Your virus program won't do you any good for tomorrow's virus unless you update your virus definitions regularly!
Monday, December 6, 20046:47 PMMarta Ediemartaedie at mac.com >That is the good thing about Macs. Their makers think ahead - just in >case- rather than after when the milk is spilled. So Virex has its >place. You buy insurance before the house burns, not after, while all >along hoping you will never need it. >Marta > >On Dec 6, 2004, at 17:59, Jeff @ SLYN Systems wrote: > >> Hey Jerry, Bill and Harry, >> I'd like to offer just a teeny bit more of food for thought. >> Would you agree this is a numbers game???Wouldn't most wackos?write a >> virus because they want fame, money or to release anger? >> With Macs holding 3.2% of the market share, Apple is a smaller target >> for fame, money or anger. >> http://www.macminute.com/2004/01/15/marketshare >> Whatcha thin Babalouie? >> If there wasn't a virus threat on the Mac, would people still buy the >> Norton Antivirus or Virex for the Mac?? Of course, am not saying it's >> a signifcan't threat.? Just offering another point of view. >> All the best, >> >> Jeff Slyn, Owner >> SLYN Systems & Peripherals >> (502) 426-5469 >> serving Kentuckiana clients 7 days a week since 1985! >> ? >> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 13:33:09 -0500 Jerry Yeager >> <jerry at browseryshop.com> writes: >> > >> > On Dec 04, 2004, at 11:02 PM, Harry Jacobson-Beyer wrote: >> > >> > > I've heard hackers don't attack Mac machines because there are so >> > few >> > > of >> > > them (relative to the pcs). If the roles were reversed, ie Macs >> > having >> > > the major share of the market, wouldn't the hackers be writing >> > code to >> > > get to them? >> > > >> > >> > What you have heard is one of those urban legend things. Macs on the >> > >> > 'net are attacked as often as the other OSes. But they are not >> > broken >> > into as often. >> > >> > Not too long ago some computer security firms tracked this and found >> > >> > that the most targeted systems were Linux and Mac OS-X based with >> > Windoze based machines actually being the least targeted. Targeted >> > here >> > means that the attackers are specifically looking to exploit >> > weaknesses >> > in that type of OS. >> > >> > BUT, In terms of being broken into, it (usually) goes like this: >> > >> > 1) Windoze systems (very easy, many home users have been broken into >> > >> > and do not know that they are their machines are being used to send >> > out >> > the gobs of spam and viruses that infest the internet.) >> > The things that attack Windoze directly as opposed to other systems >> > are >> > most often looking to either get credit (identity) information >> > likely >> > stored on the computer or to take the machine over to use as part of >> > a >> > zombie network. >> > >> > >> > 99) Linux (pretty tough -- you have to find a system running with a >> > >> > very sloppy sysop that does not keep up on things) >> > 100) Mac OS-X (not impossible but very tough, see 99). ) >> > >> > (Actually, if Macs and Linux systems could be easily broken into, >> > they >> > would be targeted even more, as these systems may have more vital >> > information stored on them). >> > >> > ????????????????????????????????Jerry >> > >> > p.s. Even with Windows SP 2, there are known exploits out there to >> > break into the systems. You might notice in the article none of the >> > >> > honey pot systems that had SP 2 running got broken into. Since SP2 >> > basically just turns on a firewall, this shows that attackers are >> > not >> > having to work very hard at all to break into a Windoze machine. >> > >> > p.p.s The above does not mean that you can blindly skip those >> > periodic >> > security updates that Apple releases. Keep installing them! | The next meeting of the Louisville Computer Society will | be January 25. The LCS Web page is <http://www.kymac.org>. | List posting address: <mailto:macgroup at erdos.math.louisville.edu> | List Web page: <http://erdos.math.louisville.edu/macgroup>
