Macintosh Vulnerability

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support :

panthera

panthera

Well-known member
Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2016
Messages
2,825
Location
Rocky Mountains
I confess, when I first read this I was sorely tempted to keep it to meself - the everyone-who-doesn't-use-an-Apple-is-to-be-pitied-or-is-an-idiot disciples really really get on my nerves.
But, having just helped a friend out who blew up his brand new Vista with a nasty worm this week, it only seems fair to post this one.
See link:
It is relevant because every normal person would assume Apple had fixed it in 2005 and, lots of MAC OS users do have to Samba.
So, with just a tad bit of Schadenfreude (that'll teach ya to go on and on and on and on about how there ain't no security threats to an Apple, no siree-bob...) let's hope it helps

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2141380,00.asp
 
Speaking as a Mac fiend...

People who say there are no security threats to Macs are ignorant. There are simply vastly fewer.

A lot of that has to do with the construction and upkeep of OS X; it also has to do with the simple fact that nefarious people tend to turn their destructive attentions to the most prevalent platform, as a means of causing the most damage and achieving the most notoriety. That platform would be Windows.

However, to be fair, it should be noted that, aside from the rating of the OS X-Samba vulnerability by Symantec as "fairly trivial," the open-source components of OS X are gradually being rewritten as time goes on. The OS X kernel is no longer open-source, and Apple is dramatically recoding things for Leopard. (And I know that Windows people are familiar with the idea of rewriting a large and aging code-base.)

In any case, the proof is in the pudding at the moment; while I have no doubt that there are ways that someone could hack my computer or exploit some sort of software vulnerability, I have been running OS X for three years straight on this machine, with no antivirus protection. I've had no problems whatsoever. Try doing that on Windows and see how long you last before your system gets some sort of nasty.

In any case, the truth of it all is that Mac and Windows have their own strengths and weaknesses, and stand equally on their own merits. Both have some wonderful things to offer--and some surprising faults.

So, in the end, the only real Schadenfreude belongs to life, the universe, and the way things are :-)
 
Nate,

Well spoken, but "trivial" doesn't mean "harmless". Symantec is a bit like CR in their ratings. People using Macs in a heterogenous network are at risk.
The great strength of Apple is their willingness to just junk everything, make their users buy all new software and hardware and, thus, avoid all the legacy problems Microsoft carries with them. Vista, basically, can run everything written since the 1970's for the 808x families.
Apple means no freedom of choice but safety (comparatively speaking). PC means freedom to be creative, but lots of risks.
Who writes the better software? Apple, hands down. So this problem - which every other flavor of Unix solved years ago - raises the question...what else is vulnerable?
 
Good point

It's nice to talk to someone who is rational and thoughtful. So many people get so freaky about this!

Apple's been nice to us and has stuck to OS X since 2000, although it was a big departure from OS 9 and its predecessors (I remember when Internet Explorer was the only thing that ran on it--eek! :-) ). Plus, they were also kind enough to offer a legacy environment for OS 9 that works all the way up through Tiger (but does not work on Intel-based Macs--that was the big "slam in the face" to the old OS). Kind of like how Windows supported DOS and Win 3.1 apps forever and a day, like you said. I have Mac apps from 1987 that still run quite nicely in the OS 9 environment on an OS X machine. But you also have cool aspects of OS X, like XWindows and the ability to run lots of UNIX and Linux stuff in addition to Mac items and, of course, Windows natively through Boot Camp or Parallels.

Apple's compromise of freedom of choice mostly occurs in their hardware--you get what you get. Granted, it's generally pretty high-quality, and decidedly you'll not have driver issues, but you can't piece it out or customize it like you can with a PC.

I think that Windows and Apple both have a lot going for them in the software area, even if Apple's supposed raison d'être is the software. Look at MS Office for Mac. We like it :-)

I'm sure lots is vulnerable in OS X that has yet to be discovered. I'm sure there's a lot that's in anything that has yet to be discovered; it seems that only the really egregious things get happened-upon.

Apple no longer lets you pick through the kernel to see. And as OS X departs further and further from OpenBSD, I'm sure further issues will arise. I think that's the price of secrecy and proprietary items--only you know the code, so only you get to fix the bugs. In this respect, I am sure that Apple and Microsoft will become closer kin as time goes on. I already notice that security updates are becoming more and more frequent in OS X; they arrive about one every couple of weeks (though not the two per day like Windows), and so I'm sure they're finding more and more to catch-up on. I also would attribute the increased issues with increased marketshare--more people are using and hacking OS X boxes to find the issues.

Overall, I'm guessing that Apple has either addressed the Samba issue in 10.4.10 that's coming out, or maybe in Leopard. I definitely acknowledge that that's a lazy way to do it. (In any case, I certainly HOPE they do it...)

