|
|
 | | From: | Collector»NZ | | Subject: | Microsoft being proactive | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:30:07 +1300 |
|
|
 | Well I am not a Microsoft Fan boy, but I just saw an advert on TV
promoting protecting your pc, it quoted http://protectmypc.co.nz as a
URL. This redirects to
http://www.microsoft.com/nz/athome/security/default.mspx
At last some action by MS to educate users in protecting thier buggy
systems.
--
>>Follow ups may be set to a single group when appropriate!
======================================================================
| Local 40.9000°S, 174.9830°E |
======================================================================
"I used to jog, but the ice kept bouncing out of my glass."
Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Some can avoid it.
Geniuses remove it
|
|
| | From: | wogers nemesis | | Subject: | Re: Microsoft being proactive | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:24:19 +1300 |
|
|
| On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:30:07 +1300, Collector»NZ wrote:
> Well I am not a Microsoft Fan boy, but I just saw an advert on TV
> promoting protecting your pc, it quoted http://protectmypc.co.nz as a
> URL. This redirects to
> http://www.microsoft.com/nz/athome/security/default.mspx
>
> At last some action by MS to educate users in protecting thier buggy
> systems.
heh it should probably redirect to http://www.apple.co.nz
It is very hard to educate users in my experience. I've just started to
say "you must install all critical updates ASAP or you will lose your
internet access".
|
|
| | From: | Mauricio Freitas | | Subject: | Re: Microsoft being proactive | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:40:38 +1300 |
|
|
| "wogers nemesis" wrote in message
news:elkjtqb06wrc.1jj4ujy94683u.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:30:07 +1300, Collector»NZ wrote:
>
>> Well I am not a Microsoft Fan boy, but I just saw an advert on TV
>> promoting protecting your pc, it quoted http://protectmypc.co.nz as a
>> URL. This redirects to
>> http://www.microsoft.com/nz/athome/security/default.mspx
>>
>> At last some action by MS to educate users in protecting thier buggy
>> systems.
>
> heh it should probably redirect to http://www.apple.co.nz
>
> It is very hard to educate users in my experience. I've just started to
> say "you must install all critical updates ASAP or you will lose your
> internet access".
"versions of Mac OS X are vulnerable, up to the tested version 10.3.4.
Several kernel level bounds checking vulnerabilities were found during an
audit of the recent Darwin kernel xnu517.7.7. These vulnerabilities are
mostly in user to kernel memory copy operations and also allocation of
kernel memory driven by user supplied size value(s)."
http://www.geekmac.com/content.asp?contentid=3923
I have to say though that these problem on Mac OS are "local" meaning that
physical access is required to exploit. But this is also evidence that there
are no 100% OS. All have flaws, and there's no way to be more secure.
--
Mauricio Freitas, Microsoft MVP Mobile Devices
http://www.geekzone.co.nz
http://www.geekmac.com
|
|
| | From: | froggy | | Subject: | Re: Microsoft being proactive | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:38:10 +1300 |
|
|
| On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:40:38 +1300, Mauricio Freitas wrote:
> "wogers nemesis" wrote in message
> news:elkjtqb06wrc.1jj4ujy94683u.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:30:07 +1300, Collector»NZ wrote:
>>
>>> Well I am not a Microsoft Fan boy, but I just saw an advert on TV
>>> promoting protecting your pc, it quoted http://protectmypc.co.nz as a
>>> URL. This redirects to
>>> http://www.microsoft.com/nz/athome/security/default.mspx
>>>
>>> At last some action by MS to educate users in protecting thier buggy
>>> systems.
>>
>> heh it should probably redirect to http://www.apple.co.nz
>>
>> It is very hard to educate users in my experience. I've just started to
>> say "you must install all critical updates ASAP or you will lose your
>> internet access".
>
> "versions of Mac OS X are vulnerable, up to the tested version 10.3.4.
> Several kernel level bounds checking vulnerabilities were found during an
> audit of the recent Darwin kernel xnu517.7.7. These vulnerabilities are
> mostly in user to kernel memory copy operations and also allocation of
> kernel memory driven by user supplied size value(s)."
>
> http://www.geekmac.com/content.asp?contentid=3923
>
> I have to say though that these problem on Mac OS are "local" meaning that
> physical access is required to exploit. But this is also evidence that there
> are no 100% OS. All have flaws, and there's no way to be more secure.
I always thought local ( in the context of exploits ) meant local user,
as in still able to be executed remotely but only if logged in ( for
example via ssh etc) and not physically local
|
|
| | From: | Mauricio Freitas | | Subject: | Re: Microsoft being proactive | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:47:03 +1300 |
|
|
| "froggy" wrote in message
news:pan.2005.01.23.10.38.07.817646@spamgmail.com...
