MR

I found this to be quite interesting in terms of security in Mac OS X and Windows Vista...

True believers in the Mac's inherent impregnability found their faith sorely tested recently, when security researcher Dino Dai Zovi took home a $10,000 prize for remotely hijacking a MacBook Pro running Mac OS 10.4. It took Dai Zovi less than 10 hours to uncover a vulnerability within Apple QuickTime and set up a Web page to exploit it. (Windows versions of QuickTime are also vulnerable to the hack.) Later, in an interview with Computerworld magazine, Dai Zovi declared the Mac OS to be less secure than Vista. (That grinding you hear is the sound of Steve Jobs gnashing his teeth.)

T-Bone?? you 2 may have the same ideas here.....

Why does this surprise anybody? The only reason why you haven't heard of Macs getting infected is because the large majority of computer users use Windows PCs. Why would a hacker waste time on a computer and/or system that isn't widely used?

Greggie wrote:Why does this surprise anybody? The only reason why you haven't heard of Macs getting infected is because the large majority of computer users use Windows PCs. Why would a hacker waste time on a computer and/or system that isn't widely used?

Mac has actually come out with several HUGE security/critical updates over the last couple of years. There is actually another rather large (50+ MB) update that I haven't applied yet to my Mac OS X machine at work.

Greggie wrote:Why does this surprise anybody? The only reason why you haven't heard of Macs getting infected is because the large majority of computer users use Windows PCs. Why would a hacker waste time on a computer and/or system that isn't widely used?

Exactly. Virus writers are all about getting their name in lights amongst their peers. If they wanted to screw up Macs, they surely could.

Greggie wrote:Why does this surprise anybody? The only reason why you haven't heard of Macs getting infected is because the large majority of computer users use Windows PCs. Why would a hacker waste time on a computer and/or system that isn't widely used?

I agree. Mac is not a pimple on the ass of Window's PCs.

If it was an open system, it would be bigger than Windows PCs. But APPLE is too greedy for that.

I use both Mac and PC, and just got a new iMac at work. The most amazing computer I have ever seen. The OS and other software is so logical and easy to use. It would be great if PCs were more like them, which was the basic idea behind Windows anyway.

conversationpc wrote:

Greggie wrote:Why does this surprise anybody? The only reason why you haven't heard of Macs getting infected is because the large majority of computer users use Windows PCs. Why would a hacker waste time on a computer and/or system that isn't widely used?

Mac has actually come out with several HUGE security/critical updates over the last couple of years. There is actually another rather large (50+ MB) update that I haven't applied yet to my Mac OS X machine at work.

Heck. I get security updates from Microsoft almost every single day.

Fernando Ramirez wrote:

Greggie wrote:Why does this surprise anybody? The only reason why you haven't heard of Macs getting infected is because the large majority of computer users use Windows PCs. Why would a hacker waste time on a computer and/or system that isn't widely used?

I agree. Mac is not a pimple on the ass of Window's PCs.

If it was an open system, it would be bigger than Windows PCs. But APPLE is too greedy for that.

Yep! That is why you see more and more people slowly turning toward Linux as opposed to either OS X or Windows. Mac is just waaay over priced for the hardware that is in their machines, and Windows has been way too buggy with their operating systems. And, the biggest downfall with Vista is that it requires too many huge updates in hardware, especially if you plan to use Vista Ultimate. Another upside to Linux, it doesn't require any significant upgrades in hardware (in terms of a terminal computer and not necessarily a server.) Heck, most Linux releases out now don't require anything over a Pentium II processor.

For my primary computer uses (graphic design, audio and video editing) it makes complete sense that I would use a Mac. However, most of the software I am using I've been upgrading for at least the past 7-8 years from original purchases of several hundred dollars per program at the least. If I were to change platforms (I use a PC, duh), it would cost me twice as much just to replace my software. Vista looks great and my current PC is a monster, though visiting DC's house over the weekend did nothing to ease my Mac envy.

conversationpc wrote:I found this to be quite interesting in terms of security in Mac OS X and Windows Vista...

True believers in the Mac's inherent impregnability found their faith sorely tested recently, when security researcher Dino Dai Zovi took home a $10,000 prize for remotely hijacking a MacBook Pro running Mac OS 10.4. It took Dai Zovi less than 10 hours to uncover a vulnerability within Apple QuickTime and set up a Web page to exploit it. (Windows versions of QuickTime are also vulnerable to the hack.) Later, in an interview with Computerworld magazine, Dai Zovi declared the Mac OS to be less secure than Vista. (That grinding you hear is the sound of Steve Jobs gnashing his teeth.)

