Topic: My Mac is a better PC than my PC...

[KDR_11k]

By the way

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11kAlso I still don't see the point of boot camp. Even if OSX is completely unbreakable you are booting into another OS. You wouldn't get the "advantages" until you make a 100% migration to OSX which you could have done without bootcamp anyway. Linux had a bootloader for decades, that didn't make people pick it up.

Like I said, it's games. You hold down the alt key as your computer starts up and you can select between Mac and Windows right off the bat. The only thing I've ever wanted from Windows was some of the games it has access to.

Quote
If Apple would just remove the DRM that prevents OSX from running on normal PCs they'd lower the barrier of entry much more than bootcamp currently does. You still need a completely new (expensive) computer and a standalone Windows license (most people have OEM versions that cannot be installled on the Mac) if you want to try out a Mac.

I have friends who have OSX running on PC hardware. Now that the kernel has been compiled for Intel machines, it wasn't that hard to bring it over.

As for the argument, I don't think there's anything which can stop a trojan if the user opens it themselves. In the case of the Mac trojan, it should be obvious when you download a file which claims to be a bunch of pictures and then clearly isn't. I guess a computer can't defend itself from the stupidity of its user (which, in hindsight, is a bit much to ask anyway).

I maintain about viruses, spyware and defragging, though. I realize that its small marketshare helps to keep OSX from harm, but Apple is very good about fixing exploits like the ones mentioned in the article.

Also...

GUESS AGAIN!

"Schroeder had said he wants to publish some details on the attempts that were made to hack his Mac. The computer was connected to the Net for more than 30 hours, apparently without being compromised. In the earlier challenge, an anonymous hacker claimed he was able to compromise OS X within 30 minutes using an undisclosed vulnerability. However, attackers in that case had been given user-level access to the system rather than being shut out completely."

I should also note that ZDNET is one of the most anti-Apple sites I've ever seen. Even the article I quoted isn't newsworthy and is largely just an attempt to make OSX seem unsafe. And take a gander at THIS piece of hogsh*t.

Basically, the article warns that Mac users are more at risk to social engineering because, for some reason, they're not used to it already, as if the barrage of emails pretending to be their bank or Paypal aren't also sent to Mac users.

The site grasps at straws in a desperate attempt to attack OSX and Mac users. The fact that it published a bullsh*t article and then three whole days later admitted that it was false and yet didn't remove the article says this more than anything.

[KDR_11k]

Like I said, it's games. You hold down the alt key as your computer starts up and you can select between Mac and Windows right off the bat. The only thing I've ever wanted from Windows was some of the games it has access to.

Yes but it's still a reboot. I want my games to start as hassle-free as possible. Never mind that I'd prefer keeping my productivity apps* running while I take a quick gaming break.

I have friends who have OSX running on PC hardware. Now that the kernel has been compiled for Intel machines, it wasn't that hard to bring it over.

Yes but like the PSP firmware Apple tries to disable that with every new patch.

As for the argument, I don't think there's anything which can stop a trojan if the user opens it themselves. In the case of the Mac trojan, it should be obvious when you download a file which claims to be a bunch of pictures and then clearly isn't.

Many users still run the application if the email tells them to and the sender field looks right to them. It is obvious under Windows as well.

I maintain about viruses, spyware and defragging, though. I realize that its small marketshare helps to keep OSX from harm, but Apple is very good about fixing exploits like the ones mentioned in the article.

I don't klnow what definition of virus you use but the one I have includes the kind that propagates via email or attaching to binaries. Spyware is the same, it attaches to legitimate applications and the OS can't do anything about that. Defragging, dunno. Since when is that necessary? I never bother with it.

However, attackers in that case had been given user-level access to the system rather than being shut out completely.

Which is a good simulation of the environment a trojan would be in and with the privilege escalation anyone, even an underprivileged user in a multiuser environment could trigger it.

*= Most likely mod tools

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k Yes but it's still a reboot. I want my games to start as hassle-free as possible. Never mind that I'd prefer keeping my productivity apps* running while I take a quick gaming break.

They plan to have the application set up so it will run a simultaneous copy of both OSes.