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:40:38 +1300, Mauricio Freitas wrote:
>
>> "wogers nemesis" wrote in message
>> news:elkjtqb06wrc.1jj4ujy94683u.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:30:07 +1300, Collector»NZ wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well I am not a Microsoft Fan boy, but I just saw an advert on TV
>>>> promoting protecting your pc, it quoted http://protectmypc.co.nz as a
>>>> URL. This redirects to
>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/nz/athome/security/default.mspx
>>>>
>>>> At last some action by MS to educate users in protecting thier buggy
>>>> systems.
>>>
>>> heh it should probably redirect to http://www.apple.co.nz
>>>
>>> It is very hard to educate users in my experience. I've just started to
>>> say "you must install all critical updates ASAP or you will lose your
>>> internet access".
>>
>> "versions of Mac OS X are vulnerable, up to the tested version 10.3.4.
>> Several kernel level bounds checking vulnerabilities were found during an
>> audit of the recent Darwin kernel xnu517.7.7. These vulnerabilities are
>> mostly in user to kernel memory copy operations and also allocation of
>> kernel memory driven by user supplied size value(s)."
>>
>> http://www.geekmac.com/content.asp?contentid=3923
>>
>> I have to say though that these problem on Mac OS are "local" meaning
>> that
>> physical access is required to exploit. But this is also evidence that
>> there
>> are no 100% OS. All have flaws, and there's no way to be more secure.
>
> I always thought local ( in the context of exploits ) meant local user,
> as in still able to be executed remotely but only if logged in ( for
> example via ssh etc) and not physically local
>
Oh, that too... But most users will not have remote access enabled by
default on Mac OS, and root is disabled by default as well. You have to
really go deep three levels to enable root, what "standard" users will not
find easily.
--
Mauricio Freitas, Microsoft MVP Mobile Devices
http://www.geekzone.co.nz
http://www.geekmac.com
|
|
| | From: | froggy | | Subject: | Re: Microsoft being proactive | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:54:52 +1300 |
|
|
| On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:47:03 +1300, Mauricio Freitas wrote:
> "froggy" wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.01.23.10.38.07.817646@spamgmail.com...
>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:40:38 +1300, Mauricio Freitas wrote:
>>
>>> "wogers nemesis" wrote in message
>>> news:elkjtqb06wrc.1jj4ujy94683u.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:30:07 +1300, Collector»NZ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well I am not a Microsoft Fan boy, but I just saw an advert on TV
>>>>> promoting protecting your pc, it quoted http://protectmypc.co.nz as a
>>>>> URL. This redirects to
>>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/nz/athome/security/default.mspx
>>>>>
>>>>> At last some action by MS to educate users in protecting thier buggy
>>>>> systems.
>>>>
>>>> heh it should probably redirect to http://www.apple.co.nz
>>>>
>>>> It is very hard to educate users in my experience. I've just started to
>>>> say "you must install all critical updates ASAP or you will lose your
>>>> internet access".
>>>
>>> "versions of Mac OS X are vulnerable, up to the tested version 10.3.4.
>>> Several kernel level bounds checking vulnerabilities were found during an
>>> audit of the recent Darwin kernel xnu517.7.7. These vulnerabilities are
>>> mostly in user to kernel memory copy operations and also allocation of
>>> kernel memory driven by user supplied size value(s)."
>>>
>>> http://www.geekmac.com/content.asp?contentid=3923
>>>
>>> I have to say though that these problem on Mac OS are "local" meaning
>>> that
>>> physical access is required to exploit. But this is also evidence that
>>> there
>>> are no 100% OS. All have flaws, and there's no way to be more secure.
>>
>> I always thought local ( in the context of exploits ) meant local user,
>> as in still able to be executed remotely but only if logged in ( for
>> example via ssh etc) and not physically local
>>
>
> Oh, that too... But most users will not have remote access enabled by
> default on Mac OS, and root is disabled by default as well. You have to
> really go deep three levels to enable root, what "standard" users will not
> find easily.
lol.. now you've got me curious about apples way of doing things.. and
google is getting a work out.. one thing I've been dying to mention.. but
havent found the right opourtunity (sp?) ..
steve jobs (owner of apple as you well know ) owns a movie making company
that he bought from skywalker something...called Pixar
One of the chief programmers for that company has an illustrious past as
well (for the linux community )
useless trivia time..
can you name the programmer
and can you name his claim to fame in Linux
the clock starts......
now!
|
|
| | From: | froggy | | Subject: | Re: Microsoft being proactive | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:40:59 +1300 |
|
|
| On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:54:52 +1300, froggy wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:47:03 +1300, Mauricio Freitas wrote:
>
>> "froggy" wrote in message
>> news:pan.2005.01.23.10.38.07.817646@spamgmail.com...
