Malware for the Linux desktop. Yes, really.

[The King of the Undead]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

But that's different,  because it's "Linux".

 

 

 

 

why? Never have I sean this implied said or even motioned toward.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

I'm only going to address one thing here.  I don't really think, and I could be wrong, that Linux is more secure than Windows.  The reason you hear less about Linux being targeted most likely has nothing to do with security.  It has more to do with the amount of users.

This is false.

GNU/Linux has more users than Windows. Not only do most servers run GNU/Linux (which also makes them more valuable targets than Windows machines), but most phones also runs on GNU/Linux, as well as embedded stuff like smart speakers, routers, smart TVs, and the list goes on.

So no, Windows is not just "more targeted and therefore more vulnerable". GNU/Linux can be argued is fundamentally more secure than Windows because of architectural differences in the OS.

 

 

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

The hackers there found MacOS the easiest to hack due to vulnerabilities in Safari.  Anyways, Windows is just targeted the most because it has more users it has nothing to do with security, from my understanding. 

Pwn2Own is not really a competition to see which products are the most vulnerable, nor is it a good way of measuring that.

One or even more vulnerabilities from that competition does not necessarily mean one product is less safe than another one either. The results highly depends on who attends, what patches were released just before the competition, and other things like what the attendees felt like focusing on that particular year.

Not sure which particular Pwn2Own you're referring to since Safari usually gets exploited at all of them, but the same can be said for IE, Edge and Firefox too. For example this year Cama and Zhu from Fluoroacetate managed to use an exploit in Edge to escape the browser sandbox. From there they used exploits for the Windows kernel to compromise the entire Windows system, and after that they somehow managed to even escape the VMWare hypervisor to gain access to the host OS.

 

So I mean, does that make Edge equal to or less secure than Safari? Both got compromised at Pwn2Own. But without looking at the greater picture such as how many exploits are routinely discovered, how long it takes to fix, and how severe the exploits are, it's really difficult to accurately gauge some generalized "security score".

 

 

Edit:

 

Like I said earlier in the thread (maybe it's been deleted), it's hard to make generalizations about security because it can be measured in a lot of different ways.

Should we measure it by how many exploits are discovered? In that case open source projects with more open development will probably end up being viewed as "less secure", purely from the fact that their development happens in the open and security issues can not be kept secret or potentially even brushed under the rug for the time being. The number of publicly known vulnerabilities does not usually match the number of vulnerabilities that exist, or are known by some people but not the general public.

 

Should we measure it by how how quickly security fixes are published for known issues? In that case we punish companies like Microsoft who are less flexible with updates (typically only releases patches once a month for consistency reasons) compared to some OSes with more flexibility in their release schedules.

 

Should we measure security by how severe the exploits are? If we just go by the number of vulnerabilities we might end up in a situation where "visiting a website with Edge can compromise your entire machine" is weighted as just as much of an issue as "if you deliberately turn some safeguards off, give a program admin privileges then it could open the calculator and type 80085".

 

Should we measure it by how often a system is compromised? Then that puts a more widely used OS at a disadvantage simply because it has more users and more machines to compromise. A single exploit might result in 1,000 compromised machines on one OS, but only 100 on another OS. Does that mean the OS running on the 1,000 machines is less secure? Or does it just mean security issues in that OS have bigger consequences than for the other OS?

 

 

There are more ways of measuring security than the ones I gave above. Even if you try to create some factual generalization it is really hard to determine how much weight you should put on each and every aspect. Is one more serious exploit worth getting patches 2 days earlier on average? Who knows...

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

I didn't know you had access to my eyes and ears.

I kind of do because I often read the same threads and posts you base your views on, and a lot of times (like in this thread), you completely misinterpret what people say. This is not exactly the first time you have ended up in a situation where people tell you "no, that's not what I meant" or "no, that's not what I said", is it?

 

They say one thing, and you claim they said something with a completely different meaning. If you don't agree with me that you misinterpret or misunderstand what people say then maybe we should ask some of the people in this thread if you were able to accurately comprehend and interpret what they meant?

[LAwLz]

9 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Well, as I said at the start, I could be wrong.  Guess I was wrong.  I was also going off what I heard, but to be fair I don't really follow that contest nor have I heard of it until yesterday.    XD 

I don't think you're wrong (other than saying Windows is more widely used than GNU/Linux) and it was not my intention to come off as such.

