Apple on Tuesday issued a security update for its Mac OS X to plug 45 security holes, including several zero-day vulnerabilities.
The megapatch is the seventh Apple security patch release in three months. It deals with vulnerabilities in Apple's own software, as well as third-party components such as Adobe Systems' Flash Player, OpenSSH and MySQL. Sixteen of the vulnerabilities addressed by the update were previously released as part of two high-profile bug-hunting campaigns.
The vulnerabilities pose varying risks to Macs. Several of the flaws could be exploited to gain full control over a Mac running the vulnerable component, according to Apple's advisory. Other holes are limited and could only be exploited to crash a Mac or used by somebody who already has access to a machine to elevate privileges, for example.
One focus of the patch is to fix eight vulnerabilities in the way Mac OS X handles disk images, files that when opened appear as a drive within the Macintosh Finder. Mounting a malicious image may lead to an error and could provide a means for an attacker to breach a Mac, Apple said.
Tuesday's update deals with nine vulnerabilities released as part of the
Month of Apple Bugs in January and seven bugs disclosed in the Month of Kernel Bugs in November. In earlier fix releases, Apple fixed several flaws identified during the projects.
While several of the vulnerabilities repaired by Apple's updates were previously known, it doesn't appear that any attacks that exploited the flaws actually occurred.
In addition to the Mac OS X patch, Apple issued a second update on Tuesday to fix a security bug in iPhoto that could expose Mac users to a serious attack. An attacker could craft a malicious "photocast" which, when opened, could compromise a Mac, Apple said in its alert. The Photocasts feature allows people to share pictures in iPhoto.
Tuesday's two releases bring Apple's total patch count for the year to seven. Microsoft, meanwhile, on Tuesday skipped its monthly patch day. However, it released a dozen security bulletins with fixes for 20 vulnerabilities in February and four bulletins with fixes for 10 bugs in January.
The Apple patch can be downloaded and installed via the Software Update feature in Mac OS X, or from Apple Downloads.
From the time it was born, the Apple Computer was destine for failure. Apple Developers promoted Apple as the greatest computer ever designed. Steve Jobs was once quoted as saying that one day Apple will be bigger than IBM.
They built their company with a self righteous attitude and propaganda style marketing. This style of engineering lead to the refusal to license Apple Computer out to other manufactures, and a refusal to allow compatibility with other operating systems. This eventually caught up with them when it brought Apple to the point of near bankruptcy. Apple owner?s today fight like hell to deny the fact that if Bill Gates had not bailed them out, there would be no Apple Computer. SEE ?MS to invest $150 million in Apple? here on CNET NEWS.Com
A real slap in the face is how Apple owners discovered that their cherish software from previous versions of Apple Operating systems will not run on OSX. I can run any program from any version of Windows including Windows 3.0 on Windows XP. The biggest laugh my friends and I had was when they used Apple Computers in the movies ?Hackers? and ?The Net?. It was hilarious. The truth is HACKERS DON?T USE APPLE!
If Apple Computer had continued developing their operating system on the original platform, Apple Computer would have become extinct. What saved Apple? Using the same platform of those that Apple despised????UNIX. Apple Computer owners used to brag ?No one can get into an Apple system?. The fact is no one wanted to. All the major sources of information were stored on UNIX or Windows NT based systems. And now that Apple has finally wised up and started to develop their operating system on UNIX, Apple Computer owners are still complaining, and refuse to accept the truth.
Yes Windows has had a variety of problems including security issues, but the advantages have always been enormous in choosing Windows. I have a Windows base system that runs 3 versions of Windows, OS2/Warp, and 2 versions of Linux. If you doubt this look up System Commander. Another advantage is if I don?t like the way IBM builds my Windows based system I can go to Dell, Compaq, Gateway, or build one from scratch. Could Apple Computer owners say that?
You?re into the real world now Apple Computer owners get used to it and move on. And by the way before you scream how Bill gates copied the Apple operating system, you better do a little study in history. Here is the facts> But although Apple was the first to successfully mass-produce a GUI, they were not its inventors, nor were they the first to market it.
The honor for producing the first working GUI goes to Doug Englebart ? at the time an employee of Stanford Research Institute. Englebart and colleagues created a program called the oNLine System in 1965-?68. This program used the first mouse, a windowing system, and hypertext, and was based on a description of a system called ?memex? proposed by Vannevar Bush in 1945.
the1kingarthur, Congrats on being the 1st to post on this. All the MSFT Bashing Apple User have continually stated how secure Apple is.(Macintosh) Well, I guess this blows that theory! 42 patches? For what? Macs are so secure they don't need patches. LOL.
I got to give it to you. You just accomplished to write a HUGE one paragraph comment that says nothing !!!!
Well, it says the same old stuff that most Apple haters keep repeting and repeting... and repeting... "Apple is bad... uhhh... Apple has accomplished nothing.. uhhh... Windows is better .. uhhhh... Apple has no viruses because nobody cares.. UHHH..."
But well... we would not be talking about this if Apple was not relevant.. or would we?
No one should be impressed by your rambling. The sky is not falling. There are still no real viruses for Mac OS X, no real-world exploits that matter, and Apple is still a technology and design leader.
Mac users already are in the real world; they exercise free will to use a secure, easy to use operating system. The fact that Apple provides patches for Mac OS X and other software only shows you how much they care about their duty to their customers.
May I ask if you are a talkbot? It is pretty hard to believe your post was real. In any case have a nice day.
I don't think you missed a single piece of Microsoft spoon fed FUD. Looks like you drank ALL the cool-aid.
I guess we Mac users will just have to be satisfied with the best operating system in the world and the most secure operating system in the world. Apple never breached, never beaten 30 years and counting...
Once again loved all the vitriol, way over the top, just the way we like our Microsoft zealots. Posts like yours remove all doubt about your objectivity, sanity and ignorance in one fell swoop. Please post your ignorance more often we need a good laugh now and again.
Since I am not an Apple fanatic I think it is fitting that I reply to your diatribe. It seems a likely that in spite of your claims you most likely have never seriously used anything but Windows. But first, my credentials.
The first computer I worked on used Vacuum tubes. I have worked on just about everything from mainframes to mini's to PC's. In the process I have probably used more OS's than you ever knew existed. And I can say no OS is bulletproof. Some are just better than others.
Anyway, during all these years the Windows line of OS's, and I even used them from just about their beginning until 2003, are the most insecure OS's I have ever used. (Sorry to deflate your bubble). And there are Windows programs that will not run properly on the later versions of Windows. I know because I have them mothballed.
As for your statement that software from previous versions will not run on OS X, that just shows you do not know what you are talking about. I can run almost any piece of software fro OS 9 on the PowerMac I bought about 3 1/2 years ago. Which was the first Apple computer I have ever owned.
Maybe "real hackers" don't use Macs, well, most of them don't use Windows as their main OS either. If you want a secure system you are going to need to run UNIX/Linux. Windows security is the ultimate oxymoron. Oh, BTW, just how many fixes did MS release this past patch Tuesday? And it wasn't because they have no outstanding vulnerabilities either. I have to give Apple credit for not waiting to release fixes once a month.
But I have to admit, you would probably make a good politician. You seem to have mastered the art of half truths and mis- statements. And your sense of history seems a bit distorted as well. As far as I remember Apple never claimed to have invented any of the things you say they did not invent. In most cases they took something that was already there, improved it and made it popular.
Anyway, I run two systems here in my office. A PowerMac G5 with OS X on it and an IBM with PC-BSD and Linux on it. All of these OS's are head and shoulders above Windows when it comes to security. And System Commander? Really, there are better ways to accomplish the task. And yes, I have used SC in the past. You seem to be stuck in a Windows world with no way out. I feel sorry for you.
From the time it was born, the Apple Computer was destine for failure. Apple Developers promoted Apple as the greatest computer ever designed. Steve Jobs was once quoted as saying that one day Apple will be bigger than IBM.
They built their company with a self righteous attitude and propaganda style marketing. This style of engineering lead to the refusal to license Apple Computer out to other manufactures, and a refusal to allow compatibility with other operating systems. This eventually caught up with them when it brought Apple to the point of near bankruptcy. Apple owner?s today fight like hell to deny the fact that if Bill Gates had not bailed them out, there would be no Apple Computer. SEE ?MS to invest $150 million in Apple? here on CNET NEWS.Com
A real slap in the face is how Apple owners discovered that their cherish software from previous versions of Apple Operating systems will not run on OSX. I can run any program from any version of Windows including Windows 3.0 on Windows XP. The biggest laugh my friends and I had was when they used Apple Computers in the movies ?Hackers? and ?The Net?. It was hilarious. The truth is HACKERS DON?T USE APPLE!
