Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lauren Is Right: Macs Cost More Than PCs
microsoft-watch.com ^ | March 30, 2009 2:55 AM | Joe Wilcox

Posted on 03/30/2009 12:03:41 PM PDT by martin_fierro

Edited on 03/30/2009 1:00:06 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

News Analysis. If you're one of those people who insist Macs are comparably priced to Windows PCs, read no further. This post will make you really angry.

Last week, Microsoft started airing the newest "I'm a PC" ad, featuring Lauren

(Excerpt) Read more at microsoft-watch.com ...


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Computers/Internet
KEYWORDS: apple; everyoneknowsthis; ilovebillgates; iwanthim; iwanthimbad; maccult; microshaft; microsoftfanboys; monopoly; openplatform; pc; thirdparty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-175 last
To: Swordmaker; antiRepublicrat
From the original linked article.
Are these bogus too?
(Sorry for the late reply. Home sick yesterday...)

"In fact, an inventory of Apple's remaining DRM armory makes it vividly clear that DRM (backed by the DMCA) is almost always about eliminating legitimate competition, hobbling interoperability, and creating de facto technology monopolies:

* Apple uses DRM to lock iPhones to AT&T and Apple's iTunes App Store;
* Apple uses DRM to prevent recent iPods from syncing with software other than iTunes (Apple claims it violates the DMCA to reverse engineer the hashing mechanism);
* Apple claims that it uses DRM to prevent OS X from loading on generic Intel machines;
* Apple's new Macbooks feature DRM-laden video ports that only output certain content to "approved" displays;
* Apple requires iPod accessory vendors to use a licensed "authentication chip" in order to make accessories to access certain features on newer iPods and iPhones;
* The iTunes Store will still lock down movies and TV programs with FairPlay DRM;
* Audiobook files purchased through the iTunes Store will still be crippled by Audible's DRM restrictions.

161 posted on 04/01/2009 7:01:59 AM PDT by astyanax (Had enough Hope and Change yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: astyanax
Oh, and the last line from Electronic Frontier Foundation's article:

"But it is also a stark reminder that Apple remains at the forefront of employing DRM to shove competitors to the fringes and wrest control out of the hands of users."

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/01/apple-shows-us-drms-true-colors

162 posted on 04/01/2009 7:07:11 AM PDT by astyanax (Had enough Hope and Change yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: astyanax
I never said Apple doesn't use DRM. I said those examples were bogus, especially in the context of a Windows/Mac conversation.

Apple uses DRM to lock iPhones to AT&T and Apple's iTunes App Store;

The AT&T DRM is there because AT&T was the only company willing to take the risk on the iPhone and Apple's required infrastructure changes to run it, and AT&T wanted exclusivity for that. The DRM enforces that exclusivity, just as it does for any other locked phone on the market. However, it can be legally broken under the DMCA. App store only DRM is bad.

Apple uses DRM to prevent recent iPods from syncing with software other than iTunes (Apple claims it violates the DMCA to reverse engineer the hashing mechanism);

True, and bad.

Apple claims that it uses DRM to prevent OS X from loading on generic Intel machines;

True, and they do it to maintain quality control.

Apple's new Macbooks feature DRM-laden video ports that only output certain content to "approved" displays;

Apple is almost up to where Vista is on this issue. It is necessary in order to play Blu-ray. But the Blu-ray consortium has recently relaxed its terms, which is why Apple is gearing up to include it, probably with less intrusive DRM than Microsoft uses.

Apple requires iPod accessory vendors to use a licensed "authentication chip" in order to make accessories to access certain features on newer iPods and iPhones;

Wrong. There is no DRM in the chip. Aside from functional aspects, the only thing it does is confirm participation in the "Made for iPod" marketing program. Anyone can still easily clone the functionality of the chip and make compatible headphones outside of that program (Apple confirms this). But Apple will now be able to tell if someone is using the "Made for iPod" registered trademark without permission.

The iTunes Store will still lock down movies and TV programs with FairPlay DRM ... Audiobook files purchased through the iTunes Store will still be crippled by Audible's DRM restrictions.

