# Mac under attack...



## mata hari (Mar 12, 2005)

' was wondering... 
There is an obvious democratization of mac computers (in numbers of users)... especialy with their beautiful and popular laptops and now with the attractive mini mac. 
But as the increase of mac users, may we expect an increase of virus, troyan and so on...? making the anti-virus market for mac more and more tempting... 

will mac be "soon" attack by numerous evil progs as for pc's... 
what you fellows think...?


----------



## padishahemperor (Mar 12, 2005)

I think Mac is a UNIX variety and attacks on UNIX machines is lower, some say Windows having a larger share of the market means it is the major target of attacks, some however are just idiologically opposed to the dominance of Microsoft and attack them on principle, usually from other UNIX machines.

Nothing is immune to attack though.


----------



## Qion (Mar 12, 2005)

I have the same worries- As the Mac population grows, the more of a target it will be to the people that make virus's. I think that the number of virus's on the Mac will never grow to the amount of virus's on the PC, because we all know that Windows has many more opportunities in it's system to send a virus through than OS X does. If this does become a problem, however, I trust that Apple will sort it out, making software or system updates that automatically protect us from all the crap thats out there.


----------



## Gig' (Mar 12, 2005)

HI 

don't think so, the apple market share will remain small for quite some time Unless Windoze users throw out their "intel inside idiot outside" mean machines in a very large scale which I doubt.   

I feel safe with OS X and not worried this should change 
 ::angel::


----------



## padishahemperor (Mar 12, 2005)

Gig' said:
			
		

> HI
> 
> don't think so, the apple market share will remain small for quite some time Unless Windoze users throw out their "intel inside idiot outside" mean machines in a very large scale which I doubt.
> 
> ...



I agree.  Marley fan eh?  Macs make I and I feel irie.... ;-)


----------



## Gig' (Mar 12, 2005)

Yup padishaemperor You got it just right ;-)


----------



## mata hari (Mar 12, 2005)

well...
i appreciate your optimism, but seeing all around me more and more poeple geting mac... shops having larger and larger room for mac products... i think to myself... money talks...

you may be right, this might not happen tomorrow... but how much time left, surely one day the mac security market will be big enough for private firms to make money, a lot of money. 

But it's good and encouraging to see such optimism.
thanx,
any further opinion?


----------



## padishahemperor (Mar 12, 2005)

I see about as much chance of the Mac becoming a major target of attacks as I do BSD, Linux, Solaris or HP/UX.


----------



## Convert (Mar 12, 2005)

Yes, as the Macintosh grows, it will be more of a target. But Mac OS X is more stable, plus, it's Apple. They're good at updates, better than MS IMO.


----------



## chornbe (Mar 12, 2005)

Any 'attacks' to a Mac machine will be limited to the user who is logged on at the time of attack. Unix security is way more sandboxed than Windows. It's hard to whack a Unix system... of any flavor... if you're using a standard user account. If you're running around always logged on as a sysadmin or as *gasp* root, well, then... I guess you kinda get what's coming.


----------



## mbveau (Mar 12, 2005)

I would tend to agree with padishahemperor; those people who make and distribute viruses are users of Linux and Unix systems, and they are specifically targeting Windows because they don't like it. Apple, and their OS, have the respect of these people, and because of this, will be free for the most part from attacks. Then there's the fact that Apple doesn't use that stupid "security by obscurity" concept that seems to hold sway at Microsoft. We're safe, I think.


----------



## Viro (Mar 13, 2005)

mbveau said:
			
		

> I would tend to agree with padishahemperor; those people who make and distribute viruses are users of Linux and Unix systems, and they are specifically targeting Windows because they don't like it. Apple, and their OS, have the respect of these people, and because of this, will be free for the most part from attacks. Then there's the fact that Apple doesn't use that stupid "security by obscurity" concept that seems to hold sway at Microsoft. We're safe, I think.



Gotta love the FUD. Do you have any numbers or solid proof that Windows virus writers are Linux and Unix users?

Most Windows viruses are use some form of VBScript. Thanks to the great integration with the OS and VBScripts ease of use, that means many people can start writing viruses. Popular viruses like Melissa and ILoveYou are all written in VBScript. Since nothing apart from Windows has VBScript, I doubt *nix users were responsible. 

Apple and their OS does *not* have the respect of the open sourced community. Contrary to what you think, many feel Apple to be worse than MS when it comes to monopolistic practices. Linux people also take Linus Trovald's stance on the BSD/Mach microkernel (which OS X uses) and what they say is not complimentary in the least. Whether their arguments are true, isn't important. Fact is, that is the impression the open sourced Linux people have of Apple. Envy of Apple's success, I guess.

