LOL IM SAFE FROM VIRUSEZ CUZ I USE MAC!!1!




Posted by Lord of Spam

http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/6138/Hacker_Gains_Root_Access_to_Mac_OS_X_in_30_Minutes

Enjoy getting hacked, mac users. You're jsut as vulnerable as windows.




Posted by Demonblade

im going to send this to a couple of my buddies...the are always talking big about MAC. thanks for finding it spam.




Posted by Lord of Spam

Got it from a troll thread on 4chan about macs vs pc.




Posted by Trigger

By comparison to Windows, though, a Mac would be less likely to have viruses running rampant. That's due to many factors other than system security too - less popularity in comparison to Microsoft and lesser number of viruses specifically created for the Mac environment are just two examples. It isn't very often that I hear reports of a new virus outbreak on the Mac OS, yet Windows has a new virus created for it far too often to even keep track.

The release of Windows Vista in several more months is only going to increase the number of viruses created and people wanting to find ways to exploit the latest operating system at the very first chance they get. It happens every time Microsoft make a new operating system release.




Posted by Proto Man

Take note. The guy said that nobody hacks Macs because most of everyone uses Windows. Not that I am trying to defend Apple or anything, but you have to look at all angles.




Posted by Trigger

I just said that, Protoman. Take note.

[quote=Trigger]...a Mac would be less likely to have viruses running rampant. That's due to many factors other than system security too - less popularity in comparison to Microsoft...
Besides, somebody obviously does hack Mac computers, Protoman or else there wouldn't be anyone who could have successfully gained root access on that day. There wouldn't be security vulnerabilities that have been patched or discovered if nobody hacked Mac. Most of all, there wouldn't be at least two hundred different viruses made for the Mac environment.

You need to read other peoples posts and consider taking note of some facts for yourself before telling others that they need to take notes, I'd say.




Posted by Proto Man


Quoting Trigger: I just said that, Protoman. Take note.


Besides, somebody obviously does hack Mac computers, Protoman or else there wouldn't be anyone who could have successfully gained root access on that day. There wouldn't be security vulnerabilities that have been patched or discovered if nobody hacked Mac. Most of all, there wouldn't be at least two hundred different viruses made for the Mac environment.

You need to read other peoples posts and consider taking note of some facts for yourself before telling others that they need to take notes, I'd say.


You just happened to post right before I had. When I went to make my post LoS was the last one who had posted. And yes, I realize that SOMEBODY out there does hack Macs, but like you said, Micrsoft is more popular. That's why there are so many viruses for it, yadda yadda. Either way, it's not enough for me to go out and buy a Mac, I am perfectly happy with my PC. I bet you though if Apple's Mac OS was made for PC's, there would be more virus's for it.



Posted by Klarth

http://test.doit.wisc.edu/

The Mac Mini used was configured with two local user accounts and had SSH and HTTP open. Having HTTP open defies typical settings.

OSX isn't invulerable, but the first challenge was balls.




Posted by Lord of Spam

I'm just tired of all the morons here that think that because their computer is made of shiney white plastic that its invulnerable.




Posted by Trigger

HI PORT 80! :kiss:

Klarth, the link is no longer active; Apple's CIO caused the test to be closed because it was not authorised. I'm not sure if you were aware of that, or if that was why you linked to it.




Posted by higbvuyb


Quoted post: What might surprise many is that both Apple's Mac OS X and Microsoft's Windows have roughly the same type of vulnerabilities in a similar volume, said Weafer.

Hey, who was the retarded one that said macs are more secure?


Quoted post: The Mac Mini used was configured with two local user accounts and had SSH and HTTP open. Having HTTP open defies typical settings.


And? most computer security problems are viruses, the few hackers in the world wouldn't really concentrate on small home PCs. Viruses are already inside the computer when they are run, and they can so do anything the user can.



Posted by Klarth


Quoting Trigger: HI PORT 80! :kiss:

Klarth, the link is no longer active; Apple's CIO caused the test to be closed because it was not authorised. I'm not sure if you were aware of that, or if that was why you linked to it.

When I linked to it, it was still active. :/ Oh well.

[quote=higbvuyb]
And? most computer security problems are viruses, the few hackers in the world wouldn't really concentrate on small home PCs. Viruses are already inside the computer when they are run, and they can so do anything the user can.
...I was stating that having HTTP open left it more open to attack, so it was a dumb move on the part of the contest's organiser. What you've just said is utterly irrelevant.



