Mac viruses

[TimeWinder]

@AHunter3

Furthermore, when you double-click a document, the OS checks for creator code, and then filetype code, before looking at file extension to determine what app should open that file, i.e., they take priority over file extensions, and those codes are contained in the resource fork.

Nitpick of hijack - file/creator types are part of the file info, which is file metadata and not in either fork (it makes up sort of a “third fork” of it’s own). Also, the original poster was correct: Apple officially discourages resource forks (although not resources themselves) now, in favor of separate data-fork resources files. Older applications are much more likely to have resource forks than newer ones. With bundled apps and a resource manager that can read data forks, there’s no need for multi-fork files any more. Yes, they exist, but they’re definitely a dying breed.

@Usram

If everybody in the Windows world ran under non-administrator accounts, it would be interesting to see how big a problem malware was then.

None at all, I’m guessing, since huge numbers of Windows apps simply wouldn’t work, and people would abandon the platform in droves. :smack: Developers have gotten lazy about requiring Admin access.

Vista changes this model somewhat, and makes it harder to be lazy. But at least for now, I still find that an alarmingly large number of my apps still need to be Run as Administrator, and a few of them still need to be run out of an Admin account (and quite a few won’t run in Vista at all, but that’s another rant.)

[pulykamell]

@Chronos

Coupled with the fact that the English plural “viruses” is cumbersome and awkward, I choose to use the more elegant “vira”.

That’s fine. It just grates on my ears. Where you find “viruses” cumbersome and awkward, I find it perfectly harmonious and “vira” sounds stilted and draws too much attention to itself. Eh, toh-MAY-toe, toh-MAH-to.

[si_blakely]

@Usram

If everybody in the Windows world ran under non-administrator accounts, it would be interesting to see how big a problem malware was then.

@TimeWinder

None at all, I’m guessing, since huge numbers of Windows apps simply wouldn’t work, and people would abandon the platform in droves. :smack: Developers have gotten lazy about requiring Admin access.

Vista changes this model somewhat, and makes it harder to be lazy. But at least for now, I still find that an alarmingly large number of my apps still need to be Run as Administrator, and a few of them still need to be run out of an Admin account (and quite a few won’t run in Vista at all, but that’s another rant.)

In the corporate world, users don’t run as admin. In 8 years of Packaging/Deploying applications for all sorts of business requirements, I have not run into any apps that won’t run as a user (with a few permissions adjustments). I’ve done the same on my home PCs for 4 years, and had one intractable application. And I don’t have problems with Malware\vira (I like the word). It just can’t get a foothold - but I am behind a firewall and I run a local firewall, because remote root exploits are still a risk.

Vista IS easier - certainly no worse than my Kubuntu install, which is always asking me to sudo.

And it is the fault of developers, not Windows itself, that applications require admin rights. With Vista, they should be forced to do something about it.

Si