That said, Apple will still have next to no viruses for the Mac platform. It uses the Unix security model, with access rights, and not every file is executable. A file can't just execute and write to places it's not allowed to. On Windows, you could easily write a program that deletes everything in c:\Windows\System32 (some files won't be deleted because they are in use. Most others will).  On Unix systems, good luck trying to do a similar thing to /usr. 

As chornbe has said, Macs aren't invulnerable. If you run as root all the time, you're asking for trouble.


----------



## chornbe (Mar 13, 2005)

Viro,

You make some excellent points. While I'm generally a fan of some of the *products* that come out of the open source movement (Linux is trez sweet for being free, Python is just fantastic, the Gimp, etc), I do not necessarily believe that the open source universe is the savior of computers and software everywhere. For the most part, open source products tend to be a generation.. in most cases, several generations... behind commercial software in polish, usability and "nice-ness".

Take the Windows GUI, Apple GUI and... oh... pretty much *any* free distro of *nux. I would consider it a pointless "debate" for anyone to suggest that anything from the free-world's X-11 offerings are "better" (meaning: more accpeted, user friendly and polished) than what Redmond and Cupertino offer. They simply aren't. 

In terms of "hey, this works nice": Apple > Windows > free X11. 
In terms of commercial acceptance: Windows > Apple > free X11.

The fight between Apple and Microsoft for "who has the better GUI?"... That's is simply a battle of money and marketing at this point. But the free X11 world simply isn't a contender.

Let me give you another real-world example that I recently came across.

My company, for reasons that are as yet unfathomable to me, develop all their enterprise wide systems in Perl with the occasional Java piece over a Sybase back end. They're a Sun shop. My team and I are a small, agile, hard-hitting team of quick-implementation, types. By career choices and timing, most of us are Microsoft based programmers; my focus being C# for over 3 years now. (_I've been there 6 years and still can't figure out why they hired me... Anyone hiring?  _)

I wrote a bunch of standardized, soap-based web services for an up and coming set of functionality that my team supports. Everyone was consuming it just fine... Except Perl callers. You see, there's a bug in Perl where they hard coded the names of XML namespaces in the Soap::Lite package. So, Perl is capable of consuming only a very limited subset of all the soap offerings out there and nearly nothing that microsoft's tools create. The Perl gangs all suggest you mangle your WSDL to "fix" the name spaces that the Microsoft tool kits create, even tho' *every* other Soap client out there works fine. Declarative name spaces are, after all, a known XML standard and *should* be universally implemented.

I say, "fix perl". The retort? you'll love this... I hear it all the time...

"It's open source. You can fix it if you want."

(sigh)


----------



## mbveau (Mar 13, 2005)

Viro; touche, I'll do my research next time. What's a FUD?


----------



## padishahemperor (Mar 13, 2005)

fear, uncertainty, doubt


----------



## mbveau (Mar 13, 2005)

aah, thanks.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Mar 13, 2005)

theres a competition run every year, with a prize stake of $13,000 for anyone who can hack into the MacOSX kernal. it's never been won yet.... 

macOS is built solid, and built secure - there arent any virus' yet for MacOS x.  there;s a couple of hundred for <8.5-9.2 but thats it.  at the moment all we can do it pass virus's on.


----------



## Viro (Mar 14, 2005)

chornbe said:
			
		

> Take the Windows GUI, Apple GUI and... oh... pretty much *any* free distro of *nux. I would consider it a pointless "debate" for anyone to suggest that anything from the free-world's X-11 offerings are "better" (meaning: more accpeted, user friendly and polished) than what Redmond and Cupertino offer. They simply aren't.
> 
> In terms of "hey, this works nice": Apple > Windows > free X11.
> In terms of commercial acceptance: Windows > Apple > free X11.
> ...



I think this used to be the case. Right now, GNOME is IMHO a very very viable competitor to the OS X interface. It's clean, intuitive and just very well integrated. Just like the OS X. Which is probably why distros using GNOME are making inroads into corporations. It's nicer than Windows, cheaper to maintain than OS X and runs on existing machines. I have to say though, anything prior to GNOME 2.8 really sucked in my eyes, so if you tried GNOME before 2.8 was released, give it a try again. You may like what you see. I like it so much that it's making me doubt the upgrade to Tiger. Honestly, no kidding .

