which PC

dennis@home wrote:

"George Kerby" wrote in message
...


What do you think is the reason for this? And DON'T come up with "no one
wants to mess with such a small percentage" ****.

The successful Mac hacker would become famous and welcomed to the Hacker
Hall of Fame. It's not that they aren't TRYING. THEY CAN'T! So far, at
least...


Why do you want to dissmiss the reason they aren't attacked?
Hackers aren't trying to get fame.. they end up in prison for that.
They want to send spam.

Which makes Macs appropriate targets because who'd suspect
a Mac of sending spam?


Anyway why do you think Macs haven't been hijacked?
What do you do to check yours hasn't been?
Are you like most Unix users.. unable to tell what your machine is doing?

Ok. So you don't know very much about Unix.

That's OK.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

"Scott Schuckert" wrote in message
...
In article , "dennis@home" wrote:

I never claimed I was an expert just that I know that macs are not
secure.
Anyone who recommends a mac just because they are secure is being stupid.

You really have a problem with the concept of absolute and non absolute
statements.

Are humans bipeds? Any rational person would say yes, they are. The few
people missing a leg, or that obscure extended family that walks on all
fours is not enough to invalidate the phrase. So, "Macintosh computers
are secure." The fact that there has never been a single reported
instance of a virus or exploit in the field supports this statement
completely.

When someone says "Macintosh computers are completely secure under all
circumstances, and always will be." then you can start bitching.

By your definitions, a platform with tens of thousands of real-world
viruses and exploits is exactly the same as one that has a handful of
laboratory-only ones; because neither is absolutely secure.

Who's being stupid?

The one that thinks they are both secure.

"Paul J Gans" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

"George Kerby" wrote in message
.. .


What do you think is the reason for this? And DON'T come up with "no one
wants to mess with such a small percentage" ****.

The successful Mac hacker would become famous and welcomed to the Hacker
Hall of Fame. It's not that they aren't TRYING. THEY CAN'T! So far, at
least...


Why do you want to dissmiss the reason they aren't attacked?
Hackers aren't trying to get fame.. they end up in prison for that.
They want to send spam.

Which makes Macs appropriate targets because who'd suspect
a Mac of sending spam?

If I wanted to do that I would use the mac as a controller for the pc
zombies.
Why?.. because the average mac user wouldn't be able to tell I was using it.
The same is true for linux machines.

I wouldn't risk putting the controller on a windows pc as the user might
notice or run an updated av program and I lose my controller and all the
bots talking to it.

This doesn't happen with macs because the users never check or even know how
to check if there is anything wrong and of course they don't need av
software as they are secure.



Anyway why do you think Macs haven't been hijacked?
What do you do to check yours hasn't been?
Are you like most Unix users.. unable to tell what your machine is doing?

Ok. So you don't know very much about Unix.

I know more about the average computer user than you do.
Just look at how stupid some usenet users are and then think that only a
tiny percentage of users have worked out how to get into usenet and you may
begin to understand.

Paul J Gans wrote:
David J Taylor
[]
Not that I agree with your supposition, but do you think that
backdoors don't exist in other OSes?

Hmm. Open source ones may have them, but it is hard to
see how.

Does everyone always compile the source, or accept the binary download?
Have you actually looked at some of this source code? Do you think you
would spot the one coding error in 3 million lines?

I accept there may be more people checking with open source, but that
doesn't make it free from error or deliberate (but hidden in obscure C
code) holes.

David

In article , "dennis@home" wrote:

The one that thinks they are both secure.

Whooosh! "Swing and a miss!"

"David J Taylor" wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:
David J Taylor
[]
Not that I agree with your supposition, but do you think that
backdoors don't exist in other OSes?

Hmm. Open source ones may have them, but it is hard to
see how.

Does everyone always compile the source, or accept the binary download?
Have you actually looked at some of this source code? Do you think you
would spot the one coding error in 3 million lines?

It makes no difference at all if he, or I or you can or
do that. The point is that there *are* thousands of
people who can and do. That code is being gone over
with a magnifying glass every minute of every day.

And that is exactly the reason we get notices of
potential security problems with regularity... *before*
anyone actually has a chance to develop working scams to
make use of those faults. That is as opposed to finding
out about a security problem when 10 million computers
all fail on the same day, or start sending bogus emails
to everyone on Usenet, which is the way Windows
"security" works...

I accept there may be more people checking with open source, but that
doesn't make it free from error or deliberate (but hidden in obscure C
code) holes.

It has clearly made it much more free than proprietary
code. Waiting until open source is 100% free to stop
having to deal with the mess that "security" is on
Windows, is abject foolishness.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"dennis@home" wrote:
If I wanted to do that I would use the mac as a controller for the pc
zombies.
Why?.. because the average mac user wouldn't be able to tell I was using it.
The same is true for linux machines.

That's an absurdly inaccurate statement.

