Fwd: Major Security Alert!

For anyone who is wondering why I have forwarded this message, it is
part of a test. I am not receiving conformations from Google Groups
that the message was successfully posted. Although, it appears to have
been posted, I'm not sure I can trust what I see, considering the
security weaknesses which my computer has endured (and also in light
of the fact that it may not be possible to remove malware hiding in
the firmware of my particular Mac). I have sent this message multiple
times, as response in the original thread as well as by forwarding it
to this forum using the message forwarding feature in Google Groups.
Yet, for some reason unbeknownst to me, it appears only once, as far
as I can see. If anyone is interested in replying to this message, I
urge them to find the original thread (of the same subject title,
minus the "Fwd:") and respond there (as opposed to here).

-P

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Phantasy
Date: 27 Jan 2007 04:07:44 -0800
Subject: Re: Major Security Alert!
To:



On Jan 26, 9:52 am, Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
> In article <1169817204.697642.265...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
>
>
>
> "Phantasy" <subz...@kaxy.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 25, 8:15 pm, Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
> > > In article <1169776333.342094.196...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
>
> > > "Phantasy" <subz...@kaxy.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 24, 12:12 pm, Ian Gregory <f...@bar.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > > What the Apple
> > > > > developers could do is set a flag to force Software Update to run
> > > > > again automatically in such situations, but personally I have never
> > > > > been a fan of excessive automation.
>
> > >I've actually seen it do that, but I'm not certain what the trigger for
> > > that behavior is.
>
> > I have yet to see the evidence that this claim of yours is true.
>
>And this affects reality how? The fact is that I've seen SU launch
> automatically, on a small number of occasions, after a SU-induced
> reboot. You can believe or not as you like, but it doesn't change a
> thing.
>

I am merely saying that I personally have yet to see the updater do
this. That is why I am complaining. Thus, this affects MY reality
(and
most likely others as well, whether they realise it or not).

>
>
>
>
> > > > Although I agree with your point about firmware updates needing to be
> > > > installed before certain OS updates can be installed, none of the
> > > > downloads involved in my dilemma required a firmware update. There are
> > > > no firmware updates for my Mac. Therefore, I see no reason why I can't
> > > > download and install all of the update files at once.
>
> > > You didn't read all of Ian's post, apparently. It's fairly simple.
> > > Software Update offers you updaters based on what you have installed at
> > > the time the updater runs. What you're running into is the existence of
> > > updates that depend on things that aren't on your system on the first
> > > pass.
>
> > Nonsense. There is no reason the updater could not have installed all
> > the update code before ever restarting.

> You have a serious comprehension problem.

I understand what you are saying. I simply do not agree with your
logic (for reasons explained in more detail below).

> Restarting is a distraction.
> The reality is that it's no reasonable way for SU to offer you an update
> if the update is not currently valid for you.

As I said, all the required updates are valid from the very beginning
of the update process.

> To attempt that would
> imply additional complexity (and thus cost) in both the development and
> support of SU to an extent that (here's the important part) would
> probably outweigh the benefit to Apple and their shareholders of doing
> so.
>

I would expect that an updater which does not keep the system
properly
updated would incur more of a cost to Apple in the form of increased
tech support phone calls as well as dissatisfied customers.

> If you don't believe that, explain in detail how _you_ would manage the
> case where update C requires update B and update B is not yet in place
> on the user's machine. Let's see how many iterations it takes you to
> come up with a solution with no obvious flaws.
>

When the update server receives system information which tells it
that
you are lacking any (recent) updates, such as update B and C, it
should know that you need both B and C. It does not need update B
installed to know that you need update C as well. Furthermore, there
is no reason the updater cannot install update B and then install
update C all during the same update session (before ever restarting).
To install all of the updates during the same update session would be
akin to installing a store bought copy of the most recent version of
OS X. For example, if you have OS X 10.4.2 installed on your Mac and
buy and install a copy of the 10.4.8 upgrade, the installer does not
install certain files corresponding to individual updates such as
update B, then have the system restart before continuing with the
upgrade process by installing other files (corresponding to other
updates such as update C). Rather, the installer installs all of the
necessary files during the same "session". There is no reason the
updater cannot do the same. You obviously do not understand how a
computer program or computer programming works. Although update C may
refer to, and therefore require, lines of code contained in update B,
there is no reason that the updater cannot install update B and C
during the same session, because all the necessary lines of code are
installed and therefore present and the system will function properly
when it is restarted. Only if the lines of code (such as those
contained in update B) which one of the update files refers to are
missing will a problem emerge. In other words, only if the updater
installed the code of update C, when update B code is also required,
would the system malfunction when the system is restarted because
lines of code which update C's code refers to would be missing,
causing update C (and the system as a whole) to malfunction.

