Every company I've worked allows exactly that. Or, instead of laptops, they actually take old PCs, rebuild them for home use, and sell them at grossly discounted rates to employees, such as only 100-200 dollars depending upon what hardware you get. I guess my evidence is as strong as yours, annecdotal. Some companies might say not to install other software on it, but that doesn't prevent people from putting winamp, call of duty, or other programs they like on there. Regardless, both our stories come to the same ending, the vase majority of kids don't have macs at home. Which makes sense when the numbers of computers in general show that the vast majority of users don't have macs.

Quote

gslusher wrote:

Quote

Anonymous wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:
Maybe the hackers and script kiddies simply can't afford to buy a Mac?

Kids exploring computers tend not to purchase them, they use what their parents have, which is often a computer for/from work, which is almost never a Mac.

Any evidence for that statement? I teach middle-school and high-school age kids in 4-H. Most of them have computers at home. None are for/from their parents' work. Most are cheap PC desktops, though. I don't know of a company that supplies laptops to its employees AND allows them to install games and the like, which kids would use.

The young people I've known who are into messing around with computers have all bought or, more often, built their own. Only one used Macs.

I really love it when trolls come here with specious arguments like "just because the virus checker says you don't have a virus doesn't mean you aren't infected."
What a load of BS. It is right up there with "when did you stop beating your wife?"

If you don't like the way Apple approaches security then here's a hint for you.....don't buy it. But don't come here with your BS trying to scare people with "Their security model is immature." You have provided absolutely NO proof that their OS has succumbed to attacks and that machines are being pwned. MOAB was a fart in the wind. It came no where near meeting the promises they made (despite what Bill Gates said in his on camera rant about Macs being broken into every day, which was a complete and utter lie).

Nobody, despite what you trolls keep claiming, has said that OSX is perfect or completely bullet-proof. It isn't. There are holes in it, like any piece of software written by man. But vulnerabilities and exploits are two completely different things. MOAB, for all their effort, found pathetically few vulnerabilities in the OS proper. And they have been patched (with no acknowledgement by the MOAB team, even though they were credited with some of the finds). And even the security firms acknowledge that there are very few (practically no) exploits available and of those that are, they are in the lab and not in the wild. So to come here and say "you have no way of knowing if your machine has been exploited or not" is FUD in its purest form.

Mac OSX isn't the most secure to date. Surely that would fall to FreeBSD or some other Unix that's been around much, much longer.

I love those people who say the Mac isn't a big enough target for virus writers.

Funny, someone just released a virus for iPodLinux. There are, like, 200 people in the WORLD running Linux on their iPod?

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
I love those people who say the Mac isn't a big enough target for virus writers.

Funny, someone just released a virus for iPodLinux. There are, like, 200 people in the WORLD running Linux on their iPod?

In an earlier discussion, JimB12 said that the iPodLinux user group has 23,000 members. Still, that is 0.023% (1 in 4,300) of the iPods sold. Some may have Linux on more than one iPod, some iPods have been discarded, and some with Linux on their iPods are not in the user groupd, but the number is still probably well under 0.1%--1/1000, so your point is well-taken, regardless.

just a quick point, back in the day, when Apple had a considerably higher market share than they do now (comparable to microsoft's now), how many viruses and exploits were there? 60? 70?

Get my point?

Actually 26. Total. Ever. Not counting Microsoft Office macro viruses (of which there were 553, and they didn't appear until 1996).

In 1990, there were 142 PC viruses. In 1992, there were 1161 PC viruses. In 1995 there were 5626.

What is your point?

Actually, they didn't. It was never released and didn't carry a malicious payload because it was done by security researchers exploring the system. Additionally, the official site for iPod linux has over 20,000 members, that's just people active enough to register. That's okay, you were only off by the facts and a factor of at least 100.

Quote

Guest wrote:
I love those people who say the Mac isn't a big enough target for virus writers.

Funny, someone just released a virus for iPodLinux. There are, like, 200 people in the WORLD running Linux on their iPod?

