"B B B But that's only because the xxx service was turned on and I dont use that service (well I do really but I say I don't) so that means the exploit / virus / trojan doesn't count !!!1!""
The company's mobile service aims to use secure text messages as a payment method for direct-marketing initiatives and other 'on-the-spot' mercantile opportunities.
People actually have to pay to receive texts in the US (utterly idiotic at best) - is this how they are going to generate (even more) revenue from users? Will we see tiered text pricing from operators as they are able to effectively tax users?
I used to suffer from RSI in my right elbow (mouse arm, mind you this was at a time I used to play UT rather a lot...)
My solution is I use the mouse in my left hand at work, and right hand at home. Not as difficult as it sounds - you get used to it quite quickly.
...regardless of the user action required, my statement stands.
There was one 'virus' on Windows that to bypass virus scanning email gateways arrived as an encrypted zip file with the password supplied in the email promising the usual - pr0n etc. It required the regular know nothing user to decrypt the zip using the supplied password (it supplied instructions describing the process) and then execute it. Despite this people still got infected.
Some people seem to think that because OSX may ask for a password on execution (Leap-A did not require a password in all cases) does not render the OS 'immune' to users. The majority of users are stupid, and as such are the weakest link in any system which is the real problem.
In that case you just shaved several thousands off the present number of Windows viruses as most 'viruses' these days are actually malware attached to emails.
OSX86 has been patched to run on generic PC hardware.
A number of people have now obtained it and installed it on said hardware.
Some of those people will be haxx0rs who previously would have had to spend $$$ on a Mac just to play with OSX, but now just need a spare partition.
Universal binaries will run on both PPC and Intel architecture.
Result: OSX can now be being scrutinised by haxx0rs for free, and code written will run on both platforms.
I suggested that due to the switch, OSX will now be receiving a lot of extra attention, and that a recent exploit could be the result of this attention.
You said the exploit 'has nothing to do with the switch'.
I said that IF the person who wrote the exploit wrote it as a result of being able to run OSX86 on a PC, THEN this is related to the switch.
You demand to see 'evidence' that I have that it is related to the switch in a tone that clearly suggests that I am somehow 'wrong'.
You are the one making the concrete claim ('it is nothing to do with the switch'), not me.
'If it was written...' != 'It was written...'. Call that a 'language game' if you wish but you are putting words in my mouth which makes you a player too in that case.
Ok allow me to spell it out to you seeing as you obviously have comprehension difficulties.
Somebody said regarding a particular exploit 'This has nothing to do with X86'.
I pointed out that 'If this particular incident is the result of whoever exploited it discovering it because they were playing with OSx86 then it is related to the switch.'
Alternatively if we are not allowed to say anything without evidence, then I must ask you to please provide the evidence that you have for the claim that this exploit was not the result of someone playing with OSX86, as otherwise by your own logic you are making a pointless statement.
Considering that you appear to have done some programming in your time I find it quite ironic you seem to not understand the meaning of the words 'if' and 'then'.
If this particular incident is the result of whoever exploited it discovering it because they were playing with OSx86 then it is related to the switch.
Of course this particular incident could simply be a PPC based haxx0r doing their thing, but I guarantee you that right now a lot of people will have OSX installed on generic PC hardware purely for the sake of curiosity. Haxx0rs being haxx0rs will be poking and prodding it to see what interesting things they can do with it. Since OSX was patched to run on generic hardware, gone are the days that one had to spend money to play with OSX.
This is why I always recommend avoiding DVD players badged by large companies.
Large companies have more to lose if they don't toe the MPAA line (I'm seriously wondering how long it will be until players refuse to play a movie more than once a week or so).
Buy cheap players packed with features from middle east companies that may not even exist - much harder to threaten a company like that and features sell those sort of players and fierce competition keeps prices low.
Leap-A can not spread on x86. It runs just fine, which shows how much you have been following along really doesn't it? Also why would any exploit written for OSX on x86 necessarily be specific to x86? The whole point of universal binaries is that they run on both architectures.
Unsurprisingly, patches appear for OSX to make it run on generic PC hardware
World + dog 'obtain' OSX and tinker with it to see what it's like
Haxx0rs that previously could not justify the $$$ to buy a Mac just for the privilege of hacking it, suddenly find that a spare partition is all they need to start hacking OSX. Apple even provides a free development environment (xcode)
People are confused as to why we are suddenly seeing a raft of OSX exploits?
...but it could well be related to the transition, or more precisely, the fact that a haxx0r can now install OSX on a space partition on a PC and start coding with it rather than having to buy a Mac just for the privilege.
In fact I'd put money on this is exactly why we are suddenly seeing a lot of attention with OSX security as OSX now has a completely new audience that can obtain the OS and start coding with it for free.
Slashdot Mirror
You're not doing the:
"B B B But that's only because the xxx service was turned on and I dont use that service (well I do really but I say I don't) so that means the exploit / virus / trojan doesn't count !!!1!""
...are you?
Every time a potential breach of OS X security is discovered, it's front-page headline news on Slashdot.
...and every time an actual breach is discovered, it oddly never appears on the front page.
Weird huh?
Check out 'formfucker' if you can find anyone who will send you a copy.
The company's mobile service aims to use secure text messages as a payment method for direct-marketing initiatives and other 'on-the-spot' mercantile opportunities.
