Kyloe on 17/2/2006 at 13:33
Yes, they are.
I've been hanging around in a Macintosh forum since I bought a Mac in April. Very annoying. 9 out of 10 are clueless and resistent.
Abysmal on 17/2/2006 at 13:33
ok ill stop
jay pettitt on 17/2/2006 at 13:52
OSX's first virus popped it's little head up the other day, but hasn't managed to gain much ground because it requires users to 'execute' a .jpg file in a text console while logged on with root privilages. Good luck little virus.
Complacency and Windows bashing is obviously not a good security policy, but OSX remains an exceptionally secure OS that encourages users to behave securely (you only ever log on with admin priviliges to perform admin, for example.)
Bill's article seems to consist of 'use the firewall (supplied & default behaviour) and use the update tools (supplied & default behaviour). Thanks Bill.
It's a similar situation with Linux, which I run behind a firewall and employ a modicum of common sense. I do a virus check on outgoing mail because, even though I'm pretty much immune, I can still pass virusi on to windows users if I'm forwarding emails from elsewhere - which I don't much want to do. My entire system (the OS, apps, the lot) can be kept up to date with one command. Job jobbed. If my system or data is insecure it'll be becuase I've actively done something really stupid (not impossible.)
Oh, and I really don't buy the 'Unix doesn't get attacked because no one uses it' argument. The vast majority of the internet (not to mention banking/commerce) runs on Unix flavoured servers. And of course the source code is readily available (even Apple's OSX is built on top of an open source Unix flavour), if it were easy to compromise Unix, people would be doing it.
Uncia on 17/2/2006 at 14:11
Apache gets security patches quite regularly. It also happens to be very, very popular. Hmmmm.
jay pettitt on 17/2/2006 at 14:22
Security patches != easy to compromise. Similarly not releasing security patches != secure.
I wasn't suggesting 'nix wasn't attacked - I'm suggesting it is, but that it's not easy to compromise. (by design, rather than obscurity)
Drom_Editor on 17/2/2006 at 14:23
I think a lot of people knew Apache wasn't the safest of programs to run. Heh, I actually got reprimanded at my IT job last month, because I was running an Apache server on our network. I could type (
http://sovietrussia) in my browser, and the page would load, displaying, "In Soviet Russia, homepage downloads YOU!"
I'm smug about my security, and I'm a Windows user. I don't run anti-virus or a firewall. I've visited my fair share of crack sites. I know I'm just asking for that one virus to finally infect me, but is it just me, or is the problem a lot of times with the user?
That's probably just from having worked in IT for a couple years, but I really don't understand what people do to get adware and spyware throughout their system. I'm also not trying to say that everyone should be as knowledgable about working with computers as me in order to use their computer safely; I'm just saying that I don't really take any specific actions to protect myself, and I never get viruses or adware.
/me wonders what others think...it'd be nice to get some "average" users' views on this.
jay pettitt on 17/2/2006 at 14:36
Most users get savaged simply by connecting to the internet. I've had a fresh install of XP wrecked beyond hope within minutes of attaching a network connection. (to download a service pack :tsktsk: ).
Prey tell, what version of windows? Is your network connection always on?
Uncia on 17/2/2006 at 14:36
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Security patches != easy to compromise.
No, but Apache has been compromised a number of times, I just didn't outright say it because I can't be bothered scouring the wankfest that is Slashdot for specific incidences.
Any software that's sufficiently complex will have vulnerabilities. It's just the nature of the beast. All it takes is a large enough userbase for the exploit of those to become worth the effort and it'll happen.