But in the meantime, I do enjoy the fact that I can, after finishing work, switch over to windows and play games if I so desire. I refuse to use anything except OSX, but I don't want to have to keep a gaming PC around so that I can play PC games. You don't own a Mac so you don't know this problem. It's needing one less piece of hardware and, when we're talking about a laptop where carrying around two of them isn't an option, Boot Camp is a godsend for anyone wanting to play games.

Quote
Yes but like the PSP firmware Apple tries to disable that with every new patch.

I don't blame them. They're not ready to mass-market OSX to the PC hardware market and I'm not yet sure they want to because the Mac works so well because Apple controls all of the components which go into the computers. Opening the floodgate would either require Apple to write and maintain drivers for every piece of hardware which might go into their computers or leave them up to 3rd party developers which make the products.

I've owned a few 3rd party devices for the Mac and the provided drivers have typically been awful.

Quote
Many users still run the application if the email tells them to and the sender field looks right to them. It is obvious under Windows as well.

Like I said, user stupidity can't be helped, but it can be curbed. The definition of dumb windows users vs. dumb mac users, as per YOUR example, was that a win user would need to install a different browser right off the bat. The forgivable nature of the mistake, in this case, is a quantifying variable: I wouldn't blame someone for not knowing that software which comes with the system is unsafe. In the case of a Mac, you have to bring in unsafe software manually. IE being one giant security risk is, IMHO, unacceptable.

Quote
I don't klnow what definition of virus you use but the one I have includes the kind that propagates via email or attaching to binaries. Spyware is the same, it attaches to legitimate applications and the OS can't do anything about that. Defragging, dunno. Since when is that necessary? I never bother with it.

And as of yet, I know of no virus which has been able to do this with OSX. The trojan I linked to required the user to open it. There were even security issues where people would attempt to name trojans as "safe" files and Apple cracked down on that.

There have been issues of viruses which OSX users could pass to their PC using friends via forwarding email, though.

As for defragging, I'm unsure if XP does it in the background, but I remember that fragmented HDs were a thorn in the side of every PC user pre-XP and every Mac user pre-OSX 1.4 or so.

Quote
Which is a good simulation of the environment a trojan would be in and with the privilege escalation anyone, even an underprivileged user in a multiuser environment could trigger it.

We're not talking about a trojan here: the article you linked was intentionally misleading to make it sound as though someone had broken into an OSX server in 30 minutes which is absolutely not the case. The "hacker" was given a user account and then made his way up to admin access via an exploit which was actually fixed in 2004. The Mac that this guy set up was running a version of OSX from 2+ years ago and probably didn't even have any security updates run on it (which download automatically via Software Update and install after you authorize it to do so with the admin password).

IN OTHER WORDS, the whole thing was set up from the start to make OSX look like it had grievous security flaws which were never fixed when they in fact weren't very grievous at all and WERE fixed years ago.

Windows machines can be hacked easily enough WITHOUT giving the hacker user access beforehand.

[Kairon]

Hundred bucks, you can't go wrong!



~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[Smash_Brother]

Are the Indonesian children included in the package?

[capamerica]

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11kYes but like the PSP firmware Apple tries to disable that with every new patch.

Actually Apple isn't as bad as Sony when it comes to patching, Infact Apple has not released a updated that was designed to stop hackers since 10.4.2. While on Sony's end ever update is to stop hackers. All of Apple's patches are used to fix both the Intel version and the PowerPC version. These are needed updates on bother fronts.

After OSX 10.4.3 BETA Apple stopped cracking down on preventing people from installing OSX on a PC. Thou the 10.4.3 update is debatable as to it being designed to stop hackers since It was a core system update and a full system upgrade. The only time Apple cracked down on it was during the time when it was in the news, once it left the front page Apple stopped making it hard to crack.

OSX 10.4.7 (The latest update) was patched and up & running on non-Apple hardware with in a couple hours of its release. When Apple was trying to crack down on the hackers during 10.4.2 and 10.4.3 it took up to a month for them to be cracked. 10.4.2 was the hardest one to be cracked. 10.4.3 was hard too, but not has hard as 10.4.2, 10.4.4 and up were easy.

