HolidayBuyer's Guide

Mac OS forum

General discussion

Is it true that MacOS is Virus Free?...

by lukmanfebrianto / February 16, 2008 9:32 AM PST

Dear all friends,

I've been using Microsoft Windows operating system since Windows 3.1 version, and often get computer virus attacks ever since. Eventhough I'm using many kind of security softwares (Anti Virus, Anti Spyware, etc.), still I can't free myself from the most dangerous attacks, the local computer viruses (viruses that made by programmer from my country).

I plan to switch to Mac computer and using MacOS. But, is it true that MacOS is Virus Free or at least have less computer virus or any kind of malicious software attacks?

Thank You very much for your kind and honest replies.

Best Regards,
Lukman Febrianto

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Is it true that MacOS is Virus Free?...
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Is it true that MacOS is Virus Free?...
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
.
by R. Proffitt Forum moderator / February 16, 2008 9:38 AM PST

But your question may be whether there is a virus for the MacOS rather than what you asked.

There is few trojans and worms but so far these require the owner to install them. So far you can't be infected via email, web browsing or as in the initial XP just by connecting to the internet.

I still endorse using "Little Snitch."

Bob

Collapse -
Mostly true
by krioni--2008 / February 22, 2008 12:08 PM PST
In reply to: .

You're right that there are no viruses (at least if you specify differences between virus, worm, and trojan horse, and others) for Mac OS X. There were some back in the 1990's on the classic Mac OS, but that was actually almost a completely different operating system, and those do not work in any fashion on modern computers.

Because Mac OS X (like most operating systems) assumes the user wants to be able to install and run applications, it is possible to write a trojan horse. Anyone could write a program that deletes all files owned by the user when run by the targeted user. It would literally take almost no time to create such a thing, for almost any operating system. There's the old UNIX joke about the virus spread by the honor system, where the user must manually type "rm -rf" (don't do it!) to delete all the files they own. The first and best solution is to NOT run programs from untrusted sources.

Now, Mac OS X has fewer pieces of malicious software for several reasons. The first is that it is more difficult to write viruses and worms (that seek out remote machines to attack) for multiple reasons:
(1) Mac OS X is based on UNIX (and Leopard is, in fact, officially UNIX), which has been analyzed by many people who have access to the source code, especially since the underlying source code for much of the low-level parts of Mac OS X is open source.
(2) Mac OS X, by default, has most ports closed which makes it less susceptible to remote attacks, rather than coming with many ports open, as Windows has in the past.
(3) Many of the remote services that can be activated on Mac OS X are open source software projects, and are very well vetted for security (although Apple does not always update them for security as quickly as it should).
(4) User-level security is better managed on Mac OS X, without the annoying Allow/Cancel of Vista. It is harder, though not impossible, theoretically, for a malicious program to access the operating system itself, especially if the user is not logged in as an Admin.
(5) MAYBE: The level of skill required to create malicious software for the Mac is higher, and there are fewer people who have that skill, and the people who do have more legitimate ways of making money. This MIGHT loosely tie into the "security through obscurity" theory that people carelessly throw around when they don't know about all the factors I mentioned above. That theory cannot explain the almost complete lack of any malicious software for Mac OS X, especially since there are around 25 million Macs in use, and platforms with a smaller user-base have seen viruses and other malicious software.

In addition to it being more difficult, there is somewhat less incentive to create malware for Macs, since there are fewer, BUT there are not NONE, which is how much malware there is. It is a combination of the (greatly) increased difficulty and the smaller user-base that has resulted in ZERO viruses, and only one or two pieces of malware. There have been security vulnerabilities that theoretically could have resulted in malware, but the architecture of Mac OS X makes exploiting vulnerabilities difficult, and because much of the OS is open source, it is harder for a hacker to know about a vulnerability and keep it a secret while building an exploit - generally the "good guys" find them first and Apple fixes them.

One thing to remember: Mac OS X can be hacked if you combine the following foolish behaviors: (1) don't have a firewall, (2) have remote access turned on, and (3) use a single dictionary word as your password. Believe it or not, I knew a company that had a bunch of Macs set up in that way (all with SAME single-word password), and some hacker threw a dictionary at them and got root access, installing phishing sites on them. If they had used a more difficult password, they probably would have been fine. The firewall would make them even safer, obviously.

All of the above is a long way to say: Mac OS X is currently safer, and probably will remain that way for the forseeable future, but you still want to practice safe computing. Have good passwords, use proper security methods like firewalls, and don't trust strangers.

