Re: A Google Groups conundrum

[FromTheRafters]

"~BD~" <BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk.> wrote in message
newsu-dndRiF_JRsejRnZ2dnUVZ8gOdnZ2d@bt.com...
> On 25/08/2010 13:51, FromTheRafters wrote:
>> "~BD~"<BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk.> wrote in message
>> news:l_2dnW1oYfEsRenRnZ2dnUVZ8uSdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>> On 25/08/2010 02:25, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>> "~BD~"<BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> newsvKdnSWv7ojnKO7RnZ2dnUVZ8tCdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.apple.com/why-mac/better-os/#viruses
>>>>>
>>>>> Where Apple states ............
>>>>>
>>>>> "With virtually no effort on your part, Mac OS X defends
>>>>> against viruses and other malicious applications, or malware.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> Marketing crap.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd like you to explain which items on this web page are , as you
>>> call
>>> it, "Marketing Crap"
>>
>> The first line sounds really reassuring, like this is all you need.
>> It
>> isn't.
>
> You haven't explained "It isn't". More detail requested!

http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10444561-245.html

Another thing is that an OS is built to aid the user in executing users'
choice programs, not about making those choices *for* the user. This
whole "With virtually no effort on your part..." caters to lazy
practices - which is where such security often fails. Sometimes what is
and is not malware lies in the choices a user makes, not in some
software exploit. Yes, even Mac users should realize that it is *their*
responibility to implement security, not some software's responsibility.

[Peter Foldes]

David

You are a hard headed ignoramus. Give it up already. Macs can and do get infected on
a much smaller rate than PC's but they do get infected. Advertising by Apple even
HINTING that they do not is not right. It is worded on the Mac page as to sound they
are not is a very clever marketing ploy and the way it is put forward to the public
sounds different . But if you any resemblance of intelligence then you can read
between the lines in the advertising that it is not the case completely as presented


One of many links that touch on Mac's and viruses
http://antivirus.about.com/od/macint..._Resources.htm

Using Bing as your search engine type in Mac and viruses and you will have
75,800,000 results confirming what you are squawking against


--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"~BD~" <BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk.> wrote in message
news:l_2dnW1oYfEsRenRnZ2dnUVZ8uSdnZ2d@bt.com...
> On 25/08/2010 02:25, FromTheRafters wrote:
>> "~BD~"<BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> newsvKdnSWv7ojnKO7RnZ2dnUVZ8tCdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>>> http://www.apple.com/why-mac/better-os/#viruses
>>>
>>> Where Apple states ............
>>>
>>> "With virtually no effort on your part, Mac OS X defends
>>> against viruses and other malicious applications, or malware.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Marketing crap.
>>
>> [...]
>
>
> I'd like you to explain which items on this web page are , as you call it,
> "Marketing Crap"
>
> http://www.apple.com/macosx/security/
>
> There must, surely, be legislation in the USA which forbids a corporation to
> publish incorrect or misleading information to the population as a whole.
>
> If something really *is* wrong, to which authority should such a matter be
> reported?
>
> --
> Dave

[~BD~]

On 25/08/2010 16:25, FromTheRafters wrote:

>>> The first line sounds really reassuring, like this is all you need.
>>> It isn't.
>>
>> You haven't explained "It isn't". More detail requested!
>
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10444561-245.html

*Thank you*! A really good article which I recall reading at the time
(or thereabouts) of its publication.

I especially remember this (G.Cluley) "Social engineering is the
unifying threat that puts all computer users at risk, regardless of
operating system. And that's what most threats exploit."

I agree with that statement wholeheartedly!

<aside>

"Graham Cluley, senior technical consultant with Sophos anti-virus
believes Raid could now be in big trouble. He said, "Raid is playing a
very, very dangerous game. The US authorities have shown that they are
prepared to pursue this sort of thing by any means."