> > > > Why can't the updater install all of the files?
> > > Because it doesn't know they will be valid for you until they _are_
> > > valid for you.
>
> > Nonsense! All of the required update files were "valid" from the very
> > beginning.
>
>I didn't say the _required_ updates weren't valid. I said they weren't
> present.

And I am saying because all absent updates are not present, the
updater system should know they are absent and therefore required.

>It's the _dependent_ updaters that need to be validated and
> won't be until the updates they depend on are in place.
>

I presume you mean the_dependent_updates as opposed to "updaters"?

> > > > Many of the Mac OS X features are
> > > > cumbersome to use and not necessarily intuitive (hence the reason many
> > > > Mac users prefer the Classic environment).
>
> > >You've confused "is intuitive" (itself a phrase that doesn't actually
> > > mean what people use to to mean) with "is what I'm used to."
>
> > No, you are.
>
> I are? I are what? I are confused about the difference between
> intuitable and familiar? No, I are not; not for a second.
>

I apologise for the grammatical error. I meant to say and originally
wrote "No, you are confused". I must have inadvertently deleted the
word "confused" without noticing. For some reason, my cursor often
jumps around on the page while I am typing, resulting in the deletion
of text. This does not usually result in such problems, because any
deleted text is usually obvious, and I make the necessary corrections
(often by simply using the undo feature). In this case, "No, you are"
might appear to be a complete sentence, and is not as obvious, unless
one reads it in context. I proof read each of my responses as I write
and rarely re-read/proof-read an entire message after writing it and
so I missed this error. Although I may be guilty of commiting a
grammatical error, and this wouldn't be the first time, that is not
as
severe an offense as being guilty of perpetuating logical errors in
the overall discussion at hand as you have, despite being corrected.

> Even if I was, your response is nonsensical, since I've said not a peep
> about what my expectations, experiences and preferences are. Don't
> assume I meant something unless I said it. It'll go much better for you.
>

I am saying that you are confused in your belief that I have confused
"is intuitive" with "is what I'm used to." I have NOT confused "is
intuitive" with what I am used to. I did not own a Mac prior to OS X.
Thus, I have no attachments to the "classic environment". I have
simply heard that many older Mac users prefer the Classic environment
(for reasons I cannot truly remember...if I remember correctly, it
has
something to do with being able to close an application from the
programs "window"). I in particular merely expect certain features to
function as described in the literature and elsewhere, and I presume
others would *intuitively* expect the same. As I explained
previously,
the Spotlight tool does not function as described by Apple and/or
their literature, and neither does the OS X Updater.

> > The fact is that there are many facets of the Mac OS X
> > interface which are not only non-intuitive, but represent obviously
> > flawed development.
>
> There are no facets of any production OS today that are intuitive. Mac
> OS X is not inherently more difficult for a new user to grasp than pre-X
> Mac OS or any other OS in common use today.
>

True. I understand and agree. Nevertheless, I (for one) find having
to
learn to use a system which does not function as described in the
literature to be quite non-intuitive (to say the least).

> > > > I'm not sure what has
> > > > happened to Apple in the past few years. It seems as though the
> > > > decision makers are starting to display signs of senility (or
> > > > dementia).
>
> > >Or market savviness. The average user doesn't seem to mind something
> > > being provably harder to use as long as it's more engaging.
>
> > That must be why Apple computers are so popular amongst the average
> > computer user, dominating the computer market as they do?
>
>Nice attempt at sarcasm. Have you not noticed that in relative terms the
> market has been going increasingly well for Apple since the release of
> OS X?
>

Despite the increase of sales, Apple computers are still one of the
least popularly owned computers. The only reason Apple's computer
sales have increased since the release of OS X is probably due solely
to the affordability of the Mac Mini (or Mini Mac, or whatever it's
called). Despite the fact that Macs are now affordable by most, they
remain one of the least popularly owned computers (what does this
fact
tell you?).

