So there's no malware in the wild for Mac OS X?
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Opera mail
Next: Ejecting drives with Applescript
From: Duncan Kennedy on 22 Apr 2010 07:21 Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > On 2010-04-22, Duncan Kennedy <nospam(a)nospamottersonbg.couk> wrote: > > Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote: > > > >> On 2010-04-22 02:04:22 +0100, Jaimie Vandenbergh said: > >> > >> > So even the protected machines are at continuous risk, this time from > >> > trusted, permitted updates. On top of the general lousy computer > >> > experience caused by AV scan-caused slowdown, this really shows that > >> > running Windows is a case of lose-lose. > >> > >> I don't remember where I read this, but it amused me: Failure is not an > >> option in Windows, it is built-in. > > > > > > I've come across reports of this sort of thing before with Windows - on > > the other hand were not some 10.6 systems in trouble after an upgrade > > recently? And this with full control of the hardware unlike Windows. > > As I understand it, the recent 10.6.3 update failed to update correctly if, > and only if, you were updating from 10.6.0 > > If you were coming from 10.6.1 or 10.6.2 then you were fine. They reissued > the update a day or two later. > That's comforting to know, thanks - I'm on 10.6.2 -- duncank
From: Rowland McDonnell on 23 Apr 2010 13:31 James Dore <james.dore(a)new.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell<real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: [snip] > > Rowland. > > > > P.S. WFT? Just how often does Apple need to update the digital camera > > raw compatibility wossname, eh? Seems like only last week I installed > > v3.1. > > What, again?! That's twice this year, more than they've managed in the > last two years.... Really? I've not had 10.6 that long, and I'm sure I've seen more such updates than that. Hmm. Just looked at my archive of updaters, and I can't see any. I'm sure I recall having trouble downloading the stand-alone updater for the v2.7 update. Hmm. Ah yes - mis-filed. Got it now - created 13/4/2010 on my filesystem, that one. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 22 Apr 2010 20:25 James Dore <james.dore(a)new.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > James Dore <james.dore(a)new.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > >> Only an idiot would claim any OS is free of Malware. > > > > There's none for the Manchester Atlas that I know of - and it had an OS. > > > > You're right. I should have said 'Only a raging pedant would claim any OS > is free of malware'. > > HTH, HAND, Surely you mean `raving pedant'? And anyway, it'd have to be `raving pedant or an idiot' with the `or' taking the human grammar meaning of `and/or'. Rowland. P.S. WFT? Just how often does Apple need to update the digital camera raw compatibility wossname, eh? Seems like only last week I installed v3.1. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: James Dore on 21 Apr 2010 04:04 On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:48:35 +0100, Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > James Dore <james.dore(a)new.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > > [snip] > >> Only an idiot would claim any OS is free of Malware. > > There's none for the Manchester Atlas that I know of - and it had an OS. > You're right. I should have said 'Only a raging pedant would claim any OS is free of malware'. HTH, HAND, -- James Dore New College IT Officer james.dore(a)new / it-support(a)new
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on 21 Apr 2010 21:04
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:30:44 +0100, Conor <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: >So there we have it. Real malware out in the wild and whilst its >currently not spreading much, due to the Apple fanboi belief that their >OS is immune, it might not stay that way for long. Conversely, yesterday somewhere in the region of hundred of thousands of Windows XP desktops were disabled by a false positive in a McAfee corporate antivirus update, which cheerfully deleted svchost.exe, the helper program that runs most of the Windows services. Windows often doesn't boot after that. So even the protected machines are at continuous risk, this time from trusted, permitted updates. On top of the general lousy computer experience caused by AV scan-caused slowdown, this really shows that running Windows is a case of lose-lose. Cheers - Jaimie -- I love VoIP. You don't get people phoning up to complain that the network is down. -- Peter Corlett, ASR |