Good luck in whatever decisions you make.

Collapse -
Elucidating
by richteral / February 22, 2008 3:40 PM PST
In reply to: Mostly true

Have read with great interest your detailed & well-reasoned expose. Very useful for making decisions about whether to switch to Mac.

Collapse -
Virus free Macs
by c.b.mullen / February 23, 2008 7:04 AM PST
In reply to: Elucidating

To state that a Mac OS cannot be infected with viruses, worms, trojans or malware in general is pure and simple *********. Don't believe it.
There are many malware programs being written for Mac OSX and Linux in general. Go to any searchbar and type Mac OS infections or Mac malware attacks or anything similar. You will be provided with abundant information that will back up what I am telling you.
You must remember that the biggest cause of computer problems and infections lies between the computer and the chair. Your computer cannot be infected or infested with malware of any kind without the actions of the person using the computer. You are responsible for all infections on your computer, whether knowingly or unknowingly.

Collapse -
Did I miss something here?
by mrmacfixit Forum moderator / February 23, 2008 9:18 AM PST
In reply to: Virus free Macs

Which post said that the Mac OS cannot be infected with viruses, worms, trojans or malware?

You are right about the problem being between the computer and the chair but believe me, Windows can be infected without the aid of anyone.

P

Collapse -
Virus free Mac OS
by c.b.mullen / February 24, 2008 10:32 AM PST

I was responding to the post by "lukmanfebrianto" who made the statement "is it true that Mac OS is virus free".
Yes, it is certainly true that a Windows OS can be infected much easier and more often than a Mac. Most malware applications are written for Windows because it is the operating system used on 90% of the worlds computers. Please note that I stated "computers" and not servers.
However, more and more malware apps are being written for Apple's operating systems.

Collapse -
Security is in the structure
by algreig / February 22, 2008 12:01 PM PST

Mac OSX is a version of Unix, and Linux is a derivative of Unix. When Unix was designed it was built for networking, and for outstanding security. When Linus Torvalds developed the Linux Operating system in 1992 he based it on Unix, and it too, was designed for networking and for rock solid security. !n 1992 Microsoft had little idea of networking and even less of an idea of security, theuy are still playing catch up today. The difference is in the construction: MS Windows is "monolithic" ie everything is put into the kernel, everything attaches to the kernel, and so every program you install on a Windows system has access to the kernel - it's just the way it's built. On the other hand Unix and Linux are "modular" in that the kernel interacts with various modules, without giving them write access to itself. In fact some security minded folk install their Linux kernel on a CDRom and install the rest on the hard drive. Because a CDRom is readonly it cannot be compromised at all. Not a bad idea. The trick in compromising a Mac or Linux machine is to deceive the user into performing an unsafe procedure. So if you are an idiot, your computer is at risk. But if you have a healthy suspicion, have never opened a Nigerian money scam and wondered if it worked, then there is hope for you with a Mac or Linux system.

Collapse -
Your question? Does Mac OS X have viruses?
by GSTWOSEF / February 22, 2008 12:30 PM PST

Yes, but it does not mean that Microsoft is a bad operating system to use. Let's face it. Microsoft makes and program the operating system in a way that is related to DOS program and always has been for years. The UNIX Open Source is one of people's preferences today because those are the system architectures in which it is built to work seamlessly and independently. I love my Mac and always will be a Mac users forever!

Collapse -
Ever heard of Vista?
by santuccie / February 23, 2008 1:24 PM PST

Vista works the same way. Kernel drivers still interact with other programs, but every driver has pre-defined functions, and system32 is locked down in the creator/owner account. Just as you can with Linux, you can surf dodgy sites in Vista without antimalware, and without some iFrame remotely executing arbitrary code on your system. The only way you can get infected is by installing the software yourself, and either clicking "Continue" to grant high privileges or turning off UAC. And even then, it's still fairly isolated from the rest of the system, changes are easily undone, and damage little to none.

The people at Microsoft do not sit around from nine to five Monday through Friday, with their left index finder up their left nostril to the second knuckle, and their right thumb where the sun doesn't shine. Linux is inherently more secure than XP and earlier because it was designed for servers, not desktops. It's not because Windows is all monolithic and Linux is modular; that's what you call a meme. How come Linux never again works the same after the first USB crash, and icons disappear from the taskbar? And just FYI, no Linux distro is as secure as OpenBSD. In ten years, a grand total of 2 remote vulnerabilities have surfaced.

