Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Good enough to criticize the mechanisms (Score 1) 126

Sorry for replying to my own post.

When I mentioned running PPC apps under OS X Server 10.6, an alarm went off in my head about the Server install not including Rosetta. Seems I was right. But there is an easy solution. Rosetta can be installed from the 10.6 Server DVD by executing a Command Line in Terminal.

Also, while searching for the above, I ran into an Apple Support Forum thread that talked about installing the 10.6.8 OS X client under Parallels. However, the method for that unauthorized virtualization is left as an exercise for the reader...

Comment: Re:Good enough to criticize the mechanisms (Score 1) 126

Then, Apple simply adds checking of DyLibs and other add-ons to OS X, and closes this hokey forever. Problem solved!

So, thanks to the black hat who brought this exploit to Apple's attention; so that they can take care of it.

WEll, not quite. Apple doesn't add essential security updates to pre Lion (10.7) systems. Since the rot set in after 10.6.8, many users are still on these OS versions simply because they're more accessible.. i.e. no new "improvements", and of course, many (like me) have just THOUSANDS of $ invested in software that is entirely obsoleted by 10.7 and up systems. These are developers that have either been bankrupted , or driven out of business, by the endless "improvements" in OSX (like the highly respected "Little Wing pinball", or Unsanity, creators of "Shapeshifter"), or they no longer supply updates to their OSX software. Using Snow Leopard, which is the last version to support the last 10 years worth of OSX software, exposes you to everyt malignant code for OSX in existence. Apple believes that the risk of infecting those user's computers with worms or trojans is good for the company's bottom line, somehow.... or what they are implying is that there is NO such malware after all...

As the owner of many PPC Macs, including a G5 tower that runs 10.5, (as well as "modern" Macs that can run Yosemite), and who has Mac consulting clients that still run 10.6.8'for the same reasons you mention (familiarity and software investment), I fully understand!

However, for at least the Intel Macs, there is a relatively inexpensive solution: Run 10.6 SEVER under virtualization.

So, for $69, you can purchase VMWare Fusion 7 (standard edition) direct from VMWare and then by CALLING Apple, for $19.95, you can (still) purchase the only version of OS X which is authorized by Apple for virtualization: MacOS X 10.6 Server Install Retail disc, part #0Z691-6495. So, for under $100, you can keep your Snow Leopard environment for your stuff that won't run on current versions of OS X, and still have a Mac that can enjoy security updates, newer features, etc.

Is it ideal? No. Do I wish Apple would support OS versions forever? You bet! However, it DOES provide a relatively inexpensive way to "bridge the Lion-gap", especially for those who have significant investments in pre-Lion software). Heck, you could even still run any PPC stuff under Rosetta!

So, how does this help with vulnerabilities? Simple. Like my friends who have both OS X and Windows on their Macs, you simply don't use your "vulnerable" OS to access the Internet. However, in the case of OS X, I'm not sure whether malware targeting new versions of OS X would have much luck running under Snow Leopard, anyway.

And as for having to use SL Server, I couldn't find a reasonable " guide" online to doing the same thing with a "client" version of 10.6.8, so I decided that using Server was a good enough solution.

And as for OS X being "ruined" in recent versions, I think that, if you start actually using newer versions, you'll find it is actually not nearly as "iOS-ified" or "ruined" as people would have you believe, and that the new features, such as vastly improved Multi-monitor support, Convergence, being able to do calls and texts from your Mac, etc, are really pretty damned nice!

Comment: Re:Clickbait (Score 1) 126

Gatekeeper is supposed to prevent unsigned/non-Mac App Store code from running... so either if a download has been MitM'd or if the user was coerced into downloading something shady (e.g. trojan). The bypass I described bypasses this requirement - allowing unsigned code to be injected into existing downloads or hackers to now re-distribute unsigned/malicious trojans. So yah, it's about allowing unsigned code to execute - when Gatekeeper should block that.


Gatekeeper's default setting allows only signed apps; but the user can opt for lesser security. But that's on the user, not Apple.

