Google tracked his bike ride past a burglarized home. That made him a suspect.

In article , anonlinuxuser
wrote:

Well, I own an iMac... Xcode environment is hard to handle compared to
other IDEs.

it's comparable. in some ways it's easier and other ways not.

if you don't like xcode, you can always use the command line and
makefiles...

Adding other libraries and then SIP is a big pain. I
disabled SIP so that I could add external libraries... or so I thought I
could.

there is *no* need to disable sip to use external libraries.

Apples environment is pretty well locked down, except for
downloading other apps.

false.

unfortunately, the risks of cyber attacks is very real, where untrusted
apps can do nefarious things, therefore apps must be codesigned and
request permission to access certain assets, however, that can be
completely overridden if desired.

It doesn't set up the usual /usr/include or /usr/lib like other UNIXes
used to. It is just plain weird.

it's also plain wrong.

% ls /usr
bin/ lib/ local/ share/
include/ libexec/ sbin/ standalone/

some things are different, but that's the case on any variant of unix.


I understand those points, but Apple has gone too far.

not really. cybercriminals don't give up very easily.

security is critical these days, but if someone wants to disable it and
run unprotected, they can. they can run unsigned apps and even log in
as root and do whatever they want. apple doesn't block that, nor could
they even if they wanted to.

Is it the Intel arch that is at fault for cyber attacks?

no.

I've read some history into different architectures, and some of the
earlier designs like Data General had 8 levels or more of security. Of
course that was a multi-user setup during times past. Then VMS, as I've
read, had 4 levels of separation,... maybe a bit confused on this one.

both long obsolete.

So maybe it could be that Apple is considering the risc based ARM
processors for the mac line.

what cave have you been in?

the writing has been on the wall for *years*, especially recently.

it's a question of when, not if.

nospam wrote:

So maybe it could be that Apple is considering the risc based ARM
processors for the mac line.

what cave have you been in?

Was that snide remark necessary? Not everyone is a "geek" who reads
about Apple and their future CPU plans.

the writing has been on the wall for *years*, especially recently.

it's a question of when, not if.

--
"EVERYONE knows that having "." on your path is a HUGE security risk
since you might inadvertently pick up a rogue script called "ls" for
example in the dir you are browsing." - "Linux expert" Hadron Quark

In article , chrisv
wrote:


So maybe it could be that Apple is considering the risc based ARM
processors for the mac line.

what cave have you been in?

Was that snide remark necessary? Not everyone is a "geek" who reads
about Apple and their future CPU plans.

one need not read much to see the industry trends.

just about everyone is moving to arm, including microsoft.

On 3/11/20 12:29 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , anonlinuxuser
wrote:

Well, I own an iMac... Xcode environment is hard to handle compared to
other IDEs.

it's comparable. in some ways it's easier and other ways not.

if you don't like xcode, you can always use the command line and
makefiles...

Adding other libraries and then SIP is a big pain. I
disabled SIP so that I could add external libraries... or so I thought I
could.

there is *no* need to disable sip to use external libraries.

Apples environment is pretty well locked down, except for
downloading other apps.

false.

unfortunately, the risks of cyber attacks is very real, where untrusted
apps can do nefarious things, therefore apps must be codesigned and
request permission to access certain assets, however, that can be
completely overridden if desired.

It doesn't set up the usual /usr/include or /usr/lib like other UNIXes
used to. It is just plain weird.

it's also plain wrong.

% ls /usr
bin/ lib/ local/ share/
include/ libexec/ sbin/ standalone/

some things are different, but that's the case on any variant of unix.


I understand those points, but Apple has gone too far.

not really. cybercriminals don't give up very easily.

security is critical these days, but if someone wants to disable it and
run unprotected, they can. they can run unsigned apps and even log in
as root and do whatever they want. apple doesn't block that, nor could
they even if they wanted to.

Is it the Intel arch that is at fault for cyber attacks?

no.

I've read some history into different architectures, and some of the
earlier designs like Data General had 8 levels or more of security. Of
course that was a multi-user setup during times past. Then VMS, as I've
read, had 4 levels of separation,... maybe a bit confused on this one.

both long obsolete.

I've read that a Las Vegas event called DEFCON (?) where hackers tried
to hack into a VMS system and couldn't. Took the hackers about 5
minutes to break into a windows machiine, 15 minutes to break into the
OSX, and about 20 minutes into a Linux machine. A bit of history, and I
know that the windows machine was intel, the OSX one was intel, and
Linux was done on an Intel.
They didn't have a Data General to break into as they were defunct at
that time.


So maybe it could be that Apple is considering the risc based ARM
processors for the mac line.

what cave have you been in?

the writing has been on the wall for *years*, especially recently.

it's a question of when, not if.
The cave was NSA, which I vacated. The articles that I've read about
Apple is that the problem was designing their products and then have to
wait until Intel had something better. Plus the power dissipation is
quite a bit lower than Intel.
I've read the history on the original ARM in the UK, where they forgot
to connect the power to the processor yet it ran, drawing the power from
other chips. That part is impressive.

nospam wrote:

one need not read much to see the industry trends.

The vast majority of the population knows nothing of these "industry
trends", and they do not live in caves.

--
'Actually printing and audio do not "just work" in Linux, It can be a
nightmare.' - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark

In article , chrisv
wrote:

nospam wrote:

one need not read much to see the industry trends.