I edited my post to explain what I meant a bit better. Basically, I don't think it's that easy to make a generalization of which OS is more secure because it depends on how you measure it, and what you put weight on.

 

 

Personally, I would say GNU/Linux is more secure than Windows. Here are my reasons why, and I would like to add that I am not looking at the complete picture and every minute detail of how you could quantify security.:

• It is much more difficult to make someone on GNU/Linux accidentally execute a program with elevated privileges. On Windows it can be as  little as one click to give something admin privileges. On GNU/Linux the default is that you have to manually change user and type in a password to do it. And in general programs for GNU/Linux do not require elevated privileges as often as on Windows (for legacy reasons) so it's less common and lower risk of a user learning that having programs request admin privileges is normal.
   
• Security patches are generally developed and pushed out quicker for GNU/Linux. I can't find the statistics for it right now, but I have a vague memory of it being around 10-15% quicker on average compared to Windows (and OS X was much slower with updates than both Windows and GNU/Linux).
   
• The update system in GNU/Linux is less of a pain to deal with, requiring fewer or no restarts and downtime, which help encourage people to install updates, while still allowing for it to be done in a controlled way.
   
• GNU/Linux has very well defined, structured and documented way of doing things. For example in the case of the malware discussed in this thread, you just had to kill the malicious process and remove it from the auto-run. That is typically how you deal with this type of malware on GNU/Linux. Because of a "simpler" (and more structured) way of handling files, devices and processes in GNU/Linux, things are far more predictable and easy to control. There is less risk of some malware being extremely difficult to remove because it has spread, infected a bunch of files and has 10 different ways of avoiding being killed and removed.
   
• Development of GNU/Linux happens in the open, which means that you and I have access to all information regarding potential security issues, backdoors, and the likes in the software. With Windows, all we have is Microsoft's word that Windows is more or less safe. Is bitlocker compromised? Microsoft says it isn't, but we have no way of actually verifying that it doesn't have a deliberate backdoor inside it. There is a reason why all the widely used cryptographic standards are completely open. Because it allows for far more rigorous scrutiny to make sure the code and method is secure based on technical merits rather than ignorance, and because companies can not be trusted to tell the truth when it's their reputation and profits that are at stakes. Companies generally tend to downplay issues with their own products if they can benefit from it. Knowing that they can't brush things under a rug instills more confidence in me that the code is good.

[mr moose]

59 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I kind of do because I often read the same threads and posts you base your views on, and a lot of times (like in this thread), you completely misinterpret what people say.

Then you might want to read my posts again, because my comment was general, the reference to this thread was in addendum to my experience.  I have pointed that several times already along with all my reasoning.  

 

59 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

This is not exactly the first time you have ended up in a situation where people tell you "no, that's not what I meant" or "no, that's not what I said", is it?

You do realize that that situation can arise from people not being concise with their language or just being flat out wrong and not wanting to admit it, it could also be the result of language difference.   It is not always because the person who interpreted it the way you don't like was/is wrong.

 

Quote

They say one thing, and you claim they said something with a completely different meaning. If you don't agree with me that you misinterpret or misunderstand what people say then maybe we should ask some of the people in this thread if you were able to accurately comprehend and interpret what they meant?

If you had read all of my posts you would have noted that I have already done that along with explanations of why misread one of them.  In fact you would already know that I conceded the point and apologized for misrepresenting one.  But that does not change my experience or why I posted in the very first place.  In fact the only thing here is you want to believe something else, by all means believe whatever you want, I will not try and argue you are wrong because you have a different perspective.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, will4623 said:

why? Never have I sean this implied said or even motioned toward.

 

I have never personally seen it and I don't like what was insinuated therefore it can't be true.   

[thorhammerz]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

This is false.

GNU/Linux has more users than Windows.

 

Are you lumping Android with GNU/Linux with that claim? 

 

http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share

[Lathlaer]

4 hours ago, thorhammerz said:

Are you lumping Android with GNU/Linux with that claim? 

Yeah he is, though quick typing in google "is Android Linux" and reading few articles tells me all I need to know about the topic (namely, that there are educated people on both sides of the argument and this debate alone could double the size of this thread).

