Because Microsoft does not support the open source community. Take DirectX and OpenGL, they do it to take the Market. Make it so its only there products
the people that make those viruses should have their dicks shoved down their little fucking throats. i mean why would you make it, whats the point of it, to prove that your the biggest douche bag ever.
great vid BTW, interesting points you have there. ^_^
My point here is that with a rise in marketshare comes a rise in dumb users who will do stupid things. Thus, you WILL see a rise in the number of problems.
Your Apache vs IIS analogy doesn't really fit, because Apache server admins don't usually make the kind of mistakes that Joe Sixpack does.
If an OSX/Linux system was compromised (such as a user giving a piece of malware root access), could you a)Use the PC in a botnet (such as for sending spam) b)annoy the user with popup ads c) load up an application at startup, and/or d)install a keylogger
Except for maybe d, you really don't need to infect the entire system to do what malware is designed to do. If the user has the ability to install applications, there's no guarantee that the application is going to behave itself.
let me put it this way, i am debating the system exploits as with the major worms of the past that have shut down the IT departments at the companies i worked at vs social engineering to get some one to download a file which do not really need an exploit.
@mrbit10 i have always believed that market share was just one reason, not really the main or the only reason buy just one of them, i do know that windows and osx etc how they were coded and their system structure had a lot to do with it but do you think would things change if osx had 90% market share and windows had less than 10%?, would osx be more exploited and have more security issues?
Dumb users fail the system - that IS the point. How do you suppose most Windows exploits get spread these days, including users not applying patches in a timely manner.
Do you really think a password dialog asking for root/admin access is going to keep your average dumbass away from the promise of nude pics of Angelina Jolie? I've warned some people about not falling for that crap, and they STILL do!
Email/html & ActiveX exploits... you talk like we're still in the IE6 days.
What I am after are the critical points in MS history that OS design allowed and not user driven. Single user role legacy allowed to survive, ASLR bugs, RCP exploits as even with today are OS flaws not user driven. I could not simply state an OS is impervious to user error, no. The point is to show that OS design vs marketshare is the culprit in many cases. There is a difference between root and DAC/MAC services vs Windows as to ur password question in how far it pervades to critical areas.
Nor will I say those OSs are perfect, but they did not experience the same result as in slapper vs code red for Linux to Windows. So when single user legacy haunts MS in some cases or a legacy network service this is a system issue. As for that file depending on the execution in Win to UAC hardwired legacy vs Linux or OS X where root is locked down has some sort of sandbox protection for the user who downloaded the file.
I will conclude that MS has come a long way but market share cannot moot system design, security design is critical so when that dumb user downloads the file, how much of the system is affected and the systems ability to contain the infection are critical and debated between OSs even when UAC was a great layer but at a price of denying apps access which still resulted in issues for the end user.
I can't really address your points, because of the 500 character limit. One question I'd like to ask you though:
If you think OSX/Linux is so secure, if I create a Linux or OSX executable called 'Free_naked_pics', would you run it without knowing what it does? And what do you think is going to happen when Windows users start switching over, who WILL run it?
Also, hacking these days is more about making money than bragging rights. If you want a fat paycheck, you target the biggest payload.
Nothing is bullet proof, but my points are the problems that MS created in itself beyond user download which at least in OS X and Linux distros that disallow root level use vs XP and or disabling security for better use in vista to the preservation of legacy to run natively. Active X in email, IIS RCP and the new worms today, this is architecture decisions, all systems can be cracked and dumb users fail the system, but that is not the point.
Windows single user role has haunted them in the switch to NT, Vista is all about revealing that in UAC where by UAC developers go against App developers for kernel level access and the process begins on how to support the legacy which in itself lies the problem. OS X and Linux have worms how they spread and what kind of access is the key vs windows. Moreover OS X can F up, and make mistakes and make itself just as exploited, but not the case for now as it was with Apple's OS 9 and prior.