All the other free environments like KDE are ... a usability nightmare in my book. KDE is overly complex (look  at that control panel...), and the rest just aren't as fully fledged as OS X, Windows or GNOME.


----------



## Viro (Mar 14, 2005)

mbveau said:
			
		

> Viro; touche, I'll do my research next time. What's a FUD?



After reading my previous post, it sounded a touch aggressive. Sorry about that. Blame it on me just waking up .


----------



## chornbe (Mar 14, 2005)

Viro said:
			
		

> I think this used to be the case. Right now, GNOME is IMHO a very very viable competitor to the OS X interface. It's clean, intuitive and just very well integrated. Just like the OS X. Which is probably why distros using GNOME are making inroads into corporations. It's nicer than Windows, cheaper to maintain than OS X and runs on existing machines. I have to say though, anything prior to GNOME 2.8 really sucked in my eyes, so if you tried GNOME before 2.8 was released, give it a try again. You may like what you see. I like it so much that it's making me doubt the upgrade to Tiger. Honestly, no kidding .
> 
> All the other free environments like KDE are ... a usability nightmare in my book. KDE is overly complex (look  at that control panel...), and the rest just aren't as fully fledged as OS X, Windows or GNOME.



*nods* you make a good point. I honestly have no idea what version of Gnome I'm using on my Fedora box. I should check that out. 

But I still think that Apple and Windows just has a more polished look than most things X11. 

And, less pure-GUI in nature, they have way better look&feel and end-user-peripheral support, too. I have no doubt that in a corporate environment where you have tight controls and (usually) a pretty militaristic approach to systems management, Linux could certainly flourish. It's still years and years away from being viable in the home market, tho'. The time is *now* for Apple to make their move. I don't think they could achieve #1 (yet, if [sadly] ever), but they could gain #2 by a HUGE margin over all other competitors for all time if they act now, act smart and act decisively.

Just as a good, commercially backed and well-funded Linux distro could. 

I believe things like XP sp2, too many windows version, Media Center pricing and licensing, the stupid registration model, etc., has Redmond in probably the most vulnerable position they've ever been in.

I point this out being a 15+ year user of Microsoft products, a MS-oriented developer and general non-hater of Redmond.

$.02


----------



## texanpenguin (Mar 14, 2005)

GNOME is fine for people who know what they're looking for. The problem is, it just plain doesn't scale well. At all.

Oh and (relative to Aqua and even XP) it looks pretty bad.

There is just such a horrid sense of hiding options away in contextual menus that runs rife through every WM I've ever used. I assume that comes from the developers being far more comfortable with things being quick.



Let me present an example:

At Uni, my design lecturer uses a Mac. You know how if you have a multi-session CD/DVD it appears as multiple discs on the desktop upon mounting it? Well he has a DVD-R which he's been using (obviously) for YONKS. It has (guessing here) about twenty sessions. When he's finished with what he's doing, he drags EVERY SINGLE ONE to the trash. He doesn't select them all (with the mouse, the keyboard, whatever); he drags EACH and EVERY one to the trash.

When he's got Photoshop open and wants to get to Illustrator, he doesn't head for the Dock three centimetres away from his mouse; no he goes to the Apple menu, goes to Recent Items, and selects it there.

When he wants to switch between applications, he doesn't Cmd+Tab or Exposé his windows; he minimises all the ones in the way.


And he's perfectly happy with the way he does things. If you put an idiot like that in front of a Linux terminal (speaking mainly about KDE here, GNOME is much better IMO, but still the same point), he'd be dumbfounded.

I think all those projects need to gather donations and employ a UI expert to rewrite their way of doing things.

Oh, and every version of KDE I've ever used crashes at least twice a session (sometimes to the point of having to reinstall from the image on the Uni server).


It's still not ready for the big time.



I think for OS X to be the only really usable alternative to Windows and also to have ZERO viruses; well it's the best machine for ninety percent of people.


----------



## nixgeek (Mar 14, 2005)

I think part of the problem can be best shown here in this post on OSNews.

http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=9953

This one speaks specifically about KDE, but Gnome devs also seem to think in such manners.  Personally, I don't agree with these developer notions, but then again, I'm not a developer.

However, you can't completely rule out the user, and this is where the problem lies.  Windows and OS X cater to the user (albeit in their own ways).  As much as I love Gnome, it does have its issues that drive me nuts.  KDE has lots of things Gnome doesn't, but as mentioned before it's a nightmare for configuration as well as usability.

