Bill Gates dares us!

[Lostgame]

Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine. So, yes, it took us longer, and they had what we were doing, user interface-wise.

 

 

Anybody else want to get on a team and work on this?

[cbmkgd]

As if there weren't already hundreds or thousands doing this (which keeps antivirus companies in business!)

[Zealot]

i wonder if he still regreting when he made that same statement about winXP.

besides Bill Gates was stoned when he made that statement.

[semthex]

I still think he paid those MOAB freaks But hey, we all know form the technical site, MOAB was really a flop. I am still waiting for their big announced "remote 31337 killer kernel" exploit.

[Guest goodtime]

Man, My PC has more exploits.

 

Take a virgin Windows XP machine, without any virus protection and surf the web using IE and it will be infected in about 20 minutes with some type of malware or virus. If you are daring surf some hacking or Adult porn sites.

 

Take any Mac OS X box running Tiger, again without any virius protection and surf the same web sites, even try surfing some hacking sites, watch some free porn and your Mac will remain virus and malware free.

 

Where are these exploits that take over the entire Mac for Mac OS X that Bill Gates is talking about? Yes you can take over an entire Mac using remote access, but you need to also have access to the admin password. I don't get what he is talking about.

 

Maybe Bill Gates is featured in the new Fed-Ex Superbowl commercial and he gets fried by a meteor. I think Mr. Gates' brain is still fried. BTW, the PC guy is cool. Bill is not. I like John Hodgeman. And I am starting to really dislike Bill. Just keep copying Steve and shut the hell up, Bill.

 

gt

http://football.fedex.com

Edited February 5, 2007 by goodtime

[Urbz]

LOLOL

What's funny is that even in theory he is wrong.

The mac malware is harmless: it's all people clicking and opening programs or scripts that they shouldn't, and even then it never really does anything similar to what happens on windows. The architecture of Mac OS X just doesn't allow for the type of malware that Windows invites because of its very roots.

And roots here is very important: with Vista, Microsoft had a chance to completely re-do Windows. Not UI-wise, but kernel-wise and core-wise. Because of how badly they screwed up 64-bit support, they really did have the chance to start from scratch. And they didn't. And as long as Windows uses the Windows kernel and subsystem, it will be susceptible to bugs galore because it's so easy to hack. Mac OS X, due to unix, is extremely diffucult to get under and hack because of its kernel and the way that its built. So all the {censored} that Bill is talking about is kind of a mistatement, because taking over the machine totally most probably doesn't happen at the core of the sytem, it's all application layer stuff, and that is easily correctable. If, of course, he has any proof to back himself up.

 

-Urby

[np101137]

He's wrong, end of story

[aberracus]

We can start taking bets about WHEN vista is gonna be hacked or exploited... anyone?

 

I think its gonna be hacked before March 15

[kevin_4e]

(which keeps antivirus companies in business!)

Lol, so true. I guess someones got to help out the economy in whatever way.

[robotskip]

LOLOL

What's funny is that even in theory he is wrong.

The mac malware is harmless: it's all people clicking and opening programs or scripts that they shouldn't, and even then it never really does anything similar to what happens on windows. The architecture of Mac OS X just doesn't allow for the type of malware that Windows invites because of its very roots.

And roots here is very important: with Vista, Microsoft had a chance to completely re-do Windows. Not UI-wise, but kernel-wise and core-wise. Because of how badly they screwed up 64-bit support, they really did have the chance to start from scratch. And they didn't. And as long as Windows uses the Windows kernel and subsystem, it will be susceptible to bugs galore because it's so easy to hack. Mac OS X, due to unix, is extremely diffucult to get under and hack because of its kernel and the way that its built. So all the {censored} that Bill is talking about is kind of a mistatement, because taking over the machine totally most probably doesn't happen at the core of the sytem, it's all application layer stuff, and that is easily correctable. If, of course, he has any proof to back himself up.

 

-Urby

You [and others] are wrong on so many things.

 

> The mac malware is harmless

 

There is not really any Mac malware and it's not because it's more secure, here's a quote:

 

"Want an easy way to debunk that argument? Here you go: MacOS 9 sees a tiny fraction of the malware Windows does. But nobody seriously argues that OS 9, which doesn’t even have a secure VM system, is more secure than Windows XP.

 

Want another? Solaris. Been around for over a decade. Hundred of published vulnerabilities. How much malware?

