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
News source: News.com
I'm really impressed with how on the ball Apple is being with security, 4 updates for 2007 in as many months. And it seems all they can do to Tiger is release maintainence patches. Which is why I still can't convince myself that Leopard won't be out until October. They're pulling our leg, it just doesn't make sense to push it that far out not with how fast Apple can roll out updates and fixes for engine level software on the OS.
I'm really impressed with how on the ball Apple is being with security, 4 updates for 2007 in as many months. And it seems all they can do to Tiger is release maintainence patches. Which is why I still can't convince myself that Leopard won't be out until October. They're pulling our leg, it just doesn't make sense to push it that far out not with how fast Apple can roll out updates and fixes for engine level software on the OS.
They haft to be thats all they got going for them.
I don't think the fix merited a version change (By now there's got to be a newer version though, right?), but I remember seeing a news blurb on their main page about it. I got wind of the update from a blog which prompted me to get it.
ye well Im pretty tired of Apple always boasting about how secure OSX is despite all these exploits so I reserve the right to make the same lame joke everytime Apple releases security fixes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sources:
Windows Vista Safer than OS X, Linux: http://bink.nu/Article9757.bink
Windows Vista Safer than OS X, Linux #2: http://www.windowsitpro.com/windowspaulthu...rott_95554.html
Vista Advisories: http://secunia.com/product/13223/?task=statistics_2007
OSX Advisories: http://secunia.com/product/96/?task=statistics_2007
Vista Vulnerability Report: http://www.csoonline.com/pdf/Vista_Vuln_Report.pdf
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.
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.
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.
Well said...
Windows or Mac, itīs software.Flaws will always be there.
With Microsoft's "Here are the security updates, and the malicious software removal tool, and your dose WGA Spyware, install them (or we'll nag you), and then we'll nag you to reboot even if you do install them, and then we'll nag you next month for the ones you didn't want last month, and then every time you open Windows Media Player, we'll nag you to update that separately to Windows Update, and then every so often we'll nag you with an extra license agreement (that you must accept, or we'll keep nagging you about them), and nag you with other tidbits during "Automatic" updates like to nag you that you allowed the malicious software removal tool. If you are installing a pre-SP2 system, we'll pace you through every patch ever release by Automatic Updates until you get to all the patches before SP2, and then 10 reboots later and a couple of updates that just failed to install for no reason (That are completely attended/not "automatic"
And what's worse is that this is what the Microsoft bigots want! People have been blaming Microsoft for years for every bit of 3rd party malware, that Windows be more secure, blah blah blah. This is the result of listening to everyone's input, particularly the imput to force updates on 'novice' users that don't know any better. And UAC too is exactly what bigots have been asking for for years. That every software action must be approved. Well, now you've got it.
Thank god for Autopatcher!
Totally agree.
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
Last edited by LTD on 20 Apr 2007 - 12:27
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.
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.
Well, since the flaws in the wild for OS X is practically 0, methinks you're lying.
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.
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?
plus, if a perfect operating system were made, many in tech support would be out of a job.
Microsoft is the best Operating System developer, hands down.
Someone lied to you, man.
That's alright, though. You're simply another switcher who just doesn't know it yet.
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.
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 has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.