Posted by higbvuyb


Quoting Klarth: ...I was stating that having HTTP open left it more open to attack, so it was a dumb move on the part of the contest's organiser. What you've just said is utterly irrelevant.

No, you're just a spastic retarded fool who can't read. Okay, I'll make it simple so you can understand. (like Wikipedia's simple english)

1. Most normal computer users are not hacked by a hacker. This is because the hackers don't really have much reason to do so, and also because there are millions of normal computer users at any given time. Most hacked computers are servers.
2. The most common security problem is a virus, becuase they are in fact, designed to spread around normal user's computers. But, since viruses are usually already on the computer, they have as much access as the user when run, they don't have to hack into the Mac. So, viruses are as effective on macs as PCs.

Also, what you said is irrelevant in itself, because a Symantec worker himself said that Macs have as many vulnerabilites as PCs.

The only reasons that Macs are seen as more secure are that Macs are rarer than PCs, and so there is less of an incentive to write viruses/hacks for them, and also because the user is tied down and treated as a retarded idiot who might accidentally damage their computer by being overwhelmed by two buttons, or deleting the wrong files.

Anyway, most internet-connected computers have at least one port open while actively using the internet. They can still hack that port.



Posted by Klarth

[QUOTE=higbvuyb]2. The most common security problem is a virus, becuase they are in fact, designed to spread around normal user's computers. But, since viruses are usually already on the computer, they have as much access as the user when run, they don't have to hack into the Mac. So, viruses are as effective on macs as PCs.
I never doubted that. Go back and read my post.

[quote]Also, what you said is irrelevant in itself, because a Symantec worker himself said that Macs have as many vulnerabilites as PCs.
So, if a Microsoft worker announced that all new Xbox games would be free, that'd be completely and utterly non-debatably true? Alrighty.




Posted by ExoXile

Swedes are so kewl! :D




Posted by Klarth

Debatable.




Posted by Trigger

[quote=higbvuyb]No, you're just a spastic retarded fool who can't read.
Klarth made a valid statement. Just because you don't accept the facts he stated doesn't make him a "spastic retarded fool who can't read."

[quote]1. Most normal computer users are not hacked by a hacker. This is because the hackers don't really have much reason to do so, and also because there are millions of normal computer users at any given time. Most hacked computers are servers.
Plenty of user-based computers are broken into by "hackers" on a daily basis, and many hackers do so without having any reason other than to flex their hacking muscles and create a little bit of chaos for amusement. Might I point out where hundreds, even thousands of standard user machines are hacked and compromised is to perform DoS attacks. Every hacker understands that a better way to attack a larger target is to gather 'troops' as opposed to going in alone and trying to attack it solo. Port scans are occuring on your machine more times a day than you may be aware of, Higbvuyb.

[quote]2. The most common security problem is a virus, becuase they are in fact, designed to spread around normal user's computers. But, since viruses are usually already on the computer, they have as much access as the user when run, they don't have to hack into the Mac. So, viruses are as effective on macs as PCs.
As Klarth said, no one is really disputing that, not even him. The fact that the HTTP port is actively open almost all the time when one is online provides an easier access point to infection and unauthorised access than trying to break into a secured or closed port. Asking a hacker to try and get into a Mac, or any operating system whilst leaving port 80 wide open presents hardly any challenge at all. It's similar to leaving the front door to your house open and leaving the keys in the lock.

[quote]Also, what you said is irrelevant in itself, because a Symantec worker himself said that Macs have as many vulnerabilites as PCs.
Symantec also admit that their Norton anti-virus software creates a vulnerability in Mac OS-X. What does that say about their abilities to actively protect machines from infection, when their own software makes it easier for infection to occur?

[quote]The only reasons that Macs are seen as more secure are that Macs are rarer than PCs, and so there is less of an incentive to write viruses/hacks for them, and also because the user is tied down and treated as a retarded idiot who might accidentally damage their computer by being overwhelmed by two buttons, or deleting the wrong files.
I would say that many Microsoft users are also treated as imbeciles who can't be trusted with files or system security. Mac machines aren't rarer, either it's merely that many users choose not to use it and Microsoft holds the majority of the operating system market. Most people who want an alternative to Windows usually choose a flavour of Linux before they choose a Mac. Regardless of whether the Mac can be attacked or not, it technically is more secure for now purely because it has significantly less viruses written for it. The chances of any Windows user being infected by a virus is far greater than any Mac user - not to mention the security risks that come with Microsoft's ActiveX controls, which are used in many web pages that can be exploited to compromise system security.

