Infected XP computers unpatched
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Low-res icons in Dock?
Next: iPod touch won't update?
From: Pd on 18 Apr 2010 11:39 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8624560.stm> This is brilliant. "The latest updates can spot if a system is compromised by the Alureon rootkit and halt installation." So basically Microsoft have said it's better to have a working infected machine than a non-working one. After all, the Alureon virus only "monitors net traffic and plucks out user names, passwords and credit card numbers. It also gives attackers a back door into infected machines." Never mind the rest of society that is adversely affected by an infected computer, as long as the user isn't inconvenienced. That's the attitude that gave us infectable computers in the first place. -- Pd
From: SteveH on 18 Apr 2010 19:01 Conor <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: > Unlike most technologically challenged Apple fanbois I think we can make a judgement on this article right there. -- SteveH
From: smurf on 18 Apr 2010 19:03 Conor wrote: > On 18/04/2010 20:08, Peter Ceresole wrote: >> Conor<conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: > Aside from bluntly speaking the truth, Maiffret attributes any > security advantage that Mac OS X has over Windows to the BSD Unix > codebase of its underlying operating system, saying that the fruit > themed toymaker is simply taking advantage of "things that have been > done for them". So, it's only more secure because 'it was made that way'? How dare Apple base their operating system on a rock solid, stable and secure codebase. Windows has gone through three major iterations since Apple made that decision. Windows 7 is just as susceptible to malware as windows XP. The extra security introduced in both vista and windows 7 was bypassed before the RTM even left the shelves. The very first vista machine i was called out to, vista must have been out less then a week, the customers machine was infested with malware that wasnt even designed for vista. The parasite (a fake AV) was written for XP, and despite the UAC being active and the user being on a limited account, the parasite activated itself as if they werent there.
From: Conor on 18 Apr 2010 19:12 On 19/04/2010 00:03, smurf wrote: > Conor wrote: >> On 18/04/2010 20:08, Peter Ceresole wrote: >>> Conor<conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: > > >> Aside from bluntly speaking the truth, Maiffret attributes any >> security advantage that Mac OS X has over Windows to the BSD Unix >> codebase of its underlying operating system, saying that the fruit >> themed toymaker is simply taking advantage of "things that have been >> done for them". > > So, it's only more secure because 'it was made that way'? > > How dare Apple base their operating system on a rock solid, stable and > secure codebase. > > Windows has gone through three major iterations since Apple made that > decision. Windows 7 is just as susceptible to malware as windows XP. The > extra security introduced in both vista and windows 7 was bypassed before > the RTM even left the shelves. > > The very first vista machine i was called out to, vista must have been out > less then a week, the customers machine was infested with malware that wasnt > even designed for vista. The parasite (a fake AV) was written for XP, and > despite the UAC being active and the user being on a limited account, the > parasite activated itself as if they werent there. > BWAHAHA -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Conor on 18 Apr 2010 19:22
On 19/04/2010 00:21, Conor wrote: > More recently, well last month actually: > > http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/192419/security_lessons_learned_from_pwn2own_contest.html > > > "Charlie Miller, famous for compromising a fully-patched Macbook the > past two years, succeeded once again in hacking the Macbook to take the > Pwn2Own prize. " > > ..that was the third year in a row Charlie Miller has won by p0wning Mac > OS X, faster than Windows and Linux. Oh and in the article above, a > fully updated iPhone 3G was hacked in seconds. > From the same article: "There are two lessons for businesses to learn about security here, right off the bat. First, using Apple hardware and software is not an adequate defense, in and of itself. Despite the common perception that the Mac OS X operating system is just inherently more secure than Windows, the reality is that the primary reason Macs aren't attacked and compromised more often is that the platform with 92 percent market share promises malware developers a significantly higher return on investment than the platform with 5 percent market share. Ironically, while there are admittedly no real malware threats circulating in the wild for the Mac OS X platform, the perception of inherent security makes Mac users more vulnerable in other ways. Many Mac users are so sure that the platform is impervious that they are oblivious to security concerns at all. Unfortunately for them, phishing attacks and identity theft are a function of social engineering more than security technology, and the lack of awareness makes Mac users more gullible." -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally. |