If Apple Computer had continued developing their operating system on the original platform, Apple Computer would have become extinct. What saved Apple? Using the same platform of those that Apple despised????UNIX. Apple Computer owners used to brag ?No one can get into an Apple system?. The fact is no one wanted to. All the major sources of information were stored on UNIX or Windows NT based systems. And now that Apple has finally wised up and started to develop their operating system on UNIX, Apple Computer owners are still complaining, and refuse to accept the truth.
Yes Windows has had a variety of problems including security issues, but the advantages have always been enormous in choosing Windows. I have a Windows base system that runs 3 versions of Windows, OS2/Warp, and 2 versions of Linux. If you doubt this look up System Commander. Another advantage is if I don?t like the way IBM builds my Windows based system I can go to Dell, Compaq, Gateway, or build one from scratch. Could Apple Computer owners say that?
You?re into the real world now Apple Computer owners get used to it and move on. And by the way before you scream how Bill gates copied the Apple operating system, you better do a little study in history. Here is the facts> But although Apple was the first to successfully mass-produce a GUI, they were not its inventors, nor were they the first to market it.
The honor for producing the first working GUI goes to Doug Englebart ? at the time an employee of Stanford Research Institute. Englebart and colleagues created a program called the oNLine System in 1965-?68. This program used the first mouse, a windowing system, and hypertext, and was based on a description of a system called ?memex? proposed by Vannevar Bush in 1945.
the1kingarthur, Congrats on being the 1st to post on this. All the MSFT Bashing Apple User have continually stated how secure Apple is.(Macintosh) Well, I guess this blows that theory! 42 patches? For what? Macs are so secure they don't need patches. LOL.
I got to give it to you. You just accomplished to write a HUGE one paragraph comment that says nothing !!!!
Well, it says the same old stuff that most Apple haters keep repeting and repeting... and repeting... "Apple is bad... uhhh... Apple has accomplished nothing.. uhhh... Windows is better .. uhhhh... Apple has no viruses because nobody cares.. UHHH..."
But well... we would not be talking about this if Apple was not relevant.. or would we?
No one should be impressed by your rambling. The sky is not falling. There are still no real viruses for Mac OS X, no real-world exploits that matter, and Apple is still a technology and design leader.
Mac users already are in the real world; they exercise free will to use a secure, easy to use operating system. The fact that Apple provides patches for Mac OS X and other software only shows you how much they care about their duty to their customers.
May I ask if you are a talkbot? It is pretty hard to believe your post was real. In any case have a nice day.
I don't think you missed a single piece of Microsoft spoon fed FUD. Looks like you drank ALL the cool-aid.
I guess we Mac users will just have to be satisfied with the best operating system in the world and the most secure operating system in the world. Apple never breached, never beaten 30 years and counting...
Once again loved all the vitriol, way over the top, just the way we like our Microsoft zealots. Posts like yours remove all doubt about your objectivity, sanity and ignorance in one fell swoop. Please post your ignorance more often we need a good laugh now and again.
Since I am not an Apple fanatic I think it is fitting that I reply to your diatribe. It seems a likely that in spite of your claims you most likely have never seriously used anything but Windows. But first, my credentials.
The first computer I worked on used Vacuum tubes. I have worked on just about everything from mainframes to mini's to PC's. In the process I have probably used more OS's than you ever knew existed. And I can say no OS is bulletproof. Some are just better than others.
Anyway, during all these years the Windows line of OS's, and I even used them from just about their beginning until 2003, are the most insecure OS's I have ever used. (Sorry to deflate your bubble). And there are Windows programs that will not run properly on the later versions of Windows. I know because I have them mothballed.
As for your statement that software from previous versions will not run on OS X, that just shows you do not know what you are talking about. I can run almost any piece of software fro OS 9 on the PowerMac I bought about 3 1/2 years ago. Which was the first Apple computer I have ever owned.
Maybe "real hackers" don't use Macs, well, most of them don't use Windows as their main OS either. If you want a secure system you are going to need to run UNIX/Linux. Windows security is the ultimate oxymoron. Oh, BTW, just how many fixes did MS release this past patch Tuesday? And it wasn't because they have no outstanding vulnerabilities either. I have to give Apple credit for not waiting to release fixes once a month.
But I have to admit, you would probably make a good politician. You seem to have mastered the art of half truths and mis- statements. And your sense of history seems a bit distorted as well. As far as I remember Apple never claimed to have invented any of the things you say they did not invent. In most cases they took something that was already there, improved it and made it popular.
Anyway, I run two systems here in my office. A PowerMac G5 with OS X on it and an IBM with PC-BSD and Linux on it. All of these OS's are head and shoulders above Windows when it comes to security. And System Commander? Really, there are better ways to accomplish the task. And yes, I have used SC in the past. You seem to be stuck in a Windows world with no way out. I feel sorry for you.
I must start a discussion on this one. I have read so many posts bashing MSFT about their security holes and seen so many posts about how "Secure" the Macintosh OS is. I said it before, there is no absolutely "secure" OS. Not Windows, not Apple's Macintosh, not Linux, etc. Vulnerablities can be found and exploited in ANY OS. So, all the MSFT bashers, read this one. Now, how "secure" is your OS?
You Windows fanboys should actually do some research before you talk about OS X. Apple has been patching security holes in OS X since it came out in 2001! We Mac users are quite aware of the challenges Apple faces from potential attacks.
Doh!
No Apple computer has ever had a single spyware exploit sucessfully annoy its user. No virus has sucessfully attacked a Mac. Sure they're not absolutely secure. No OS hooked to the Internet is invlunerable except for maybe the extra secure version of Solaris? Obscurity, better built, a combination of both. Who cares? Them's the facts. As long as we're careful and watch for attacks which will inveitibly arrive some day, and we'll enjoy our time without the burden Windows users deal with every day.
So, one guy says he can run programs for all versions of Windows since 3.0? Hogwash. I've been a Windows user. Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP and no doubt Windows Vista will break old software and it won't work anymore. Games especially. There are DirectX9 games that don't run in Vista! Go figure.
OS X could run OS9 apps just fine. So dude, you were wrong. And guess what? It can't any more. But a Mac can run all Windows versions since 3.0 to Vista, OS/2. Solaris, Linux, and a bunch of others. How many of those can be run on a PC now? All at the same time? All of 'em? Good for you, but it can't run OS X. Macs win.
We Mac users are plenty savvy about the world. Just because you have never bothered to learn much about Macs means nothing.
As for who invented the GUI, there may have been a GUI and mouse in the 60s (there was) but the GUI that Apple borrowed from came from Xerox PARC. Ever hear about the conversation between Bill Gates and Steve Jobs on the topic. Gates compared it to breaking into someone's home to steal, and ends up saying something like, "Imagine getting in there and finding that someone beat you to the TV set."
Remember GEM? I didn't think so. Remember Amiga? No? Yes? Fine. NeXT created the first really sophisticated computer that was way ahead of the competition. And NeXT raided Apple and took them over. Jobs lead the charge. And that's why Macs are so good now. It has little to do with the Apple geneolgoy. It's the legacy of NeXT that we inherit now.
That's the nature of the beast. It's not a matter of having no security holes, it's a matter of risk (probability of event * cost of event), a mitigating that risk. Most of the issues addressed here are low risk, and historically there's been very low risk (security-wise) using Mac OS X.
Not that it makes much of a difference. Windows has a comparably much higher risk associated with using it, but they are willing to accept the higher risk and spend considerable effort attempting to mitigate those risks, because of a perceived higher value to the product. I.e., the risk is worth it. Note that Linux still has higher risk than Mac OS X despite having fewer and lesser severity issues by virtue of the fact that it's a popular target for crackers -- namely because it runs many servers containing sensitive information.
The only wrinkle is that people's perceptions of value and risk are rarely very objective. Many people use don't use an software that best addresses their needs, and many people are blissfully unaware of the risks associated with their choices in software and hardware. The result is a net loss in productivity and increased costs.
I must start a discussion on this one. I have read so many posts bashing MSFT about their security holes and seen so many posts about how "Secure" the Macintosh OS is. I said it before, there is no absolutely "secure" OS. Not Windows, not Apple's Macintosh, not Linux, etc. Vulnerablities can be found and exploited in ANY OS. So, all the MSFT bashers, read this one. Now, how "secure" is your OS?
You Windows fanboys should actually do some research before you talk about OS X. Apple has been patching security holes in OS X since it came out in 2001! We Mac users are quite aware of the challenges Apple faces from potential attacks.
Doh!
