Quote:
I never said that. One of the biggest themes in those ads was the fact that "PCs crash, Macs don't" or "PCs get viruses, Macs don't".
The word "infallible" was never directly used but it was implied
And I'm not trying to start and argument here, I'm just pointing out that Macs are not perfect. Nothing is
Again, Apple never said Mac OS was incapable of getting any viruses or malware. Apple never implied that their code was error free. Apple never made a single statement that the Mac was incapable of ever failing and the very fact they issue point and security updates is proof that they fix bugs in their code.
in•fall•ib•le |in?fal?b?l| adjective
never failing; always effective.
If you've fallen victim to a marketing campaign because you can't separate Windows and Mac OS X being different operating systems that would be affected by different viruses and malware that is on you. When did Apple first start using their built-in virus protection? When did Apple start requiring an admin username and password to install apps that need access outside the user environment? When did Apple add "Open safe files after downloading"? None of these things would even be necessary if Apple believed that their OS was infallible.
The "Block User" option is still greyed-out in Messages. Anyone have ideas?
Greyed out where? On the window’s interface for each individual user, or in Preferences?
Originally Posted by Emes
Wow. My opinions are lies?
You know, someday all these people will grow up and comprehend that they can believe something that isn’t true.
And that makes their opinion a lie.
Opinions can be both lies and truth. What opinions inherently CANNOT BE is “not wrong”.
Originally Posted by Emes
I never said that.
And the backpedaling begins:
Originally Posted by Emes
I remember the old days when Apple ads used to claim their OS was infallible.
I’m sure that saying this and then posting of a video that explicitly talks about PC viruses means you didn’t say that.
"PCs get viruses, Macs don't".
…”get PC viruses”, which was the explicit wording on their website and elsewhere.
The word "infallible" was never directly used but it was implied
Nope. “And while no system is 100% secure” is also straight from the website.
And I’m not trying to start and argument here…
Then you probably shouldn’t have started one. Apple has never said any of their systems are infallible. Ever. At any time. Nor claimed anything like that.
Again, Apple never said Mac OS was incapable of getting any viruses or malware. Apple never implied that their code was error free. Apple never made a single statement that the Mac was incapable of ever failing and the very fact they issue point and security updates is proof that they fix bugs in their code.
in•fall•ib•le |in?fal?b?l|
adjective
never failing; always effective.
If you've fallen victim to a marketing campaign because you can't separate Windows and Mac OS X being different operating systems that would be affected by different viruses and malware that is on you. When did Apple first start using their built-in virus protection? When did Apple start requiring an admin username and password to install apps that need access outside the user environment? When did Apple add "Open safe files after downloading"? None of these things would even be necessary if Apple believed that their OS was infallible.
They may not believe it, but some of their die-hards do
Sorry... it's not. Thanks for pointing that panel Solips. I was actually referring to the Messages/Buddies/Block Person option on the pull-down menu. I didn't notice the option on this panel. It pulled all my blocked-contacts from iCloud just fine. Looks like I'm good to go.
I wonder why Apple doesn't make the "Block Person" option available? I won't lose sleep over it.
The Bluetooth 4.1 update is all software related, which means manufacturers will be able to start rolling out over-the-air updates to existing Bluetooth 4.0 devices.
I can't help feeling that this item is really the usual "Computer software is discovered to have security bug. Bug has been fixed. An update has been issued"
This news item will repeat in 6 months time. And again. And again. Until. You. Stop. Using. A. Computer. Connected. To. The. Internet.
The who is irrelevant, but the potential for having your data compromised is very real and to assume that if you aren't aware of your data being comprised today means that your data hasn't been comprised or will be compromised based on previous dumps that will later be analyzed in the future is not a rational position to take. The point is data was compromised and one should be proactive in trying to prevent themselves from becoming a victim in the future through the very simple measures that take as much effort to complete as writing in a forum that there is nothing to worry about if you have no information of yet being victimized.
Let me parse what you're saying (the highlighted part, especially) and you please tell me if you agree.