Collapse -
I'd take a Mac over Vista, anyday...
by b8375629 / February 24, 2008 4:23 AM PST
In reply to: Ever heard of Vista?

And that's coming from a dual XP / Linux user...

Collapse -
(NT) Good for you
by santuccie / February 24, 2008 6:46 AM PST
Collapse -
No, it is not.
by thljcl / February 22, 2008 8:10 PM PST

Honestly, no one in the world could claim that anything in the world is perfect. Mac OS is certainly not virus-free. Viri are more for Windows because hacker would like to attack the software with dominant market share. Please don't think that switching to Mac OS is the solution for your problem. I've used Windows since Windows 98. I've seldom had virus/Trojan/Spyware problems. Safe or not? I can't claim that Windows is safe. You need to have good practice to avoid many problems. A user's ignorance is very harmful. Instead for paying for a new software, try to increase your general knowledge. In this era, it is quite easy since Internet is so convenient. At the same time, Internet is quite dangerous. You can easily get attacted from the Internet.

Collapse -
An interesting statement
by mrmacfixit Forum moderator / February 22, 2008 11:36 PM PST
In reply to: No, it is not.

"Mac OS is certainly not virus-free."

Examples of virus's, in the wild, that attack OS X would be appreciated.

This market share idea is just a myth. It has nothing to do with market share and everything to do with the ease of writing a virus that attacks the Windows operating system.

For example. Off the top of your head, how many people do you think are running the Linux operating system on their iPod?
Your first answer may be that you didn't know that could be done. It can and there are quite a few people who do it.
Now, given the millions of iPods that are out there, the number of people running Linux on them is infinitesimal. Way less than 1% of the market share.
So a statement like "hacker would like to attack the software with dominant market share" would mean that the standard Apple iPod should have a considerable number of virus's that attack it. After all, it has the dominant market share.

Instead we find that the Linux variant of the Apple iPod is the one with the virus! How can that be so? It has virtually No market share.
Source: Symantec

Enough of the Security by Obscurity Myth, it just does not fly

The greatest danger right now to OS X is the user themselves. As already mentioned in this thread, there is nothing to stop any user from installing a program that will do damage to their computer. Education helps but there will always be someone who does what everyone tells them not to do.

To answer the original posters question: There are currently no virus's, in the wild, that successfully attack the current versions of OS X.

P

Collapse -
Here's an example for you
by santuccie / February 23, 2008 2:54 PM PST
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-6126_102-0.html?forumID=10&threadID=284174&messageID=2705874

OSX.RSPlug.A is in fact an ItW sample, not PoC. Of course it requires user intervention, and cannot simply install itself in a drive-by attack. But Vista is the same way. System32 is locked down in the creator/owner account, kernel drivers are confined to pre-defined functions and associations, and any program that requires administrative privileges has to be admitted via UAC.

Once admitted through UAC, any program not recognized by Microsoft is still blocked from starting with Windows. Even some legitimate programs cannot run without manual configuration in the task scheduler. Arovax Shield is one example; it's a perfectly legitimate program, and fully compatible with Vista. Microsoft just hasn't endorsed it.

Before Mac OS went to the BSD kernel, there were Mac viruses out there. And before remote vulnerabilities aplenty started being sought out in XP and earlier, all attacks were social engineering attacks. Users of Windows XP and earlier still have MPack and others to worry about, but have you been reading about the Storm worm at all? It's the most successful and longest-running botnet worm of all time (actually, it's the most successful malware, period), pumping out roughly 1,000 variations a day. You have to open an "e-card" from someone you don't know to get it.

Social engineering is, was, and is to be...the foremost method of attack delivery. And as long as you can install software on a Mac, you can install malicious software just as easily. I have already mentioned that there are ItW threats for Mac OS; the reason less exist for OS-X than Linux is because Linux is older than OS-X itself. Before Apple switched to the BSD kernel, fewer people used BSD than Linux. There's your market share connection.

If you do a Google search for "mac more secure than vista," or "os-x more secure than vista" in quotes, you won't find anything. Reverse them, and you'll get plenty. Plenty of experts, Dino Dai Zovi being one, say that OS-X is less secure than Vista. And since Leopard's default install has the firewall disabled, non-suspecting users are sitting ducks. So why is Vista the bigger target? Market share. Hope this helps!
Collapse -
That's all you can come up with?
by b8375629 / February 24, 2008 4:27 AM PST

Aren't you the guy who was spreading FUD about Linux viruses a few months ago?