I haven't had a chance to play with Gnome 2.10 yet.  Hopefully I will once it shows up on the Debian repositories.  And i'm also hoping KDE 3.4 and the upcoming 4.0 will be a major improvement (particularly 4.0) over the current KDE environment.


----------



## padishahemperor (Mar 14, 2005)

I'm a Linux/Solaris user, I used to really like SUSE's implementation of KDE but after the Novell aquisition.. well, we parted ways and I used Sun's Java Desktop system - gave me a bit of Sun and SUSE as it's derived from it. More recently I've been using Solaris 10 which uses JDS for it's desktop and Ubuntu so I've been using quite nice implementations of GNOME (JDS is a GNOME desktop in case you don't know but with Sun's branding) and I really prefer it. Oddly, SUSE's implementation of GNOME seemed very spartan, I always reverted to KDE.  But the more highly polished GNOME desktops really show how nice it can be.  I rarely had crashes under KDE except when using non-SUSE versions by the way.  Compared to XP - and I'm no Windows fan to be honest, I much prefer a nicely finished GNOME. I'm really pleased Sun are using it now over CDE. But Aqua is light years ahead of it or any desktop for UNIX or Windows.

texanpenguin's points did make me think though that his design lecturer is just using his Mac the way he's probably been doing it since way before Mac OS X and is just what is inuitive for him, again another testament to the way OS X is so good, there are many ways to do the same thing - most of them are just what comes naturally.

GNOME is great, I think it's superior in a polished form to Windows' Luna interface, maybe that's because I am more comfortable in any UNIX compared to Windows, but Aqua feels much nicer, looks nicer and is ahead of the crowd.  I believe this is part of what I'm buying into with my new Mac, nice hardware and tightly tied in software driven by a gorgeous interface that leaves all the others standing.  IMHO YMMV.


----------



## Viro (Mar 14, 2005)

nixgeek said:
			
		

> I think part of the problem can be best shown here in this post on OSNews.
> 
> http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=9953
> 
> ...



I know that article on OSNews. After reading it, I've pretty much decided to avoid that site altogether. Eugenia is showing how hypocritical she is by launching such attacks on the OSS community. Just look at the profile on her page. http://www.osnews.com/editor.php?editors_id=1. I'll quote the relevant bits. _ I do OSNews for pure fun (it is *just* a hobby for me in order to fill up my free time), so if you have a problem with my spelling and grammar either:
*a)* do not come back (spare us and save your time too) *b)* send me a proofread version of the article in question.
Whining about something I can't radically improve overnight, is not an option._

See the hypocrisy? She does things for a hobby and doesn't like it when people tell her how to run her site. Yet here she is, whining and creating a ruckus when developers who work as a hobby deny her requests.

Just read the comments (ignore the inflammatory ones) and you'll see that all of the quotes were taken out of context. The GNOME developers have a very solid explanation for disagreeing with Eugenia, before she goes on her 'crusade' that OSS developers don't care about users. Same for the KDE devs.

The problem with these projects is that theyre hobbies. Would you be happy if someone told you how to collect stamps? Or to take one very good illustration from the discussions on OSNews, would you tell Jimi Hendrix how to play? Better yet, would Jimi Hendrix care what you thought about his music?

The answer is a big resounding no. These aren't commercial projects, and as such you can't place the same demands on them. The point the KDE developer was saying can be summed up as follows:

KDE + no developers + users = stagnant KDE.
KDE + developers + no users = KDE still progresses.

Let's not forget that the developers themselves are users. They develop to scracth an itch. Unless you're actually hiring them to code for you, they are doing it out of their own free will and users have no right to whine about the project and *expect* the developer to do something. 

*Paying* users are important to commercial companies. Without these users, such companies won't exist. With open sourced projects, users don't pay anything. Users are pretty much inconsequential in the big scheme of things since they contribute little and OSS developers are more keen on making a product *they* like. If it happens to scratch your itch, then lucky you. 

That said, OSS developers are some of the nicest people around. They've written great software in their spare time, given it for free, and even provided the source code. If you don't like the way they handle their project, you can always go support commercial software. It may sound harsh to say it, but it's the truth.

Sorry for the long OT rant . Needed to get that off my chest and Eugenia has been making my blood boil lately.


----------



## padishahemperor (Mar 14, 2005)

Maybe I'm just oversimplifying here, I trust Open Source projects to make some really good things, and companies that want to make a profit from it to add the appropriate spit-n-polish to make it worth the money they want to charge. If I want a feature on a Sun supplied desktop, I'd go to them, not the GNOME developers.  All the arguements are silly.