Blame the labels and studios. DRM is there only to the extent that sudios and labels force Apple to include it. DRM is the only reason they allowed Apple to sell their music in the first place, and they've tried to get Apple to tighten it (read: make it less consumer-friendly). Since then Apple has continually fought for less restrictive and non-DRM content from studios and labels, and over the years has won several victories.

Contrast with Microsoft, which gave a bit of the proceeds from every Zune sale to the record labels on the assumption that every buyer would infringe on their copyrights, and DRMd beaming musc.

163 posted on 04/01/2009 8:06:28 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: astyanax
* Apple uses DRM to lock iPhones to AT&T and Apple's iTunes App Store;

TRUE.

* Apple uses DRM to prevent recent iPods from syncing with software other than iTunes (Apple claims it violates the DMCA to reverse engineer the hashing mechanism);

FALSE.

* Apple claims that it uses DRM to prevent OS X from loading on generic Intel machines;

TRUE, in that OS X looks for certain hardware.

* Apple's new Macbooks feature DRM-laden video ports that only output certain content to "approved" displays;

Absolutely FALSE. The video ports are a new international standard port.

* Apple requires iPod accessory vendors to use a licensed "authentication chip" in order to make accessories to access certain features on newer iPods and iPhones;

FALSE, that was the conclusion of iLounge's review of the new iPod Shuffle and they did not know what they were talking about.

* The iTunes Store will still lock down movies and TV programs with FairPlay DRM;

TRUE, if the IP rights owners require it.

* Audiobook files purchased through the iTunes Store will still be crippled by Audible's DRM restrictions.

TRUE. just as Kindle book purchases are "crippled" by DRM. These are requirements not of Apple or Amazon, but of the publishers who are protecting their copyrights.

Now, SO WHAT? Just because you want to freely, and illegally, spread your software, content, etc., around does not give you the right to do so.

164 posted on 04/01/2009 8:13:34 AM PDT by Swordmaker (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
Unbunch those panties.
I just asked about the claims made in the article.
Big jump from there to assuming I want to "freely, and illegally, spread (my) software, content, etc., around"...

165 posted on 04/01/2009 9:15:55 AM PDT by astyanax (Had enough Hope and Change yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

Thanks. Very informative.


166 posted on 04/01/2009 9:17:31 AM PDT by astyanax (Had enough Hope and Change yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: astyanax
Big jump from there to assuming I want to "freely, and illegally, spread (my) software, content, etc., around"...

Sorry about that astyanax. I have been debating similar points being made by someone who DOES think that. You just became collateral damage.

Panties unbunched.

167 posted on 04/01/2009 9:57:43 AM PDT by Swordmaker (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

My friend’s response was, “Linux IS Unix” He then went on to describe Linux as simply a “variant of Unix”.

He also referred me to a website: http://www.securemac.com/

Who’s website is SecureMac? Is it simply someone trying to sell anti-virus software to Mac users?

My apologies in advance for what must seem like dumb questions to you all.


168 posted on 04/01/2009 9:59:20 AM PDT by guinnessman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: astyanax

You’re welcome. BTW, don’t take Apple’s fight against music and video DRM to mean Apple is fighting for the consumer against DRM. DRM creates complications that run counter to the “It just works” motif of Apple, and it must cause more load on Apple’s iTunes servers (encryption is processor intensive). IMHO, those are the reasons Apple is fighting against such DRM.


169 posted on 04/01/2009 10:03:23 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: guinnessman

Given the contents of their store, it doesn’t look like a FUD anti-virus pimping site. It looks like at most they’re pimping their own security consulting services, and they make money advertising for any security-related product.

But don’t let the large number of security news entries scare you. For one, all of the 2009 news only takes a page on my browser, with the whole long list going back to 2002. For two, they’re reporting most security-related press releases and every little variant of known trojans. When there’s not much news to report, you have to report every little thing to keep up the content length.


