Macs don't have viruses?

[chris]

www.openbsd.org
Only one remote hole in the default install, in more than 7 years!


I dropped windblows about two monthes ago and have been useing FreeBSD. I
Couldn't be happier, It's super secure and very stable. Not to mention you
have a whole world of free software..BSD also has a port system that has
thousands of programs.

Don't have to worry about viruses or Trojans, the good points go on and on..

But you still need to worry about patching all those apps and services
such as sendmail, openpdf, etc. Linux and the other *nixes are not
magically exempt from vulnerabilities being discovered in existing
distributions. It's simply that the virus writers don't seem to be
targetting them as heavily.

-Chris

 

[Will Dormann]

Mac OS X, though, is based upon OpenBSD

<snip>


That's not correct. Unless by "OpenBSD", you mean "FreeBSD".
http://developer.apple.com/internet/macosx/intro.html



-WD

 

[David H. Lipman]

KRF:

There is no such term as virii - the term is viruses - PERIOD !

Please read the following URL which relates the subject far better than I could ...

http://www.perl.com/language/misc/virus.html

Dave

( Deja Vu }

 

[KRF]

KRF:

There is no such term as virii - the term is viruses - PERIOD !

Please read the following URL which relates the subject far better than
I could ...

http://www.perl.com/language/misc/virus.html

Dave

( Deja Vu }

Ok.

Websters International
Main Entry: vi·rus
Pronunciation: 'vI-r&s
Function: noun
Plural: virii
Etymology: Latin, venom, poisonous emanation; akin to Greek ios poison,
Sanskrit visa; in senses 2 & 4, from New Latin, from Latin Date: 1599
1 archaic : VENOM 1
2 a : the causative agent of an infectious disease b : any of a large
group of submicroscopic infective agents that are regarded either as
extremely simple microorganisms or as extremely complex molecules, that
typically contain a protein coat surrounding an RNA or DNA core of genetic
material but no semipermeable membrane, that are capable of growth and
multiplication only in living cells, and that cause various important
diseases in humans, lower animals, or plants; also : FILTERABLE VIRUS c :
a disease caused by a virus 3 : something that poisons the mind or soul
<the force of this virus of prejudice -- V. S. Waters> 4 : a computer
program usually hidden within another seemingly innocuous program that
produces copies of itself and inserts them into other programs and that
usually performs a malicious action (as destroying data)

 

[Walter Roberson]

:ANY, operating system, including mainframes, can be attacked by a virus if
:there is an infection point, and that is a negative that can't be proven
:until a successful attack occures.

True in about the same sense that one can't say that cantelopes
never have pearls, since one might just not have found the right
cantelope.

There are operating systems that have much MUCH stricter security
designs than Windows or Mac OSX -- operating systems explicitly
designed to contain damages even if something should slip through.
Operating systems that have multiple layers of protection and practice
"defence in depth". The best known example was known as Multics.

There are even some operating systems that have their entire design
proven security by mathematical means. There aren't many of the
proven-secure ones because of the effort involved; and of course even
with the code having been formally analyzed for bugs, it is still
possible that there's an unnoticed typo in the actual implimentation.

Windows was *designed* to be monolitic, *designed* for there to
be shortcuts and undocumented "hooks" into the code "for efficiency".
That puts it on a completely different footing than Unix. Yes,
security holes in Unix systems are possible, but you cannot equate
teh security of the two. It's like the difference between wearing
safety glasses and wearing glasses made out of "movie glass".

 

[Chad Irby]

However, I would suggest that Linux and Mac users slow down on the
hoorawing of the current WinSituation that has almost closed down Al
Gore's invention. It is just a matter of time until someone finds a
massive hole in one of their favorites and the horselaughs from the other
side of the fence are going to be hughly enjoyed.

Yeah, I've been hearing that for a couple of years now...

Let us know when you find one, okay?

 

[Guillermito]

Plural: virii

Yes, and the sea is full of octopii.

I work in a domain where viruses are used almost every day (biology).
There are thousands of publications about them. I've never heard
anyone saying "virii", and I've never seen that in a scientific
article. It's always "viruses". Go to any molecular biology or
medecine research lab and ask about "virii", and everybody is going to
have a great laugh at your expense (if they understand what you mean).

Curiously, the term "virii" is used almost only by script kiddies.
Even the serious computer virus writers do not use it.

Damn. I just stepped in the good old troll.

 

[Bill]

I work in a domain where viruses are used almost every day (biology).
There are thousands of publications about them. I've never heard
anyone saying "virii", and I've never seen that in a scientific
article. It's always "viruses".

The term "virii" is typically used by kiddies wanting to sound "cool".
So much for education.

 

[Peter J Ross]

Yes, and the sea is full of octopii.

