Re: XP vs Mac OS X
- From: Bob Monsen <rcsurname@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 08:50:37 -0700
TCS wrote:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 20:12:41 -0700, Bob Monsen <rcsurname@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
justin wrote:
As of today, here are NO virii or trojans in existence. And when the email client is configured to pass plain ASCII only, which is as hard as ticking a box, a Mac doesn't spread them either.
This isn't true, as my other posting suggests. There is a trojan rootkit designed to take over Mac OSX. It's been found on only one system 'in the wild'.
No, it was not, and it could not activate itself unless the machine was already _physically_ compromised, on a root level. One had to _install_ it as a root. NOT over network.
So you are wrong, there are 'mactrojans'.
WRT the network thing, are you talking about viruses or worms? The word "virus" is generally used to refer to any malware that can be spread
from system to system. The method of delivery is immaterial. A network
worm is a 'virus' that attacks over the network, without user intervention.
name one macworm running around in the wild. Name one that installs itself into the Mac operating system without the user logging in as root.
You asked for a virus, I named one. You need root privs to install most software on Mac OS X. If it tricks you into installing, you'll enter the root password.
Your dimwit friend Justin implied that there has NEVER been a mac virus. I pointed out that I've seen lots of them, and I also pointed out how one could be constructed for either macos or Mac OS X. You snipped that part.
Sigh. Never say something is impossible.
As far as I know, there aren't any windows viruses that spread unassisted either. There are ways to attack windows boxes, linux boxes,
You're kidding, right? Are you really this misinformed? Bring in a laptop with klez and you'll have an entire lan infested. All unassisted.
You are right, I was unaware of that virus. I guess it pays to check the box on XP that automatically installs software updates.
I looked it up, and all recent versions of Klez requires one to open and run the attachment. However, there is a variant of Klez that exploited a vunerability in outlook that automatically opened attachments. That was apparently patched in 2002.
This vunerability has nothing to do with the OS, however. Outlook is an application program. The virus transported by email was targeted towards windows... However, there is a macintosh version of ms outlook. Thus, it's possible, given microsoft's penchant for using virtual machines and identical code across hardware bases, that one could use the same vunerability to write a virus that installs itself on the mac. Nobody updates outlook for the macintosh, because it hasn't been updated recently by MS.
However, the real problem for email virus writers is that it's hard to find a large enough group of macs on a single network to make an email virus work. Since it spreads using email, it needs to be able to reach as many systems as it can that it can run on to propagate. Each infected system has to reach an average of x other systems, with x > 1. If this doesn't happen, the virus just dies out. A payload designed for the mac doesn't give it critical mass anywhere except the Apple cupertino campus...
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: XP vs Mac OS X
- From: TCS
- Re: XP vs Mac OS X
- References:
- XP vs Mac OS X
- From: Jon Yaeger
- Re: XP vs Mac OS X
- From: Joel Kolstad
- Re: XP vs Mac OS X
- From: Adrian Tuddenham
- Re: XP vs Mac OS X
- From: Bob Monsen
- Re: XP vs Mac OS X
- From: TCS
- Re: XP vs Mac OS X
- From: Bob Monsen
- Re: XP vs Mac OS X
- From: TCS
- Re: XP vs Mac OS X
- From: Bob Monsen
- Re: XP vs Mac OS X
- From: Bob Monsen
- Re: XP vs Mac OS X
- From: TCS
- XP vs Mac OS X
- Prev by Date: Re: Line powered audio switch, is this feasible ?
- Next by Date: Trying to model loop antenna (why does capcitance go down when adding parallel cap?)
- Previous by thread: Re: XP vs Mac OS X
- Next by thread: Re: XP vs Mac OS X
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|