No Apple computer has ever had a single spyware exploit sucessfully annoy its user. No virus has sucessfully attacked a Mac. Sure they're not absolutely secure. No OS hooked to the Internet is invlunerable except for maybe the extra secure version of Solaris? Obscurity, better built, a combination of both. Who cares? Them's the facts. As long as we're careful and watch for attacks which will inveitibly arrive some day, and we'll enjoy our time without the burden Windows users deal with every day.
So, one guy says he can run programs for all versions of Windows since 3.0? Hogwash. I've been a Windows user. Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP and no doubt Windows Vista will break old software and it won't work anymore. Games especially. There are DirectX9 games that don't run in Vista! Go figure.
OS X could run OS9 apps just fine. So dude, you were wrong. And guess what? It can't any more. But a Mac can run all Windows versions since 3.0 to Vista, OS/2. Solaris, Linux, and a bunch of others. How many of those can be run on a PC now? All at the same time? All of 'em? Good for you, but it can't run OS X. Macs win.
We Mac users are plenty savvy about the world. Just because you have never bothered to learn much about Macs means nothing.
As for who invented the GUI, there may have been a GUI and mouse in the 60s (there was) but the GUI that Apple borrowed from came from Xerox PARC. Ever hear about the conversation between Bill Gates and Steve Jobs on the topic. Gates compared it to breaking into someone's home to steal, and ends up saying something like, "Imagine getting in there and finding that someone beat you to the TV set."
Remember GEM? I didn't think so. Remember Amiga? No? Yes? Fine. NeXT created the first really sophisticated computer that was way ahead of the competition. And NeXT raided Apple and took them over. Jobs lead the charge. And that's why Macs are so good now. It has little to do with the Apple geneolgoy. It's the legacy of NeXT that we inherit now.
That's the nature of the beast. It's not a matter of having no security holes, it's a matter of risk (probability of event * cost of event), a mitigating that risk. Most of the issues addressed here are low risk, and historically there's been very low risk (security-wise) using Mac OS X.
Not that it makes much of a difference. Windows has a comparably much higher risk associated with using it, but they are willing to accept the higher risk and spend considerable effort attempting to mitigate those risks, because of a perceived higher value to the product. I.e., the risk is worth it. Note that Linux still has higher risk than Mac OS X despite having fewer and lesser severity issues by virtue of the fact that it's a popular target for crackers -- namely because it runs many servers containing sensitive information.
The only wrinkle is that people's perceptions of value and risk are rarely very objective. Many people use don't use an software that best addresses their needs, and many people are blissfully unaware of the risks associated with their choices in software and hardware. The result is a net loss in productivity and increased costs.
I love reading comments that go along the lines of "TOLD YOU SO MACBOYS YOUR OS ISN'T SECURE EITHER HAHAHAHAH!!!1!! 11!!!!11" Please. If your intention is to bag out fanboys by resorting to this, you're no better than they are. Grow up.
I could also induge myself and ask you to point out the frequency of Windows problems compared to Mac, Linux, BSD, Kitchen Sink (hint: it's not all about market share), but then I guess I'd be a fanboy wouldn't I? It says something about people who lurk in the shadows desperately waiting for something other than Windows to slip so they can feel better about their own.
And at least Apple are actively fixing their security problems compared to their Redmond counterparts (<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://" target="_newWindow">http://</a> news.com.com/Microsoft+takes+a+Patch+Tuesday+break/ 2100-1002_3-6165647.html)
You are seriously kidding yourself if you don't think market share has a big thing to do with it.
Falls into 2 categories... 1. more market share means more stupid people using the product who will do more stupid things.
2. less market share means less of a target for attack... less stupid users and less of a reason to bother.
I have two Mac's... an old G4 and an iMac. I also have several PC's running XP, Vista, Linspire and Ubuntu, so it's not like I am particularly biased in the matter. It just cracks me up though how the majority of Mac users act a lot like religious zealots.
"I could also induge myself and ask you to point out the frequency of Windows problems compared to Mac, Linux, BSD, Kitchen Sink (hint: it's not all about market share)"
Ya, if Windows is so problematic, why does majority of business users use windows at their office (with a big investment)? Are all business users dumb? Not to mention home users. Hmm..
Go to SANS' website and look at SANS@Risk which documents vulnerabilities across all platforms and you will see that rarely a week goes by that something isn't identifed for EVERY major platform.
I will grant you that I am impatient with MS's response to some recent flaws, but at least 2 of the items patched by Apple in this group were reported over 2 months ago.
I love reading comments that go along the lines of "TOLD YOU SO MACBOYS YOUR OS ISN'T SECURE EITHER HAHAHAHAH!!!1!! 11!!!!11" Please. If your intention is to bag out fanboys by resorting to this, you're no better than they are. Grow up.
I could also induge myself and ask you to point out the frequency of Windows problems compared to Mac, Linux, BSD, Kitchen Sink (hint: it's not all about market share), but then I guess I'd be a fanboy wouldn't I? It says something about people who lurk in the shadows desperately waiting for something other than Windows to slip so they can feel better about their own.
And at least Apple are actively fixing their security problems compared to their Redmond counterparts (<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://" target="_newWindow">http://</a> news.com.com/Microsoft+takes+a+Patch+Tuesday+break/ 2100-1002_3-6165647.html)
You are seriously kidding yourself if you don't think market share has a big thing to do with it.
Falls into 2 categories... 1. more market share means more stupid people using the product who will do more stupid things.
2. less market share means less of a target for attack... less stupid users and less of a reason to bother.
I have two Mac's... an old G4 and an iMac. I also have several PC's running XP, Vista, Linspire and Ubuntu, so it's not like I am particularly biased in the matter. It just cracks me up though how the majority of Mac users act a lot like religious zealots.
"I could also induge myself and ask you to point out the frequency of Windows problems compared to Mac, Linux, BSD, Kitchen Sink (hint: it's not all about market share)"
Ya, if Windows is so problematic, why does majority of business users use windows at their office (with a big investment)? Are all business users dumb? Not to mention home users. Hmm..
Go to SANS' website and look at SANS@Risk which documents vulnerabilities across all platforms and you will see that rarely a week goes by that something isn't identifed for EVERY major platform.
I will grant you that I am impatient with MS's response to some recent flaws, but at least 2 of the items patched by Apple in this group were reported over 2 months ago.
I've used a whole bunch of operating systems: Solaris, Windows (through XP Pro), All flavors of MacOS, OS2, Linux, SGI, to name a few.
They all fall in two categories: UNIX and not-UNIX. Apple has very polished interface over UNIX. Windows has a very polished interface over DOS (I know I'm asking for it here).
Both express an OPINION about software programming. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't. I don't understand why Apple users are stereotyped as weird zealots: It's just a 5% market-share OS alternative.
I've used a whole bunch of operating systems: Solaris, Windows (through XP Pro), All flavors of MacOS, OS2, Linux, SGI, to name a few.
They all fall in two categories: UNIX and not-UNIX. Apple has very polished interface over UNIX. Windows has a very polished interface over DOS (I know I'm asking for it here).
Both express an OPINION about software programming. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't. I don't understand why Apple users are stereotyped as weird zealots: It's just a 5% market-share OS alternative.
10.3.9 Patch wise guy, + MS still has zero day flaws
First of all, it's a patch for Panther, pretty much a legacy patch to keep the legacy 10.3 line up to date with the 10.4 security updates, so to say that it is in *addition* to the other security updates they've done in the last few months isn't entirely accurate. Besides that, it's 10.3 - when I saw the article I wondered if you were talking about 10.4.9 that came out today too. So I checked and lo and behold, it's just for 10.3.
Besides that, MS didn't have anything for patch Tuesday, but guess what, they still have at least 5 outstanding zero day vulnerabilities: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/09/1317240" target="_newWindow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/09/1317240</a>
Are you just trying to stir the pot or did you have some real security news about Apple or MS?
I wondered because I had noticed a link about a security update and a 10.4.9 update but only the 10.4.9 update came up. I guess they put it all in one installer since the security fixes probably aren't that big. I hope there was something else other than security fixes in that update, but I haven't noticed anything yet.
