Replies

I agree it is curable. Go back and read the responses. One MAC (sic) supporter says the virus was only on OS9 the other says it was on OSX, but not in the wild. Which is it...was the virus I mentioned in the wild on OS9 or on OSX but not in the wild?

Go back and read what Hal9000 and Antirepublicrat actually stated. They are correct and neither has said that Leap-A or Oompa-A were OS 9 viruses.

In any case, here is your answer:

The ONLY Macintosh viruses that have been found in the wild are for Macintosh OS 9 or lower. There were about 114 Mac OS viruses (counting all variations) in the wild before the release of OS X.
No new Mac OS 1-9 viruses have been seen since the release of OS X in 2001.
Macintosh OS X and Macintosh OS 9 and lower are not in any way similar. They are completely different architectures and share no code.
The so-called "virus" you mentioned (and it is only one), Leap-A/Oompa-Loompa-A, was intended to be a proof-of-concept worm for OS X that was submitted by its author to a couple of computer security companies (hence the different names) and has never been seen or found in the wild... it also did not work.
Someone might release a viable self-propagating Mac OS X virus tomorrow using an unsuspected vector mode... but we are now six years (Seven, for OS X Server) and counting without one.
But as of this date, January 4, 2007, there are ZERO OS X viruses or other malware in the wild.

Leap-A/Oompa-Loompa-A's mode of attack was to spread to other Macs through iChat, using the iChat buddies list and sending copies of itself to the buddies and repeating the process, thus spreading. It failed miserably to do even that. As presented, it contained no "payload" that could damage a Mac.

Shortly after Secunia published the mode of attack, some other hacker tacked on a payload to the original file that supposedly would erase the files in a users home directory... and submitted it as Oompa-Loompa-B. It also did not work.

This so-called worm could not spread, and it did not damage the machines it was purposely installed on. As I mentioned earlier it took two Apple engineers and two security specialists from Secunia over six hours to merely get it to copy itself from an "infected" Mac to another Mac on the same local network... and even then it required the administrator of the targeted Mac to accept delivery of the package, unZIP it, Ignore the warning the file contained an application, install it, give it permission for a first run.

This kind of puts it in the category of instructions to pick up a hammer and hit yourself on the head.

So, that still doesn't answer my question. What is the Air Force using? I know they are using a bunch of stuff, but what are they mostly using?

What does the what the Air Force uses have to do with the fact that the US Army is using Macs to power its primary public web site... and that the reason the person in charge of making the decisions states that he made the choice because they were more secure than the Windows NT they had been using. Your question is just a red herring designed to shift the focus away from that fact.

Wow...that takes the cake...you really are a MAC bigot. Not only will you defend their system to the end, but you also defend the proper capitalization of their name. I wonder if you ever correct anyone (like me) when I say Micro$oft or M$?

Have I insulted you? Why do you feel it necessary to insult me?

I spell Microsoft just as I just did. However, only anti-Mac bigots repeatedly misspell "Mac" as "MAC, " especially after their error has been pointed out to them which Antirepublicrat did for you in an earlier post. After a while it becomes an irritant in discussions... all caps is considered shouting. Consider it part of my effort in curing your ignorance about things Mac.

As to defending Macs, I defend the truth. You have been repeating myths and FUD as if they were true despite the many times they have been debunked. Hence your posts deserve rebuttal. If you will notice, I generally back up what I post with sources.

Ok, so you rebutted and corrected my spelling of MAC. Whoopdee doo. I have nothing against the MAC...just the high and mighty idiots that make grandeous claims about it. Ever since the first MAC they've been claiming how superior it is...when they finally get decent OS they claim "we really really really mean it this time...we even have real multi-tasking like windows NT did years and years ago."

I gave up on Mac a long time ago when I was duped into buying one to find out it crashed more than my windows box (but it did give me a pretty little bomb to look at as opposed to a blue screen with meaningful data on it to figure out what went wrong).

You ever heard of the story of the little boy that cried wolf? That's what the Mac user fan club reminds me of.

What does the what the Air Force uses have to do with the fact that the US Army is using Macs to power its primary public web site

Well if the Air Force bought a new rifle to give to their admin troops...would that imply it was the best rifle around? Or just that it was ok for what they needed? If I want to buy a gun or tank I'll look at what the Army is doing. If I'm concerned about Computers and want to know what the best of the best the military is using in IT...I'd look at the Air Force. So saying the Army is using MAC is like saying Food lion uses Scott's tissue in their bathroom...so what?