1. HowardH's Avatar
    Not quite. Clicking on a link is a very common vector of attack. This wasn't a user installed trojan. It was an actual exploited hole in quicktime I think.

    Surur
    Correct. But the original intention was to have someone hack into the box over the network. When nobody could do that, they had to soften the rules.

    Any device is vulnerable to that form of attack. I can attack your smartphone with the same methodology (send you an email and ask you to open an executable file that will wipe your device). They had to significantly change the rules of the game in order to win. My example was a trojan perhaps, your example is a quicktime exploit, but they both rely on a complete change of the game.

    We've all seen the video of the XP box placed on the Internet and taken over in <2 minutes. It was an old XP build and XP is significantly better now, but that's the kind of attack they were looking for.
    06-23-2007 06:21 PM
  2. HowardH's Avatar

    You have a false sense of security (by obscurity).

    Surur

    Not at all. I'm fully aware (as I stated) that a significant amount of the safety on my Mac is through obscurity. But again, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, it's not the ONLY reason.

    You HAVE spent significant time on the security of both Windows and OS X based systems right?
    06-23-2007 06:24 PM
  3. surur's Avatar
    Avoiding opening executables, and avoiding clicking on a link are two very different things. In theory I could post a link to a website here that could take over your mac, and you would never know until it happened, and would have no way of avoiding it, and your web interactions would not be filtered via anti-virus software.

    Re the security of the various OS's, I know OSX had patches monthly this year, same of XP.

    Surur
    06-23-2007 06:28 PM
  4. HowardH's Avatar
    Avoiding opening executables, and avoiding clicking on a link are two very different things. In theory I could post a link to a website here that could take over your mac, and you would never know until it happened, and would have no way of avoiding it, and your web interactions would not be filtered via anti-virus software.

    Re the security of the various OS's, I know OSX had patches monthly this year, same of XP.

    Surur
    Actually I COULD avoid it but not visiting this site and by not clicking the link. It still requires a level of social interaction. Again, that's why the had to change the rules of the contest. The comparative contests(?) on Windows have been a matter of making the contest last long enough. Not changing the rules to make them end quickly enough.

    I don't even run AV on my Mac (yet) to be honest. So there's no chance it would catch it.
    06-23-2007 06:34 PM
  5. surur's Avatar
    The story states that the hackers did not feel $10 00 was enough to hand over a new remote exploit. In this day and age of bot farms worth tens of thousands I can understand that.

    Surur
    06-23-2007 06:43 PM
  6. HowardH's Avatar
    The story states that the hackers did not feel $10 00 was enough to hand over a new remote exploit. In this day and age of bot farms worth tens of thousands I can understand that.

    Surur
    True. But my personal primary interpretation of that is not that "the exploit exists but is worth >$10k". Rather that "$10k is not enough justification to attempt to find the exploit."
    06-23-2007 06:46 PM
  7. archie's Avatar
    Archie and Surur are nothing alike.

    Archie is an Apple fanboy / Palm/Treo basher. His past post show this clearly. (Not that there is anything wrong with that, other than him posting incorrect info and not understanding technology.) But to each their own.
    Incorrect info and not understanding technology, huh?


    Hey remember when you insisted that I was incorrect in Apple being primarily a software company and you were the one that knew what he was talking about because you knew that Apple was a hardware company. Then I gave my evidence and proof but you still discounted it.

    Did you see D:All Things Digital?

    Steve said "Apple views itself as a software company." Steve then repeats to Walt Mossberg after he questions it, "Apple is fundamentally a software company."

    How about that time I said the Treo 650 would never have wi-fi and gave clear reasoning as to why, but you kept pushing the entire TreoCentral board to donate money to write a driver to get it to work. Year or 2 later, we find out my resons were correct.

    How bout that time you disagreed with my view point of the iPod being a household name like Jeep or Jacuzzi. You of course insisted that it wasn't ever going to be a household name (then you said it wouldn't last 5 years).

    Hey, remember when you new what you were talking about in regards to Grid computing and how Apple did not use it for anything; especially the iTunes Store. HAHAHAHAHA!

    Or how about the Cisco/Apple case where you predicted Apple would walk away with their tail between their legs, assuming they still had one... because Cisco would shove it so far up Apple's *** you could never find it. or something like that.
    06-25-2007 06:11 PM
  8. surur's Avatar
    Hey remember when you insisted that I was incorrect in Apple being primarily a software company and you were the one that knew what he was talking about because you knew that Apple was a hardware company. Then I gave my evidence and proof but you still discounted it.
    Apple is a hardware company. They use software gimmicks to sell mediocre hardware at inflated prices. Bootcamp proves it.

