OSX not as safe as you think!!!!1!!!1!!!!one!!!!

[Wickers]

Or so says this. . . .

http://www.techworld.com/security/news/index.cfm?newsid=1798


It also seems that Windows is not as bad as we think. . .

:lol:

[Kickaha]

Oh god, not these pinheads again.

[Moogs]

Which? The news source or Secunia? I went to the site of the latter and their pie charts smack of bullshit to me. Some specifics would be nice, as well as evidence of their existence.

[Kickaha]

Secunia is the one that repeatedly this past year kept shouting about these 'horrendous' MacOS X holes that were... um... nothing really. Not a single known exploit of them, they were found and patched before anything happened, but they kept classifying *all* of them as their most severe level.

Oh, and they apparently classify things regarding how they feel about the company, not the technology. Read their stuff on their site, it's just... asinine. "We're bumping this one up to critical because Apple didn't respond to us directly in a manner we thought timely." Seriously. They're just idiots.

[DMBand0026]

Fear and doubt. That's what these guys do. Show me a real problem than I might be concerned. Till than, keep up the good work, idiots :no:

[dviant]

Mac OS X doesn't stand out as particularly more secure than the competition, according to Secunia. Of the 36 advisories issued in 2003-2004, 61 percent could be exploited across the Internet and 32 percent enabled attackers to take over the system. The proportion of critical bugs was also comparable with other software: 33 percent of the OS X vulnerabilities were "highly" or "extremely" critical by Secunia's reckoning, compared with 30 percent for XP Professional and 27 percent for SLES 8 and just 12 percent for Advanced Server 3. OS X had the highest proportion of "extremely critical" bugs at 19 percent.

Such a joke... like how they use percentages to makes OS X look more vulnerable than XP. What a bunch of jackasses. :rolleyes:

[JLL]

From OSNews:

As a general trend in the secunia advisories for Mac0S X
they count even fixes as an advisory. Here is an example:

2004 - 9 Secunia Security Advisories
- Mac OS X Multiple Unspecified Vulnerabilities
- Mac OS X Volume URI Handler Registration Code Execution Vulnerability
- Mac OS X URI Handler Arbitrary Code Execution
- Apple Filing Protocol Insecure Implementation
- Mac OS X Local Denial of Service Vulnerability

Total real issues 5

Fixes counted as advisories for 2004

- Mac OS X Security Update Fixes Multiple Vulnerabilities
- Mac OS X Security Update Fixes Multiple Vulnerabilities
- Mac OS X Security Update Fixes Multiple Vulnerabilities
- Mac OS X Security Update Fixes Multiple Vulnerabilities

Total fixes 4.


However for XP

2004 - 11 Secunia Security Advisories
- Microsoft DirectPlay Packet Validation Denial of Service Vulnerability
- Microsoft Windows "desktop.ini" Arbitrary File Execution Vulnerability
- Microsoft Windows Help and Support Center URL Validation Vulnerability
- Windows Explorer / Internet Explorer Long Share Name Buffer Overflow
- Microsoft Windows 14 Vulnerabilities *****<<<<<<<
- Microsoft Jet Database Engine Buffer Overflow Vulnerability
- Microsoft Windows RPC/DCOM Multiple Vulnerabilities
- Microsoft Windows Enhanced/Windows Metafile Handling Vulnerability
- Microsoft Windows ASN.1 Library Integer Overflow Vulnerabilities
- Windows XP Malicious Folder Automatic Code Execution Vulnerability
- Microsoft Data Access Components Broadcast Reply Buffer Overflow


All real issues 11 in total, it's worse for 2003. How is it that thier advisories have different modus oprendi for different OSes. Here is the clincher, one of the advisories for XP has 14 Vulnerabilities and is counted as one !!!!

[johnq]

My Mac acts really weird, it's like it's permanently on. It says "uptime 84 days"...It never crashes or needs to be shut off. I'm worried. It's annoying too, because when all my PC friends and co-workers are playing with McAfee and Norton goodies, I gotta work. Sucks. And like, these attachments called loveUlongtime.EXE, and index.html.VBS they just don't work. I click and click on the attachment and it just sits there on my desktop. Aren't they like, supposed to do something?

Stupid Macs. Macs suck.

[stoo]

Mac OS X Local Denial of Service Vulnerability

Ooooh, a local DoS? What's that, someone unplugging your mouse and keyboard? :confused: :lol:

[propellerhead]

Ooooh, a local DoS? What's that, someone unplugging your mouse and keyboard? :confused: :lol:


Nah...it's more like when you spray coffee all over your keyboard after laughing too hard at Secunia's claims...

:lol: :D

[ShiggyMiyamoto]

This is bullshit. lol They're stupid. They give some bogus percentage but they don't tell the instances that they happen(ed)... And yeah... There are security updates released.. They're too much.. -_-

[Moogs]

Just sent their PR department a nice, professional dose of "get your head out of your ass", and likewise sent a little notice with links to Apple Legal. You'd think their goal would be to help the OS X community identify real risks, not completely misrepresent things that are not real vulnerabilities....

:|

[DMBand0026]

Just sent their PR department a nice, professional dose of "get your head out of your ass", and likewise sent a little notice with links to Apple Legal. You'd think their goal would be to help the OS X community identify real risks, not completely misrepresent things that are not real vulnerabilities....

:|

I hope that does something. But the pessimist in me says it won't. :\

Idiots don't change like that overnight.

[ShiggyMiyamoto]

Just sent their PR department a nice, professional dose of "get your head out of your ass", and likewise sent a little notice with links to Apple Legal. You'd think their goal would be to help the OS X community identify real risks, not completely misrepresent things that are not real vulnerabilities....

:|

NICE! lol Please let us know what they say in response.

[Moogs]

Will do....

[JohnHenry]

The title of this thread is priceless.

[Wickers]

I try. ;)