> > > The best intentions in the world don't make a flawed argument magically
> > > valid.
>
> > Amen! Tell me, do you ever read what you've written?

> Very carefully. Do you read the things to which you're responding?
>

VERY carefully. Although my grammar may have been flawed, I don't
believe my side of the *argument* is flawed.

> --
> The best intentions in the world don't make a flawed argument magically valid.

Amen! The best intentions in the world do NOT make a flawed
*ARGUMENT*
magically valid. I must confess that not only do I believe your
argument is fundamentally flawed, I am suspicious of your intentions.
It seems to me that your motive for perpetuating such an inherently
flawed argument as you have is to protect the integrity and public
image of a corrupt corporation from an honest exposure of it's
degeneracy. Or perhaps, you truly are honestly deluded? Regardless of
the reasons for your behaviour, pretending that problems do not exist
only results in their continued existence. Only by pointing them out
and will they be corrected. Perhaps that is what you fear. Perhaps
you
are actually a Microsoft supporter pretending to be a Mac supporter
and want to see such problems remain so that Macs remain the
unpopular
computer that they are?

-P

In article < .com>,
"Phantasy" <> wrote:

> For anyone who is wondering why I have forwarded this message, it is
> part of a test. I am not receiving conformations from Google Groups
> that the message was successfully posted.

Have you considered getting a newsreader?

> When the update server receives system information which tells it
> that
> you are lacking any (recent) updates, such as update B and C, it
> should know that you need both B and C. It does not need update B
> installed to know that you need update C as well. Furthermore, there
> is no reason the updater cannot install update B and then install
> update C all during the same update session (before ever restarting).

Except that some of us don't install every update anyhow. For example,
in a production environment, you wait until you have tested your
production tools before updating. So you may run a version or two behind
on OS or app upgrades, while still wishing to use any Security update
that can be applied to your older system.

Any update that forced you to install all available updates would be
unacceptable (and be turned off). This is particularly so in MS Windows
environments, but applies also to Macintosh.

> Despite the increase of sales, Apple computers are still one of the
> least popularly owned computers.

Since it is not the aim of Apple to sell computers, this whole argument
about numbers is irrelevant. If you want to own the best selling
computer, buy a Dell. They are more popular.

For the period ended November 3 2006, Dell reported $14.4 billion in
revenue and net income of $677 million, or 30 cents per share. A year
ago, it reported then-disappointing revenue of $13.9 billion and net
income of $606 million, or 25 cents a share.

One aim of Apple is to maximise profits, not to maximise number of sales
or value of sales. Apple makes more profit on half the sales value, and
a fraction the sale numbers. This indicates a better use of company
resources.

Apple financial results for its fiscal 2007 first quarter ended December
30, 2006. The Company posted record revenue of $7.1 billion and record
net quarterly profit of $1.0 billion, or $1.14 per diluted share. These
results compare to revenue of $5.7 billion and net quarterly profit of
$565 million, or $.65 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter.

> The only reason Apple's computer
> sales have increased since the release of OS X is probably due solely
> to the affordability of the Mac Mini (or Mini Mac, or whatever it's
> called). Despite the fact that Macs are now affordable by most, they
> remain one of the least popularly owned computers (what does this
> fact tell you?).

That there isn't a fact in that paragraph?

The fact is that Apple does not make any low cost computer at all. If
you want a cheap computer, it is trivial to find one from many
manufacturers that is half the cost of the lowest cost Mac mini. So it
isn't affordable by most.

If you are looking for value for money computers many Apple models are
competitive, but if you focus only on price, Apple simply do not make a
low cost model at all. So they will not be selling to people concerned
only with lowest price. You surely don't imagine most people know enough
about computers to evaluate the worth of each?

OSX 10.1 came out in 2001 (I am not counting 10.0). The Mac mini came
out Jan 11 2005. Mac sales were increasing well before the Mac mini came
out. So the sales increase isn't because of the Mac mini.

Apple don't break down sales by product, however the Mac mini (note
lower case) is accounted for in the desktop division. Apple's largest
computer sales (and sales increases) have been in the notebook computer
range. So again, the sales increases have not been because of the Mac
mini.

