Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19
Macs Are Not Invulnerable
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Macs Are Not Invulnerable

  1. #1
    Mentor
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    1,672

    Macs Are Not Invulnerable

    Windows Isn't the Only System With Serious Flaws

    http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scite...ag_031211.html

    In response:
    http://www.infowarrior.org/articles/2003-08.html

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    76

    Re:Macs Are Not Invulnerable

    typical PC mumbo jumbo.

    any journal that would publish such onesided tripe is just plain bad.

    now onto the security hole....found and closed.

    will it happen again? yes? but they will be closed.

    is any system perfect ? no. all oses have exploits mac and nixes do, in theory, have a more secure system though. windows is generally a less secure system because the kernel of the os is not as protected user and root are often on in the same. mac and nixes do not work that way.

    but mac os and nixes cannot rest on their laurels. developers must be vigilante and keep their eyes open for security holes. there has been plenty of evidence this year in the linux world that it can be exploited.

  3. #3

    Re:Macs Are Not Invulnerable

    I tend to agree. Mac's are not invulnurable but that article is kind of a 'Hah! Mac isn't better than Windows in security cause there was a problem!' Really, this is against the whole OSS community since Apple does it's security very similarly to the way Linux/BSD does. Openness and quick patches.

  4. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    76

    Re:Macs Are Not Invulnerable

    yeah if pc mag was smart they would ditch the obvious useless fluff like this "reporter". if i was a boss there i would have truly been appalled that :

    a) a reporter would act so poorly

    b) that this article got by the editors.

    i guarantee you if i had been a subscriber of this mag and had read this article i would have ended my subscription promptly. hell even the official xbox magazine would not allow such tripe.

    this is a stain on pc mag and a stain on whoever picked up this article and carried it as "news". not even editorials are this poorly researched.

  5. #5

    Re:Macs Are Not Invulnerable

    What a horrible article! Just when I thought people couldn't get any more ignorant, they did. The last line "How cocky are you feeling now, Mac elite? Hmm. Suddenly it's gotten pretty quiet around here." really topped it off. Such a line should have a retort like "Learn the elite b4 you bash it". There are so many ways to stop such things, and common BSD security practices are the answer.

    i guarantee you if i had been a subscriber of this mag and had read this article i would have ended my subscription promptly.
    Don't feel bad. I'll cancel for you. I have a subscription to it, and this deserves a letter to the bigwigs, and a prompt cancelation! >

  6. #6

    Re:Macs Are Not Invulnerable

    All PC mags are in the dumpster now, and here's the letter I wrote:

    To: michael_miller@ziffdavis.com
    Subject: Enraged Customer
    Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 12:19:36 -0600

    Dear Mr Miller,
    I was pointed to an on-line article the other day named "Macs Are NotInvulnerable" written by Mr. Lance Ulanoff. When I first saw it, Ifigured it to be a regular security risk article, and was verydisappointed to find it to be a very immature and ignorant article. Howsuch a person was to get such an article past all other editors isbeyond me. I found various comments to be very biased and quiteinsulting. With my past experiences with Linux, BSD, Windows, and OSX Ihave never seen such a thing to be more ludicrous than this. I haveseen a large array of people "flame" other operation systems, but neverfrom an editor, or in this magnitude of intensity. If such a topic wasto be pushed on me for editing, I would at least learn the OS and it'scapabilities before judging it, and further more comparing it to Windowswould not be done. I have been a subscriber for 3 years now, and I guessit's time to end it. After reading the article, all off the PC MagazinesI had are now and the dumpster, and you can guaranty that mysubscription will be canceled tomorrow promptly. I do not favor Macs,nor do I favor x86 based System, but I do not tolerate the comparison,or unfair judgment on either. Thank you for your time.

  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    76

    Re:Macs Are Not Invulnerable

    good show! even better that you send a letter.

    it is a sad situation indeed when an article such as this that seems no better than many of the flames at such sites as slashdot. i appreciate that we all lose our cool but this is a bit more than that. it takes time to first type something of this nature proof it then post it (perhaps even more takes place). i also expect at least one other person would have read this before it was published. so such rhetoric should never have made it to the web.

    i would have promptly cancelled any subscription that published such crud.

  8. #8

    Re:Macs Are Not Invulnerable

    I recieved an E-mail from both the Editor and the Chief Editor. Both were surpisingly sympethetic, and claim it to be an article not to be taken such a way, and to simply be seen as an article to show that one is not better than the other. I still am not happy with it even then.

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    76

    Re:Macs Are Not Invulnerable

    well, personally that is a really lame ass excuse, if they did not "mean" for the article to be taken for what it is then they should have sent it back for a rewrite. the author was rude, impolite, demeaning, etc. he basically generalizes all mac users into one catagory. i can tell you for that i for one do not act in the manner in which he describes a mac user/owner. i own both PCs and a Mac. I PREFER, using my mac but that is not to say that automatically think PCs are inferior...they aren't. both macs and pcs suck in some way shape or form and for pcs it is usually because they have windows as an operating system which is not a bad os per se but is frought with many design errors that make it inherently less secure than many other oses.

    in the end though NO os is 100% exploit free. they are designed by humans afterall and we all make mistakes. but how they are corrected can make a huge difference. with windows they see fit to leave exploits open until a bundle of fixes are together (well unless the exploit is very serious) and they all get patched at once. with open source and mac os the holes are patched with hours or days of the discovery and usually when the holes are closed they cannot be opened again...i cannot say the same for windows since the manner in which windows is exploited is used over and over again.

    nope you did the right thing cancelling your subscription because their response shows that they have no concept of tact in their editorial department. the article was meant to elicit exactly the response they are getting from the population that has read it. if wasn't supposed to it would not have been there in that form.

  10. #10

    Re:Macs Are Not Invulnerable

    Exactly! I think the reason they thought of it to be ok, was the base of the crowd that reads the magazine is to be x86 users only. There is no way that it couldn't be focused against Macs since they used Windows as the competitor. Obviously they don't expect Mac users to read it, and this is making sure they don't. I myself am the same way. I own both, but I use my Macs equally if not more. Either way, I wouldn't have expected such an article from ZDNet, but it was passed on. Fuck em!

Similar Threads

  1. USB problems with macs?
    By capybara in forum Linux Distros
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-29-2007, 07:17 PM
  2. Are Macs expensive? - Good article
    By snct in forum General Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-15-2005, 11:38 PM
  3. Networking with MACs
    By cloverm in forum Linux Distros
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-24-2002, 01:56 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •