And I quote, "The security bug can be exploited by a logged-in attacker, or malware on the computer, to gain total unauthorized control of the Mac." How did the attacker "log in"? How did the malware GET on the computer?? That is my point. ANY software that an end user installs no longer qualifies as a "hack", and neither does anything that happens after someone gains physical access to a computer.
It has always been my understanding that a pure "hack" is getting into someone's computer and delivering a payload without physical access and without the end user knowing about it. I suppose "hack" could be interpreted more broadly, but really, we need to have this discussion in the context of a properly secured computer. Otherwise all we are saying is, Fort Knox was broken into!!!! (because one of the guards killed all the other ones and let the bad guys in). Bob S > On Aug 23, 2017, at 14:24 , J. Landman Gay via use-livecode > <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > On 8/23/17 3:38 PM, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode wrote: >> Gotta disagree there. Not sure how you would quantify it either. I have yet >> to see an exploit for OS X that elevated priveleges, allowed software to be >> installed silently, and didn't require user interaction of some sort. > > > <https://www.google.com/search?q=exploit+for+OS+X+that+elevated+priveleges&oq=exploit+for+OS+X+that+elevated+priveleges&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i21k1.2918358.2918358.0.2918730.1.1.0.0.0.0.144.144.0j1.1.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.143.hIUzFJLZ5RI> > > > -- > Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
