Comments on: Apple megapatch plugs 45 security holes

Update for Mac OS X includes a number of fixes for zero-day vulnerabilities released as part of two high-profile bug-hunting campaigns.

[wbenton]

The truth...

I agree that the MAC OS is probably more secure than Microsoft.

But the majority still cling to the lesser secure Microsoft.

However, that still doesn't explain why Apple let the collection of security holes get up to FOURTY-FIVE (45) before they plugged them.

The OS that's supposedly SO SECURE DOES have flaws... but many of it's users still believe that MAC OS is not vulnerable like Microsoft. Those users are just pulling the wool over their own eyes.

Microsoft's security IS getting stronger... but it still has quite a long way to go before I call them secure in my book. But could it also be that because of some of Microsoft's more recent patching which plugged several major flaws that hackers are now finding it easier to hack the Mac OS X?

In other words... Microsoft was the easiest hack in the book until recently... then the tables turned... the hackers started going after the Mac OS X because they found quite a few vulnerabilities in it that were an easier hack than Microsoft!

I've never heard of a totally invulnerable Operating System... except for the one that's permanently powered off. (* CHUCKLE *)

Mac OS X users need to stop fooling themselves and learn that while licking their most recent wounds from this megapatch release of 45 security patches!

Walt

[wbenton]

The truth...

I agree that the MAC OS is probably more secure than Microsoft.

But the majority still cling to the lesser secure Microsoft.

However, that still doesn't explain why Apple let the collection of security holes get up to FOURTY-FIVE (45) before they plugged them.

The OS that's supposedly SO SECURE DOES have flaws... but many of it's users still believe that MAC OS is not vulnerable like Microsoft. Those users are just pulling the wool over their own eyes.

Microsoft's security IS getting stronger... but it still has quite a long way to go before I call them secure in my book. But could it also be that because of some of Microsoft's more recent patching which plugged several major flaws that hackers are now finding it easier to hack the Mac OS X?

In other words... Microsoft was the easiest hack in the book until recently... then the tables turned... the hackers started going after the Mac OS X because they found quite a few vulnerabilities in it that were an easier hack than Microsoft!

I've never heard of a totally invulnerable Operating System... except for the one that's permanently powered off. (* CHUCKLE *)

Mac OS X users need to stop fooling themselves and learn that while licking their most recent wounds from this megapatch release of 45 security patches!

Walt

[lesfilip]

Siegfried, looky here, new thread

"If I was paid to do this then I would ruin my cause by saying yes
and thus I would say no anyway."

So you are refusing to answer the question of whether or not
you are being paid to post?

"Thus your claim is equally useless."

I am honest about it. You won't even answer.

"What I claim now is that I find it so funny that you consider that
I am being paid for this that I think it would be funnier if I kept
you thinking the same."

There is nothing funny about lying or attempting to cover up the
truth. I do neither, and you do both.

"Back to the one sided "debate","

There is no debate.

"...if I am wrong where is your proof?"

The proof is that there are no Mac OS X viruses.

"I have shown that three security companies call Leap.A three
different things, and you have shown.... nothing."

I have pointed out the well-debated fact that LeapA is not a
virus. I have no quarrel with the other two definitions.

"Nothing at all. Not once. Your argument is looking rather empty
at this stage."

Nothing but facts, which you are more than welcome to verify
yourself. Your argument is empty, not mine.

"If you want to have a chance at making me feel wrong, try
convincing me, not telling me."

You are wrong, whether you feel wrong or not.

"Look at your last post. Each time you expect me to take your
facts at face value, but you don't even consider my facts."

Mine are facts, yours are not. I do not consider FUD to be fact.

"You still haven't answered why Leap.A isn't a virus"

LeapA is not a virus by definition. The real definition, not the
one(s) you find convenient for your "case".

"...when Windows ones are the same."

Windows ones are not the same. Just because many things share
the characteristic of being blue does not mean they are all the
cloudless daytime sky.

"But, reading all of your FUD gave me doubts in my cause so I
did as you asked and Googled for Macs and viruses... and I
found another virus!"

Yours is FUD, not mine. Don't forget that.

"http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/originalContent/
0,289142,sid14_gci1019129,00.html?
track=NL-102&ad=494262"

Whatever, dude.