You for got to add this part:

As originally planned, the rules for the hack a mac contest were relaxed on Friday after nobody had won the contest on the previous days. In the relaxed set of rules, a URL was provided that exposed Safari to a "specially-constructed Web page" which allowed the hacker to gain shell access to the MacBook.

Greggie wrote:

conversationpc wrote:

Greggie wrote:Why does this surprise anybody? The only reason why you haven't heard of Macs getting infected is because the large majority of computer users use Windows PCs. Why would a hacker waste time on a computer and/or system that isn't widely used?

Mac has actually come out with several HUGE security/critical updates over the last couple of years. There is actually another rather large (50+ MB) update that I haven't applied yet to my Mac OS X machine at work.

Heck. I get security updates from Microsoft almost every single day.

The difference being that Microsoft releases the patches when they are available. Apple bunches them all into one big update and releases them less often. The result is basically the same, in my opinion.

conversationpc wrote:

Greggie wrote:Why does this surprise anybody? The only reason why you haven't heard of Macs getting infected is because the large majority of computer users use Windows PCs. Why would a hacker waste time on a computer and/or system that isn't widely used?

Mac has actually come out with several HUGE security/critical updates over the last couple of years. There is actually another rather large (50+ MB) update that I haven't applied yet to my Mac OS X machine at work.

Are you sure?

The last security update I had was 15.7 MB.

I've been increasingly frustrated with my PC as of late...as I mentioned in another thread. It really seems to me that my machine has just gotten slower and slower over the past year. I often find a MS update ruins the ability of other software to operate...ironically, 'competing' software. If I had a penny for each time I had to reinstall Norton Internet Security over the past year, due to things 'just breaking'...I would be a rich man. I used to think it was Norton's fault, but the fact of the matter is that each and every time I had the problem, it was the very morning after a microsoft update.

I am *so* sick of having programs crash on me....and then getting that offensive "would you like to send an error report to microsoft"?? FUCK NO, DO YOUR OWN BUG CHECKING MICROSOFT!!!!

I've been very very tempted to go all mac very soon....I don't know if I buy the whole Mac isn't as secure as Vista bullshit. Mac has routinely been a more secure system than anything MS for a very long time. As already mentioned, the rules for the challenge had to be relaxed...Sure there are going to be vulnerabilities in all operating systems...it just seems to me that Mac has less of them!


As for Linux...when I was a developer...going back a handful of years now...I used Linux almost exclusively. Back into the mid-90s, pre-redhat....The operating system, as of then, was NOT for anyone other than a full-on Unix savvy person. It has changed slightly, tobe more end-user friendly....but the fact of the matter is that Linux doesn't come out of the box completely user-friendly. It really has to be configured by a person who knows his way around a linux box...

My other issue with Linux (and what has prevented me from going back to Linux) is the fact that there is ZERO multi-track PC recording software available for the operating system. Everything is either Mac or PC. I do alot of recording on my computer....I need a machine with that ability...

Something else that really bothers me about Microsoft...is this:

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/05/15/patent-litigations-battle-royale-microsoft-v-open-source/


They seem emboldened by the fact that they escaped getting whacked by the DOJ....so they're continuing the monopoly, full fledge....and going after Linux...like Linux is a threat!

strangegrey wrote:Something else that really bothers me about Microsoft...is this:

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/05/15/patent-litigations-battle-royale-microsoft-v-open-source/


They seem emboldened by the fact that they escaped getting whacked by the DOJ....so they're continuing the monopoly, full fledge....and going after Linux...like Linux is a threat!

Linux is a threat.

conversationpc wrote:

Greggie wrote:

conversationpc wrote:

Greggie wrote:Why does this surprise anybody? The only reason why you haven't heard of Macs getting infected is because the large majority of computer users use Windows PCs. Why would a hacker waste time on a computer and/or system that isn't widely used?

Mac has actually come out with several HUGE security/critical updates over the last couple of years. There is actually another rather large (50+ MB) update that I haven't applied yet to my Mac OS X machine at work.

Heck. I get security updates from Microsoft almost every single day.

