RE: MS is vulnerable

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

Jason Lixfeld wrote:
When we got to where we were going, my mom was complaining
that her digital camera flash was full and she didn't have
another one. I told her that I could download the pictures
to my powerbook and email them to her later. As I was
connecting the camera, she asked "Well, don't you need
to download and install the softw...." she stopped
mid-sentence as the Mac found the PowerShot, opened
iphoto and proceeded to download the pictures -- no
software needed. She looked Jealous.

If the Powershot was designed as a Mac-only camera, it's Canon's
stupidity. I never used one, but when I plug my Sony cybershot to any PC
it comes up right away without any software.

Since Macs are available in stores, how do you explain that they don't
get the lion's share of the market if they're so superior to the PeeCee
as you claim?

I have had an Apple computer for 25 years (1979 that is, and I still
have my II plus). In the early eighties Apple dominated the personal
computer market (yes there were TRS-80s and Commodore 64s, but Apple was
the leader). Then they released the Apple ///, then the Lisa, then the
Mac. At the same time, IBM released the PC, which was an overpriced
piece of crud.

Guess what: the Wintel platform became standard, over the established
leader (Apple). Because IBM and Microsoft managed to produced what the
market wanted to buy, instead of what a few gurus in an ivory tower in
Cupertino thought what the ultimate PC would be.

When the last big MS virus/worm caused it's major shitstorm,
my mom asked me if I ever get infected with viruses. I said
no, I run a Mac. They are immune to these viruses.

Complete BS. There are Mac viruses allright, and the reason these worms
target the Windows platform is simply because there are much more of
them and therefore an Outlook worm is much more likely to succeed than a
Mac worm.

If Apple is still around with 3% of the market, it's because Bill Gates
bailed them out as he wanted to keep a competitor alive when they were
in the feds cross-hairs because of that monopoly thing. I'll tell you
what: if you know how to make the Mac the dominant platform, go see
Steve Jobs and ask for 100 million bucks in cash in exchange for the
tip.

And if you're not happy with Windows, you're free to write a competitive
product to replace it. That's what Microsoft did to Apple 20 years ago,
BTW. It's called market economy.

Michel.

2

When the last big MS virus/worm caused it's major shitstorm,
my mom asked me if I ever get infected with viruses. I said
no, I run a Mac. They are immune to these viruses.

Complete BS. There are Mac viruses allright, and the reason these worms
target the Windows platform is simply because there are much more of
them and therefore an Outlook worm is much more likely to succeed than a
Mac worm.

<unlurk>
I'm sorry, but this is a very common misconception. There hasn't been one single Mac virus in several years, and I believe that one was a Microsoft Word macro virus. Or, maybe Autostart 9805 - but that was discovered in May, 1998. How many Windows viruses have shown up in the past few years?

Apache powers far more websites than IIS, yet IIS has suffered a much larger number of exploits.

The reason there aren't any Mac viruses most certainly is *not* because "there are not as many of them." One could even go so far as to say that the Mac would be a more likely target because of Apple's security claims. It's a much more high-profile target. Imagine the boasting rights one would have if they could get a Mac virus to spread in these modern days!

<lurks once again>

-Jonathan

3

I'm sure boasting about writing a Mac virus will make you the big man on the
block in your wing at Club Fed :slight_smile:

Seriously, boasting about writing damaging viruses is downright stupid... So
the only way to make headlines is to write a really damaging virus that gets
lots of publicity.

Compare the following scenarios.

Scenario A:
Person writes damaging Mac virus.
1-3% of computers out there are infected.
Network operators barely notice a blip on their MRTG
Media doesn't pick up on the story, except for slashdot (and is /. really
media?).
Person feels his genius is underappreciated.
Person posts to bugtraq to boast of his achievement.
FBI shows up and takes him to Club Fed.

Scenario B:
Person writes damaging Windows virus/worm.
20% of computers out there are infected
Network operators scramble on this mailing list to figure out the right ACL
in vendor C, J, and others' syntax to slow down the thing.
CNN makes it one of the top ten headlines on their web site
TV news makes it the second story, right after the latest accusations that
Bush lied about something in Iraq.
Virus author quietly sits in the background smirking while he watches the TV
news.

