I wonder if Apple will freely distribute these drivers so that you can install them on just regular ol' Windows machines (not boot camp partitions). I wouldn't mind being able to use my external freely across both platforms without having to partition the drive.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Snow Leopard's Boot Camp Includes HFS+ Windows Drivers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'd actually really hope that you get a choice of read-only or read-write drivers. How nasty would it be if Windows viruses screwed up your OS X install too? (i.e. install botnet software on both OS's)
Let's hope Apple gives us some security against Windows problems affecting OS X.
Let's hope Apple gives us some security against Windows problems affecting OS X.
i doubt that a common virus would completely explode your mac partition.. probably wouldnt even do anything do it - but still the chances are there i guess, i hope this is read only support.
If it had write access, a virus that corrupts or deletes files *could* potentially affect some Mac files.
I'm pretty sure they will come up with some protection.
yea true it could, all depends on the virus. personally i dont care because i dont use bootcamp anymore, as for bootcamparians -- they would hope that apple implements some sort of permission type thing. maybe a pop up of some sort requesting access? (goes with the windows theme haha).
"OMG I'm going to get viruses!!!"
BS. No offense you guys (I love macs too) but this is just a bunch of misinformation.
NO, you won't get viruses... IF you know what you're doing.
(A) If you don't like Boot Camp just buy Parallels or VMWare and be done with it. Both those options let you limit what access windows has to your mac.
(B) For all the junk and misinformation out there, it's actually pathetically easy to keep viruses off a PC:
- Install Firefox and Adblock Plus. Never use IE... EVER.
- Keep your system patched with MS update (the only use for IE)
- Install Antivir, Spybot S&D, Spyware Blaster and keep them up to date
- No P2P software, no torrents (unless they are trusted ie from Pirate Bay)
- No software/gaming cracks unless they already come in a trusted torrent
- If you're really paranoid, run your windows apps in Sandboxie
Problem solved. Where most people screw up is they run IE and don't keep their system patched. If you're running IE, you're basically asking for someone to crash your system.
BS. No offense you guys (I love macs too) but this is just a bunch of misinformation.
NO, you won't get viruses... IF you know what you're doing.
(A) If you don't like Boot Camp just buy Parallels or VMWare and be done with it. Both those options let you limit what access windows has to your mac.
(B) For all the junk and misinformation out there, it's actually pathetically easy to keep viruses off a PC:
- Install Firefox and Adblock Plus. Never use IE... EVER.
- Keep your system patched with MS update (the only use for IE)
- Install Antivir, Spybot S&D, Spyware Blaster and keep them up to date
- No P2P software, no torrents (unless they are trusted ie from Pirate Bay)
- No software/gaming cracks unless they already come in a trusted torrent
- If you're really paranoid, run your windows apps in Sandboxie
Problem solved. Where most people screw up is they run IE and don't keep their system patched. If you're running IE, you're basically asking for someone to crash your system.
LOL! Yeah, I love that, too.
I can't help but that this reinforces my belief that not everyone should own a computer. Not everyone is meant to. (Of course, I also believe that such things as children and cars/drivers' licenses are privileges not everyone is entitled to, either.)
People,
Filesystem driver or not, if your Windows install gets a virus while in Boot Camp, your Mac data isn't safe at all.
The virus could easily randomly corrupt blocks all over the disk, destroying your data even if it can't mount the actual partition.
If you want to truly be safe against Windows viruses, run a VM and don't grant the VM access to mount your OS X partition. And even then, the inconvenience of not being able to access your Mac data makes it not all that worth it.
Just use safe practices when you use Windows on the net. It's that simple.
Filesystem driver or not, if your Windows install gets a virus while in Boot Camp, your Mac data isn't safe at all.
The virus could easily randomly corrupt blocks all over the disk, destroying your data even if it can't mount the actual partition.
If you want to truly be safe against Windows viruses, run a VM and don't grant the VM access to mount your OS X partition. And even then, the inconvenience of not being able to access your Mac data makes it not all that worth it.
Just use safe practices when you use Windows on the net. It's that simple.
The only torrents I would expect to be virus-free are ones from authoritative sources of the material itself, e.g. various Linux distro ISOs.
Although, it's the nature of a torrent that you get the data from a peer - not from the source.
Are there signatures and checksums so that a malevolent peer couldn't send malware with a "trusted" torrent?
As far as I know, Aiden, BitTorrent incorporates checksums, etc. to ensure a given BT transfer won't get compromised by a malicious individual. Whether they use something like SHA1 or whatever, I really don't know. It's supposed to be secure, and I'm guessing the BT protocol is well-known enough in F/OSS circles that issues of that nature would be known and dealt with.