 

6% Market Share Doesn’t Mean 6% Malware Share - Malware authors will target the one platform with critical mass, because there’s no indication that there’s a “peak oil” scenario for Windows vulnerabilities that will ever make Mac malware pay off better. Malware authoring effort doesn’t divide proportionally to OS share.

 

Research efforts focus on Windows, Linux, and Solaris, because that’s where the enterprise dollars are. Malware authors feed on research results, so even their ideal victims are home users, their supply chain is tied to businesses.

 

A huge percentage of malware infections have nothing to do with OS vulnerabilities. For the vast class of infections that arise from user complicity, there is no evidence that the MacOS X design is better.

 

Researchers like Tom Ferris, KF, H.D. Moore, and Matasano do find MacOS X vulnerabilities, and there is MacOS X malware, including very viable rootkits."

 

> it's all people clicking and opening programs or scripts that they shouldn't, and even then it never really does anything similar to what happens on windows. The architecture of Mac OS X just doesn't allow for the type of malware that Windows invites because of its very roots.

 

Wrong again. Read the below quote.

 

"Most Macs are single-user machines. On most single-user machines, that one user has “Administrator” privilege. “Administrator” is functionally equivalent to root, even without knowing the user’s password, and that equivalence is baked into the current architecture.

 

The idea that malware needs “admin” to propagate is a myth. On almost all single-user machines, the ability to run code with that user’s privileges is game-over: I have all the meaningful data on the machine, I can backdoor the machine, and I can talk to the network.

 

The OS privilege model doesn’t mean anything if the OS is vulnerable to privilege escalation attacks. MacOS X has been. For example, Matasano discovered that malware can use the Mach Exception Port feature to load arbitrary code into SUID-root binaries, deterministically seizing superuser creds on an infected machine."

 

> And roots here is very important: with Vista, Microsoft had a chance to completely re-do Windows. Not UI-wise, but kernel-wise and core-wise.

 

I guess whole 'reset' a few years back wasn't in your RSS reader.

 

> And as long as Windows uses the Windows kernel and subsystem

 

There is no single 'Windows kernel' - so which one are you talking about ?

 

And about the 'subsystem' (Which I assume you mean are APIs and the like) here is another quote:

 

"The Microsoft C runtime guards activation records on the stack, so that overruns in stack variables don’t allow attackers to overwrite return addresses. The Win32 runtime also defends its exception handlers. How resilient is the (vastly more complex) Objective C “Cocoa” runtime against the same attacks?

 

Win32 has first-class support for managed code (C# and the CLR), which sandboxes programs and provides a fine-grained privilege model within individual programs. Apple just deprecated Java; their high-level development platform has no runtime security.

 

The Win32 address space is randomized, so that exploits with hardcoded addresses (read: virtually all exploits) have a negligable chance of succeeding. Despite the fact that this is technology pioneered by BSD, MacOS X does not have address space randomization.

 

The Win32 API is over a decade old and is well understood by attackers. The MacOS X APIs are not. There is a lag between the publication of the OS and security researchers, and a lag between research results and malware authorship."

 

> Because of how badly they screwed up 64-bit support, they really did have the chance to start from scratch.

 

How did they screw up 64-bit 'support' ? And even if they did it has near nothing to do with starting from scratch.

 

> Mac OS X, due to unix, is extremely diffucult to get under and hack because of its kernel and the way that its built.

 

Addressed above but here is another quote.

 

"MacOS X Code Is Better Designed Than Windows Code.

 

No it isn’t. For example:

 

(a) Microsoft pioneered the Secure Development Lifecycle. ( Microsoft delayed a critical operating system release to scrub integer overflows out of the codebase. © Microsoft invented the Threat Modeling methodology. (d) Microsoft Visual C builds executables that resist memory corruption. (e) Virtually every line of Windows Vista has been audited by third parties.

 

Does this mean Microsoft is perfect, or that MacOS X has bad code? No, but where are the Apple counterclaims? Here’s a question for Daring Fireball: without arguing that Apple somehow employs “better” OS developers than Microsoft, honestly guess which OS team puts more effort into code security, and estimate by how much."

 

> ..because taking over the machine totally most probably doesn't happen at the core of the sytem, it's all application layer stuff, and that is easily correctable.

 

Do you even know what you're talking about ?

 

> If, of course, he has any proof to back himself up.

 

You have even less proof than Bill Gates.

 

----

 

It's fun when you bring facts into a discussion based on myths.

Edited February 6, 2007 by robotskip

[Urbz]

oh god here u go again!

I don't feel the need to prove my points to you anymore because nothing gets through your thick skull.