170 posted on 04/01/2009 10:23:00 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

No harm done!
I’ve noticed these threads are always good for some “spirited” debate.
;o)


171 posted on 04/01/2009 10:28:57 AM PDT by astyanax (Had enough Hope and Change yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: guinnessman; antiRepublicrat
My friend’s response was, “Linux IS Unix” He then went on to describe Linux as simply a “variant of Unix”.

Linux is NOT UNIX. SCO went to great lengths to try and prove that LINUX incorporated some UNIX code it is programing... and failed. Other than using a similar command structure, LINUX was completely reverse engineered to not include any of UNIX in its code.

He also referred me to a website: http://www.securemac.com/

He linked you to a website that SELLS anti-spyware and security services for the Mac... and they can only come up with 120 articles (most of which report the closing of found vulnerabilities by Apple or about upgrades in their products) in EIGHT YEARS?

It is their job to sell their services... to do that, they must instill fear in the satisfied Mac user that his machine will be riddled with viruses, spyware and other malware if he does not buy their wonderful MacScan 2.6—which for $29.99 will only eliminate your cookies for you. Wow!

Examining their other items, I find the vast majority of their stuff is for the old Mac OS 9 and under. Many of their FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) example talk about vulnerabilities in OS X.0, which was updated in 2001 to eliminate the issues they are referring to! For example, these are under their heading "Mac OS X Security" on their left side bar (My comments in red:

The rest of their "security" helps are along the same lines and level of honesty.

Guinessman, this website is idiotic and a joke. Their services (which they are willing to fly to you at a moments notice at your expense to provide) are little more than keeping your Mac updated with the automatic updates from Apple.

You can safely ignore anything you read on this website... and, unfortunately, anything your friend tells you. He really hasn't a clue about Mac OS X.

172 posted on 04/01/2009 9:43:15 PM PDT by Swordmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
Thanks for putting my mind at rest!

Here's the latest email he sent me today, about a vulnerability in OSX 10.5.6 (which I have right now).:

"Actually, here is a snippet from the latest Information Week periodical:

Mac OS X Proof Of Concept Exploit Code Published

The software has the ability to create a new system volume, call to some OS functions, and change the user ID, without administrative privileges.

By Thomas Claburn
InformationWeek
March 27, 2009 05:20 PM
Proof-of-concept exploit code has been posted online for six kernel vulnerabilities, five of which affect Mac OS X 10.5.6, the most current version of Apple's operating system software.
The vulnerabilities were discussed at CanSecWest 2009 last week during a talk about security flaws in the FreeBSD, Mac OS X, and Solaris kernels by security researchers Christer Oberg and Neil Kettle of Convergent Network Solutions.

And this is only the most recent example. The fact that you’ve never gotten a virus does not mean they are not there. By the way, all a virus needs to do its job is a vulnerability exactly like the one discussed here."

173 posted on 04/06/2009 2:12:27 PM PDT by guinnessman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: guinnessman; antiRepublicrat
And this is only the most recent example. The fact that you’ve never gotten a virus does not mean they are not there. By the way, all a virus needs to do its job is a vulnerability exactly like the one discussed here."

I've been following Mac news for over 20 years, Guinnessman, and I am intimately familiar with OS X. I am intimately familiar with the 114 viruses that were available for Mac OSes previous to OS X. I am very familiar with the current state of OS X security and the availability of malware for OS X Macs. Your friend is not. He is merely parroting what the breathless, and ignorant press, is writing about OS X that has, in many cases, already been shot down.

IF there were viable viruses in the wild for OS X Macs, I would know about them, and would have posted the data on FreeRepublic, and that virus would be headline news around the world. In fact, Guinnessman, I did indeed post this very article on Freerepublic on March 27, 2009 your friend sent you.

A virus is a self-replicating, self-installing, self-transmitting malicious program. The problem for the hacking, virus writing community is that there are no vectors for easily transmitting viruses on the Mac without involving the USER. Installing a virus would require the USER give an administrator name and password to install said virus. The virus download would also have to be accepted by the user. There have been several proof-of-concept failures... but as of today there ARE NO OS X viruses in the wild. This is now EIGHT years and counting.