Collapse -
How do you define FUD?
by santuccie / February 24, 2008 6:45 AM PST

It stands for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Whenever I've mentioned Linux malware, it was to demonstrate a point. There are Linux advocates here, prescribing migration as a security solution. But one issue the Storm worm demonstrates is that a Windows user's biggest problem is naivety. If Linux has infected codecs of its own, what good does migrating do?

What's your point? Do you have one at all, or did my past words leave you with a sour taste in your mouth?

Collapse -
Re: How do you define FUD?
by wkia / February 24, 2008 11:25 AM PST
In reply to: How do you define FUD?

Well put, santuccie

If you can get a virus on any of the OS'es available, then what's the point of switching to a different OS? If the OS got one virus then you can be sure that the programmer is willing to write more viruses. If not there will be someone else that is willing to write that virus to cause chaos.

Collapse -
Thank you
by santuccie / February 24, 2008 1:38 PM PST

In truth, Linux really is difficult to compromise, and it takes user intervention to infect it. But still, Vista is just as tough out of the box, and Windows operating systems based on the New Technology File System can be locked down. This includes XP and 2K, not just Vista.

Once the argument of security is shot down, the next one would probably be that Linux is faster, and enables switching between multiple desktop spaces without logging in and out. My answer to the first is XP; my answer to the second is, "Big whoop!"

The greatest advantage to using Windows is that you don't have to hunt forever until you find a distro that supports both your processor and your networking hardware. And installing networking device drivers doesn't involve hunting down the instructions and typing a bunch of gibberish commands for NDISWrapper. Windows just works. If it's not broke, don't fix it.

Anyway, this forum isn't about Windows. It's about the Mac, and the Mac works for most people who try it. I prefer Windows because of the universe of hardware and software options. Mac users prefer the Mac because it's harder to mess up than Windows. I can understand this point, and it might affect me more if I wasn't a tech. Your preference depends on you.

Collapse -
Where's the beef?
by b8375629 / February 25, 2008 1:05 AM PST

Show me the virus attacks on Linux or Apple. Did you bother to read Krioni and algreg's posts up above? They pretty much summed up the reality of the situation. I know that's hard for some people to take.

Let's have some facts about virus attacks instead of fear-mongering "what if" FUD, please...

Collapse -
No scaremongering here, just warning
by santuccie / February 25, 2008 8:53 AM PST
In reply to: Where's the beef?
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3601946
http://www.linux.com/feature/125548
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=626622
http://www.viruslist.com/en/find?search_mode=full&words=linux&x=0&y=0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_computer_viruses
http://www.sophos.com/security/blog/2007/11/750.html

Malware rarely gets as deep into Linux as it does in Windows operating systems prior to Windows Vista, because Linux typically runs in low-privilege accounts. But it can still run in a low-privilege account, and can go completely undetected as most Linux users do not run antimalware.

I actually don't run antimalware in Windows, but I do lock the kernel, and I don't install warez or software from dodgy sites. Also, and even though I'd be flabbergasted if I ever found anything, I do run scans. Most Linux users do not.

At the very least, it's advisable to check your network activity periodically. No OS is 100% safe, no matter what the fanboys say. As long as you can install software on your computer, you can install malicious software on your computer. Hope this helps!

"A mind is like a parachute - it works best when it is open."
Collapse -
Wanna bet?
by b8375629 / February 26, 2008 3:00 AM PST
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3601946

That tells me nothing specific. Ziltch.

http://www.linux.com/feature/125548

That tells me Apache servers PASS ON malware to Windows desktops without being infected themselves. Common knowledge.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=626622

Again, nothing. The majority of respondents in that thread thought the article was a load of bs, especially from a MS-sponsored event.

http://www.viruslist.com/en/find?search_mode=full&words=linux&x=0&y=0

Ha ha, just about all those articles are about 5 years old or older. Again, two or three line statements about alleged worms not said anywhere else. Where?s the proof? That someone posted it? I haven?t seen anything mentioned about it in any of the Linux forums I go to. I doubt they?re egos are so great that they?d neglect to tell us about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_computer_viruses

Wiki?s are generally full of inaccuracies. The only thing mentioned is:

?The major threat to Linux systems at present seems to be exploitation of browsers such as Mozilla Firefox and Opera, just as in the Windows world the exploitation uses the vulnerabilities of the Internet Explorer and Firefox browsers. Cross-platform viruses have been written for cross-platform applications, such as the OpenOffice.org suite?

