The first day didn't allow any open apps? That makes a whole lot of sense for security testing.
Yeah because in the real world, people never open any applications. They just sit and stare at their oh-so-sexy Macs, pondering whether or not to actually do anything. Constantly and obsessively washing their hands, so that if they do decide to do something on their stiffy inducing consumer electronic device, they won't smudge it up.
I agree, it's the same for Windows. If I never opened any application but IE (including IE ActiveX plugins) I would never get viruses. But then again, the only reason I never get any viruses or spyware is because I'm CAREFUL on the internet. I use Firefox, TrendMicro, and Bitcomet and I haven't had a virus, spyware, or anything malware related since November, and that was removed in 5 seconds.
That last comment really changed my position in this argument.
"If I never opened any application but IE I would never get viruses."
That's where you're wrong, and why this engadget post is so poorly written.
The fact is that there are many remote exploits (as is, exploits to your computer that require ZERO action on your part) for windows, while ZERO remote exploits for root access exist (yet) on OS X.
Requiring user interaction (not just "opening safari" but following a link, which engadget happened to either just not mention or fail to comprehend,) makes this a very unimpressive hack (still worth fixing, obviously)
the fact is that a windows computer can be compromised within an hour of just being on the internet, with or without you opening IE. nothing anywhere near that kind of exploit exists on OS X yet.
I'm all for security testing, and i firmly believe someone will get a remote exploit for the mac out in the wild eventually, and when it happens Apple will need to get off their tower and fix it immediately. THat day just hasn't come yet, and people like Engadget need to try (at least a little) to publish ACCURATE articles: this one is not.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
BigD @ Apr 22nd 2007 8:14AM
The first day didn't allow any open apps? That makes a whole lot of sense for security testing.
Yeah because in the real world, people never open any applications. They just sit and stare at their oh-so-sexy Macs, pondering whether or not to actually do anything. Constantly and obsessively washing their hands, so that if they do decide to do something on their stiffy inducing consumer electronic device, they won't smudge it up.
Teh Gascan @ Apr 22nd 2007 12:51PM
I agree, it's the same for Windows. If I never opened any application but IE (including IE ActiveX plugins) I would never get viruses. But then again, the only reason I never get any viruses or spyware is because I'm CAREFUL on the internet. I use Firefox, TrendMicro, and Bitcomet and I haven't had a virus, spyware, or anything malware related since November, and that was removed in 5 seconds.
That last comment really changed my position in this argument.
Jeff @ Apr 22nd 2007 1:53PM
"If I never opened any application but IE I would never get viruses."
That's where you're wrong, and why this engadget post is so poorly written.
The fact is that there are many remote exploits (as is, exploits to your computer that require ZERO action on your part) for windows, while ZERO remote exploits for root access exist (yet) on OS X.
Requiring user interaction (not just "opening safari" but following a link, which engadget happened to either just not mention or fail to comprehend,) makes this a very unimpressive hack (still worth fixing, obviously)
the fact is that a windows computer can be compromised within an hour of just being on the internet, with or without you opening IE. nothing anywhere near that kind of exploit exists on OS X yet.
I'm all for security testing, and i firmly believe someone will get a remote exploit for the mac out in the wild eventually, and when it happens Apple will need to get off their tower and fix it immediately. THat day just hasn't come yet, and people like Engadget need to try (at least a little) to publish ACCURATE articles: this one is not.