--
http://www.ericlindsay.com

In article < .com>,
"Phantasy" <> wrote:

> For anyone who is wondering why I have forwarded this message, it is
> part of a test. I am not receiving conformations from Google Groups
> that the message was successfully posted. Although, it appears to
> have been posted, I'm not sure I can trust what I see, considering
> the security weaknesses which my computer has endured (and also in
> light of the fact that it may not be possible to remove malware
> hiding in the firmware of my particular Mac).

There is no malware in the firmware of your Mac. There is no malware to
be installed in the firmware of Macs. Currently.

> I have sent this message multiple times, as response in the original
> thread as well as by forwarding it to this forum using the message
> forwarding feature in Google Groups. Yet, for some reason unbeknownst
> to me, it appears only once, as far as I can see. If anyone is
> interested in replying to this message, I urge them to find the
> original thread (of the same subject title, minus the "Fwd:") and
> respond there (as opposed to here).

Why?

In article
<NOwebmasterSPAM->,
Eric Lindsay <> wrote:

> OSX 10.1 came out in 2001 (I am not counting 10.0). The Mac mini came
> out Jan 11 2005. Mac sales were increasing well before the Mac mini
> came out. So the sales increase isn't because of the Mac mini.
>
> Apple don't break down sales by product, however the Mac mini (note
> lower case) is accounted for in the desktop division. Apple's largest
> computer sales (and sales increases) have been in the notebook
> computer range. So again, the sales increases have not been because
> of the Mac mini.

Apple is the third best-selling computer brand, after Dell and I think
HP. That ought to tell the OP something.

On Jan 28, 9:09 am, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> In article <1169984774.758914.231...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups .com>,
>
> Phantasy <subz...@kaxy.com> wrote:
> > For anyone who is wondering why I have forwarded this message, it is
> > part of a test. I am not receiving conformations from Google Groups
> > that the message was successfully posted. Although, it appears to have
> > been posted, I'm not sure I can trust what I see, considering the
> > security weaknesses which my computer has endured (and also in light
> > of the fact that it may not be possible to remove malware hiding in
> > the firmware of my particular Mac). I have sent this message multiple
> > times, as response in the original thread as well as by forwarding it
> > to this forum using the message forwarding feature in Google Groups.
> > Yet, for some reason unbeknownst to me, it appears only once, as far
> > as I can see. If anyone is interested in replying to this message, I
> > urge them to find the original thread (of the same subject title,
> > minus the "Fwd:") and respond there (as opposed to here).
>
>There are test groups specifically for this. alt.test comes to mind.

I see. Thank you.