[quote]Anyway, most internet-connected computers have at least one port open while actively using the internet. They can still hack that port.
An open port can be effectively secured by a high-quality, properly configured and managed firewall. Though firewalls can't stop every intrusion made onto systems, many firewalls that have been properly configured can do a fantastic job at securing open ports and denying unauthorised and unsolicited access. An open port and an open, yet highly secured port have a big difference between the two.

I really question how much you know about computer security, other than formulating some opinion based on what you think you know.




Posted by higbvuyb


Quoting Klarth: I never doubted that. Go back and read my post.
I did (knowing already what it said), and what does it say? "What you've just said is utterly irrelevant.'
This is incorrect. It is relevant to what you said.

[quote]So, if a Microsoft worker announced that all new Xbox games would be free, that'd be completely and utterly non-debatably true? Alrighty.


Quoted post: senior director at Symantec Security Response.

Hey, the senior director isn't really just an employee, is he?


Quoted post: Klarth made a valid statement. Just because you don't accept the facts he stated doesn't make him a "spastic retarded fool who can't read."

Incorrect. I do accept that the http port was left open. You're the one who is making the incorrect statements.


Quoted post: Plenty of user-based computers are broken into by "hackers" on a daily basis, and many hackers do so without having any reason other than to flex their hacking muscles and create a little bit of chaos for amusement. Might I point out where hundreds, even thousands of standard user machines are hacked and compromised is to perform DoS attacks. Every hacker understands that a better way to attack a larger target is to gather 'troops' as opposed to going in alone and trying to attack it solo. Port scans are occuring on your machine more times a day than you may be aware of, Higbvuyb.

Most computers are not. Although several million may be many computers, Several million from several hundred million is not 'most'. Also, the term 'DDoS' is the one that actually applies there.


Quoted post: As Klarth said, no one is really disputing that, not even him. The fact that the HTTP port is actively open almost all the time when one is online provides an easier access point to infection and unauthorised access than trying to break into a secured or closed port. Asking a hacker to try and get into a Mac, or any operating system whilst leaving port 80 wide open presents hardly any challenge at all. It's similar to leaving the front door to your house open and leaving the keys in the lock.

No, he's saying that what I said is irelevant. He did not say it was wrong. Anyway, According to the Symantec worker, Macs do have as many security holes as PCs. He would know more than any of us here.


Quoted post: Symantec also admit that their Norton anti-virus software creates a vulnerability in Mac OS-X. What does that say about their abilities to actively protect machines from infection, when their own software makes it easier for infection to occur?

Logical fallacy. The effectiveness of their software has no debatable impact on their knowledge of security holes on different platforms.


Quoted post: I would say that many Microsoft users are also treated as imbeciles who can't be trusted with files or system security. Mac machines aren't rarer, either it's merely that many users choose not to use it and Microsoft holds the majority of the operating system market. Most people who want an alternative to Windows usually choose a flavour of Linux before they choose a Mac.

Incorrect. If almost all people choose not to use a mac, that makes them 'rare'.


Quoted post: Regardless of whether the Mac can be attacked or not, it technically is more secure for now purely because it has significantly less viruses written for it. The chances of any Windows user being infected by a virus is far greater than any Mac user - not to mention the security risks that come with Microsoft's ActiveX controls, which are used in many web pages that can be exploited to compromise system security.

That's not what secure means. If something is insecure, it remains insecure regardless of how many things exploit it.


Quoted post: An open port can be effectively secured by a high-quality, properly configured and managed firewall. Though firewalls can't stop every intrusion made onto systems, many firewalls that have been properly configured can do a fantastic job at securing open ports and denying unauthorised and unsolicited access. An open port and an open, yet highly secured port have a big difference between the two.

Really? I thought I knew this four years ago.


Quoted post: I really question how much you know about computer security, other than formulating some opinion based on what you think you know.

I really question your logic.



Posted by Trigger

[quote=Higbvuyb]Hey, the senior director isn't really just an employee, is he?
A title and larger paycheck doesn't make them any less of an employee than everyone else. It also doesn't make him the all-knowing, always correct master of everything, either.