"It would only work on the amazingly naive, but once again, very
little difference from the average Windows virus."

Again, something either is or is not a virus. It does not depend
on how "naive" someone is.

"Incidentally, I never said that you need ZoneAlarm to have a
firewall for Windows."

Implication.

"I just mentioned ZoneAlarm as I wanted to emphasise that even
though I paid for one I don't use it."

That right there makes it completely irrelevant then.

"You really do need to understand you enemy more; and don't
claim you don't as no-one will believe you."

I know you. You will self-destruct in your own madness if you
haven't already.

[Siegfried Schtauffen]

Madness

Yes, I am a certified loon, not to mention a genius. They do tend to go together though.

Refuse to answer? Not at all. That is your style. I present a fact you say "Whatever, dude". I on the other hand, will answer the question, but the answer is useless. I swear that I only comment on these and any forums to try to ensure that people do not post misleading comments. Even though I am, Siegfried, Truth Crusader, the only payment I receive from my duties is a sense of satisfaction. Happy?

So you are happy to accept that a simple fact that you see proves that another fact is true? How come then that you cannot accept that there is small interest in writing evil programs for the Mac simply because the population is small?

[lesfilip]

Siegfried, looky here, new thread

"If I was paid to do this then I would ruin my cause by saying yes
and thus I would say no anyway."

So you are refusing to answer the question of whether or not
you are being paid to post?

"Thus your claim is equally useless."

I am honest about it. You won't even answer.

"What I claim now is that I find it so funny that you consider that
I am being paid for this that I think it would be funnier if I kept
you thinking the same."

There is nothing funny about lying or attempting to cover up the
truth. I do neither, and you do both.

"Back to the one sided "debate","

There is no debate.

"...if I am wrong where is your proof?"

The proof is that there are no Mac OS X viruses.

"I have shown that three security companies call Leap.A three
different things, and you have shown.... nothing."

I have pointed out the well-debated fact that LeapA is not a
virus. I have no quarrel with the other two definitions.

"Nothing at all. Not once. Your argument is looking rather empty
at this stage."

Nothing but facts, which you are more than welcome to verify
yourself. Your argument is empty, not mine.

"If you want to have a chance at making me feel wrong, try
convincing me, not telling me."

You are wrong, whether you feel wrong or not.

"Look at your last post. Each time you expect me to take your
facts at face value, but you don't even consider my facts."

Mine are facts, yours are not. I do not consider FUD to be fact.

"You still haven't answered why Leap.A isn't a virus"

LeapA is not a virus by definition. The real definition, not the
one(s) you find convenient for your "case".

"...when Windows ones are the same."

Windows ones are not the same. Just because many things share
the characteristic of being blue does not mean they are all the
cloudless daytime sky.

"But, reading all of your FUD gave me doubts in my cause so I
did as you asked and Googled for Macs and viruses... and I
found another virus!"

Yours is FUD, not mine. Don't forget that.

"http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/originalContent/
0,289142,sid14_gci1019129,00.html?
track=NL-102&ad=494262"

Whatever, dude.

"It would only work on the amazingly naive, but once again, very
little difference from the average Windows virus."

Again, something either is or is not a virus. It does not depend
on how "naive" someone is.

"Incidentally, I never said that you need ZoneAlarm to have a
firewall for Windows."

Implication.

"I just mentioned ZoneAlarm as I wanted to emphasise that even
though I paid for one I don't use it."

That right there makes it completely irrelevant then.

"You really do need to understand you enemy more; and don't
claim you don't as no-one will believe you."

I know you. You will self-destruct in your own madness if you
haven't already.

[Siegfried Schtauffen]

Madness

Yes, I am a certified loon, not to mention a genius. They do tend to go together though.

Refuse to answer? Not at all. That is your style. I present a fact you say "Whatever, dude". I on the other hand, will answer the question, but the answer is useless. I swear that I only comment on these and any forums to try to ensure that people do not post misleading comments. Even though I am, Siegfried, Truth Crusader, the only payment I receive from my duties is a sense of satisfaction. Happy?

So you are happy to accept that a simple fact that you see proves that another fact is true? How come then that you cannot accept that there is small interest in writing evil programs for the Mac simply because the population is small?