A Techie Thread About Absolutely Nothing!

[XBGMER]

Originally Posted by Foxrac

There is best free anti-virus program offered by MS is MS Security Essentials, it won't slow my PC or interrupt any programs, such as mods and trainers.

Never spend $$$$$ on anti-virus programs and they are no help.

Hate to say, XP sucks and they are security holes.

I wont install MS Security Essentials on my any pc... if I installed it on my pc, they are still security holes.. MS Security Essentials is SUCKS!

then why few weeks ago someone successfully hacked windows users's bank's account and stolen their monies.

[JClarke]

Originally Posted by XBGMER

I wont install MS Security Essentials on my any pc... if I installed it on my pc, they are still security holes.. MS Security Essentials is SUCKS!

then why few weeks ago someone successfully hacked windows users's bank's account and stolen their monies.

My computer has zero securities, and I have yet to be hacked, and no viruses. Runs fine at the moment.

[The Highlander]

Originally Posted by JClarke

My computer has zero securities, and I have yet to be hacked, and no viruses. Runs fine at the moment.

Agreed. I have no problem with MS Security Essentials for many customers and they don't complain anything about virus and spyware so far.

[Jiro]

eh? MS Security Essential (MSE) is pretty robust. It's using MS ForeFront technology.... it's a commercial-grade security program. It's surprisingly impressive. My friend gives it a thumb up and... he's SANS-CERTIFIED. That speaks the volume than most of us combined.

I think ya'all are getting a little way over your head about Linux and MacOS's "robust" security hype. Ya'all need to know that MacOS is NOT THE SAME as Ubuntu or any other linux software. Sure it's based on unix but Apple has the full control of it - 100% PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE.

Ubuntu is robust because it's open-source and it has frequent security updates. You can easily update/fix the security exploit YOURSELF. You can't fix the security exploit in Microsoft but at least Microsoft is pretty quick to fix it and it has frequent security updates.

But Apple? it's bad... it does not do the frequent security updates. It is slow to respond to security exploit. And you cannot fix it yourself.

[Jiro]

Originally Posted by KristinaB

What - you want to fix it?

It won't even boot up now. Just gets stuck. Naisho and I just did a major clean up and got it running really well, now a week later I get this.

Here the issue:

On Monday this week, I installed drivers on the netbook for an HP CD-Writer 8200e for an external CD drive I had. It is a somewhat older CD drive, but worked fine. It was a little "rusty" from not being used for 2 years or so, but I was able to play a music CD and use my ASL CD's like I wanted. Son then asked if he could use it and if he could try to install a game he has that won't run on my XP. Disciples II Gold. It took a little bit to install them, but it was the CD drive still working out kinks or something. The game ran fine for him afterwards.

Monday evening, son, MIL and I went to our weight loss group. Daughter then used the netbook. She went under my login and used FireFox and went to YouTube. The netbook froze and locked up and she shut it off. After we got home from weight loss, son then used the netbook and used his login and using FireFox, went to YouTube. It again froze up and locked up. Son waited for 15 minutes and nothing happened. He shut it off. Control-Alt-Delete did not work.

On Tuesday, son went to turn on the netbook, it goes straight to the screen to ask if you want to go to safe mode and all. When we say login in like usual, it freezes up. If I go to safe mode, I get the running list of programs or whatever and then freezes up. It cannot get to Windows. Would you like me to use my webcam and make a video of the process or do you understand?

I don't know if it's the Disciples II Gold or the drivers for my CD-Writer or my ASL programs that did this. I don't think it's an issue with FireFox and Youtube since a lot of people use FireFox and Youtube, right?

hmm never mind

[Jiro]

Originally Posted by XBGMER

I wont install MS Security Essentials on my any pc... if I installed it on my pc, they are still security holes.. MS Security Essentials is SUCKS!

then why few weeks ago someone successfully hacked windows users's bank's account and stolen their monies.

source please?

