Re: MAC asked for it... in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r16981681 en Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:29:14 EDT Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:29:14 EDT Re: MAC asked for it... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16989574 guitarzan : Thanks for that clip, its pretty cool :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16989574 Thu, 28 Sep 2006 02:46:30 EDT Re: MAC asked for it... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16986056 zipwired :
said by justin See Profile :

47 to 38 over a small period reported by symantec which is trying to sell software is very incomplete information.

Which of these bugs allowed software to be installed? which were exploited and how easy was it? which were fixed immediately, and which took a week+ to be fixed? who found and reported each bug?

all of these things need consideration before you can declare anything about the two browsers and their relative security.
I didn't declare that any Browser mentioned is more secure.
The blanket statement of IE has more holes than Firefox is what I replied to and in general terms, and I'm correct. Don't put words in my mouth or in this case don't put text in my mouth.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16986056 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:18:30 EDT Re: MAC asked for it... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16984756 anon : Linux?

Oh sorry, I thought you were FreeBSD.

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFAJDbV9···&search=

YouTube - Mac Spoof: Security]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16984756 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:28:27 EDT Re: MAC asked for it... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16984762 justin : 47 to 38 over a small period reported by symantec which is trying to sell software is very incomplete information.

Which of these bugs allowed software to be installed? which were exploited and how easy was it? which were fixed immediately, and which took a week+ to be fixed? who found and reported each bug?

all of these things need consideration before you can declare anything about the two browsers and their relative security.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16984762 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:26:01 EDT Re: MAC asked for it... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16984479 zipwired :
said by blueOne See Profile :

said by chemaupr See Profile :

# 1 reason PCs are more vulnerable is because they are the most used,
So, it could also be said that the reason IE has so many holes compared to Firefox is because it is more widely used.
I disagree, Firefox has more known holes compared to Microsoft Internet Explorer »www.webuser.co.uk/news/news.php?id=95859]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16984479 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:37:13 EDT Re: MAC asked for it... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16983340 guitarzan : I don't have a Mac, nor will I bash a Mac. I have Linux on one PC and XP on the other PC.

Just taking into account consideration who is delivering the FUD mail, in an attempt to drum up support of their, IMO, crappy bloated software product :D
--
Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16983340 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 06:27:26 EDT Re: MAC asked for it... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16983038 justin : that guy kinda looks like your avatar, now you come to post the two close together!

if it is kool aid, it is anutritional variety. My folks home PC problems shrank to basically nothing after i threw out their krufty windows machine and put in an imac. I can't remotely support them over 12000 miles. I'd bet the price of that imac that it doesn't get owned in 2007 and it doesn't break through accidently software reconfiguration either. For them the PC is now almost as usable as their TV or cellphone (and believe me, they are not power cellphone users here). Since a new PC hardly has a useful life of more than a couple of years, and explaining how to solve windows problems to family members takes days off my life, it was an absolute no brainer of a decision. There was no reasonabl;e alternative.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16983038 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 02:43:04 EDT Re: MAC asked for it... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16983011 sporkme : Drink it!!

oh yeah!
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16983011 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 02:34:14 EDT Re: ummmmmm http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16982863 justin :
said by Nerdtalker See Profile :

(which is fixed in the latest Vista builds),
I've been hearing "fixed in the next release" now for so many years from microsoft. Along with "we're making secure software a culture from the ground up" and many other platitudes. I just don't buy it, I think the weight of dragging around so many variants of the same OS and so much legacy code is beyond their capabilities - which are not particular startling anyway - when does microsoft ever really take a risk? ever open up a given field without buying the pioneers? I think top management spends too much time watching what everyone else is doing (see their latest effort at trying to compete with myspace), and trying to freeze the current favorable market position, to really innovate. Good security design needs at least some innovations, some ground up work, not copy and tweak.