Alot of people who work in the OSX86 project think Apple is purposely making it easy for us to get OSX up & running on non-Apple hardware. One example of this was the fact that when Apple released the ATI video drivers the drivers supported ALL ATI video cards. This made no sense since about 95% of your ATI cards were never made for Macs. The only thing we lose out on with the older non-Apple version of ATI cards is Quartz Extreme, But even old videocards created before OSX also have this problem so its common on Macs too.

Apple is aware that hackers are working on making OSX run on Non-Apple hardware. And we think they are letting us do this because instead of Apple pouring tons of money and time on developing drivers for non-popular hardware we are creating the drivers for OSX. Nvidia has not released a videocard for Intel Macs yet so there is currently no drivers for Nvidia video cards. But guess what the hacking community has done, They have created drivers for Nvidia video cards. And Apple gave us the tools to do that too.

I'm currently running Mac OSX 10.4.7 on my 3.0Ghz AMD64 on a VNF4/Ultra Zenith VE nForce4 motherboard with 1GB of DDR RAM and a Nvidia GeForce 6200 PCI-E Videocard. I've been running OSX on my PC since August 2005.

If you want to get OSX running on a normal PC all you really need is a AMD or Intel chip that has SSE2 and SSE3(SSE3 is optional) and a legal copy of OSX for Intel and a few patched files (you will need to create a new DVD with the orignal OSX files and the patch files.) I would also cross check on OSX86Project.org to see if your motherboard is supported, there are a few motherboards that don't work which is also something that brings many people to think Apple someday wants OSX on non-Apple hardware. As it stands the only real hardware that has issues with OSX are network cards, its a 50/50 shot with them.  

[KDR_11k]

Smash_Brother: Yes but all other OSes had boot managers in the nineties already. Why did it take Apple so long to offer one? (yes, even on PPC there were other OSes)

I don't blame them. They're not ready to mass-market OSX to the PC hardware market and I'm not yet sure they want to because the Mac works so well because Apple controls all of the components which go into the computers. Opening the floodgate would either require Apple to write and maintain drivers for every piece of hardware which might go into their computers or leave them up to 3rd party developers which make the products.

I've owned a few 3rd party devices for the Mac and the provided drivers have typically been awful.

Considering that faulty drivers are pretty much the only thing that can net you a blue screen on Windows these days (excluding hardware failure and deleting parts of the OS, of course) that does indeed add to OSX's stability. Probably the reason Apple doesn't offer OSX as a standalone OS, it would end up being not much different from every other OS in the market.

And as of yet, I know of no virus which has been able to do this with OSX. The trojan I linked to required the user to open it. There were even security issues where people would attempt to name trojans as "safe" files and Apple cracked down on that.

Once you got a working trojan it's trivial to add email propagation to it. Of course you are required to open it, almost all malware requires you to open it (because remote attacks are too easy to catch and identify).

We're not talking about a trojan here: the article you linked was intentionally misleading to make it sound as though someone had broken into an OSX server in 30 minutes which is absolutely not the case. The "hacker" was given a user account and then made his way up to admin access via an exploit which was actually fixed in 2004. The Mac that this guy set up was running a version of OSX from 2+ years ago and probably didn't even have any security updates run on it (which download automatically via Software Update and install after you authorize it to do so with the admin password).

1. A trojan has user-level access to the box when executed. This IS a simulation of what a bit of malware attached to a legitimate program could do.
2. The hacker stated the exploit wasn't known or patched when he used it so we've got conflicting statements here.
3. Windows gets patched regularly and automatically as well. The exploits previous worms used are no longer there. Past exploits don't matter for the present ability to break into a system. You could try unleashing a Blaster worm now and it wouldn't propagate because the exploit has been fixed years ago. A new worm always exploits a new vulnerability if it wants to be successful.

Like I said, user stupidity can't be helped, but it can be curbed. The definition of dumb windows users vs. dumb mac users, as per YOUR example, was that a win user would need to install a different browser right off the bat. The forgivable nature of the mistake, in this case, is a quantifying variable: I wouldn't blame someone for not knowing that software which comes with the system is unsafe. In the case of a Mac, you have to bring in unsafe software manually. IE being one giant security risk is, IMHO, unacceptable.

If the courts had any balls that default browser would no longer exist but no, that jerkwad Ashcroft has to come in and claim a few favours for his buddy Bill.