[thorhammerz]

11 minutes ago, Lathlaer said:

Yeah he is, though quick typing in google "is Android Linux" and reading few articles tells me all I need to know about the topic (namely, that there are educated people on both sides of the argument and this debate alone could double the size of this thread).

The undecided conclusion to that topic is partially why I raised the issue, as he specifically used the term "GNU / Linux".

[LAwLz]

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

Then you might want to read my posts again, because my comment was general, the reference to this thread was in addendum to my experience.  I have pointed that several times already along with all my reasoning.  

Yes, but in the case of the references in this thread pretty much all of them came back and said you misinterpreted their posts. I also know there have been several times in the past where the same thing has happened.

 

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

You do realize that that situation can arise from people not being concise with their language or just being flat out wrong and not wanting to admit it, it could also be the result of language difference.   It is not always because the person who interpreted it the way you don't like was/is wrong.

Yes that is a possibility, but when it comes to you and your generalizations of the GNU/Linux community I think a lot of it stems a lot from misinterpretation, since I have read a lot of the same things you have read and do not share your experience even slightly.

I mean, it should be pretty telling for you when multiple people in just this thread alone have come back and said that you misinterpreted their posts. Do you not start to wonder if the same thing has happened in the past too?

 

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

In fact the only thing here is you want to believe something else, by all means believe whatever you want, I will not try and argue you are wrong because you have a different perspective. 

I don't really feel like arguing with you either about this because I don't think anyone will change their mind. I do however want you to consider that maybe, just maybe, your perception of the GNU/Linux community and the generalizations you make might be inaccurate and stem from how you choose to interpret things? I mean, we have both read much of the same posts (not just in this thread but on LTT as a whole) and I have come to a completely different conclusion.

So in order to avoid starting flame-wars, it might be best for you to not start posting about how you dislike a whole community and think they are in denial? Do you at the very least agree that maybe you should stop making posts like "the Linux community are still in denial that anything bad can happen" since it's quite needless and only results in flame-wars which in turn lowers the overall quality of the forum?

[LAwLz]

7 hours ago, thorhammerz said:

 

Are you lumping Android with GNU/Linux with that claim? 

 

http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share

2 hours ago, Lathlaer said:

Yeah he is, though quick typing in google "is Android Linux" and reading few articles tells me all I need to know about the topic (namely, that there are educated people on both sides of the argument and this debate alone could double the size of this thread).

2 hours ago, thorhammerz said:

The undecided conclusion to that topic is partially why I raised the issue, as he specifically used the term "GNU / Linux".

 

If we include Android then Windows is the minority OS for sure.

 

You could argue that it was erroneous of me to say GNU/Linux since Android contains very little of GNU tools, but I mostly said it for consistency sake.

 

But, I would not be surprised if it turned out GNU/Linux was more widely used than Windows even without counting Android. GNU/Linux runs such a massive amount of embedded systems and other little computers most people don't even think about. Sites like statcounter are nice when talking about things like desktop and smartphone OSes, but they collect statistics by looking at the host OS of browsers visiting websites. If the machine is not used for web browsing, then it is not included in statcounter's stats. So for example most servers and embedded systems are not included there.

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

If the machine is not used for web browsing, then it is not included in statcounter's stats. So for example most servers and embedded systems are not included there.

Same for systems behind firewalls and proxies that prevent data leaking of protected systems of that associated information.

[The King of the Undead]

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

I have never personally seen it and I don't like what was insinuated therefore it can't be true.   

I haven't. Yet I use linux and thus am on the forums every once in a while. Linux isn't "specioul" to me it is just better for my specific use case I am used to it and I don't really trust ms windows. I do trust it to be safer if someone downloads some crap onto my computer for 2 reasons. 1 I run pop which is based off ubuntu and there is this thing where if I download something not from a ppa or some other repostiory then I have to go to permissions and tell the OS that it can run the program as a program. 2 and this I hope changes. linux is still the little guy in the hacks that may occure to my system. 90% of the malware on the internet being transmited is probably designed for windows.

[mr moose]

11 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Yes, but in the case of the references in this thread pretty much all of them came back and said you misinterpreted their posts. I also know there have been several times in the past where the same thing has happened.

 

Yes that is a possibility, but when it comes to you and your generalizations of the GNU/Linux community I think a lot of it stems a lot from misinterpretation, since I have read a lot of the same things you have read and do not share your experience even slightly.

