Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by superbovine, Dec 15, 2005.
Oh really? Who would have thought that....
Ah, the real reason the article was written and why Mac OS X actually got "rated". Seems sales are still poor!
In all seriousness there are issues but Apple seems to be on the ball currently. If worst comes to worst, I know quite a few shareware developers who will get cracking on security software to assist Apple. We don't really have much to worry about right now.
They link MacScan from SecureMac.
Mac spyware. I'm SO over SANS.
Symantec.. whatever. The only reason they are still in business is because of n00b-word-of-mouth.
So lets see... put on Mac Firewall and download security updates when they're released. Don't install any stupid software.
Sounds pretty simple to me.
I know the team who made that Rootkit (UGMPT), and we all agree that it sucks. It requests your password every time you login, after you login, which is more than kinda suspicious.
What Safari exploit? Oh, the one from May last year that was patched within a week? Yeah, like that affects anyone...
This was released by Symantec, and how many people give a rat's ass about Symantec any more?
No OS is perfect. At the moment there have been no exploited holes in the OSX security model or implementation but given enough time the day will come. We are pretty safe, certainly safer than Windows users, but being smug will only make it worse when the inevitable day arrives.
We should all take care and only run code for sources we trust. A user-run or installed trojan is probably the biggest risk for OSX users right now.
No "exploited" holes doesn't mean the same vulnerabilities aren't there. And it's true about the number of security fixes Apple has released. The number of patches is definitely increasing and coming in more frequently. People dog Microsoft for that very reason around here, but I don't see why when Apple releases the same sort of thing, and often as frequently.
It's becoming pretty clear that Mac users are pretty vulnerable to the installing stupid software risk. How many people booted the "OS X" images that were in circulation a few months ago, only to get ******'d? How many people downloaded and ran the leaked Google Earth without waiting to see if others ran it without incident? Really, people seem to be more suspicious of the security updates that come straight from Apple! It's pwnage waiting to happen.
I think that at least part of the difference is timelyness. Apple are able to get patches out before the problems get exploited. MS often seem to wait till the problem is exploited. There have been recent issues where MS has been informed of the problem and not released the patch for over 6 months! I'd rather see frequent patches as that means holes are being fixed.
If you **** around with dodgy p2p warez and the like, you run the risk of trashing your machine, which is no surprise.
That would be the logical way to behave, but too often I see "but I'm using OS X and don't have to worry about that."
Especially, when a fair number of users get Mac OS X from warez sites. Do they not suspect that it's been altered? Are hackers dumb enough to use hacked software?
I think that Secunia has finally gotten it together and reports that there are truly very few unpatched security problems and no critical security flaws. It's good to hear that the ActiveX hole in the firewall is getting attention from security companies. Unfortunately, it's not getting any attention from Microsoft really. It's a design issue that won't be resolved.
Getting users to install everything is another matter. How many users whine when they have to re-boot? "awww man, this is destroying my uptime!" so they don't re-boot to install critical fixes.
The day keeps coming and it's certainly possible that we'll all pay but it won't be paid to Symantec.
Fully agree - but being rather new in the world of DSL, is the Mac OS X built in Firewall secure enough (together with Little Snitch ) or should one consider a more complete Firewall such as Brickhouse
Thanks for any views
I used to use Intego's NetBarrier, which was a firewall and more. It alerted me to several ping attacks that I would not have known otherwise and allowed me to shut them out.
The only trouble was that the software was always late to be updated. They would wait until the version would actually go into production before they would work on their software, apparently. Besides that, the software was rather processor intensive since it was always checking for problems. Maybe it's more efficient now.
I'm not sure about a firewall from one person. I'd be leery of accepting any product from a single person I didn't know. There is too much of a chance that the software itself will give the appearance of protection while transmitting personal information from all over the machine.
Umm.. Brickhouse is not a "more complete Firewall", it's simply a GUIfied front-end for ipfw, the built-in OS X firewall. Nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps you meant a more complete control for the OS X firewall? Of coruse, all that can be accomplished via the CLI..