I've seen mac viruses myself, there have been apple viruses. What you said about macs not getting 5% of viruses is false because hackers don't divide time, they go for biggest market share and ignore the minorities. If macs had a majority market share by as a noticable amount as now, macs would be loaded with viruses and windows would have none
i would disagree, if marketshare is used as the crux therefore the logic is to divide by it. The bottom line is that marketshare has nothing to do with it Apple's OS8 and OS9 had plenty of viruses with far less marketshare. Apache vs IIS, Apache has more marketshare but less successful attacks, its all about architecture and is why windows has struggled for so long.
Actually, why would any hacker waste their time on a minority, any hacker would go where the most computers are, and that is PCs. And windows is not sturggling. If the average PC came with virus protection that didn't expire, there would be know issue. While it is harder for viruses to infiltrate mac, with effort, hackers could crack the code, but they don't. This is because only that 5% or so actually uses macs.
They would rather have more computers under their wing, so why would they attack macs at all. The limited mac viruses out there were only proof-of-concepts. In conclusion, macs don't have as many viruses because they are not a majority market share, so hackers don't attack them.
Let us put it this way, OS 9 and a smaller share had plenty of viruses. That said we are not talking so much about user error but there are steps made in UNIX and OSX and some Linux distros that prevent high level attack such as OS X disallowing root user access unless configured vs the architecture of windows suffering from single user role hacks that succeed because of the preservation of legacy. I will make another vid.
Yes, they're very secure systems, but if a hacker wants to make a name for himself, he ought to try and write a virus that will take down my OpenBSD system.
Someone made an analogy that the tallest nail will get hammered. Well, if Apple gets the majority of the marketshare, IMO, that particular nail isn't gonna be whacked so easily compared to M$.
I agree. I dont care how big apple gets in market share..It will never be targeted like windows has..NEVER..even if it had 90 percent market share, it still would not have near as many viruses as windows. UNIX is way to secure. its to difficult for the average hacker to do. its gonna take someone who knows what the fuck is going on. not someone who can guess my password.
yes and they have been, except the quiktime breach did not make it as far as Vista's cursor file. You miss the point, Windows has been easier to hack than UNIX/Linux, thus the results over the life of windows and OSX going on almost 7 years now. Given windows history of vulnerability and its "reputation" i should have added in the vid.
I should add in that 7 years OS X has had a few but again nowhere equal to the % needed to equal its market share. Just as Linux and my apache example, when you say "take down" again linux XNU and BSD are all open and avail but Windows gets the down, I know I lived it esp through codered and codered II and etc...
You don't have to attack me man I agree with you. Due to lack of competition Microsoft has not done as good of job on the os as mac. Apple has to put extra effort into it's os or else nobody would buy it. It is their competitive advantage. Now that apple and linux are gaining popularity Microsoft will do a better job.
you had a great point, which addressed OSX and LInux Claims for years and yet the lack of viruses and so on. As for MS doing a better job, we will see.
Please if Os X had 93 percent on the market and windows had 6 percent OS X would have far more viruses. Also they have already made the new Minwin kernal for windows 7 which will be far better than the NT kernal was.
These apple people do not understand basics in business you have limit resources. Those limited ones go to where serve most benefit. If i am hacker and have to get most bang for buck i target the windows.
It may be harder to get the os x but if it had more market it would be done wouldn't you say?
NO, if it could be done it already would have.hacker dont make money at it..they gain a reputation adn to be the first hacker to write a major virsus for osx is a big title many hackers want. Mant smart people have tried. you think these big hackers havent tried to be the one to bring itdown? Its just to hard to do. market share dont effect people abilities to do it. you think people just dont try? bullshit. excuse.
for your info. we have proof that our OS has less viruses and hacks because our system is Fully UNIX compliant and has no ROOT account and your system has so many hackers because the security of Windows is nowhere near that of Mac OS X, up to now we have 9% of the PC market share in the US and in 2002 we only had 3% and because of that hackers are targeting Macs more but so far they haven't been succesful, so just stfu you hater
your a fool..You dont think hackers would love to be that one guy who took osx down? I know you would and so would a lot of other people and MANY MANY have tried. to no success...your excuses are foolish..and Mrbit is far smarter than you will ever be. no matter the market share. OSX will never have teh viruses windows has.NEVER.