Data was compromised in the sense that there was a security gap that could have been exploited, but not necessarily in the sense that someone actually did exploit it. This is no different from if we learned that due to a configuration error (now fixed) it would have been possible for a person to intercept your cell phone calls yesterday. So if and only if someone was actually intercepting your calls yesterday, you have a problem. Likewise, if, and only if, someone was exploiting this bug and tricked you to go to a fake site during the past 18 months, then you're screwed. If they didn't, then you dodged a bullet. Our risk was higher over the past few days since the bug was advertised, but again until a hacker managed to catch you in his net since then, you're fine.
On the other hand, everyone go ahead and change your passwords. You've used the same ones at too many shady sites over the years and I'm surprised you haven't already been hacked (unrelated to this bug).
The gotofail.com site even confirms OS X 10.8.5 and Safari 6.1.1 is safe as well as FireFox 27.0.1 with the following result when you force the test:
We have examined your OS and browser version information and determined that an active vulnerability test was appropriate. Fortunately, your browser correctly aborted loading our test image upon seeing an invalid ServerKeyExchange message.
So this SSL bug must have been another Mavericks clusterf**k like the Mail app. So they had to patch it for Mavericks, but it was never an issue for OS X 10.8.5. Another reason to stick with what works, and Mavericks is still a mess. I doubt the Mail issues will be fixed with this patch.
Let me parse what you're saying (the highlighted part, especially) and you please tell me if you agree.
Data was compromised in the sense that there was a security gap that could have been exploited, but not necessarily in the sense that someone actually did exploit it. This is no different from if we learned that due to a configuration error (now fixed) it would have been possible for a person to intercept your cell phone calls yesterday. So if and only if someone was actually intercepting your calls yesterday, you have a problem. Likewise, if, and only if, someone was exploiting this bug and tricked you to go to a fake site during the past 18 months, then you're screwed. If they didn't, then you dodged a bullet. Our risk was higher over the past few days since the bug was advertised, but again until a hacker managed to catch you in his net since then, you're fine.
On the other hand, everyone go ahead and change your passwords. You've used the same ones at too many shady sites over the years and I'm surprised you haven't already been hacked (unrelated to this bug).
I can't make heads or tails of your comment and have no idea what a fake site has to do with anything. If you don't think there is a problem with essentially logging into personal sites with plaintext over the last 18 months then this security hole will mean nothing to you, but even on a my secured LAN at home I use SSL to log into financial institutions, sync/backup with iCloud, etc. because it's foolish to trust your end-to-end data through various ISPs.
PS: If AI offered a paid option to gain access to an HTTPS version of their site and forums I would purchase it.
Except I already know that opinions can be true or false. So just shut up and go away.
Is that honestly your response to everyone who doesn't agree with you?
I read through your profile. You say you're a self-hater. Do you really think pushing your anger on everyone else will help? It wouldn't hurt to be nice occasionally.
Greyed out where? On the window’s interface for each individual user, or in Preferences?
On the menu bar.... "Messages->Buddies->Block Person". That is still greyed-out, but thanks to Solips, Its in the preference panel and that part does work.
I can't make heads or tails of your comment and have no idea what a fake site has to do with anything. If you don't think there is a problem with essentially logging into personal sites with plaintext over the last 18 months then this security hole will mean nothing to you, but even on a my secured LAN at home I use SSL to log into financial institutions, sync/backup with iCloud, etc. because it's foolish to trust your end-to-end data through various ISPs.
PS: If AI offered a paid option to gain access to an HTTPS version of their site and forums I would purchase it.
Huh. Let me try again then. It's possible that I misunderstanding the vulnerability (which is why I asked for clarification of your assertions in the first place).
I thought the bug only allowed sites to impersonate other secured sites. Is it really that case that nothing that was sent via Safari to a secure site was actually encrypted at all?
Except I already know that opinions can be true or false. So just shut up and go away.
I think you suffer greatly from misunderstanding semantics. Opinions can't be true or false - unless the opinion is given falsely in order to misdirect. The very nature of an opinion is that it is what one believes to be true.