There are as many if not more pitfalls pratfalls and problems as there ever were, more than when the first disks started infecting over sneaker net except now we have Byzantine security issues with overlapping and often incompatible 3rd party programs. I don't see that changing with vista. If that is how home general-use computing MUST be, then I'm not the least bit interested in it and dont recommend it to anyone. You should not have to "think nerd" in order to safely own a home PC.
So far, Macs have avoided most of these problems and continue to avoid them and the details of how they got to this position are not that important. the day i find out that ipods, with an 80 whatever percent market share, need an AV scanner and microsoft zune, or whatever it is, does not, I might see if Vista 2 doesnt need Symantec. Until then...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16982863 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 01:41:07 EDT Re: Mac Is Nothing... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16982777 BhuddaBlessU : Another Mac user that can NOT accept the reality... :D]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16982777 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 01:14:03 EDT Re: Mac Is Nothing... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16982770 BhuddaBlessU : I Guess this guy never BUILD himself his own PC tho... That $4,000 dell? Lol I Can get it with the SAME SPECS for like $2500 to $3,000 bucks or less... In the end Self Built Custom PC + Windows + Not-A-Noob in computer hardware and security user = the most stable and secure computer you can have... :p]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16982770 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 01:12:57 EDT Re: ummmmmm http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16982681 Nerdtalker :
said by justin See Profile :

Instead you should be trying to defend why running admin by default (most windows PCs run admin) is not a problem, and why the complexity of activeX is not a problem, and why releasing fixes at monthly intervals is not a problem (for the average user (users that make up the audience of AV vendors).
There really isn't any refuting that administrator privileges aren't an inherent problem (which is fixed in the latest Vista builds), but that alone doesn't guarantee security. Simply requesting login credentials to make changes isn't going to somehow fix the problem, we've seen time and time over how users will blindly click ok, fill out forms, and hit "next" over and over until boxes go away. (remember ActiveX warnings, SSL certificate authenticity warnings, execute files after downloading warnings, e.t.c.?)

While it does prevent processes running as the user from arbitrarily executing code with administrator privileges, malicious software can still run.

As for ActiveX, alternative browsers (namely firefox) mitigate the problem this poses. Honestly, I use firefox exclusively to avoid ActiveX-related exploits, and SP2's IE does do a better job of alerting users to the inherent danger that comes with allowing ActiveX plugins.

Monthly updates are ok, but Microsoft has previously released some critical updates outside their prescribed schedule. At least the updates are rolling out.

I guess the thing is that I subscribe to the notion that security inherently lies with the user, and that no software is perfect. If Mac users continue thinking they're never going to be afflicted by security problems or have to deal with it eventually, they're adopting a foolhardy mindset that comes with implicit dangers. Shipping a product under the premise that it's "more secure", and less vulnerable to "malware" is simply astounding.

Ironically, some of the same things Mac users criticize Microsoft users about aren't implemented properly in their own OS. OS X's firewall ships "off" by default. That's pretty ironic, since SP2 at least ships with the windows firewall enabled, even if SP1 shipped with it buried. It's true that OS X does ship with more out-of-box security than Windows XP, but neither are fully secure.

In both circumstances, users' behaviors and actions dictate the security of the information systems they use. Outsourcing security to faceless developers has failed in the past, and will likely always fail.
--
"Some people never see the light till it shines thru bullet holes." -Bruce Cockburn

I'm testing Gmail's spam filters: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam: 12900+ messages currently using 406 MB.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16982681 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 00:49:06 EDT Re: ummmmmm http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16982560 justin : he just said it isn't about IMMUNITY, it is about some basic design decisions.

It is a very good argument for why neophyte Mac users are beset with far fewer headaches than neophyte windows users.

Whether the gap will open wider, shrink or stay the same is impossible to say.

Nobody is talking immunity here, you're building a straw man by using the word, then knocking it down.