The difference being that Microsoft releases the patches when they are available. Apple bunches them all into one big update and releases them less often. The result is basically the same, in my opinion.

If they are security patches I would not want the company waiting to bunch them all together, I'd want a patch available for download as soon as possible.

Greggie wrote:

conversationpc wrote:

Greggie wrote:

conversationpc wrote:

Greggie wrote:Why does this surprise anybody? The only reason why you haven't heard of Macs getting infected is because the large majority of computer users use Windows PCs. Why would a hacker waste time on a computer and/or system that isn't widely used?

Mac has actually come out with several HUGE security/critical updates over the last couple of years. There is actually another rather large (50+ MB) update that I haven't applied yet to my Mac OS X machine at work.

Heck. I get security updates from Microsoft almost every single day.

The difference being that Microsoft releases the patches when they are available. Apple bunches them all into one big update and releases them less often. The result is basically the same, in my opinion.

If they are security patches I would not want the company waiting to bunch them all together, I'd want a patch available for download as soon as possible.

Apple doesn't bunch them together. As I said, my last security update was 15MB, not 50MB. If you don't do the updates as they come out, then they may end up bunched together.

jrnyjunky wrote:Apple doesn't bunch them together. As I said, my last security update was 15MB, not 50MB. If you don't do the updates as they come out, then they may end up bunched together.

I admit that I was wrong. It wasn't 50MB....It was 52.7MB.

I'm applying it right now.

Greggie wrote:

strangegrey wrote:Something else that really bothers me about Microsoft...is this:

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/05/15/patent-litigations-battle-royale-microsoft-v-open-source/


They seem emboldened by the fact that they escaped getting whacked by the DOJ....so they're continuing the monopoly, full fledge....and going after Linux...like Linux is a threat!

Linux is a threat.

I disagree.....go to any aunt sally or uncle harry and force them to switch and say"forget about windows, install redhat and use that..."

They wouldn't get past the installation process.


Pre-install it for them...and ask them to start using it....

they wouldn't have the first idea of where to launch a browser....


It's not an operating system that's made for the masses.

-f

I have never had a 50mb OSX update either. I run 3 businesses that are MAC only (people say "on a MAC you have no software choices" - that is total bullshit). We have no problems at all. Had major bullshit with MS products and shit canned them 3 years ago. It took some getting used to at first and all of that. Now I am so glad we switched. Everything is seamless and easy to use ie: networking, iPods, phones, wireless, printers, iTunes, iPhoto you name it.

I guess if you ar a hardcore gamer stay with a PC. My MAC plays pac-man just fine.

strangegrey wrote:

Greggie wrote:

strangegrey wrote:Something else that really bothers me about Microsoft...is this:

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/05/15/patent-litigations-battle-royale-microsoft-v-open-source/


They seem emboldened by the fact that they escaped getting whacked by the DOJ....so they're continuing the monopoly, full fledge....and going after Linux...like Linux is a threat!

Linux is a threat.

I disagree.....go to any aunt sally or uncle harry and force them to switch and say"forget about windows, install redhat and use that..."

They wouldn't get past the installation process.


Pre-install it for them...and ask them to start using it....

they wouldn't have the first idea of where to launch a browser....


It's not an operating system that's made for the masses.

-f

Same thing was said about Windows years ago. I guarantee you in the next few years, there will be more and more people jumping off the Windows ship and floating to Linux, especially as Linux keeps improving the user interface and making it more user friendly. Many companies are using and have been using Linux servers over Windows servers for years.

Greg wrote:
Yep! That is why you see more and more people slowly turning toward Linux as opposed to either OS X or Windows. Mac is just waaay over priced for the hardware that is in their machines, and Windows has been way too buggy with their operating systems. And, the biggest downfall with Vista is that it requires too many huge updates in hardware, especially if you plan to use Vista Ultimate. Another upside to Linux, it doesn't require any significant upgrades in hardware (in terms of a terminal computer and not necessarily a server.) Heck, most Linux releases out now don't require anything over a Pentium II processor.

Greg, if I had a choice (and I do), then I'll always pick PC over Mac. I used to use a Mac, like 10 years ago.

But that doesn't mean that I'm all happy with MICROSOFT. I think the way they handled VISTA was piss poor, especially since it seems to have rendered a lot of my software useless.... and I have to buy it all over again to have any semblance of stability in the running of it.