The permissions settings in Microsoft Windows are a pain to fine tune. I found this also in Mac OS 10 but I was probably doing something wrong - I know nothing about that OS compared to Windows. As for the market share, it was a good argument, but I guess the only real way to prove it is to switch the market share for another 30 years...
that is a true statement, its just that UNIX has been around already for so long. That said Apple could easily slip as what happened with the quicktime hole but the exploit could not go very far and that depended also on user rights and what not.
A good discussion MrBit10, Windows has more viruses because it is easier to attack. Linux/Unix is a much harder proposition and would require more skills to do so. And I include OS X as it is now fully UNIX certified.
The best Microsoft could do I think would be to get Sun Microsystems to write the OS for them, Microsoft to do the eye candy on it and the installers, and port their applications.
In fact the Microsoft GUI and Applications, on Linux / Unix done natively would be great.
lol agreed, they had a chance to abandon the old kernel in 96,97??? But they chose not to, now it is a nightmare. The ship is way too big now to make faster turns. Speaking of SUN, they have the Zeta file system and apple deployed it only for the developer kit for leopard but did not get released, ughh that would have been sweet.
well me and bro jus backgin everyting to do the allmighty FRESH INSTALL.lol. i mean the trojan is gone but adware and spyware are creating havoc, so odd as the anitvirus we have has been so good on my laptop and my parents desktop, why its messin up on the xps i not sure. oh well.
The microsoft website says windows server gets less viruses and is more stable than redhat. Are you telling me thats not accurate. How is this possible!!! File permissions? I dont need that stuff. I got antivirus for that. Norton has to make money too. LOL.
That is not true...and by the way on a server you definitely need file permissions and user permissions as well as Anti Virus. Even Microsoft would tell you about user permissions. And the UAC in Vista, controls what you can and can not do and also what files you can read.
Why doesn't windows adopt some of the Unix ways?
Pitahchez 2 years ago
@Pitahchez
Because Microsoft does not support the open source community. Take DirectX and OpenGL, they do it to take the Market. Make it so its only there products
RaverAmbitions 1 year ago
excuse my french but....
the people that make those viruses should have their dicks shoved down their little fucking throats. i mean why would you make it, whats the point of it, to prove that your the biggest douche bag ever.
great vid BTW, interesting points you have there. ^_^
y35n00b5 2 years ago
i know the point of viruses is you want to infect the most systems possible Market Share PC 94% Mac 6%
so your clearly not going to get anywhere with viruses On OS X
tazy4tazy 2 years ago
strong words
unknown8088928 3 years ago
My point here is that with a rise in marketshare comes a rise in dumb users who will do stupid things. Thus, you WILL see a rise in the number of problems.
Your Apache vs IIS analogy doesn't really fit, because Apache server admins don't usually make the kind of mistakes that Joe Sixpack does.
worknman2k 3 years ago
If an OSX/Linux system was compromised (such as a user giving a piece of malware root access), could you a)Use the PC in a botnet (such as for sending spam) b)annoy the user with popup ads c) load up an application at startup, and/or d)install a keylogger
Except for maybe d, you really don't need to infect the entire system to do what malware is designed to do. If the user has the ability to install applications, there's no guarantee that the application is going to behave itself.
worknman2k 3 years ago
let me put it this way, i am debating the system exploits as with the major worms of the past that have shut down the IT departments at the companies i worked at vs social engineering to get some one to download a file which do not really need an exploit.
mrbit10 3 years ago
@mrbit10 i have always believed that market share was just one reason, not really the main or the only reason buy just one of them, i do know that windows and osx etc how they were coded and their system structure had a lot to do with it but do you think would things change if osx had 90% market share and windows had less than 10%?, would osx be more exploited and have more security issues?
steven4570 1 year ago
Dumb users fail the system - that IS the point. How do you suppose most Windows exploits get spread these days, including users not applying patches in a timely manner.
Do you really think a password dialog asking for root/admin access is going to keep your average dumbass away from the promise of nude pics of Angelina Jolie? I've warned some people about not falling for that crap, and they STILL do!
