Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   McAfee claims it was a bit confused; thought security software was supposed to give away passwords, not protect them   (news.yahoo.com) divider line
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

1123 clicks; posted to Fandom » on 01 Aug 2006 at 3:51 PM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



28 Comments     (+0 »)
 
2006-08-01 1:00:56 PM  
McAfee and security are to words that do not go together.
 
2006-08-01 1:38:03 PM  
I'm so glad I don't HAVE to run "security software" on my computers.
 
2006-08-01 2:51:03 PM  
McAfee, Norton, PC-Cillin, they all suck. Kaspersky is the way to go. I mean if you actually want a product that works.
 
2006-08-01 3:39:18 PM  
HA, they laughed when we picked Trend as our enterprise solution!
 
2006-08-01 3:55:41 PM  
*cough* iMac *cough*
 
2006-08-01 3:56:56 PM  
 
2006-08-01 4:12:19 PM  
Sad thing is, that's the company our college told everyone to get on the first day of Freshman year...

And the 10% of us who got our own types are now laughing at the rest...
 
2006-08-01 4:17:17 PM  
Fark Mods claims they were a bit confused; thought Fark Greenlight was supposed to be repeats, not new links
 
2006-08-01 4:40:32 PM  
Sussman: *cough* iMac *cough*

*cough* doesn't matter *cough*
 
2006-08-01 4:42:56 PM  
Fixed ages ago, spleef.

*cough farktard *cough*
 
2006-08-01 4:46:57 PM  
Let me be the first person to endorse Avast anti-virus in this thread.
 
2006-08-01 5:03:41 PM  
Kar98: Fixed ages ago

ORLY? they fixed "stupid"? most virus infections are from idiots clicking everything they see and downloading as much as possible from questionable sources. this isn't a practice left strictly to Windows users, Mac users can be just as moronic.

*cough farktard *cough*

ok, THAT was uncalled for.
 
2006-08-01 5:11:14 PM  
spleef420


No, Kar98 is right. Sorry man.
 
2006-08-01 5:17:46 PM  
The flaw does not affect 2007 versions of McAfee products, which were released Saturday, she said.

A hidden bug, or a clever ploy to get users to buy the newest release?

You decide.

/Read the rest of the article; they do have a downloadable patch available.
//Just showing how news can be manipulated oh so easily.
 
2006-08-01 5:20:55 PM  
Dr.Robotnik: No, Kar98 is right.

because you say so? you're not going to sit there and say that it's impossible for a Mac to get a virus, are you?

infections on any computer are from user stupidity.
 
2006-08-01 5:51:22 PM  
AVG Free

Use it. Love it.
 
2006-08-01 6:34:44 PM  
McAfee and Symantec are two of the worst brands in software, right behind AOL and Microsoft. In general, they serve the purpose, but they are also unduly bloated, expensive for what you get, and introduce performance issues as well as instability. AVG is the way to go. They have very adequate protection, administrative tools and do not hamper performance in the least. Not only that, but it's cheap for businesses that can't use the free version.
 
2006-08-01 6:39:10 PM  
Avira anti-vir (formerly HBEDV anti-vir) works well enough, is free, and uses very few resources so you don't have to turn it off to play gamse (though you can speed up load times by excluding the game executable process from file read scans)
 
2006-08-01 7:24:09 PM  
*cough* use an abacus *cough*

/ is retro l33t
 
2006-08-02 12:26:47 AM  
ORLY? they fixed "stupid"?

Well, not in your case they didn't.


most virus infections are from idiots clicking everything they see and downloading as much as possible from questionable sources. this isn't a practice left strictly to Windows users, Mac users can be just as moronic.


True. Except the concept and the architecture of OSX prevents users from accidently or stupidly wreaking havoc with the system. Also, there aren't any viruses for the platform, and that has nothing to do with the market share but with the architecture.

Yes, there are things that piss me off about the platform, mostly that there isn't a tool that properly syncs Entourage with PocketPCs. Neither MissingSync nor PocketMac nor iSync do the job properly.
 
