Since most Macs are single user machines, the end user password is actually the root password in many cases. Because of this, Apple has placed restrictions on what that user can do. Only Apple signed code can do certain things like write files inside /System and some other directories. Third party code is also restricted. People type in their password all the time without giving a second thought to the fact that an application is requesting permission to do something and by typing in your password you are essentially giving that third party app root privileges.
And if I really, really wnt to have access to what's protected by rootless, I can switch it off?
Figured I'd give it a test, 1.8.4 Hackintosh build with the standard kernel. Pulled the git repo, compiled the source and ran the app, sure enough it managed to get a root shell. The shell it opened was running under root, but once I killed the newly created process, the shell that i was already running had become root, as well as every other terminal I had opened already was running under root.
Of course it does. The comment does nothing to prevent or identify trolls, as you suggest it does.
incorrect. my "it does nothing of the sort" is in regards to your claim that identifying troll narrative changes the tone of s thread. it doesn't. you haven't shown that it does.
That is, you say, "and yes, indentifying this nutso behavior does help to mitigate it, because the trolls are identified as trolls, negating their concern-troll smokescreen narratives." I totally agree with that! Pointing out a troll comment *after the fact* for someone who might not recognize it otherwise is what you're talking about, but the comment in question doesn't identify anything. Rather, it just says that trolls are coming.
nope. it steals their power. who wants to troll when your troll narrative garbage has already been characterized as the nonsense it is?
Your reading skills are not that good.
Look up 'apparently' ...
There is of course another possibility why the string of security bugs slipped through, when Apple does have a security team.
nope. it's not my reading skills, it's your absurd proposal that they "apparently" don't have a security team. that's nonsense. the alternative explanation is obvious and has been described by me already.
previous Mac OS System versions had actual viruses targeting them in the wild, despite far, far fewer users than OS X.
And this was before the era of the web. We still had the Internet but it was so rudimentary. At that time, the classic Mac OS viruses were spread mainly through diskettes, a process orders of magnitude slower than today's Internet-based spread. Yet, there were viruses. And a popular application to deal with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NolaMacGuy
again -- the only myth is the concept of security by obscurity.
Indeed. The histories of classic Mac OS and (Mac) OS X juxtaposed, largely disprove this concept.
And this was before the era of the web. We still had the Internet but it was so rudimentary. At that time, the classic Mac OS viruses were spread mainly through diskettes, a process orders of magnitude slower than today's Internet-based spread. Yet, there were viruses. And a popular application to deal with them.
Indeed. The histories of classic Mac OS and (Mac) OS X juxtaposed, largely disprove this concept.
That's just nonsense. Macs running System 6 and System 7 were infected with viruses the same way the PC-compatibles running MS-DOS were infected. Viruses were introduced via floppy disk. As the Internet became popular, a higher percentage of Macs were connected to the Internet than machines running MS-DOS/Windows.
That's just nonsense. Macs running System 6 and System 7 were infected with viruses the same way the PC-compatibles running MS-DOS were infected. Viruses were introduced via floppy disk.
Did I say any different?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me
As the Internet became popular, a higher percentage of Macs were connected to the Internet than machines running MS-DOS/Windows.
And you know this how exactly? Even if what you say is true, how it is related to the discussion regarding viruses under OS X? We compare classic Mac OS and OS X, and the methods to spread viruses at their time.
Comments
Since most Macs are single user machines, the end user password is actually the root password in many cases. Because of this, Apple has placed restrictions on what that user can do. Only Apple signed code can do certain things like write files inside /System and some other directories. Third party code is also restricted. People type in their password all the time without giving a second thought to the fact that an application is requesting permission to do something and by typing in your password you are essentially giving that third party app root privileges.
And if I really, really wnt to have access to what's protected by rootless, I can switch it off?
And if I really, really wnt to have access to what's protected by rootless, I can switch it off?
Probably. Who ever thought we would have to Jailbreak OS X?
I imagine it would’ve been a logical conclusion to make as early as June 29, 2007.
Figured I'd give it a test, 1.8.4 Hackintosh build with the standard kernel. Pulled the git repo, compiled the source and ran the app, sure enough it managed to get a root shell. The shell it opened was running under root, but once I killed the newly created process, the shell that i was already running had become root, as well as every other terminal I had opened already was running under root.
http://prntscr.com/86dntw
incorrect. my "it does nothing of the sort" is in regards to your claim that identifying troll narrative changes the tone of s thread. it doesn't. you haven't shown that it does.
nope. it steals their power. who wants to troll when your troll narrative garbage has already been characterized as the nonsense it is?
nope. it's not my reading skills, it's your absurd proposal that they "apparently" don't have a security team. that's nonsense. the alternative explanation is obvious and has been described by me already.
yes, which is exactly the proof that the BS "nobody writes viruses for OS X because it's user base is too small!" (SBO) is nonsense. get it?
previous Mac OS System versions had actual viruses targeting them in the wild, despite far, far fewer users than OS X.
And this was before the era of the web. We still had the Internet but it was so rudimentary. At that time, the classic Mac OS viruses were spread mainly through diskettes, a process orders of magnitude slower than today's Internet-based spread. Yet, there were viruses. And a popular application to deal with them.
again -- the only myth is the concept of security by obscurity.
Indeed. The histories of classic Mac OS and (Mac) OS X juxtaposed, largely disprove this concept.
That's just nonsense. Macs running System 6 and System 7 were infected with viruses the same way the PC-compatibles running MS-DOS were infected. Viruses were introduced via floppy disk.
Did I say any different?
As the Internet became popular, a higher percentage of Macs were connected to the Internet than machines running MS-DOS/Windows.
And you know this how exactly? Even if what you say is true, how it is related to the discussion regarding viruses under OS X? We compare classic Mac OS and OS X, and the methods to spread viruses at their time.