The conviction behind the opinion can be true or false, or more likely somewhere in between.
The very nature of an opinion is that it is what one believes to be true.
Beliefs can be false. Opinions are beliefs. Therefore opinions can be false. Since I’ve already said that, there’s no reason for me to be repeating it. Doesn’t even bear it. And yet here we are. I don’t get it.
Comments
Again, Apple never said Mac OS was incapable of getting any viruses or malware. Apple never implied that their code was error free. Apple never made a single statement that the Mac was incapable of ever failing and the very fact they issue point and security updates is proof that they fix bugs in their code.
adjective
never failing; always effective.
If you've fallen victim to a marketing campaign because you can't separate Windows and Mac OS X being different operating systems that would be affected by different viruses and malware that is on you. When did Apple first start using their built-in virus protection? When did Apple start requiring an admin username and password to install apps that need access outside the user environment? When did Apple add "Open safe files after downloading"? None of these things would even be necessary if Apple believed that their OS was infallible.
The "Block User" option is still greyed-out in Messages. Anyone have ideas?
Greyed out where? On the window’s interface for each individual user, or in Preferences?
You know, someday all these people will grow up and comprehend that they can believe something that isn’t true.
And that makes their opinion a lie.
Opinions can be both lies and truth. What opinions inherently CANNOT BE is “not wrong”.
And the backpedaling begins:
I’m sure that saying this and then posting of a video that explicitly talks about PC viruses means you didn’t say that.
…”get PC viruses”, which was the explicit wording on their website and elsewhere.
Nope. “And while no system is 100% secure” is also straight from the website.
Then you probably shouldn’t have started one. Apple has never said any of their systems are infallible. Ever. At any time. Nor claimed anything like that.
Again, Apple never said Mac OS was incapable of getting any viruses or malware. Apple never implied that their code was error free. Apple never made a single statement that the Mac was incapable of ever failing and the very fact they issue point and security updates is proof that they fix bugs in their code.
adjective
never failing; always effective.
If you've fallen victim to a marketing campaign because you can't separate Windows and Mac OS X being different operating systems that would be affected by different viruses and malware that is on you. When did Apple first start using their built-in virus protection? When did Apple start requiring an admin username and password to install apps that need access outside the user environment? When did Apple add "Open safe files after downloading"? None of these things would even be necessary if Apple believed that their OS was infallible.
They may not believe it, but some of their die-hards do
You know, someday all these people will grow up and comprehend that they can believe something that isn’t true.
I hope you suffer the same fate
This block user option is greyed out?
Sorry... it's not. Thanks for pointing that panel Solips. I was actually referring to the Messages/Buddies/Block Person option on the pull-down menu. I didn't notice the option on this panel. It pulled all my blocked-contacts from iCloud just fine. Looks like I'm good to go.
I wonder why Apple doesn't make the "Block Person" option available? I won't lose sleep over it.
So far so good. Seems like iMessage has a problem connecting to Yahoo IM -- could be a Yahoo issue, however...
Surprised not to see any news about the software update from Bluetooth 4.0 --> 4.1 with 10.9.2!:
http://www.bluetooth.com/Pages/Press-Releases-Detail.aspx?ItemID=197
The Bluetooth 4.1 update is all software related, which means manufacturers will be able to start rolling out over-the-air updates to existing Bluetooth 4.0 devices.
This news item will repeat in 6 months time. And again. And again. Until. You. Stop. Using. A. Computer. Connected. To. The. Internet.
I remember the old days when Apple ads used to claim their OS was infallible.
Obviously your memory is playing tricks on you. Apple (and no sane company) never said that.
Except I already know that opinions can be true or false. So just shut up and go away.
The who is irrelevant, but the potential for having your data compromised is very real and to assume that if you aren't aware of your data being comprised today means that your data hasn't been comprised or will be compromised based on previous dumps that will later be analyzed in the future is not a rational position to take. The point is data was compromised and one should be proactive in trying to prevent themselves from becoming a victim in the future through the very simple measures that take as much effort to complete as writing in a forum that there is nothing to worry about if you have no information of yet being victimized.
