OSNews

They have editors and limited print space.

Overall I think they're pretty timely on this one.

I was under the impression NBC just bought out the TV parts of MSNBC but the website is still shared. Am I wrong? Can someone shed some light?

I think that NBC bought out MS' portion of their partership and will be changing the name shortly. So basically they are MS in name only and have nothing to do with that network.

MS still owns half of the web presence. They just let NBC have a majority in the TV network. However, MS has never had any editorial control over NBC News. Suggesting bias because of the MSN in MSNBC is naive, especially when this story is put out by the AP and MSNBC is just reprinting it.

Here's a non-MS affiliated site with the same story:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06120/685686-96.stm

However, MS has never had any editorial control over NBC News. Suggesting bias because of the MSN in MSNBC is naive, especially when this story is put out by the AP and MSNBC is just reprinting it.

I don't think that Thom was suggesting that there IS bias, rather he was acting as a good editor and pointing out possible biases. I'd expect a good editor to point out the same on a really favorible article on Pixar from an ABC website (ABC being owned by Disney), even if it was an AP story.

A Google News search shows that MSNBC was the first place to print the story. This is possibly, and probably, coincedence, but something a good editor should point out nonetheless.

I don't think that Thom was suggesting that there IS bias, rather he was acting as a good editor and pointing out possible biases. I'd expect a good editor to point out the same on a really favorible article on Pixar from an ABC website (ABC being owned by Disney), even if it was an AP story.

Can you point me to other articles on OSNews with similar attributions pointing out possible biases? I can't remember ever seeing any, especially for MS/Windows articles from likely biased sources. Also, isn't it enough that MSNBC themselves point out in the article "(MSNBC.com is a Microsoft - NBC joint venture.)"?

A Google News search shows that MSNBC was the first place to print the story. This is possibly, and probably, coincedence, but something a good editor should point out nonetheless.

Whether or not they were the first to post (and are you be certain, given other publications have given the article different titles ?) does not change the fact that it's an AP reprint. The implication from Thom was there may be bias given MSN's affiliation when, in fact, there was no affiliation. Plus, as stated earlier, MS has nothing to do with the editorial process at MSNBC.

Okay, first off, be happy that they've started. Secondly, bias can be more than just the content of a story, it can be evident in a chosen amalgum of news stories.

As for the third point, Microsoft retains partial ownership of the MSNBC web portal. Some people might want to believe that there is a bias, and so Thom's note would help them out if they were too deficient to hover over the link. Other people don't really care. I'm one of the latter; I wasn't going to read the article, anyway, because it's probably rubbish. And that aspect has nothing to do with MS.

If anything, the bias is towards Symantec and McAfee ;-)

Yes but they neglect to mention that this particular piece of malware would of required your Admin password...

Depends what they want malware to do. There are plenty of things (like set up a spam relay or DDoS client) which don't need the Admin password.

There are plenty of things (like set up a spam relay or DDoS client) which don't need the Admin password

Excuse-me ?
DDoS ? Spam relay ?
To be even remotely useful, these actions require access to ports inferior to 1024, which DO REQUIRE ADMIN rights on any Unix I know.
So no, sorry man, what you say is still complete BS.

double post. Sorry

Edited 2006-05-03 15:10

What do they need to bind to ports below 1024 for? I just tell my malware to bind to a port above 1024. I can configure my mail client to connect to SMTP on port 2500 if I want. relaying mail to another mail server listening to port 25 doesn't require admin rights. Same concept is true for DDoS. There is nothing magical about the ports below 1024 that the ports above cannot do.
I still hold that what I say isn't "complete BS".

He and at least one other person who clicked on the links were infected by what security experts call the first-ever virus for Mac OS X, the operating system that has shipped with every Mac sold since 2001 and has survived virtually unscathed from the onslaught of malware unleashed on the Internet in recent years.