-P

On Jan 28, 5:18 pm, Eric Lindsay <NOwebmasterS...@ericlindsay.com>
wrote:
> In article <1169984774.758914.231...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups .com>,
>
> "Phantasy" <subz...@kaxy.com> wrote:
> > For anyone who is wondering why I have forwarded this message, it is
> > part of a test. I am not receiving conformations from Google Groups
> > that the message was successfully posted.Have you considered getting a newsreader?
>
> > When the update server receives system information which tells it
> > that
> > you are lacking any (recent) updates, such as update B and C, it
> > should know that you need both B and C. It does not need update B
> > installed to know that you need update C as well. Furthermore, there
> > is no reason the updater cannot install update B and then install
> > update C all during the same update session (before ever restarting).Except that some of us don't install every update anyhow. For example,
> in a production environment, you wait until you have tested your
> production tools before updating. So you may run a version or two behind
> on OS or app upgrades, while still wishing to use any Security update
> that can be applied to your older system.
>
> Any update that forced you to install all available updates would be
> unacceptable (and be turned off). This is particularly so in MS Windows
> environments, but applies also to Macintosh.
>
> > Despite the increase of sales, Apple computers are still one of the
> > least popularly owned computers.Since it is not the aim of Apple to sell computers, this whole argument
> about numbers is irrelevant. If you want to own the best selling
> computer, buy a Dell. They are more popular.
>
> For the period ended November 3 2006, Dell reported $14.4 billion in
> revenue and net income of $677 million, or 30 cents per share. A year
> ago, it reported then-disappointing revenue of $13.9 billion and net
> income of $606 million, or 25 cents a share.
>
> One aim of Apple is to maximise profits, not to maximise number of sales
> or value of sales. Apple makes more profit on half the sales value, and
> a fraction the sale numbers. This indicates a better use of company
> resources.
>
> Apple financial results for its fiscal 2007 first quarter ended December
> 30, 2006. The Company posted record revenue of $7.1 billion and record
> net quarterly profit of $1.0 billion, or $1.14 per diluted share. These
> results compare to revenue of $5.7 billion and net quarterly profit of
> $565 million, or $.65 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter.
>
> > The only reason Apple's computer
> > sales have increased since the release of OS X is probably due solely
> > to the affordability of the Mac Mini (or Mini Mac, or whatever it's
> > called). Despite the fact that Macs are now affordable by most, they
> > remain one of the least popularly owned computers (what does this
> > fact tell you?).That there isn't a fact in that paragraph?
>
> The fact is that Apple does not make any low cost computer at all. If
> you want a cheap computer, it is trivial to find one from many
> manufacturers that is half the cost of the lowest cost Mac mini. So it
> isn't affordable by most.
>
> If you are looking for value for money computers many Apple models are
> competitive, but if you focus only on price, Apple simply do not make a
> low cost model at all. So they will not be selling to people concerned
> only with lowest price. You surely don't imagine most people know enough
> about computers to evaluate the worth of each?
>
> OSX 10.1 came out in 2001 (I am not counting 10.0). The Mac mini came
> out Jan 11 2005. Mac sales were increasing well before the Mac mini came
> out. So the sales increase isn't because of the Mac mini.
>
> Apple don't break down sales by product, however the Mac mini (note
> lower case) is accounted for in the desktop division. Apple's largest
> computer sales (and sales increases) have been in the notebook computer
> range. So again, the sales increases have not been because of the Mac
> mini.
>
> --http://www.ericlindsay.com

On Jan 28, 5:18 pm, Eric Lindsay <NOwebmasterS...@ericlindsay.com>
wrote:
> In article <1169984774.758914.231...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups .com>,
>
> "Phantasy" <subz...@kaxy.com> wrote:
> > For anyone who is wondering why I have forwarded this message, it is
> > part of a test. I am not receiving conformations from Google Groups
> > that the message was successfully posted.
>
>Have you considered getting a newsreader?
>

Yes. I have. Yet, I don't feel comfortable downloading messages from
others, especially since I tend to upset people. I know that these
messages are not supposed to include "binaries", yet they can. I know
that they can because I got into trouble once for uploading a message
which included some binaries (I didn't know that binaries weren't
allowed). Apparently, that really upset a number of people.

> > When the update server receives system information which tells it
> > that
> > you are lacking any (recent) updates, such as update B and C, it
> > should know that you need both B and C. It does not need update B
> > installed to know that you need update C as well. Furthermore, there
> > is no reason the updater cannot install update B and then install
> > update C all during the same update session (before ever restarting).

> Except that some of us don't install every update anyhow. For example,
> in a production environment, you wait until you have tested your
> production tools before updating. So you may run a version or two behind
> on OS or app upgrades, while still wishing to use any Security update
> that can be applied to your older system.
>
> Any update that forced you to install all available updates would be
> unacceptable (and be turned off). This is particularly so in MS Windows
> environments, but applies also to Macintosh.
>


I am not saying the updater should FORCE you to install all available
updates. I am saying that the updater should allow you to install all
available updates during the same update session. There is no reason
you couldn't de-select any undesired updates, since the updater allows
you to prevent undesired updates from being downloaded and installed.

> > Despite the increase of sales, Apple computers are still one of the
> > least popularly owned computers.

> Since it is not the aim of Apple to sell computers, this whole argument
> about numbers is irrelevant.

Although Apple doesn't sell only computers, that seems an
oversimplification to me.

> If you want to own the best selling
> computer, buy a Dell. They are more popular.
>
> For the period ended November 3 2006, Dell reported $14.4 billion in
> revenue and net income of $677 million, or 30 cents per share. A year
> ago, it reported then-disappointing revenue of $13.9 billion and net
> income of $606 million, or 25 cents a share.
>
> One aim of Apple is to maximise profits, not to maximise number of sales
> or value of sales.

