3 ms·
I stated what malware writers will do. No, you stated what you THINK they will do. For one, most Macs are updated very often, what with Software Update and Ma
by batista 15y ago
I stated what malware writers will do.
No, you stated what you THINK they will do.
For one, most Macs are updated very often, what with Software Update and Mac Store updates. So updating a black list of applications wouldn't be a problem.
Second, they cannot just get a certificate, because they will have to interact with Apple and the developer program. You know many malware writers that want to give their details away?
Third, even if they somehow get through the second caveat above, revocation would just be a step away.
I then asked a rhetorical question about why would they be doing this if not to defend against malware.
No, you said that if they don't do it to defend against ALREADY EXISTING malware then it's either a security theater or a mystery to you why they'd do it.
As if defending against POSSIBLE FUTURE malware is a "security theater" or a strange notion.
- mike-cardwell 15y ago"No, you stated what you THINK they will do." I didn't think I would have to point out that I'm not psychic, and that it was only an opinion/prediction. I will try to be more clear in future. "Second, they cannot just get a certificate, because they will have to interact with Apple and the developer program. You know many malware writers that want to give their details away?" Sorry. I forgot that identity theft was impossible, and not rampant and easy and used as a matter of course by malware authors. The last three lines of your comment are complete nonsense. You have failed to parse and understand what I wrote.
- batista 15y agoThe last three lines of your comment are complete nonsense. You have failed to parse and understand what I wrote. Yeah, because it is so off base, right, you writing: "If malware on OSX is as small a problem as you're suggesting, why is Apple bothering with any of this? Is it to wrestle further control of the app eco-system on OSX? Or is it just security theatre? Or both? Something else?" And me translating the above as you saying that if they don't do it to defend against ALREADY EXISTING malware then it's either a security theater or a mystery to you why they'd do it.
- mike-cardwell 15y agoI was attempting to prompt you into retracting your ridiculous statement about malware not being a problem. I wish I hadn't bothered now. I'll leave you to it.
- batista 15y agoI was attempting to prompt you into retracting your ridiculous statement about malware not being a problem. Ridiculous how? It's perfectly valid, as in: VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY FEW OS X users ever had problems with malware. Less that what would be statistical noise. On top of it, all the cases of OS X malware, had been trojans. So, 99.9999% got scratch free, despite not even running any antivirus or anything. So, an ACTUAL, EXISTING problem, it is NOT. Now, a POSSIBLE, FUTURE problem, yeah, it can be.
- mike-cardwell 15y agoYou thought I was talking about malware that exists today. I wasn't. That's why your response made no sense. I was talking about in the future, when malware is installed before revocation certificates are pushed out. This is why it looked like you were the one that was ignoring the future likelihood of malware on OSX, not me. Go back to your first comment in this thread, and look at my most recent response to it. Then read my original comment. The problem here is that you simply misunderstood my initial comment, and replied to something which I did not say.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]