Even I?ve been attacked by browser malware in Linux. So what.

I hit CTRL+ESC to close the browser, reboot the machine, Linux clears out the malware on it?s own. No kernel infection. No having to boot into safe mode to remove anything. No need for 3rd party cleaners and virus programs.

http://www.sophos.com/security/blog/2007/11/750.html

ONE article printed by an anti-spyware company spreading fear so they can sell their Linux version to Linux users. If you think you feel safer using this, then by all means, spend your money.
Collapse -
Folly
by santuccie / February 26, 2008 4:05 AM PST
In reply to: Wanna bet?

This is the last response I have for you. With regard to the Apache servers, you should know it's because of market share that the iFrames will target the platform with 90% of the global market. You're completely overlooking the fact that these servers allowed cross-scripting compromise in the first place, and you should also know that servers are less vulnerable than desktops.

You've said in the past that you work in the IT field, yet you scoff at the very notion of malware on any non-Microsoft platform (typical of newbie emigrants), even after having your attention directed to official sources. Worse, you've scoffed at existing security software for non-Microsoft platforms in the past, and continue to deny its necessity with utter desperation here. Every tech I have EVER spoken to knows as I do that Windows is not the only platform being hit. Ever hear of the iPhone?

Either you've avoided infection by way of caution, or you're infected and don't even know it. People running OS-X and Linux really are getting their systems compromised, but you don't want to hear of it. You hurl defamation at every mention of it, calling it scaremongering and hypothetical FUD. Either you're just another one of those people who thinks they can teach the rest of the class on the first day of the semester, or a cracker. Either you think your intuition is greater than my experience and years of research, or you're trying to conceal the truth for personal, criminal interests.

Either you have no real experience in the IT industry, or your skills are in the employ of a criminal industry, in which case I sleep a WHOLE lot better than you do. Either way, be aware that you are depreciating the value of this thread, not adding to it. My debate with you is over. Good day.

Collapse -
Free AV
by santuccie / February 26, 2008 4:46 AM PST
In reply to: Folly

One more thing: I've told you before that there are free AV scanners for Linux. A few of them can be found here: http://www.itsecurity.com/features/103-free-security-apps-041607/ And ClamAV is even in the repositories. I know darn well you're aware of this. You're hiding something. Even if you're nothing more than a fanboy who can't bear a word against his deity, you might as well be a criminal. It's because of people like you, writing malware and/or keeping the average user in the dark, that the Web is like it is now. I hope you feel REALLY good about yourself. Some of us live by higher standards.

Collapse -
I doubt it...
by b8375629 / February 26, 2008 6:55 AM PST
In reply to: Folly

Hilarious...

"This is the last response I have for you. With regard to the Apache servers, you should know it's because of market share that the iFrames will target the platform with 90% of the global market. You're completely overlooking the fact that these servers allowed cross-scripting compromise in the first place, and you should also know that servers are less vulnerable than desktops."

Yeah, to platforms that already have swiss-cheese security due to the inherent flaws in Microsoft?s OS. Apache servers are supposed to be patched on a regular basis, not to keep them safe, but to keep their clients safe. If XP wasn?t as vulnerable as it is, we wouldn?t be having this problem.

"You've said in the past that you work in the IT field, yet you scoff at the very notion of malware on any non-Microsoft platform (typical of newbie emigrants), even after having your attention directed to official sources."

I did?

When did I ever say that to you?

"Worse, you've scoffed at existing security software for non-Microsoft platforms in the past, and continue to deny its necessity with utter desperation here. Every tech I have EVER spoken to knows as I do that Windows is not the only platform being hit. Ever hear of the iPhone?"

That?s right. I think it?s idiotic and this point in time to run Windows based security programs on Linux. Even if by some miracle they?re ported to Linux. If there was truly a threat out there, the mainstream press, the IT press and each distro developers group would have a field day.

"Either you've avoided infection by way of caution, or you're infected and don't even know it. People running OS-X and Linux really are getting their systems compromised, but you don't want to hear of it."

I think you?re barking up the wrong tree, pal. I doubt you even use Linux let alone support it.

"You hurl defamation at every mention of it, calling it scaremongering and hypothetical FUD. Either you're just another one of those people who thinks they can teach the rest of the class on the first day of the semester, or a cracker."

