Macs don't have viruses?

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Martin C.E., Sep 21, 2003.

  1. Martin C.E.

    chris Guest

    But you still need to worry about patching all those apps and services
    such as sendmail, openpdf, etc. Linux and the other *nixes are not
    magically exempt from vulnerabilities being discovered in existing
    distributions. It's simply that the virus writers don't seem to be
    targetting them as heavily.

    -Chris
     
    chris, Sep 22, 2003
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Martin C.E.

    Will Dormann Guest

    Will Dormann, Sep 22, 2003
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. David H. Lipman, Sep 22, 2003
    #23
  4. Martin C.E.

    KRF Guest

    Ok.

    Websters International
    Main Entry: vi┬Ěrus
    Pronunciation: 'vI-r&s
    Function: noun
    Plural: virii
    Etymology: Latin, venom, poisonous emanation; akin to Greek ios poison,
    Sanskrit visa; in senses 2 & 4, from New Latin, from Latin Date: 1599
    1 archaic : VENOM 1
    2 a : the causative agent of an infectious disease b : any of a large
    group of submicroscopic infective agents that are regarded either as
    extremely simple microorganisms or as extremely complex molecules, that
    typically contain a protein coat surrounding an RNA or DNA core of genetic
    material but no semipermeable membrane, that are capable of growth and
    multiplication only in living cells, and that cause various important
    diseases in humans, lower animals, or plants; also : FILTERABLE VIRUS c :
    a disease caused by a virus 3 : something that poisons the mind or soul
    <the force of this virus of prejudice -- V. S. Waters> 4 : a computer
    program usually hidden within another seemingly innocuous program that
    produces copies of itself and inserts them into other programs and that
    usually performs a malicious action (as destroying data)
     
    KRF, Sep 22, 2003
    #24
  5. :ANY, operating system, including mainframes, can be attacked by a virus if
    :there is an infection point, and that is a negative that can't be proven
    :until a successful attack occures.

    True in about the same sense that one can't say that cantelopes
    never have pearls, since one might just not have found the right
    cantelope.

    There are operating systems that have much MUCH stricter security
    designs than Windows or Mac OSX -- operating systems explicitly
    designed to contain damages even if something should slip through.
    Operating systems that have multiple layers of protection and practice
    "defence in depth". The best known example was known as Multics.

    There are even some operating systems that have their entire design
    proven security by mathematical means. There aren't many of the
    proven-secure ones because of the effort involved; and of course even
    with the code having been formally analyzed for bugs, it is still
    possible that there's an unnoticed typo in the actual implimentation.

    Windows was *designed* to be monolitic, *designed* for there to
    be shortcuts and undocumented "hooks" into the code "for efficiency".
    That puts it on a completely different footing than Unix. Yes,
    security holes in Unix systems are possible, but you cannot equate
    teh security of the two. It's like the difference between wearing
    safety glasses and wearing glasses made out of "movie glass".
     
    Walter Roberson, Sep 22, 2003
    #25
  6. Martin C.E.

    Chad Irby Guest

    Yeah, I've been hearing that for a couple of years now...

    Let us know when you find one, okay?
     
    Chad Irby, Sep 22, 2003
    #26
  7. Martin C.E.

    Guillermito Guest

    Yes, and the sea is full of octopii.

    I work in a domain where viruses are used almost every day (biology).
    There are thousands of publications about them. I've never heard
    anyone saying "virii", and I've never seen that in a scientific
    article. It's always "viruses". Go to any molecular biology or
    medecine research lab and ask about "virii", and everybody is going to
    have a great laugh at your expense (if they understand what you mean).

    Curiously, the term "virii" is used almost only by script kiddies.
    Even the serious computer virus writers do not use it.

    Damn. I just stepped in the good old troll.
     
    Guillermito, Sep 22, 2003
    #27
  8. Martin C.E.

    Bill Guest


    The term "virii" is typically used by kiddies wanting to sound "cool".
    So much for education.
     
    Bill, Sep 22, 2003
    #28
  9. Martin C.E.

    Peter J Ross Guest

    The rest of the discussion goes something like this:

    <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bdn1cl$3ui$>

    --
    PJR :)
    mhm34x8
    Smeeter #30
    Alcatroll Labs Inc. (Executive Vice-President)
    Delete "NOSWENPLEASE" to reply.
     
    Peter J Ross, Sep 22, 2003
    #29
  10. Martin C.E.

    Rossz Guest

    It's nearly impossible to infect a linux/unix system (which includes Mac
    OS/X) via email. First you have to save the attachment, then you have to
    specifically make the file an executable, then you have to execute it. No
    one with half a brain would do that with a file from an unknown sender.

    You can thank microsoft for making viruses and worms so common in windows.
    Outlook's security is like having a 5 year old child guard your front door.
    The kid will let anyone in who asks. Virus says, "Hi, I'm an executable
    file from an unknown source that does god knows what to your system, please
    execute me." Outlook responds, "Sure, no problem."
     
    Rossz, Sep 22, 2003
    #30
  11. Martin C.E.

    Rossz Guest

    I see you have no idea what you are talking about. Windows has the most
    viruses because Windows is so damn easy to infect. Outlook being populuar
    with people who don't have a bloody clue, its autoexecute of attachments
    feature has made the spreading of viruses a nonbrainer.

    On a similar note, 70% of all web servers run Linux and Unix variations,
    yet the overwhelming majority of the exploits target MS Windows IIS. Why?
    Certainly not because it's the more popular server. It's because it's so
    damn easy to exploit a windows server.