>>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:40:38 +1300, Mauricio Freitas wrote:
>>>
>>>> "wogers nemesis" wrote in message
>>>> news:elkjtqb06wrc.1jj4ujy94683u.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:30:07 +1300, Collector»NZ wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well I am not a Microsoft Fan boy, but I just saw an advert on TV
>>>>>> promoting protecting your pc, it quoted http://protectmypc.co.nz as a
>>>>>> URL. This redirects to
>>>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/nz/athome/security/default.mspx
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At last some action by MS to educate users in protecting thier buggy
>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>
>>>>> heh it should probably redirect to http://www.apple.co.nz
>>>>>
>>>>> It is very hard to educate users in my experience. I've just started to
>>>>> say "you must install all critical updates ASAP or you will lose your
>>>>> internet access".
>>>>
>>>> "versions of Mac OS X are vulnerable, up to the tested version 10.3.4.
>>>> Several kernel level bounds checking vulnerabilities were found during an
>>>> audit of the recent Darwin kernel xnu517.7.7. These vulnerabilities are
>>>> mostly in user to kernel memory copy operations and also allocation of
>>>> kernel memory driven by user supplied size value(s)."
>>>>
>>>> http://www.geekmac.com/content.asp?contentid=3923
>>>>
>>>> I have to say though that these problem on Mac OS are "local" meaning
>>>> that
>>>> physical access is required to exploit. But this is also evidence that
>>>> there
>>>> are no 100% OS. All have flaws, and there's no way to be more secure.
>>>
>>> I always thought local ( in the context of exploits ) meant local user,
>>> as in still able to be executed remotely but only if logged in ( for
>>> example via ssh etc) and not physically local
>>>
>>
>> Oh, that too... But most users will not have remote access enabled by
>> default on Mac OS, and root is disabled by default as well. You have to
>> really go deep three levels to enable root, what "standard" users will not
>> find easily.
>
> lol.. now you've got me curious about apples way of doing things.. and
> google is getting a work out.. one thing I've been dying to mention.. but
> havent found the right opourtunity (sp?) ..
> steve jobs (owner of apple as you well know ) owns a movie making company
> that he bought from skywalker something...called Pixar
> One of the chief programmers for that company has an illustrious past as
> well (for the linux community )
> useless trivia time..
> can you name the programmer
> and can you name his claim to fame in Linux
>
> the clock starts......
> now!
times up!
it was ( if anyone cared)
Bruce Perens
has a fair bit to do with Debian (think head developer)
|
|
| | From: | David Preece | | Subject: | Re: Microsoft being proactive | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:13:42 +1300 |
|
|
| froggy wrote:
>>Oh, that too... But most users will not have remote access enabled by
>>default on Mac OS, and root is disabled by default as well.
>
> lol.. now you've got me curious about apples way of doing things..
Users are created as "ordinary" users by default, but you can add "admin
rights" from a checkbox on the users dialog. When you do this the user
gets added to /etc/sudoers (or whatever it's called) and they can sudo
off the command line by entering their password. It's a pain in the arse
to make the real root account live and, frankly, I've never seen a need
to do it.
Oh, and sudoers get a GUI password entering thing for authenticating to
install updates, drivers, things like that.
Dave
|
|
| | From: | mark | | Subject: | Re: Microsoft being proactive | | Date: | 24 Jan 2005 04:11:16 GMT |
|
|
| David Preece wrote in news:41f40576$1
@clear.net.nz:
> Subject: Re: Microsoft being proactive
> From: David Preece
> Newsgroups: nz.comp
>
> froggy wrote:
>>>Oh, that too... But most users will not have remote access enabled by
>>>default on Mac OS, and root is disabled by default as well.
>>
>> lol.. now you've got me curious about apples way of doing things..
>
> Users are created as "ordinary" users by default, but you can add "admin
> rights" from a checkbox on the users dialog. When you do this the user
> gets added to /etc/sudoers (or whatever it's called) and they can sudo
> off the command line by entering their password. It's a pain in the arse
> to make the real root account live
It is pretty straightforward to do through the GUI.
> and, frankly, I've never seen a need to do it.
I found it very usefull pre-OS X 10.2, when a number of bugs got my
frustration levels close to boiling :-)
(eg., changing directory rights in the GUI, and even emptying the trash
didn't always work. Ahh... those were the days.
>
> Oh, and sudoers get a GUI password entering thing for authenticating to
> install updates, drivers, things like that.
>
> Dave
|
|
| | From: | Lawrence D¹Oliveiro | | Subject: | Re: Microsoft being proactive | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:36:44 +1300 |
|
|
| In article <41f37ede$1@clear.net.nz>,
"Mauricio Freitas" wrote:
>I have to say though that these problem on Mac OS are "local" meaning that
>physical access is required to exploit.
Physical-access "exploits" don't count.
|
|
| | From: | Dave - Dave.net.nz | | Subject: | Re: Microsoft being proactive | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:02:21 +1300 |
|
|
| wogers nemesis wrote:
> It is very hard to educate users in my experience. I've just started to
> say "you must install all critical updates ASAP or you will lose your
> internet access".
nice... we've started doing that with some of our customers.
|
|
|