I mean, it should be pretty telling for you when multiple people in just this thread alone have come back and said that you misinterpreted their posts. Do you not start to wonder if the same thing has happened in the past too?

 

I don't really feel like arguing with you either about this because I don't think anyone will change their mind. I do however want you to consider that maybe, just maybe, your perception of the GNU/Linux community and the generalizations you make might be inaccurate and stem from how you choose to interpret things? I mean, we have both read much of the same posts (not just in this thread but on LTT as a whole) and I have come to a completely different conclusion.

So in order to avoid starting flame-wars, it might be best for you to not start posting about how you dislike a whole community and think they are in denial? Do you at the very least agree that maybe you should stop making posts like "the Linux community are still in denial that anything bad can happen" since it's quite needless and only results in flame-wars which in turn lowers the overall quality of the forum?

 

So basically your whole post here is just you not being happy with my opinion?  not happy that you think I misinterpret other people and not happy because you want me to not make posts like the above in bold, so hypocritically too II might add. You telling me it is needless and results in flame wars only to then continue and make posts like the above which are only you accusing me of having comprehension issues. 

 

 

 

Basically the conversation has gone from simply talking about security and malware on desktops to arguing about people being wrong and trying to use all sorts of specifics to prove that point.  So what is the argument people are trying to make here?  Is there anything of value to actually say or are we just unhappy that Linux is a target for malware too?

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, will4623 said:

I haven't. Yet I use linux and thus am on the forums every once in a while. Linux isn't "specioul" to me it is just better for my specific use case I am used to it and I don't really trust ms windows. I do trust it to be safer if someone downloads some crap onto my computer for 2 reasons. 1 I run pop which is based off ubuntu and there is this thing where if I download something not from a ppa or some other repostiory then I have to go to permissions and tell the OS that it can run the program as a program. 2 and this I hope changes. linux is still the little guy in the hacks that may occure to my system. 90% of the malware on the internet being transmited is probably designed for windows.

 

So what are you trying to show here? that things aren't true because you haven't seen them?  

 

Lots of web services are compromised, a lot of them are Linux.  The fact is nearly everything is compromised in some way shape or form and care needs to be taken regardless of what OS, device, phone or version we run.    If this is not true then someone tell why, otherwise all people are doing in this thread is getting upset at that I see the Linux community being in denial of bad things being possible.   And  (almost comically) to combat this observation all they are doing is trying to convince me it is safer or I don't know how to read.    No points for guessing how well that will work to change my mind.

[The King of the Undead]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

So what are you trying to show here? that things aren't true because you haven't seen them?  

 

Lots of web services are compromised, a lot of them are Linux.  The fact is nearly everything is compromised in some way shape or form and care needs to be taken regardless of what OS, device, phone or version we run.    If this is not true then someone tell why, otherwise all people are doing in this thread is getting upset at that I see the Linux community being in denial of bad things being possible.   And  (almost comically) to combat this observation all they are doing is trying to convince me it is safer or I don't know how to read.    No points for guessing how well that will work to change my mind.

Did you just say I meant that I didn't see linux getting hacked? Are you drunk? I meant I do not see linux users in denial that linux can be hacked! Is this what you mean? Because I just mean it isn't particularly popular opinion in the linux comunity. You are using that as a generalization about the linux community. it is a flipping minority.

[mr moose]

11 minutes ago, will4623 said:

Did you just say I meant that I didn't see linux getting hacked? Are you drunk? I meant I do not see linux users in denial that linux can be hacked! Is this what you mean? Because I just mean it isn't particularly popular opinion in the linux comunity. You are using that as a generalization about the linux community. it is a flipping minority.

 

It's not that complicated.

 

My observation is that the Linux community has a tendency to exaggerate the intrinsic security of Linux.  Your response to that is you never have seen it.  Your response to me pointing out that not seeing something is not the same as it not happening, your response to me is to go back to trying to talk up the intrinsic security of Linux.  The very thing I said the Linux community does.  

 

It is possible people have experiences that you don't, there is no need to try and convince everyone they are wrong just because you don't like what they are saying (especially when it is an experience of observation).

[The King of the Undead]

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

It's not that complicated.