2006-08-02 4:24:48 AM  
Kar98

True. Except the concept and the architecture of OSX prevents users from accidently or stupidly wreaking havoc with the system. Also, there aren't any viruses for the platform, and that has nothing to do with the market share but with the architecture.

Not to be contrary or anything, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Is this architecture far more inherently secure than windows? Absolutely. Is it invulnerable? Absolutely not.

This was released today. Key line is:

A remote attacker may exploit these issues to execute arbitrary code, trigger denial-of-service conditions, escalate privileges, and disclose potentially sensitive information.

In other words, anyone can completely own your mac. But please, go on with how this doesn't really mean anything, I'd love to hear it.

/that kid from "Dodgeball" said they better though...
 
2006-08-02 5:04:31 AM  
This was released today. Key line is:

A remote attacker may exploit these issues to execute arbitrary code, trigger denial-of-service conditions, escalate privileges, and disclose potentially sensitive information.


Are you retarded? This was _fixed_ today, you wouldn't even know about it if it wasn't for the fix.
 
2006-08-02 7:26:31 AM  
Kar98

You are assuming that this is the one and only exploit and it has been fixed. I doubt it is the only one.
 
2006-08-02 9:21:54 AM  
I have to second the_sidewinder in this: AVG.
 
2006-08-02 11:01:02 AM  
No, OxfordDon, I am not assuming that. Wherever did you get that idea? But if you pay attention, you will notice that flaws like this are actually getting fixed in a matter of days, rather than months or never. _Before_ actual damage is done.
 
2006-08-02 11:30:16 AM  
Kar98: Well, not in your case they didn't.

I didn't insult you, I didn't attack you at all...is this really neccessary?

no viruses for Macs? that's what that whole article I posted was about and it mentions FOUR viruses Macs are susceptible to. It also mentins the FACT that all viruses, trojans and worms for Macs are executed BY THE USER. Did you even read what I posted?

flaws like this are actually getting fixed in a matter of days

yes they're being fixed but that's not the point...the point is that ANY O/S can be compromised.
 
2006-08-02 11:46:10 AM  
Kar98

This was released today. Key line is:

A remote attacker may exploit these issues to execute arbitrary code, trigger denial-of-service conditions, escalate privileges, and disclose potentially sensitive information.

Are you retarded? This was _fixed_ today, you wouldn't even know about it if it wasn't for the fix.


I'm sorry, there seems to be a bit of a disconnect. You were implying that the architecture made such things impossible, I'm showing you they clearly are possible, now you've changed your tack to how quickly they fix issues. Face it, you made a stupid statement, now you're trying to act like it never happened and change the topic.

But what the hell, I'll humor you, I'm a nice guy, Yes, it was fixed the same day it was released, but only because they delayed releasing it until they had a fix. I mean, you do know they didn't hear about these vulnerabilities and fix them the same day, right? This tells us nothing about time to fix since we don't know when they were told.

Not to mention: "The vendor has released a security advisory to address the majority of these issues." Oh good, the majority, they fixed > 50% of the problems, how comforting.

"The vendor credits Dino Dai Zovi of Matasano Security, Tom Ferris of Security-Protocols.com, Neil Archibald of Suresec LTD, Rob Middleton of the Centenary Institute, Gael Delalleau and iDEFENSE, and Jesse Ruderman of Mozilla Corporation."

Please note that Apple didn't find ANY of these problems, they were found by others who were nice enough to report them and give mac a chance to fix them first, not everyone is so nice. Hell, some people don't publicly release the information at all, except to a select group of friends, or in some cases, clients.

The bottom line is, directly contrary to your statement, the architecture of OS X does not render it invulnerable from anything. This collection of exploits could easily have been turned into the payload for a worm, hell, it still could - do you honestly think that within 24 hours of a patch release everyone has it? They don't. Ahh, but it is harder since they didn't release any PoC exploit code or any details on the vulnerabilities, right? Yes, it is, and welcome to security through obscurity, hope you like sharing a bunk with Windows.

This is just one example, that happened to come out the day we were discussing it, there are others.

/This is what I do
//This is clearly not what you do
 
2006-08-02 11:52:57 AM  
Mac fanboys are funny when they get ruffled.
 
Displayed 28 of 28 comments


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.