Um, don't need to offer proof, it's just facts. Like how a couple months ago it only took 6 hours from posting the challenge to hack for a webserver running Mac OS X. And, there is a difference between a "security model" being immature and "security research" being young. Surely however, everyone must agree that very basis of Mac OS X (the integration of Mach & BSD kernels) is very new in relative comparison. For those of you who don't like the facts, just stop caring about the people who point out the truth of the situation.

PS - if you still think that a virus report saying no infections is the same as being virus free, well, see the previous point about not liking facts.

Quote

Guest wrote:
I really love it when trolls come here with specious arguments like "just because the virus checker says you don't have a virus doesn't mean you aren't infected."
What a load of BS. It is right up there with "when did you stop beating your wife?"

If you don't like the way Apple approaches security then here's a hint for you.....don't buy it. But don't come here with your BS trying to scare people with "Their security model is immature." You have provided absolutely NO proof that their OS has succumbed to attacks and that machines are being pwned. MOAB was a fart in the wind. It came no where near meeting the promises they made (despite what Bill Gates said in his on camera rant about Macs being broken into every day, which was a complete and utter lie).

Nobody, despite what you trolls keep claiming, has said that OSX is perfect or completely bullet-proof. It isn't. There are holes in it, like any piece of software written by man. But vulnerabilities and exploits are two completely different things. MOAB, for all their effort, found pathetically few vulnerabilities in the OS proper. And they have been patched (with no acknowledgement by the MOAB team, even though they were credited with some of the finds). And even the security firms acknowledge that there are very few (practically no) exploits available and of those that are, they are in the lab and not in the wild. So to come here and say "you have no way of knowing if your machine has been exploited or not" is FUD in its purest form.

Um, except the point is wrong. There was no virus released on the iPod. It was never released. And, well, let's assume that this point is valid, then there are several viruses that have been released for OS X. Can't have it both ways guys. The different there is that some of the Mac OS X viruses have been proven to have affected the networks and machines of real users.

Quote

gslusher wrote:

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
I love those people who say the Mac isn't a big enough target for virus writers.

Funny, someone just released a virus for iPodLinux. There are, like, 200 people in the WORLD running Linux on their iPod?

In an earlier discussion, JimB12 said that the iPodLinux user group has 23,000 members. Still, that is 0.023% (1 in 4,300) of the iPods sold. Some may have Linux on more than one iPod, some iPods have been discarded, and some with Linux on their iPods are not in the user groupd, but the number is still probably well under 0.1%--1/1000, so your point is well-taken, regardless.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Um, don't need to offer proof, it's just facts. Like how a couple months ago it only took 6 hours from posting the challenge to hack for a webserver running Mac OS X. And, there is a difference between a "security model" being immature and "security research" being young. Surely however, everyone must agree that very basis of Mac OS X (the integration of Mach & BSD kernels) is very new in relative comparison. For those of you who don't like the facts, just stop caring about the people who point out the truth of the situation.

PS - if you still think that a virus report saying no infections is the same as being virus free, well, see the previous point about not liking facts.

Oh bollocks. If you cared about the truth, you would have investigated your claim about the supposed break-in of a webserver. You may have even read through all the posts up to now. You may have done, but you didn't take any notice. Have a look at this. That break-in wasn't a couple of months ago - it was over a year ago. And it was an artificial situation, where the security of the webserver was severely compromised by the instigator of the process.

But you're not here for the truth, are you?

There were 26 viruses for the Apple in the 60s & 70s? Isn't Elk Clone considered to be the first large scale virus outbreak in history? Written in like 1982 for Apple DOS?

Where did make up these numbers?

Quote

Intruder wrote:
Actually 26. Total. Ever. Not counting Microsoft Office macro viruses (of which there were 553, and they didn't appear until 1996).

In 1990, there were 142 PC viruses. In 1992, there were 1161 PC viruses. In 1995 there were 5626.

What is your point?

Wow. first of all, there were no Apple computers in the 60s. Second, we are talking about the Mac platform here, not the early Apple Is and IIs. Third, then number of MacOS viruses is very easy to find. Just do a search. This site even had an article on the number of viruses for the Mac.