We'll see what happens...
 
certainly in Leopard,

I think that is sort of the beginning of the end of "let's all work together" and back to "if you want it done right, do it yourself.
My personal suspicion is that Apple is going to position MAC OS against Windoze in the near- mid term.
Nothing else makes sense, now that the hardware platforms are identical.
Linux has, despite lots and lots and lots of positive aspects (and one reason I get so mad at the Apple disciples who insist on all PCs being primitive machines from the 1980's running Windows 95a) just really not caught on as it should have.
But the success of the NT family makes it clear that someone in the Carbon, Aqua, Tiger, etc. family just could take on Microsoft.
In my ideal world, I would never ever under any circumstances use any Apple hardware but my OS could happily be by Apple or SUN.
I guess we will find out. The main thing is; as you said, only fools believe Macs are somehow safer or inherently immune.
I have often thought the biggest difference between the Apple community and the Linux world is to be found somewhere in the kindergarten report cards of Linux, Bill and Steve. Linux probably got a: "Has good ideas, but can not explain himself well." Comment. Bill probably got: "Brilliant at copy-catting the other children. A real mime." And Steve undoubtedly got:
"Creative, but does NOT play well with other children."
 
Glad to see there are more MacMen around here! I've never used anything but a Mac at work and in the studio, so I bought an iMac for the house. No regrets. I'm not a video game enthusiast, so I don't miss that aspect, anyway.

I've found them to be very reliable and easy to use, but my PC-oriented friends tell me that expansion is a weak point for Macs. At work we have Macs and Dells. The computer tech says the Macs are far less troublesome.
 
ROTF

"Creative, but does NOT play well with other children."

From what I hear, that's a very apt description of Steve Jobs himself to this day :-D

Hi Eugene! I've been a Mac guy ever since 1996, when my high-school chemistry teacher, Mr. Robinson, said I needed a Mac and I needed a BLACK AND WHITE Mac, nothing with color. So, I started with an SE FDHD, and never looked back.

I use both for my job, and in fact, have an external screen on my MacBook Pro; one for OS X, and one for Windows XP. Each has its strengths.

Our most recent Dells have been extremely troublesome and we've done a lot of component replacement (including a lot of failed CPU cooling fans, oddly enough). The biggest problem with the Dells is rebuilding the machines--it's often hard to tell what hardware Dell decided to put in the computer when they built it, and sometimes, even Dell isn't sure (even when you input the service tag number that should tell you the factory configuration of the machine!). The most aggravating issue is finding all the stupid drivers you need for whatever hardware your machine got that was cheap and easy that day in the factory. Obviously, due to their almost Draconian consistency, it's never, ever a problem with a Mac.

It comes and goes, though. We had an issue with one of the first-run iMac G5s where one of the motherboard capacitors popped (the smell was incredible), and that was a known issue due to cheapie capacitors. (Dell used the same capacitors and had the same issues at one point.) We also had problems with a first-run MacBook Pro that could not have its network cable disconnected, or it would freeze in OS X. Not in Windows, mind you, just OS X. Weird.

All the other machines we've had have had no issues, save a few of the eMacs that had the famous raster problem. Apple hardware has been exceedingly reliable.

We're not gamers either (of course), but my MacBook Pro is an awesome Windows box and stomps all the PCs we have around. It makes World of Warcraft amazing, too, and if I want, I can play it from XP with no degradation in performance :-)

Expansion is pretty much limited to RAM and hard drives with any models except the MacPro, which is very expensive and the only one that's what PC people would consider a normal, upgradable tower PC. The key to being happy with a Mac is biting the bullet and loading it to the teeth with as much RAM and HD space as you possibly can afford.
 
Mac Elitism

I know that some PC People think Mac people are snobs. Maybe some are. I dunno. I am "mostly" a Mac person (actually equally fluent & comfortable on both platforms) but am hardly a snob about it. I just like Macs better, for many reasons.

And I can echo other comments about viruses, web beacons, spyware, worms, etc etc etc....... In all the years I've been a "Machead" (since 1990), I have never once had any compromises to my system. Despite no firewalls and no antivirus software. "Knock on wood."

Actually, I do now have a firewall but only, really, to protect my PCs. I have 3 computers on a network (1 mac, 2 win) and the router has a built-in hardware firewall.
 
Ya know, some days I almost wish someone would write a fully functional Mac OS X virus, just so we could say we have one, and it would cease to be a topic of debate.

"The main thing is; as you said, only fools believe Macs are somehow safer or inherently immune. "

Macs are certainly not immune to security issues. We had a student installing rootkits a while ago, and anyone with a boot CD can change your local passwords. So there is certainly a bit of risk, just like any other platform. I agree with you on the "inherently immune" statement, but I disagree on "somehow safer". There is a world of difference between "safer" and "safe". Macs are not "safe" but I think that with any OS, as you get farther and farther away from a Windows environment, you tend to get a bit safer. Should you not worry about security because you are using something other than Windows? No. Are you relatively safer from attack using an alternate OS? Sure.

But you are only "safe" if the damned thing is turned off. :-)
 

Latest posts

Back
Top