which PC

"George Kerby" wrote in message
...


No its embedding personal data when a serial number would do the job
without
giving away personal data that other people are not entitled too.


And those folks shouldn't be giving it away.


And you have never lent any of your music to a family member or friend?

"George Kerby" wrote in message
...



On 6/7/07 2:20 AM, in article , "dennis@home"
wrote:


"Randall Ainsworth" wrote in message
...
In article , "dennis@home" wrote:

What do you think makes OSx invulnerable?

That's an easy one. By default, you're not logged on as an admin with
root access. DOH!

You don't understand computer security at all do you?


Sure he does. He owns a Mac.

Which is not a secure system.
So it proves you are stupid.

OTOH, you have to baby your bloated OS to keep the malware from making
them
zombies. Get over it...

"John Turco" wrote in message
...


Hello, Dennis:

Why are you trying to reason with these Apple-addled, poor souls?
They're incurably confused, t'would seem! ;-)


Cordially,
John Turco

I just have this thing about computer security and I can't let the demented
carry on believing they are safe and increasing the risk to everyone else.
Its worse when they tell people to buy Macs because they are safe.
It just isn't true and I have to point out their lies.

In article , ASAAR
wrote:

I still don't like the unethical Gates nor the slick, unctuous
Jobs. As I hinted, I'd be more inclined towards Apple if the overly
style conscious Jobs was replaced by the forthright Wozniak, but
that's not about to happen, and I never cared enough about Apple or
its products to hope that they'd change for the better. Somehow I
have a warm glow, knowing that I don't use a computer that has a
marketing legacy of being referred to as "insanely great", and has
the fanatical support of those such as R.A., who probably makes many
reasonable Apple owners cringe whenever he comments on computers,
operating systems or malware. Not that he often does any better
when commenting on photography, although an occasionally useful
wedding photography tip might sneak in between the snide comments.

If you're a Yankees fan, that pretty much explains it. Yankees SUCK!

In article , ASAAR
wrote:

I still don't like the unethical Gates nor the slick, unctuous
Jobs. As I hinted, I'd be more inclined towards Apple if the overly
style conscious Jobs was replaced by the forthright Wozniak, but
that's not about to happen, and I never cared enough about Apple or
its products to hope that they'd change for the better. Somehow I
have a warm glow, knowing that I don't use a computer that has a
marketing legacy of being referred to as "insanely great", and has
the fanatical support of those such as R.A., who probably makes many
reasonable Apple owners cringe whenever he comments on computers,
operating systems or malware. Not that he often does any better
when commenting on photography, although an occasionally useful
wedding photography tip might sneak in between the snide comments.

Watch the video of Bill & Steve at the conference last week. Gates
comes off as a visionless geek...kinda like his products.

On 6/8/07 6:28 AM, in article , "dennis@home"
wrote:


"George Kerby" wrote in message
...




If I were a Windows user, my next box would be an Intel Mac, so if I
were
still afraid of a new OS, I could boot right into Vista or whatever.

My next PC is going to be a tablet.. something lacking in apples line
up.

Oh really? 'Big Chief', I'd bet...


???


Too young, eh?


Probably not a yank, I doubt if I am too young I have been designing
computer hardware and systems for 28 years..


Gawd, I hate s-p-e-l-l-i-n-g things out for these so-called pompous
'experts'!

http://incolor.inebraska.com/tgannon/grfs/BigChief1.jpg

Have a nice day!

On 6/8/07 6:32 AM, in article , "dennis@home"
wrote:


"George Kerby" wrote in message
...


No its embedding personal data when a serial number would do the job
without
giving away personal data that other people are not entitled too.


And those folks shouldn't be giving it away.


And you have never lent any of your music to a family member or friend?


I'm talking about publishing on websites. Is there a light on, anywhere?

On 6/8/07 6:37 AM, in article , "dennis@home"
wrote:


"George Kerby" wrote in message
...



On 6/7/07 2:20 AM, in article , "dennis@home"
wrote:


"Randall Ainsworth" wrote in message
...
In article , "dennis@home" wrote:

What do you think makes OSx invulnerable?

