Opinions on Norton AntiVirus 10?

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Opinions on Norton AntiVirus 10? 

On 2008-02-14 05:33:28 -0800, Lewis <gkreme.RemoveThis@gmail.com> said:

> In article <2008021321075716807-sdfisher@spamcopnet>,
> Steven Fisher <sdfisher.RemoveThis@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2008-02-13 13:20:09 -0800, Lewis <gkreme.RemoveThis@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> In article <2008021311592522503-sdfisher@spamcopnet>,
>>> Steven Fisher <sdfisher.RemoveThis@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> touch /Applications/imagineifiwasavirus
>>>
>>> $ touch /Applications/imagineifiwasavirus
>>> touch: /Applications/imagineifiwasavirus: Permission denied
>>>
>>> (there's one in every crowd)
>>
>> Yeah, a limited account will do it. Unfortunately, a limited account
>> can't elevate.
>
> That's completely untrue.

You're seperating two sentences I wrote immediately beside each other
to make it look like I don't know what I'm talking about.

>> I find it a little ridiculous that you have to pick
>> between "I can modify Applications accidentally" and "I can't make
>> changes at all without another account."
>
> Nope, not true at all. Well,. ok, another admin level account has to
> exist but I don't have to go switch users to install software.

See? I never said you had to switch accounts. I said you needed another
account, and the first account couldn't elevate. It also can't sudo --
at least without editing configuration files.

Frankly, at this point I can't imagine you're interested in actually
discussing this, only in attempting to make anyone who disagrees with
you look bad. Good luck with that.

>> The point is that by default it is open, not that it's impossible to secure.
>
> And by default it runs practically no services, including no apache,
> postfix, php, mysql, or any of the other common routes that might be
> used to allow remote escalation.

Doesn't matter. Clients are just as easy to execute arbitrary code in,
and an administrator may be less dangerous than root, but is still more
than powerful enough to mess things up.
 >> Stay informed about: Opinions on Norton AntiVirus 10? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Opinions on Norton AntiVirus 10? 

On 2008-02-14 11:03:36 -0800, Lewis <gkreme RemoveThis @gmail.com> said:

> You said a limited (not sure what you mean by that, there are standard
> and managed accounts in OS X) account cannot elevate. That is flat out
> wrong. Not only can you elevate, there are many different ways to elvate
> (Pseudo, for example).

I should have been more clear about the kind of account I meant. By
"limited" I meant "limited privledge" (not administrator) rather than
"managed." So "Standard" in Mac OS X's dictionary. (In my defense,
though, you need to try to create a new account to see the word
"Standard" anywhere.)

As for the rest, I think you're right and I should have been more clear
about what exactly I meant. However, I also think you're wrong in
saying "flat out wrong" here; standard accounts can not elevate. You
can elevate with a different account, of course. However, saying I'm
"flat out wrong" is picking a fight for the sake of picking a fight.
Even if the intent isn't obvious, you clearly understood it.

> It can elevate. It cannot sudo without first running visudo, but that
> is normal for sudo, and is how sudo was designed to work.

Sure. My point is only that having to use a standard account and punch
a hole for sudo to work with it in order to keep Applications protected
is a rather large security compromise on Apple's part, and it makes the
average user -- who is probably running an administrator account --
more vulnerable than they need to be. This would be less of a concern
if all system applications were stored in CoreServices, but of course
they're not (and shouldn't be, really; that'd be very confusing).
 >> Stay informed about: Opinions on Norton AntiVirus 10? 

In article
<jollyroger-4E0D55.21122313022008 RemoveThis @earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Jolly Roger <jollyroger RemoveThis @pobox.com> wrote:

> > Leopard includes two f/ws:
>
> No, it includes just one: ipfw.

Not true. Leopard includes both ipfw and a new firewall, which Apple
calls the Application Firewall; the new firewall is the one used by
default. The new firewall is called socketfilterfw at a system level.

--
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
 >> Stay informed about: Opinions on Norton AntiVirus 10? 

In article <tacitr-ADD9D5.21511514022008 DeleteThis @netnews.comcast.net>,
tacit <tacitr DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:

> In article
> <jollyroger-4E0D55.21122313022008 DeleteThis @earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger DeleteThis @pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > > Leopard includes two f/ws:
> >
> > No, it includes just one: ipfw.
>
> Not true. Leopard includes both ipfw and a new firewall, which Apple
> calls the Application Firewall; the new firewall is the one used by
> default. The new firewall is called socketfilterfw at a system level.

Yes, we've already cleared that up. Try to catch up. ; )

--
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR
 >> Stay informed about: Opinions on Norton AntiVirus 10? 

In article <140220080903428671%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
"Mr. Strat" <rag.RemoveThis@nospam.techline.com> wrote:

> In article <srhi-3850EB.07151114022008.RemoveThis@newsgroups.comcast.net>, Shawn
> Hirn <srhi.RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > I have been told several times that I should have NAV 10 on my office
> > Mac. My response is that I will only do that when I see there's a
> > credible threat that warrants my installing anti-virus software on my
> > Mac. Thus far, none of the data security officers at work has come
> > anywhere near close to justifying their recommendation. Fortunately, I
> > have enough seniority that I can get a way with that approach.
>
> Windows people just don't get it.