[The Highlander]

Originally Posted by Jiro

But Apple? it's bad... it does not do the frequent security updates. It is slow to respond to security exploit. And you cannot fix it yourself.

source please? How you know?

Tell me what is that?

http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1222

[Jiro]

Originally Posted by The Highlander

source please?

Mac OS X security myth exposed

Windows is more secure than you think, and Mac OS X is worse than you ever imagined. That is according to statistics published for the first time this week by Danish security firm Secunia.

Mac OS X doesn't stand out as particularly more secure than the competition, according to Secunia. Of the 36 advisories issued in 2003-2004, 61 percent could be exploited across the Internet and 32 percent enabled attackers to take over the system. The proportion of critical bugs was also comparable with other software: 33 percent of the OS X vulnerabilities were "highly" or "extremely" critical by Secunia's reckoning, compared with 30 percent for XP Professional and 27 percent for SLES 8 and just 12 percent for Advanced Server 3. OS X had the highest proportion of "extremely critical" bugs at 19 percent.

A recent Forrester study comparing Windows and Linux vendor response times on security flaws was heavily criticised for its conclusion that Linux vendors took longer to release patches. Linux vendors attach more weight to more critical flaws, leaving unimportant bugs for later patching, something the study failed to factor in, according to Linux companies. Vendors also took issue with the study's method of ranking "critical" security bugs, which didn't agree with the vendors' own criteria.

Originally Posted by The Highlander

How you know?

because my friends are SANS-certified, Cisco-certified, and... system administrators.

Originally Posted by The Highlander

Tell me what is that?

Apple security updates

what about it? The link doesn't mean anything to me.

why don't you explain me this line - "For the protection of our customers, Apple does not disclose, discuss or confirm security issues until a full investigation has occurred and any necessary patches or releases are available."

[The Highlander]

Originally Posted by Jiro

Mac OS X security myth exposed

Welcome to six years ago.

[posts from hell]

Originally Posted by The Highlander

Welcome to six years ago.

why ask for source if it was old news?

[Jiro]

This is why government agencies (relating to handling highly-sensitive classified materials) use either Microsoft or Linux..... not Apple.
and they use Blackberry..... not iPhone.

you don't believe me? Ask Obama or National Security Agency

[Jiro]

Originally Posted by The Highlander

Welcome to six years ago.

they still have the problem.

[XBGMER]

Originally Posted by Jiro

source please?

Yes you might think that I am full of it?, fine with me.. So perfect time, I've found the article you might interesting to read.

[The Highlander]

Originally Posted by posts from hell

why ask for source if it was old news?

Do you think operating system's security is exactly same now and six years ago? Why bother to find old news from outdate OS?

Mac OS X Panther is outdated. I don't see anyone use Panther anymore, Just Tiger, Leopard, and Snow Leopard so far which they release after 2005-2008. They are huge change.

[The Highlander]

Originally Posted by Jiro

they still have the problem.

At least they are less problem than Vista.

[Jiro]

Originally Posted by XBGMER

Yes you might think that I am full of it?, fine with me.. So perfect time, I've found the article you might interesting to read.

But there's nothing in the article talking about Microsoft Security Essentials

Apparently most anti-virus software can't detect the trojan yet, so M86 is advising people to stay vigilant about their online banking.

according to M86 Security. They say they've "never seen such a sophisticated and dangerous threat." Oh. Wonderful.

If M86 Security company.... the largest renowned security company is surprised about this virus and has never seen this before... you are screwed! It doesn't really matter if you're using Norton Antivirus, McAfee, MacOS X, Ubuntu, or anything. This is a highly sophisticated trojan virus.

Zeus is an incredible trojan. I saw a demo run video made by some security company and its plugin system is fantastic, plugins are much stronger than in plugin-able free trojans around the internet. That is probably because of the massive profit and the cost of this trojan though, it takes a few grand to your hands on Zeus.

Most of the people that use it also pay for private crypters, so watch the **** out because you anti-virus is NOT going to detect it. Don't use programs with vulnerabilities, avoid pirating stuff unless you know how to test programs (on a DIFFERENT computer), and check startup entries and services from time to time.