That would explain why they have exploited their employees, as
outlined in the Wikipedia article on the iPod:

Worker exploitation

On 11 June 2006, a British newspaper Mail on Sunday reported that
iPods are mainly manufactured by workers who earn no more than US$50
per month and work 15-hour shifts.[37]

Apple investigated the case with independent auditors and found that,
while some of the plant's labor practices met Apple's Code of Conduct,
others did not: employees worked over 60 hours a week 35% of the time,
and employees worked more than six consecutive days about 25% of the
time.[38] Apple's supplier-which initially denied the abuses-[39]has
promised to disallow workers from working more hours than allowed
under the Code. Apple has hired a workplace standards auditing
company, Verité, and joined the Electronic Industry Code of Conduct
Implementation Group to oversee these measures.

On December 31, 2006, workers at the Taiwanese factory (owned by
Foxconn Technology Group) in question formed a union. The union is
affiliated with the All-China Federation of Trade Unions, which is
controlled by the Chinese government.[40]

-End Quote from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod

> Apple makes more profit on half the sales value, and
> a fraction the sale numbers. This indicates a better use of company
> resources.
>
> Apple financial results for its fiscal 2007 first quarter ended December
> 30, 2006. The Company posted record revenue of $7.1 billion and record
> net quarterly profit of $1.0 billion, or $1.14 per diluted share. These
> results compare to revenue of $5.7 billion and net quarterly profit of
> $565 million, or $.65 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter.
>

Approximately 49% of those profits were iPod related. This means that
Apple only made a profit of .5 billion (or 500 million) dollars from
their computers. I have to wonder how much of those figures reflect
music sales. I also have to wonder if their shares seem so profitable
because there aren't many investors to divide the profits amongst.

> > The only reason Apple's computer
> > sales have increased since the release of OS X is probably due solely
> > to the affordability of the Mac Mini (or Mini Mac, or whatever it's
> > called). Despite the fact that Macs are now affordable by most, they
> > remain one of the least popularly owned computers (what does this
> > fact tell you?).
>
> That there isn't a fact in that paragraph?
>

Perhaps the Mac mini is not the reason for the increase in sales (the
iPod is). Yet, Mac's are still not the most popular computer.

> The fact is that Apple does not make any low cost computer at all.

I agree. They are all overpriced in my opinion. Even the Mac mini.

> If
> you want a cheap computer, it is trivial to find one from many
> manufacturers that is half the cost of the lowest cost Mac mini. So it
> isn't affordable by most.
>

The original Mac mini was affordable for most, at $500. Yet, I hear
they've gone up in price to around $700 or $800, which seems
ridiculous to me. The only reason Apple's computers are so expensive
is because they aren't as popular as other computers/platforms. If
demand was higher for the Mac, they'd be able to bring the price down.
Yet, demand is not high for the Mac, despite the hype about there
being no Mac viruses and better security.

> If you are looking for value for money computers many Apple models are
> competitive, but if you focus only on price, Apple simply do not make a
> low cost model at all. So they will not be selling to people concerned
> only with lowest price. You surely don't imagine most people know enough
> about computers to evaluate the worth of each?
>

You may believe that Windows based PC's are more popular because
consumers do NOT know the difference between Macs and other platforms.
Yet, I believe that Macs are less popular because consumers DO know
the difference. Macs are very limited, unless you spend the extra
money for Virtual PC and/or Windows (or perhaps Linux, etc). Companies
such as Movielink, Vongo, and Rhapsody do not support the Mac
platform, which means that a Mac user does not have access to
reasonably priced (legally) downloaded blockbuster/feature films and
music, unless they spend additional hundreds of dollars for Virtual PC
and/or Windows, Linux, etcetera. What does a Mac user get straight out
of the box, without investing in Virtual PC and/or Windows? They get
locked into buying movies and music from Apple at unreasonable prices
(unless they download such entertainment illegally) and they also get
a computer that does not function properly (due to a poorly designed
OS). Permissions will change and the updater may not keep their
computer up to date with the latest security updates. I don't know
about you, but I don't invest much faith in the integrity of a
computer which doesn't function properly.

> OSX 10.1 came out in 2001 (I am not counting 10.0). The Mac mini came
> out Jan 11 2005.

I must be confusing the Power Mac G4 Cube with the Mac mini.