Wow! If I understand this quote, the author is saying that in 5 years there have only been two Macs known to be infected with a virus. As suryad points out, all software is susceptible. So the headline should be how incredibly safe Macs are.

sorry, you are correct...

Mac OS X has about hmmm 1 virus

Windows has over 150,000

so it is a magnitude of 15000
even in astronomy, that is a massive amount

hahahaha very funny raver31

that backfired on linuxhater a bit there.
but I concur, Windows has 150,000 virus variants and MAC/LINUX/BSD users can count the amount of virus on one hand of a Simpson character.

That 150,000 number seems quite exact. I'm still waiting for the evidence to support your claim....

are you that stupid that you do not know how to use Google search ?

or are you confused because you used MSN search, and it said there was ZERO virus's for Windows ?

By the way, why would someone write a virus for a piece of crap software (linux/BSD) that no one really uses. I mean come on, everyone knows that *nix on the desktop only makes up less than 3%.

Less than 3% of all cars are Porsche, are Porsche a piece of shit just because everyone else drives Fords ?

You sir, are showing the classic signs of "sheep mentality", you want to be a part of the crowd and do everything, everyone else does. you are not an individual. See a therapist about that man.

Just because no viruses exist for *nix doesn't mean it is secure.

There are virus for *nix. BUT, it is still secure. *nix has been built from the ground up to be a multi-user system, and each user has no rights to the files of others. It is done correctly in *nix.

Under Windows I can set up users.... to a degree.
User 1 can open User 2 files etc. User 2 can bork the whole hard disk if he so pleases. It is a half-assed attempt at multi-user.

*nix has no email clients or web browsers so far deep into the system that it does not work properly without them.

*nix will not run ActiveX
*nix does not let javascript emails run amok.
*nix will not let a program install itself over a webpage
*nix will not elevate a wmv up to an executable
*nix will not make files executable without intervention

So, although there are virus for Linux in the wild, getting them to actually work is the hassle, rather than the audience size.


Lastly, you said;
"Get a life loser.", now, you either Get a clue, or go back to Slashdot.

That 150,000 number seems quite exact. I'm still waiting for the evidence to support your claim....

are you that stupid that you do not know how to use Google search ?

or are you confused because you used MSN search, and it said there was ZERO virus's for Windows ?

By the way, why would someone write a virus for a piece of crap software (linux/BSD) that no one really uses. I mean come on, everyone knows that *nix on the desktop only makes up less than 3%.

Less than 3% of all cars are Porsche, are Porsche a piece of shit just because everyone else drives Fords ?

You sir, are showing the classic signs of "sheep mentality", you want to be a part of the crowd and do everything, everyone else does. you are not an individual. See a therapist about that man.

Just because no viruses exist for *nix doesn't mean it is secure.

There are virus for *nix. BUT, it is still secure. *nix has been built from the ground up to be a multi-user system, and each user has no rights to the files of others. It is done correctly in *nix.

Under Windows I can set up users.... to a degree.
User 1 can open User 2 files etc. User 2 can bork the whole hard disk if he so pleases. It is a half-assed attempt at multi-user.

*nix has no email clients or web browsers so far deep into the system that it does not work properly without them.

*nix will not run ActiveX
*nix does not let javascript emails run amok.
*nix will not let a program install itself over a webpage
*nix will not elevate a wmv up to an executable
*nix will not make files executable without intervention

So, although there are virus for Linux in the wild, getting them to actually work is the hassle, rather than the audience size.


Lastly, you said;
"Get a life loser.", now, you either Get a clue, or go back to Slashdot.

Yes porsche is a piece of sh*t.

You said: Under Windows I can set up users.... to a degree.
User 1 can open User 2 files etc. User 2 can bork the whole hard disk if he so pleases. It is a half-assed attempt at multi-user.

You are totally ignorant. You have never used Windows in your life. That statement you made is absolutely false. You really should use Windows before you bash it, idiot!

