| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Is Windows inherently more vulnerable to malware attacks than OS X? | |
|
||
| Time: 16:21 EST/21:21 GMT | News Source: InfoWorld | Posted By: Andre Da Costa | ||
|
It took an attack on a Windows production server, not devotion to Apple, to put that provocative title on this entry. On August 13 at 3:04 AM, a Windows server that I've been running for all of two weeks--it just replaced an Xserve G5--was attacked by a new strain of malware. This worm/trojan/backdoor/proxy/IRCbot/DDOS agent shared some characteristics with a known exploit, but it went well beyond what was described. I believed at the time of the infection, and even more strongly now, that this exploit's latent damage potential has been underestimated. I view the terse and vague update on the CERT site regarding the less tenacious strain of this beast with a sense of foreboding. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 306 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:18:17 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 8/23/2006 6:50:54 PM |
|
I could spend a lot of time on this but I'll say a few things.
Apple has a lot of exploits that allow "arbitrary code execution" from remote. An example: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=304063 More to look at: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22OS+X%22+%22arbitrary+code+execution%22+remote&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1 More: http://www.frsirt.com/english/advisories/2006/1779 "Apple has released security updates to address thirty-one vulnerabilities identified in Mac OS X. These flaws could be exploited by attackers to execute arbitrary commands, bypass security restrictions, disclose sensitive information, or cause a denial of service." I'm not sure why the Windows server was open to ports 139 or 445 on the internet. If he was running Windows 2003 why wasn't the firewall blocking those ports to the internet? The exploit in question was patched on the 8th. This post was edited by NotParker on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 18:51. |
| #2 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/23/2006 8:56:44 PM |
|
On W2K3 SP/1, one would have had to open them intentionally. Given today's date, the author would have had to work pretty hard to find a cy of W2K to buy.
DS, SMB and DCOM RPC use these ports for basic services that W2K adn W2K3 require in order to fulfill many server roles. Similar services with equally well known ports are used by all other OS'es [server and otherwise]. Having them open to the public networks would be foolish. Having them closed to internal clients would be equally foolish. The article is covering some very old ground - IROFFER'esque Again, equally important and very similarly functioning services and ports are used by all operating systems capable of supporting a presence on a network. Even basic network and systems admin precautions would stop such attacks/exploits. Just because the wonk who wrote this crap was able to copy and paste, c:\winnt\> psexec \\IP c:\winnt\system32\inst.bat [and a few other commands], and he does not know the same for the *nix.... he asserts, based upon very old information, that OSX is more secure? Nonsense. I have written it here many times - DO NOT MAKE THAT ASSUMPTION if you choose to run a *nix - you will get exploited and so deeply that you will never be able to discover it and "IF" you do not know exactly what you are doing, do not place that *nix box on any network and for Goodness sake, STOP putting tools on your production *nix machines! You are making life oh so easy for very bad people. |
| #3 By 9589 (68.17.52.2) at 8/24/2006 2:06:27 AM |
|
The author fails to explain why he took his crapple "server" off line and replaced it with a Windows (who knows what version or whether the patches were up to date or not - hey, the author probably doesn't know either) server.
Meanwhile, crapple's market share for servers is laughable (can you have less than zero?). Heck, world wide sales of crapple anything computer is under 2%. More than likely, he had to go to a Wintel solution because the crapple "server" was just to slow or had broken down one to many times. Does it really take a crapple "server" to run iTunes? But, hey, if, as an author, you put this one word in the title that your are trying to sell to a tech magazine, then magical things happen - you get published. And that one word (I know you are all holding your collective breaths (yuk!) is MICROSOFT. But, wait! There's more. If, and this is a big if, you can trash MICROSOFT in the text of the article then you are likely to get world-wide distribution of your scribblings. And, then, my friend you have hit the motherload. Why, you just might get on one the staffs of one of these venerable magazines. Yahoo! |
| #4 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 8/24/2006 2:30:13 PM |
|
#4: Sigh. For the zillionth time, it's about MS' monopoly status. By law, you are not allowed to leverage a monopoly to dominate new markets. MS isn't allowed to compete with a lot of 3rd-party vendors because they have a de facto monopoly on desktop operating systems. Apple does not. That's what the bloody DOJ antitrust trial was all about. See the difference?