    Surur
    06-25-2007 06:43 PM
  9. MacUser's Avatar
    Apple is a hardware company. They use software gimmicks to sell mediocre hardware at inflated prices. Bootcamp proves it.

    Surur
    Strongly disagree.

    'nuff said:censored:
    06-25-2007 07:37 PM
  10. mikec#IM's Avatar
    Incorrect info and not understanding technology, huh?


    Hey remember when you insisted that I was incorrect in Apple being primarily a software company and you were the one that knew what he was talking about because you knew that Apple was a hardware company. Then I gave my evidence and proof but you still discounted it.

    Did you see D:All Things Digital?

    Steve said "Apple views itself as a software company." Steve then repeats to Walt Mossberg after he questions it, "Apple is fundamentally a software company."

    How about that time I said the Treo 650 would never have wi-fi and gave clear reasoning as to why, but you kept pushing the entire TreoCentral board to donate money to write a driver to get it to work. Year or 2 later, we find out my resons were correct.

    How bout that time you disagreed with my view point of the iPod being a household name like Jeep or Jacuzzi. You of course insisted that it wasn't ever going to be a household name (then you said it wouldn't last 5 years).

    Hey, remember when you new what you were talking about in regards to Grid computing and how Apple did not use it for anything; especially the iTunes Store. HAHAHAHAHA!

    Or how about the Cisco/Apple case where you predicted Apple would walk away with their tail between their legs, assuming they still had one... because Cisco would shove it so far up Apple's *** you could never find it. or something like that.
    Archie,

    You shouldn't lie/misrepresent - I will respond with fact and honesty.

    1.) Apple is a hardware company, no matter what Steve says (he says that for Wall Street). They make most of their money from hardware THEY MAKE and services LOCKED to their solution. This is obvious. I did not discount any evidence you provided - it just doesn't change how Apple makes money.

    2.) Re: Wi-fi on the 650, you said in 10/2004:

    (begin Archie quote)

    "Here is why I believe that the 650 will not support the PalmOne WiFi Board.

    The Treo 650 comes with Garnet (5.4). That is why the Treo will not have Wi-Fi capability.

    Let me explain.
    Palm only licensed Bluetooth for Cobalt. Garnet is using the 4 year old Bluetooth technology that Palm licensed a couple years ago. This means the phone will not have Bluetooth technology that is capable of working with Wi-Fi; hence, no wi-fi on the Treo 650.

    (end Archie quote)

    First, this is patently false. In fact, you show how little you understand technology, as you believe that BT 1.2 was required to have Wi-Fi also work on a device. Garnet 5.4 did not exclude BT 1.1 and Wi-Fi. It actually worked and was released as a product.

    Need some proof? I guess the Palm KB on the LifeDrive will do:

    http://kb.palmone.com/SRVS/CGI-BIN/W...case=obj(39318)

    And by the way, people did hack the 650 and get it to work with Wi-Fi cards.

    3.) Re: Ipod household name, I will say that today, it is. I am surprised how poorly the rest of the market responded to Apple, and give Apple kudos for their iPod development. I still say it's like Tivo - a tech trend word. Will is last 10, 20, 50 years? Let's see. I never said it wouldn't last 5 years...I said call me in 2010 and let's see where the iPod is. That's all.

    I also said in 9/2004: "Apple - laugh, but they could build the next cool converged device." So I predicted the iPhone in even way back then, but I saw no affirmation from you.

    And your quotes from 05/2005:

    (begin Archie quote)
    "...If the cell phone is to overtake the iPod it will certainly take 5 years... Some may like the idea of listening to music on the phone. But for most, that will have a limited appeal, with batteries lasting only a few hours.
    (end Archie quote)

    Hmmmm...looks like it will not take 5 years...the iPhone will eclipse the iPod sooner than that. And I guess listening to music on a phone has limited appeal; you were a regular Nostradamus on that...

    4.) Grid computing - let's not even go there. Please show me a defintion that says iTunes is grid computing. SETI@Home, sure, but not iTunes.

    5.) Re: Cisco/Apple case, I never said Apple would walk away or anything you quoted above. All I said was Cisco had a case. They settled out of court and got paid, and got to use the iPhone term as well.

    So now that the facts are out, you can go back (humiliated) to your Mac and type up some more lies.
    06-25-2007 07:53 PM
  11. llarson's Avatar
    Apple is a hardware company. They use software gimmicks to sell mediocre hardware at inflated prices. Bootcamp proves it.

