Apple and malware

[mto]

"Davoud" <star@sky.net> wrote in message
news:010920030948364594%star@sky.net...
>
> Davoud:
> > > ...I used to call Windows a cheap imitation of the Mac OS, but I
didn't
> > > really know what I was talking about -- Win XP Pro isn't nearly good
> > > enough to be called a cheap imitation of the Mac OS!
>
> > > ...So what brought me to this NG? I've never run into spyware before,
and
> > > now something is causing eZula to be downloaded to my Vaio. I have a
> > > detector/deleter, but I'm trying to find what is causing it to be
> > > downloaded repeatedly.
>
> mto:
> > Script in the richmedia ads on the pages you are visiting. Turn off
scripts
> > & ActiveX, install Spybot Search and Destroy (free) - update, clean and
> > immunize system - then get Spyware Blaster and do the same. Most of us
also
> > install and run AdAware version on the premise that what one hasn't
updated
> > to catch yet the other might do, which is frequently the case.
>
> It can't be just the ads on web pages, because eZula TopText downloads
> when the web browser isn't open. I rarely use the web on the Vaio, and
> haven't even set up Outlook or a newsreader. There is some software on
> the machine that goes and fetches eZula.
>
> That an operating system could allow this to happen is beyond
> outrageous.
>
> Davoud

Sounds like your detector/deleter isn't doing a thorough job of things.
Spybot Search and Destroy, advanced mode, update first, immunize when done
should do the trick. Can't find URL right this second - FIND the newsgroup
archives for the last week and it will magically appear.

It IS outrageous that this happens - and eZula is not the worst of it by a
long shot.

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 17:10:52 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, Ira Lieberman
<iml.removethis@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
[snip]

> There are a few
> pieces of malware for Linux, as I understand it, but I have no
> personal experience or first-hand knowledge of any. As of this time,
> there are no pieces of malware that execute under MacOS X.
[snip]

Those two statements are mutually exclusive, since OS-X essentially *is*
Unix (BSD, sort of), with an Apple-specific GUI wrapped around it.

> No
> viruses, no trojans, no worms. Total of zero.
[snip]

And this is also untrue, for the same reason.

> ** Help stop Internet SPAM! Join the **
[snip]

Please see: <http://www.spam.com/ci/ci_in.htm>

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:15:17 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, tony@well.com
wrote:
>
> As I think I understand it, Apple computers are not vulnerable to the
> spy/malware discussed here, because they do not use a Windows
> operating system. Is this legend or is it fact?
>
[snip]

That is at least a gross oversimplification; but it is not entirely without
basis.

Yes, *most* of the stuff that gets discussed *here* is Windows-specific.
But that does NOT mean that MacOS, Linux, etc., are inherently invulnerable.
There have in fact been quite a few virii, worms and trojans which targeted
both of those platforms -- it's just that there have been about 1,000 times
*more* that have targeted Windows (for several reasons), *and* Windows is
inherently *more* vulnerable to such attacks.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 22:12:50 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, tony@well.com
wrote:
>
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 1804 GMT, null@zilch.com wrote:
>
> >The main problem is the use of Microsoft apps for email, newsgroups
> >and browsing.
>
> A good point, also championed by Blocksom, and perhaps a simpler
> solution than switching to another OS.
>
[snip]

Well, less of an immediate "all at once" upheaval, if not necessarily
"simpler" per se.

> >It's so much easier to take care of the
> >network situation for a stand-alone and close all internet ports on
> >Win 9x/ME.
>
> I'm not sure I understand how to close internet ports and still read
> the Web,
[snip]

The TCP/IP protocol provides 64K (65,536) possible "ports" for use in
directing data packets to/from hosts and services. To use a web browser
requires only port 80. Other services, such as e-mail, use other ports (for
example, SMTP uses port 25 and POP3 uses port 110). A fundamental tenet of
securing any computer network or system is to block ALL traffic on ALL ports
other than those you *know* you have reason to use, and even then, permit
only that traffic which passes sanity checking. To do this properly
requires a "real" firewall or bastion host.

> ...particularly in XP -- which would the only reasonable upgrade
> from W98 at this point,
[snip]

I would not consider WinXP to be an "upgrade" from Win98SE, let alone a
"reasonable" one. I consider it to be flat-out unacceptable from a
rights-dilution/usurpation point of view (see:

<http://www.hevanet.com/peace/microsoft.htm>
or <http://www.futurepower.net/microsoft.htm>

> ...given that all the intermediate OSs (ME,
> 2000,...) have now been removed from the store shelves.
>
[snip]

WinME is *NOT* an improvement over Win98SE. It's still based on DOS, but
has relatively few (if any) of the advantages that provides to the rest of
the Win9x series, while still having virtually all of the DISadvantages. It
is also widely acknowledged to be the most buggy, unstable and generally
horrid version of Windows to *ever* find its way to a store shelf. Steer
clear.