 

My observation is that the Linux community has a tendency to exaggerate the intrinsic security of Linux.  Your response to that is you never have seen it.  Your response to me pointing out that not seeing something is not the same as it not happening, your response to me is to go back to trying to talk up the intrinsic security of Linux.  The very thing I said the Linux community does.  

 

It is possible people have experiences that you don't, there is no need to try and convince everyone they are wrong just because you don't like what they are saying (especially when it is an experience of observation).

Maybe some do? I haven't seen it maybe it egsists more than I thought. But then please stop applying it to all the Linux fans you see. I do not. I see Linux less backdoored than windows and as taking less of my precious cpu and RAM.

[leadeater]

56 minutes ago, will4623 said:

Maybe some do? I haven't seen it maybe it egsists more than I thought. But then please stop applying it to all the Linux fans you see. I do not. I see Linux less backdoored than windows and as taking less of my precious cpu and RAM.

Well sadly due to lax patching of some our RHEL servers about 30 or so were compromised and had botnet agents injected in to them, that was discovered by us about a week and a half ago. Our firewalls picked it up almost immediately but this was after the fact due to behavior and protocol characteristics, stopping it from happening by way of firewall when it comes through standard and allowed protocols exploiting flaws in software is very difficult, basically don't get lazy with patching and have good monitoring and compliance checking so things don't drift too far.

 

If you have a Linux system publicly accessible and have fairly standard software packages installed on it i.e. Apache + PHP and you don't stay up to date with security patches you will get compromised, not maybe, you will. Just a how long question really, maybe you'll get lucky and you won't but that's pretty unlikely.

 

A competent, knowledgeable and mindful user is equally as likely to get their system compromised regardless of OS. You stick that person with 14 IE toolbars on a Mac system and I'll confidently say they'll ruin that OS too. I've supported large user bases of Macs, they require sooooooo, sooooo much more support than Windows users (because I can actually safety net Windows users properly), and the bugs with the OS and the amazing ways they break it are almost beyond belief if you haven't actually had to deal with it. Mac OS and large scale managed networks just do not mix, polar opposites in philosophy. 

[LAwLz]

53 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Well sadly due to lax patching of some our RHEL servers about 30 or so were compromised and had botnet agents injected in to them, that was discovered by us about a week and a half ago. Our firewalls picked it up almost immediately but this was after the fact due to behavior and protocol characteristics, stopping it from happening by way of firewall when it comes through standard and allowed protocols exploiting flaws in software is very difficult, basically don't get lazy with patching and have good monitoring and compliance checking so things don't drift too far. 

 

If you have a Linux system publicly accessible and have fairly standard software packages installed on it i.e. Apache + PHP and you don't stay up to date with security patches you will get compromised, not maybe, you will. Just a how long question really, maybe you'll get lucky and you won't but that's pretty unlikely. 

 

A competent, knowledgeable and mindful user is equally as likely to get their system compromised regardless of OS. You stick that person with 14 IE toolbars on a Mac system and I'll confidently say they'll ruin that OS too. I've supported large user bases of Macs, they require sooooooo, sooooo much more support than Windows users (because I can actually safety net Windows users properly), and the bugs with the OS and the amazing ways they break it are almost beyond belief if you haven't actually had to deal with it. Mac OS and large scale managed networks just do not mix, polar opposites in philosophy.  

Did you quote the wrong person? I don't understand how your post is related to what he said.

 

1) Yes, all operating systems when left unpatched and exposed to the Internet will sooner or later be vulnerable to attacks. That does not mean one isn't safer than the other though. Again, security is a spectrum, and treating all systems with a vulnerability as equally safe/unsafe is just plan dumb.

 

2) We should separate OS vulnerabilities from vulnerabilities in third party software if we are going to talk about "which OS is the most secure". Were your RHEL servers compromised because of exploits in software such as Apache, or was it compromised because of vulnerabilities in Linux?

I don't think it's fair to give REHL the blame for compromised servers if the compromise happened through third party software, just like I don't think it's fair to give Microsoft the blame for the countless of let's say Java or Flash vulnerabilities that have been discovered throughout the years.

 

3) Not sure why you're bringing up Mac OS. I think you're the first person who even mentions it in this thread, and like 1/3 of your post is dedicated to it.

 

4) Are you sure that you can't "safety net" MacOS users, or is it just that you are more used to Windows and know how to do it better? I have little experience with managing MacOS devices, but I know that Apple has quite a bit of support for enterprise deployment and management for MacOS.