[quote]Incorrect. I do accept that the http port was left open. You're the one who is making the incorrect statements.
You backflip more than an acrobat with this one. If you'll kindly pay enough attention to the bull that you have to say, you'll notice that you called Klarth a "spastic retarded fool who can't read" because he had to reitterate the point to you that having the HTTP port open creates no challenge. Whether I make incorrect statements is irrelevant, because at the time the words you used were directed at him and all he had said was that the HTTP port being open defied the purpose. What he said is accurate and would be agreed upon by many who have even the slightest idea about port security. What you said was irrelevant, when it came to that.

Any computer can have HTTP open, including servers that are likely to be attacked, in your opinion, by hackers. The test conditions weren't exactly the average "home" computer, either. It was set up as a server and they left SSL and HTTP open, which is ridiculous when saying, "This is secure." At the time of the test, that server mightn't have been connected to anything worth hacking, but that is beside the point. It could have been a server controlling and connected to something much bigger, something hackers would want to go after.

I think that it is your logic that you should be questioning.

[quote]Most computers are not. Although several million may be many computers, Several million from several hundred million is not 'most'. Also, the term 'DDoS' is the one that actually applies there.
Excuse me for accidentally missing a 'D' in my post and failing to notice it. :rolleyes:

Regardless of the differences between Distrubuted and non-distributed Denial of Service attacks, the fact is that they do occur. Plenty of websites have been taken down due to such attacks, and all the computers of choice were standard user machines. Why? They're far easier to gain access to and manipulate whenever you want. You might also be aware that it isn't just servers or websites that are the target of hackers, either; DDoS can be used to bring down entire networks. Not everything is about gaining valuable data or taking on some of the big guys, Higbvuyb - there are plenty of people worldwide who are affected by viruses on a daily basis.

[quote]Anyway, According to the Symantec worker, Macs do have as many security holes as PCs.
Does he know every unpublished exploit that hackers may be aware of in every operating system there is? I highly doubt it. As far as we know, Windows could have many more unpublished exploites.

[quote]The effectiveness of their software has no debatable impact on their knowledge of security holes on different platforms.
It does when they create some of those security holes.

[quote]If almost all people choose not to use a mac, that makes them 'rare'.
They aren't harder than any other computer system to obtain and use.

[quote]That's not what secure means. If something is insecure, it remains insecure regardless of how many things exploit it.
You fail to refute the fact that regardless of how many "security holes" there are, Windows has more viruses written for it by comparison, therefore increasing the likelyhood of infection. Mac technically is more secure, if you take a look at the ratio of Mac viruses to Windows viruses. Don't confuse the words "more secure" with "absolutely impenetrable." A computer with a firewall and anti-virus software is more secure than a computer with no protection at all. You would be a fool to disagree with that, even Symantec would laugh at you.

Similarly, an operating system with less chances of receiving a virus is more secure than an operating system that has around two hundred-thousand viruses written for it. Two hundred viruses is more secure than two hundred-thousand viruses. As you say, Symantec know more than anyone else about security and by that logic they should therefore be accurate when they say that Windows has that many viruses. I believe that little tidbit of information is also said by the Symantec employee to state that Mac does have better security than Windows, or else the information would purely be irrelevant.

[quote]Really? I thought I knew this four years ago.
You lack the ability to apply that knowledge adequately and if you really were aware of this, you wouldn't be here making these insipid posts. You would also have agreed with Klarth when he mentioned that having SSL and HTTP open was hardly a "secured" machine at all. If even one port isn't secured, you may as well kiss all your "security" goodbye, because there basically is none at that point.

Now shut up, no one cares to read any more of your complete and utter bullshit.




Posted by higbvuyb


Quoting Trigger]A title and larger paycheck doesn't make them any less of an employee than everyone else. It also doesn't make him the all-knowing, always correct master of everything, either.
Really? It's more likely that he knows more than you do.


Quoted post: You backflip more than an acrobat with this one. If you'll kindly pay enough attention to the bull that you have to say, you'll notice that you called Klarth a "spastic retarded fool who can't read" because he had to reitterate the point to you that having the HTTP port open creates no challenge. Whether I make incorrect statements is irrelevant, because at the time the words you used were directed at him and all he had said was that the HTTP port being open defied the purpose. What he said is accurate and would be agreed upon by many who have even the slightest idea about port security. What you said was irrelevant, when it came to that.

