4 ms·

* A worm is self-replicating across a network, typically without any interaction from a user. * A trojan requires a user to grant the malware privileges, or ju

• tptacek 17y ago
  Neither OS X nor Windows has been free of remote code execution vulnerabilities. Neither OS X nor Windows has any current published unpatched remote code execution vulnerabilities. Nothing in the architecture of OS X or Windows prevents remote code execution vulnerabilities. About the best thing you can say for OS X with respect to this problem is the fact that most of the "interesting" services are disabled by default, which did not used to be the case on Windows. I don't disagree that this was a win, but it was hardly an architectural difference.
  • tvon 17y ago
    I should have indicated what I was responding to: > Huh? There is no feature in OS X that makes it any harder to write self-replicating code ("worms"). Code running in almost any OS X process has full access to all the xnu system calls, and (invariably) to at least one user's home directory and Library/ folder. That's not what a worm is, and you keep mixing up terms in this thread. * Malware is code that does bad things to your computer. * A virus is self-replicating code that probably does bad things (harmless, proof-of-concept code is sometimes let loose). A virus is a kind of malware. * It's a worm when it's delivered and spreads over the network by a remote exploit. * It's a trojan when it's delivered by tricking the user into installing it. The difference between malware and a virus, okay that's fairly minor, but a virus vs a worm vs a trojan is significant. This isn't some lingo the kids use on IRC either, these are all terms you can find int he OED (at least the one that comes with OSX).
    • tptacek 17y ago
      Like I said upthread: I disagree with your definitions, but debating malware terminology is silly; the terms mean whatever the antivirus companies and "researchers" say they do. You win. The meaningful topic you can debate is whether OS X is more or less resistent to any form of malware than Windows is. I'll argue that there's simply no significant difference, and, respectfully, I think you'll lose with the opposing argument, but I'm happy to hear you out.
      • throw_away 17y ago
        In a theoretical sense, I agree, but in a practical one, for whatever reason, mac users have not had to worry about running anti-virus software. This is great, as anti-virus for windows, in my limited experience, seems to suck down vast system resources and generally be a necessary pain. The distinction OP is trying to make is an important one for the implications that the different terms carry. For worms, to protect yourself, you just have to avoid doing the computer equivalent of picking up a needle off the sidewalk and jabbing it into your arm. not hard. For viruses, I have to avoid breathing. The original topic says that snow leopard has anti-virus software, which means apple is admitting that everyone without snow leopard is boned. But, if the fact is that it's just anti-worm software, well, thanks apple for the chain mail sleeves, but I probably would have been OK otherwise.
      • pohl 17y ago
        I'm surprised that anyone would think that rejecting widely accepted nomenclature is even a valid rhetorical option. I can understand why the sight of a lovely lady is going to make you want to convince her that your herpes is no worse than a goiter, but I don't think that telling her that the doctor's taxonomy of maladies is superfluous is going to make her sleep with you.
        • tptacek 17y ago
          The idea that you would compare actual professional medical terminology to stuff that AV company employees made up is why I'm not having this argument. For the third time: you win. Now, what does this have to do with OS X security?
• deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]