 

[shuri]

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

Well sadly due to lax patching of some our RHEL servers about 30 or so were compromised and had botnet agents injected in to them

0 6 * * * yum update -y

... 

[jagdtigger]

26 minutes ago, shuri said:

0 6 * * * yum update -y

... 

 

Why use cron when the system already has a better solution built in... (Ubuntu Server)

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, shuri said:

0 6 * * * yum update -y

... 

You can't just update a server, contrary to popular belief that Linux doesn't require reboots, which is pretty well correct, that doesn't mean it's safe or no impact to do so. Not only that there's processes like change control which often dictate when or if you can actually do it.

[leadeater]

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

1) Yes, all operating systems when left unpatched and exposed to the Internet will sooner or later be vulnerable to attacks. That does not mean one isn't safer than the other though. Again, security is a spectrum, and treating all systems with a vulnerability as equally safe/unsafe is just plan dumb.

Because if you pay attention to the vulnerabilities that have or could apply to Linux then it gets really hard to argue it actually is more secure. Is it more secure because they are more often a non interactive system or is the other less secure because it's more often an interactive system with a stupid user in the driving seat. It's a much more complicated situation, much more than just going and looking at vulnerability lists or infection rate tracking lists and then concluding that one is more than the other based on those without accounting for other wider aspects of why or how.

 

And it was a relevant reply because his was to someone else talking about security, and how generally the Linux community proclaims that that OS is more secure and almost always based off opinion not a very exhaustive analysis.

 

Are cars less safe than motorbikes because there are more car crashes than motorbike crashes? Are trucks the most safe vehicles on the road because these have the least number of crashes?

 

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

We should separate OS vulnerabilities from vulnerabilities in third party software if we are going to talk about "which OS is the most secure". Were your RHEL servers compromised because of exploits in software such as Apache, or was it compromised because of vulnerabilities in Linux?

I don't think it's fair to give REHL the blame for compromised servers if the compromise happened through third party software, just like I don't think it's fair to give Microsoft the blame for the countless of let's say Java or Flash vulnerabilities that have been discovered throughout the years.

Well then we should do the same for Windows, in fact the majority of compromised Windows systems come from users running, and ignoring UAC, malicious software. Seriously no one truly cares specifically how or why a system is compromised in these debates so I see no reason to do Linux a favor that is not given to Windows. If it got compromised it got compromised, ergo the Linux system was vulnerable.

 

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

3) Not sure why you're bringing up Mac OS. I think you're the first person who even mentions it in this thread, and like 1/3 of your post is dedicated to it.

Because it breaks the illusion that a system is secure because of the system (Macs don't get viruses) and not because it's the person driving the system. Who cares how much is dedicated to it, there is a reason for it and points pretty well to why it's relevant.

 

Is the system secure or the user irresponsible. Where was the actual flaw, 'man or machine'.

 

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

4) Are you sure that you can't "safety net" MacOS users, or is it just that you are more used to Windows and know how to do it better? I have little experience with managing MacOS devices, but I know that Apple has quite a bit of support for enterprise deployment and management for MacOS.

Yes 100%, with many years of experience of managing both 100% yes. The enterprise support tools like JAMF Casper don't change that, you are always fighting against an OS that is philosophically against being an enterprise managed system and many of the tools you could use back in 10.6 were stripped or broken when 10.7 came out and the introduction of the new management framework in the OS. Mac OS wants to be a standalone system, it's almost entirely designed to be and management features are either legacy imports from 10.6 an previous or designed for MDM, which is the new framework. Apple treats all systems as mobile systems as far as management goes and they tried to unify it under that single framework.

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, will4623 said:

Maybe some do? I haven't seen it maybe it egsists more than I thought. But then please stop applying it to all the Linux fans you see.

I don't, I am a linux fan, I just won't censor myself to avoid offending those who aren't apart of said trend. 

 

9 hours ago, will4623 said:

I do not. I see Linux less backdoored than windows and as taking less of my precious cpu and RAM.

So you are still using arguments of it being safer/better to try and convince me that my experiences are wrong.   I am talking about a behavior trait I have experienced, you are defending it by engaging in arguments about security that are not the issue.    You are starting to compound my views.