Email/html & ActiveX exploits... you talk like we're still in the IE6 days.
worknman2k 3 years ago
What I am after are the critical points in MS history that OS design allowed and not user driven. Single user role legacy allowed to survive, ASLR bugs, RCP exploits as even with today are OS flaws not user driven. I could not simply state an OS is impervious to user error, no. The point is to show that OS design vs marketshare is the culprit in many cases. There is a difference between root and DAC/MAC services vs Windows as to ur password question in how far it pervades to critical areas.
mrbit10 3 years ago
Nor will I say those OSs are perfect, but they did not experience the same result as in slapper vs code red for Linux to Windows. So when single user legacy haunts MS in some cases or a legacy network service this is a system issue. As for that file depending on the execution in Win to UAC hardwired legacy vs Linux or OS X where root is locked down has some sort of sandbox protection for the user who downloaded the file.
mrbit10 3 years ago
I will conclude that MS has come a long way but market share cannot moot system design, security design is critical so when that dumb user downloads the file, how much of the system is affected and the systems ability to contain the infection are critical and debated between OSs even when UAC was a great layer but at a price of denying apps access which still resulted in issues for the end user.
mrbit10 3 years ago
I can't really address your points, because of the 500 character limit. One question I'd like to ask you though:
If you think OSX/Linux is so secure, if I create a Linux or OSX executable called 'Free_naked_pics', would you run it without knowing what it does? And what do you think is going to happen when Windows users start switching over, who WILL run it?
Also, hacking these days is more about making money than bragging rights. If you want a fat paycheck, you target the biggest payload.
worknman2k 3 years ago
Nothing is bullet proof, but my points are the problems that MS created in itself beyond user download which at least in OS X and Linux distros that disallow root level use vs XP and or disabling security for better use in vista to the preservation of legacy to run natively. Active X in email, IIS RCP and the new worms today, this is architecture decisions, all systems can be cracked and dumb users fail the system, but that is not the point.
mrbit10 3 years ago
Windows single user role has haunted them in the switch to NT, Vista is all about revealing that in UAC where by UAC developers go against App developers for kernel level access and the process begins on how to support the legacy which in itself lies the problem. OS X and Linux have worms how they spread and what kind of access is the key vs windows. Moreover OS X can F up, and make mistakes and make itself just as exploited, but not the case for now as it was with Apple's OS 9 and prior.
mrbit10 3 years ago
I've seen mac viruses myself, there have been apple viruses. What you said about macs not getting 5% of viruses is false because hackers don't divide time, they go for biggest market share and ignore the minorities. If macs had a majority market share by as a noticable amount as now, macs would be loaded with viruses and windows would have none
Brodiguy 3 years ago
i would disagree, if marketshare is used as the crux therefore the logic is to divide by it. The bottom line is that marketshare has nothing to do with it Apple's OS8 and OS9 had plenty of viruses with far less marketshare. Apache vs IIS, Apache has more marketshare but less successful attacks, its all about architecture and is why windows has struggled for so long.
mrbit10 3 years ago
Actually, why would any hacker waste their time on a minority, any hacker would go where the most computers are, and that is PCs. And windows is not sturggling. If the average PC came with virus protection that didn't expire, there would be know issue. While it is harder for viruses to infiltrate mac, with effort, hackers could crack the code, but they don't. This is because only that 5% or so actually uses macs.
Brodiguy 3 years ago
They would rather have more computers under their wing, so why would they attack macs at all. The limited mac viruses out there were only proof-of-concepts. In conclusion, macs don't have as many viruses because they are not a majority market share, so hackers don't attack them.
Brodiguy 3 years ago
Let us put it this way, OS 9 and a smaller share had plenty of viruses. That said we are not talking so much about user error but there are steps made in UNIX and OSX and some Linux distros that prevent high level attack such as OS X disallowing root user access unless configured vs the architecture of windows suffering from single user role hacks that succeed because of the preservation of legacy. I will make another vid.
mrbit10 3 years ago
OSX hasnt got one Virus!!!!
IHATEELITEKILLER117 3 years ago
... Wait, didn't he name two right in the video? Oompa Loompa and Ingtana.
ScruffyBarker 3 years ago
Informative video Mr. Bit. Learn something new everyday. I did not know that Apple OS had virus problems.