[Jiro]

Originally Posted by The Highlander

At least they are less problem than Vista.

Vista? why talk about Vista? Vista is garbage. Windows 7 is much better. very robust.

In terms of security strength - Ubuntu (or other linux distro) is more secured than Windows which is more secured than Mac OS

[Jiro]

Originally Posted by The Highlander

Do you think operating system's security is exactly same now and six years ago? Why bother to find old news from outdate OS?

Who is responsible for security updates? Apple, right? It's the Apple who is being very lazy to release security updates. They haven't changed their bad habit. They focused on making iPhone and MacBook look pretty than maintaining the Mac OS.

Originally Posted by The Highlander

Mac OS X Panther is outdated. I don't see anyone use Panther anymore, Just Tiger, Leopard, and Snow Leopard so far which they release after 2005-2008. They are huge change.

huh?

Mac OS X Panther... Tiger..... Leopard..... Snow Leopard...... they ALL have SAME core part of OS. The only thing that is different is UI updates, security updates, etc...

so are you telling me Mac OS X Panther and Tiger and Leopard and Snow Leopard are completely different from each other?

[The Highlander]

Originally Posted by The Highlander

Do you think operating system's security is exactly same now and six years ago? Why bother to find old news from outdate OS?

Mac OS X Panther is outdated. I don't see anyone use Panther anymore, Just Tiger, Leopard, and Snow Leopard so far which they release after 2005-2008. They are huge change.

Originally Posted by Jiro

Who is responsible for security updates? Apple, right? It's the Apple who is being very lazy to release security updates. They haven't changed their bad habit. They focused on making iPhone and MacBook look pretty than maintaining the Mac OS.



huh?

Mac OS X Panther... Tiger..... Leopard..... Snow Leopard...... they ALL have SAME kernel (the core part of OS). The only thing that is different is UI updates, security updates, etc...

so are you telling me Mac OS X Panther and Tiger and Leopard and Snow Leopard are completely different from each other?

You just answer your own question. There is no point to argue.

[Jiro]

here highlander.... an update information to that old link (same company) - July 28, 2010

The Myth of the Secure Apple OS

Talk to an Apple fanboy or girl, and chances are they'll tell you the company's Mac software is "better" than Microsoft's -- or anyone else's for that matter. So there will be a few of them slinking around holding their heads in shame right now thanks to some research published recently by security company Secunia.

It turns out that of all the software vendors Secunia studied -- and it looked at all the big boys including Microsoft, Oracle, Adobe, Mozilla, Google, IBM and so on -- the vendor with the most vulnerabilities in all its products was ... you guessed it: Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL).

It's ironic, really, when earlier this year Apple's Steve Jobs refused to allow Adobe's Flash on the iPhone or iPad, justifying the decision by calling Adobe lazy and saying: "Apple does not support Flash because it is so buggy." The words "pot," "kettle" and "black" spring to mind.

Of course it's true to say that bugs and vulnerabilities are not the same thing, and also that the raw number of vulnerabilities doesn't give a precise indication of the relative overall security of a given vendor's offerings. What we can say is that no one is perfect. Apple may be the least perfect of them all -- at least when it comes to writing vulnerability-free code.

Apple's interest these days is in selling closed systems: Devices like the iPhone and iPad that don't provide root access to their owners and that can run only software that Apple specifically approves (and, rather handily, takes a juicy financial cut of) via the AppStore and iTunes.

Apple's control over the software these devices can run means it can outlaw applications or vendors it believes present security risks. What's more, its control over software distribution means users can be notified of security patches for all their applications very easily, and they can download these updates from a single source. On the face of it, that's good for security, and it compares favorably with traditional enterprise OSes. For example, if you look at machines running Windows OSes like Windows Server 2008, Secunia says about 35 percent of vulnerability patches can be downloaded from Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT), but the remaining 65 percent must be downloaded using about 13 or more other update mechanisms from various third parties.

