"At the recent ShmooCon hacking conference, an unknown hacker took control of [a] researcher's computer, disabling the firewall and starting up a file server. While such compromises have become common in the Windows world, this time the computer was an Apple PowerBook running the latest version of Mac OS X. The compromise underscores a number of trends that has already caused a shift in focus among flaw finders and could result in more attacks on Mac OS X. "This is almost certainly the year of the OS X exploit," said Jay Beale, an expert in hardening Linux and Mac OS X systems. "The OS X platform may be based on a Unix platform, but Apple seems to be making mistakes that Unix made, and corrected, long ago."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-02
Do you not see that this attitude is *exactly* the attitude that these articles talk about? Cheaply defending Linux with poor logic isn't going to work here, champ.
First, I've been around this site a lot longer than you.
Next, you obviously missed the point I was trying to make.
You're saying that a theoretical risk exists. I agree with you, however I also point out the fact that, right now, there are no Linux viruses in the wild. None.
So while there is a theoretical threat, there is no actual threat. To make a real-world-events analogy, this is akin to saying that the US was right to invade Iraq because there possibly could have been a WMD threat, even though there wasn't any actual threat (as was stated by the UN inspectors).
My attitude is not one of zealousness, but one of pragmatism. Malware may one day be a problem for Linux/OS X, but right now it isn't. In other words, Linux/OS X is safer (with regards to malware) than Windows RIGHT NOW, and one is quite justified in saying that Linux and OS X are not at risk from malware right now.
Instead of calling this "poor logic", why don't you try to demonstrate how my argument is fallacious?
Member since:2005-07-06
Your argument makes sense, and sounds reasonable at first glance. But at second glance, what you're saying is akin to "I've never had a car accident, so in reality, I can drive a car and not worry about car accidents."
That's simply not true. The argument is presented in such a way that makes it seem like running Linux/OS X automatically prevents you from malware. Again, that's just not true.
The whole point of these articles is to illustrate that blind faith/devotion in the "inherent security" of the two OSes is damningly incorrect, and will bite you in the ass. Yes, right now there is nothing to worry about (for the most part), but that has no impact on the future, nor does it have any impact on the actions of the user.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Well the same is true for OS X users, then. Obviously people situated in the real world know that OS X viruses/malware/exploits are coming sooner or later, so why can't you see the same thing about Linux?
The same fallacious conclusion can be drawn about OS X:
"But it's true, though. Even though there is a theoretical risk of malware infection, in the real world where there are NO OS X viruses in the wild. So while technically OS X isn't immune to viruses, in reality someone can run OS X without having to worry about malware."
Do you not see that this attitude is *exactly* the attitude that these articles talk about? Cheaply defending Linux with poor logic isn't going to work here, champ.