How safe are apples?

jmc160

JustPassingBy wrote: »

Perhaps you would like to outline how you think a virus could cross system boundaries and spread to other systems.

Brian.

When did I say that?

superscaper

JustPassingBy wrote: »

There will never be a virus for a competently administered unix-like system.

"There will never be a virus for a competently administered Windows system" is a statement that's no less valid than yours.

JustPassingBy

superscaper wrote: »

"There will never be a virus for a competently administered Windows system" is a statement that's no less valid than yours.

Provided that includes running the system without root logging in I'd have no quarrel with that. My concern is that there appear to be an awful lot of people who think that because viruses are a fact of life on a particular system it is only a matter of time before other systems are similarly affected.

Brian.

Blacksheep1979

JustPassingBy wrote: »

The number or frequency of attacks is not a problem. It's nature of the threat and the rate of success which should be looked at.

There are no viruses for competently administered unix-like systems and I'm not aware of such a system being shipped in an unsafe state They cannot exist because of the separation between user and system.

Perhaps you would like to outline how you think a virus could cross system boundaries and spread to other systems.

Brian.

If a service runs with root permissions then if that process can be comprimised then oooh you have root permissions....

JustPassingBy

jmc160 wrote: »

When did I say that?

You talked about Macs with no AV software getting hit. A virus has to spread. I was inquiring how it did so on unix-like system.

Brian.

JustPassingBy

superscaper wrote: »

Methinks you have a bit too much faith in the Mac's security. You can never prove any computer system to be safe and you can never prove the market share to be irrelevant until it actually changes in reality (to much higher than the 6% or whatever it is).

The mac uses a writeable medium to store it's operating system, by definition that will always theoretically make it potentially vulnerable. You certainly can't say "never" as if that's a fact.

The context was virus infection. There are precisely zero viruses at present. I'll stick with "never".

Brian.

superscaper

JustPassingBy wrote: »

The context was virus infection. There are precisely zero viruses at present. I'll stick with "never".

Brian.

Well "precisely" there are two wild viruses. But not finding something is not proof of it not existing, and certainly not proof of it never occurring. Basic science and logic, Russell's Teapot.

jmc160

JustPassingBy wrote: »

You talked about Macs with no AV software getting hit. A virus has to spread. I was inquiring how it did so on unix-like system.

Brian.

How should I know? I'm not a hacker! I was just saying that in my opinion, it's only a matter of time before it happens. Probably through evolution of the hackers as a new generation takes over, and developement of viruses, same as everything else in computing.

If I had all the answers to that, I wouldn't be sat here debating, I'd be hacking your Mac

JustPassingBy

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

If a service runs with root permissions then if that process can be comprimised then oooh you have root permissions....

Services are attacked by worms. Any system is vulnerable. The solution is to keep the it up-to-date. Then you are safe.

Brian.

JustPassingBy

superscaper wrote: »

Well "precisely" there are two wild viruses.

And they are?

. . . But not finding something is not proof of it not existing, and certainly not proof of it never occurring.

There are too may negatives in this sentence. I gave up trying to prove or disprove a negative a long time ago.

. . . Basic science and logic, Russell's Teapot.

Sir Bertrand would appear to have a similar view.

Brian.