Wow. I didn't know malware writers exploited security holes in Intel's CPUs. Here I thought they exploited software. Silly me.With new Macs running the same processor that powers Windows-based machines, far more people will know how to exploit weaknesses in Apple machines than in the past, when they ran on the PowerPC chips made by IBM Corp. and Motorola Corp. spinoff Freescale Semiconductor Inc.
I suppose they were simply implying that Intel Macs may increase Apple's popularity, thus making it a more likely target for malware writers, rather than what you suggest above.Mikuro said:I didn't know malware writers exploited security holes in Intel's CPUs. Here I thought they exploited software. Silly me.
Don't forget that the Intel architecture's call stack makes it much easier to perform a buffer overflow attack than the PPC architecture, so there is some truth in that statement.Mikuro said:And then there's this:Wow. I didn't know malware writers exploited security holes in Intel's CPUs. Here I thought they exploited software. Silly me.
No, you are not mistaken. The FUD crowd has not been able to come up with a new fake MacOS X virus, so they revive an old fake virus. It is troubling that the people over at MacRumors.com are proud of themselves because one of its members had his name in the paper.Mikuro said:....oh. So this is the same thing we've already discussed exhaustively then?
And, er, didn't Apple patch that already? I think it's no longer possible to make a script that will be auto-executed by Safari as the article claims. (Of course, not everyone has the latest security updates installed, but still.) Am I mistaken?
With a bit of common sense, they'd realise that nothing is perfect and therefore complete immunity is impossible.Daines, however, was using a Mac -- an Apple Computer Inc. machine often touted as being immune to such risks.