Instead you should be trying to defend why running admin by default (most windows PCs run admin) is not a problem, and why the complexity of activeX is not a problem, and why releasing fixes at monthly intervals is not a problem (for the average user (users that make up the audience of AV vendors).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16982560 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 00:21:58 EDT Re: ummmmmm http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16982536 Nerdtalker :
said by mech1164 See Profile :

said by Nerdtalker See Profile :

Nothing is perfectly safe. If Mac users still think they're immune, the inevitable fall will simply be that much proportionally greater.
Ok one more time from the top. It is and has not been that OSX is immune so much as it doesn't allow it to happen in the first place. First OSX does not by default allow you to run as admin. That and the fact that when a shown fault might occur, Apple will be out in a few hrs or days with a fix for that. Now take XP, admin by default any vulnerability able to execute at will. IE tied directly to os. Nuff on that one. Known exploits and vulnerabilities not fixed or admitted to for months. This is why there are soo much viri and malware its just soo easy.
You just spouted more typical apple-immunity lines. :D

Again, keep thinking you're inherently immune. I suggest you read the actual article in mention, as well, since patches/bugfixes/vulnerability patches are taking longer and longer to get released, certainly not hours like you assert. I find that blatant mischaracterization of facts laughable.

IE? Who uses that and knows a thing about security online? The rest of us are using Firefox. And months for the most critical of Windows patches?

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that facts don't have to get in the way of Mac vs. PC arguments. ;)
--
"Some people never see the light till it shines thru bullet holes." -Bruce Cockburn

I'm testing Gmail's spam filters: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam: 12900+ messages currently using 406 MB.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16982536 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 00:16:17 EDT Re: ummmmmm http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16982430 mech1164 :
said by Nerdtalker See Profile :

Nothing is perfectly safe. If Mac users still think they're immune, the inevitable fall will simply be that much proportionally greater.
Ok one more time from the top. It is and has not been that OSX is immune so much as it doesn't allow it to happen in the first place. First OSX does not by default allow you to run as admin. That and the fact that when a shown fault might occur, Apple will be out in a few hrs or days with a fix for that. Now take XP, admin by default any vulnerability able to execute at will. IE tied directly to os. Nuff on that one. Known exploits and vulnerabilities not fixed or admitted to for months. This is why there are soo much viri and malware its just soo easy.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16982430 Tue, 26 Sep 2006 23:56:47 EDT Re: MAC asked for it... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16982424 justin : now come on a sec.

PHP is a known problem, OSX can't do anything about people downloading and installing web servers. A third party developer on OSX can make mistakes just like they can on windows. The mistakes are more costly when the software runs as root on OSX (I'm sure php/apache is still easily setup as root - stupid design decision by the packages of php for OSX and linux).

We're (should be) talking about whether the mac OPERATING SYSTEM (and apple controlled sofware), is known to have exploited holes. I'm still waiting to hear about botnets assembled thanks to an apple OSX hole, hell, even a Safari or firefox hole. The list of microsoft holes is huge, and many have been and are still being used to create botnets.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16982424 Tue, 26 Sep 2006 23:55:27 EDT Re: MAC asked for it... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16982256 TKJunkMail :
said by justin See Profile :

There are no, none, nada Mac botnets, spam and click-fraud generators!
Macs are part of botnets. They got that way thru 3rd party software running on the Mac. Does it matter that the vector of control wasn't thru the operating system?
»www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···279.html
»blog.washingtonpost.com/security···ack.html
Taylor became obsessed with tracking a rather unusual botnet consisting of computers running Mac OS X and Linux operating systems. Working a week straight, Taylor located nearly all of the infected machines and had some success notifying the owners of those systems, but the Taiwanese ISP the hackers used to host their control center repeatedly ignored his requests to shutter the site."

The botnet Taylor had tracked was created using a known security hole not in Linux or OS X, but in something that runs on top of the operating system. This is PHP, a development programming language built specifically for Web sites. By leveraging this PHP flaw, the attackers were able to seed the Mac systems with several tools designed to turn them into drones for use in waging destructive "distributed denial of service" attacks,

But the fact is that there are dozens of pieces of malicious code circulating online that will happily infect OS X systems if their users are running vulnerable third-party applications. In some cases, the impact on the user may be little more than public embarassment. A large number of Web sites running vulnerable PHP applications on OS X systems are regularly defaced by hacker groups who replace the sites' home pages with hacker screeds or even some political statements.