> Mac sales were increasing well before the Mac mini came
> out. So the sales increase isn't because of the Mac mini.
>

You're right. The sales increase isn't because of the Mac mini. The
increase of profits is due primarily to iPod related sales.

> Apple don't break down sales by product, however the Mac mini (note
> lower case) is accounted for in the desktop division. Apple's largest
> computer sales (and sales increases) have been in the notebook computer
> range. So again, the sales increases have not been because of the Mac
> mini.
>
> --http://www.ericlindsay.com

Despite the increase in sales, Macs remain very uncommon. And it is no
mystery why.

-P

On Jan 28, 6:13 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> In article <1169984774.758914.231...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups .com>,
>
> "Phantasy" <subz...@kaxy.com> wrote:
> > For anyone who is wondering why I have forwarded this message, it is
> > part of a test. I am not receiving conformations from Google Groups
> > that the message was successfully posted. Although, it appears to
> > have been posted, I'm not sure I can trust what I see, considering
> > the security weaknesses which my computer has endured (and also in
> > light of the fact that it may not be possible to remove malware
> > hiding in the firmware of my particular Mac).
>
> There is no malware in the firmware of your Mac. There is no malware to
> be installed in the firmware of Macs. Currently.
>

Or so you believe. Perhaps you can explain why my permissions are
changing in such a curious manner that Apple has told me my hard drive
must be damaged? Note that the permissions are changing immediately
after an erase and install of the OS, before any other software is
installed. I even write zero's to the hard drive as well as reset the
NV-RAM and the PRAM before re-installing the OS.

> > I have sent this message multiple times, as response in the original
> > thread as well as by forwarding it to this forum using the message
> > forwarding feature in Google Groups. Yet, for some reason unbeknownst
> > to me, it appears only once, as far as I can see. If anyone is
> > interested in replying to this message, I urge them to find the
> > original thread (of the same subject title, minus the "Fwd:") and
> > respond there (as opposed to here).
>
>Why?

So they can be sure to read up on past posts before responding, and
also for the sake of readers following the original thread.

-P

On 2007-01-29 09:36:00 +0200, "Phantasy" <> said:

>> There is no malware in the firmware of your Mac. There is no malware to
>> be installed in the firmware of Macs. Currently.
>>
>
> Or so you believe. Perhaps you can explain why my permissions are
> changing in such a curious manner that Apple has told me my hard drive
> must be damaged? Note that the permissions are changing immediately
> after an erase and install of the OS, before any other software is
> installed. I even write zero's to the hard drive as well as reset the
> NV-RAM and the PRAM before re-installing the OS.

If you claim there is a "hacker" which has capability to replace a
complete closed system's EFI/OF code, why is he messing with your
machine which is just used to troll Usenet?

Your hard drive is failing, check Smart status, perform a full backup
of home directories, install a new drive.

There is a chance that you may be effected by a certain troll group
which claims to be a software house, no, the "firmware" or "bootblock"
can't be "hacked" that easy especially on non documented systems. If
you get paranoid, you should ask yourself "Who am I and holding what
kind of top secret data to get hacked/targeted that way?"

For example, if there is a "hacker" advanced enough to hack a full
up-to-date, firewalled FreeBSD system, would he target a home user geek
or Yahoo inc?

Ilgaz

On 2007-01-29, Phantasy <> wrote:

> Note that the permissions are changing immediately
> after an erase and install of the OS, before any other software is
> installed.

I take it this is based on your observation that if you run "Verify
Disk Permissions" from Disk Utility immediately after erase and
install, it finds "errors"?

If so, then rest assured that this does not necessarily imply
that anything is amiss. There is a complex interaction between
the installer, information contained in a multitude of .bom
files, processes that run on first boot etc that could cause
what you are seeing. Don't worry about it.

If you had a disk problem then you would expect to see corruption
(as indicated by errors when you boot from install media and run
"Verify Disk") not just unexpected permissions.

Of course it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that you have
at some point updated your firmware and inadvertantly installed
evil non-Apple firmware which is doing nasty things to your system.
However, as far as I am aware, there have been no other reports
of the existence of such evil firmware, so you are going to need
some evidence before people take you seriously.

By the way, does anyone know if Apple firmware for Intel systems
is signed? Is it even possible to get non-Apple firmware loaded
on Intel systems?

Ian

--
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/