Why would I be trying to save face? I've shown you to be incorrect and completely wrong on all counts. Your system is, by default, more insecure than a mac. That simple fact has been demonstrated to you repeatedly using your own treasured Secunia data.
I know it stings, APK, but you'll survive and be stronger for it someday.
You cannot play videos without some ridiculous manual workaround. I consider that unusable. Would you consider your car in good working order if you had to climb in through the trunk because the locks were broken?
Thanks for confirming that I'm right with yet another long-winded bit of nonsense.
Your attempt to disprove me has failed, and it's clear that you know you're wrong - you keep citing one person, this "Thronka", who is probably you, who claims they're secure. Out of the millions of Windows boxes out there, just that one?
Stop shilling for Microsoft, troll. You're not convincing anyone, and you have no basis for your claims.
What did I 'cripple' to "cure the ills" on the still unpatched security vulnerabilities I reviewed, point-by-point no less, from SECUNIA.COM advisories??
You have to manually disable playing of.avi files, and then if you wish to play them, you have to go through a ridiculous scanning or conversion process. I consider that crippled. Your "fixes" for many of the other fixes also included unregistering dll's or changing permissions on them in such a way that they probably will also break functionality elsewhere in the system. That is crippling the software.
how YOU would FULLY fix this on MacOS X then
I've already told you: don't do stupid shit. Don't open and run scripts from sources you don't run. There is no "fix" for tricking a user into doing something stupid, and Windows is just as much at risk as Mac OS is in that regard, perhaps more so with so many services running with administrator level permissions.
I've answered all of these questions for you previously, and in detail. Why do you keep demanding I repeat them?
I have already proven that Mac OS X is more secure, by default, than Windows. I have shown that it requires less crippling of system functionality to secure. I have shown that the remaining vulnerabilities for Mac OS in Secunia are all non-issues if you have taken standard network security measures.
You have ignored all of that though, because it's inconvenient to the fiction you cling to that you're right. You are wrong, I have demonstrated it, you have continued to troll and ignore any evidence that shows you are wrong.
There is nothing further that can be said to you on the subject.
You're right, Alexander. I'll just ignore you! You have nothing of import to share, you just like to rant about unrelated topics for no good reason.
Thanks for the reminder, I shouldn't have tried to reason with you, I know from seeing previous conversations you've been involved with that reason & logic are impossible for you to comprehend.
Why are your "P.S." blocks longer than the actual comment? Are you that dim-witted that you don't understand what P.S. means?
Seriously - get a grip. You're continuing to troll in a thread that's completely unrelated to this discussion. You're not convincing anyone of anything with all this endless prattling on.
I've already proven my point, and shown you for the complete charlatan that you are. Stop dragging it out, you just make yourself look foolish.
Reading comprehension. It's wildly exciting, you should try it.
Re:Android just won't catch up with iPhone
on
Unlocking Android
·
· Score: 1
Yes, I can see why you'd conclude that people just buy it because they want to fit in and be part of the cool kids' club. It couldn't be that:
"it has a lot of cool features"
iPhone was, when released, the best at what it offered.
partnering with other companies/vendors to offer exclusive rights or focused "value-add" products that are unique to iPOD/iPhone.
It really sounds to me like your opinion is 9 parts this:
I did not jump on the iPhone bandwagon for the same reason I did not jump on the iPOD band wagon, I don't like Macintosh.
And one part:
judgment as to their technical capabilities.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Re:Android just won't catch up with iPhone
on
Unlocking Android
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The latter is, IMNSHO, the reason the iPOD/iPhone is as popular as it is.
What do you base this opinion on? I've seen this meme before, and I fail to see any useful logic behind it. Do you really believe that a majority of people would choose to buy a product that is completely inadequate for their needs simply because it makes them part of the "in crowd"? And if you do believe that, what do you base that belief on?
Well, you have the link if you ever care to verify the quote independently from a windows or mac system.
based on the evidence in the article that the only tissue that grows on her is hair and nails, would be speculative at best.
Any attempt to categorize this one-in-many-million case is of course speculative at best. Doctors are baffled by her condition, they don't understand it, and certainly don't have a name for it. Just as stating that she's mentally about 9 months old is speculative, so is stating that "nobody's home," and that she has "less potential than the family dog."
I fail to see how the speculation of doctors who are familiar with Brooke's case is less valid than your speculation based on an article and - perhaps! - a video. Are you rejecting it simply because it doesn't jive with your conclusions? Or do you have some special knowledge of this case you haven't disclosed?
Also, post-birth abortion isn't my invention - there's over 1 million hits. It's part of the english language. Get over it already.