    Microsoft has the worse security record in the computer world. They try to
    blame it on popularity, but that excuse got old real fast, especially when
    the facts prove otherwise.
     
    Rossz, Sep 22, 2003
    #31
  12. Martin C.E.

    Rossz Guest

    wrote in
    They probably aren't interested because the Open Source community will have
    a patch out within hours of an exploit being discovered. Linux and BSD
    people tend to stay on top of security - the exception being people new
    these operating systems - so patches happen pretty damn fast.

    Unfortunately, there are a lot of rooted linux boxes out there because
    there are a lot of people still getting the hang of the basics. I'll bet
    nearly all of these "owned" boxes were exploited through security holes
    that were patched months if not years ago.

    Security doesn't magically happen, no matter how good the OS.
     
    Rossz, Sep 22, 2003
    #32
  13. Martin C.E.

    donut Guest

    I didn't like Mozilla. First, the browser had a lot of bugs, and a lot of
    rendering problems. I also didn't like it's mail and newsreader. The last
    version I used was 1.4.

    But Firebird is a great browser. It doesn't seem to suffer from the Mozilla
    bugs and is very lite.

    I use an old Eudora for mail and Xnews for Usenet. All works just fine.
     
    donut, Sep 22, 2003
    #33
  14. There are a very few native Mac viruses, and a lot of people run Office
    on Macs so they can get the Office viruses.
    However, thanks to the way Macs work and the way Mac users work, the
    infection routes are rarely available.
     
    DaveOldBlokeBudd, Sep 22, 2003
    #34
  15. Martin C.E.

    Moonlit Guest

    Hi,

    For your reference microsoft had the msblast patch ready months before it
    even existed :)

    A lot of virusses are written after somebody else already has discovered a
    vulnerability.
     
    Moonlit, Sep 22, 2003
    #35
  16. Martin C.E.

    Moonlit Guest

    Hi,

    For your reference microsoft had the msblast patch ready months before the
    virus
    even existed :)

    A lot of virusses are written after somebody else already has discovered a
    vulnerability.
     
    Moonlit, Sep 22, 2003
    #36
  17. What do you mean about the outlook response being "sure no problem"? I use
    Outlook Express and I am well aware of its common perception as being the
    worst in terms of security. I am quite happy with the program however. It
    allows the http protocol which enables me to link it directly to my hotmail
    accounts as well as having perfectly adequate newsgroup functionality. I
    checked my security settings, I use the less restricted internet setting and
    do not have "do not allow attachments that can potentially be virus etc."
    setting enabled. I assume this refers to blocking all executables. I have
    never gotten a virus period, let alone from an email. I am not a freak
    about updates which I believe are as likely to cause as many problems as fix
    them. However when I do get an attachment, I first save it to my desktop
    then scan it with my virus scanner. I assume and am fairly confident this
    is all the protective measure I need barring a super sneaky virus from an
    evil programming mastermind. Am I incorrect? Is there a virus out there
    that as soon as it touches outlook I am f'd?
     
    shawn modersohn, Sep 22, 2003
    #37
  18. What do you mean about the outlook response being "sure no problem"? I use
    Outlook Express and I am well aware of its common perception as being the
    worst in terms of security. I am quite happy with the program however. It
    allows the http protocol which enables me to link it directly to my hotmail
    accounts as well as having perfectly adequate newsgroup functionality. I
    checked my security settings, I use the less restricted internet setting and
    do not have "do not allow attachments that can potentially be virus etc."
    setting enabled. I assume this refers to blocking all executables. I have
    never gotten a virus period, let alone from an email. I am not a freak
    about updates which I believe are as likely to cause as many problems as fix
    them. However when I do get an attachment, I first save it to my desktop
    then scan it with my virus scanner. I assume and am fairly confident this
    is all the protective measure I need barring a super sneaky virus from an
    evil programming mastermind. Am I incorrect? Is there a virus out there
    that as soon as it touches outlook I am f'd?
     
    shawn modersohn, Sep 22, 2003
    #38
  19. On that same subject, is there a virus you can get that is not in the form
    of double clicking on something? I seem to remember a virus called nimda
    that spread over a network, even including just being connected to your isp.
    As I said earlier, I scan any file I get, kazaa, email, etc. and I do not
    update all that often. In fact, from w2k sp2 - sp3, I downloaded not one
    hotfix. What are the risks of a virus as long as I scan my files?
     
    shawn modersohn, Sep 22, 2003
    #39
  20. Martin C.E.

    Walter Dnes Guest

    So why is it that Apache, which has 2.75 times the marketshare of
    IIS, gets hardly any compromises versus IIS ??? For latest marketshare,
    see... <http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/09/01/september_2003_web_server_survey.html>

    Top Developers

    Developer August 2003 Percent September 2003 Percent Change
    Apache 27388860 63.98 27836622 64.52 0.54
    Microsoft 10165745 23.75 10156289 23.54 -0.21
    SunONE 1534586 3.58 1501241 3.48 -0.10
    Zeus 746240 1.74 742950 1.72 -0.02

    Active Sites

    Developer August 2003 Percent September 2003 Percent Change
    Apache 13325183 67.28 13371621 67.45 0.17
    Microsoft 4839624 24.44 4804550 24.23 -0.21
    Zeus 265011 1.34 266220 1.34 0.00
    SunONE 213943 1.08 211234 1.07 -0.01
     
    Walter Dnes, Sep 22, 2003
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.