    Surur
    Come on Surur even you can't really believe this.
    06-25-2007 09:29 PM
  12. Kupe#WP's Avatar
    Come on Surur even you can't really believe this.
    You think Apple is a software company?
    06-25-2007 09:31 PM
  13. MacUser's Avatar
    You think Apple is a software company?
    That and all of the other derogatory comments in his statement.

    OS X is a gimmick?! Sure...... Give me a :censored: break.
    06-25-2007 09:46 PM
  14. Kupe#WP's Avatar
    OS X is a gimmick?! Sure...... Give me a :censored: break.
    No, actually OS X is the real deal because it came from BSD UNIX, which was converted to FreeBSD, which was the core of NeXT OS (another Jobs company), which was purchased by Apple in 1996 (the second coming) and tweaked into OS X. In short, OS X is a freeware Unix OS with a pretty face painted on it. Apple is very good at adding form to function, but they didn't build their current OS - they just dressed it up real pretty-like.
    06-25-2007 09:54 PM
  15. oalvarez's Avatar
    judge for yourself....based on Apple Inc.'s 2006 10k (available on their website), Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, Note 11 (segment data) it would in fact appear that Apple Inc.'s "sales revenue" comes from their hardware lineup. if you read their Mission Statement it would also "suggest" that hardware is their most important line of business given its mentioned order. that mentioned order is repeated in their financials.

    not saying what is or isn't, just trying to point to factual evidence. is it up for interpretation? why not, everything else is around this place.
    06-25-2007 10:03 PM
  16. MacUser's Avatar
    In short, OS X is a freeware Unix OS with a pretty face painted on it. Apple is very good at adding form to function, but they didn't build their current OS - they just dressed it up real pretty-like.
    Come on....pretty?! It's gorgeous. Don't be so frugal with compliments...
    06-25-2007 10:15 PM
  17. braj's Avatar
    Actually, I don't like the black background in the the launcher and Aqua is pretty boring to me nowadays. I'd love to see some more skins available but of course, it is a closed system so that isn't going to happen.

    The hardware itself isn't that 'gorgeous' to me either. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
    06-25-2007 10:24 PM
  18. MacUser's Avatar
    the eye of the beholder.
    Great Twilight Zone episode...

    I think the Apple laptops are some of the sharpest out there....Still, some of the Alienware laptops are sweet.

    You?
    06-25-2007 10:28 PM
  19. braj's Avatar
    Great Twilight Zone episode...

    I think the Apple laptops are some of the sharpest out there....Still, some of the Alienware laptops are sweet.

    You?
    I really like Apple products (the Towers are monsters, you gotta love something so solid!), just personally I'm luke-warm on the iPhone's design. I know thin is in but I've held Sidekicks which are about the same thickness and I want something that sits in my hands a bit more. I also went with a fat little SE when Razr's were all the rage too. And I'm really liking har buttons vs larger screen after coming from a TX. It's just a personal preference.
    06-25-2007 10:57 PM
  20. oalvarez's Avatar
    what is it that you like so much about the Apple Mac Pros? i assume you are referencing their PC's. if so, is it simply the design/aesthetics? or is it the product build architecture? i'm sure many of us non-Mac desktop types would love to know what it is that we might be missing.

    i personally love my MacBook Pro but just haven't found the reason to purchase a Pro desktop.
    06-25-2007 11:51 PM
  21. braj's Avatar
    what is it that you like so much about the Apple Mac Pros? i assume you are referencing their PC's. if so, is it simply the design/aesthetics? or is it the product build architecture?
    It is partially the case design, partially the OS. Only thing I don't like is the price. I mostly have used G5s and earlier and haven't dealt with the new Intels except for laptops. Just if you try picking up one of these guys you know if will last forever. Compare it to your typical Dell or HP and it feels like a tank. To me that's a good thing.
    06-25-2007 11:58 PM
  22. oalvarez's Avatar
    well, it's not so much the weight of the case that might allow it to "last forever" as you say but i think i understand the point you're trying to make.

    thanks for the reply!
    06-26-2007 12:15 AM
  23. Kupe#WP's Avatar
    Come on....pretty?! It's gorgeous. Don't be so frugal with compliments...
    You mean like the Glamour Shots of the personal computing world?
    06-26-2007 08:04 AM
  24. llarson's Avatar
    You think Apple is a software company?
    Apple sells cutting edge well designed products with more features then most computer manufactures do.

    Surur was showing his Apple - Hater face when he made his comment.

    Apple sells great hardware, most of the time, and has developed fantastic software too!
    06-26-2007 10:07 AM
  25. surur's Avatar
    Iphone is another example.

    Surur
    06-26-2007 10:10 AM
328 ... 11121314
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD