[WinTard]

A least a smile is a contribution to these forums! I'm smiling too. ;)

~~~~~~~~~~
Positive anything is better than negative nothing.
~ Elbert Hubbard

[waldojim]

danield said:

Moving the argument from Unix like Mac OS X vs. Windows to Unix like Mac OS X to a true Unix does not change the fact that the security on Windows was always an after thought from the get go. Marketshare, not a secure system everyone could use was Mr. Gates goal and look what we have since. I'll stick with anything Unix like. Thank you.

And you are saying that security is the foremost thought behind OS-X?
No sir, the security in OS-X is actually more lax now than windows Vista or 7

The fact that I have UAC gives me more security, the fact that I changed the Administrator account (from Administrator to a new name) password protected it, and do not use it means I have more security than you will. I will go 100 to 1 you could not do any serious damage to my windows box. While I could (using safari) gain access to your entire machine to do with as I please. Without proper secure layers, there is no security.

If you (or someone you know) has AKO access (Army Knowledge Online) then check out www.rcert-s.army.mil they have a beautiful document on how to secure windows. After using that document, and securing windows correctly, there is little difference between Windows/Mac/*nix boxes. They are there, don't get me wrong, but that is about as tight as you can secure a windows box while still being usable.

[jregooden]

Short, simple and no hate. This is indeed progress. Good for you.

[WinTard]

The hate is all yours. Your words. I have no hate. See your FUD?

[jregooden]

Well, if Mac OS X wasn't built with security as a priority, they still did a great job. Much better than in Windows. You go through a few steps to secure Vista (for now), and I'd hate to go through the Army's procedure for securing Windows (for now). The Mac on the other hand doesn't require any steps to secure it. Just get online and that is it. The wise man builds his house upon the rock (Mac) and the foolish man builds his house upon the sand (Windows).

[WinTard]

More FUD. No proofs.

[jregooden]

Good for you...

[jregooden]

Back to hating, huh? Well, so much for progress. Carry on.

[waldojim]

jregooden said:

Well, if Mac OS X wasn't built with security as a priority, they still did a great job. Much better than in Windows. You go through a few steps to secure Vista (for now), and I'd hate to go through the Army's procedure for securing Windows (for now). The Mac on the other hand doesn't require any steps to secure it. Just get online and that is it. The wise man builds his house upon the rock (Mac) and the foolish man builds his house upon the sand (Windows).

ok, tell you what. Prove to me WHY Mac OS-X is secure. While I CONTINUE to prove it is not. I am not using crap like 'it does not require any steps to secure it.' Which is horeshit BTW, I flat told you, there is no account security as they removed privelege escalation to make your little mac life easier. I can prove this. Now prove me wrong. I can also prove that the combination of that AND safari weaknesses (And safari is included with Mac OS-X), that I could take over your machine, and have FULL access and control. Prove that is wrong.

http://it.slashdot.o...8/1919224.shtml (Mac OS X Root Escalation Through AppleScript)
http://blogs.zdnet.c...ecurity/?p=2917 (Pwn2Own 2009: Safari/MacBook falls in seconds)
If you cannot find a response better than 'I say its better' then quit posting.

[mpheadley]

Since we are now nailing Bible references to computers, let me say this:

There are plenty of Bible verses that downplay being in debt. If you can pay cash for a Mac, fine. But for me, I had to save for a long while to be able to build my first video editing system. I would have to go in debt if I wanted to buy a Mac.

But there is nothing in the Bible about paying a lot more for the same thing, and having it become obsolete in five years regardless of whether you get a Mac or PC. So then I just have to rely on my common sense to realize there is little point in paying so much extra for the same thing that runs the same program for the same task just as well.

And ladies and gentlemen, If you don't have your system connected to the internet, like my editing system, than you don't have to worry much about security! Cutting the internet = freedom! I do use another computer connected to the web and transfer files via a flash drive. But then, I rarely have any trouble on my Win XP PC that is connected to the web. I have webroot anti spyware, but it's been expired for a year! The only other thing I use is yahoo's toolbar antispyware. I haven't had any trouble in at least 5 years.