GlockNinja 3 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
It has a few
DavidsTechShow101 3 years ago
OS X? Linux?
Please...
Yes, they're very secure systems, but if a hacker wants to make a name for himself, he ought to try and write a virus that will take down my OpenBSD system.
Beat 'Dis!
AY3EIGHTYNINE10 3 years ago
XNU uses FreeBSD, hows that? ;) Thanks for the comment.
mrbit10 3 years ago
FreeBSD is good, but OpenBSD is (as far as I'm aware) the hardest OS distribustion of any in existence to penetrate.
AY3EIGHTYNINE10 3 years ago
Firefox had no exploits what so ever till they breached more then 10% market share and it really accelerated after it hit 20%
Ortanith 4 years ago
Someone made an analogy that the tallest nail will get hammered. Well, if Apple gets the majority of the marketshare, IMO, that particular nail isn't gonna be whacked so easily compared to M$.
Coraxuss 4 years ago
I agree. I dont care how big apple gets in market share..It will never be targeted like windows has..NEVER..even if it had 90 percent market share, it still would not have near as many viruses as windows. UNIX is way to secure. its to difficult for the average hacker to do. its gonna take someone who knows what the fuck is going on. not someone who can guess my password.
emeek77 4 years ago
Great video once again =D keep it up!
Applepwns 4 years ago
subscribe to me you fucking faggot
1weIIhowdydoo1 4 years ago
By this logic
"hackers target microsoft because microsoft tauts vista's safety"???
Does apple not taut how virus free osx is? I would love to be the first to take down the os x with virus is i was hacker.
hoebeeshun 4 years ago
yes and they have been, except the quiktime breach did not make it as far as Vista's cursor file. You miss the point, Windows has been easier to hack than UNIX/Linux, thus the results over the life of windows and OSX going on almost 7 years now. Given windows history of vulnerability and its "reputation" i should have added in the vid.
mrbit10 4 years ago
I should add in that 7 years OS X has had a few but again nowhere equal to the % needed to equal its market share. Just as Linux and my apache example, when you say "take down" again linux XNU and BSD are all open and avail but Windows gets the down, I know I lived it esp through codered and codered II and etc...
mrbit10 4 years ago
You don't have to attack me man I agree with you. Due to lack of competition Microsoft has not done as good of job on the os as mac. Apple has to put extra effort into it's os or else nobody would buy it. It is their competitive advantage. Now that apple and linux are gaining popularity Microsoft will do a better job.
hoebeeshun 4 years ago
no it was not an attack, text sucks at tone. :(
you had a great point, which addressed OSX and LInux Claims for years and yet the lack of viruses and so on. As for MS doing a better job, we will see.
mrbit10 4 years ago
Please if Os X had 93 percent on the market and windows had 6 percent OS X would have far more viruses. Also they have already made the new Minwin kernal for windows 7 which will be far better than the NT kernal was.
microsoftman10 4 years ago
the apache vs iis completely contradicts that just as linux and osx do not get the same percent of viruses to the market share.
mrbit10 4 years ago
Ya right most hackers dont care about macs, If they had more marketshare they would be targeted more, do just be a lieing mactard. APPLE SUCKS
microsoftman10 4 years ago
These apple people do not understand basics in business you have limit resources. Those limited ones go to where serve most benefit. If i am hacker and have to get most bang for buck i target the windows.
It may be harder to get the os x but if it had more market it would be done wouldn't you say?
hoebeeshun 4 years ago
NO, if it could be done it already would have.hacker dont make money at it..they gain a reputation adn to be the first hacker to write a major virsus for osx is a big title many hackers want. Mant smart people have tried. you think these big hackers havent tried to be the one to bring itdown? Its just to hard to do. market share dont effect people abilities to do it. you think people just dont try? bullshit. excuse.
emeek77 4 years ago
F**K OFF Zoul traitor sell your PC's and buy another mac then if OS X is so great.
microsoftman10 4 years ago
My bad emeek for some reason I thought Zoul wrote that comment not you. Zoul never stops trolling.