Comment: Re:Good enough to criticize the mechanisms (Score 1) 126

In no way does what the guy is describing magically allow code to take control of the full OS. If an application is executing, and then executes a maliciously crafted dylib, that dylib is still running as the user who executed the parent application - a.k.a. not root unless you've bent over backwards to re-enable the root user and log in as root because you completely hate security and best practices.

so, IOW, about 100 Mac Users worldwide.

Comment: Re:Good enough to criticize the mechanisms (Score 2) 126

4) Get users to download this ('free photoshop!' - see OSX/iWorm for an example of Mac user's being dumb) *or* inject this into internet downloads if you have network-level presence. Tons of OS X software is distributed over HTTP :/

so, again, like every other OS X exploit, this depends solely on Social Networking to propagate.

So, IOW, after about 100 or so Macs worldwide get infected, whatever package was responsible for spreading malware via this method would be added to Apple's malware list, be pushed out automatically to all users of OS X, and, like those infrequent times before, that would be that...

Then, Apple simply adds checking of DyLibs and other add-ons to OS X, and closes this hokey forever. Problem solved!

So, thanks to the black hat who brought this exploit to Apple's attention; so that they can take care of it.

Comment: Re:Fluff (Score 1) 175

by macs4all (#49522099) Attached to: Swift Tops List of Most-Loved Languages and Tech

The reason for Swift is that Apple just doesn't want to compete head-to-head with the Android framework. There is simply no other reason.

Oh puh-lease. Do you even believe that?

Yeah, Java is the pride and joy of the Android Development community. Riiiiight.

HOW much bitching have I heard here on this site alone about Java? Hmmmm???

You're just Butthurt that Android doesn't have anything as clean and modern as Swift.

Comment: Re:Matlab (Score 1) 175

by macs4all (#49521945) Attached to: Swift Tops List of Most-Loved Languages and Tech

I have no idea who "they" are. I am saying this about Swift. Incidentally, nobody halfway sane would say that C++ or Obj-C is for the incompetent in comparison to C. They are all three hard to master and C++ is a pretty bad design in addition. (Of course, C++, like the equally bad Java, was never intended to be a general-use language.)

Yeah, but that never stopped Pascal!

Comment: Re:Matlab (Score 1) 175

by macs4all (#49521933) Attached to: Swift Tops List of Most-Loved Languages and Tech

Indeed. Swift is for the incompetent. There is nothing wrong with Objective-C, you just have to understand what you are doing. This is just one more step on the way to general cretinization of programming, and consequentially programmers.

I also agree that there is nothing wrong with Obj-C; but OTOH, is there anything wrong with attempting to update and/or clarify syntax?

For example, I doubt you would find that many developers that would argue that C++ can be arcane, and most that have developed in both would say that Obj-C is much "cleaner" than C++ overall; so why can't Swift be seen as simply a further refinement on Obj-C, especially for less "ambitious" projects?

Bottom line, I don't think Swift is in danger of displacing Obj-C anytime soon; so why all the hate?
br. Oh, I know: Because Apple.

Comment: Re:Instead... (Score 1) 355

by macs4all (#49520145) Attached to: 'Mobilegeddon': Google To Punish Mobile-Hostile Sites Starting Today

This right here! I am seriously fucking tired of everyone trying to turn my large screen high def computer into a fucking phone! There is a reason I do not browse the web on a "smart" phone. A 4 inch screen sucks! And when I can not get out of your "mobile optimized" site on my large tablet, guess what? I find another!

Hear, hear!

I am RIGHT there with ya! If I can't get out of a "mobile" site, I am very likely to give up on that site entirely. I have never seen a "mobile" site that was worth a shit, period!

Yes, some "full site" versions are damned inconvenient to use on a phone (and some even on a tablet); but it's worth the pain of scrolling/zooming to be able to get to ALL the features of the site, rather than some dumbed-down version of same.

"It's when they say 2 + 2 = 5 that I begin to argue." -- Eric Pepke