Computer liabilities

[Kevin_Lowe]

Although it's true to say that the majority of viruses and worms attack Windows machines, Macs are not immune.

I hate to come across as picky, but can you find a single virus "in the wild" that attacks the modern OSX machines? One? As opposed to virii that attacked pre-OS7 boxes.

Even if you found one, I bet that you could only get it by downloading and executing suspect files, and that it couldn't touch the root directories.

Macs are essentially immune to virii, trojans, port scanning script kiddies in Asia and most of the other nuisances that beset Windows machines. You can ping flood them, but that's really about it to the best of my knowledge.

Theoretically, a Mac could get a virus. Theoretically. In practise, it doesn't happen.

 

[xouper]

Pet peeve alert!

Kevin_Lowe: I hate to come across as picky, but can you find a single virus "in the wild" that attacks the modern OSX machines? One? As opposed to virii that attacked pre-OS7 boxes. Even if you found one, I bet that you could only get it by downloading and executing suspect files, and that it couldn't touch the root directories. Macs are essentially immune to virii, trojans, port scanning script kiddies in Asia and most of the other nuisances that beset Windows machines. You can ping flood them, but that's really about it to the best of my knowledge.

I hate to come across as picky (if I may be so bold as to borrow a phrase from someone we know and love ), but virii is not the plural of virus. Neither is viri, vira, or virae. It is viruses (cite).

Tom Christiansen (of perl.com) observes that virii is "completely silly, so don't do that; otherwise, everyone will know you're just a blathering script kiddie."

 

[Wudang]

No, sorry, forget Macs, run Hercules and MVS (see www.cbttape org) if you want secure.
Anyway, bignickel is exactly correct. These issues are well understood in the IT business, or should be. Yonks ago, IBM was getting flamed because it's email system (PROFS) honoured the DCF !SYSTEM tag in GML documents which would execute a command embedded in a document when someone opened it to read it. Excuse the analogy but it's the equivalent of putting your soap on the floor of the prison shower as you wash different bits - convenient but ............

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Pet peeve alert!

I hate to come across as picky (if I may be so bold as to borrow a phrase from someone we know and love ), but virii is not the plural of virus. Neither is viri, vira, or virae. It is viruses (cite).

Tom Christiansen (of perl.com) observes that virii is "completely silly, so don't do that; otherwise, everyone will know you're just a blathering script kiddie."

You're being picky.

Seriously though, I like words like "virii" and "boxen". They amuse me, in the same kind of way that spoonerisms and rhyming slang amuse me. Playing with language is fun.

Tom Christiansen is entitled to his opinion, but I really don't care if the Tom Christiansen's of this world think they can identify me as a blathering script kiddie by my use of the wordplay "virii".

Would you care to discuss my actual statements? I'll understand if you'd rather pick a fight about a tangential issue, though.

 

[xouper]

Kevin_Lowe: Would you care to discuss my actual statements? I'll understand if you'd rather pick a fight about a tangential issue, though.

Neither. I guess my peeve alert didn't serve its intended purpose, since I am not interesting in picking a fight about anything. Nor am I interested in discussing anything related to Macs. My interest was merely in setting the record straight as to the proper plural of virus. I apologize for not making it clear that I meant no offense to you personally or to anyone else.

Seriously though, I like words like "virii" and "boxen". They amuse me, in the same kind of way that spoonerisms and rhyming slang amuse me. Playing with language is fun.

Agreed, playing with language is fun. Thank you for clarifying your intentions when using the word virii.

Many people, however, do seem to mistakenly believe that virii is the proper plural of virus and they are not playing with the language. I'm guessing it's rare that a person (such as yourself) knows the difference.

My previous reply was not intended only for you, but also for anyone reading who may not know that virii is not the plural of virus, and may mistaklenly think that since you used it, it might be valid. In other words, your playful intent with that word was not at all obvious.

I guess what I'm getting at is, I'm hoping you are already aware that one of the risks is that one your playful words may be mistaken for ignorance. For example, I'm assuming that you know that regardless how playful your intention is, if you use the word "n*gger" in the wrong place, you might just get your throat cut.

Tom Christiansen is entitled to his opinion, but I really don't care if the Tom Christiansen's of this world think they can identify me as a blathering script kiddie by my use of the wordplay "virii".

I assume he was being facetious to make a point. I accept that you don't care. However, I would suggest that unless you offer some indication you are not ignorant in your use of the word virii, you leave yourself open to that kind of judgement.

Anyway, thank you for clarifying you already knew the word virii is not the proper plural of virus. If everyone else reading this has the same understanding, then my point was made and y'all can resume your regularly scheduled topic.

 

[Psi Baba]

Pet peeve alert!

I hate to come across as picky (if I may be so bold as to borrow a phrase from someone we know and love ), but virii is not the plural of virus. Neither is viri, vira, or virae. It is viruses (cite).

Tom Christiansen (of perl.com) observes that virii is "completely silly, so don't do that; otherwise, everyone will know you're just a blathering script kiddie."

Thanks for that link, xouper. It always hated that spelling and knew there had to be something wrong with it. I could understand 'viri' even though that's incorrect, too, but that whole double-i thing just makes no sense at all. It's not only silly, it's plain stupid, IMO. Don't mean to derail the thread even further, but I started the thread and it's already derailed from it's intended topic of liability (although after I posted it, I realized this is not really the appropriate forum for it).