One big thing about the mac vs PC debate also, and I'm not trying to sound like a dumb western xenophobe or anything, but doesn't it always seem like the worst virus/cracks/spyware come from former soviet/eastern bloc countries, where Apple's marketshare is far lower than in the west? I know thats a generalization, but I do remember back in the late 80s and early 90s my mom worked at a university computer services office, and they had a russian there as part of a new exchange program. Even though this was after the berlin wall and such, he said that while he thought macs were interesting he would have to buy a PC because Macs were on the no-export list (I honestly don't recall why) to Warsaw Pact countries. That was his explanation anyway, he might have just been trying to diffuse my militant mac evangelism and change the subject about his PC purchase ;)
Anyway point being that perhaps it is that Macs are not just obscure, but non-existent in the places most likely to breed virulent electronic contagion. I know when I was in China my mac got a lot of comment from natives to the effect of "your computer is very beautiful.", and then from the handful who were computer-saavy (like my roommate the Comp. Sci major) "I wish I could afford an Apple, but they are too expensive" I found that funny because I saw some great deals on Apple hardware over there, but they were just deals to me because of the currency valuation, in terms of Yuan Apple's price margin, particularly in laptops, was often 2x that of comparably equipped PCs. I found it odd because they make them in China, one would think they would get a deal because of low shipping costs, but I guess not. Probably 90% of their Mac customers are Japanese, so they charge prices that, just as they do to me, look like a good deal to Japanese consumers.
10.3.9 Patch wise guy, + MS still has zero day flaws
First of all, it's a patch for Panther, pretty much a legacy patch to keep the legacy 10.3 line up to date with the 10.4 security updates, so to say that it is in *addition* to the other security updates they've done in the last few months isn't entirely accurate. Besides that, it's 10.3 - when I saw the article I wondered if you were talking about 10.4.9 that came out today too. So I checked and lo and behold, it's just for 10.3.
Besides that, MS didn't have anything for patch Tuesday, but guess what, they still have at least 5 outstanding zero day vulnerabilities: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/09/1317240" target="_newWindow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/09/1317240</a>
Are you just trying to stir the pot or did you have some real security news about Apple or MS?
I wondered because I had noticed a link about a security update and a 10.4.9 update but only the 10.4.9 update came up. I guess they put it all in one installer since the security fixes probably aren't that big. I hope there was something else other than security fixes in that update, but I haven't noticed anything yet.
One big thing about the mac vs PC debate also, and I'm not trying to sound like a dumb western xenophobe or anything, but doesn't it always seem like the worst virus/cracks/spyware come from former soviet/eastern bloc countries, where Apple's marketshare is far lower than in the west? I know thats a generalization, but I do remember back in the late 80s and early 90s my mom worked at a university computer services office, and they had a russian there as part of a new exchange program. Even though this was after the berlin wall and such, he said that while he thought macs were interesting he would have to buy a PC because Macs were on the no-export list (I honestly don't recall why) to Warsaw Pact countries. That was his explanation anyway, he might have just been trying to diffuse my militant mac evangelism and change the subject about his PC purchase ;)
Anyway point being that perhaps it is that Macs are not just obscure, but non-existent in the places most likely to breed virulent electronic contagion. I know when I was in China my mac got a lot of comment from natives to the effect of "your computer is very beautiful.", and then from the handful who were computer-saavy (like my roommate the Comp. Sci major) "I wish I could afford an Apple, but they are too expensive" I found that funny because I saw some great deals on Apple hardware over there, but they were just deals to me because of the currency valuation, in terms of Yuan Apple's price margin, particularly in laptops, was often 2x that of comparably equipped PCs. I found it odd because they make them in China, one would think they would get a deal because of low shipping costs, but I guess not. Probably 90% of their Mac customers are Japanese, so they charge prices that, just as they do to me, look like a good deal to Japanese consumers.
45 Mac security flaws most of which can only be exploited locally compared to 114,000+ MS flaws many of which can be exploited remotely..?? No wonder the MS crowd gets excited every time there's a Mac patch..
There were 45 Mac flaws addressed in the latest batch of updates. You state that there are 114,000+ flaws that were supposed to be addressed on Tuesday? Would you please list them in order? I would like to check into your facts before I can accept them. Please list all 114,000+.
I can make up numbers just as easily, but if you can list all 114,000+, I'll gladly back you up on this one.
I don't have a problem with showing the difference, but compare the same thing.
You show the number of bugs for one or two Apple patches and then compare it to the 'possible' lifetime count for Windows bugs across multiple versions.
45 Mac security flaws most of which can only be exploited locally compared to 114,000+ MS flaws many of which can be exploited remotely..?? No wonder the MS crowd gets excited every time there's a Mac patch..
There were 45 Mac flaws addressed in the latest batch of updates. You state that there are 114,000+ flaws that were supposed to be addressed on Tuesday? Would you please list them in order? I would like to check into your facts before I can accept them. Please list all 114,000+.
I can make up numbers just as easily, but if you can list all 114,000+, I'll gladly back you up on this one.
I don't have a problem with showing the difference, but compare the same thing.
You show the number of bugs for one or two Apple patches and then compare it to the 'possible' lifetime count for Windows bugs across multiple versions.
For the last time: MAC means Media Access Control! Why is it that Windows cronies can't get that right? Normally capitalization wouldn't matter. But MAC is a computing term.
While market share is much lower for Apple products over others in the industry, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are being ignored. Some day when they take over as the number one OS out there, they will likely get targeted.
Give them time. They haven't taken over the world yet. They still have to take on Windows, Linux, Ubuntu, and others. Give them enough time to take over and we can see how they handle the pressure. I'm sure they will do fine.
While market share is much lower for Apple products over others in the industry, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are being ignored. Some day when they take over as the number one OS out there, they will likely get targeted.
Give them time. They haven't taken over the world yet. They still have to take on Windows, Linux, Ubuntu, and others. Give them enough time to take over and we can see how they handle the pressure. I'm sure they will do fine.
For the last time: MAC means Media Access Control! Why is it that Windows cronies can't get that right? Normally capitalization wouldn't matter. But MAC is a computing term.
While market share is much lower for Apple products over others in the industry, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are being ignored. Some day when they take over as the number one OS out there, they will likely get targeted.
Give them time. They haven't taken over the world yet. They still have to take on Windows, Linux, Ubuntu, and others. Give them enough time to take over and we can see how they handle the pressure. I'm sure they will do fine.
While market share is much lower for Apple products over others in the industry, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are being ignored. Some day when they take over as the number one OS out there, they will likely get targeted.
Give them time. They haven't taken over the world yet. They still have to take on Windows, Linux, Ubuntu, and others. Give them enough time to take over and we can see how they handle the pressure. I'm sure they will do fine.
I'm not going to bother with the rest of that (you know it's wrong, as well as I do), but I'm laughing at this statement 'The truth is HACKERS DON?T USE APPLE!'...
Does this come under the heading of "an Inconvenient Truth"? If you discount the script kiddies most of them don't use Windows either. They just abuse Windows. Why, you might ask? because it is just so darn easy to do.
I'm not going to bother with the rest of that (you know it's wrong, as well as I do), but I'm laughing at this statement 'The truth is HACKERS DON?T USE APPLE!'...
Does this come under the heading of "an Inconvenient Truth"? If you discount the script kiddies most of them don't use Windows either. They just abuse Windows. Why, you might ask? because it is just so darn easy to do.
Mac Fanboys have chronically been some of the most annoying on the net. They have always railed how secure their system is, when in fact ALL systems have vulnerabilities. And, for the record, Apple doesn't have the best reputation in the industry for being timely with their patches, do a little research on what the bug finders/reporters say about their experience with Apple.
All that being said, yes, security patches are a good thing, regardless of your OS.
The actual news about the patches has nothing to do with the arguments here. People just want to trot out their same old tired schtick.
Windows is Evil. Mac is Godly.
Windows is #1. Mac is #1.
Nobody uses a Mac. Everybody uses a Mac.
There's really no point in any of it. You could say the sky was falling and both sides would argue that it's because God didn't patch his OS in time.
I look at it in that all the OS's have good and bad points. If you only focus on the bad aspects, you'll never get anywhere. Educate yourself on what is available, evaluate the options, make an informed decision, and move on. There is no bad choice between them. Both work for what they are meant for. Ignore the OS Holy wars and their fan/soldiers and you'll be fine.
Mac Fanboys have chronically been some of the most annoying on the net. They have always railed how secure their system is, when in fact ALL systems have vulnerabilities. And, for the record, Apple doesn't have the best reputation in the industry for being timely with their patches, do a little research on what the bug finders/reporters say about their experience with Apple.
All that being said, yes, security patches are a good thing, regardless of your OS.
The actual news about the patches has nothing to do with the arguments here. People just want to trot out their same old tired schtick.
Windows is Evil. Mac is Godly.
Windows is #1. Mac is #1.
Nobody uses a Mac. Everybody uses a Mac.
There's really no point in any of it. You could say the sky was falling and both sides would argue that it's because God didn't patch his OS in time.
I look at it in that all the OS's have good and bad points. If you only focus on the bad aspects, you'll never get anywhere. Educate yourself on what is available, evaluate the options, make an informed decision, and move on. There is no bad choice between them. Both work for what they are meant for. Ignore the OS Holy wars and their fan/soldiers and you'll be fine.
