But how would it spread? There have been 2 OS X viruses, yet they
spread terribly.
And Apple has already fixed the issue. :)
-The One
On 9/2/07, Kennith Mann III <ml-openbsd@etherpunk.com> wrote:
quoted text > On 9/1/07, The One <fakerichardstallman@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/23/07 2:53 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > >> Symantec have been trying to demonise OS X for a long while.
> > >
> > > And it is going to work soon.
> > >
> > > Because OS X has no Propolice-like compiler stack protection, nor
> > > anything like W^X which makes parts of the address space
> > > non-executable, nor anything like address space randomization which
> > > makes certain attacks very difficult, especially with the previous two
> > > techniques.
> > >
> > > So when they have a bug, it is exploitable just like bugs are on any
> > > other powerpc or i386 machine running some other operating system.
> > >
> > > These days even operating systems like Vista have the above 3 security
> > > technologies.
> > >
> >
> > First of all, "bugs" and "viruses" are two different things.
> >
> > Second, OS X does not need third-party "protection". All of the
> > protection is built into the OS!
> >
> > If Vista is so secure, then why does one need to download
> > "virus/spyware protection" when it can simply be built into the OS?
> >
> > -The One
> >
> >
>
> I don't have "virus/spyware protection" and I've been fine before with
> Vista and XP.
>
> Perhaps you mean to say "why do users who install things they
> shouldn't need virus/spyware protection?" which I would argue that the
> OS doesn't matter. I could write a script that asks for rootly
> permission in OS X and start nuking stuff with the promise of prettier
> icons for their desktop or IM client.
>
> If you were to argue for worms and things of the like, then I would
> agree. The only virus I will probably ever catch is some zero-day that
> hits the world and gets in my work network (won't happen at my house
> -- I live alone....)