[XBGMER]

Originally Posted by Jiro

Windows 7 is much better.

like I did post another thread, "Window 7 is STILL built on the creakingly same old core i.e vista". the concept- someone built re-model on the creakily old boat and selling it, would you buying?

[The Highlander]

Originally Posted by Jiro

Vista? why talk about Vista? Vista is garbage. Windows 7 is much better. very robust.

In terms of security strength - Ubuntu (or other linux distro) is more secured than Windows which is more secured than Mac OS

Sure.


Your info is old news and you need to catch up on new OS.
Snow Leopard vs Windows 7: Which is more secure? > Apple > Patch Management > News > SC Magazine Australia/NZ

If you're a hacker, this means that the audience for your exploit is about 10 times less on OS X than Windows. Without the automated malware creation tools that exist for Windows, you'll also have to bring your own Apple developer skills.

Windows 7 vs. Snow Leopard: Which is More Secure? — Datamation.com

Windows 7 vs. Snow Leopard Security: Feature by Feature

• Familiarity with security mechanisms. Although I remain fundamentally more comfortable with UNIX-based systems than others, the fact is that many of the relevant security functions that end users will perform are done in “GUI land,” far from any command line sorts of environments.

Both systems have made great strides in making security controls accessible and understandable to the end user. Most common security controls are presented to the user and are easy to work with.

The one thing where I still give a slight nod to OS X is that I can still get to the UNIX command line to fine-tune things that I can’t get do (or find) in the GUI environment. That gives me just a little more comfort when it comes to the security of my business data.

Qualitative score: Snow Leopard gets a B+ while Windows 7 gets a B.

Comparing Snow Leopard and Windows 7 Security | HostWisely.com

Familiarity with security mechanisms
(Windows 7 vs. Snow Leopard = Draw)
Both operating systems have made great strides in allowing security controls both understandable and accessible to the end user. Essential security controls are presented smoothly to the user and as a whole, are easy to work with. However, unlike its rival, OS X users can use UNIX commands to fine-tune many things that they can’t get to work in the GUI level. That gives us just a little more control when it comes to managing overall system protection.

Too many news don't said Windows 7 is more secured than OSX Snow Leopard.

[Jiro]

Originally Posted by XBGMER

like I did post another thread, "Window 7 is STILL built on the creakingly same old core i.e vista". the concept- someone built re-model on the creakily old boat and selling it, would you buying?

sure. That's why I'm on Windows 7

Correction - Vista is the incomplete version of Windows 7. That's why Vista was GARBAGE. Just like Windows ME was the incomplete version of Windows XP.

[Jiro]

The truth about Apple, Mac security, and responsibility

On May 26, Macworld republished a controversial Computerworld article by Ira Winkler suggesting that Apple is “grossly negligent” when it comes to security, and should be investigated by the Federal Trade Commission for false advertising.

The article is absolutely correct in that Apple clearly bungled the Java security patch, placing Mac users at risk in the process. This isn’t the first time Apple has failed to patch a known security issue in a timely fashion, and it reveals a major weakness in the company’s security program. Mac OS X, like other operating systems, relies heavily on third-party components or programs.

Apple has a poor history here, often failing to provide OS X security fixes for flaws fixed on other platforms days, weeks, or even months earlier. We’ve seen Mac users exposed to known vulnerabilities in WebKit (Safari), Samba (Windows file sharing), DNS (networking), MDNS (Bonjour), Apache (web server), Java, and more. This is an extremely serious problem, and one Apple is rightly criticized for. All Mac users are at risk due to the Java vulnerability, and should immediately take actions to protect themselves. Had Apple issued a patch with everyone else, we wouldn’t be so exposed.

Like I said - Apple still have same bad habit as 6 years ago. They are lazy. They focus too much on making their products looking pretty.

[The Highlander]

Again, Everyone are not same opinion.