If *nix (esp Linux) is so secure, why is it that there are massive (20MB+) downloads from yum/synaptic repositories to "fix bugs and security vulnerablilities" on a weekly basis? Hmmm?

A windows update is never that big and it is never that frequent. The OSS community spends all of it time cleaning up the crap code that they pass off as "secure" software.

Here's my claim: Windows is by far the most bullet proof OS around. Hands down! No OS is as well tested as Windows.

Your claim: 150,000 viruses in the wild attacking Windows constantly.

I've been a loyal (and happy) Windows user for over 10 years and I have never, ever gotten a virus. NEVER! If you have so many problems with Windows, maybe you should look in the mirror and ask yourself "What the hell is wrong with me that I can't make my wonderful and simple Windows OS work, but my over designed, bloated and complex Linux OS makes me happy! (while being totally insecure)."

You need help man.

Now you're funny )

If *nix (esp Linux) is so secure, why is it that there are massive (20MB+) downloads from yum/synaptic repositories to "fix bugs and security vulnerablilities" on a weekly basis? Hmmm?

Out of the top of my head :
- because they are secure, and so have the secure process of plugging security hole
- because Linux distros include at least a thousand times more apps than Windows and maintain security for this load of software
- because binary distro being what they are, send back the entire package, even if the change was 3 characters in the source

A windows update is never that big and it is never that frequent. The OSS community spends all of it time cleaning up the crap code that they pass off as "secure" software.

MS decided to make them monthly, because they were too frequent, living you instead with a 0day exploited OS for 1 month, sometimes more.

I've been a loyal (and happy) Windows user for over 10 years and I have never, ever gotten a virus. NEVER! If you have so many problems with Windows, maybe you should look in the mirror and ask yourself "What the hell is wrong with me that I can't make my wonderful and simple Windows OS work, but my over designed, bloated and complex Linux OS makes me happy! (while being totally insecure)."

All guys like you impress me, given that Windows had several 0day exploits in these 10 years, that were used by viruses to infect PC before they even got patched.
Your life must have been tedious to achieve this. You see, me, on Linux, achieve the same result without doing anything tedious, that's the difference.

All guys like you impress me, given that Windows had several 0day exploits in these 10 years, that were used by viruses to infect PC before they even got patched.
Your life must have been tedious to achieve this. You see, me, on Linux, achieve the same result without doing anything tedious, that's the difference.
------

I'm not going to claim 0 viruses in 10 years of Windows, but I will say that in the last 5 or so years I've never had a problem with viruses or spyware. Its really not that tedius. Just have an anti virus running in the background and a monthly spyware scan (just a few clicks of the mose to do) and I'm all set. I could probably just set as a schduled task for the spyware. Of course, you do need to be on the look out for e-mail viruses but thats just as simple as not opening an attachment that you werent expecting.

I guess to some Linux/Mac users that may sound tedius. If that is all I need to do in order to be a happy Windows user then I consider it a fair trade. IMO, each OS has their own set of headaches. For me, the headaches I have in Windows are more tolerable than the ones Linux and Mac OS give me.

"In a world of ones and zeroes..."

The line for movie trailer voiceovers forms over there. Congratulations on being the first in this thread to make the "swims like a duck" fallacy that all OSes are fundamentally identical under the hood because they have similar interfaces.

Dealing with sales reps does not give you nerd street cred here.

Sorry, you may have missed my point.

If it runs, it can crash. I don't care about the interface(s), that's irrelevant. The point is - and I know you'll find this trite - no computer is immune to everything. Given enough time and resources, any system can be brought down (assuming there is an access point) and Apple's claim to fame is viral immunity. A better claim would be 'viral resistance'.

"Dealing with sales reps does not give you nerd street cred here."
Good. But I didn't ask for any, so.... ...thanks? I guess?

I would still brand UNIX/POSIX systems virus immune. What this discussion is really about is trojans. UNIX/POSIX systems are "trojan resistant" borrowing your usage. Trojans rely on user ignorance to spread or infect. That's something that neither Apple, Microsoft, nor [insert OS organization here] will ever be able to solve 100%.