Shadowserver founder Nicholas Albright said he and his crew have found at least 20 variants of the same Perl script that can be used to open back doors on OS X systems running vulnerable Web applications.

"Why does everyone get all hot and bothered when someone mentions Mac OS X being in a botnet?" Taylor asked. "Maybe I should have said I was tracking several PHP-enabled computer systems. I think it is time to quit focusing on just the ... operating system and think about the applications that are installed on it and how the security of the system can be compromised by [them]."
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16982256 Tue, 26 Sep 2006 23:30:37 EDT Re: ummmmmm http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16981806 PhoenixAZ :
said by trparky See Profile :

They're just trying to make them look useful again. In my eyes, Symantec hasn't been useful since NAV2003.

Ever since NAV2003, it has been nothing but bloat, bugs, bloat, bugs, and more bloat and bugs.
Symantec isn't useful for any OS. Even their Enterprise edition software is becoming bloatware like NAV.
--
»www.myspace.com/iamreallycoolandyouarenot]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16981806 Tue, 26 Sep 2006 22:27:16 EDT Re: Mac Is Nothing... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16981790 PhoenixAZ :
said by BhuddaBlessU See Profile :

But a piece of UNDER-PERFORMING and OVERPRICED computer hardware with an OS that also has full of hidden exploits but less hackers/crackers exploiting them due to the very low percentage of users with Macs on the computing world... Hell even my cheapo Intel Core 2 E6300 with 2GB of DDR2-667 Memory and a nvidia 7900gtx on WinXP SP2 can outperform the Macs for 1/4 of the price... And did i ever mention i never had a crash and/or issue with computer security? Lol... Remember Mac fanboys users, NO OS is secure in this world... Only "knowledge" on the end user's side will keep you secure. :p :p :p
Being a Windows user myself, Windows is more expensive. Try pricing a Dell up to Apple's specs, it will be in the near $4,000s...then you will see that Apple is actually CHEAPER than most comparibly priced PCs. And since new Apple computers can run Windows, I do not see what is stopping them from going that direction. Though for me on the other hand, I do not plan to go Mac anytime soon, as tempted I was in the past.
--
»www.myspace.com/iamreallycoolandyouarenot]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16981790 Tue, 26 Sep 2006 22:24:50 EDT Re: MAC asked for it... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16981681 tcp1 : Right, what a great idea. Just close your eyes and pretend your mac is impervious.

Good luck with that one.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16981681 Tue, 26 Sep 2006 22:10:11 EDT Re: MAC asked for it... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16981635 Cheese :
said by GilbertMark See Profile :

said by chemaupr See Profile :

# 1 reason PCs are more vulnerable is because they are the most used, thus if you are writing a malicious code, you will want to maximize your damages.

Now, MAC has been stepping up their "untouchable" speech lately. I'm quite sure that there are many people wanting to prove them wrong.
The #1 reason they are most vulnerable is because of the sheer volume of PCs in the world. Maybe the tie for #1 reason is Windows is a piece of Swiss cheese of an OS full of exploitable code. The next reason they are the most vulnerable is because of the sheer number of dopes that use a PC and know nothing about a computer or security.

My 5 Macs at home have NEVER had any issues with any of this net garbage that gives Windows users headaches.

Symantec go away with your snake oil, this Mac user isn't interested.
My Windows machine doesn't get the stuff either :uhh:]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16981635 Tue, 26 Sep 2006 22:05:05 EDT Re: MAC asked for it... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16981126 BellBoy : Well spoken and absolutely 100% fact. I don't think I could have expressed my point any more eloquently than you so I'll let your statement stand high atop all of this finger pointing and oneupsmanship.

Thanks, Justin...you rock! :)
--
"When the day comes that anyone can bend our country's laws and lawmakers to serve selfish, competitive ends, that day democratic government dies." -- Preston Tucker, June 1948]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16981126 Tue, 26 Sep 2006 20:51:16 EDT Re: ummmmmm http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16980650 Nerdtalker :
said by StaticMan See Profile :

here is an idea..see past that pride in front of your face to realize that no software is perfect...try to deny it and you will crash and burn.(literally)
There have been a number of exploits for Safari recently, a number that had to do with auto-execution of "trusted" files.