----------



## chornbe (Mar 14, 2005)

Viro, you forgot to mention she's really, really ugly.


----------



## nixgeek (Mar 14, 2005)

padishahemperor said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm just oversimplifying here, I trust Open Source projects to make some really good things, and companies that want to make a profit from it to add the appropriate spit-n-polish to make it worth the money they want to charge. If I want a feature on a Sun supplied desktop, I'd go to them, not the GNOME developers.  All the arguements are silly.



This is true.  Look at how all the commercial distributions configure their GNOME/KDE desktops to their tastes.  Some do a good job of it, others don't.

Now if you are talking Slackware, everything is vanilla on that distro, which I tend to like.  But Slack users, while not microscopic, aren't as large as those using Fedora/RHEL, Mandrake, or SuSE.  Then again, if you are comfortable with Slackware, you probably know what you're doing. 

So Viro, I guess I am going to agree with you.  It's true.  Incidentally, Eugenia posted an explanation of what she meant by her other article (which I didn't read, but I kind of get the feeling what she was criticized for).  Whatever.  At least the FOSS desktop experience is better than it was before the millenium.


----------



## Viro (Mar 14, 2005)

chornbe said:
			
		

> Viro, you forgot to mention she's really, really ugly.



Oooh... let's not resort to _ad hominem_ attacks. 

Open source isn't perfect. Most people are doing it just for fun. If you want a serious platform where all your complaints are taken seriously, buy commercial software. The company is obliged to listen to you.

But the thing that really annoys me is the fact that the GNOME devs removed a menu editor from GNOME 2.10. It's like.... what were they thinking off?!?! But they've said a new editor is slated for 2.12, so all isn't lost.


----------



## padishahemperor (Mar 14, 2005)

Viro said:
			
		

> If you want a serious platform where all your complaints are taken seriously, buy commercial software.



I would not necessarily agree with that I'd consider many open source projects to be serious and Linux for example to be as serious a platform as any, but there is a two way thing when it comes to using this sort of thing, the developers should be receptive to good mannered user requests and users should be willing to try and learn and be constructive in their criticisms/complaints.

But it does not always work, sometimes because of 'silly users' and sometimes because of '****ly retentive developers', sometimes because of a bit of both.

I'm a Linux handheld user, there is an opensource Linux environment called OpenEmbedded, but I refuse to use it because the attitude of the developers is to either ignore you as a user, make you feel stupid or say 'if you dont like it, go fix it'.  I guess this is a case of where the developers are more important than the users.

I generally think open source is a good thing and has done wonders to the UNIX world and when supported by major players like Sun for example, it becomes a serious platform to be respected.


----------



## mata hari (Mar 16, 2005)

reading you debating which system's the best... is rasuring, no doubt Osx's a good, stable and safe interface, still my concerns were more about mathematics than technicals exploits or bounderies, or artistics canons.

No mean to ruin any party just appears to me, that simply with the increase of mac users, a propotional increase of economic interests for the potential market. From private firms or from apple itself. Still i`m glad to read such enthusiasm and trusts in apples futur, beeing myself not a very old mac user.




			
				texanpenguin said:
			
		

> And he's perfectly happy with the way he does things. If you put an idiot like that in front of a Linux terminal (speaking mainly about KDE here, GNOME is much better IMO, but still the same point), he'd be dumbfounded.


 ::ha::  ::ha::  ::ha::


----------



## mata hari (Mar 26, 2005)

hey i'm sorry fellows if i broke a link here...
....just wanted to know what's your feeling about the increase of mac users and a possible increase of virus, thereby, of mac anti-virus...

i know no one has "the" answer for it is about projection... but just wanted to hear various opinions, what you guys imagine about that... in a near future...   

keep it smiling.

Regards.


----------



## HomunQlus (Mar 26, 2005)

To shortly get back on topic, here's my opinion.

All Mac OS X Versions since release of 10.0 are Unix based. This Unix we're talking about is Darwin with a Mach Kernel. For what I've read and learned since I have discovered the Open Source scene seven years ago is, that Unix is firstly older and therefore "more experienced" than any other operating system since it was one of the first to ever appear, secondly the security model is far more mature and better than in its competitors (except Linux). As said before, you can run anything as anyone on Windows that resides in the system32 folder, or Program Files folder, but good luck doing the same on Unix with something in /usr or may it be /sbin. Not everything can be executed as every user. For instance, I'm always logged on as normal user, and I have to enter my Admin password when I have to do some administrative tasks. Another important point is, that the Darwin Kernel, on which OS X is based on, is freely available in its full source. So when a security hole is discovered, it can be fixed quickly. But also, as said before, no system is perfect. However, OS X is one of the most secure systems around besides Solaris and BSD and stuff.