>> If it runs, it can crash. I don't care about the interface(s), that's >>irrelevant. The point is - and I know you'll find this trite - no >>computer is immune to everything.

Some are more immune than others. Some cars have higher crash test ratings than others (Unix Linux BSD OS X); and some cars explode when they are rear-ended (Windows). So just because you drive a car with it's gas tank located in the trunk, does not mean its just as good as a high-saftey rated vehicle. Despite the fact that a high crash test safety rating will not save your life if you hit a semi head on at 70mph.

>>Given enough time and resources, any system can be brought down >>(assuming there is an access point) and Apple's claim to fame is >>viral immunity. A better claim would be 'viral resistance'.

Apples claim to fame is a premium hardware/software bundle at a premium and sometimes competitive price. Every OS has access points, some are discrete hidden cubby holes and other hangar entrances with busted hinges.

It's lovely, the lack of real detail being reported on these vulnerabilities. The lack of detail proves:

Sensationalism and/or stupidity, both or either preying on the ignorance of the masses.

Mac OS X will eventually get some real viruses; but it will NEVER catch up with Windows in quality or quantity of viruses.

I'm assuming you were in some agreement, so thanks for quoting and not bashing.

Regarding the exploits: the more details you provide about the exploit, the more likely people are to abuse them. It's a two-edged sword, because you want to provide details to solve the problem - but not give attackers the bomb code.

So far, Mac has been fortunate because of their market share - so few users makes a less appetizing target. Now they're moving to Intel chips which are more familiar to hackers - and they already know what to attack there. Mac issues will be on an exponential rise because until recently, little attention was paid to security because little was needed. It was already based on BSD (sort-of), and Apple fell asleep at the wheel thinking they had inherent immunity to all attacks. We'll see some real quality attacks in the next few years, guaranteed.

I'd actuall like to take this opportunity to pull my foot out of my mouth (or at least a toe)...

Boot from a read-only live CD. If you can't write, you can't very well corrupt either...

My bad.

Maybe, but I think 'Immune' is still too strong of a word. It implies that nothing will or can infect it, which still isn't true. Now I do agree with your statement about trojans, however that issue is determined by the user sitting at the machine. You're correct in that trojans prey on ignorant users, however most *nix users (as a blanket statement) are far more educated about this type of thing than the everyday Windows or Mac user, so as a result - trojans are less likely to be opened by those operators. And as most hackers prefer *nix platforms (philosophically), fewer attacks are targeted at them. Just give Linux time to become the dominant OS, and I can guarantee *nix attacks will start to appear just like the Apple ones.

And few binaries are portable across all *nix platforms, so trojans also face another hurtle - but nothing's impossible, just harder to do.

For example! Jeff (oddfellow) needs to get off of my computer!!!
...or at least log out when he's done! That would be my ignorant butt not paying attention to simple things on the screen....

See, I can be a stupid user too - I didn't check the default user when I replied to a post! ...duh..

You forgot the 'United States of Linux Distros"

I live in Knoppington CD...

...sorry, that's really corny and stupid of me.

OsX would be a scandinavian country where disease and plague are an aberration and there's world class prevention and care for all.

And where any attempt to try to show any initiative or to do anything that hasn't been centrally planed by the government will be met with disdain and harsh taxes.

And yes I've lived in two Scandinavian countries.

...If Apple and Microsoft were countries....

Apple would be Cuba. It would be a tiny little country getting an amazing amount of attention. There would be a party line which no-one believed but everyone chanted all the time; it would make periodic 180 degree turns, to loud proclamations that it had always been the same; there'd be great annual rallies in Red Square, endless ranting speeches from the Great Leader, constantly changing myths of the early days of the revolution; the conquest of Latin America would always be progressing but the conquered territory would always be about the same or shrinking; every now and again their would be leadership purges for obscure reasons leading to wild press speculation. Most of all, it would be boring.