Nothing is perfectly safe. If Mac users still think they're immune, the inevitable fall will simply be that much proportionally greater.
--
"Some people never see the light till it shines thru bullet holes." -Bruce Cockburn

I'm testing Gmail's spam filters: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam: 12900+ messages currently using 406 MB.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16980650 Tue, 26 Sep 2006 19:53:40 EDT Re: MAC asked for it... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16980301 justin :
said by GilbertMark See Profile :

The #1 reason they are most vulnerable is because of the sheer volume of PCs in the world. Maybe the tie for #1 reason is Windows is a piece of Swiss cheese of an OS full of exploitable code.
I don't buy the myth that Macs have no viruses (have no real need for a commercial anti-virus product) because there are not enough of them (implying that as they become more popular, they will be infested). Hackers work very hard to assemble a botnet of just 1000 to 10000 computers, their botnet gets found, shutdown, stolen by other hackers. It is hard work being a russian botnet extortionist.

If these extortionists and spam generators could so easily pick and choose a security hole in OSX to exploit, they could then easily find green fields among mac users who do, after all, share files, send messages to each other, download software, stay online all day and night and browse web pages just like windows users.

But they do not. There are no, none, nada Mac botnets, spam and click-fraud generators!

It cannot be explained by market share anymore. It is too easy to find as many Mac (or linux or BSD) machines in that vast sea of IP addresses as anyone could possibly want.

The answer is something more important: Macs are by default more secure, holes are fixed faster, and the OS is just far less vulnerable to neophytes unconsciously installing malware.

I purchased a Mac for my parents and they have to type the root password to do anything important to it. They have to take several actions in order to install a new application. I fully expect to come back in a year and see that hardware issues aside, it is working exactly as it did the first day they opened the box! It is available for any hacker to overtake - the owners do not read or understand security bulletins (although it is set to silently download and install updates weekly). They will also not become Symantec or any other AV company customers, if the AV packages look and work like windows AV packages then either they are not necessary, or the Mac OSX design has failed.

I also am totally against a world where AV company products are necessary for my smartphone, my car system etc etc. If a device needs a 3rd party, or built-in, AV product like Symantec then it has failed at the design phase. They are dying to find reasons to expand into those markets but, sorry, outside windows, I think they invent their own business justifications.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16980301 Tue, 26 Sep 2006 19:03:29 EDT Re: MAC asked for it... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16980282 guitarzan : Since its Symantec spreading FUD about both PC's and now Mac's, just ignore the rhetoric.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16980282 Tue, 26 Sep 2006 19:00:16 EDT Re: Mac Is Nothing... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16980074 Mike : someones mommy didn't buy them an ipod]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16980074 Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:30:19 EDT Re: MAC asked for it... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16979843 GilbertMark :
said by chemaupr See Profile :

# 1 reason PCs are more vulnerable is because they are the most used, thus if you are writing a malicious code, you will want to maximize your damages.

Now, MAC has been stepping up their "untouchable" speech lately. I'm quite sure that there are many people wanting to prove them wrong.
The #1 reason they are most vulnerable is because of the sheer volume of PCs in the world. Maybe the tie for #1 reason is Windows is a piece of Swiss cheese of an OS full of exploitable code. The next reason they are the most vulnerable is because of the sheer number of dopes that use a PC and know nothing about a computer or security.

My 5 Macs at home have NEVER had any issues with any of this net garbage that gives Windows users headaches.

Symantec go away with your snake oil, this Mac user isn't interested.
--
Got a V3 or a V3i? Want to get the most out of them? Check out my sites »hacktheV3.com and »hacktheV3i.com
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16979843 Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:54:18 EDT Re: MAC asked for it... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16979772 blueOne :
said by chemaupr See Profile :

# 1 reason PCs are more vulnerable is because they are the most used,
So, it could also be said that the reason IE has so many holes compared to Firefox is because it is more widely used.
--
Windows: n. 32-bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit operating system originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor, written by a 2-bit company that can't stand for 1 bit of competition.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16979772 Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:43:10 EDT Re: Mac Is Nothing... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16979314 N3OGH : This whole thread was nothing but "troll lure" from the get go.