What's a 'secure' text message?
Also as 'in USA nobody uses text messaging' who is going to use it?
People actually have to pay to receive texts in the US (utterly idiotic at best) - is this how they are going to generate (even more) revenue from users? Will we see tiered text pricing from operators as they are able to effectively tax users?
I think 'nobody uses text messaging' because you have to pay to receive them which is quite frankly idiotic.
What's to stop someone sending someone else a million text messages to bankrupt them?
In the US you have to *PAY* to *RECEIVE* mobile phone calls!
... crazy.
That's just
I hear that the receiver of an SMS has to pay to receive text messages too - is this true?
Don't worry - as OSX gets more popular Spyware authors have an emerging new audience to play with...
I used to suffer from RSI in my right elbow (mouse arm, mind you this was at a time I used to play UT rather a lot...) My solution is I use the mouse in my left hand at work, and right hand at home. Not as difficult as it sounds - you get used to it quite quickly.
I was going to say 'Active Directory' can do that, but you say you don't want to use that.
Does Novell support it?
Everyone should make an official complaint -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints
...regardless of the user action required, my statement stands.
There was one 'virus' on Windows that to bypass virus scanning email gateways arrived as an encrypted zip file with the password supplied in the email promising the usual - pr0n etc. It required the regular know nothing user to decrypt the zip using the supplied password (it supplied instructions describing the process) and then execute it. Despite this people still got infected.
Some people seem to think that because OSX may ask for a password on execution (Leap-A did not require a password in all cases) does not render the OS 'immune' to users. The majority of users are stupid, and as such are the weakest link in any system which is the real problem.
If malware runs without user intervention, it's a Trojan, no matter what platform.
I think you meant to say 'virus' there, and I agree. With user intervention however, we have what I am calling a 'viral trojan'.
In that case you just shaved several thousands off the present number of Windows viruses as most 'viruses' these days are actually malware attached to emails.
Personally I would call them a 'viral trojan'.
OSX86 has been patched to run on generic PC hardware.
A number of people have now obtained it and installed it on said hardware.
Some of those people will be haxx0rs who previously would have had to spend $$$ on a Mac just to play with OSX, but now just need a spare partition.
Universal binaries will run on both PPC and Intel architecture.
Result: OSX can now be being scrutinised by haxx0rs for free, and code written will run on both platforms.
I suggested that due to the switch, OSX will now be receiving a lot of extra attention, and that a recent exploit could be the result of this attention.
You said the exploit 'has nothing to do with the switch'.
I said that IF the person who wrote the exploit wrote it as a result of being able to run OSX86 on a PC, THEN this is related to the switch.
You demand to see 'evidence' that I have that it is related to the switch in a tone that clearly suggests that I am somehow 'wrong'.
You are the one making the concrete claim ('it is nothing to do with the switch'), not me.
'If it was written...' != 'It was written...'. Call that a 'language game' if you wish but you are putting words in my mouth which makes you a player too in that case.
Ok allow me to spell it out to you seeing as you obviously have comprehension difficulties.
.
Somebody said regarding a particular exploit 'This has nothing to do with X86'
I pointed out that ' If this particular incident is the result of whoever exploited it discovering it because they were playing with OSx86 then it is related to the switch.'
Alternatively if we are not allowed to say anything without evidence, then I must ask you to please provide the evidence that you have for the claim that this exploit was not the result of someone playing with OSX86, as otherwise by your own logic you are making a pointless statement.
Do you not understand English or something?
Considering that you appear to have done some programming in your time I find it quite ironic you seem to not understand the meaning of the words 'if' and 'then'.
If this particular incident is the result of whoever exploited it discovering it because they were playing with OSx86 then it is related to the switch.
Of course this particular incident could simply be a PPC based haxx0r doing their thing, but I guarantee you that right now a lot of people will have OSX installed on generic PC hardware purely for the sake of curiosity. Haxx0rs being haxx0rs will be poking and prodding it to see what interesting things they can do with it. Since OSX was patched to run on generic hardware, gone are the days that one had to spend money to play with OSX.
This is why I always recommend avoiding DVD players badged by large companies.
Large companies have more to lose if they don't toe the MPAA line (I'm seriously wondering how long it will be until players refuse to play a movie more than once a week or so).
Buy cheap players packed with features from middle east companies that may not even exist - much harder to threaten a company like that and features sell those sort of players and fierce competition keeps prices low.
Leap-A can not spread on x86. It runs just fine, which shows how much you have been following along really doesn't it? Also why would any exploit written for OSX on x86 necessarily be specific to x86? The whole point of universal binaries is that they run on both architectures.
My statements stand.
...but it could well be related to the transition, or more precisely, the fact that a haxx0r can now install OSX on a space partition on a PC and start coding with it rather than having to buy a Mac just for the privilege. In fact I'd put money on this is exactly why we are suddenly seeing a lot of attention with OSX security as OSX now has a completely new audience that can obtain the OS and start coding with it for free.
Cue raft of posts about how people 'dont use the web much anyway' and how it's 'not important'.
Google's Desktop Search is going to end up on the list of unnaceptable software
Funny you should say that - I'm right now looking at ways I can block this from our networks without too much fuss.
...oh and it's 'streaming' sucks too.
I'm not confusing anything - I'm talking about a straight forward http link to a movie file - WMV is complete crap at dealing with this.