[MarioJP]

[quote name='waldojim']
>

jregooden said:

> Well, if Mac OS X wasn't built with security as a priority, they still did a great job. Much better than in Windows. You go through a few steps to secure Vista (for now), and I'd hate to go through the Army's procedure for securing Windows (for now). The Mac on the other hand doesn't require any steps to secure it. Just get online and that is it. The wise man builds his house upon the rock (Mac) and the foolish man builds his house upon the sand (Windows).ok, tell you what. Prove to me WHY Mac OS-X is secure. While I CONTINUE to prove it is not. I am not using crap like 'it does not require any steps to secure it.' Which is horeshit BTW, I flat told you, there is no account security as they removed privelege escalation to make your little mac life easier. I can prove this. Now prove me wrong. I can also prove that the combination of that AND safari weaknesses (And safari is included with Mac OS-X), that I could take over your machine, and have FULL access and control. Prove that is wrong.

it.slashdot.org/it/08/06/18/1919224.shtml (Mac OS X Root Escalation Through AppleScript)
[http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2917] (Pwn2Own 2009: Safari/MacBook falls in seconds)
If you cannot find a response better than 'I say its better' then quit posting.

Apple sure knows how to hide it very well. Appearance can be deceiving no eh?

[WinTard]

Just stating you are purveying FUD is hate?
Message was edited by: smax013

[danield]

Waldo, this is sad. The ARD hole requires someone to have physical access to your computer...haha. If someone has physical access you're pretty much toast anyway. I believe that ARD hole is patched but I'll look it up. And the Safari hole.. hmmmm. There is such a thing as Firefox you know or even Camino. Please point me to the reports of people being hacked by this Safari hole? I've been using Safari all this time and never been hacked. Sort of like you Windows fans when you use the, " Viruses? What viruses"? "Never had one" theme.

So, tell me, why do you need a security manual to run Windows? Can't you just plug it in, connect it to the internet, power it on and use it? :)

[artzy65]

mario wrote:
"Apple sure knows how to hide it very well. Appearance can be deceiving no eh?"

To be fair, using OS X firewall is simple if the user realizes the need for protection... and what noob does these days, given the somewhat misleading hype out there.



Mac OS X Firewall
OS X?s built-in firewall is enough for most users
by Jeffery Battersby, Macworld.com

http://www.macworld....sxfirewall.html

Please don't copy and paste entire articles from other sites. This is a violation of item #5 of the Community Standards: http://www.pcworld.c.../community.html
Message was edited by: smax013

[danield]

Haha.

http://www.nytimes.com/

[BGG001]

The Safari hole is an issue. Your general user uses Safari, not Firefox (also proven vulnerable FYI), Opera, or Chrome, under OS X. Fact. With that fact in mind, the general user is susceptible to the Safari hole, case in point.

Actually, you can just plug in a PC to the internet, power on, and use it. So tell me, (insert ridiculous, fallacious, non-existent, and McCarthiest FUD here)?

[BGG001]

MacWorld. Considering your biased source, the reliability of this information is about as firm as a marshmallow.

[danield]

Issue, yes. Problem, no. Browsers have always been an issue.. Most knowledgeable PC users now this. Compared to IE, Safari has quite a nice track record, even with the vulnerability. Believe it or not, a lot of switchers use Firefox because of familiarity.


Cough, Cough... I call BS.

"As a result, the average time-to-exploitation on some networks for an unprotected computer is measured in minutes. This is especially true in the address ranges used by cable modem, DSL, and dial-up providers.

Standard advice to home users has been to download and install software patches as soon as possible after connecting a new computer to the Internet. However, since the background intruder scanning activity is pervasive, it may not be possible for the user to complete the download and installation of software patches before the vulnerabilities they are trying to fix are exploited. This Tech Tip offers advice on how to protect computers before connecting them to the Internet so that users can complete the patching process without incident."

http://www.cert.org/techtips/beforeyouplugin.html

The Mac is immune to this. Other than checking for updates, you can plug it in anytime cause there are no self propagating malware on the Mac. Case closed. Not so with Windows.

FUD?...hmmmmm. I think not.

[artzy65]

bgg wrote:
"MacWorld. Considering your biased source, the reliability of this information is about as firm as a marshmallow."



Hey... I like marshmallows... especially roasted... thanks for the flame!

[BGG001]

Do note your source also has a set up for Mac OS X...