But otherwise yes, you're right: what you get (or don't get) via BT is based on what you decide to download.
In the main, I don't use filesharing stuff all that much any more, since (for various reasons) my "daily driver" is Ubuntu, and software acquisition for it is pretty much by definition clear of compromising copyright issues. Other than for watching or listening to streaming content, the overwhelming majority of data I/O for me comes in the form of software updates from authenticated repos, which pretty much eliminates the security issues as well.
Checksum or hashes don't do anything to prevent the file to get infected. If the file was infected first and then the person hashed it and upload it, it'll be the same infected file at the end with the same hash. It's all about the source. The best way to know which torrents are good on tpb is to know the uploader personally. If he has a well known history, then there's a high chance it is not infected.
No, Mikhail, what I think Aiden was referring to -- and absolutely what I was referring to -- was compromise after it was hashed and made available, not before. Obviously, if it were compromised before, then you'd be 100% correct.
it's a substitution that worries me
You don't "download a file from someone" with BitTorrent.
You download pieces of it in parallel from various peer sites. "Someone" can't substitute a complete file with an infected one by changing bits on a single computer.
To substitute an infected download, you have to subvert the directory information - so that someone requests all of the pieces of the infected file rather than the original.
Which is clearly possible, as proven by the OSX "Iwork" botnet that is now running.
The "signature" that I was referring to would be an MD5/SHA1/SHA256 or whatever from the trusted torrent master - so that after the download, when all the pieces were reassembled, you could verify to a very, very high degree of certainty that your copy is bit-for-bit identical to the trusted master.
I'm worried about the case where a "trusted" torrent master in fact serves you an infected file.
Actually, I'm not "worried" - I've never installed a torrent client and don't download stuff from the torrents. (While there are a few legitimate torrent sites, most are pirates and thieves. I don't go there.)
You don't "download a file from someone" with BitTorrent.
You download pieces of it in parallel from various peer sites. "Someone" can't substitute a complete file with an infected one by changing bits on a single computer.
To substitute an infected download, you have to subvert the directory information - so that someone requests all of the pieces of the infected file rather than the original.
Which is clearly possible, as proven by the OSX "Iwork" botnet that is now running.
The "signature" that I was referring to would be an MD5/SHA1/SHA256 or whatever from the trusted torrent master - so that after the download, when all the pieces were reassembled, you could verify to a very, very high degree of certainty that your copy is bit-for-bit identical to the trusted master.
I'm worried about the case where a "trusted" torrent master in fact serves you an infected file.
Actually, I'm not "worried" - I've never installed a torrent client and don't download stuff from the torrents. (While there are a few legitimate torrent sites, most are pirates and thieves. I don't go there.)
I know how bittorrent works. I never said anything about peers. I was talking about the source. The iWork torrent was infected by the source, not by what you just described.
The bittorent client who created the torrent file will provide a list of pieces and its SHA1 hashes. It's all in the torrent file. If somebody wants to infect it, they have to gain access to the tracker and replace the torrent file.
The Snow Leopard I use has native Read and WRITE to NTFS partitions.
So it has already happened.
Both for me work just fine.
I posted more info here
Insanely Mac
So they had it in build 10a190 for sure, not sure about any other ones though.
NTFS read/write doesnt need any permission from MS as long as its built from the ground up. NTFS-3G has been around for ages, i was wondering when apple would introduce something like that.
My only concern is not the virus that can spread into the mac drive, come on people, what would your mac do with a fake dll or a .exe dameon?
The real problem is the Unix permission being ignored on Windows, not sure it's going to be that safe?! log under Windows and access all root owned file?
That's my scary part into this. I guess I will move everything in my home and encrypt it. But still, Windows will be able to delete this...
Please, tell me they have updated bootcamp to sync user and keep the files permission! ok it's totally impossible without a major update to Windows.
But it's a good thing, maybe the iPod formated under Windows will be HFS+ from now on ;-)
The real problem is the Unix permission being ignored on Windows, not sure it's going to be that safe?! log under Windows and access all root owned file?
That's my scary part into this. I guess I will move everything in my home and encrypt it. But still, Windows will be able to delete this...
Please, tell me they have updated bootcamp to sync user and keep the files permission! ok it's totally impossible without a major update to Windows.
But it's a good thing, maybe the iPod formated under Windows will be HFS+ from now on ;-)
Thanks. So NTFS in OSX and HFS in Windows and not to mention Exchange built in in Snow leopard. This release is starting to look like MS just bought out Apple. (joke seriously its a joke)
I bet we'll find out at WWDC.
There's no root enabled by default in OSX, so we'll see what kind of stuff that can happen with the folders outside the home directory.