Ignorance really must be bliss. Educate yourself on the alternatives available and the risks involved. And most importantly, open your mind. You might be surprised.
Ignorance really must be bliss. Educate yourself on the alternatives available and the risks involved. And most importantly, open your mind. You might be surprised.
...there would be several worms/viruses within a week to catch out the people who don't allow auto-patching. But it is a for a computer that has under 5% world market share so who cares?
Market share myth you say? It is not a myth, it is a fact. The proof is in the numbers that Apple fanboys love to repeat. Thousands of Windows viruses, and even a few successful ones. But few care to target Apple. It just isn't worth the bother, even if 45 security holes are patched in a month.
The fact is that there were viruses for Mac OS 9 and earlier versions of the the Mac OS, each of which had fewer users than OS X. There are still none for OS X because there is a huge difference between a vulnerability and an exploit.
A vulnerability indicates that an exploit might be possible. It says nothing about the degree of difficulty. To get an idea of the difficulty involved in creating exploits for an OS, you need to look at the number of exploits. Windows has over 100,000 exploits, indicating that a Windows vulnerability is far easier to exploit than an OS X vulnerability.
...there would be several worms/viruses within a week to catch out the people who don't allow auto-patching. But it is a for a computer that has under 5% world market share so who cares?
Market share myth you say? It is not a myth, it is a fact. The proof is in the numbers that Apple fanboys love to repeat. Thousands of Windows viruses, and even a few successful ones. But few care to target Apple. It just isn't worth the bother, even if 45 security holes are patched in a month.
The fact is that there were viruses for Mac OS 9 and earlier versions of the the Mac OS, each of which had fewer users than OS X. There are still none for OS X because there is a huge difference between a vulnerability and an exploit.
A vulnerability indicates that an exploit might be possible. It says nothing about the degree of difficulty. To get an idea of the difficulty involved in creating exploits for an OS, you need to look at the number of exploits. Windows has over 100,000 exploits, indicating that a Windows vulnerability is far easier to exploit than an OS X vulnerability.
Web giant is spending $120 million to beef up its Mountain View, Calif., headquarters, according to filings with the city reviewed by the San Jose Mercury News.
Tor's "obfsproxy" technology would make encrypted data look innocuous and let it dodge government censors. That could help citizens in Iran reach blocked sites as antigovernment protests reportedly loom.
MIT creates a simulation to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Spacewar. A relic of the early days of minicomputers, it was one of the first computer video games and set the stage for many others, including Asteroids.
George Lucas has just released his version of "Star Wars" in 3D, but c'mon--the guy believes Greedo shot first. Why not make your own Star Wars world? In the first installment of a Crave series, a crack team of crafters fight the power and turn paper bags into the Rebel Alliance's Admiral Ackbar. It's a sack!
They built their company with a self righteous attitude and propaganda style marketing. This style of engineering lead to the refusal to license Apple Computer out to other manufactures, and a refusal to allow compatibility with other operating systems. This eventually caught up with them when it brought Apple to the point of near bankruptcy. Apple owner?s today fight like hell to deny the fact that if Bill Gates had not bailed them out, there would be no Apple Computer. SEE ?MS to invest $150 million in Apple? here on CNET NEWS.Com
A real slap in the face is how Apple owners discovered that their cherish software from previous versions of Apple Operating systems will not run on OSX. I can run any program from any version of Windows including Windows 3.0 on Windows XP. The biggest laugh my friends and I had was when they used Apple Computers in the movies ?Hackers? and ?The Net?. It was hilarious. The truth is HACKERS DON?T USE APPLE!
If Apple Computer had continued developing their operating system on the original platform, Apple Computer would have become extinct. What saved Apple? Using the same platform of those that Apple despised????UNIX. Apple Computer owners used to brag ?No one can get into an Apple system?. The fact is no one wanted to. All the major sources of information were stored on UNIX or Windows NT based systems. And now that Apple has finally wised up and started to develop their operating system on UNIX, Apple Computer owners are still complaining, and refuse to accept the truth.
Yes Windows has had a variety of problems including security issues, but the advantages have always been enormous in choosing Windows. I have a Windows base system that runs 3 versions of Windows, OS2/Warp, and 2 versions of Linux. If you doubt this look up System Commander. Another advantage is if I don?t like the way IBM builds my Windows based system I can go to Dell, Compaq, Gateway, or build one from scratch. Could Apple Computer owners say that?
You?re into the real world now Apple Computer owners get used to it and move on. And by the way before you scream how Bill gates copied the Apple operating system, you better do a little study in history. Here is the facts> But although Apple was the first to successfully mass-produce a GUI, they were not its inventors, nor were they the first to market it.
The honor for producing the first working GUI goes to Doug Englebart ? at the time an employee of Stanford Research Institute. Englebart and colleagues created a program called the oNLine System in 1965-?68. This program used the first mouse, a windowing system, and hypertext, and was based on a description of a system called ?memex? proposed by Vannevar Bush in 1945.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://imrl.usu.edu/OSLO/technology_writing/004_003.htm" target="_newWindow">http://imrl.usu.edu/OSLO/technology_writing/004_003.htm</a>
Congrats on being the 1st to post on this. All the MSFT Bashing Apple User have continually stated how secure Apple is.(Macintosh) Well, I guess this blows that theory! 42 patches? For what? Macs are so secure they don't need patches. LOL.
one paragraph comment that says nothing !!!!
Well, it says the same old stuff that most Apple haters keep
repeting and repeting... and repeting... "Apple is bad... uhhh...
Apple has accomplished nothing.. uhhh... Windows is better ..
uhhhh... Apple has no viruses because nobody cares.. UHHH..."
But well... we would not be talking about this if Apple was not
relevant.. or would we?
falling. There are still no real viruses for Mac OS X, no real-world
exploits that matter, and Apple is still a technology and design
leader.
Mac users already are in the real world; they exercise free will to
use a secure, easy to use operating system. The fact that Apple
provides patches for Mac OS X and other software only shows
you how much they care about their duty to their customers.
May I ask if you are a talkbot? It is pretty hard to believe your
post was real. In any case have a nice day.
I don't think you missed a single piece of Microsoft spoon fed
FUD. Looks like you drank ALL the cool-aid.
I guess we Mac users will just have to be satisfied with the best
operating system in the world and the most secure operating
system in the world. Apple never breached, never beaten 30
years and counting...
Once again loved all the vitriol, way over the top, just the way we
like our Microsoft zealots. Posts like yours remove all doubt
about your objectivity, sanity and ignorance in one fell swoop.
Please post your ignorance more often we need a good laugh
now and again.
Your Darkness and Anger reveals a true nature.
Have you considered trying a Mac?
I've got Linux, I've got 2000, I've Got XP. I've even got Vista.
I like them all.
I code. I design. I produce high end animation, video, flash, web,
and print for Hollywood, musicians and publishing.
I prefer the Mac.
The Mac is FAR from Extinct.
Free you soul, my friend.
Open your mind.
A closed mind is a terrible burden to carry.
your diatribe. It seems a likely that in spite of your claims you
most likely have never seriously used anything but Windows. But
first, my credentials.
The first computer I worked on used Vacuum tubes. I have
worked on just about everything from mainframes to mini's to
PC's. In the process I have probably used more OS's than you
ever knew existed. And I can say no OS is bulletproof. Some are
just better than others.
Anyway, during all these years the Windows line of OS's, and I
even used them from just about their beginning until 2003, are
the most insecure OS's I have ever used. (Sorry to deflate your
bubble). And there are Windows programs that will not run
properly on the later versions of Windows. I know because I have
them mothballed.
As for your statement that software from previous versions will
not run on OS X, that just shows you do not know what you are
talking about. I can run almost any piece of software fro OS 9 on
the PowerMac I bought about 3 1/2 years ago. Which was the
first Apple computer I have ever owned.
Maybe "real hackers" don't use Macs, well, most of them don't
use Windows as their main OS either. If you want a secure
system you are going to need to run UNIX/Linux. Windows
security is the ultimate oxymoron. Oh, BTW, just how many fixes
did MS release this past patch Tuesday? And it wasn't because
they have no outstanding vulnerabilities either. I have to give
Apple credit for not waiting to release fixes once a month.
But I have to admit, you would probably make a good politician.
You seem to have mastered the art of half truths and mis-
statements. And your sense of history seems a bit distorted as
well. As far as I remember Apple never claimed to have invented
any of the things you say they did not invent. In most cases they
took something that was already there, improved it and made it
popular.