No, there aren't "over 1 million hits" for that phrase. If you're seeing over 1 million, you're likely seeing documents in which the phrase "post birth" and "abortion" appear in completely disconnected thoughts. Google "post birth abortion" with quotes, and you'll see about 4000 entries. Many of them seem to be of the hysterical pro-life variety, on casual review.
All googling aside, the term "post-birth abortion" is nonsense, as I've already pointed out. Abortion is termination of a pregnancy. A woman is no longer pregnant if she has given birth.
Culling, by any name, may offend the sensibilities, but there are times when it's justified.
I'm not a particular fan of the choice of "culling" to describe it either, because of that word's close friendship with eugenics programs. I think there are reasonable & justifiable circumstances where euthanasia should be an option that's available - I don't disagree with you to that point. I suspect I would disagree with you on the specifics of when it's reasonable, though.
What's funny is, your fixes require disabling functionality. not much of a fix if it breaks other stuff, is it? You want to know how I secure my Mac system from the unpatched Secunia advisories for Mac OS X?
First, let's look at the open issues, and how they're exploited:
3 of the vulnerabilities require access to the local system itself, i.e., you must be sitting at the keyboard.
1 of the open vulnerabilities requires local network access - you must be on an unfirewalled subnet to even attempt to exploit it.
The final one requires you to have the "Open safe files after download" option checked in Safari, and then you must download a specially crafted HFS+ disk image, and open it.
So how do I secure my system against these attacks? Simple, really:
Only trusted users have logins on my system. Myself, my girlfriend, and one of my friends who is over enough & who I trust enough to give a local account. Everybody else gets to use the "guest" account which is locked down and completely unable to do anything more than browse the web.
All my systems are behind a firewall; wireless is secured by WPA2 encryption & MAC filtering is in place - even if you get through the firewall or encryption, if you're not a recognized MAC address, you don't get to join the network.
Don't do stupid shit. If I don't know and trust the source of an application, HFS+ image, or script, I don't execute it.
Disable "Open safe files after download" in Safari. I verify that this is done as a matter of course whenever I log in for the first time on any Mac.
My Mac has been on the internet for 2.5 years with these precautions, and I've never once had to do anything more than apply system updates as they're rolled out to keep my system secure.
You can dick around with crippling your Windows box so it can't play videos and mess around with ACLs on your files all you want. Have fun - while you're doing that, I'll be busy over here, actually using my more-secure-by-default computer to do things that are productive and enjoyable.
I can't say this any more plainly: YOU ARE WRONG. If you cannot read Secunia and understand what you are reading, and how it relates to Mac OS and Windows, then we have no basis for conversation.
You have demonstrated your inability to do this at every turn.
You fail. You didn't read any of my post, or any of the links. You've proven your inability to read or formulate a coherent thought. Secunia themselves state that the numbers of vulnerabilities should not be used to compare the security of two different products.
By "1 unpatched", I presume you mean "1 unpatched advisory that was discovered in 2009," right? What about ones discovered in previous years that are still unpatched, which are included in the numbers I provided to you? You keep linking to Secunia, I suggest that you learn how to read their advisories.
I also provided links to the relevant "list of advisory" pages where advisories for Mac OS X and Windows Server 2003 EE are described, and the numbers I quoted you are directly from those pages.
Advisories are the actual confirmed issue writeup Secunia does. Vulnerabilities are simply "a big list of things people have reported to us as being a problem." Vulnerabilities have not been vetted or inspected for accuracy, duplication, or anything else.
In summary: Advisories are what matter. Unpatched advisories are what matter. Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition has more unpatched advisories than does Mac OS X, and it has more severe unpatched advisories than does Mac OS X.
The question was not "Can these problems be fixed?" The question was, "Which is more secure by default?" By default, Windows has more unpatched problems with more critical impact.
I didn't write that, so please don't attribute it to me. It would seem that someone else loves you enough to try to replicate your dense and unreadable writing style, APK, but it wasn't me.
If I want to say people don't give a shit about you, I'll state it under my own userid, rather than under protection of an Anonymous Coward moniker. To whit:
You followed me over here in a failed attempt to troll me on a completely unrelated topic... I'm not following you around on slashdot, I truly don't give a shit about you and your twaddle.
Okay, I'll bite. Your Secunia "vulnerabilities" links? Yeah, did you read fine print where Secunia indicates the following:
PLEASE NOTE: The statistics provided should NOT be used to compare the overall security of products against one another. It is IMPORTANT to understand what the below comments mean when using the statistics, especially when using the statistics to compare the vulnerability aspects of different products.
