AT&T to limit unlimited data plans to 5GB a month?

Kurt <[email protected]> writes:

> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Todd H.) wrote:
>
> > Kurt <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Todd H.) wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> writes:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > OK......which reinforces what I said: don't use a computer that's
> > > > > vulnerable to attacks.
> > > >
> > > > Elmo,
> > > >
> > > > I'll bite. Name one computer/OS/browser combination that's not
> > > > vulnerable to attack.
> > > >
> > > > I know my solution... curious if your advice has more heat than light
> > > > though.
> > >
> > > For browsers, no spyware/malware on Macs. Good start.
> >
> > Errrrk. As Trebek would say "Sore-y, that was an incorrect response."
> >
> > Last year this time, we had a month full of disclosures on Apple problems:
> > http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2084092,00.asp
> >
> > http://www.news.com/Mac%20malware%20...49_3-5700982.h
> > tml
> > http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/techalerts/TA06-132A.html
> >
> > and many others.
> >
> > Just because OS X isn't nearly the petri dish that Windows has been
> > (and seems to be the consumer OS with the least problems), it's FAR
> > from invulnerable. Anyone thinking security is a product, or a
> > platform is a fool. Anyone clicking on any ole tinyurl that comes
> > down the pike is also asking to be owned.
> >
> > And oh look, another Quicktime flaw. HOpe you don't have the
> > Quicktime plugin enabled on your mac. Ooops. It ships that way.
> > http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/techalerts/TA06-132A.html
> >
> LOL. A 2006 "government alert" Is this the best you can you?
> It's 2008 and there have been more than a few QT updates since then.
>
> Oh, you don't have a Mac, do you?

You have no idea how wrong you are, or what I do for a living.

The challenge I threw down here was to name a single
computer/OS/browser combination that is invulnerable to attack.

And I do have a Mac that I quite like.

The point remains: there are very good reasons not to follow
tinyurl's regardless of your OS choice.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://toddh.net/

---

› See More: AT&T to limit unlimited data plans to 5GB a month?

In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Nothing deep about it -- information on Mac vulnerabilities is easy to
> find, despite Apple's dangerous coyness -- and the list of security
> fixes rushed out by Apple is pretty long.

So? Of course we need to install the security fixes. That, making sure
the firewall is on and not letting someone trick us into opening up an
unknown program is all we can do. I don't think the Mac OS X is
invulnerable but it is a heck of a lot less vulnerable than Windows
because as of yet there is no spyware or viruses on OS X. That record
speaks for itself.

--
Charles

In article <[email protected]>, Todd H. <[email protected]> wrote:

> The point remains: there are very good reasons not to follow
> tinyurl's regardless of your OS choice.

The very good reason I don't open one unless it is from a trusted
source is that it could lead to a porn site. If you or Navas posted a
tinyurl I would open it.

--
Charles

At 17 Jan 2008 17:52:41 -0500 Charles wrote:

> > The point remains: there are very good reasons not to follow
> > tinyurl's regardless of your OS choice.
>
> The very good reason I don't open one unless it is from a trusted
> source is that it could lead to a porn site. If you or Navas posted a
> tinyurl I would open it.


As would I. Of course, I'd also open one if I had it on good authority
that it WOULD go to a porn site! ;-)

Charles <[email protected]> writes:

> In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Nothing deep about it -- information on Mac vulnerabilities is easy to
> > find, despite Apple's dangerous coyness -- and the list of security
> > fixes rushed out by Apple is pretty long.
>
> So? Of course we need to install the security fixes. That, making sure
> the firewall is on and not letting someone trick us into opening up an
> unknown program is all we can do. I don't think the Mac OS X is
> invulnerable but it is a heck of a lot less vulnerable than Windows
> because as of yet there is no spyware or viruses on OS X. That record
> speaks for itself.

And that's the right way to look at it.

I think as Mac ticks up in popularity (due to Vista's
craptacularness), the malware will come. After all, shellcoding for
it just got a lot easier now that it's on the Intel platform.

--
Todd H.
http://toddh.net/

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:50:09 -0500, Charles
<[email protected]> wrote in
<170120081750099101%[email protected]>:

>In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Nothing deep about it -- information on Mac vulnerabilities is easy to
>> find, despite Apple's dangerous coyness -- and the list of security
>> fixes rushed out by Apple is pretty long.
>
>So? Of course we need to install the security fixes. That, making sure
>the firewall is on and not letting someone trick us into opening up an
>unknown program is all we can do. I don't think the Mac OS X is
>invulnerable but it is a heck of a lot less vulnerable than Windows
>because as of yet there is no spyware or viruses on OS X. That record
>speaks for itself.

Not really. The most dangerous current exploits are in other areas,
like the Quicktime buffer overflow and the Flash UPnP exploit, to which
the Mac most definitely is vulnerable.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:52:41 -0500, Charles
<[email protected]> wrote in
<170120081752418229%[email protected]>:

>In article <[email protected]>, Todd H. <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The point remains: there are very good reasons not to follow
>> tinyurl's regardless of your OS choice.
>
>The very good reason I don't open one unless it is from a trusted
>source is that it could lead to a porn site. If you or Navas posted a
>tinyurl I would open it.

