OS X 10.2.8 hack-proof?

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
For all intents and purposes will OS X 10.2.8 be hack-proof?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 19
    Quote:

    Originally posted by AlPanther

    For all intents and purposes will OS X 10.2.8 be hack-proof?



    yes
  • Reply 2 of 19
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by AlPanther

    For all intents and purposes will OS X 10.2.8 be hack-proof?



    It will own your soul.
  • Reply 3 of 19
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    No piece of software is hack-proof unless you completely sever the connection between the computer and the hacker. Disconnecting the cable is the only sure-fire way.



    That said, I expect 10.2.8 to be one of the most secure operating systems around once it's released.
  • Reply 4 of 19
    jaredjared Posts: 639member
    Actually I do not think it will be. Maybe...10.2.9?
  • Reply 5 of 19
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Luca Rescigno

    No piece of software is hack-proof unless you completely sever the connection between the computer and the hacker. Disconnecting the cable is the only sure-fire way.





    whats really sad is when people take this a little too seriously when they come to work, log into their machine, and then yank the ethernet cable out of the wall and begin doing their job, only plugging the cable in to check email or access a database.



    some technophobes are sad.
  • Reply 6 of 19
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ThunderPoit

    whats really sad is when people take this a little too seriously when they come to work, log into their machine, and then yank the ethernet cable out of the wall and begin doing their job, only plugging the cable in to check email or access a database.



    some technophobes are sad.




    If they're running Windows, can you blame them?



    A MacInTouch reader found a critical security flaw for OS X machines running Classic and Netscape 4.x (solution: Kill Netscape 4. Finally. Please. For the love of God.). The problem extends to Classic in general, though, because Classic.app is run with root privileges.



    And, of course, you can diddle with OS X's settings in a way that renders the machine insecure, or install some (hypothetical) KaZaA-like crap that compromises your machine. Apple can do nothing about that.



    If you:



    * Install OS X;



    * Do not install Classic, or do not run it while online, or do not run the likes of Netscape 4.x while online;



    * Enable the firewall (Apple really should have this sucker running by default, but alas not all 'net aware applications and services can deal with firewalls), and configure it sensibly (the default isn't at all bad, though);



    * Leave as many services (under the Sharing section of Preferences) off as you can;



    then OS X 10.2.8 should be pretty darn bulletproof.
  • Reply 7 of 19
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    Come on...OS 9 wasn't hackproof? I running 9 and you can't touch me
  • Reply 8 of 19
    But you calso couldn't do anything :P



    I always wondered how secure 9's websharing was. and filesharing for that matter. I've noticed that old 8 boxes can't connect to X via appletalk I think because the password isn't encrypted.. how secure is that!
  • Reply 9 of 19
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ast3r3x

    Come on...OS 9 wasn't hackproof? I running 9 and you can't touch me



    OS 9 is fairly secure largely because it's so adamantly a single-user OS. Run standalone, it can be remarkably secure. That's why it started serving .mil pages a few years ago.



    The Classic environment, on the other hand, can introduce serious vulnerabilities within OS X, and Netscape 4.x (running in Classic) can allow hackers to exploit them.



    Hence the needed and long overdue solution I posted, which is to get rid of Netscape 4. (Ah, it feels so good to say that.)
  • Reply 10 of 19
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    So Amorph, what do you think about Netscape 4?
  • Reply 11 of 19
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    OS 9 is fairly secure largely because it's so adamantly a single-user OS. Run standalone, it can be remarkably secure. That's why it started serving .mil pages a few years ago.



    The Classic environment, on the other hand, can introduce serious vulnerabilities within OS X, and Netscape 4.x (running in Classic) can allow hackers to exploit them.



    Hence the needed and long overdue solution I posted, which is to get rid of Netscape 4. (Ah, it feels so good to say that.)




    You will be kind enough to explain what .mil pages are?





    I'm glad that they went the OS X route instead of copland but it would have been interesting to say the least if we went with that.
  • Reply 12 of 19
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ast3r3x

    You will be kind enough to explain what .mil pages are?



    .mil is a TLD (top-level domain) like .com, .net, and .org.



    The .mil domain is reserved exclusively for the United States Military and is operated by the US DoD Network Information Center.



    example: www.army.mil



    This one is hosted on Mac OS X, btw.
  • Reply 13 of 19
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Brad

    .mil is a TLD (top-level domain) like .com, .net, and .org.



    The .mil domain is reserved exclusively for the United States Military and is operated by the US DoD Network Information Center.



    example: www.army.mil



    This one is hosted on Mac OS X, btw.




    Thanks god...i mean brad
  • Reply 14 of 19
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Brad

    example: www.army.mil



    This one is hosted on Mac OS X, btw.




    It is now.



    But they originally moved it to OS 9 + WebStar with much fanfare, entirely for security reasons.



    It's nice to see it standing as a testimony to OS X's security now.
  • Reply 15 of 19
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    So why doesn't the rest of the DoD follow suit? I read that the new OS X update is going to include security updates for the government.
  • Reply 16 of 19
    I'd love to see a system level encryption system in X.. Filevault is in the right direction, but I'd like to see built-in encryption in mail and soemthing like 9's Encrypt command (or was that only in 8?)
  • Reply 17 of 19
    chychchych Posts: 860member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    It is now.



    But they originally moved it to OS 9 + WebStar with much fanfare, entirely for security reasons.



    It's nice to see it standing as a testimony to OS X's security now.




    They're still using webstar though...
  • Reply 18 of 19
    zozo Posts: 3,115member
    a) where the heck did you get 10.2.8

    b) why 10.2.8 rather than 10.2.6 or 10.2? Whats the difference?



    btw, even with firewall disabled, there isnt much you can do to an OSX system, is there?



    /me naive in such things... never been hacked so...
  • Reply 19 of 19
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ZO

    a) where the heck did you get 10.2.8

    b) why 10.2.8 rather than 10.2.6 or 10.2? Whats the difference?



    btw, even with firewall disabled, there isnt much you can do to an OSX system, is there?



    /me naive in such things... never been hacked so...




    well, by default, macosx (and most non-windows OSes) turn all servers off (i'm pretty sure all of em are off by default on osx). so, theres virtually no way to hack the computer without sitting right in front of it. if you go to the sharing panel, and turn on some of those items, then you are opening potential holes. like, if you have ssh on, then its possible (in theory) for someone to hack your computer. recently there was a hole found in ssh, so if u have it on, and unless ur version is updated, you could be hacked. now, in order to gain access to your computer, an evil person needs to (a) find your password, or (b) discover a security flaw in one of your running services. Its unlikely that you'll give away your password to unsavory people, so (b) is how most script kiddies work. it is really tough to find security holes, since most (non-microsoft) server programs go through some rigorous security checks before being released. a funny thing is, every so often i would turn off ssh and all my servers (for whatever reason), then i'd go to work and try to get in (forgetting that i'd turned off my stuff). for the life of me i couldn't break into my own computer (and i'm a pretty darn good hacker). (it really sux doing work at work. )
Sign In or Register to comment.