The vast majority of the population knows nothing of these "industry
trends", and they do not live in caves.

nobody was referring to the vast majority of the population.

the person to whom the comment was directed was writing software and
dealing with different variants of unix and should be at least somewhat
aware of industry trends, if not very much so, as would be anyone
posting to usenet, especially a tech oriented newsgroup.

On 11/03/2020 19.29, nospam wrote:
In article , anonlinuxuser
wrote:

....

Is it the Intel arch that is at fault for cyber attacks?

no.

Yes.

Well, I don't know what actual malware has been using them, but Intel
CPUS are plagued with "hardware" bugs that can be used for attacks, that
have been discovered the last two years.


--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 11/03/2020 19.52, anonlinuxuser wrote:
I've read the history on the original ARM inÂ* the UK, where they forgot
to connect the power to the processor yet it ran, drawing the power from
other chips.Â* That part is impressive.

That's a side effect that some electronics chips have. For example, the
CMOS 4000 family.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

In article , Carlos E. R.
wrote:


Is it the Intel arch that is at fault for cyber attacks?

no.

Yes.

no.

Well, I don't know what actual malware has been using them, but Intel
CPUS are plagued with "hardware" bugs that can be used for attacks, that
have been discovered the last two years.

there have been attacks long before x86 exploits were known, and
android and ios too are not immune either, neither of which use intel.

On 11/03/2020 22.08, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E. R.
wrote:


Is it the Intel arch that is at fault for cyber attacks?

no.

Yes.

no.

yes.


Well, I don't know what actual malware has been using them, but Intel
CPUS are plagued with "hardware" bugs that can be used for attacks, that
have been discovered the last two years.

there have been attacks long before x86 exploits were known, and
android and ios too are not immune either, neither of which use intel.


Not the same thing. Go illustrate yourself.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

In article , Carlos E. R.
wrote:

Is it the Intel arch that is at fault for cyber attacks?

no.

Yes.

no.

yes.

no.


Well, I don't know what actual malware has been using them, but Intel
CPUS are plagued with "hardware" bugs that can be used for attacks, that
have been discovered the last two years.

there have been attacks long before x86 exploits were known, and
android and ios too are not immune either, neither of which use intel.


Not the same thing. Go illustrate yourself.

i didn't say it was the same thing.

the fact is that intel is not at fault for cyberattacks.

On 3/11/20 1:10 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , chrisv
wrote:

nospam wrote:

one need not read much to see the industry trends.

The vast majority of the population knows nothing of these "industry
trends", and they do not live in caves.

nobody was referring to the vast majority of the population.

the person to whom the comment was directed was writing software and
dealing with different variants of unix and should be at least somewhat
aware of industry trends, if not very much so, as would be anyone
posting to usenet, especially a tech oriented newsgroup.


I'm quite aware of UNIX. The only real UNIX vendor left, Besides Apples
mess, is Solaris. From a historical perspective, Larry Ellison
purchased Sun, which in now Oracle. I'm not completely aware of all of
their doings, but Sun used to sell low end machines... I think it was
called the Sparc 10 or something like that. I tried their latest
Solaris for x86 on vmware, and Oracle really seemed to not care about
the x86. But I did find that they pretty much placed the /usr/include,
/usr/lib where it should be. Other items were quite a bit more
obscurely placed, like GL.

I'm not a professional as you probably are aware of, but I still say
that what Apple offers compared to what Linux offers... well, I'd say it
is very obscure where they put a lot of things lately. Linux didn't do
that. Where are the industry trends now for UNIX? I only see one left
that was from earlier days, and the rest have vanished. I checked out
IBM to see if they sell any low-end UNIX machines and they don't. They
do have AIX documentation on their web site that still shows that they
are still at X11/R5, and also the include files are still /usr/include
and usr/lib.

On 3/11/20 2:37 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 11/03/2020 19.29, nospam wrote:
In article , anonlinuxuser
wrote:

...

Is it the Intel arch that is at fault for cyber attacks?

no.

Yes.

Well, I don't know what actual malware has been using them, but Intel
CPUS are plagued with "hardware" bugs that can be used for attacks, that
have been discovered the last two years.



Ouch! Maybe I ought to just sell this computer and find something else
to do. It's seems it is always malware all of the time.

On 3/11/20 4:19 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E. R.
wrote:

Is it the Intel arch that is at fault for cyber attacks?

no.

Yes.

no.

yes.

no.


Well, I don't know what actual malware has been using them, but Intel
CPUS are plagued with "hardware" bugs that can be used for attacks, that
have been discovered the last two years.

there have been attacks long before x86 exploits were known, and
android and ios too are not immune either, neither of which use intel.


Not the same thing. Go illustrate yourself.

i didn't say it was the same thing.

the fact is that intel is not at fault for cyberattacks.


I see that point. But which is easier to exploit? Intel or ARM?

In article , anonlinuxuser
wrote:

the fact is that intel is not at fault for cyberattacks.


I see that point. But which is easier to exploit? Intel or ARM?

that depends on many factors, namely the operating system and how
recently it's been patched.

the easiest exploit is the user, who can easily be tricked into
installing something they shouldn't. ask for admin privs, which they'll
click yes without even thinking, and game over.

it doesn't even need a computer. people fall for phone scams, paper
mail scams and more.