The One wrote:
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....)
Here we hit the heart of the issue. The virus and spyware detection
software for Windows isn't really to protect to the OS. It's to protect
the user from themselves.