It is valid to discuss DOS viruses, as the earlier versions of Windows (pre-NT) were based on DOS and could still be infected. The same is not true for Macs and the Apple I and II OS. They were/are totally incompatible without an emulator.

Quote

Intruder wrote:

It is valid to discuss DOS viruses, as the earlier versions of Windows (pre-NT) were based on DOS and could still be infected

The entire point of NT was that is was not based on DOS. There is no such thing as an early version of NT that was based on DOS. NT and XP for that matter includes an executable you can use to run DOS (maybe so does Vista, but I have not installed that OS), but it's like running Word. You would not say that NT is based on Word even though you can start it up and execute another's code inside of it. cmd.exe in all NT versions is not DOS, command.com is the 16-bit interpreter for DOS 5.0, but not a single version of Windows NT was ever based on DOS.

That is what I said. Read it again. I said pre-NT. But there are still many people that run 95 and 98, even though they are not supported by MS anymore.

problems affecting an old defunct systems by microsoft, fair game, problems affecting old defunct systems by apple, no way!

btw, Win95 and Win98 came out after WinNT.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Mac OSX isn't the most secure to date. Surely that would fall to FreeBSD or some other Unix that's been around much, much longer.

Ha ha! Troll humor! Love it. For any newbie out there… Mac OS X is based on FreeBSD!

Quote

Rainy Day wrote:

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Mac OSX isn't the most secure to date. Surely that would fall to FreeBSD or some other Unix that's been around much, much longer.

Ha ha! Troll humor! Love it. For any newbie out there… Mac OS X is based on FreeBSD!

Haha, you can use Mach in Mac OS X to circumvent the security measures that are part of BSD (secure levels for example). Uninformed Mac Fanatic Humor!

"When you use Mach to create a task, Mach returns a port right name that references a send right for the port (the receive right for a task port is always owned by the kernel). You can send messages to this port to start and stop the task, kill the task, manipulate the task’s address space, and so forth. Therefore, whoever owns a send right for a task’s port effectively owns the task and can manipulate the task’s state without regard to BSD security policies or any higher-level security policies."

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
problems affecting an old defunct systems by microsoft, fair game, problems affecting old defunct systems by apple, no way!

btw, Win95 and Win98 came out after WinNT.

The MacOS (both the classic OS and OS X) has no common codebase with the Apple I/II/III series of computers. Applications written for the Apple I/II/III series cannot run on the MacOS without an emulator. Viruses cannot be exchanged. Nor can trojans or anything else. Also, there hasn't been a virus for the Apple I/II/III series since the late 80s or early 90s as far as I can tell. They are also not on the net, at least not in any number (can you even put one on the net?). As far as mainstream Apple computing is concerned, the Apple I/II/III is not relevant.

Windows up to ME shared a common codebase centered on DOS. Even with NT (which did come out in the early 90's but did not see mainstream consumer use until 2000/XP, and even calling 2000 a consumer release is a bit of a stretch), there is a great deal of common code with ME and earlier because of the drive for backwards compatibility. Because of this, many viruses/trojans/whatever written for one can affect the others. And there are still folks using Win95 and Win98 on the net, which makes them continuing targets.

I'm sorry if you can't grasp the differences.

Ryan Naraine, in a ZDNet article, points to a Windows vulnerability that was reported to Microsoft in October, 2004, but which was not patched for over two years. I won't comment--read the article and the comments.

You are definitely oversimplifying showing you lack a full grasp of the technological differences here. Windows 3.1 was an operating environment running inside of DOS. But Win95/98/ME were actually hybrid 16/32-bit OS's, and you could actually run a Nine-EX box as they call it, without using any DOS code, in fact, when bypassing DOS completely is when Win95 was at its best. DOS was always embedded in 9x systems allowing people to run DOS applications that required the DOS CLI, but 9x was it's own operating system, separate from DOS, and did not run DOS code. Companies like Microsoft, Apple, Google, and other large shops always reuse code. The iPhone's OS will be based on Mac OS X, but they are not the same thing. Similarly, a DOS system and a Win9x system are not at the core the same thing. The differences are greater than the ones you think you grasp!