Incorrect. My comment was not directed at the upper part of his comment, but the part saying that my comment was irrelevant. This was incorrect, because it is revevant to the current topic.


Quoted post: Any computer can have HTTP open, including servers that are likely to be attacked, in your opinion, by hackers. The test conditions weren't exactly the average "home" computer, either. It was set up as a server and they left SSL and HTTP open, which is ridiculous when saying, "This is secure." At the time of the test, that server mightn't have been connected to anything worth hacking, but that is beside the point. It could have been a server controlling and connected to something much bigger, something hackers would want to go after.

Irrelevant to your quote.


Quoted post: Excuse me for accidentally missing a 'D' in my post and failing to notice it. :rolleyes:

k
And I remember you flaming a couple of people when they missspelled words.


Quoted post: Regardless of the differences between Distrubuted and non-distributed Denial of Service attacks, the fact is that they do occur. Plenty of websites have been taken down due to such attacks, and all the computers of choice were standard user machines. Why? They're far easier to gain access to and manipulate whenever you want. You might also be aware that it isn't just servers or websites that are the target of hackers, either:
This, however, does not address my point.

[QUOTE]Does he know every unpublished exploit that hackers may be aware of in every operating system there is? I highly doubt it. As far as we know, Windows could have many more unpublished exploites.

And, macs could also have many more unpublished exploits too. It goes both ways.

[QUOTE]It does when they create some of those security holes.

Incorrect. They even know about it, like you said.


Quoted post: They aren't harder than any other computer system to obtain and use.

Note that there can be more than one meaning for each word in the english language.

[QUOTE]rare1 (r



Posted by Trigger

[quote=higbvuyb]If there are more viruses for the PC, that doesn't mean that the PC itself becomes less secure, it means that it's 'environment' is less secure.
The environment is in which the computer system operates on. I'm obviously refering to that particular environment when I refer to an operating system. There is no operating of the computer without any system environment to give any controls, processes and commands. This should be blindly obvious to you.

The rest of your post is pointless to quote and answer; you make no real points and I see no reason to repeat myself. I'm leaving this discussion with you here - there's no point for it to continue, when nothing is being proved.




Posted by higbvuyb


Quoting Trigger: The environment is in which the computer system operates on. I'm obviously refering to that particular environment when I refer to an operating system. There is no operating of the computer without any system environment to give any controls, processes and commands. This should be blindly obvious to you.

A car cannot operate without an environment either, but a car's safety rating remains the same regardless of whether it is in the middle of a battlefield, or in a suburb, stupid.


Quoted post: The rest of your post is pointless to quote and answer; you make no real points and I see no reason to repeat myself. I'm leaving this discussion with you here - there's no point for it to continue, when nothing is being proved

It is amazing how often people say things along these lines when they realise how much of an idiot they are for not being able to understand plain english.



Posted by Trigger

A car is nothing like a computer by comparison of how the two must operate and what the purpose of each is. A standard sedan is not as safe when off-road and trying to drive over treterous terrain and slopes than a 4-wheel drive. You aren't proving anything anymore, so just stop. I didn't say what I had because I realised "how much of an idiot" I am for "not being able to understand plain English," either. Don't give yourself credit when it isn't even due, and don't flatter yourself.

If I am an idiot, aren't you at least one for trying to argue with an idiot over several days and posts? Honestly... :rolleyes:




Posted by Klarth

I suppose instigating an argument with a statement like "you are a SPASTIC and a RETARDED FOOL!!" isn't a great way to get your point across now, is it? Hmm.

Also, when arguments extend to exact, scientific dictionary definitions, it's simple to immediately realise IT'S NOT ****ING WORTH IT.




Posted by JonMB

Welcome back, folks!

Next on today's Technology Debate: Desktops vs. Laptops.

STAY TUNED!

Anyway, yeah, Mac and Linux are safer from viruses (compared to Windows) for a few reasons, but they still have some dangers.




Posted by Klarth

Just wait and watch hig-halfwit up there attempt to demolish your post over the course of a month. :/




Posted by Trigger

Don't forget the part where he'll call Jon an idiot over a three-post session, to defend his argument (or lack thereof).




Posted by PhlyntheKT





Posted by higbvuyb


Quoting Trigger: I'm leaving this discussion with you here - there's no point for it to continue, when nothing is being proved.



Quoting Trigger: A car is...


You just couldn't resist the urge to argue back, could you.