As far as Linux... I'd be willing to try it. But there are virtually NO programs for it. If it will run my Pro Tools system, I'll give it a try.

Is there any way they can open it up so that all of our WINDOWS programs could run on it? If they did that, I would jump the MS ship and go Linux. Hell, I'd even create a fan website for it... compose a theme song for them... dedicate my next album to them... all for FREE!!!

I still prefer Windows XP Vista looks cool, but I'll not bother with it until next year when they iron out some bugs. I still think Microsoft is installing bullshit updates through Automatic Update to XP to make it either run slower or have problems, so people go for Vista I'd never put it past them

I'm still not giving up my Mac. That's all i've ever owned.

NealIsGod wrote:I use both Mac and PC, and just got a new iMac at work. The most amazing computer I have ever seen. The OS and other software is so logical and easy to use. It would be great if PCs were more like them, which was the basic idea behind Windows anyway.

Totally agree! I switched from PC to Mac about 6 years ago and and it was my best buy ever. Just got myself a new iMac 20"... the coolest machine I've ever seen. It's very fast, looks great, it's very quiet and the standard software (iLife, etc.) is awesome. Most of my colleagues {38} work on a PC with XP but when something extra needs to be done they know where to find me.
I played with Vista a couple of times and to me it looks like a crappy copy of OSX without the great software... ooops, are we talking about copy-cats again?

Fernando Ramirez wrote:

Greg wrote:
Yep! That is why you see more and more people slowly turning toward Linux as opposed to either OS X or Windows. Mac is just waaay over priced for the hardware that is in their machines, and Windows has been way too buggy with their operating systems. And, the biggest downfall with Vista is that it requires too many huge updates in hardware, especially if you plan to use Vista Ultimate. Another upside to Linux, it doesn't require any significant upgrades in hardware (in terms of a terminal computer and not necessarily a server.) Heck, most Linux releases out now don't require anything over a Pentium II processor.

Greg, if I had a choice (and I do), then I'll always pick PC over Mac. I used to use a Mac, like 10 years ago.

But that doesn't mean that I'm all happy with MICROSOFT. I think the way they handled VISTA was piss poor, especially since it seems to have rendered a lot of my software useless.... and I have to buy it all over again to have any semblance of stability in the running of it.

As far as Linux... I'd be willing to try it. But there are virtually NO programs for it. If it will run my Pro Tools system, I'll give it a try.

Is there any way they can open it up so that all of our WINDOWS programs could run on it? If they did that, I would jump the MS ship and go Linux. Hell, I'd even create a fan website for it... compose a theme song for them... dedicate my next album to them... all for FREE!!!

Well the Linux guys are working hard at trying to get software, such as the stuff you use, to be compatible. You gotta understand something about Linux. The developers are a bunch of programmers who often submit their versions (often called distros) of Linux to the open source community. Open source is basically meaning that the code is there for anybody to look at and to manipulate. They may or may not get paid for programming their versions of Linux. With that said, there are still issues with hardware and software that are not compatible, but those issues are becoming less and less true with each verison of a distro that they release. Just a year or so ago, the verison of Linux that I was using, Fedora Core 4, wasn't compatible to read any DVDs...let alone burn them. I couldn't even find any plugins that would read mp3s (because MP3 compression is a licensed compression tool.) However, in the latest version, which I think is FC 7, they have solved all of those issues.

I will warn ya, there is a bit of a learning curb to using Linux and not all distros (there are several to choose from,) are the same. I'd suggest for newbies to download and install Ubuntu. It seems to be a better "transitional" OS of Linux than the other copies. I have no idea if it would be compatible with your Pro Tools software and hardware. You might want to sign up on one of their forum boards and ask.

Well, let me say that I've been familiar with and/or using Linux since the mid 90s, before Red Hat was really anything more than just a small fledging company out of Research Triangle, NC. Prior to the career change I started 3 years ago, I was a programmer, prior to that, Network Administrator.

I can't say I know any operating system through and through right now, as it's largely a skill/memory set that has atrophied within me. However, a few years ago, I had 2 workstations on my desktop....a Linux box and an XP box. At the time my qualified opinion was that Linux was nothing more than an Op Sys for someone that either a programmer or a Net Admin. It was *not* a stand alone operating system for anyone else, *regardless* of the distrobution. I will also add that if you threw a qualified net admin/script writing into the mix, you could use Linux for an office...like how it is used at MusicMan corporate....but you need someone that really knows how to mold and rewrite the interface to make it bulletproof and idiotproof.