You can still get Win2K-Pro, if you want it. Whether or not you should
"want it" or not is another question; but at least it's not as problematic
as either WinME or WinXP.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 23:15:29 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, null@zilch.com
wrote:
>
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 22:12:50 GMT, tony@well.com wrote:
>
[snip]
> >
> >I'm not sure I understand how to close internet ports and still read
> >the Web, particularly in XP -- which would the only reasonable upgrade
> >from W98 at this point, given that all the intermediate OSs (ME,
> >2000,...) have now been removed from the store shelves.
>
> It's not difficult with Win 9x/ME. I've put up a page on it for
> stand-alone PC users:
>
> http://home.epix.net/%7Eartnpeg/internet.html
>
[snip]

That is *not* "closing ports". (I suspect you've been spending too much
time listening to Steve Gibson's nonsense.)

> It's far more difficult with Win 2K and XP. Most throw up their hands
> and use a firewall.
>
[snip]

Probably because that is the *only* way you can really "close ports",
regardless of what OS the protected system may be running.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 21:13:48 -0400, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "mto"
<nobody@dontsendmeanyspam.thanks> wrote:
>
[snip]

> The learning curve for a Mac is close to
> zilch - nearly everything you see now as Windows started life as Mac back
> when MS products came in green on black.
>
[snip]

Unless you are referring exclusively to a relative handful of popular
applications like Eudora, that simply isn't true. And besides, by now, the
parentage has been so obfuscated as to be irrelevant.

> Windows is spendy, getting spendier
[snip]

True.

> ...and never was anything
> more than a bad - and very slow - copy of the Mac OS.
>

Not true.

The closest you can get to that is that they are *both* conceptual rip-offs
of the Xerox "Star".

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 01:13:56 -0400, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, Davoud
<star@sky.net> wrote:
>
> <tony@well.com> wrote:
> > As I think I understand it, Apple computers are not vulnerable to the
> > spy/malware discussed here, because they do not use a Windows
> > operating system. Is this legend or is it fact?>
>
> *****
>
> It's a fact. No spyware, no current viruses/worms/what have you.
[snip]

That is simply NOT true.

Here is just one example (which is sufficient to disprove your thesis):

<http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/5374>

I'll let you do your homework to find the (many) others. (Hint: There's a
search box near the top of that page... try plugging in "MacOS" and hitting
hte "Go" button.)

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[tony@well.com]

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 00:29:50 -0400, Jay T. Blocksom
<usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote:

>I would not consider WinXP to be an "upgrade" from Win98SE, let alone a
>"reasonable" one. I consider it to be flat-out unacceptable from a
>rights-dilution/usurpation point of view

While 'upgrade' may indeed have been an unfortunate term for what I
had in mind, Windows users are certainly rapidly being funneled into
it by the extinguishing species of Windows alternatives. Hence the
frustration that prompted me to start this thread.

T.
========================
Tony Roder, speaking his mind....

[mto]

"Jay T. Blocksom" <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote in message
news:g83alvs6omnt7ib7teraj6guti3oh63gmk@news.rcn.c om...
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 21:13:48 -0400, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "mto"
> <nobody@dontsendmeanyspam.thanks> wrote:
> >
> [snip]
>
> > The learning curve for a Mac is close to
> > zilch - nearly everything you see now as Windows started life as Mac
back
> > when MS products came in green on black.
> >
> [snip]
>
> Unless you are referring exclusively to a relative handful of popular
> applications like Eudora, that simply isn't true. And besides, by now,
the
> parentage has been so obfuscated as to be irrelevant.
>
> > Windows is spendy, getting spendier
> [snip]
>
> True.
>
> > ...and never was anything
> > more than a bad - and very slow - copy of the Mac OS.
> >
>
> Not true.
>
> The closest you can get to that is that they are *both* conceptual
rip-offs
> of the Xerox "Star".
>
> --

No idiot - I am referring to the f***ing interface - MAC. The idea of a
mouse, clickable menus, etc. etc. etc. That is MAC. And FAR more than
Eudora started out on MAC - Word was originall a Mac program, WordPerfect,
Adobe Photoshop & Illustrator, and much, much much more.

[null@zilch.com]

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 00:29:51 -0400, Jay T. Blocksom
<usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 23:15:29 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, null@zilch.com
>wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 22:12:50 GMT, tony@well.com wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> > >
> > >I'm not sure I understand how to close internet ports and still read
> > >the Web, particularly in XP -- which would the only reasonable upgrade
> > >from W98 at this point, given that all the intermediate OSs (ME,
> > >2000,...) have now been removed from the store shelves.
> >
> > It's not difficult with Win 9x/ME. I've put up a page on it for
> > stand-alone PC users:
> >
> > http://home.epix.net/%7Eartnpeg/internet.html
> >
> [snip]
>
>That is *not* "closing ports". (I suspect you've been spending too much
>time listening to Steve Gibson's nonsense.)

It most certainly _is_ closing ports. I don't know what you've been
reading that says otherwise.

> > It's far more difficult with Win 2K and XP. Most throw up their hands
> > and use a firewall.
> >
> [snip]
>
>Probably because that is the *only* way you can really "close ports",
>regardless of what OS the protected system may be running.

Garbage. That's called "blocking". I've been running Win 9x without a
firewall with DSL service on all day for many years. No problems at
all.


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg