Apple plugs 25 Mac OS X flaws

Apple has issued a security update for Mac OS X that addresses 25 security flaws affecting various parts of the operating system, including some third-party components such as the Kerberos authentication technology. The most serious of the vulnerabilities could allow an attacker to gain complete control over an un-patched Macintosh, Apple said in a security advisory. The update deals with another trio of zero-day bugs that were disclosed as part of the Month of Apple Bugs in January. While several of the vulnerabilities repaired by Apple's updates were previously known, it doesn't appear that any attacks exploiting the flaws actually occurred. Apple has released a Mac OS X security update each month this year. Last year, the company released two Mac OS X updates in the first four months of the year. The latest update is available through the Software Update feature in Mac OS X and from Apple Downloads.

News source: News.com

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Yahoo jumps on carbon neutral bandwagon

Next Story

WinPatrol 11.3.2007

38 Comments

View more comments

It's like a beautifully crafted childrens fable. I think the karma gods are finally sitting down to say, "hey, why do all these apple fanboys think there OS is perfect....", I say it's turn-abouts-fair-play.

Holy cow, you people never let up, do you? Find me one person that says "Macs are flawless" on this board and you'll win a cookie.

LMOA, when microsoft release 35 patches they get bagged out big time saying they are crap and their software is insecure, when apple does it, you all say great they are legends i can't believe they fixed all that in a month. the issue is they had the holes in the first place.

I believe apple is less secuire than microsoft and always has been, it's not there are no holes it's just who can be bothered hacking a mac, especially when it comes to patching issues microsoft is without a doubt the best. look it up if you don't believe me.

and no i am not a mac hater i actually admin both systems, and do not really have a preference. They both have issues in their own little ways.

You can't help but notice though that Apple puts out patches that fix flaws before they are exploited. Microsoft puts out fixes when outside pressure forces them to admit it's a problem. Big difference.

Mac OS is more secure by design, I can pull up half a dozen reports on the subject that I've seen written this year alone about it. It's UNIX, nothing Microsoft has written (or stolen) can even compare to the architecture. Tis just the way it is. I use both systems too, but Apple did the smart thing by junking decades old code and beginning fresh. I hope Microsoft gets the sense to do that too one of these days.

I can also pull up reports of attempts to hack into Macs. And the only success stories are with copies of the OS that are severely out of date and root access given to the hacker prior. I just can't honestly say the same with Microsoft products. But I'm not a hater, if Microsoft improves (Vista did not help them in this department) I'll gladly support them. They just gotta improve first.

AeronPrometheus said,
Mac OS is more secure by design, I can pull up half a dozen reports on the subject that I've seen written this year alone about it. It's UNIX, nothing Microsoft has written (or stolen) can even compare to the architecture. Tis just the way it is. I use both systems too, but Apple did the smart thing by junking decades old code and beginning fresh. I hope Microsoft gets the sense to do that too one of these days.

In terms of design and elegance, the NT architecture beats the pants off of UNIX; there's no reason why MS would want to rewrite NT. Microsoft's main problem is that they choose to maintain backwards compatibility. A lot of the vulnerabilities in Windows that are found are found in areas of code that are almost never used and are there solely for compatibility reasons.

Wait, I thought OSX was perfect and didn't have flaws?

You might be tired of hearing 'the same thing', but I've been hearing uninformed morons blab on about Microsoft being 'evil' for years. People are only just starting to see Apple for who they really are - crap.

Isn't it true that Windows Vista was based on Windows Server 2003 and not on XP? So, in essence, Microsoft did scrap the old code and work from a fresh base.

Apple OS X has been proven to be the most insecure operating system, followed by Linux. Windows Vista has been proven to be the most secure.

Well if Microsoft said so, then I'm totally sold.

Secunia's reports also compile differently. Mac OS X vulnerabilities are all lumped under "Mac OS X". That's since 2003. Windows Vista, on the other hand, is brand new. 8 vulnerabilities already in a brand new product versus 101 since 2003 for OS X? I don't think Vista's going to fare so well.

Elliott said,
Well if Microsoft said so, then I'm totally sold.

Secunia's reports also compile differently. Mac OS X vulnerabilities are all lumped under "Mac OS X". That's since 2003. Windows Vista, on the other hand, is brand new. 8 vulnerabilities already in a brand new product versus 101 since 2003 for OS X? I don't think Vista's going to fare so well.

Well according to Secunia, there have been 98 OSX vulnerabilities, in the last 51 months. That's an average of ~ 2 per month.

Also according to Secunia, there have been 8 vulnerabilities in Vista, in the last 6 months (Vista was released in November). That's an average of ~ 1.33 per month.

The math seems to say to me that Vista's doing pretty good right now.

Grr... I'm tired of idiots of arguing about the security level of Windows, OSX, GNU/Linux. They act like they're comparing flaws in their mothers. It's a friggin piece of software, not a close relative. Stop taking sides because they all have flaws. Stop touting one being better than the other because time will prove you wrong.

I was ashamed to be part of the human race when I saw all the fools criticisizing Microsoft on the ANI (cursor) flaw instead of being supportive and understanding (like they are when their favorite OS has a security problem and they rush to its defense).

Blehrg.

Caleb said,
Grr... I'm tired of idiots of arguing about the security level of Windows, OSX, GNU/Linux. They act like they're comparing flaws in their mothers. It's a friggin piece of software, not a close relative. Stop taking sides because they all have flaws. Stop touting one being better than the other because time will prove you wrong.

Well said...
Windows or Mac, it´s software.Flaws will always be there.

Grr... I'm tired of idiots of arguing about the security level of Windows, OSX, GNU/Linux. They act like they're comparing flaws in their mothers. It's a friggin piece of software, not a close relative. Stop taking sides because they all have flaws. Stop touting one being better than the other because time will prove you wrong.

