Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by Limp_Brisket, Jun 21, 2008.
interesting stuff: http://rixstep.com/1/20080620,00.shtml
mac: it just works
Ogre: He just doesn't work. And he resents it.
peyomp: sackride anything that is white, starts with a lowercase `i`, and doesn't come from microsoft.
You spend a significant amount of time dissing macs because you feel bad about your discount PC and your shit OS. Its kind of pathetic. If anyone has a cock up their ass about something, its you and PCs. Jesus Christ.
well this thread turned out productive...
Privilege escalation will always be a vulnerability. Even if you ask the user for permission using a secure dialog box that no app (not even system services) can interfere with, how do you know the user is trustworthy and informed? You don't. Even the Army's Perfectly Secure Kernel, which asks the user if it's okay to run every single operation, can't get around that problem.
One thing that does bug me, though, is when I install something like iTunes and it creates a bunch of services running under the LocalSystem account without asking me, or at the very least, telling me that it's going to do that. Maybe I don't own an iPod, so maybe I don't need the iPodService and the iTunesHelper ticking away in the background with permissions higher than my own.
EDIT: Can we get a mod with a pair of pruners up in this piece?
Is anybody going to actually make a case for Apple?
Because I would feel violated to be using their OS after reading what the security experts always say about it, and especially their attitude.
Seems like Apple were good to copy security, but that's as far as they go.
I think the most interesting part is that it won't work on 10.4, but will work on 10.5.
i don't know. anything that i've read by "security experts" about OSX was generally bullshit by people who favored Microsoft. i remember seeing some list that said OSX is less secure because they have a higher # of security bugs listed on some site. but, when you actually look at them, the bulk of the bugs were either 3rd party or were just place holder pages in case something came up. so, this idea of counting the number of issues was a bullshit way of saying which was more/less secure.
this is obviously an issue, though.
That's simple reciprocity. For years people have been saying Windows was a shitty server OS, and they've been full of shit, imo. Windows has been a GREAT server OS. The people saying it wasn't were basing it on a list of hotfixes and other bullshit. Fuck that. I ran Windows NT/2000/2003 servers for many years without any problems. In fact, my Linux boxes have consistently given me more grief.
I'm not saying Linux is bad. I'm simply saying that Windows isn't.
Nope. The mac sackriders will say that anyone calling OS X insecure is simply full of shit, but they won't back it up with anything scientific... The most I've heard is that they don't run AV and don't have spyware. The truth is that there ARE viruses and spyware for the mac, but it's not common. People who write viruses/spyware want exposure to the maximum potential of people -- and you simply don't write for the mac when you have those priorities
You can make a pretty good allegory to the tree that falls in the woods but nobody hears it -- if there's a hole in the OS and nobody exploits it, is it really a vulnerability? Thinking along that line, Windows is only insecure for the span of time between a hole being found and a patch being distributed. So all in all, yeah, it's pretty good as far as security; probably its biggest failing was that it used to not come with all the security options turned on, but they learned that lesson with Windows Server 2003.
OS X is a great desktop OS, but I wouldn't trust it to host services on they internet unless I gutted the shit out of it. And even then - why? There's Linux/Solaris for that, which are better at that.
For what it does - OS X is the most trouble free OS. Ask my spam free mother. But its no server.
But thank you Mr. Ogre for bringing gay sex metaphors to this thread. You aren't actually capable of making two consistent posts without invoking cock-in-ass imagery, are you?
Oh shit, I forgot that email spam was a function of the desktop... oh wait... it's NOT.
maybe i did, but I don't remember it.... when did I put my cock in your ass?
What do you think sackride means, you bafoon? Like you don't get off on the image of a cock balls deep in someone's ass the 112 times each day you say that?
Post 4 comes before post 5, last time I checked.
And post 3 comes before post comes before post 4, last time I checked.
match point, and GAME.
to be honest, I don't really associate it with homosexuality. I mean if that's what does it for you, then I won't judge... just saying it's not what immediately pops into my mind.
while you guys are busy being gay, the rest of you might find this article interesting. apparently there's a trojan going around file-sharing networks that takes advantage of this exploit.
I believe you were the first to actually use the terms ass and cock, sir.
What imagery is sackrider supposed to invoke, exactly, if not a cock in an ass balls deep?