But how would it spread? There have been 2 OS X viruses, yet they spread terribly.
And Apple has already fixed the issue. :) -The One On 9/2/07, Kennith Mann III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/1/07, The One <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 3/23/07 2:53 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > >> Symantec have been trying to demonise OS X for a long while. > > > > > > And it is going to work soon. > > > > > > Because OS X has no Propolice-like compiler stack protection, nor > > > anything like W^X which makes parts of the address space > > > non-executable, nor anything like address space randomization which > > > makes certain attacks very difficult, especially with the previous two > > > techniques. > > > > > > So when they have a bug, it is exploitable just like bugs are on any > > > other powerpc or i386 machine running some other operating system. > > > > > > These days even operating systems like Vista have the above 3 security > > > technologies. > > > > > > > First of all, "bugs" and "viruses" are two different things. > > > > Second, OS X does not need third-party "protection". All of the > > protection is built into the OS! > > > > If Vista is so secure, then why does one need to download > > "virus/spyware protection" when it can simply be built into the OS? > > > > -The One > > > > > > I don't have "virus/spyware protection" and I've been fine before with > Vista and XP. > > Perhaps you mean to say "why do users who install things they > shouldn't need virus/spyware protection?" which I would argue that the > OS doesn't matter. I could write a script that asks for rootly > permission in OS X and start nuking stuff with the promise of prettier > icons for their desktop or IM client. > > If you were to argue for worms and things of the like, then I would > agree. The only virus I will probably ever catch is some zero-day that > hits the world and gets in my work network (won't happen at my house > -- I live alone....)