Let me parse what you're saying (the highlighted part, especially) and you please tell me if you agree.
Data was compromised in the sense that there was a security gap that could have been exploited, but not necessarily in the sense that someone actually did exploit it. This is no different from if we learned that due to a configuration error (now fixed) it would have been possible for a person to intercept your cell phone calls yesterday. So if and only if someone was actually intercepting your calls yesterday, you have a problem. Likewise, if, and only if, someone was exploiting this bug and tricked you to go to a fake site during the past 18 months, then you're screwed. If they didn't, then you dodged a bullet. Our risk was higher over the past few days since the bug was advertised, but again until a hacker managed to catch you in his net since then, you're fine.
On the other hand, everyone go ahead and change your passwords. You've used the same ones at too many shady sites over the years and I'm surprised you haven't already been hacked (unrelated to this bug).
The gotofail.com site even confirms OS X 10.8.5 and Safari 6.1.1 is safe as well as FireFox 27.0.1 with the following result when you force the test:
We have examined your OS and browser version information and determined that an active vulnerability test was appropriate. Fortunately, your browser correctly aborted loading our test image upon seeing an invalid ServerKeyExchange message.
So this SSL bug must have been another Mavericks clusterf**k like the Mail app. So they had to patch it for Mavericks, but it was never an issue for OS X 10.8.5. Another reason to stick with what works, and Mavericks is still a mess. I doubt the Mail issues will be fixed with this patch.
I can't make heads or tails of your comment and have no idea what a fake site has to do with anything. If you don't think there is a problem with essentially logging into personal sites with plaintext over the last 18 months then this security hole will mean nothing to you, but even on a my secured LAN at home I use SSL to log into financial institutions, sync/backup with iCloud, etc. because it's foolish to trust your end-to-end data through various ISPs.
PS: If AI offered a paid option to gain access to an HTTPS version of their site and forums I would purchase it.
Except I already know that opinions can be true or false. So just shut up and go away.
Is that honestly your response to everyone who doesn't agree with you?
I read through your profile. You say you're a self-hater. Do you really think pushing your anger on everyone else will help? It wouldn't hurt to be nice occasionally.
No, but if you cared anything about what you were saying, you’d know that.
Greyed out where? On the window’s interface for each individual user, or in Preferences?
On the menu bar.... "Messages->Buddies->Block Person". That is still greyed-out, but thanks to Solips, Its in the preference panel and that part does work.
Obviously Apple doesn't take OS X seriously anymore.
To wait several days for the 10.9.2 release to fix a severe bug like this - I'm gobsmacked how non-professional Apple's behaviour in this case is.
Yeah, how dare they make sure the fix works properly¡!
I can't make heads or tails of your comment and have no idea what a fake site has to do with anything. If you don't think there is a problem with essentially logging into personal sites with plaintext over the last 18 months then this security hole will mean nothing to you, but even on a my secured LAN at home I use SSL to log into financial institutions, sync/backup with iCloud, etc. because it's foolish to trust your end-to-end data through various ISPs.
PS: If AI offered a paid option to gain access to an HTTPS version of their site and forums I would purchase it.
Huh. Let me try again then. It's possible that I misunderstanding the vulnerability (which is why I asked for clarification of your assertions in the first place).
I thought the bug only allowed sites to impersonate other secured sites. Is it really that case that nothing that was sent via Safari to a secure site was actually encrypted at all?
Except I already know that opinions can be true or false. So just shut up and go away.
I think you suffer greatly from misunderstanding semantics. Opinions can't be true or false - unless the opinion is given falsely in order to misdirect. The very nature of an opinion is that it is what one believes to be true.
The conviction behind the opinion can be true or false, or more likely somewhere in between.
Beliefs can be false. Opinions are beliefs. Therefore opinions can be false. Since I’ve already said that, there’s no reason for me to be repeating it. Doesn’t even bear it. And yet here we are. I don’t get it.
You can think something and be wrong.