How you would know we had posted it? Impersonation on Usenet is dead
easy, and happens quite often.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On 17 Jan 2008 18:35:06 -0600, [email protected] (Todd H.) wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>I think as Mac ticks up in popularity (due to Vista's
>craptacularness), the malware will come. After all, shellcoding for
>it just got a lot easier now that it's on the Intel platform.

How does that make it easier???

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:50:09 -0500, Charles
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <170120081750099101%[email protected]>:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Nothing deep about it -- information on Mac vulnerabilities is easy to
> >> find, despite Apple's dangerous coyness -- and the list of security
> >> fixes rushed out by Apple is pretty long.
> >
> >So? Of course we need to install the security fixes. That, making sure
> >the firewall is on and not letting someone trick us into opening up an
> >unknown program is all we can do. I don't think the Mac OS X is
> >invulnerable but it is a heck of a lot less vulnerable than Windows
> >because as of yet there is no spyware or viruses on OS X. That record
> >speaks for itself.
>
> Not really. The most dangerous current exploits are in other areas,
> like the Quicktime buffer overflow and the Flash UPnP exploit, to which
> the Mac most definitely is vulnerable.

QT update today. Next.
John, just where are all the viruses you're so keen on?

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Todd H.) wrote:

> Charles <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Nothing deep about it -- information on Mac vulnerabilities is easy to
> > > find, despite Apple's dangerous coyness -- and the list of security
> > > fixes rushed out by Apple is pretty long.
> >
> > So? Of course we need to install the security fixes. That, making sure
> > the firewall is on and not letting someone trick us into opening up an
> > unknown program is all we can do. I don't think the Mac OS X is
> > invulnerable but it is a heck of a lot less vulnerable than Windows
> > because as of yet there is no spyware or viruses on OS X. That record
> > speaks for itself.
>
> And that's the right way to look at it.
>
> I think as Mac ticks up in popularity (due to Vista's
> craptacularness), the malware will come. After all, shellcoding for
> it just got a lot easier now that it's on the Intel platform.
>
But it's STILL NOT HERE.
Come back after the first major virus or malware episode.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

On 1/17/08 10:47 AM, in article [email protected],
"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 08:21:56 -0800, Kurt <[email protected]> wrote
> in <[email protected]>:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>> =
>>>> Oh, you don't have a Mac, do you?
>>>
>>> Quicktime Player buffer overflow bug
>>> 10 Jan 2008
>>> <http://aluigi.altervista.org/adv/quicktimebof-adv.txt>
>>>
>>> US-CERT Vulnerability Note VU#112179
>>> Apple QuickTime RTSP Response message Reason-Phrase buffer overflow
>>> vulnerability
>>> <http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/112179>
>>>
>>> "Mac lambs line up for slaughter"
>>> <http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2008/01/16/mac_malware_concern/>
>>> That would be you apparently.
>>
>> Yes, funny that only deep Google searches turn up this kind of stuff
>> isn't it?
>
> Nothing deep about it -- information on Mac vulnerabilities is easy to
> find, despite Apple's dangerous coyness -- and the list of security
> fixes rushed out by Apple is pretty long.
>
Again, you a proving yourself to be an uninformed idiot. Quit while you are
ahead, NavASS.

>> One virus that may exist and another exposes a vulnerability that may do
>> something.
>
> That's dangerously naive. Good luck. You'll need it.
>
There are *NO* Mac Virus *in the Wild*. Only those found by software
manufacturers in closed and set-up conditions/situations. You are COMPLETELY
beyond and out of place.

Just like your babblings in the photography groups.

Moron.

>> Meanwhile, update your Windows box, another 3,000 real viruses came out
>> yesterday. LOL
>
> My Windows box is quite secure, thank you, probably more secure than any
> Mac I know of.
>
Just as secure as your 'girlfriend'? RIGHT!

> According to Bruce Schneier, "Security is a process, not a product."
> But you know more about security than he does, right? Likewise other
> security professionals?

On 1/17/08 11:12 AM, in article
[email protected], "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> My Windows box is quite secure, thank you, probably more secure than any
>> Mac I know of.
>
> I will challenge your Windows box to any new Macintosh, fresh out of the
> package.
>
> If you're so convinced your Windows box is that secure, then why the
> paranoia?
>
Nail on the head!

John Navas <[email protected]> writes:

> On 17 Jan 2008 18:35:06 -0600, [email protected] (Todd H.) wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >I think as Mac ticks up in popularity (due to Vista's
> >craptacularness), the malware will come. After all, shellcoding for
> >it just got a lot easier now that it's on the Intel platform.
>
> How does that make it easier???

There's lots o' shellcode around for the IA32 platform, and lots more
people familiar with IA32 assembler than PPC. Once it becomes
lucrative to go after the Mac platform, those who fancy it
impenetrable will be in for an eye opener, I conjecture.


--
Todd H.
http://toddh.net/

On 17 Jan 2008 22:49:31 -0600, [email protected] (Todd H.) wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>John Navas <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On 17 Jan 2008 18:35:06 -0600, [email protected] (Todd H.) wrote in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>> >I think as Mac ticks up in popularity (due to Vista's
>> >craptacularness), the malware will come. After all, shellcoding for
>> >it just got a lot easier now that it's on the Intel platform.
>>
>> How does that make it easier???
>
>There's lots o' shellcode around for the IA32 platform, ...

True, but not necessarily applicable to Mac, and it doesn't take much to
create it for any platform. Once there is an example, it morphs and
replicates rapidly.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>