I work in a domain where viruses are used almost every day (biology).
There are thousands of publications about them. I've never heard
anyone saying "virii", and I've never seen that in a scientific
article. It's always "viruses". Go to any molecular biology or
medecine research lab and ask about "virii", and everybody is going to
have a great laugh at your expense (if they understand what you mean).

Curiously, the term "virii" is used almost only by script kiddies.
Even the serious computer virus writers do not use it.

Damn. I just stepped in the good old troll.

The rest of the discussion goes something like this:

<http://groups.google.com/[email protected]>

--
PJR
mhm34x8
Smeeter #30
Alcatroll Labs Inc. (Executive Vice-President)
Delete "NOSWENPLEASE" to reply.

 

[Rossz]

Ja,

There are quite a few and more often than not more likely to cause larger
scale damage - i mean, less virii which are more deadly as more can be
achieved on Unix based platforms.... mind you, to date... if my MSc
lecturers are correct, then Linux in general has only ever had 4 known
viruses... might bee bull$hit

It's nearly impossible to infect a linux/unix system (which includes Mac
OS/X) via email. First you have to save the attachment, then you have to
specifically make the file an executable, then you have to execute it. No
one with half a brain would do that with a file from an unknown sender.

You can thank microsoft for making viruses and worms so common in windows.
Outlook's security is like having a 5 year old child guard your front door.
The kid will let anyone in who asks. Virus says, "Hi, I'm an executable
file from an unknown source that does god knows what to your system, please
execute me." Outlook responds, "Sure, no problem."

 

[Rossz]

Hi,

The more popular a system is the more virusses it will have (because
then it becomes more interesting to write it in the first place). This
is the reason MS based systems have the most virusses not because the
technology is worse thann *nix like systems. A virus writer obviously
wants to have maximum impact, therefore he writes his stuff for the
most popular OS.

I see you have no idea what you are talking about. Windows has the most
viruses because Windows is so damn easy to infect. Outlook being populuar
with people who don't have a bloody clue, its autoexecute of attachments
feature has made the spreading of viruses a nonbrainer.

On a similar note, 70% of all web servers run Linux and Unix variations,
yet the overwhelming majority of the exploits target MS Windows IIS. Why?
Certainly not because it's the more popular server. It's because it's so
damn easy to exploit a windows server.

Microsoft has the worse security record in the computer world. They try to
blame it on popularity, but that excuse got old real fast, especially when
the facts prove otherwise.

 

[Rossz]

(e-mail address removed) wrote in

It's simply that the virus writers don't seem to be
targetting them as heavily.

They probably aren't interested because the Open Source community will have
a patch out within hours of an exploit being discovered. Linux and BSD
people tend to stay on top of security - the exception being people new
these operating systems - so patches happen pretty damn fast.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of rooted linux boxes out there because
there are a lot of people still getting the hang of the basics. I'll bet
nearly all of these "owned" boxes were exploited through security holes
that were patched months if not years ago.

Security doesn't magically happen, no matter how good the OS.

 

[donut]

Seriously thinking of downloading/installing Mozilla but I know
nothing of its newsgroup abilities.

I didn't like Mozilla. First, the browser had a lot of bugs, and a lot of
rendering problems. I also didn't like it's mail and newsreader. The last
version I used was 1.4.

But Firebird is a great browser. It doesn't seem to suffer from the Mozilla
bugs and is very lite.

I use an old Eudora for mail and Xnews for Usenet. All works just fine.

 

[DaveOldBlokeBudd]

A friend of mine is very proud of his Mac and makes the claim that
Macs don't get viruses.

Is this true? Or is he kidding me?

There are a very few native Mac viruses, and a lot of people run Office
on Macs so they can get the Office viruses.
However, thanks to the way Macs work and the way Mac users work, the
infection routes are rarely available.

 

[Moonlit]

Hi,

(e-mail address removed) wrote in


They probably aren't interested because the Open Source community will have
a patch out within hours of an exploit being discovered. Linux and BSD

For your reference microsoft had the msblast patch ready months before it
even existed

A lot of virusses are written after somebody else already has discovered a
vulnerability.

 

[Moonlit]

Hi,

(e-mail address removed) wrote in


They probably aren't interested because the Open Source community will have
a patch out within hours of an exploit being discovered. Linux and BSD

For your reference microsoft had the msblast patch ready months before the
virus
even existed

A lot of virusses are written after somebody else already has discovered a
vulnerability.

 

[shawn modersohn]

It's nearly impossible to infect a linux/unix system (which includes Mac
OS/X) via email. First you have to save the attachment, then you have to
specifically make the file an executable, then you have to execute it. No
one with half a brain would do that with a file from an unknown sender.