Again, all you?ve produced is FUD. When you have something substantial to show, please let me know about it, ok?

"Either you have no real experience in the IT industry, or your skills are in the employ of a criminal industry, in which case I sleep a WHOLE lot better than you do. Either way, be aware that you are depreciating the value of this thread, not adding to it. My debate with you is over. Good day."

Whatever. You don?t even know me and for you to make a ridiculous accusation like that, really just shows what part of left-field you're way out in.

I don?t know what you hope to gain by all this because as I said before, I doubt you even use Apple or Linux anyway. It calls into question everything you've said here.

Collapse -
Technical difficulties
by santuccie / February 26, 2008 8:11 AM PST
In reply to: I doubt it...

I don't know what went wrong there, but let me try these characters...

..."You've said in the past that you work in the IT field, yet you scoff at the very notion of malware on any non-Microsoft platform (typical of newbie emigrants), even after having your attention directed to official sources."

...I did?

...When did I ever say that to you?...

--Here: http://forums.cnet.com/5208-6142_102-0.html?forumID=7&threadID=260026&messageID=2575766#2575766
'I?m already in the IT field. I deal with Windows Server 2003 all the time, as well as dealing with users who **** up their desktops on a regular basis. Active Directory, OUs, Group Policies, imaging, RAID controllers, domain controllers, mirroring, striping, security patches, HP rack servers, cabling, etc.. so no, I don?t look at them as ?toys?. It?s my bread & butter.

'But even after a couple of years in the field, I still have to ask questions, even on C-Net if I can?t find it through Google. I don?t know everything, so I still have to ask for help.'

And elsewhere: http://forums.cnet.com/5208-6142_102-0.html?forumID=7&threadID=260026&messageID=2576201&tag=mcnt#2576201

You just go on ahead with your rebuttals; debating with you is like arguing with a two-year-old. Right or wrong, you keep at it anyway for the last word. I'm sure you'll have to respond to this one as well, and I await with amusement and enthusiasm your response to a bald-faced lie thrown back in your face. I find the truth a lot easier to remember; perhaps you'll learn that lesson one day.

Collapse -
You spot it, you got it
by santuccie / February 26, 2008 11:25 AM PST
In reply to: I doubt it...

Actually, after I discontinued that debate, I did find out from the forums that I had to hunt down instructions from a third-party Web site to setup a front-end for AVG.

So, now I'm an incompetent idiot? Now you've resorted to name-calling, in feeble effort to evade the fact that you've been caught in a lie. Unfortunately, it's still there, still visible, like a big, red zit on the tip of your nose, or a "talking" ink stain on your shirt pocket. You said in that other thread that you were in IT; you've claimed here that you never did, which insinuates you're not in IT. So which is it?

"Insecure," "immature," "incompetent," and "idiotic" though I may be, at least I never claimed knowledge or experience I didn't have (and I do have plenty). Too bad you can't say the same. To be caught in a lie and continue to argue reminds me of the little boy with chocolate smeared around his mouth, swearing he didn't eat the candy bar. That's what I call idiocy. "Stupid is as stupid does," that's what they say.

Bottom line is, there are over 800 malware out there for the Linux platform, and plenty of "idiots" (like me, apparently) who will fall for social engineering tactics. This being so, it's advisable new immigrants to your platform at least install a free, on-demand scanner.

So I'm treating it like Windows...whatever. Fact of the matter is, cybercriminals will take advantage of those who don't know better. I'm trying to make sure that doesn't happen. Since you're still arguing in full light of the truth, apparently you're trying to make sure it does happen. Again, I hope you feel REALLY good about yourself. It's because of people like you that we have "idiots." Either lend a hand, of go ahead and flame your way to Gehenna.

Collapse -
If the shoe fits...
by b8375629 / February 26, 2008 11:52 AM PST
In reply to: I doubt it...

Wear it, pal...

I'm not here to engage in ad-hominem attacks, so I suggest you do the same. If I think you're wrong just accept it, k?

I'm just a lowly little MCP with two and a half years in the IT field. I may not know much, but I do know a little and I do know FUD when I hear it. I also don't let pride & ego get in the way when I have to ask for help sometimes.

So I don't what your motive is here, but I doubt it's to keep us Linux and Apple users safe from tilting at the windmills out there.

~

PS: Why don't you buy an Apple? Then you won't have to worry about any of this. Happy

Collapse -
Keep beating around the bush...
by santuccie / February 26, 2008 12:17 PM PST
In reply to: I doubt it...