microsoftman10 4 years ago
for your info. we have proof that our OS has less viruses and hacks because our system is Fully UNIX compliant and has no ROOT account and your system has so many hackers because the security of Windows is nowhere near that of Mac OS X, up to now we have 9% of the PC market share in the US and in 2002 we only had 3% and because of that hackers are targeting Macs more but so far they haven't been succesful, so just stfu you hater
MacOSXrulez 4 years ago
your a fool..You dont think hackers would love to be that one guy who took osx down? I know you would and so would a lot of other people and MANY MANY have tried. to no success...your excuses are foolish..and Mrbit is far smarter than you will ever be. no matter the market share. OSX will never have teh viruses windows has.NEVER.
emeek77 4 years ago
Did you actually watch the video and listen to the guy?
TalesOfWar 3 years ago
Do you have a comment size limit in addition to the one youtube already has?
caseybritton 4 years ago
not that i know of? when i comment i am usually stopped at 500 char
mrbit10 4 years ago
You can shut off TCP Port 135 by disabling the Task Scheduler in Windows. I've no idea why the task scheduler must leave TCP 135 open... but it does.
meisinscotland 4 years ago
awesome vid man,. many folks should watch this for sure.
bullboykennels 4 years ago
gr1moire2112 i think i miss-understood your post, sorry. :| thanks for the comment.
Anyway just for the hell of it, to conclude MS has a habit of creating objects that transcends normal permission sets.
mrbit10 4 years ago
No problem, I agree it has too many ways permisisions could be elevated.
Was trying to say in perhaps Microsoft should just write applications and forget about writing an OS.
gr1moire2112 4 years ago
The permissions settings in Microsoft Windows are a pain to fine tune. I found this also in Mac OS 10 but I was probably doing something wrong - I know nothing about that OS compared to Windows. As for the market share, it was a good argument, but I guess the only real way to prove it is to switch the market share for another 30 years...
meisinscotland 4 years ago
that is a true statement, its just that UNIX has been around already for so long. That said Apple could easily slip as what happened with the quicktime hole but the exploit could not go very far and that depended also on user rights and what not.
mrbit10 4 years ago
A good discussion MrBit10, Windows has more viruses because it is easier to attack. Linux/Unix is a much harder proposition and would require more skills to do so. And I include OS X as it is now fully UNIX certified.
The best Microsoft could do I think would be to get Sun Microsystems to write the OS for them, Microsoft to do the eye candy on it and the installers, and port their applications.
In fact the Microsoft GUI and Applications, on Linux / Unix done natively would be great.
gr1moire2112 4 years ago
lol agreed, they had a chance to abandon the old kernel in 96,97??? But they chose not to, now it is a nightmare. The ship is way too big now to make faster turns. Speaking of SUN, they have the Zeta file system and apple deployed it only for the developer kit for leopard but did not get released, ughh that would have been sweet.
mrbit10 4 years ago
Thats interesting, wast it in the beta or is it still something in the developer kit ?
gr1moire2112 4 years ago
That's actually quite interesting, but I doubt Microsoft would ever do that.
meisinscotland 4 years ago
love the vid, were u actually laughing for the first time at windows.lol
DRBUK 4 years ago
lol, thanks! how is the XPS?
mrbit10 4 years ago
well me and bro jus backgin everyting to do the allmighty FRESH INSTALL.lol. i mean the trojan is gone but adware and spyware are creating havoc, so odd as the anitvirus we have has been so good on my laptop and my parents desktop, why its messin up on the xps i not sure. oh well.
DRBUK 4 years ago
lmao!
mrbit10 4 years ago
The microsoft website says windows server gets less viruses and is more stable than redhat. Are you telling me thats not accurate. How is this possible!!! File permissions? I dont need that stuff. I got antivirus for that. Norton has to make money too. LOL.
zoulkyud 4 years ago
Try and Guess, MS has never got caught on biased survey/report?
`
Cheers
Hypothesard 4 years ago
That is not true...and by the way on a server you definitely need file permissions and user permissions as well as Anti Virus. Even Microsoft would tell you about user permissions. And the UAC in Vista, controls what you can and can not do and also what files you can read.
gr1moire2112 4 years ago
If you couldnt tell I was being sarcastic.
zoulkyud 4 years ago