Half your post is your opinion, the other half the opinions of others that security features fix everything.

and don't fake ignorance about the 64-bit thing.

let's move on, shall we?

and by we, I mean you moving on from this forum.

"dare to dream..."

[Guest goodtime]

There will always be more viruses and malware targeted towards Vista users. That is just the way it is regardless of facts or myths related to how secure an OS might be.

 

Vista Smista. I still love OS X. And I don't need to run any Anti-Virus or Anti-Malware software and that's a fact! Try that on a Windoze box without protection and your system will get hosed very quickly.

 

gt

[robotskip]

oh god here u go again!

I don't feel the need to prove my points to you anymore because nothing gets through your thick skull.

Half your post is your opinion, the other half the opinions of others that security features fix everything.

and don't fake ignorance about the 64-bit thing.

let's move on, shall we?

and by we, I mean you moving on from this forum.

"dare to dream..."

And here you go again.

 

Boy, that was easy.

 

Actually, that whole post had basically no opinion and was simply facts I brought over from another site and what I did copy/paste was not an opinion that security features fix everything (I swear you're illiterate, I don't know how the hell anyone could say that after actually reading what I posted).

 

I'm not sure if you have ever once proved or backed up anything you've said, all you ever do is say "LOLNOT YOU AGAIN" than you run off. When you're ready to have a real discussion the adults will be seated to the left.

 

So, in a debate one person says something than the other counters it, see, you never counter anything so not only are you factually wrong you can't even pull off a debate. All you ever do is start attacking the person without ever proving anything despite how simple and quick you should be able to do it.

 

I'm very curious for you to counter anything, please, just 1 simple thing. Since the [apparent] 'screwing up of support' for 64bit is so obvious to you it would only take a minute or two, hell, maybe instead of wasting bandwidth on stupid rubbish like "LOL I WONT PROVE ANYTHIN!!L@K21!1" you could simply write a simple sentence about how you're right instead of jumping around trying to throw attention elsewhere.

 

There will always be more viruses and malware targeted towards Vista users. That is just the way it is regardless of facts or myths related to how secure an OS might be.

 

Vista Smista. I still love OS X. And I don't need to run any Anti-Virus or Anti-Malware software and that's a fact! Try that on a Windoze box without protection and your system will get hosed very quickly.

 

gt

Did you read anything I said ? It seems not. Edited February 6, 2007 by robotskip

[aberracus]

hehhe , iRobotskip again, hey man, yes you are right bill is God, now keep walking please, nothing to read from you here...

 

 

The mor eimportant PROOF of More Security on OSX than Windows is that theres no Malware or Virus on OSX, thats definitive, a Virus or Malware on OSX has guaranteeed First pages on every major and minor tech newspaper or blog.

 

 

Thats it, theres nothing to see here, keep walking..

[robotskip]

I never said nor implied Bill Gates was god. Stop lying and putting words in people's mouths.

 

If you actually read anything I post you will see that all of the things you have said have been addressed several times and you're wrong or severely misinformed.

 

Oh, and until you can actually read a post and counter it I believe you're the one who should keep walking. Adult debate, to the left.

Edited February 6, 2007 by robotskip

[semthex]

Once again we end up in a really useless discussion about why there are less virii for mac than for windows. Pls read the above quote carefully, I copied it from another thread discussing this topic, cause I hate to repeat. Maybe this gives a few think abouts.

In general I think the whole OS trolling, especially inc ase of virii is pointless. No virus is also not the truth, there ARE virii for osx, even if they are not wide spread at all.

 

The news is old, close to a year now. Sure there are virus for OSX, why not? Writting self replicating code is easy as driving bike. But with the low amount of macs world wide it is kind of useless for people who write such code. Some even write virii just for making money with it, see the bad trojan hords out there.

 

The most mac viriis I read about are sometimes just self copieng shell scripts, not realyl hard to defeat. The one you posted above is the old one they spread via mac rumors and it's "evil" last only a few days until it died in the public since it was not really a risk at all and could easly be spotted either.

 

Noone ever declined that there will be more mac virii in the future, but without a for virii write reasonable marketshare, it will die before it has started. A big pandemia with mac virii is currently not really possible, at least as long noone ever develops either OS independant virii code (->"vm" box viruii) or cross OS infection code (-> can infect linux, mac ...)

 

There is also "no" virii for Irix too but it has more still unpatched sec flaws than windows. But why now virii? Yeah, it would be not even be spreading outside the network those rare machines are used.