[capamerica]

Okay so everyone knows this Mac Trojan has been in debate for a long time and most people still see it as a False Trojan. It is more of a application then a Trojan. Why you may ask, we for a couple reasons.

First, The program was a standard compiled Unix executable. But because OSX does not show file extension you were unable to see that it was not a Image file. All They had to changed was the icon to make it look like a image. I've always felt that this was a problem with the Mac OS. Had this Trojan been released on a PC you would have see it for what it really was a normal .exe application.

And Second, You are required to enter your Administration password for the program to run. Almost all Trojan and Viruses don't need your permission to be installed or to run. And I'm sorry but if you are stupid enough to enter your password in to look at a image you deserve what you get.

In all fairness this Mac Trojan was not a Trojan but just a normal run of the mill application that they changed the icon on. With their logic I could take a generic "reformat HD" program change the icon and call it a Trojan. All they displayed to the Mac world was that having the file extension hidden was not that good of an idea.

All the "patch" did was deactivate Unix code that was used in the program.

And one last thing, Windows does not get patched regularly, there are Trojans, viruses and exploits that have not been patched in years. MS really only gets off their butt to fix the holes when the item in question starts getting press time. Windows is like a screen door, From a distance it may look solid and secure, but once you get up close to it you find its full of holes. OSX on the other hand is a very solid OS and with the exception of this fake Trojan and a exploit in iTunes 3 OSX. But seriously if you want to count those 2 as "real" that is just a drop of water in the massive ocean that Windows has to deal with.

I did a quick search on Google about Mac Viruses and this guy did a pretty good break down.
http://www.macobserver.com/editorial/2003/08/29.1.shtml
Sadly the artical is from August 2003, but still a good read might be worth duplicating his proses.

[vudu]

Geez you people talk a lot about things I don't comprehend.

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
(if you put any computer on the net without a firewall in between you're stupid)

Here's a completely off-topic question, but since you guys are smart you'll probably have a quick answer for me.

I currently run Windows XP.  I am hooked up to the Internet through a D-Link Xtreme G DI-624 wireless router.  I also have the free version of Zone Alarm installed on my PC.

One of my friends has tried to convince me that the firewall that comes with XP is better than the Zone Alarm one.  He also says there's a built-in firewall in my router that's better than Zone Alarm, too.  Is he correct that I should just uninstall Zone Alarm, or does he have crud between his ears?  Is there a different free/cheap firewall I should be using instead?

[KDR_11k]

Routers do NAT, that works like a firewall. The XP firewall isn't the best but Zone Alarm is much worse. But now that you have it I wouldn't try uninstalling it, it's notorious for screwing up your internet connection if you do that. Me, I'm relying on the NAT. It can only stop outside attacks and cannot be used to deny some programs internet access (e.g. to prevent something from phoning home) but it doesn't put any strain on my system either.

Had this Trojan been released on a PC you would have see it for what it really was a normal .exe application.

Not on the default "hide extension" settings but anyone with a clue disables that anyway because it's friggin annoying.

And Second, You are required to enter your Administration password for the program to run.

With a privilege escalation exploit that's not necessary and from what I've heard many trojans can run with user privileges.

Honestly I do not believe that Apple can do what all the other OS makers cannot, I do not believe that OSX is completely free of exploits*. It's just that since it's neither opensource nor widespread it doesn't get as much bug searching (I'd say the same for Opera, that had very few publicised bugs and while it may be more secure than its competitors I'd say a big factor is just that it's closed source and obscure). OSes are complex things and I don't think that OSX is more secure than most other unixes. Sure, Windows is the weakest in terms of security and you'd be retarded to use it as a server OS but it shouldn't cause much trouble if the user uses it right. And really, it's nowhere near as unstable as geek jokes make it out to be.

*= An exploit can be in any application that is run with root privileges.

[ShyGuy]

Are you getting hax0rd a lot? Keeping your antivirus and spyware protection up to date (and using Firefox or Opera) will help to protect you more in today's internet.

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Smash_Brother: Yes but all other OSes had boot managers in the nineties already. Why did it take Apple so long to offer one? (yes, even on PPC there were other OSes)

You kind of answered your own question with your next paragraph. The reason Apple never offered a boot loader was because their hardware is proprietary and any non-Apple OS would have ran like crap on it.

