Half a million Mac computers infected with malware

[FromTheRafters]

Dustin wrote:
> Virus Guy<Virus@Guy.com> wrote in news:4F7EF85D.B79A6331@Guy.com:
>
>> "People used to say that Apple computers, unlike Windows PCs, can't ever
>> be infected - but it's a myth," said Timur Tsoriev, an analyst at
>> Kaspersky Lab.
>
> Some people used to preach that myth. Some of us always knew better.
>
>> Apple could not provide a statement at this time.
>
> HEHEHE.
>
> Here's something for you, win9x isn't immune to it.
> http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/00002341.html
>
I don't think he will understand that comment, he still doesn't
differentiate between the exploit and the payload.

[Virus Guy]

FromTheRafters wrote:

> > Here's something for you, win9x isn't immune to it.
> > http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/00002341.html

I've kill-filed Pustin, so the only way I see his screed is when someone
else quotes it.

In this case, he's posted a link to a description of the java
vulnerability that pertains to the current issue with Macs (not sure why
he did that). The content of the link contains no information specific
to whether or not Win-98 is vulnerable.

In any case, since Oriface patched the JRE a couple months ago, and
since JRE version 6 does run under win-98 with kernelEx (and hence any
patch to version 6 is therefore applicable to win-98) why would someone
make a claim that win-98 is vulnerable?

Any windoze OS is vulnerable if the patch isin't applied.

[FromTheRafters]

Virus Guy wrote:
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>>> Here's something for you, win9x isn't immune to it.
>>> http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/00002341.html
>
> I've kill-filed Pustin, so the only way I see his screed is when someone
> else quotes it.
>
> In this case, he's posted a link to a description of the java
> vulnerability that pertains to the current issue with Macs (not sure why
> he did that). The content of the link contains no information specific
> to whether or not Win-98 is vulnerable.
>
> In any case, since Oriface patched the JRE a couple months ago, and
> since JRE version 6 does run under win-98 with kernelEx (and hence any
> patch to version 6 is therefore applicable to win-98) why would someone
> make a claim that win-98 is vulnerable?
>
> Any windoze OS is vulnerable if the patch isin't applied.

He probably wrote that because you often declare w9x to be immune from
modern malware. If this at one time was a zero day exploit, it debunks
that view.

[Dustin]

Virus Guy <Virus@Guy.com> wrote in news:4F7F6EED.900DC7E1@Guy.com:

> FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>> > Here's something for you, win9x isn't immune to it.
>> > http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/00002341.html
>
> I've kill-filed Pustin, so the only way I see his screed is when
> someone else quotes it.

That's mature. Not that I really expect any civil discourse with you.
You likely killfiled me after the sound education you got regarding DNS
servers. I don't mind being killfiled for spanking you. The fact you
think misspelling my name is in some fashion, professional or mature is
funny. You're a spoiled little punkass who can't hold his own in any
technical discussion.

> In this case, he's posted a link to a description of the java
> vulnerability that pertains to the current issue with Macs (not sure
> why he did that). The content of the link contains no information
> specific to whether or not Win-98 is vulnerable.

FTR was right then. You don't see the differences...

> Any windoze OS is vulnerable if the patch isin't applied.

You used to preach how much safer win9x is over NT. It isn't. Never
could be. win9x doesn't handle file permissions based on user accounts.
It's inherently, insecure.




--
Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too
many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by,
and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J.C. Watts

[Dustin]

Virus Guy <Virus@Guy.com> wrote in news:4F7F6EED.900DC7E1@Guy.com:

> In any case, since Oriface patched the JRE a couple months ago, and
> since JRE version 6 does run under win-98 with kernelEx (and hence any
> patch to version 6 is therefore applicable to win-98) why would someone
> make a claim that win-98 is vulnerable?

That reminds me. KernelEX gives you some NT like extensions right?

So here it is. RC5 released. Fixes most of reported problems and further
enhances compatibility with NT-only applications. Enjoy!

Yes it does... This is another potential weakness in your win9x machine
then. It is capable of executing some NT specific malware thanks to your
3rd party support. That means, it can run an NT based worm without the
benefit of non admin level security.

> Any windoze OS is vulnerable if the patch isin't applied.

Your win9x box is vulnerable to some NT code bases as it will try to run
them thanks to you installing an app to provide what it doesn't have. That
goes for some forms of NT based malware too.




--
Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too
many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and
the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J.C. Watts

[Dustin]

Virus Guy <Virus@Guy.com> wrote in news:4F7F6EED.900DC7E1@Guy.com:

> In this case, he's posted a link to a description of the java
> vulnerability that pertains to the current issue with Macs (not sure why
> he did that). The content of the link contains no information specific
> to whether or not Win-98 is vulnerable.

KernelEx is an Open Source compatibility layer with an aim to allow
running Windows 2000/XP-only applications on Microsoft Windows 98 and
Microsoft Windows Millennium operating systems.

Thanks to that program you use, You are vulnerable to most NT based
baddies. Not only can you execute them, you have no control over the
damage they can do as you have no restricted users or UAC control of any
kind. The best you have is setting a files attribute to read/only.



--
Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too
many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and
the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J.C. Watts

[Dustin]

FromTheRafters <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
news:jlniap$nu9$2@dont-email.me:

> Dustin wrote:
>> Virus Guy<Virus@Guy.com> wrote in news:4F7EF85D.B79A6331@Guy.com:
>>
>>> "People used to say that Apple computers, unlike Windows PCs, can't
>>> ever be infected - but it's a myth," said Timur Tsoriev, an analyst
>>> at Kaspersky Lab.
>>
>> Some people used to preach that myth. Some of us always knew better.
>>
>>> Apple could not provide a statement at this time.
>>
>> HEHEHE.
>>
>> Here's something for you, win9x isn't immune to it.
>> http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/00002341.html
>>
> I don't think he will understand that comment, he still doesn't
> differentiate between the exploit and the payload.

Seems you were right.


--
Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too
many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and
the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J.C. Watts