Anyway, I run two systems here in my office. A PowerMac G5
with OS X on it and an IBM with PC-BSD and Linux on it. All of
these OS's are head and shoulders above Windows when it
comes to security. And System Commander? Really, there are
better ways to accomplish the task. And yes, I have used SC in
the past. You seem to be stuck in a Windows world with no way
out. I feel sorry for you.
if you have that much time to write all that surely you are a MS
zealot. Interesting that it seems you have not be labeled as such.
2nd,
why does everyone say MAC vs PC debate???? I see no debate,
Mac people are into Macs and Windows people are into Windows.
You can scream all you want about how great your platform of
choice is but is it really going to change anyones mind?
...But I can't...
='(
They built their company with a self righteous attitude and propaganda style marketing. This style of engineering lead to the refusal to license Apple Computer out to other manufactures, and a refusal to allow compatibility with other operating systems. This eventually caught up with them when it brought Apple to the point of near bankruptcy. Apple owner?s today fight like hell to deny the fact that if Bill Gates had not bailed them out, there would be no Apple Computer. SEE ?MS to invest $150 million in Apple? here on CNET NEWS.Com
A real slap in the face is how Apple owners discovered that their cherish software from previous versions of Apple Operating systems will not run on OSX. I can run any program from any version of Windows including Windows 3.0 on Windows XP. The biggest laugh my friends and I had was when they used Apple Computers in the movies ?Hackers? and ?The Net?. It was hilarious. The truth is HACKERS DON?T USE APPLE!
If Apple Computer had continued developing their operating system on the original platform, Apple Computer would have become extinct. What saved Apple? Using the same platform of those that Apple despised????UNIX. Apple Computer owners used to brag ?No one can get into an Apple system?. The fact is no one wanted to. All the major sources of information were stored on UNIX or Windows NT based systems. And now that Apple has finally wised up and started to develop their operating system on UNIX, Apple Computer owners are still complaining, and refuse to accept the truth.
Yes Windows has had a variety of problems including security issues, but the advantages have always been enormous in choosing Windows. I have a Windows base system that runs 3 versions of Windows, OS2/Warp, and 2 versions of Linux. If you doubt this look up System Commander. Another advantage is if I don?t like the way IBM builds my Windows based system I can go to Dell, Compaq, Gateway, or build one from scratch. Could Apple Computer owners say that?
You?re into the real world now Apple Computer owners get used to it and move on. And by the way before you scream how Bill gates copied the Apple operating system, you better do a little study in history. Here is the facts> But although Apple was the first to successfully mass-produce a GUI, they were not its inventors, nor were they the first to market it.
The honor for producing the first working GUI goes to Doug Englebart ? at the time an employee of Stanford Research Institute. Englebart and colleagues created a program called the oNLine System in 1965-?68. This program used the first mouse, a windowing system, and hypertext, and was based on a description of a system called ?memex? proposed by Vannevar Bush in 1945.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://imrl.usu.edu/OSLO/technology_writing/004_003.htm" target="_newWindow">http://imrl.usu.edu/OSLO/technology_writing/004_003.htm</a>
Congrats on being the 1st to post on this. All the MSFT Bashing Apple User have continually stated how secure Apple is.(Macintosh) Well, I guess this blows that theory! 42 patches? For what? Macs are so secure they don't need patches. LOL.
one paragraph comment that says nothing !!!!
Well, it says the same old stuff that most Apple haters keep
repeting and repeting... and repeting... "Apple is bad... uhhh...
Apple has accomplished nothing.. uhhh... Windows is better ..
uhhhh... Apple has no viruses because nobody cares.. UHHH..."
But well... we would not be talking about this if Apple was not
relevant.. or would we?
falling. There are still no real viruses for Mac OS X, no real-world
exploits that matter, and Apple is still a technology and design
leader.
Mac users already are in the real world; they exercise free will to
use a secure, easy to use operating system. The fact that Apple
provides patches for Mac OS X and other software only shows
you how much they care about their duty to their customers.
May I ask if you are a talkbot? It is pretty hard to believe your
post was real. In any case have a nice day.
I don't think you missed a single piece of Microsoft spoon fed
FUD. Looks like you drank ALL the cool-aid.
I guess we Mac users will just have to be satisfied with the best
operating system in the world and the most secure operating
system in the world. Apple never breached, never beaten 30
years and counting...
Once again loved all the vitriol, way over the top, just the way we
like our Microsoft zealots. Posts like yours remove all doubt
about your objectivity, sanity and ignorance in one fell swoop.
Please post your ignorance more often we need a good laugh
now and again.
Your Darkness and Anger reveals a true nature.
Have you considered trying a Mac?
I've got Linux, I've got 2000, I've Got XP. I've even got Vista.
I like them all.
I code. I design. I produce high end animation, video, flash, web,
and print for Hollywood, musicians and publishing.
I prefer the Mac.
The Mac is FAR from Extinct.
Free you soul, my friend.
Open your mind.
A closed mind is a terrible burden to carry.
your diatribe. It seems a likely that in spite of your claims you
most likely have never seriously used anything but Windows. But
first, my credentials.
The first computer I worked on used Vacuum tubes. I have
worked on just about everything from mainframes to mini's to
PC's. In the process I have probably used more OS's than you
ever knew existed. And I can say no OS is bulletproof. Some are
just better than others.
Anyway, during all these years the Windows line of OS's, and I
even used them from just about their beginning until 2003, are
the most insecure OS's I have ever used. (Sorry to deflate your
bubble). And there are Windows programs that will not run
properly on the later versions of Windows. I know because I have
them mothballed.
As for your statement that software from previous versions will
not run on OS X, that just shows you do not know what you are
talking about. I can run almost any piece of software fro OS 9 on
the PowerMac I bought about 3 1/2 years ago. Which was the
first Apple computer I have ever owned.
Maybe "real hackers" don't use Macs, well, most of them don't
use Windows as their main OS either. If you want a secure
system you are going to need to run UNIX/Linux. Windows
security is the ultimate oxymoron. Oh, BTW, just how many fixes
did MS release this past patch Tuesday? And it wasn't because
they have no outstanding vulnerabilities either. I have to give
Apple credit for not waiting to release fixes once a month.
But I have to admit, you would probably make a good politician.
You seem to have mastered the art of half truths and mis-
statements. And your sense of history seems a bit distorted as
well. As far as I remember Apple never claimed to have invented
any of the things you say they did not invent. In most cases they
took something that was already there, improved it and made it
popular.
Anyway, I run two systems here in my office. A PowerMac G5
with OS X on it and an IBM with PC-BSD and Linux on it. All of
these OS's are head and shoulders above Windows when it
comes to security. And System Commander? Really, there are
better ways to accomplish the task. And yes, I have used SC in
the past. You seem to be stuck in a Windows world with no way
out. I feel sorry for you.
if you have that much time to write all that surely you are a MS
zealot. Interesting that it seems you have not be labeled as such.
2nd,
why does everyone say MAC vs PC debate???? I see no debate,
Mac people are into Macs and Windows people are into Windows.
You can scream all you want about how great your platform of
choice is but is it really going to change anyones mind?
...But I can't...
='(
operating systems.
you talk about OS X. Apple has been patching security holes in
OS X since it came out in 2001! We Mac users are quite aware of
the challenges Apple faces from potential attacks.
Doh!
No Apple computer has ever had a single spyware exploit
sucessfully annoy its user. No virus has sucessfully attacked a
Mac. Sure they're not absolutely secure. No OS hooked to the
Internet is invlunerable except for maybe the extra secure
version of Solaris? Obscurity, better built, a combination of both.
Who cares? Them's the facts. As long as we're careful and watch
for attacks which will inveitibly arrive some day, and we'll enjoy
our time without the burden Windows users deal with every day.
So, one guy says he can run programs for all versions of
Windows since 3.0? Hogwash. I've been a Windows user.
Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP and no doubt Windows
Vista will break old software and it won't work anymore. Games
especially. There are DirectX9 games that don't run in Vista! Go
figure.
OS X could run OS9 apps just fine. So dude, you were wrong.
And guess what? It can't any more. But a Mac can run all
Windows versions since 3.0 to Vista, OS/2. Solaris, Linux, and a
bunch of others. How many of those can be run on a PC now? All
at the same time? All of 'em? Good for you, but it can't run OS X.
Macs win.
We Mac users are plenty savvy about the world. Just because you
have never bothered to learn much about Macs means nothing.
As for who invented the GUI, there may have been a GUI and
mouse in the 60s (there was) but the GUI that Apple borrowed
from came from Xerox PARC. Ever hear about the conversation
between Bill Gates and Steve Jobs on the topic. Gates compared
it to breaking into someone's home to steal, and ends up saying
something like, "Imagine getting in there and finding that
someone beat you to the TV set."
Remember GEM? I didn't think so. Remember Amiga? No? Yes?