The problem I saw/see with linux distro's for my personal use, both back then *and* now are two points:

1) I've never had a Linux distro work right out of the box without a great deal of work to get running...and when I mean work, I mean recompiling shit, making adjustments to code, etc. This kind of stuff is NOT the kind of stuff and Harry, Dick or Sally could do...it's rework that was only possible based on my knowledge as a programmer. The fact of the matter is that achillies heel of the open source model is that any tom, dick or harry programmer that *thinks* they are a programmer....can write stuff for Linux....and there's a sea of half finished, poorly written crap in the available software pool. The unsuspecting user out there simply doesn't know how to sift through the trash to get to the goodies.

2) When I'm not studying to become a CPA, I'm a songwriter. To date, there is not ONE major recording software company that has ported a version to Linux. A great deal of how I write music alone and with partners is dependent on whether or not I can open Pro Tools or Sonar or Logic files...and whether or not I can utilize plugins. I have a friend, who is a CS teacher at the local community college. He just doesn't get it. He suggests that I try Audacity or the various other crap out there...but he doesn't realize that as a songwriter or musician....you don't want to waste 1/2 your time trying to rewrite poorly written code by hacks who *think* they are programmers...when inspiration hits. You want your recording software to work on the first try, be compatible with other systems and get your recording down without issue. Pro Tools and Sonar does that for me. I've never seen a linux box reliably record music to my satisfaction...

Have you tried the new Ubuntu Studio version that is geared toward audio and video creators and pros? Check it out if you haven't. I think you'll be pleasantly suprised: http://www.ubuntustudio.com

As for an easy to use Linux distro, what about Linspire? If someone can find their way around Windoze XP, they should be able to run this with no problem at all. I've been using it for years: http://www.linspire.com

strangegrey wrote:Well, let me say that I've been familiar with and/or using Linux since the mid 90s, before Red Hat was really anything more than just a small fledging company out of Research Triangle, NC. Prior to the career change I started 3 years ago, I was a programmer, prior to that, Network Administrator.

I can't say I know any operating system through and through right now, as it's largely a skill/memory set that has atrophied within me. However, a few years ago, I had 2 workstations on my desktop....a Linux box and an XP box. At the time my qualified opinion was that Linux was nothing more than an Op Sys for someone that either a programmer or a Net Admin. It was *not* a stand alone operating system for anyone else, *regardless* of the distrobution. I will also add that if you threw a qualified net admin/script writing into the mix, you could use Linux for an office...like how it is used at MusicMan corporate....but you need someone that really knows how to mold and rewrite the interface to make it bulletproof and idiotproof.

The problem I saw/see with linux distro's for my personal use, both back then *and* now are two points:

1) I've never had a Linux distro work right out of the box without a great deal of work to get running...and when I mean work, I mean recompiling shit, making adjustments to code, etc. This kind of stuff is NOT the kind of stuff and Harry, Dick or Sally could do...it's rework that was only possible based on my knowledge as a programmer. The fact of the matter is that achillies heel of the open source model is that any tom, dick or harry programmer that *thinks* they are a programmer....can write stuff for Linux....and there's a sea of half finished, poorly written crap in the available software pool. The unsuspecting user out there simply doesn't know how to sift through the trash to get to the goodies.

2) When I'm not studying to become a CPA, I'm a songwriter. To date, there is not ONE major recording software company that has ported a version to Linux. A great deal of how I write music alone and with partners is dependent on whether or not I can open Pro Tools or Sonar or Logic files...and whether or not I can utilize plugins. I have a friend, who is a CS teacher at the local community college. He just doesn't get it. He suggests that I try Audacity or the various other crap out there...but he doesn't realize that as a songwriter or musician....you don't want to waste 1/2 your time trying to rewrite poorly written code by hacks who *think* they are programmers...when inspiration hits. You want your recording software to work on the first try, be compatible with other systems and get your recording down without issue. Pro Tools and Sonar does that for me. I've never seen a linux box reliably record music to my satisfaction...

Yeah, if one is using a computer for music recording, they are probably better off with a Windows or Mac based system. That does suck! It's been awhile since I've messed around with Linux. With Fedora, overall, I really like it. I'm also a programmer, but I haven't programmed for anything Linux wise.