New Patch Fixes 43 Flaws In OS X, Many Serious 2133
True, but the supposed parent does have an id. And that id is traced back to init. If there isn't a traceable route, then that fork or thread will fail and not run.
That it is.
Oh really? Where?
It is YOU that does not know what is going on under the hood of Unix. Guffaw!!!
Your windows bias is strongly showing. If you are a Mac advocate, it sure doesn't show.
Yes. Even more fascinating is watching a wintroll dance.
I can download a file and I can edit that file. But can a foreign program not tied to init do the same?
Nope. Herein lies your own falsehood.
So crude that they can't get in. You are tying trojans to stupid users that don't know anything.
Yeah sure. Why do I not get them then?
Seems like the majic pixy dust belongs to you alone.
New Patch Fixes 43 Flaws In OS X, Many Serious 2135
Read it again. Uh... maybe you should get someone to help you this time;) I answered your overly vague question...
That's right... along with no execute bit set.
That's what read only means. The file then gets buttigned to be owned by the user. How will it run? By the stupid user to chmod +x that file and try to run it. He deserves what he gets after that... but one important thing is that it will never affect system files. Unlike what happens to windows.
Are you nuts?
New Patch Fixes 43 Flaws In OS X, Many Serious 2134
There is no need to "trace" anything back to root. Unix processes form a tree rooted at init; but this is...
And VBscript programs as well. Guffaw!!!!
New Patch Fixes 43 Flaws In OS X, Many Serious 2136
snip- Mac OS has little malware Well, expecting advocates to be impartial is asking quite a...
And executed without you knowing it.
What a horrible thing to do to the public.
Nothing more than an identification to the server. One can change ids to servers using browswers of the likes of Konqueror. Then the server will dish up the page. I've seen this all too often.
Define "auto install"?
You have to select which one and these are on Apples web site. Then you have to download that file. Then your intention to install that file is a double click. No different than issuing the various cli commands to unpack and install the program.
No. But my intention to install was a double click of the downloadable. I've yet to see any security problems in this. Do You?
I don't have that turned on. I used the NSA lock down procedure for OS X. Programs like iChat I don't use and have purged my system of it.
But these are neglible compared to the damage I received using IE and OE.
Good, then you will be hard pressed to find them in OS X. There might be one, but it hasn't been discovered.
Of course, but then a good programmer that does it, will usually get fired for writing such poor code.
In this I agree. C and C++ are pretty much bad in this. However, the latest Gnu C-C++ now warns you that some functions are dangerous to use and should be avoided. I much prefer the older languages like Fortran that don't have that problem that I used to use under VMS. Most of DECs os was written in BLISS that doesn't have this problem either. Of course vms is written in many different languages to take advantage of each languages features.
Simple. Your principle beliefs are in error.
I have under windows IE. I went to a website a long time ago and all of a sudden the mouse was unresponsive... then this particular website wouldn't let me back up to a previous website nor shut off IE. I call this hijacking.
And secure enough. Now, how many $billions has M$ cost the IT industry? Approx $2billion in damages.
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
Mac OSX Advocacy from Newsgroups