'I'm not here to engage in ad-hominem attacks, so I suggest you do the same. If I think you're wrong just accept it, k?'
--Why don't you accept when someone not only says you're wrong, but explains why? What makes you so special? No matter how many times you get corrected, you continue to assert that I don't know what I'm talking about, and exalt yourself like some kind of authority in IT. I think everyone following this thread knows by now that you're not. Why are you wasting your time, my time, and everyone else's time, trying to play it off? The yolk's on you, kid!

'I'm just a lowly little MCP with two and a half years in the IT field. I may not know much, but I do know a little and I do know FUD when I hear it. I also don't let pride & ego get in the way when I have to ask for help sometimes.'
--If this were true, you would have confirmed it the first time I mentioned it in this thread. No, you're attempting to take the path of least resistance, spewing your own ad-hominem attacks at me to machete your way through the thicket of correction legitimately substantiated by me. Some of us know how to thank others for the enlightenment of correction, and don't have to "make saves" and pick up the lie where it left off for the sake of our pride & ego. Obviously, you're not among us.

'So I don't what your motive is here, but I doubt it's to keep us Linux and Apple users safe from tilting at the windmills out there.'
--Obviously your pride and ego are so indispensable to you that you'll continue to assert that I'm mad and pursuing a "what if" game, in spite of the fact that I've already linked to legitimate security vendors who record and describe Linux malware. I suppose it's just a figament of my "quixotic" imagination, right?

~

'PS: Why don't you buy an Apple? Then you won't have to worry about any of this.'
--I've told you before, and mentioned in other posts in this forum, that I know how to lock the kernel in NTFS. Even locally executed malware cannot survive a reboot on my machine. Why don't I buy an Apple? Because I'm not worried, plain and simple.

Collapse -
I guess the truth really does hurt
by santuccie / February 26, 2008 12:35 PM PST
In reply to: I doubt it...

LOL, now you're sending me private messages? Wow, you've really taken this personally!

Collapse -
You take yourself wayyyyy too seriously, pal...
by b8375629 / February 26, 2008 12:50 PM PST
In reply to: I doubt it...

"Why don't you accept when someone not only says you're wrong, but explains why? What makes you so special?"

(smacking head - ho boy!) Grin

"No matter how many times you get corrected, you continue to assert that I don't know what I'm talking about, and exalt yourself like some kind of authority in IT."

Uh, no...I think you can't accept somebody disagreeing with you, so you take it to a personal extreme everytime somebody else does. Maybe you shouldn't go around spreading so much FUD. It only makes you look like a fool.

"I think everyone following this thread knows by now that you're not. Why are you wasting your time, my time, and everyone else's time, trying to play it off?"

Hey a few posts back, you announced it was the end of the debate. I can see that you're not a man of your word, so if I'm really wasting your time, you can end it anytime you want to.

But you won't so don't complain.

"If this were true, you would have confirmed it the first time I mentioned it in this thread."

What, am I supposed to print my resume online for you? LOL... Grin

"No, you're attempting to take the path of least resistance, spewing your own ad-hominem attacks at me to machete your way through the thicket of correction legitimately substantiated by me."

(??) - - - Grin ---> That's funny.

"Some of us know how to thank others for the enlightenment of correction, and don't have to "make saves" and pick up the lie where it left off for the sake of our pride & ego. Obviously, you're not among us."

Dude, you really need to get out and get some fresh air. Seriously. You take this (and yourself) wayyyy too seriously. You sound like you're on the verge of going off the deep end here.

"Obviously your pride and ego are so indispensable to you that you'll continue to assert that I'm mad..."

Well if you're not, you're pretty close to it. (laughs) Grin

"...and pursuing a "what if" game, in spite of the fact that I've already linked to legitimate security vendors who record and describe Linux malware. I suppose it's just a figament of my "quixotic" imagination, right?"

It is a figment of your imagination, and it looks like most of the people who've responded to you, aren't really impressed by any of the so-called proof you've googled up. Maybe you shouldn't try so hard, huh? Or are you that big a slave to Microsoft that you've put blinders on towards any of the other possibilities that out there.

"Why don't I buy an Apple? Because I'm not worried, plain and simple."

Coulda fooled me... - - - not Wink

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE 2017

Cameras that make great holiday gifts

Let them start the new year with a step up in photo and video quality from a phone.