Another reason, I like Apple's design on hardware over other company. My three years old macbook and it still over five hours of battery life and most of PC laptop's battery life 1-3hours. Right now, new Macbook is over 9 hours. I don't see any PC laptop have over 9 hours of battery life yet. We are not big fan to carry power supply with us for 24/7.

[The Highlander]

Originally Posted by Jiro

The truth about Apple, Mac security, and responsibility





Like I said - Apple still have same bad habit as 6 years ago. They are lazy. They focus too much on making their products looking pretty.

Your link said

Despite a bungled Java fix, the Mac is still safer than Windows

Again, Apple said we are not perfect.

[Jiro]

Originally Posted by The Highlander

Again, Everyone are not same opinion.

Another reason, I like Apple's design on hardware over other company. My three years old macbook and it still over five hours of battery life and most of PC laptop's battery life 1-3hours. Right now, new Macbook is over 9 hours. I don't see any PC laptop have over 9 hours of battery life yet. We are not big fan to carry power supply with us for 24/7.

we're not talking about hardware or design. The main point of the argument is SECURITY starting from Post #118 to here.

My point is - Mac OS X's "robust" security is a hype. I prefer either Ubuntu or Windows 7 for security since it has more frequent security update cycle. Apple is lazy with security updates and I hate closed-system operating system especially nix-version.

but hey - I still like using Mac OS X for web development only and also watching movie.

[Jiro]

Originally Posted by The Highlander

Your link said


Again, Apple said we are not perfect.

Do you know why the author said "Despite a bungled Java fix, the Mac is still safer than Windows"?

It's because Rich Mogull (the author) is security expert

Rich Mogull has been working in the security world for 17 or so years, and breaking computers (usually by accident) even longer. After about 10 years in physical security (mostly running large events/concerts), he made the mistake of getting drunk in Silicon Valley and telling someone he "worked in security." Next morning he woke up with a job as an IT security consultant. That's not totally true, but it's far more amusing than his full biography. He currently works as an independent security consultant and writer through Securosis.com and previously spent seven years as an analyst with Gartner. Rich has also worked as a paramedic, done stints as a firefighter and with Rocky Mountain Rescue, and recently retired from ski patrol when he moved to sunny Arizona. He still dabbles in disaster medicine, when nature cooperates.

He knows how to use Linux... which means he can make Mac OS X more secured than Windows via "sudo access"

But how about regular people? They don't know how to use sudu and they don't know the fundamental basic of Linux... which is why Mac OS X is less secured than Windows 7.

[Jiro]

Originally Posted by The Highlander

Windows 7 vs. Snow Leopard: Which is More Secure? — Datamation.com
Windows 7 vs. Snow Leopard Security: Feature by Feature

• Familiarity with security mechanisms. Although I remain fundamentally more comfortable with UNIX-based systems than others, the fact is that many of the relevant security functions that end users will perform are done in “GUI land,” far from any command line sorts of environments.

Both systems have made great strides in making security controls accessible and understandable to the end user. Most common security controls are presented to the user and are easy to work with.

The one thing where I still give a slight nod to OS X is that I can still get to the UNIX command line to fine-tune things that I can’t get do (or find) in the GUI environment. That gives me just a little more comfort when it comes to the security of my business data.

Qualitative score: Snow Leopard gets a B+ while Windows 7 gets a B.

See? This author is a computer security expert.... and he graded it B+ and B? Why a very tiny difference? because Windows 7 is very robust! The only thing that's great about Mac OS X is having an ability to do UNIX command line and sudo privilege.

now how about regular people who doesn't know anything about programming or UNIX command line? do you think it will be B+ and B? more like F and B.

[KristinaB]

So, being mostly computer illiterate and with no money, I have the netbook with XP (Naisho thinks he knows what's wrong and we are slowly working on it.) and the desktop with Vista. My Vista has been basically fine and my anti-virus is AVG. Would MS Security Essential be better? What are my options. The Vista is running well. I can set permissions for my children and hubby better than in XP and I really have no problems with it. I am either online, using Microsoft Office, or a few other programs.