Quote
1. A trojan has user-level access to the box when executed. This IS a simulation of what a bit of malware attached to a legitimate program could do.
2. The hacker stated the exploit wasn't known or patched when he used it so we've got conflicting statements here.
3. Windows gets patched regularly and automatically as well. The exploits previous worms used are no longer there. Past exploits don't matter for the present ability to break into a system. You could try unleashing a Blaster worm now and it wouldn't propagate because the exploit has been fixed years ago. A new worm always exploits a new vulnerability if it wants to be successful.

1. The article isn't talking about a trojan: it presents its argument as though the hacker cracked into Mac OSX with nothing but an IP address. This was a flat-f*ck LIE.

2. See #1. Given that the bugger lied about not having a user account beforehand, why exactly do we find him trustworthy when it comes to telling us that this exploit still exists? If it DOES exist, why hasn't he released it to the public so that the hackers of the world can wreck havoc on Macs everywhere? Why would he go out of the way to allegedly prove that OSX is crackable, then, out of the goodness and honor in his heart, not release the exploit to hacking sites everywhere?

Because he's LYING about the whole thing, that's why.

I'm toying with the notion of submitting an atrocious anti-Mac story to ZDNET and see how quickly they pick it up, then email Apple the link and see if I can get them sued for liable.

3. And I'm sure they'll find more and more holes because XP, like all of its predecessors, is a steaming pile of sh*t, poorly written and as secure as a paper towel prophylactic. Like Cap said, MS seldom gets off their ass to plug a hole unless the MEDIA starts to raise a big stink about it.

Quote
If the courts had any balls that default browser would no longer exist but no, that jerkwad Ashcroft has to come in and claim a few favours for his buddy Bill.

And this alters its status of "unacceptable"...how?  

[BigJim]

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
Are the Indonesian children included in the package?

I think they built it.

[KDR_11k]

You kind of answered your own question with your next paragraph. The reason Apple never offered a boot loader was because their hardware is proprietary and any non-Apple OS would have ran like crap on it.

PPC Linux anyone? I hear that is pretty popular.

[capamerica]

The versions of Linux that run of Macs are not the greatest. Your much bette off getting a PC to run Linux.
Mac linux is kind of like PS2 Linux. Sure its Linux but its not all there.

Now don't get Mac PPC Linux confused with IBM PPC Linux. IBM PPC server run Linux alot better then a Mac does. Apple went out of their way to make it dificult to run other OSes on their Hardware.

MS even for a bit had a version of Windows NT that could run on PowerPC chips. But again it could run well (or at least as well as NT could run) on a IBM server. But on a Mac it was almost a Joke.

[capamerica]

Another issue I forgot to mention was that getting any boot loader to work on a PowerPC Mac was a major pain in the ass. Apple didn't use Bios like a PC or PowerPC IBM computers Apple insted used Open Firmware which unlike its name was anything but Open.

[Smash_Brother]

To be honest, I'm not sure why they never opened that door.

My guess would be that inviting the creation of other OSes on their hardware beyond their control increases the chances of someone decompiling your OS and consequently piracy, hacking, etc.

[KDR_11k]

Wait, last I checked OSes don't really stop hacking and piracy, at least not if their user is doing it.

[Smash_Brother]

I mean that, when they fork over an actual boot loader, that gives the groundwork for others to generate better hacking tools for the OS because they now have the information of how it harnesses resources, loads data, etc.

In Apple's case, the boot loader isn't even available to the user for examination.

[KDR_11k]

I mean that, when they fork over an actual boot loader, that gives the groundwork for others to generate better hacking tools for the OS because they now have the information of how it harnesses resources, loads data, etc.

That can be analyzed without a bootloader and usually it's even in the documentation.

[Smash_Brother]

Then why hasn't Apple released one?

Surely, since their hardware is so expensive by PC user standards, why should Apple care what people run on their hardware so long as they buy the hardware?

[Sir_Stabbalot]

Wait, if a Mac runs Windows and uses an Intel processor, what keeps it a Mac?

[Kairon]

Are the intel processors..."special" or something? They surely can't be the exact same ones in our PCs...

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[KDR_11k]

No, why should they be special? This isn't a console.