe better tools at their disposal with which to disasemble MacTel code.... and spend hours trying to find a path through the maze of BSD Unix.

Will it be worth it? Who knows.

Will I do things differently that I do today? No way.

From the article: "The change could put more pressure on Apple to build security features into OS X"


Security features such as a built in firewall? A sandboxed userland? Having the Home, System and Swap on three separate partitions? Requiring a password to install software and make system changes?

Yeah, I can't wait until Apple builds security features like those into OS X.

Prediction:

As soon as people can dual boot Windoze and OSX on an Apple system, these security assclowns will declare victory and do "I was right all along" dance to celebrate the fact that Macs can now be infected, even if it isn't by OS X. The chorus will change from "OS X is vunerable" to "Macs are just as vulnerable as Windoze."

Garbage journalism. Change the publication's name from "eWeek" to "zzzzzWeeek."

We should take the time to call them on the carpet, hold them responsible, embarass them, poke holes in their silly arguments, and set the record straight. Go MDN.

Mac users are often targeted by media as being zealots. They're right. We're zealots for truth and better living. Neither of which are found in silly putty articles like that in eWeek or using Windows PCs.

Tera Patricks
Mac360

Read the article, and while I do agree there are a lot of ignorant quotes in it, there is also a lot of common sense written there as well, especially near the end. Overall I think it was a useful read and I can say I do feel enlightened by it. As long as you can see through the BS, there is some useful (and truthful) information in the eWeek article.

I highly recommend you read the whole article yourself and not just the MDN reader's digest version. It's not entirely 'crap' (although some of it clearly is).

I sent in this article last night, I hope everyone is having fun sending hordes of emails to this guy.

John: Well said!

The only way my Macs are going to "catch" a virus is if I accidentally sneeze on them. VIVA LA HUBRIS!

I think i have a virus trying to attach me from my new electrical company...

I am a devoted mac user, and I will always will, and I don´t plan on installing windows on my mac. But I have a question.... What happens when someone has windows installed on their macs, and a virus attacks their computers through windows.... what happens to Mac OS X? will that work anyways given that the computer was infected by a virus because of using windows?
Thanks!

I like how they say one can "port" a worm from Windows to Mac OS X. What a knowledgeable expert! Everyone knows that the same security hole in Windows exists in Mac OS X, right? Right? Everyone?

I guess eveyone here has much more brain cells than a couple of those these experts have.

They have a URL for a site with 'numerous OS X exploits'.

There are 6 listed. Every one requires physical access to a PPC Mac and the password needed to instal the exploit in question.

What a steaming load of FUD bullshit.

Call me when you find a self replicating virus that does not require a stupid Mac user with an unlocked front door and their password on a sticky note stuck to the monitor.

Until then F**K OFF!

I read the same article and had to laugh. Being a developer, I'm not aware of a CPU based virus. The E-Week article is absurd. The most commonly hacked area for Windows has more to do with VBScript, etc. What part of this is native to OS X?

That article tries to make a point that they now share the same assembly language. Further, that, Intel's assembly language is more commonly known. They then try to make the leap that this will somehow result exploits for OS X. This sense of reasoning and logic is absolutely laughable.

Steve

What really pisses me off about this is the graphic on their banner of the OSX on a paper range target. IT'S THEIR FRACKIN' JOBS/INDUSTRY THAT REALLY IS ON A TARGET!

Sorry. I get worked up. I'll be allright.

pog: you are only marginally more correct than Loru re:PowerPC chips. G5=IBM,
G4=Moto/Freescale
G3=moto
Previous PowerPC chips 601,603,604 made by both. I have a 6500 with a 300MHz cpu, 603e, made by IBM