The alleged author of the Melissa virus, David L Smith, is currently
being prosecuted and faces a maximum penalty of 40 years' imprisonment
and a fine of $480,000, if found guilty.

Cluley thinks that this case could also have put the wind up Raid. He
added, "Raid has been fairly quiet of late. Maybe he's just getting on
with his real life, or he's found girls or something, but he could well
have taken a look at this case and got the heebie-jeebies.""

<Raid is our very own Dustin Cook!>

> Another thing is that an OS is built to aid the user in executing users'
> choice programs, not about making those choices *for* the user. This
> whole "With virtually no effort on your part..." caters to lazy
> practices - which is where such security often fails. Sometimes what is
> and is not malware lies in the choices a user makes, not in some
> software exploit. Yes, even Mac users should realize that it is *their*
> responsibility to implement security, not some software's responsibility.

I am now in agreement with you!

Thank you for discussing this, FTR.

Did you like the Barclaycard advertisement, btw?

BD

[~BD~]

On 25/08/2010 16:28, Peter Foldes wrote:
> David
>
> You are a hard headed ignoramus. Give it up already. Macs can and do get
> infected on a much smaller rate than PC's but they do get infected.
> Advertising by Apple even HINTING that they do not is not right. It is
> worded on the Mac page as to sound they are not is a very clever
> marketing ploy and the way it is put forward to the public sounds
> different . But if you any resemblance of intelligence then you can read
> between the lines in the advertising that it is not the case completely
> as presented
>
>
> One of many links that touch on Mac's and viruses
> http://antivirus.about.com/od/macint..._Resources.htm
>
>
> Using Bing as your search engine type in Mac and viruses and you will
> have 75,800,000 results confirming what you are squawking against
>
>

I'm not quite as ignorant as you perceive Peter. I *am* aware that *any*
computer /can/ be infected - it is a machine and thus imperfect!

Interestingly ........

Security Update 2010-005 (Snow Leopard) was issued this *very* day!

"Security Update 2010-005 is recommended for all users and improves the
security of Mac OS X. Previous security updates have been incorporated
into this security update."

Ref: http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1094

--
Dave - SeaNymph (on SE) will no doubt be interested in the perceived
need to "read between the lines"!

[FromTheRafters]

"~BD~" <.BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk.> wrote in message
news:NNKdna1Jh_5RoujRnZ2dnUVZ7vSdnZ2d@bt.com...
> On 25/08/2010 16:25, FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>>>> The first line sounds really reassuring, like this is all you need.
>>>> It isn't.
>>>
>>> You haven't explained "It isn't". More detail requested!
>>
>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10444561-245.html
>
> *Thank you*! A really good article which I recall reading at the time
> (or thereabouts) of its publication.
>
> I especially remember this (G.Cluley) "Social engineering is the
> unifying threat that puts all computer users at risk, regardless of
> operating system. And that's what most threats exploit."
>
> I agree with that statement wholeheartedly!

I liked Gary McGraw's statement "... Mostly I have a Mac because it is a
better machine, not because it is more secure."

> <aside>
>
> "Graham Cluley, senior technical consultant with Sophos anti-virus
> believes Raid could now be in big trouble. He said, "Raid is playing a
> very, very dangerous game. The US authorities have shown that they are
> prepared to pursue this sort of thing by any means."

Yeah, well, that's Graham for ya.

[...]

> <Raid is our very own Dustin Cook!>

I remember, his friends were genuinely concerned.

>> Another thing is that an OS is built to aid the user in executing
>> users'
>> choice programs, not about making those choices *for* the user. This
>> whole "With virtually no effort on your part..." caters to lazy
>> practices - which is where such security often fails. Sometimes what
>> is
>> and is not malware lies in the choices a user makes, not in some
>> software exploit. Yes, even Mac users should realize that it is
>> *their*
>> responsibility to implement security, not some software's
>> responsibility.
>
> I am now in agreement with you!
>
> Thank you for discussing this, FTR.
>
> Did you like the Barclaycard advertisement, btw?