However, let's assume that comparing raw numbers of vulnerabilities means anything. Let's look at the number of patched advisories, and their relative criticality.
Secunia has issued 130 advisories since 2003 for Mac OS X - that's all versions of Mac OS X. Of them, 5 out of 130 advisories remain unpatched, and the most critical of those patches is rated as "Moderately Critical" - a 3/5 on a 5-point criticality scale.
Now let's look at your precious Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition, even though 1 version of Windows versus every version of Mac OS X is not a true apples-to-apples comparison. There have been 191 Secunia advisories since 2003 for that operating system. Of those, 13 out of 191 remain unpatched, with the most critical unpatched advisory rated as an "Extremely Critical" (a 5/5 on a 5-point criticality scale. The worst possible.)
So, Windows 2003 server has more unpatched vulnerabilities in absolute numbers, and also it's unpatched vulnerabilities are more critical in terms of the amount of access an attacker can gain by exploiting the vulnerabilities.
So what about my statement that "Windows is less secure, by default, than Mac OS" is disproved by these statistics? Raw numbers of vulnerabilities are absolutely not to be used to compare the "relative security" of two systems, which Secunia themselves go out of their way to state.
I never said anything about RyuuzakiTetsuya, so I don't know why you're trying to criticize him to me. I merely provided independent confirmation to him that you are an ill-informed troll, because I've seen your foaming-at-the-mouth rants in previous articles too.
For the record, I happen to agree with his assessment of the relative merits of Windows security versus Mac/Linux security - Mac & Linux are - by default - more secure than a default Windows install. Any system (including Windows) can be made insecure, and any system (including Windows) can be hardened. However, out of the box, Linux & Mac OS have more sensible security defaults for a hostile network environment than Windows does, and require less hardening to get secure & less patching to keep secure.
None of the three are perfect. In my opinion, Mac OS is more locked down than I'd like in some respects, and doesn't support some software that I'd love to see ported over there; Linux has a generally lackluster user experience and requires to much fiddling to configure; Windows requires too much patching, is unstable, and provides a "middle of the road" user experience at the expense of a lot of administration work.
the article I read did not give a brain age of 9 months.
My mistake - it was in the accompanying video with the article. The video display counts down the time remaining in the video, so to speed your discovery, the statement is made with about 1:45 left in the video: "Her mental age is estimated to be 9 months to a year old."
I notice you've gone from trying to defend your point to asking me to stick my "suppositions" (which suppositions have I made, exactly?) up my own ass. I'll take that as your concession that you were out of line.
Here's a pro tip: don't be surprised when people respond critically to you acting like an arrogant twat. Tastelessly offensive declarative statements about a situation you know very little nothing about are not exactly the best way to make your points about euthanasia.
And one final note to clear up a misconception on your part, "euthanasia" simply means "painless death" (from the Greek for "good death" - true story, you can even look it up). The term itself does not necessarily say anything about whether or not the person or animal being euthanized is suffering. Euthanasia describes the painless quality of the death, not the painful quality of the life it ends in some instances. As such, it would be totally appropriate to call what you're proposing "euthanasia," rather than the nonsensical "post-birth abortion" phrase you were so proud of earlier in this thread. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by artificial means; sort of hard to terminate a pregnancy that's already ended with a birth, isn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
Why would I be trying to save face? I've shown you to be incorrect and completely wrong on all counts. Your system is, by default, more insecure than a mac. That simple fact has been demonstrated to you repeatedly using your own treasured Secunia data.
I know it stings, APK, but you'll survive and be stronger for it someday.
You cannot play videos without some ridiculous manual workaround. I consider that unusable. Would you consider your car in good working order if you had to climb in through the trunk because the locks were broken?
Q.E.D.
Thanks for confirming that I'm right with yet another long-winded bit of nonsense.
Your attempt to disprove me has failed, and it's clear that you know you're wrong - you keep citing one person, this "Thronka", who is probably you, who claims they're secure. Out of the millions of Windows boxes out there, just that one?
Stop shilling for Microsoft, troll. You're not convincing anyone, and you have no basis for your claims.
Once again you ignore the proof I've offered and cite *your* ignorance as proof that I'm wrong.
You're hopeless. As I've said previously, enjoy dicking around with your crippled system. I'll be doing something useful and productive on mine.
You have to manually disable playing of .avi files, and then if you wish to play them, you have to go through a ridiculous scanning or conversion process. I consider that crippled. Your "fixes" for many of the other fixes also included unregistering dll's or changing permissions on them in such a way that they probably will also break functionality elsewhere in the system. That is crippling the software.