Quote

Intruder wrote:

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
problems affecting an old defunct systems by microsoft, fair game, problems affecting old defunct systems by apple, no way!

btw, Win95 and Win98 came out after WinNT.

The MacOS (both the classic OS and OS X) has no common codebase with the Apple I/II/III series of computers. Applications written for the Apple I/II/III series cannot run on the MacOS without an emulator. Viruses cannot be exchanged. Nor can trojans or anything else. Also, there hasn't been a virus for the Apple I/II/III series since the late 80s or early 90s as far as I can tell. They are also not on the net, at least not in any number (can you even put one on the net?). As far as mainstream Apple computing is concerned, the Apple I/II/III is not relevant.

Windows up to ME shared a common codebase centered on DOS. Even with NT (which did come out in the early 90's but did not see mainstream consumer use until 2000/XP, and even calling 2000 a consumer release is a bit of a stretch), there is a great deal of common code with ME and earlier because of the drive for backwards compatibility. Because of this, many viruses/trojans/whatever written for one can affect the others. And there are still folks using Win95 and Win98 on the net, which makes them continuing targets.

I'm sorry if you can't grasp the differences.

Your response is nice, but completely irrelevant.

The guest (you? somebody else? Who knows, since none of you choose to register), questioned why it was okay to bring up old MS systems but not old Apple systems. The answer is because there is absolutely no commonality between the MacOS (in any form) and the Apple][. The same is not true for Windows. There are current exploits for Windows that affect both the NT-based systems (which are really an offshoot of OS/2) and previous (current .ani bug, or like Klez did in 2002, for instance).

Yes, saying it was completely DOS based was an oversimplification (because I really didn't see a need to go into OS design 101 here), but there is enough shared code in Windows OS versions (certainly since 95) that many of the vulnerabilities have flowed through (including those within DOS itself). But, for the sake of argument, let's ignore everything before 1995 (Win95 and on) just to keep it more relevant. That would eliminate the DOS-based and Win3.1 specific ones. That knocks around 3-5,000 out of the PC total.

So, back to the original guest post. Please point out ONE exploit that works on both OS X (or even the classic Mac OS) and the Apple][. There aren't any.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
The differences are greater than the ones you think you grasp!

See your problem is that you can't help but perceive the spoon as real, even though it isn't. I suggest that you may need to up the dosage on your medication, barring that perhaps (like all little piggies) what you need is a "damn good whacking."

I'd say you need to open your third eye but I'd bet 10 dollars and my cat's left ear you already superglued it shut years ago, so drugs and violence are probably your last best hope.

Cheers!

Who is trying to? It's really funny all the weird demands that come out mac fanatics when real hard data comes up about the insecurities of Mac OS X. All of suddent they get into DOS arguements, and Apple II comes up for some weird reason. It's just deflection techniques. Unless you can show me that a single security flaw affects all systems made by Apple, Apple systems must be secure!

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Who is trying to? It's really funny all the weird demands that come out mac fanatics when real hard data comes up about the insecurities of Mac OS X. All of suddent they get into DOS arguements, and Apple II comes up for some weird reason. It's just deflection techniques. Unless you can show me that a single security flaw affects all systems made by Apple, Apple systems must be secure!

Guest brought it up on April 16 at 4:56 pm. Not me. So a guest attempted to deflect from the core discussion by bringing up the Apple ][. A second guest (you, maybe?) attempted to deflect the assertion that the Apple ][ is not relevant to the discussion but that previous versions of Windows were, by the distractors about Windows 95 and 98 being hybrid 16/32 bit OSs (try to remove DOS from one, though, and see how dependent they are on it). Previous versions of Windows ARE relevant because many of the same flaws have been passed on from generation to generation of Windows (again, Klez is an example of exploiting a flaw in OSs from 95 to XP. There are, literally, thousands of examples.).