And of course, the tired old "My cheapo computer can outperform the Mac at 1/4 of the price" has to come up.

Just about every post in this thread is nothing but trolling.

Fine, you like Windows, have fun with it, enjoy it. No one is telling you what OS to use. Come to think of it, I don't think I saw one Mac person post in this forum yet.

Both OS's have advantages over the other. Let's just leave it at that...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16979314 Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:37:26 EDT Re: Mac Is Nothing... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16979057 cableties : Sniff sniff! Sniff! I smell...a troll!

Sniff! :p :p :p]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16979057 Tue, 26 Sep 2006 15:56:54 EDT Mac Is Nothing... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16979001 BhuddaBlessU : But a piece of UNDER-PERFORMING and OVERPRICED computer hardware with an OS that also has full of hidden exploits but less hackers/crackers exploiting them due to the very low percentage of users with Macs on the computing world... Hell even my cheapo Intel Core 2 E6300 with 2GB of DDR2-667 Memory and a nvidia 7900gtx on WinXP SP2 can outperform the Macs for 1/4 of the price... And did i ever mention i never had a crash and/or issue with computer security? Lol... Remember Mac fanboys users, NO OS is secure in this world... Only "knowledge" on the end user's side will keep you secure. :p :p :p]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16979001 Tue, 26 Sep 2006 15:47:22 EDT Re: MAC asked for it... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16978941 Shark_615 : Tired maybe but Flawed no.

The "hackers" that exploit Windows that cause spyware, virii problems do so to make money. They DO NOT do it for publicity. The last thing they want is to sit on David Letterman and explain how they did it.

They want cold hard cash and such will ignore Mac's until it becomes profitable.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16978941 Tue, 26 Sep 2006 15:38:40 EDT Re: ummmmmm http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16978505 trparky : Ooooh... burn.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16978505 Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:30:24 EDT Re: ummmmmm http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16978493 Mike : to uninstall]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16978493 Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:28:03 EDT Re: ummmmmm http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16978469 alg : SAV is still a good product imo.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16978469 Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:23:57 EDT Re: MAC asked for it... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16978464 alg :
said by LegoPower77 See Profile :

ROTFL, dumbasses.
Agree. That old "because nobody uses Macs is why they are safe" (and it's 'Mac' not 'MAC' people!!!!) is tired and flawed.
--
So many loosers, so few wrenches and screwdrivers. By the way, just randomly choose between there, their, and they're when you type a post.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16978464 Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:23:19 EDT Re: ummmmmm http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16978461 trparky : They're just trying to make them look useful again. In my eyes, Symantec hasn't been useful since NAV2003.

Ever since NAV2003, it has been nothing but bloat, bugs, bloat, bugs, and more bloat and bugs.
--
WedgeAntilles250

Tom's Rant]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16978461 Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:22:49 EDT Re: MAC asked for it... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16978424 LegoPower77 : ROTFL, dumbasses.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16978424 Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:16:24 EDT Re: MAC asked for it... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16978406 StaticMan : EXACTLY, if they would have just kept their big mouths shut they would not have the mobs of hackers out there saying to themselves,"untouchable huh? we will see about that!"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16978406 Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:13:59 EDT MAC asked for it... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16978401 chemaupr : # 1 reason PCs are more vulnerable is because they are the most used, thus if you are writing a malicious code, you will want to maximize your damages.

Now, MAC has been stepping up their "untouchable" speech lately. I'm quite sure that there are many people wanting to prove them wrong. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16978401 Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:12:30 EDT ummmmmm http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16978381 StaticMan : here is an idea..see past that pride in front of your face to realize that no software is perfect...try to deny it and you will crash and burn.(literally)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16978381 Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:09:14 EDT