I've already told you: don't do stupid shit. Don't open and run scripts from sources you don't run. There is no "fix" for tricking a user into doing something stupid, and Windows is just as much at risk as Mac OS is in that regard, perhaps more so with so many services running with administrator level permissions.
I've answered all of these questions for you previously, and in detail. Why do you keep demanding I repeat them?
I have already proven that Mac OS X is more secure, by default, than Windows. I have shown that it requires less crippling of system functionality to secure. I have shown that the remaining vulnerabilities for Mac OS in Secunia are all non-issues if you have taken standard network security measures.
You have ignored all of that though, because it's inconvenient to the fiction you cling to that you're right. You are wrong, I have demonstrated it, you have continued to troll and ignore any evidence that shows you are wrong.
There is nothing further that can be said to you on the subject.
You're right, Alexander. I'll just ignore you! You have nothing of import to share, you just like to rant about unrelated topics for no good reason.
Thanks for the reminder, I shouldn't have tried to reason with you, I know from seeing previous conversations you've been involved with that reason & logic are impossible for you to comprehend.
Why are your "P.S." blocks longer than the actual comment? Are you that dim-witted that you don't understand what P.S. means?
Seriously - get a grip. You're continuing to troll in a thread that's completely unrelated to this discussion. You're not convincing anyone of anything with all this endless prattling on.
I've already proven my point, and shown you for the complete charlatan that you are. Stop dragging it out, you just make yourself look foolish.
Reading comprehension. It's wildly exciting, you should try it.
It really sounds to me like your opinion is 9 parts this:
And one part:
Thanks for clearing that up.
What do you base this opinion on? I've seen this meme before, and I fail to see any useful logic behind it. Do you really believe that a majority of people would choose to buy a product that is completely inadequate for their needs simply because it makes them part of the "in crowd"? And if you do believe that, what do you base that belief on?
Don't see anybody else signing their posts "APK" around here but you, so it must be you.
I'm going to start linking to that comment as proof of how much of an ignorant, hurtful troll you are - when bested in debate, you resort to calling people names. Very déclassé.
You're replying to the wrong article, moron. Get stuffed.
Well, you have the link if you ever care to verify the quote independently from a windows or mac system.
Any attempt to categorize this one-in-many-million case is of course speculative at best. Doctors are baffled by her condition, they don't understand it, and certainly don't have a name for it. Just as stating that she's mentally about 9 months old is speculative, so is stating that "nobody's home," and that she has "less potential than the family dog."
I fail to see how the speculation of doctors who are familiar with Brooke's case is less valid than your speculation based on an article and - perhaps! - a video. Are you rejecting it simply because it doesn't jive with your conclusions? Or do you have some special knowledge of this case you haven't disclosed?
No, there aren't "over 1 million hits" for that phrase. If you're seeing over 1 million, you're likely seeing documents in which the phrase "post birth" and "abortion" appear in completely disconnected thoughts. Google "post birth abortion" with quotes, and you'll see about 4000 entries. Many of them seem to be of the hysterical pro-life variety, on casual review.
All googling aside, the term "post-birth abortion" is nonsense, as I've already pointed out. Abortion is termination of a pregnancy. A woman is no longer pregnant if she has given birth.
I'm not a particular fan of the choice of "culling" to describe it either, because of that word's close friendship with eugenics programs. I think there are reasonable & justifiable circumstances where euthanasia should be an option that's available - I don't disagree with you to that point. I suspect I would disagree with you on the specifics of when it's reasonable, though.
Wow, APK. You sure are getting testy. Why the harsh language? Or is it wishful thinking on your part?
First, let's look at the open issues, and how they're exploited:
So how do I secure my system against these attacks? Simple, really:
My Mac has been on the internet for 2.5 years with these precautions, and I've never once had to do anything more than apply system updates as they're rolled out to keep my system secure.
You can dick around with crippling your Windows box so it can't play videos and mess around with ACLs on your files all you want. Have fun - while you're doing that, I'll be busy over here, actually using my more-secure-by-default computer to do things that are productive and enjoyable.
I can't say this any more plainly: YOU ARE WRONG. If you cannot read Secunia and understand what you are reading, and how it relates to Mac OS and Windows, then we have no basis for conversation.
You have demonstrated your inability to do this at every turn.
Good day.
too long; can't be bothered reading more of your nonsense.
You fail. You didn't read any of my post, or any of the links. You've proven your inability to read or formulate a coherent thought. Secunia themselves state that the numbers of vulnerabilities should not be used to compare the security of two different products.
