Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 24th Oct 2006 20:59 UTC
Mac OS X "Apple computers have long been prized for being relatively virus-free. But as more people use Apple products, experts say the company is increasingly becoming a target for cyber pranksters and criminals writing viruses and other forms of malware. Oliver Friedrichs, director of security response at Symantec, a leading anti-virus software vendor, said 72 vulnerabilities were discovered in the Mac's OS X operating system in 2006, up from 19 in 2004." Please consider the source, though.
Thread beginning with comment 175154
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: This is like
by bytecoder on Wed 25th Oct 2006 12:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: This is like"
bytecoder
Member since:
2005-11-27

Good thing this isn't an issue with every other OS.

I find it highly improbable that there's a production OS out there that doesn't have exploitable bugs in it.


Good thing this isn't an issue with every other OS.
In fact, it's a problem that cant be solved at the OS level since the user needs to be able to work with his/her own files.

No. Why would word need to modify all my files when I'm only editing X?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: This is like
by Soulbender on Wed 25th Oct 2006 13:50 in reply to "RE[3]: This is like"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"I find it highly improbable that there's a production OS out there that doesn't have exploitable bugs in it."

Well, that was wasted sarcasm.

"No. Why would word need to modify all my files when I'm only editing X?"

I have a hard time understanding this sentence.
If you mean that only certain document should be able to be modified by certain programs, well, that's one way to do it. Not a way that I think is practically usefull or feasable but one way nonetheless.
Presuming, of course, that there are no exploitable bugs in the authorized programs, that authorized program cant be called from other programs etc etc.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: This is like
by bytecoder on Wed 25th Oct 2006 21:42 in reply to "RE[4]: This is like"
bytecoder Member since:
2005-11-27



I have a hard time understanding this sentence.
If you mean that only certain document should be able to be modified by certain programs, well, that's one way to do it. Not a way that I think is practically usefull or feasable but one way nonetheless.

What's hard to understand about it? If I have a program and I want to open a single file with it, why should it be allowed to modify any other file? In any event, this method is far more practical than what you're suggesting: how does one "authorize" a program? How can the authorizer be sure that said program isn't malicious in any way? In short: they can't.

Reply Parent Score: 2