I wasn't paying attention.

[~BD~]

On 25/08/2010 19:10, FromTheRafters wrote:
[....]
>
> I liked Gary McGraw's statement "... Mostly I have a Mac because it is a
> better machine, not because it is more secure."

I'll agree with that! and ...... I like how it looks on my desk too!

>
> [...]
>
> I wasn't paying attention.

Shame on you!

It was relevant because, like me, the Barclaycard advert. was banned!

Watch here! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3NrL...eature=related

BD

[FromTheRafters]

"FromTheRafters" <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
news:i51rf6$fjl$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> "~BD~" <BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> newsvKdnSWv7ojnKO7RnZ2dnUVZ8tCdnZ2d@bt.com...
>
>> http://www.apple.com/why-mac/better-os/#viruses
>>
>> Where Apple states ............
>>
>> "With virtually no effort on your part, Mac OS X defends
>> against viruses and other malicious applications, or malware.
>
> [...]
>
> Marketing crap.
>
> [...]
>
>
>> What - *exactly* - is it that you cannot understand?
>
> Why time slows down in intense gravity *and* high velocity - both of
> which apply to a body closely approaching a black hole.
>
> ...how is it *ever* going to get there (as if there were actually a
> there, there in the first place)?
>
>> Surely you aren't trying to tell me that the Apple web site is
>> telling readers lies, are you?
>
> Why not? Their version of the truth seems incomplete to me. They seem
> to think malware has to be something other than an application that
> the user decided to execute, and that stolen computing power in a
> sandbox is somehow of less value than stolen computing power outside a
> sandbox.

Also, with this statement "And Mac OS X can use digital signatures to
verify that an application hasn’t been changed since it was created." it
seems that they are confusing change detection with authentication.

Anyway, it is obvious to many that "marketing crap" is a good label for
that commercial dressed up as a security document.

[Dustin]

~BD~ <.BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk.> wrote in
news:NNKdna1Jh_5RoujRnZ2dnUVZ7vSdnZ2d@bt.com:

> On 25/08/2010 16:25, FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>>>> The first line sounds really reassuring, like this is all you
>>>> need. It isn't.
>>>
>>> You haven't explained "It isn't". More detail requested!
>>
>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10444561-245.html
>
> *Thank you*! A really good article which I recall reading at the
> time (or thereabouts) of its publication.

Mostly marketing FUD. Cluley was good for that. not much else.

> "Graham Cluley, senior technical consultant with Sophos anti-virus
> believes Raid could now be in big trouble. He said, "Raid is playing
> a very, very dangerous game. The US authorities have shown that they
> are prepared to pursue this sort of thing by any means."

Yes, well; obviously that never happened. Raid didn't do anything they
could prove was illegal. Cluley was nothing more than a glorified
mouthpiece for Sophos antivirus.

> Cluley thinks that this case could also have put the wind up Raid.
> He added, "Raid has been fairly quiet of late. Maybe he's just
> getting on with his real life, or he's found girls or something, but
> he could well have taken a look at this case and got the
> heebie-jeebies.""
>
> <Raid is our very own Dustin Cook!>

Are you trying again to start trouble? Not that it matters much in this
case, Cluley was full of hot air looking for free media publications
(ie: free advertising for sophos). Back then, as they still tend to do,
many publications just take those individuals word as if it comes from
God himself.

That article of Cluley's is well over 10 years old and has nothing
whatsoever to do with google groups OR mac malware. So why did you feel
the need to post a section of it and then point towards me?




--
"I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
your Christ." - author unknown.