[theTank]

We can start taking bets about WHEN vista is gonna be hacked or exploited... anyone?

 

I think its gonna be hacked before March 15

 

 

Looks like an exploit already.

[Guest goodtime]

Looks like an exploit already.

 

Microsoft recommends that users who are concerned about having their computer shout-hacked disable the speaker or microphone, turn off the speech recognition feature, or shut down Windows Media Player if they encounter a file that tries to execute voice commands on their system.

I found a flaw with Vista myself. If I am logged into my machine and someone comes up behind me they could bash me over the head and then run commands successfully on my PC.

 

:hysterical:

Edited February 6, 2007 by goodtime

[bwhsh8r]

rofl, he knows that his os is definately insecure

[Urbz]

LOL GREAT SECURITY HOLE RIGHT THERE!!!!!

[djpc47]

F#*( you 640k ought to be enough for anybody.

 

 

I think my Amiga 1000 has less then that I can surf the web on it

Edited February 13, 2007 by djpc47

[Forceman]

1. According to the fanatics, Windows only have virus's, malware, worms because it has the most market share. This is complete fiction and cannot be proved because no other OS has the same market share.

 

2. According to the fanatics, Windows only crashes if bad drivers are installed. Yet another good reason to not use Windows because of the {censored} drivers.

 

3. According to the fanatics, Windows should only be judged on on current version of Windows, previous versions don't count anymore. XP has the {censored}tiest security record of all. How secure is Vista really?, well there is no proof what so ever that it is since it's only been out three weeks.

 

4. According to the fanatics, Windows is as secure as any other OS, this is why Vista changed it's security model to a 'Unix like model.

 

[bwhsh8r]

1. According to the fanatics, Windows only have virus's, malware, worms because it has the most market share. This is complete fiction and cannot be proved because no other OS has the same market share.

 

2. According to the fanatics, Windows only crashes if bad drivers are installed. Yet another good reason to not use Windows because of the {censored} drivers.

 

3. According to the fanatics, Windows should only be judged on on current version of Windows, previous versions don't count anymore. XP has the {censored}tiest security record of all. How secure is Vista really?, well there is no proof what so ever that it is since it's only been out three weeks.

 

4. According to the fanatics, Windows is as secure as any other OS, this is why Vista changed it's security model to a 'Unix like model.

 

emmm... those last two are untrue, and the first one not completely, because the market share plays a part, but the holes had to be there for people to exploit, and emm... no one says "windows is secure as any other" not quite, although if you browse smartly you dont get viruses.... havnt had one in ages, and i run no av, this is a stupid arguement. seriously, your ragging on windows "fanatics" makes you sound like a serious gnu or more likely apple fanboy. getover it

[Forceman]

emmm... those last two are untrue, and the first one not completely, because the market share plays a part, but the holes had to be there for people to exploit, and emm... no one says "windows is secure as any other" not quite, although if you browse smartly you dont get viruses.... havnt had one in ages, and i run no av, this is a stupid arguement. seriously, your ragging on windows "fanatics" makes you sound like a serious gnu or more likely apple fanboy. getover it

 

Shows how much you know, Microsoft said 2. and most people agree that market share is a big part of it. Windows users always go on about if Linux/Apple had more market share it would get attacked and have have virus's. Try to explain your theory about browsing smartly to millions of people who have virus's, if your logic was so good people wouldn't need virus checkers.

 

Any other ways you can spin how good Windows is?

[bwhsh8r]

Shows how much you know, Microsoft said 2. and most people agree that market share is a big part of it. Windows users always go on about if Linux/Apple had more market share it would get attacked and have have virus's. Try to explain your theory about browsing smartly to millions of people who have virus's, if your logic was so good people wouldn't need virus checkers.

 

Any other ways you can spin how good Windows is?

Im not trying to say windows is good, but i never said os x was any better, your just taking a dump on windows, and i agree that market share is a part of it, and i know there are a bunch of viruses and {censored}, but if you dont download random stuff/go to random warez/porn sites you usually dont get infected.... and if you think im wrong prove it. and how am i trying to spin how good windows is when i said that its not secure? hmm? and to the millions of people who got viruses, you had to go there and download this or run that, or just plain go there, ive been infected before, and i know its cause i ran "keygens" or such things.... and dont tell me "how little i know," dont even go there. and also, on how i spin how "good" windows is, guess what, i have publicially posted about how crappy i think/thought vista is/was.... beta 2 turned me off that pritty quick, so dont try and start a flame war.