I wouldn't risk putting the controller on a windows pc as the user might
notice or run an updated av program and I lose my controller and all the
bots talking to it.

Yeah, sure. Windows users *can't* notice that their
machine is being used by someone else until it is so
bogged down with traffic that it slows to a crawl. And
then they can't actually tell why.

This doesn't happen with macs because the users never check or even know how
to check if there is anything wrong and of course they don't need av
software as they are secure.

So how many have been compromised? Zero, or fewer...

Anyway why do you think Macs haven't been hijacked?
What do you do to check yours hasn't been?
Are you like most Unix users.. unable to tell what your machine is doing?

Ok. So you don't know very much about Unix.

I know more about the average computer user than you do.

That is not in evidence. The fellow you replied to,
Paul J Gans, has demonstrated several times over that he
has a pretty fair knowledge of computers.

Just look at how stupid some usenet users are and then think that only a
tiny percentage of users have worked out how to get into usenet and you may
begin to understand.

Is that supposed to mean something?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Floyd Davidson wrote:
[]
It makes no difference at all if he, or I or you can or
do that. The point is that there *are* thousands of
people who can and do. That code is being gone over
with a magnifying glass every minute of every day.

But if you simply accept the compiled binary code, you have no idea what's
in there.

I follow just a few open-source projects, and it's horrifying to see all
the questions like "who changed this?", "who broke this?" or "sorry but we
messed up the source tree".

[]
It has clearly made it much more free than proprietary
code. Waiting until open source is 100% free to stop
having to deal with the mess that "security" is on
Windows, is abject foolishness.

But neither should you image that open-source is perfect and without
backdoors.

David

"Floyd Davidson" wrote in message
...
"David J Taylor"
wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:
David J Taylor
[]
Not that I agree with your supposition, but do you think that
backdoors don't exist in other OSes?

Hmm. Open source ones may have them, but it is hard to
see how.

Does everyone always compile the source, or accept the binary download?
Have you actually looked at some of this source code? Do you think you
would spot the one coding error in 3 million lines?

It makes no difference at all if he, or I or you can or
do that. The point is that there *are* thousands of
people who can and do. That code is being gone over
with a magnifying glass every minute of every day.

By hackers looking for a way in? ;-)

And that is exactly the reason we get notices of
potential security problems with regularity... *before*
anyone actually has a chance to develop working scams to
make use of those faults.

There was a bug in sendmail that allowed remote execution for years.
It was removed and then reintroduced a couple of versions later.
(It has been removed now by using a different mailer by users with sense).


That is as opposed to finding
out about a security problem when 10 million computers
all fail on the same day, or start sending bogus emails
to everyone on Usenet, which is the way Windows
"security" works...

ITYM used to work.

I accept there may be more people checking with open source, but that
doesn't make it free from error or deliberate (but hidden in obscure C
code) holes.

It has clearly made it much more free than proprietary
code. Waiting until open source is 100% free to stop
having to deal with the mess that "security" is on
Windows, is abject foolishness.

Its funny how some windows users can run for years and never get a virus or
any other malware.
Do you think that if the windows users that keep getting infected would do
better running another OS?
I think they would just get infected by installing root kits, etc. myself.

"Floyd Davidson" wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" wrote:
If I wanted to do that I would use the mac as a controller for the pc
zombies.
Why?.. because the average mac user wouldn't be able to tell I was using
it.
The same is true for linux machines.

That's an absurdly inaccurate statement.

How is it?

I wouldn't risk putting the controller on a windows pc as the user might
notice or run an updated av program and I lose my controller and all the
bots talking to it.

Yeah, sure. Windows users *can't* notice that their
machine is being used by someone else until it is so
bogged down with traffic that it slows to a crawl. And
then they can't actually tell why.

This doesn't happen with macs because the users never check or even know
how
to check if there is anything wrong and of course they don't need av
software as they are secure.

So how many have been compromised? Zero, or fewer...

So you keep saying but you don't know.
There is no way for the average user to know if they are compromised so you
can't either (unless you are the hacker that is).

Anyway why do you think Macs haven't been hijacked?
What do you do to check yours hasn't been?
Are you like most Unix users.. unable to tell what your machine is
doing?

Ok. So you don't know very much about Unix.

I know more about the average computer user than you do.

That is not in evidence. The fellow you replied to,
Paul J Gans, has demonstrated several times over that he
has a pretty fair knowledge of computers.

But his knowledge is fawed.. he thinks macs are secure which is known to be
untrue.

But not of users or how they behave.
Thats the trouble with computer "experts" they always assume that users know
what they are doing.
The reality is that most users will just say yes when a security pop up pops
up.
The system works if they do and the get error messages if they don't.
This is how most malware gets on machines and mac/linux users are not
special.

Just look at how stupid some usenet users are and then think that only a
tiny percentage of users have worked out how to get into usenet and you
may
begin to understand.

Is that supposed to mean something?

To anyone with common sense.