You can thank microsoft for making viruses and worms so common in windows.
Outlook's security is like having a 5 year old child guard your front door.
The kid will let anyone in who asks. Virus says, "Hi, I'm an executable
file from an unknown source that does god knows what to your system, please
execute me." Outlook responds, "Sure, no problem."

What do you mean about the outlook response being "sure no problem"? I use
Outlook Express and I am well aware of its common perception as being the
worst in terms of security. I am quite happy with the program however. It
allows the http protocol which enables me to link it directly to my hotmail
accounts as well as having perfectly adequate newsgroup functionality. I
checked my security settings, I use the less restricted internet setting and
do not have "do not allow attachments that can potentially be virus etc."
setting enabled. I assume this refers to blocking all executables. I have
never gotten a virus period, let alone from an email. I am not a freak
about updates which I believe are as likely to cause as many problems as fix
them. However when I do get an attachment, I first save it to my desktop
then scan it with my virus scanner. I assume and am fairly confident this
is all the protective measure I need barring a super sneaky virus from an
evil programming mastermind. Am I incorrect? Is there a virus out there
that as soon as it touches outlook I am f'd?

 

[shawn modersohn]

It's nearly impossible to infect a linux/unix system (which includes Mac
OS/X) via email. First you have to save the attachment, then you have to
specifically make the file an executable, then you have to execute it. No
one with half a brain would do that with a file from an unknown sender.

You can thank microsoft for making viruses and worms so common in windows.
Outlook's security is like having a 5 year old child guard your front door.
The kid will let anyone in who asks. Virus says, "Hi, I'm an executable
file from an unknown source that does god knows what to your system, please
execute me." Outlook responds, "Sure, no problem."

What do you mean about the outlook response being "sure no problem"? I use
Outlook Express and I am well aware of its common perception as being the
worst in terms of security. I am quite happy with the program however. It
allows the http protocol which enables me to link it directly to my hotmail
accounts as well as having perfectly adequate newsgroup functionality. I
checked my security settings, I use the less restricted internet setting and
do not have "do not allow attachments that can potentially be virus etc."
setting enabled. I assume this refers to blocking all executables. I have
never gotten a virus period, let alone from an email. I am not a freak
about updates which I believe are as likely to cause as many problems as fix
them. However when I do get an attachment, I first save it to my desktop
then scan it with my virus scanner. I assume and am fairly confident this
is all the protective measure I need barring a super sneaky virus from an
evil programming mastermind. Am I incorrect? Is there a virus out there
that as soon as it touches outlook I am f'd?

 

[shawn modersohn]

What do you mean about the outlook response being "sure no problem"? I use
Outlook Express and I am well aware of its common perception as being the
worst in terms of security. I am quite happy with the program however. It
allows the http protocol which enables me to link it directly to my hotmail
accounts as well as having perfectly adequate newsgroup functionality. I
checked my security settings, I use the less restricted internet setting and
do not have "do not allow attachments that can potentially be virus etc."
setting enabled. I assume this refers to blocking all executables. I have
never gotten a virus period, let alone from an email. I am not a freak
about updates which I believe are as likely to cause as many problems as fix
them. However when I do get an attachment, I first save it to my desktop
then scan it with my virus scanner. I assume and am fairly confident this
is all the protective measure I need barring a super sneaky virus from an
evil programming mastermind. Am I incorrect? Is there a virus out there
that as soon as it touches outlook I am f'd?

On that same subject, is there a virus you can get that is not in the form
of double clicking on something? I seem to remember a virus called nimda
that spread over a network, even including just being connected to your isp.
As I said earlier, I scan any file I get, kazaa, email, etc. and I do not
update all that often. In fact, from w2k sp2 - sp3, I downloaded not one
hotfix. What are the risks of a virus as long as I scan my files?

 

[Walter Dnes]

The more popular a system is the more virusses it will have (because
then it becomes more interesting to write it in the first place).
This is the reason MS based systems have the most virusses not
because the technology is worse thann *nix like systems. A virus
writer obviously wants to have maximum impact, therefore he writes
his stuff for the most popular OS.

So why is it that Apache, which has 2.75 times the marketshare of
IIS, gets hardly any compromises versus IIS ??? For latest marketshare,
see... <http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/09/01/september_2003_web_server_survey.html>

Top Developers

Developer August 2003 Percent September 2003 Percent Change
Apache 27388860 63.98 27836622 64.52 0.54
Microsoft 10165745 23.75 10156289 23.54 -0.21
SunONE 1534586 3.58 1501241 3.48 -0.10
Zeus 746240 1.74 742950 1.72 -0.02

Active Sites

Developer August 2003 Percent September 2003 Percent Change
Apache 13325183 67.28 13371621 67.45 0.17
Microsoft 4839624 24.44 4804550 24.23 -0.21
Zeus 265011 1.34 266220 1.34 0.00
SunONE 213943 1.08 211234 1.07 -0.01