And you are putting words into my mouth when you say that I made the assertion that Apple systems must be secure if you can't show me that single security flaw. I never came even close to that statement. I said that the Apple ][ (that a guest brought up) was not germain to the discussion because it is a completely different OS with no commonality to the Mac OS. If the guest still feels it is relevant, then show us HOW it is relevant. That would be by demonstrating that there are common exploits.

OS security discussions always end up in a comparison between different OSs (which have been brought up many times in this thread both by members and guests). It becomes a "relative security" discussion more than anything else. Hence the inevitable comparisons to Windows. At this time, OS X is a more secure place to be relative to Windows. Perfect? Not by a long shot. Relatively safer? Currently.

If you are going to dispute that, then you truly are only here to argue and stir the pot.

Quote

Intruder wrote:
Guest brought it up on April 16 at 4:56 pm. Not me. So a guest attempted to deflect from the core discussion by bringing up the Apple ][.

Huh, I do not see any mention of Apple ][ in that post. I do see you never answered the question in that post though.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:

Quote

Intruder wrote:
Guest brought it up on April 16 at 4:56 pm. Not me. So a guest attempted to deflect from the core discussion by bringing up the Apple ][.

Huh, I do not see any mention of Apple ][ in that post. I do see you never answered the question in that post though.

Wrong again.

He brought up the Apple ][ when mentioning Elk Clone, which was an Apple ][ virus. There also appears to have been some confusion regarding the 60's and 70's which I also answered. Which question wasn't answered, or are you just trolling?

Actually, that's not wrong. "There is no mention of Apple ]

Quote

Intruder wrote:
undred percent correct. Accuracy seems to be a problem with you. It seems like that poster was simply pointing out that the first outbreak of a virus in the wild was on an Apple system, but not implying that it affects Mac OS X, that's just your reactionary antics.

Seems to be you still have not answered the question that was posted in the post you seem so hung up on from 4:56pm. Is it too hard for you to scroll up and see the question that wasn't answered do you need someone to cut & paste it for you?

[quote="Intruder"]

Quote

Anonymous wrote:

Quote

Intruder wrote:
Guest brought it up on April 16 at 4:56 pm. Not me. So a guest attempted to deflect from the core discussion by bringing up the Apple ][.

Huh, I do not see any mention of Apple ][ in that post. I do see you never answered the question in that post though.

Wrong again.

He brought up the Apple ][ when mentioning Elk Clone, which was an Apple ][ virus. There also appears to have been some confusion regarding the 60's and 70's which I also answered. Which question wasn't answered, or are you just trolling?

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, that's not wrong. "There is no mention of Apple ]

But what quote are you talking about? And which particular guest are you? You have to admit that with so many guests and so many quotes, it's very hard for the rest of us to know what you, whoever you are, are on about!

If you're really interested in debating, register so the rest of us can tell one attribution from another!

LaurieF, you are wasting your time. That guest is just trolling. He/she/it obviously can't read if still insisting that the Apple ][ was not brought up. What other platform did Elk Clone affect? None. By bringing up that virus, the posting guest is inferring the Apple ][. The other guest is just stirring the pot trying to make it look like people are wrong when they are not.

Basically the trolls, yet again, have hijacked the thread. Always seems to happen when the discussion is about security. They apparently have nothing else to do.

Sad, really.

Are you referring to the question of where did the numbers come from? It was hard to determine if that was actually the question, what with the way the rest of that post was written.

But, to answer that question, go here and follow the same steps. Or do your own research. I don't really care. I'd actually be interested if you can find a number significantly different.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Accuracy seems to be a problem with you.

Being a troll seems to be a problem with you. He was not inaccurate at all. You just don't like what he has to say. That is your problem, not is.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Accuracy seems to be a problem with you.

Being a troll seems to be a problem with you. He was not inaccurate at all. You just don't like what he has to say. That is your problem, not is.

Are you talking to yourself? You see, if you don't register and log in, it's difficult (at best) to tell you from the other you and all the other yous.

Just curious, since even the spammers have enough time to register, that means these people are even more fearful of revealing any portion of their identity than even people who post porn spam, how sad is that?