Fine. NeXT created the first really sophisticated computer that
was way ahead of the competition. And NeXT raided Apple and
took them over. Jobs lead the charge. And that's why Macs are
so good now. It has little to do with the Apple geneolgoy. It's the
legacy of NeXT that we inherit now.
matter of having no security holes, it's a
matter of risk (probability of event * cost of
event), a mitigating that risk. Most of the
issues addressed here are low risk, and
historically there's been very low risk
(security-wise) using Mac OS X.
Not that it makes much of a difference. Windows
has a comparably much higher risk associated
with using it, but they are willing to accept
the higher risk and spend considerable effort
attempting to mitigate those risks, because of a
perceived higher value to the product. I.e., the
risk is worth it. Note that Linux still has
higher risk than Mac OS X despite having fewer
and lesser severity issues by virtue of the fact
that it's a popular target for crackers --
namely because it runs many servers containing
sensitive information.
The only wrinkle is that people's perceptions of
value and risk are rarely very objective. Many
people use don't use an software that best
addresses their needs, and many people are
blissfully unaware of the risks associated with
their choices in software and hardware. The
result is a net loss in productivity and
increased costs.
operating systems.
you talk about OS X. Apple has been patching security holes in
OS X since it came out in 2001! We Mac users are quite aware of
the challenges Apple faces from potential attacks.
Doh!
No Apple computer has ever had a single spyware exploit
sucessfully annoy its user. No virus has sucessfully attacked a
Mac. Sure they're not absolutely secure. No OS hooked to the
Internet is invlunerable except for maybe the extra secure
version of Solaris? Obscurity, better built, a combination of both.
Who cares? Them's the facts. As long as we're careful and watch
for attacks which will inveitibly arrive some day, and we'll enjoy
our time without the burden Windows users deal with every day.
So, one guy says he can run programs for all versions of
Windows since 3.0? Hogwash. I've been a Windows user.
Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP and no doubt Windows
Vista will break old software and it won't work anymore. Games
especially. There are DirectX9 games that don't run in Vista! Go
figure.
OS X could run OS9 apps just fine. So dude, you were wrong.
And guess what? It can't any more. But a Mac can run all
Windows versions since 3.0 to Vista, OS/2. Solaris, Linux, and a
bunch of others. How many of those can be run on a PC now? All
at the same time? All of 'em? Good for you, but it can't run OS X.
Macs win.
We Mac users are plenty savvy about the world. Just because you
have never bothered to learn much about Macs means nothing.
As for who invented the GUI, there may have been a GUI and
mouse in the 60s (there was) but the GUI that Apple borrowed
from came from Xerox PARC. Ever hear about the conversation
between Bill Gates and Steve Jobs on the topic. Gates compared
it to breaking into someone's home to steal, and ends up saying
something like, "Imagine getting in there and finding that
someone beat you to the TV set."
Remember GEM? I didn't think so. Remember Amiga? No? Yes?
Fine. NeXT created the first really sophisticated computer that
was way ahead of the competition. And NeXT raided Apple and
took them over. Jobs lead the charge. And that's why Macs are
so good now. It has little to do with the Apple geneolgoy. It's the
legacy of NeXT that we inherit now.
matter of having no security holes, it's a
matter of risk (probability of event * cost of
event), a mitigating that risk. Most of the
issues addressed here are low risk, and
historically there's been very low risk
(security-wise) using Mac OS X.
Not that it makes much of a difference. Windows
has a comparably much higher risk associated
with using it, but they are willing to accept
the higher risk and spend considerable effort
attempting to mitigate those risks, because of a
perceived higher value to the product. I.e., the
risk is worth it. Note that Linux still has
higher risk than Mac OS X despite having fewer
and lesser severity issues by virtue of the fact
that it's a popular target for crackers --
namely because it runs many servers containing
sensitive information.
The only wrinkle is that people's perceptions of
value and risk are rarely very objective. Many
people use don't use an software that best
addresses their needs, and many people are
blissfully unaware of the risks associated with
their choices in software and hardware. The
result is a net loss in productivity and
increased costs.
SO MACBOYS YOUR OS ISN'T SECURE EITHER HAHAHAHAH!!!1!!
11!!!!11" Please. If your intention is to bag out fanboys by
resorting to this, you're no better than they are. Grow up.
I could also induge myself and ask you to point out the
frequency of Windows problems compared to Mac, Linux, BSD,
Kitchen Sink (hint: it's not all about market share), but then I
guess I'd be a fanboy wouldn't I? It says something about people
who lurk in the shadows desperately waiting for something
other than Windows to slip so they can feel better about their
own.
And at least Apple are actively fixing their security problems
compared to their Redmond counterparts (<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://" target="_newWindow">http://</a>
news.com.com/Microsoft+takes+a+Patch+Tuesday+break/
2100-1002_3-6165647.html)
Falls into 2 categories...
1. more market share means more stupid people using the product who will do more stupid things.
2. less market share means less of a target for attack... less stupid users and less of a reason to bother.
I have two Mac's... an old G4 and an iMac. I also have several PC's running XP, Vista, Linspire and Ubuntu, so it's not like I am particularly biased in the matter. It just cracks me up though how the majority of Mac users act a lot like religious zealots.
Ya, if Windows is so problematic, why does majority of business users use windows at their office (with a big investment)? Are all business users dumb? Not to mention home users. Hmm..
I will grant you that I am impatient with MS's response to some recent flaws, but at least 2 of the items patched by Apple in this group were reported over 2 months ago.
SO MACBOYS YOUR OS ISN'T SECURE EITHER HAHAHAHAH!!!1!!
11!!!!11" Please. If your intention is to bag out fanboys by
resorting to this, you're no better than they are. Grow up.
I could also induge myself and ask you to point out the
frequency of Windows problems compared to Mac, Linux, BSD,
Kitchen Sink (hint: it's not all about market share), but then I
guess I'd be a fanboy wouldn't I? It says something about people
who lurk in the shadows desperately waiting for something
other than Windows to slip so they can feel better about their
own.
And at least Apple are actively fixing their security problems
compared to their Redmond counterparts (<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://" target="_newWindow">http://</a>
news.com.com/Microsoft+takes+a+Patch+Tuesday+break/
2100-1002_3-6165647.html)
Falls into 2 categories...
1. more market share means more stupid people using the product who will do more stupid things.
2. less market share means less of a target for attack... less stupid users and less of a reason to bother.
I have two Mac's... an old G4 and an iMac. I also have several PC's running XP, Vista, Linspire and Ubuntu, so it's not like I am particularly biased in the matter. It just cracks me up though how the majority of Mac users act a lot like religious zealots.
Ya, if Windows is so problematic, why does majority of business users use windows at their office (with a big investment)? Are all business users dumb? Not to mention home users. Hmm..
I will grant you that I am impatient with MS's response to some recent flaws, but at least 2 of the items patched by Apple in this group were reported over 2 months ago.
(through XP Pro), All flavors of MacOS, OS2, Linux, SGI, to name
a few.
They all fall in two categories: UNIX and not-UNIX. Apple has
very polished interface over UNIX. Windows has a very polished
interface over DOS (I know I'm asking for it here).
Both express an OPINION about software programming.
Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't. I don't understand why
Apple users are stereotyped as weird zealots: It's just a 5%
market-share OS alternative.
(through XP Pro), All flavors of MacOS, OS2, Linux, SGI, to name
a few.
They all fall in two categories: UNIX and not-UNIX. Apple has
very polished interface over UNIX. Windows has a very polished
interface over DOS (I know I'm asking for it here).
Both express an OPINION about software programming.
Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't. I don't understand why
Apple users are stereotyped as weird zealots: It's just a 5%
market-share OS alternative.
Besides that, MS didn't have anything for patch Tuesday, but guess what, they still have at least 5 outstanding zero day vulnerabilities:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/09/1317240" target="_newWindow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/09/1317240</a>
Are you just trying to stir the pot or did you have some real security news about Apple or MS?
and a 10.4.9 update but only the 10.4.9 update came up. I
guess they put it all in one installer since the security fixes
probably aren't that big. I hope there was something else other
than security fixes in that update, but I haven't noticed anything
yet.