So with all that said, I think it is safe to assume that it is a very heavy and demanding enterprise to get a virus running under OS X. Even with the rising popularity, the security model will still be the same. So I think it is also very safe to assume that it will take some more years and a real geek, to get one single virus running under OS X (or OS 11 until then), if ever. But since it is Unix, and Apple, and OS X, I think the geeks and hackers out there have too much respect for the system to attack or destroy it.

Happy Easter to all of you


----------



## Viro (Mar 27, 2005)

As we've said near the start of the thread, a Mac virus in the wild is very very unlikely. Irrespective of however many mac users there will be.

The Mac Mail app doesn't automatically execute programs that it receives as an attachment.

There are file permissions so not just anybody can write to /usr/lib and remove all your system libraries.

That said, trojans could very easily be written. Trojans are just programs that pretend to do a task, but behind your back, they are actually doing something else. Just like the original Trojan Horse, unless you know what programs are trojans, there is nothing that can be done.


----------



## symphonix (Mar 27, 2005)

So far it has been over ten years since the last Macintosh virus, leaving aside a couple of quickly-patched "Proof of Concept" viruses that only ever existed in the lab. That said, its only a matter of time before some of the spammers and virus writers start to focus their attention on the Mac - its simply becoming too much of a target. Even if Macs represent only 3% of computers on the Net, that 3% is:

* More likely to be hooked up to a high speed connection. With PC users, many will be using dialup. With the higher initial cost of a Mac, its more likely that Mac owners will have the disposable income for high-speed connections.
* More likely to have wireless or bluetooth connectivity, which is the next frontier that spammers will want to explore.
* Will have a wider range of standard software in place, including all the Unix based compression and encryption tools. This might mean that virus writers have more choices on how they can package their code.
* Have more built-in services that can be activated and modified without restart. Theoretically, a virus with root access on a Mac could activate AFP, Windows file sharing, FTP, SSH, Telnet, WWW or a Java servlet. All of these things might or might not work on a Windows or Unix box depending on if they're installed.

That said, there are a number of reasons why a Mac is clearly more secure than most of the alternatives.
* Mass mailer worms, the main scourge of the PC world, are not going to work, as its not possible to execute programs from an email. There are "However"s on this, but the developers are keeping a close eye on this point.
* Remote Procedure Call network worms, the type which has caused a fair bit of damage in recent times (remember Blaster and the New York City blackout?) are not going to be a factor on a Mac, as there isn't an RPC system as such.
* Another common Windows method for spreading worms/viruses is buffer overflows. This has turned up from time to time on the Mac - I think there have been about 3 buffer overflow patches since 10.2, compared to about 60 for Windows. However, even this wouldn't get as far, as the executed code would still have only user priveleges, and would still trigger the "This application has not been run before ..." warning dialog. It would require the user to enter an admin password to be able to do any real damage. In this way it differs from Windows a fair bit.
* Another common way for network worms to spread is through weak network passwords. Its hard to see how this could affect a Mac, as any of the services the worm could spread through are switched off by default. For instance, an SSH/MacOSX worm might be able to affect only 2% of Macs, while a Windows file sharing one would affect around 5-10%. Even so, I still think a password complexity rule needs to be introduced when creating user accounts simply to prevent this sort of thing becoming a weak link in the future.
* Trojans are the weakest link at the moment. Any app that could convince a user to enter their admin password and willingly, deliberately run the app could do/install/change just about _anything_. Hence a careful watch needs to be kept especially on suspect software like P2P, hacking and copy-protection breaking apps, as any of these could include harmful code.


----------



## Viro (Mar 28, 2005)

Excellent post symphonix. Glad you had the patience to go into all that.


----------



## mata hari (Mar 31, 2005)

Viro said:
			
		

> Excellent post symphonix. Glad you had the patience to go into all that.


me too, as for the other posters... thanx. i was thinking that i may have seem too rude last posts or that the demand was... unvaluable. Thanx for these really interesting and generous replies... 
in such light i might feel quite more reassure and trustfull the decade coming... 


thanx.


----------