That's an easy one. By default, you're not logged on as an admin with
root access. DOH!

You don't understand computer security at all do you?


Sure he does. He owns a Mac.

Which is not a secure system.
So it proves you are stupid.

Na-na de na-naaa. I'm an engineer. I am smart- you are stupid! Watch me blow
my whistle!

Go away, idgit...

What a maroon!
OTOH, you have to baby your bloated OS to keep the malware from making
them
zombies. Get over it...

In article , Ron Hunter
wrote:

You may be right ( or not ), but can you provide any evidence of any?

sure.
http://www.virusthreatcenter.com/art...x?articleId=75
http://secunia.com/advisories/11622/
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/computer-virus/macintosh-faq/

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2001/06/20.2.shtml
http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125...w=wn_tophead_2

Mon Sep 26, 4:39 PM ET

Apple Computer (Nasdaq: AAPL - news) has issued fixes for 10 security
holes that have been rated as "critical" by security firms.

which one was used in malware that spread like wildfire and affected
more than security researchers looking for potential issues? answer -
none.

Although no exploits have been reported as of yet, both Symantec
(Nasdaq: SYMC - news) and the French Security Incident Response Team
have noted that the flaws are serious and that users with those systems
should apply the patches immediately.

note the first line - 'no exploits have been reported as of yet.' a
*potential* problem was found, nothing exploited it and it was patched.


Topic: Apple
UPDATE: There's a lot of debate about whether this is a real worm, or
merely an elaborate, executable script that the user is tricked into
running. It appears to be a worm -- it's self-containing code that
replicates itself over the Net (def.). But it also requires the user to
agree to accept it as an iChat file transfer, which is a Trojan trait.

the ichat worm? what they don't tell you is that it only worked *from
the internal network* via bonjour (apple's name for zeroconf), the user
had to agree to accept a file transfer and then the user had to double
click the file. it also fails to infect most applications in many
cases and has a bug that can cause infected apps to not launch. again,
this only propagates on the local network - not the internet. if you
can't trust people on your *own* private network not to deliberately
send buggy malware (and which requires the recipient to install it),
you have much bigger problems that this. furthermore, this has been
patched.

t took a hacker less than 30 minutes to gain root-level access to Mac
OS X, according to a report from ZDNet. The hacker who penetrated the
system called the Mac "easy pickings."

that was only after he was provided with a shell login. prior to that,
nobody could compromise the system. do you regularly give shell access
to potential hackers? didn't think so.

Symantec posted a notice of a Trojan horse it called
"OSX.Exploit.Launchd" on its security site, but had few details other
than a successful installation would give an attacker root, or complete,
access to Mac OS X 10.4.6 and earlier systems.

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/21...perts-warn-mac

Symantec said that the actual threat level, damage potential and
distribution rate are low all round.

http://www.macsecuritynews.com/mac_s...06_archive.htm
l
However, as of this writing, this is not a live threat....This is
proof-of-concept code...and that fact is plainly advertised. In
theory, this vulnerability 'could be' targeted by a similar exploit,
via a trojan hoarse. However that is not the case with the code
available now.

another proof of concept that never did anything outside of the lab.
since it has been patched, 'could be' is now 'no longer can be.' yawn.


That enough?

This list may be a bit old, but given that so many Mac users don't do OS
updates, I believe it is pertinent.

you believe wrong. updates are automatic and nearly everyone does
them. those that explicitly disable it probably have a good reason for
it (i.e. needing to keep an older version of the system for testing).

the only security issues are *potential* issues - none have actually
been used in a mass attack. it may happen one day, but as of right
now, there are no viruses in the wild.

In article , "dennis@home" wrote:

No its embedding personal data when a serial number would do the job
without
giving away personal data that other people are not entitled too.

And those folks shouldn't be giving it away.

And you have never lent any of your music to a family member or friend?

you are concerned about hiding your email from family members and
friends? not to mention that you aren't supposed to be distributing
the music in the first place.