By "1 unpatched", I presume you mean "1 unpatched advisory that was discovered in 2009," right? What about ones discovered in previous years that are still unpatched, which are included in the numbers I provided to you? You keep linking to Secunia, I suggest that you learn how to read their advisories.
I also provided links to the relevant "list of advisory" pages where advisories for Mac OS X and Windows Server 2003 EE are described, and the numbers I quoted you are directly from those pages.
Advisories are the actual confirmed issue writeup Secunia does. Vulnerabilities are simply "a big list of things people have reported to us as being a problem." Vulnerabilities have not been vetted or inspected for accuracy, duplication, or anything else.
In summary: Advisories are what matter. Unpatched advisories are what matter. Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition has more unpatched advisories than does Mac OS X, and it has more severe unpatched advisories than does Mac OS X.
The question was not "Can these problems be fixed?" The question was, "Which is more secure by default?" By default, Windows has more unpatched problems with more critical impact.
I didn't write that, so please don't attribute it to me. It would seem that someone else loves you enough to try to replicate your dense and unreadable writing style, APK, but it wasn't me.
If I want to say people don't give a shit about you, I'll state it under my own userid, rather than under protection of an Anonymous Coward moniker. To whit:
You followed me over here in a failed attempt to troll me on a completely unrelated topic... I'm not following you around on slashdot, I truly don't give a shit about you and your twaddle.
(You can quote me on that now.)
However, let's assume that comparing raw numbers of vulnerabilities means anything. Let's look at the number of patched advisories, and their relative criticality.
Secunia has issued 130 advisories since 2003 for Mac OS X - that's all versions of Mac OS X. Of them, 5 out of 130 advisories remain unpatched, and the most critical of those patches is rated as "Moderately Critical" - a 3/5 on a 5-point criticality scale.
Now let's look at your precious Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition, even though 1 version of Windows versus every version of Mac OS X is not a true apples-to-apples comparison. There have been 191 Secunia advisories since 2003 for that operating system. Of those, 13 out of 191 remain unpatched, with the most critical unpatched advisory rated as an "Extremely Critical" (a 5/5 on a 5-point criticality scale. The worst possible.)
So, Windows 2003 server has more unpatched vulnerabilities in absolute numbers, and also it's unpatched vulnerabilities are more critical in terms of the amount of access an attacker can gain by exploiting the vulnerabilities.
So what about my statement that "Windows is less secure, by default, than Mac OS" is disproved by these statistics? Raw numbers of vulnerabilities are absolutely not to be used to compare the "relative security" of two systems, which Secunia themselves go out of their way to state.
tl;dr
I never said anything about RyuuzakiTetsuya, so I don't know why you're trying to criticize him to me. I merely provided independent confirmation to him that you are an ill-informed troll, because I've seen your foaming-at-the-mouth rants in previous articles too.
For the record, I happen to agree with his assessment of the relative merits of Windows security versus Mac/Linux security - Mac & Linux are - by default - more secure than a default Windows install. Any system (including Windows) can be made insecure, and any system (including Windows) can be hardened. However, out of the box, Linux & Mac OS have more sensible security defaults for a hostile network environment than Windows does, and require less hardening to get secure & less patching to keep secure.
None of the three are perfect. In my opinion, Mac OS is more locked down than I'd like in some respects, and doesn't support some software that I'd love to see ported over there; Linux has a generally lackluster user experience and requires to much fiddling to configure; Windows requires too much patching, is unstable, and provides a "middle of the road" user experience at the expense of a lot of administration work.
My mistake - it was in the accompanying video with the article. The video display counts down the time remaining in the video, so to speed your discovery, the statement is made with about 1:45 left in the video: "Her mental age is estimated to be 9 months to a year old."
I notice you've gone from trying to defend your point to asking me to stick my "suppositions" (which suppositions have I made, exactly?) up my own ass. I'll take that as your concession that you were out of line.
Here's a pro tip: don't be surprised when people respond critically to you acting like an arrogant twat. Tastelessly offensive declarative statements about a situation you know very little nothing about are not exactly the best way to make your points about euthanasia.
And one final note to clear up a misconception on your part, "euthanasia" simply means "painless death" (from the Greek for "good death" - true story, you can even look it up). The term itself does not necessarily say anything about whether or not the person or animal being euthanized is suffering. Euthanasia describes the painless quality of the death, not the painful quality of the life it ends in some instances. As such, it would be totally appropriate to call what you're proposing "euthanasia," rather than the nonsensical "post-birth abortion" phrase you were so proud of earlier in this thread. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by artificial means; sort of hard to terminate a pregnancy that's already ended with a birth, isn't it?
Hi APK, love you too, you're sweet to think of me.