<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Mac Virus on the loose - Oompa Loompa</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.greenllama.net/blog/2006/02/19/mac-virus-on-the-loose-oompa-loompa/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.greenllama.net/blog/2006/02/19/mac-virus-on-the-loose-oompa-loompa/</link>
	<description>Make Money Online</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:01:34 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Leroy Brown</title>
		<link>http://www.greenllama.net/blog/2006/02/19/mac-virus-on-the-loose-oompa-loompa/#comment-11</link>
		<dc:creator>Leroy Brown</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:18:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.greenllama.net/blog/?p=73#comment-11</guid>
		<description>I wouldn't say I'm a windows "fanboy" per se.  Do I like windows?  Sure.  It's easy.  It's compatible. It's familiar.  If I hear about or see a program that I want, I rarely have to worry about if there's a windows version.  

I've tried to learn Linux before... several times in fact.  It's not hard by any means, just... clunky... I think that's the best word.  It's much more of a PITA to do something on Linux as compared to windows.  Usually.  

Anyway, I just find it funny when viruses, malware, or security flaws are found in a Mac or Linux/Unix system.  Simply because the users seem to think themselves about problems like that, because they are using a non-windows OS.  Fact is, if a hacker/ cracker / virus makin guy wants to cause a ruckus bad enough, he's gonna do it, regardless of what OS he's up against.  Period.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wouldn&#8217;t say I&#8217;m a windows &#8220;fanboy&#8221; per se.  Do I like windows?  Sure.  It&#8217;s easy.  It&#8217;s compatible. It&#8217;s familiar.  If I hear about or see a program that I want, I rarely have to worry about if there&#8217;s a windows version.  </p>
<p>I&#8217;ve tried to learn Linux before&#8230; several times in fact.  It&#8217;s not hard by any means, just&#8230; clunky&#8230; I think that&#8217;s the best word.  It&#8217;s much more of a PITA to do something on Linux as compared to windows.  Usually.  </p>
<p>Anyway, I just find it funny when viruses, malware, or security flaws are found in a Mac or Linux/Unix system.  Simply because the users seem to think themselves about problems like that, because they are using a non-windows OS.  Fact is, if a hacker/ cracker / virus makin guy wants to cause a ruckus bad enough, he&#8217;s gonna do it, regardless of what OS he&#8217;s up against.  Period.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gary Turner</title>
		<link>http://www.greenllama.net/blog/2006/02/19/mac-virus-on-the-loose-oompa-loompa/#comment-10</link>
		<dc:creator>Gary Turner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2006 03:38:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.greenllama.net/blog/?p=73#comment-10</guid>
		<description>According to a CERT/FBI report (sorry, don't have the reference), attacks are proportional to &lt;em&gt;the number of vulnerabilities&lt;/em&gt;, not the ubiquity.  Your fallacious thesis fails simply by looking at the the number of attacks on IIS compared to the number against Apache.  

Apache numbers more than twice the installations of IIS, and has more installations and serves more sites than all other web servers combined.  So why are there so few attacks on Apache and so many on IIS?  Simply because there are more vulnerabilities in IIS.

Don't you think the black hat cracker that produces a viable virus or worm attack on a *nix os or app would gain an incredible amount of cyberstreet cred?

If there's an attack on Mac, it's because a fault was found, not because of numbers.

Don't paint yourself a Windows fanboy.  Windows is built on a stand alone premise where only physical security is important.  They're catching up, if slowly, but are still inherently unsecure.

Linux, *BSD, OSX and other *nix flavors are network oriented OSes which required restricted privilege from the get-go.

cheers,

gary</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>According to a CERT/FBI report (sorry, don&#8217;t have the reference), attacks are proportional to <em>the number of vulnerabilities</em>, not the ubiquity.  Your fallacious thesis fails simply by looking at the the number of attacks on IIS compared to the number against Apache.  </p>
<p>Apache numbers more than twice the installations of IIS, and has more installations and serves more sites than all other web servers combined.  So why are there so few attacks on Apache and so many on IIS?  Simply because there are more vulnerabilities in IIS.</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t you think the black hat cracker that produces a viable virus or worm attack on a *nix os or app would gain an incredible amount of cyberstreet cred?</p>
<p>If there&#8217;s an attack on Mac, it&#8217;s because a fault was found, not because of numbers.</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t paint yourself a Windows fanboy.  Windows is built on a stand alone premise where only physical security is important.  They&#8217;re catching up, if slowly, but are still inherently unsecure.</p>
<p>Linux, *BSD, OSX and other *nix flavors are network oriented OSes which required restricted privilege from the get-go.</p>
<p>cheers,</p>
<p>gary</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 3.384 seconds -->