[Dustin]

~BD~ <.BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk.> wrote in
newscWdnTunE8tj0-jRnZ2dnUVZ8l2dnZ2d@bt.com:

> On 25/08/2010 16:28, Peter Foldes wrote:
>> David
>>
>> You are a hard headed ignoramus. Give it up already. Macs can and
>> do get infected on a much smaller rate than PC's but they do get
>> infected. Advertising by Apple even HINTING that they do not is not
>> right. It is worded on the Mac page as to sound they are not is a
>> very clever marketing ploy and the way it is put forward to the
>> public sounds different . But if you any resemblance of
>> intelligence then you can read between the lines in the advertising
>> that it is not the case completely as presented
>>
>>
>> One of many links that touch on Mac's and viruses
>> http://antivirus.about.com/od/macint...osh_Viruses_an
>> d_Mac_Virus_Resources.htm
>>
>>
>> Using Bing as your search engine type in Mac and viruses and you
>> will have 75,800,000 results confirming what you are squawking
>> against
>>
>>
>
> I'm not quite as ignorant as you perceive Peter. I *am* aware that
> *any* computer /can/ be infected - it is a machine and thus
> imperfect!

I doubt it. I think you really are that stupid, ignorance is curable,
yet you continue to do the same things you've been taken to task for
previously; so no, your not ignorant, your stupid.


--
"I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
your Christ." - author unknown.

[~BD~]

On 26/08/2010 16:23, Dustin wrote:
> ~BD~<.BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk.> wrote in
> news:NNKdna1Jh_5RoujRnZ2dnUVZ7vSdnZ2d@bt.com:
>
>> On 25/08/2010 16:25, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>
>>>>> The first line sounds really reassuring, like this is all you
>>>>> need. It isn't.
>>>>
>>>> You haven't explained "It isn't". More detail requested!
>>>
>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10444561-245.html
>>
>> *Thank you*! A really good article which I recall reading at the
>> time (or thereabouts) of its publication.
>
> Mostly marketing FUD. Cluley was good for that. not much else.

I don't agree with that. The cnet article was, AFAICT, an attempt by the
author Elinor Mills to elicit a wide range of views from industry
professionals

>> "Graham Cluley, senior technical consultant with Sophos anti-virus
>> believes Raid could now be in big trouble. He said, "Raid is playing
>> a very, very dangerous game. The US authorities have shown that they
>> are prepared to pursue this sort of thing by any means."
>
> Yes, well; obviously that never happened. Raid didn't do anything they
> could prove was illegal. Cluley was nothing more than a glorified
> mouthpiece for Sophos antivirus.

Is he not still?

He has held down his job with Sophos far longer than you were able to
hold down yours with Malwarebytes! ;-)

>> Cluley thinks that this case could also have put the wind up Raid.
>> He added, "Raid has been fairly quiet of late. Maybe he's just
>> getting on with his real life, or he's found girls or something, but
>> he could well have taken a look at this case and got the
>> heebie-jeebies.""
>>
>> <Raid is our very own Dustin Cook!>
>
> Are you trying again to start trouble?

Not at all!

> Not that it matters much in this
> case, Cluley was full of hot air looking for free media publications
> (ie: free advertising for sophos). Back then, as they still tend to do,
> many publications just take those individuals word as if it comes from
> God himself.

Reporters for magazines and newspapers have to take advice from
*someone* and Graham Cluley has a good reputation I believe. Do you
think otherwise?

> That article of Cluley's is well over 10 years old and has nothing
> whatsoever to do with google groups OR mac malware. So why did you feel
> the need to post a section of it and then point towards me?

Did you actually read the cnet article? Do you know anything about the
author? http://www.cnet.com/profile/elinormills/

Elinor is a Senior Writer - you may watch her chatting here if you wish:
http://www.cnet.com/profile/elinormills/#videos

I wanted to make sure posters on Scorched-Earth know you for what you
really are. I've read slanging matches between you and Graham on Google
Groups, most of which I guess you'd like to be forgotten. For his part,
I have *him* down in my 'good guy' book. Although I can't find you on
Wikipedia, one may read a bit about Graham here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Cluley

I've never actually seen any article about you written by Graham Cluley
- maybe you are thinking of the article published here:

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/security...racks-2073298/

HTH

D.