AS a matter of fact, the discussion being reported is a theoretical presentation of five vulnerabilities that Christer Oberg and Neil Kettle claimed to have discovered. They did not demonstrate them, nor did they publish any proof-of-concept exploits. They said what possibly COULD be done with these vulnerabilities. At worst, this report is a "proof-of-concept" for a local exploit... i.e., a hacker sitting AT YOUR MAC as a registered user being able to get into it and doing some things with an elevated permission OR creating a denial of service, which is not very useful if YOU are the one denying yourself service. Every one of these reported in the article require PHYSICAL ACCESS to the target computer and the ability to pre-install software on that machine. What your friend fails to comprehend is that a "Vulnerability" is not an "Exploit." This article's head line ALSO makes that erroneous leap that a vulnerability equals an exploit; it just does not. A vulnerability is something that needs to be fixed. An exploit is an application that takes advantage of that vulnerability to do something malicious.

This is the "proof-of-concept" code that was presented as an "exploit" in the article:

1) Mac OS X xnu <= 1228.3.13 (zip-notify) Remote Kernel Overflow PoC;
"exploits a remote heap overflow in Apple's implementation of their own AppleTalk networking stack. The overflow is insufficient to allow for simple remote code execution since the length of data permitted is not sufficient to overwrite any 'useful' data structure. However, this bug is interesting since it would actually be trivially exploitable for remote kernel mode code execution if Apple's AppleTalk implementation was actually *correct* and did not contain a rather simple development bug. "The result of the exploit is a remote denial-of-service condition whereby the kernel attempts to access an invalid memory address due to the 'ifPort' member of a heap allocated data structure being overwritten with user-supplied data, in this case, 0x41414141," he added.

2) Mac OS X xnu <= 1228.3.13 (macfsstat) Local Kernel Memory Leak/DoS;
3) Mac OS X xnu <= 1228.3.13 (profil) Kernel Memory Leak/DoS PoC; <

"The second and third, he said, "exploit a local kernel memory leak which allows a user process to allocate an arbitrary block of kernel memory that will never be free()'d. Consequently, the kernel will run out of memory. This type of exploit is particularly useful for kernel heap memory spraying, which is required given the memory segmentation model used by the OS X kernel."
4) Mac OS X xnu <=1228.x (vfssysctl) Local Kernel DoS PoC;
exploits a race condition in the HFS vfs sysctl interface whereby the kernel manipulates a global variable without first locking a mutex," he explained. "This permits a user land process employing multiple threads to enter the same code path simultaneously potentially causing kernel memory corruption due to potentially indeterminate state of the global variable between context switches."
5) Mac OS X xnu <= 1228.x (hfs-fcntl) Local Kernel Root Exploit.
"exploits a local arbitrary kernel memory overwrite in the HFS IOCTL handler. The vulnerability is a little under four years old, and is present in all version of Mac OS X Tiger and Leopard (and Snow Leopard betas), that is, OS X >= 10.4.0. The bug is seemingly caused by a kernel developer placing a piece of code that should only be reachable from within the kernel itself, however, it is possible to reach the offending piece of code with user-supplied arguments, which in turn are used in two calls of bcopy() with the user-supplied argument as the source and destination pointer respectively. This permits a user land process to overwrite an arbitrary kernel memory address with user supplied data and execute arbitrary code with kernel level privileges."

In actual fact, NO CODE was presented; Only locations of minor vulnerabilities that should be fixed and will be.

It is possible that someone could create a TROJAN HORSE application that might use one of these five vulnerabilities... but still is not a virus. It is just social engineering to make the user install a piece of software that is masquerading as something it is not.

174 posted on 04/06/2009 6:45:57 PM PDT by Swordmaker (Remember, the proper pronunciation of IE is "AAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

Thanks again for the help!


175 posted on 04/07/2009 11:46:14 AM PDT by guinnessman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-175 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson