Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Get a mac

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by russ, Oct 13, 2009.

  1. Does anyone actually use a guest account?
  2. Who let Bill Gates near their machine? :LOL:
  3. I'm sure some people must, but I've never know anyone who even used accounts, let alone guest.
    Nevertheless, a good reason to let someone else do the product development before diving in.
  4. Should be an update soon enough.
  5. Yeah. Apple is hands down better at fixing issues with their software when the crop up. Which makes it strange they haven't mentioned this since it first happened. Its either massive, or they honestly didn't know; although I'm inclined to believe the former.

    Although, the product tagline would certainly suggest that this shouldn't happen in the first place....
  6. :rofl::rofl:

    apple is woeful at this. their average update time for security flaws is embarrasing:
    we use accounts on our macs. use them all the time - I could imagine if you were lazy you'd just have setup a guest.
  7. The difference is though that Sun dosen't provide the JVM for OSX Apple do so once a issue is noted Apple either have to write their own patch or integrate Sun's patch into their code. Not a good enough excuse but it is the reason for the delay...

    The Guest account thing seems to be more problematical as for a long time Apple couldn't reproduce it, and even now it's not consistent...
  8. The problem with apple is that they aren't good at communicating with their customers. For instance, that java security issue: Once everyone was made aware of it, Apple made no comment but to say that they were working on a fix. Weeks later it just happens. People in tech like to know what's going on in the background, especially when troubleshooting is involved. But i guess Apple don't market their products at the technically oriented... :wink:

    I do own a macbook btw.
  9. Compare apples performance to that of Redmond, and its generally better. Or so it has been my experience. Statistics may prove otherwise.
  10. I've still not had anyone explain to me in simple terms how a Mac is more secure beyond the fanboi responses. A properly secured Vista PC with UAC enabled and patched should be safe. But users disable UAC, run their accounts as administrators, visit funny websites and download and execute programs that clearly look dodgy, despite all the warnings. They get a torrent client, download stuff from lots of places, ignore warnings from their AV client that the cracking program is a trojan (coz why would anyone lie about their free software) and the complain the Windows is shite when they realise their PC is no longer their own.

    If I took a Linux install, ran it with high privileges and took the same lax attitude, could it be attacked? I'm not a Linux user, but do have a Mac, am employed supporting MS systems, so it's not that I'm baiting, just genuinely curious.

    When I worked for HP, we got to see the security patch list for HP-UX. For a supposedly secure OS it sure had lots of vulnerabilities, all of which had to be patched in their corporate environment.
  11. from what I understand, there was recently a mac phishing scam. I havn't been able to ascertain if mac's are in fact immune to virus altogether, but i doubt it. It seems they just aren't out of mutual respect for other mac users.

    Linux is similar, but there is even more respect, mainly because 99% of the virus' are created by linux users. so linux is a no go zone for virus coding.

    Have a feeling that as mac is becoming more commercial, more viruses for mac will make their way to the surface.
  12. Well, if you read "Hard Drive", the unauthorised biography of said Bill, you'll find that he was cooperating with the holy trinity on the design of the mac from day one....
  13. OSX is inherently more secure for two main reasons. First and foremost, it is built on UNIX. The way UNIX deals with security is much better than the design that NT uses. Partly due to better design, partly due to how the software is developed. From the outset, UNIX was designed to be multi user. Secondly is market share. Less macs in use, less of a target ergo less threats.

    Many many security issues I see in NT land stem from a user initiating the action. The PC warns them, they do it anyway... This could happen in *nix, but its less likely because the kind of people who click on dancing kittens to win $1000000 do not run *nix, therefore no-one bothers coding such traps. OSX rides this as a security benefit. if the adoption of OSX was to jump to even 50% tomorrow, it would suddenly stop being as secure as it is today.

    Of course, anything will be insecure if you leave the root password as password... The difference with *nix is that by default the approach to security is nowhere near as lax as NTs approach.
  14. Mac-OS's security lies soley in being a small target.
  15. Indeed Hornet, it does.

    ALTHOUGH, to be fair, if you take both W7 and OSX at face value for security, OSX would most probably have the edge. Just not nearly by as much as Apples marketing dept. would have us all believe.
  16. Well the image supplied by the ed department for the ibm laptops here in vic a while ago came preconfigured with a worm already installed.
    Was quite a source of amusement :)
  17. I'm not sure the 'small target' argument entirely holds water. I mean, what's the market share? 5%? 10%? But yet there are thousands of Windows viruses and almost no Mac ones - certainly not 5-10% as many... I know that's over-simplistic, but if it was *only* the target size, you do have to think there'd be enterprising haX0rs who'd slip into the niche...
  18. That is a touch over simplified. Thousands of viruses for NT, many of which share code. The overall figure is somewhat inflated. Also, keep in mind that for the better part of 15 years the mainstream installations of windows were all based on the NT4 kernel.

    Back before Apple made the intel/UNIX switch the market share was genuinely too small to bother with. After the switch the ease at which NT machines could be targeted remained the same, so the norm continued. During this time, despite the rise in OSX's adoption, exploiting NT remained as easy as it had been before...

    There simply is no motivation to code for OSX, not to mention that it is much harder to do now because of what its based on. Why would someone go to the bother to code for a "niche target". If you're writing malicious code, you want maximum exposure, minimum effort. 10% market share is simply not appealing enough when you combine all the factors into the mix.
  19. This is the crux of the OSX virus issue really. Because of it's UNIX underpinnings OSX is more secure than Windows from the bottom up. A lot of the stupid things users do to the OS that leave them open are simply not possible to do in OSX or so difficult that anyone with the smarts to do it would therefore be smart enough not to. So it's a lot of work and even if you manage to succeed and infect all the macs in the world, what have you got 5% waste of time aim for the big easy target instead...

    What a load of tosh...