Microsoft would be the rest of the world....

Ignoring the technical merits of OS X and Linux, the primary reason they've been unbothered by malicious attacks is their tiny market share. People seeking to do harm or to gain attention will go after the biggest target.

obviously, you still take your daily dose of crap that certain companies feed you.

This analogy has benn proven wrong over and over and over again. It is NOTHING to do with market share. Windows is flawed by design.

It is was purely on market share, then why are all the Apache servers not getting defaced hundreds of times more than the IIS ones ?
Come on, Apache shares are like 80% of the internet servers, and IIS is on maybe 15%.... how come IIS is getting attacked more ?

Windows was designed as a single-user stand-alone system, and needs to be re-written properly.

yes, to show the impunity of the argument in the first place.

Ignoring the technical merits of OS X and Linux, the primary reason they've been unbothered by malicious attacks is their tiny market share.

I disagree. The primary reason that most viruses haven't hit OSX and Linux are that the vast majority are targeted to Microsoft Networking Protocols, Active X controls, and security holes because of running as Administrator.



People seeking to do harm or to gain attention will go after the biggest target.

They go after Microsoft because they also know the code isn't secure, not soley because Windows is a big target.

If Windows suddenly became the most secure OS in history, it would still be the target of the most attacks.

You're describing an event that up until this date (and that includes the use of Vista) hasn't happened. Microsoft won't be secure because they would have to write Windows from the ground up to do it.

//and security holes because of running as Administrator.//

uhh ... you're kinda proving his point of "flawed by design" there ...

IMO it is a mix of Windows being flawed and that it has a huge huge presence in the market. Both combined together make it a malware writer's paradise.

The offending code needs to have access and thus propmts you for your system admin password.

this is the 2nd time I've seen this kind of a statement.

Is there a name for this bit of offending code? How do you know it authenticates to run? (Have you encountered it? If so, what site is serving it?)

(Because IIRC, the problem with the Safari exploit was that it would auto execute just by you surfing to the page.)

Can we refrain from using the phrase "a tad obnoxious" as us boys and girls find it a bit too mature when there is OS bashing afoot.

but it is ONLY Windows that has these problems, and if you took your head out of your ass for 5 minutes, you would see this.

but wait.

with a name like linuxhater, and your pro-microsoft rantings, I would bet a months wages you actually DO use Linux and don't have Windows anywhere near your PC.

you just like to see people argue.


OR

you really are thick as a brick and do not know how to USE anything but WIndows

yeah, that Linuxh8r does seem a bit dim... I mean, he takes his news from msnbc... MSnbc ,,,, Microsoft(Network Broadcasting Corporation), and he expects it to be fair on competitors..

and his arguments are always weak, at least we got a laugh when we read what Linux Is Poo used to say...

where are you Poo, come back, all is forgiven

etc etc

yeah, that Linuxh8r does seem a bit dim... I mean, he takes his news from msnbc... MSnbc ,,,, Microsoft(Network Broadcasting Corporation), and he expects it to be fair on competitors..

It's Microsoft Network/National Broadcasting Company. And he has no reason to expect it to be unfair about competitors. MS is not writing copy -- and neither was MSNBC in this case. It's an AP story.

where are you Poo, come back, all is forgiven

He´s still out there but now he calls himself Tom K and since then has been considerably more polite on his postings regarding Linux (even if he still thinks of it as... Well, poo! :-))

He has said before here that he does not use WIndows, so what? That will not make him an idiot, far from it in fact.
you however, with your "many clients" crap, clearly demonstrate that you have not got a job. And you needed ndiswrapper to get wireless working ? how many years ago was that ? and why make a point of it anyway ?
I installed Windows the other day and needed to get drivers for my nvidia card and for a speedtouch dsl modem. So what ?

Stop making a dick out of yourself little boy, shut up and come back when you have learned a thing or two