One big thing about the mac vs PC debate also, and I'm not
trying to sound like a dumb western xenophobe or anything, but
doesn't it always seem like the worst virus/cracks/spyware come
from former soviet/eastern bloc countries, where Apple's
marketshare is far lower than in the west? I know thats a
generalization, but I do remember back in the late 80s and early
90s my mom worked at a university computer services office,
and they had a russian there as part of a new exchange
program. Even though this was after the berlin wall and such, he
said that while he thought macs were interesting he would have
to buy a PC because Macs were on the no-export list (I honestly
don't recall why) to Warsaw Pact countries. That was his
explanation anyway, he might have just been trying to diffuse
my militant mac evangelism and change the subject about his PC
purchase ;)
Anyway point being that perhaps it is that Macs are not just
obscure, but non-existent in the places most likely to breed
virulent electronic contagion. I know when I was in China my
mac got a lot of comment from natives to the effect of "your
computer is very beautiful.", and then from the handful who
were computer-saavy (like my roommate the Comp. Sci major) "I
wish I could afford an Apple, but they are too expensive" I found
that funny because I saw some great deals on Apple hardware
over there, but they were just deals to me because of the
currency valuation, in terms of Yuan Apple's price margin,
particularly in laptops, was often 2x that of comparably
equipped PCs. I found it odd because they make them in China,
one would think they would get a deal because of low shipping
costs, but I guess not. Probably 90% of their Mac customers are
Japanese, so they charge prices that, just as they do to me, look
like a good deal to Japanese consumers.
Wild tangent there ;)
Besides that, MS didn't have anything for patch Tuesday, but guess what, they still have at least 5 outstanding zero day vulnerabilities:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/09/1317240" target="_newWindow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/09/1317240</a>
Are you just trying to stir the pot or did you have some real security news about Apple or MS?
and a 10.4.9 update but only the 10.4.9 update came up. I
guess they put it all in one installer since the security fixes
probably aren't that big. I hope there was something else other
than security fixes in that update, but I haven't noticed anything
yet.
One big thing about the mac vs PC debate also, and I'm not
trying to sound like a dumb western xenophobe or anything, but
doesn't it always seem like the worst virus/cracks/spyware come
from former soviet/eastern bloc countries, where Apple's
marketshare is far lower than in the west? I know thats a
generalization, but I do remember back in the late 80s and early
90s my mom worked at a university computer services office,
and they had a russian there as part of a new exchange
program. Even though this was after the berlin wall and such, he
said that while he thought macs were interesting he would have
to buy a PC because Macs were on the no-export list (I honestly
don't recall why) to Warsaw Pact countries. That was his
explanation anyway, he might have just been trying to diffuse
my militant mac evangelism and change the subject about his PC
purchase ;)
Anyway point being that perhaps it is that Macs are not just
obscure, but non-existent in the places most likely to breed
virulent electronic contagion. I know when I was in China my
mac got a lot of comment from natives to the effect of "your
computer is very beautiful.", and then from the handful who
were computer-saavy (like my roommate the Comp. Sci major) "I
wish I could afford an Apple, but they are too expensive" I found
that funny because I saw some great deals on Apple hardware
over there, but they were just deals to me because of the
currency valuation, in terms of Yuan Apple's price margin,
particularly in laptops, was often 2x that of comparably
equipped PCs. I found it odd because they make them in China,
one would think they would get a deal because of low shipping
costs, but I guess not. Probably 90% of their Mac customers are
Japanese, so they charge prices that, just as they do to me, look
like a good deal to Japanese consumers.
Wild tangent there ;)
update.
If they DON'T patch any security holes, then they're called lazy
about security.
If they DO patch security holes, then they're called insecure.
Even though none of the patched holes have yet been exploited.
Kobiashi Maru
I guess that means they are optional?
update.
If they DON'T patch any security holes, then they're called lazy
about security.
If they DO patch security holes, then they're called insecure.
Even though none of the patched holes have yet been exploited.
Kobiashi Maru
I guess that means they are optional?
compared to 114,000+ MS flaws many of which can be exploited
remotely..?? No wonder the MS crowd gets excited every time
there's a Mac patch..
I can make up numbers just as easily, but if you can list all 114,000+, I'll gladly back you up on this one.
You show the number of bugs for one or two Apple patches and then compare it to the 'possible' lifetime count for Windows bugs across multiple versions.
compared to 114,000+ MS flaws many of which can be exploited
remotely..?? No wonder the MS crowd gets excited every time
there's a Mac patch..
I can make up numbers just as easily, but if you can list all 114,000+, I'll gladly back you up on this one.
You show the number of bugs for one or two Apple patches and then compare it to the 'possible' lifetime count for Windows bugs across multiple versions.
related.
Windows cronies can't get that right? Normally capitalization
wouldn't matter. But MAC is a computing term.
Give them time. They haven't taken over the world yet. They still have to take on Windows, Linux, Ubuntu, and others. Give them enough time to take over and we can see how they handle the pressure. I'm sure they will do fine.
Give them time. They haven't taken over the world yet. They still have to take on Windows, Linux, Ubuntu, and others. Give them enough time to take over and we can see how they handle the pressure. I'm sure they will do fine.
there, they just haven't succeeded.
related.
Windows cronies can't get that right? Normally capitalization
wouldn't matter. But MAC is a computing term.
Give them time. They haven't taken over the world yet. They still have to take on Windows, Linux, Ubuntu, and others. Give them enough time to take over and we can see how they handle the pressure. I'm sure they will do fine.
Give them time. They haven't taken over the world yet. They still have to take on Windows, Linux, Ubuntu, and others. Give them enough time to take over and we can see how they handle the pressure. I'm sure they will do fine.
there, they just haven't succeeded.
as well as I do), but I'm laughing at this statement 'The truth is
HACKERS DON?T USE APPLE!'...
you discount the script kiddies most of them don't use Windows
either. They just abuse Windows. Why, you might ask? because it is
just so darn easy to do.
as well as I do), but I'm laughing at this statement 'The truth is
HACKERS DON?T USE APPLE!'...
you discount the script kiddies most of them don't use Windows
either. They just abuse Windows. Why, you might ask? because it is
just so darn easy to do.
here?
All that being said, yes, security patches are a good thing, regardless of your OS.
Windows is Evil.
Mac is Godly.
Windows is #1.
Mac is #1.
Nobody uses a Mac.
Everybody uses a Mac.
There's really no point in any of it. You could say the sky was falling and both sides would argue that it's because God didn't patch his OS in time.
I look at it in that all the OS's have good and bad points. If you only focus on the bad aspects, you'll never get anywhere. Educate yourself on what is available, evaluate the options, make an informed decision, and move on. There is no bad choice between them. Both work for what they are meant for. Ignore the OS Holy wars and their fan/soldiers and you'll be fine.
here?
All that being said, yes, security patches are a good thing, regardless of your OS.
Windows is Evil.
Mac is Godly.
Windows is #1.
Mac is #1.
Nobody uses a Mac.
Everybody uses a Mac.
There's really no point in any of it. You could say the sky was falling and both sides would argue that it's because God didn't patch his OS in time.
I look at it in that all the OS's have good and bad points. If you only focus on the bad aspects, you'll never get anywhere. Educate yourself on what is available, evaluate the options, make an informed decision, and move on. There is no bad choice between them. Both work for what they are meant for. Ignore the OS Holy wars and their fan/soldiers and you'll be fine.
No facts
No reference points
Ignorance of history
Your post is mostly opinion and a tiny bit of fact that anybody could google up in about 10 seconds.
You're a fanboy and you know it.
available and the risks involved. And most importantly, open your
mind. You might be surprised.
No facts
No reference points
Ignorance of history
Your post is mostly opinion and a tiny bit of fact that anybody could google up in about 10 seconds.
You're a fanboy and you know it.
available and the risks involved. And most importantly, open your
mind. You might be surprised.
Market share myth you say? It is not a myth, it is a fact. The proof is in the numbers that Apple fanboys love to repeat. Thousands of Windows viruses, and even a few successful ones. But few care to target Apple. It just isn't worth the bother, even if 45 security holes are patched in a month.
versions of the the Mac OS, each of which had fewer users than
OS X. There are still none for OS X because there is a huge
difference between a vulnerability and an exploit.
A vulnerability indicates that an exploit might be possible. It
says nothing about the degree of difficulty. To get an idea of the
difficulty involved in creating exploits for an OS, you need to
look at the number of exploits. Windows has over 100,000
exploits, indicating that a Windows vulnerability is far easier to
exploit than an OS X vulnerability.
Market share myth you say? It is not a myth, it is a fact. The proof is in the numbers that Apple fanboys love to repeat. Thousands of Windows viruses, and even a few successful ones. But few care to target Apple. It just isn't worth the bother, even if 45 security holes are patched in a month.
versions of the the Mac OS, each of which had fewer users than
OS X. There are still none for OS X because there is a huge
difference between a vulnerability and an exploit.
A vulnerability indicates that an exploit might be possible. It
says nothing about the degree of difficulty. To get an idea of the
difficulty involved in creating exploits for an OS, you need to
look at the number of exploits. Windows has over 100,000
exploits, indicating that a Windows vulnerability is far easier to
exploit than an OS X vulnerability.