"OS.X Macarena poses no viable threat as currently conceived. Although we don't have our hands on the virus source code, according to Symantec (who initially publicized the virus last week) OSX.Macarena can infect neither PowerPC-exclusive binaries, nor Universal binaries. It can only affect binaries that are Intel-specific. That would include various system files, but since OSX.Macarena can only infect files in its own directory and has no means of gaining the privileges necessary to escalate into directories where most system files are stored, the the threat level is mitigated."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-22
Member since:2005-07-06
I would have to say you are wrong on that point. MS and Apple use two different methods of numbering their major releases. Also, each named release of OS X is a complete OS in it's own right. I can take any newly named release, put the DVD into the player and do a complete installation. Try that with an MS Service Pack and see how far you get. I can then take the old release and install that on another Mac and do so legally.
The Apple equivalent of the SP is a DL just like they are with Windows. When you build on a proper foundation you don't have to completely rewrite the code base to provide a new OS. And anyway, it is mostly a matter of semantics as to what constitutes a new OS.
Member since:2006-06-01
Member since:2006-04-09
Quote:
> "Tiger is not equivalent to XP SP2."
>
> Even if it is superior, each OS X release is like a
> service pack plus some features. Not a brand new OS.
That is wrong. I could also say that WinXP is not a brand new OS... it is just Windows NT 6.0. Or other way of saying it is that it is always NT with 'some features' added and new themes.
Member since:
2006-06-01
Tiger is not equivalent to XP SP2.