Isn't B more fun for a virus author (and network operators' cardiologists)?

Vivien

4

If the Powershot was designed as a Mac-only camera, it's Canon's
stupidity. I never used one, but when I plug my Sony cybershot to any PC
it comes up right away without any software.

I should withdraw this comment. After I sent the message, I realized that my comment was unfounded. Sorry.

Since Macs are available in stores, how do you explain that they don't
get the lion's share of the market if they're so superior to the PeeCee
as you claim?

...

Guess what: the Wintel platform became standard, over the established
leader (Apple). Because IBM and Microsoft managed to produced what the
market wanted to buy, instead of what a few gurus in an ivory tower in
Cupertino thought what the ultimate PC would be.

Yes, and the guys in the white ivory tower realized that they err'd.

I'm glad they have only 3% market share. I doubt they will ever get past 5-10% market share and that's not a bad thing, it's a good thing (tm) because that will mean they will never be plagued with the problems MS has. They (Apple) make a great product, IMO far superior to anything that can be found in PC land. To that end, I'm happy being one of the 3% watching the masses of the 97% struggle.

When the last big MS virus/worm caused it's major shitstorm,
my mom asked me if I ever get infected with viruses. I said
no, I run a Mac. They are immune to these viruses.

Complete BS. There are Mac viruses allright, and the reason these worms
target the Windows platform is simply because there are much more of
them and therefore an Outlook worm is much more likely to succeed than a
Mac worm.

"They are immune to these viruses" actually meant these viruses/works specifically causing the havoc in the last year or so. Sorry for not being more clear.

If Apple is still around with 3% of the market, it's because Bill Gates
bailed them out as he wanted to keep a competitor alive when they were
in the feds cross-hairs because of that monopoly thing. I'll tell you
what: if you know how to make the Mac the dominant platform, go see
Steve Jobs and ask for 100 million bucks in cash in exchange for the
tip.

Jobs is hardly a competitor for Gates. 3% to what? 90%? I hardly call that competition.

And if you're not happy with Windows, you're free to write a competitive
product to replace it. That's what Microsoft did to Apple 20 years ago,
BTW. It's called market economy.

I don't need to write anything, I have it already, it runs on my powerbook. Like I said, if things hadn't happened the way they did, we would all be stuck using MS with even less alternatives. I say again, IMO Apple builds a superior product. It's because they only have 3% market share that product exists. I'm happy paying the premium because I get what I pay for.

5

Hi everyone:

I'm having some strange traffic show up on my PIX. Looking at the "show
conn" I have many many machines attempting to make outbound UDP/138
connections to 192.168.x.x addresses. We don't have any 192.168.x.x
addresses inside the company. This is blocked at our Internet router, so
it's not going out, but still would like to know what this is.

[Snip from "show conn | inc 192.168" on PIX]
(Internal IP addresses changed to protect the innocent - or not so innocent)
UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 1.2.5.108:138
UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 1.2.8.126:138
UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.4.0.151:138
UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.18.169:138
UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.18.75:138
UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.2.156:138
UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.26.99:138
UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.26.99:138
UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.28.95:138
UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.28.95:138
UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.32.166:138
UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.32.166:138
UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.36.81:138
UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.36.90:138
UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.4.66:138
UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.46.150:138
UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.46.150:138
UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.46.150:138
UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.46.82:138
UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.46.82:138
UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.50.72:138
UDP out 192.168.19.100:138 in 3.6.50.72:138

(and just keeps going and going and going...)

These machines are all over the country, here are the unique 192.168.
addresses they are all trying to connect to.

192.168.19.100
192.168.2.15
192.168.2.230
192.168.28.21
192.168.34.99
192.168.34.99
192.168.64.67
192.168.77.223
192.168.80.7

If anyone knows anything about this, I would appreciate some feedback. Feel
free to reply off-line and I'll reply to the list with the responses. A
Norton AV scan shows nothing.

Thanks,

- Darrell

6

138 is NETBIOS (an MS protocol). look for windows clients that have
somehow gotten it in their head that they need to make a NETBIOS
connection to the cited RFC1918 space.

could this be a side effect of one of the current generation of viruses?

richard