|
| #5 By 17996 (131.107.0.105) at 8/24/2006 7:41:32 PM |
|
#5 - well, if Microsoft has a monopoly, then why does this author even compare Windows to OS X? A monopoly means that there are no other viable alternatives. (Thus, Linux promoters ought to be enraged at the MS monopoly finding--Linux users are proof that there are viable alternatives!)
Furthermore, Judge Jackson's findings specifically state that Mac OS does not compete with Windows -- he specifically *excluded* Mac OS from the "relevant market." The primary reason given was that Mac OS did not run on x86 hardware, and is not available for OEMS to license for use on said x86 hardware. Another reason given was that switching from Windows to Mac is too prohibitive and thus Mac OS is not a viable alternative to Windows. (I wonder if Apple's "Switch" campaigns could be used as evidence against this reason.) Interestingly, Microsoft has not been found to have a monopoly on x64-based operating systems. So in theory they could start to bundle all this stuff with the Vista x64 and it would be perfectly legal. |
| #6 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/24/2006 7:56:19 PM |
|
#6, has to be nominated for best post of 2006!
Judge Jackson really had the entire matter quite wrong... I do hope that he did not know it and did it anyway - I have to reason that he was just very naive about technologies and software. |
| #7 By 15406 (24.43.125.29) at 8/26/2006 12:49:47 AM |
| #6: In the context of antitrust law, you do not have to capture 100% of the market to be considered a monopoly. Otherwise they wouldn't be a convicted monopolist, which they are. |
| #8 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/26/2006 8:41:35 AM |
|
Latch, a company which secures a monopoly position in any market is not inherently evil, or doing anything illegal. In fact, monopolies exist all over the world and are entirely legal.
So is Microsoft. Microsoft was found, in specific, and limited cases, to have abused its position as the company holding a monopoly on 32 bit based desktop operating systems - and nothing else - not servers and certainly not in any other regard. Microsoft, the complainants and the court reached a resolution, which upon review, has continually determined that Microsoft has acted in a manner consistent with the resolution. It was not declared an "illegal monopoly" as you persistently represent. It is inaccurate to present Microsoft in such a way. I assert that many people confuse the "work" that Microsoft performs and its absolute mandate to compete in the marketplace, with any form of abuse of its position within the market is alleged to present. I would encourage anyone to take a step back and think about what they are posting - one can easily confuse such issues and present as fact, opinions, which are not supportable. As the use and capabilities of technology advance, it is improbable that the ruling against Microsoft will remain valid. There are so many choices available to consumers - quite a number of alternatives to Microsoft software. In many cases, people elect to use that software. The manufacturers of alternatives to Microsoft need to compete based upon merits and the aggregate strength their companies possess - their products, marketing, sales and management skill. If they cannot compete successfully, or as effectively as other companies than they deserve to do less well. If Microsoft fails to interest people and businesses with great products and a complete and relevant platform then it will do less well. If it does perform and it does serve people and businesses well, then it will continue to succeed and dominate the global software industry - just as any leading company would and should. That does not make what it does illegal in any way and saying so is grossly irresponsible. |
| #9 By 17996 (66.235.19.95) at 8/26/2006 4:28:03 PM |
|
#8 - You're right, you don't need 100% market coverage to be a monopoly. There just need to be no "viable alternatives" according to Jackson.
And as many Mac and Linux users would attest, there are viable alternatives to Windows. This post was edited by PatriotB6007 on Monday, August 28, 2006 at 00:40. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 306 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:18:17 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