Totally agree.

LTD said,
Still waiting for one of these flaws to be spotted in the wild, folks.

Let me know when it happens.

Until then, OS X can lay claim to being the most advanced, secure operating system on the planet. Indeed, the least "crap" of all the crap out there.

Now that we're on the subject of crap . . . here's another sad reality for everyone to mull over:

http://news.com.com/Dell+brings+back+XP+on..._3-6177619.html

How many Vista flaws are spotted in the wild in comparison? No-where near as many as OSX.

OSX the most advanced? Come on, please. Everyone jumped off that bandwagon ages ago. Apple straight out lies to it's consumers, yet no one could care less. OSX is old, and outdated. Apple can't come out with anything better so they just keep making small changes to the system and re-releasing it as a new operating system. WOW, a couple of new programs and a new name of a cat, the perfect way to waste another $200 on a hunk of white plastic that I have to update every year or I feel inadequate amongst my ugly unemployed 'grafix designerz' friends!!!!!!!!!

While you admit that OSX may be the least crap of all the crap out there, you still admit it's crap.

"Until then, OS X can lay claim to being the most advanced, secure blah blah blah"

Yes, Apple can claim whatever they want, it doesn't make it true, even if a few people buy into their claims.

It should be obvious to any computer user now that Mac OS X is flawed just like any other piece of software. The difference is, Apple looks foolish for claiming otherwise. Contrast that to Microsoft where Bill Gates openly admitted that Windows would never be perfect because its prone to human error like all software.

SecretMidnight said,
How many Vista flaws are spotted in the wild in comparison? No-where near as many as OSX.

Well, since the flaws in the wild for OS X is practically 0, methinks you're lying.

SecretMidnight said,
OSX the most advanced? Come on, please. Everyone jumped off that bandwagon ages ago. Apple straight out lies to it's consumers, yet no one could care less. OSX is old, and outdated. Apple can't come out with anything better so they just keep making small changes to the system and re-releasing it as a new operating system. WOW, a couple of new programs and a new name of a cat, the perfect way to waste another $200 on a hunk of white plastic that I have to update every year or I feel inadequate amongst my ugly unemployed 'grafix designerz' friends!!!!!!!!!

You can come pipe in about how advanced NT is. It's not going to make it true. Oh, and I'm going to make a little list for you.

One, for the misinformed (read: you), OS X is $129.

Two, there hasn't been an OS X update since April 2005, so give up your "yearly" philosophy. Seriously, it makes you sound like you're jealous that Apple actually cares enough to update their OS regularly.

Three, there's a lot more revamped in each 10.x release than you think. Jaguar to Panther was easily the equivalent of 2000 to XP, if not moreso, and Tiger to Leopard is going to be able to tout some pretty big advancements.

Four, I'm glad you find it fun to bash media specialists, but most of them are probably making more money than you, unless you're just Bill Gates in disguise.

Elliott said,
You can come pipe in about how advanced NT is. It's not going to make it true. Oh, and I'm going to make a little list for you.

One, for the misinformed (read: you), OS X is $129.

Two, there hasn't been an OS X update since April 2005, so give up your "yearly" philosophy. Seriously, it makes you sound like you're jealous that Apple actually cares enough to update their OS regularly.

Three, there's a lot more revamped in each 10.x release than you think. Jaguar to Panther was easily the equivalent of 2000 to XP, if not moreso, and Tiger to Leopard is going to be able to tout some pretty big advancements.

Four, I'm glad you find it fun to bash media specialists, but most of them are probably making more money than you, unless you're just Bill Gates in disguise.

I don't need to 'pipe in' about how advanced NT is, because everyone already knows.

OSX is $129 - true. But, each release is equivalent to a service pack, and I'd hardly call each release a 'new' operating system.

About the yearly thing - I was talking about users having to buy a new machine almost every year. Although, let's take a look at the release dates for OSX, shall we?

Mac OS X 10.0 (Cheetah): March 24, 2001
Mac OS X 10.1 (Puma): September 25, 2001
Mac OS X 10.2 (Jaguar): August 24, 2002
Mac OS X 10.3 (Panther): October 24, 2003
Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger): April 29, 2005

Well, would you look at that? The time between Cheetah and Puma was only a few months. Fancy having to spend $129 every few months.

Media specialists, isn't that like garbage truck drivers calling themselves waste management engineers? Mac users think they have something special, and they act like an elite society blindly following the big shiny bitten apple and the ugly big-headed turtle-necked moron known as Steve Jobs.

You can tell yourself that OSX is the most advanced operating system in the world, but it won't make it true. That's why the only people who use it are 'media specialists'.

Oh, and what exactly is the point in mentioning income in your argument?

anything made by faulty beings will in turn be faulty since a being cannot make something greater than itself. So, until God himself gives us a perfect operating system, there will never be a perfect operating system.

plus, if a perfect operating system were made, many in tech support would be out of a job.

ROFL.

Someone lied to you, man.

That's alright, though. You're simply another switcher who just doesn't know it yet.

LTD said,
ROFL.

Someone lied to you, man.

That's alright, though. You're simply another switcher who just doesn't know it yet. ;)

maybe if apple ever secures their products to the level that microsoft has. we'll see, they will never have the same level of market share microsoft has cuz they're not as good, but who knows... you may be right!

if they ever produce a good OS i might dual boot it.

LTD said,
ROFL.

Someone lied to you, man.

That's alright, though. You're simply another switcher who just doesn't know it yet. ;)

Lol, can you even read? What's the point of arguing your point if you've just been shot down?

Commenting is disabled on this article.