Tell me about it! I have a MacPro with a 30" Cinema Display in my
office. My workstation is looked upon with envy and curiosity in my
department. Only my boss and I are Mac users in our department. While my
colleagues are busy waiting for the latest Microcrap Windows OS patch du
jour and near daily anti-virus DAT files to download and install, my
boss and I actually get work done!
 >> Stay informed about: Opinions on Norton AntiVirus 10? 

In article <GlNsj.1617$fX7.726@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>,
"CZ" <CZ.RemoveThis@no99spam.com> wrote:

> > I have not had a virus, Trojan, etc on my PCs running Windoze for
> > over 15 years, but that does not mean I want to run sans an antivirus
> > program.
>
> But if you had not had an antivirus program, would your system have
> remained pristine?

Possibly.

I have a Windows system that does not have antivirus software installed,
and it's quite pristine. I do occasionally run an online virus scanner
like the one hosted by Trend Micro, and it's never been infected.

Of course, I'm not a typical Windows user. My system, which is used
primarily for games, is segregated behind a firewall. I keep on top of
Windows security updates religiously. I don't use Internet Explorer. I
don't send or receive email from the Windows system; all email comes
through the Macs. I don't Web surf from the Windows side. I don't
install any ActiveX controls.

Unfortunately, those kinds of Draconian restrictions are what it takes
to keep a Windows system completely clean. An average, non-technically
inclined user who uses Windows for his day-to-day activities and has no
antivirus software is pwn3d.

--
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
 >> Stay informed about: Opinions on Norton AntiVirus 10? 

In article <siegman-878068.12462211022008.DeleteThis@nntp.stanford.edu>,
AES <siegman.DeleteThis@stanford.edu> wrote:

> The IT people at Stanford University distribute a suite of free
> "Essential Stanford Software" tools for campus Macs, including latest
> versions of Eudora, Fetch, Adobe Reader, and Stuffit. They also
> provide and recommend a Stanford-licensed copy of Norton AntiVirus 10.

Far be it for me to disagree with Stanford Uni IT, but if I were offered
that bunch of obsolete and/or pointless programs for free I wouldn't
think they were worth the disk space. Well, OK, I guess I wouldn't
object to Fetch. I would go out of my way to avoid Norton Antivirus.
Just features in too many problems people report on Macs in the past.
Why take a chance that Symantec actually managed to do a version that
isn't going to cause problems?

--
http://www.ericlindsay.com
 >> Stay informed about: Opinions on Norton AntiVirus 10? 

In article
<NOwebmasterSPAM-62FD76.13190716022008 DeleteThis @freenews.iinet.net.au>, Eric
Lindsay <NOwebmasterSPAM DeleteThis @ericlindsay.com> wrote:

> Far be it for me to disagree with Stanford Uni IT, but if I were offered
> that bunch of obsolete and/or pointless programs for free I wouldn't
> think they were worth the disk space. Well, OK, I guess I wouldn't
> object to Fetch. I would go out of my way to avoid Norton Antivirus.
> Just features in too many problems people report on Macs in the past.
> Why take a chance that Symantec actually managed to do a version that
> isn't going to cause problems?

NAV also serves no useful purpose.
 >> Stay informed about: Opinions on Norton AntiVirus 10? 

On Feb 14, 11:03 am, "Mr. Strat" <r....DeleteThis@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
> In article <srhi-3850EB.07151114022....DeleteThis@newsgroups.comcast.net>, Shawn
>
> Hirn <s....DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote:
> > I have been told several times that I should have NAV 10 on my office
> >Mac. My response is that I will only do that when I see there's a
> > credible threat that warrants my installing anti-virus software on my
> >Mac. Thus far, none of the data security officers at work has come
> > anywhere near close to justifying theirrecommendation. Fortunately, I
> > have enough seniority that I can get a way with that approach.
>
> Windows people just don't get it.

Let's assume that there is no possibility of a Mac computer ever
getting a virus for a minute. Even if this were true, without some
kind of AV on your computer, you are allowing viruses that come
attached to email and files on your computer to go undetected, and are
furthering their spread anytime you forward on such an email or file
to someone else who may not be a mac user. At the very least you
should have some type of scanner to detect such viruses on your
computer.
 >> Stay informed about: Opinions on Norton AntiVirus 10? 

In article
<8c03c84b-2dd9-4567-bc71-d0758a26dfc5 RemoveThis @k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
<rebamac9 RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:

> Let's assume that there is no possibility of a Mac computer ever
> getting a virus for a minute. Even if this were true, without some
> kind of AV on your computer, you are allowing viruses that come
> attached to email and files on your computer to go undetected, and are
> furthering their spread anytime you forward on such an email or file
> to someone else who may not be a mac user. At the very least you
> should have some type of scanner to detect such viruses on your
> computer.

Since the introduction of OS X in the spring of 2001, there have been
no viruses or spyware in the wild.

It is the job of users of Windows computers to protect themselves from
the bad stuff out there, not mine.

And just how often do you get bogus attachments? If this is a regular
thing, you might want to check your sources.
 >> Stay informed about: Opinions on Norton AntiVirus 10? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Opinions on Norton AntiVirus 10?