Prev: Dustin Cook - Kingsport, TN
Next: Malware threats on legit web sites
From: William Mook on 6 Jul 2010 12:03
On Jul 1, 9:29 pm, "FromTheRafters" <erra...(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> "Wolf K" <weki...(a)sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:d71Xn.26663$Jy1.18367(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> > IMO viruses are not the main danger anymore (though
> > if you ever get one, the effect can be traumatic. Don't
> > ask how I know.)
>
> Generally, there is no reason to resort to viral techniques when there
> is so much low hanging fruit to be had just by tricking the user into
> running an application he perhaps shouldn't be running. When users start
> getting clued-up and adhering to best practices, viruses might again
> rule the malware world.
>
> [...]
>
> > The strict permissions regime of the *nix (including OS-X) is no
> > protection. It is designed to prevent attacks
> > on the OS itself, which is no help when the user has
> > allowed the malware access to the system.
>
> Good point to make, Wolf K.
>
> Not long ago I was trying to convince some Linux user that malware
> (specifically, bots) can still run on Linux, he didn't understand that
> malware is often just an application that the user is running and not
> some software exploit based intruder.
>
> [...]

Why can't OS-X detect 'allowed' transmissions of personal information
and ask the OS user to approve permission the first time it occurs?
As a dumb user I want all the benefits of cookies and their spawn
without the trouble. I don't mind in the least knowing what is
leaving my system and who is getting it. It seems to me it would be
simplicity itself to have classes of personal OS owner information
that triggers an 'approval' window (until turned off) and keep track
of all such transactions and when they occurred and so forth.

Am I missing something?
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Dustin Cook - Kingsport, TN
Next: Malware threats on legit web sites