Apple Tuesday issued a record-breaking security update that patched nearly 90 vulnerabilities in both its own code and the third-party applications it bundles with its Tiger and Leopard operating systems. Security Update 2008-002 plugged 87 holes in the client and server editions of Mac OS X 10.4 and Mac OS 10.5, This single update's total patch count nearly equaled half of all the fixes Apple released in 2007, and easily dwarfed the biggest updates that year, both which saw 40 or more bugs patched.
"What a dizzy double take," said Andrew Storms, director of security operations at nCircle Network Security in an e-mail. "Right on the heels of an unprecedented giant Safari fix, we now have a frighteningly large set of updates for OSX 10.4.11 and 10.5.2." Earlier today, Apple updated its Safari browser for both Mac and Windows, patching 13 vulnerabilities.
View: The full story @ InfoWorld
"What a dizzy double take," said Andrew Storms, director of security operations at nCircle Network Security in an e-mail. "Right on the heels of an unprecedented giant Safari fix, we now have a frighteningly large set of updates for OSX 10.4.11 and 10.5.2." Earlier today, Apple updated its Safari browser for both Mac and Windows, patching 13 vulnerabilities.
View: The full story @ InfoWorld
I hope they're not talking about the size of the download. It was only 50 MB.
And the quote that really gets me from the article is "Right on the heels of an unprecedented giant Safari fix, we now have a frighteningly large set of updates for OSX 10.4.11 and 10.5.2.". Would Andrew Storms prefer to see only 10% of the bugs fixed?
I would think he is referring to the amount of bugs existing to be fixed, not that they're being fixed.
Anyway, this is just another area where Apple is still playing catch-up. Apple leads people to believe their products are more secure than their competitors because they patch less often. However, when they do patch, there are quite a few things to patch.
I prefer Microsoft's approach where they have fewer patches more frequently rather than Apple's less-frequent slew of updates.
Apple leads people to believe their products are more secure than their competitors because they patch less often.
Nope, they're more secure because they're more secure.
We're still waiting on that virus. Been waiting since March 2001.
Would you write one please, so you can finally be right for a change?
That was funny years ago. What's funny now is the fact that the amount of people who try to make lame jokes about fanboys is by far higher than said fanboys.
Apple leads people to believe their products are more secure than their competitors because they patch less often.
Nope, they're more secure because they're more secure.
We're still waiting on that virus. Been waiting since March 2001.
Would you write one please, so you can finally be right for a change?
so you dont get viruses, doesnt mean you cant
if only mac and windows places were switched
id be thankful that your in a niche market
Apple leads people to believe their products are more secure than their competitors because they patch less often.
Nope, they're more secure because they're more secure.
We're still waiting on that virus. Been waiting since March 2001.
Would you write one please, so you can finally be right for a change?
so you dont get viruses, doesnt mean you cant
if only mac and windows places were switched
id be thankful that your in a niche market
You do realize that OS9 had a few viruses and a LOT less market share than OS X so that argument doesn't fly.
No-one else needs to post this comment. I've done it for you.
But yes, they DON'T get viruses. Not a single one.
I guess that makes them "liek awesome and stuff."
The silly arguments and prejudice between computer users is just as petty as the similar arguments between various gaming console users.
On topic with the article though... That seems like a lot of updates & patches at one time. Would it not be better to have a slightly more frequent update schedule, so the end user is not swamped with updates & patches all at once?
The silly arguments and prejudice between computer users is just as petty as the similar arguments between various gaming console users.
On topic with the article though... That seems like a lot of updates & patches at one time. Would it not be better to have a slightly more frequent update schedule, so the end user is not swamped with updates & patches all at once?
In a perfect world? Does it matter.... probably depending on what you use a computer for. The artsie fartsies (like me) usually have a Mac while office junkies (like I was) use a PC. As it so happens I have nothing against either and still work on a PC while debating whether to switch and run XP on the sidelines. OR, we may get one of each and have the best of both worlds. It's all good!
Far as updates are concerned... I'd way rather have them hit all at once so I don't have to keep installing them here, there, and everywhere. Get'r done.
http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/
Everi update fixes a few holes or adds features and optimizes code... updates are a good thing in every os.
Another one of Apple's tactics?
Or maybe you are completely wrong and I never ever had Safari installed and Apple is indeed tricking Windows users to install Safari to artifically increase its market share on Windows PCs.
http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/03/20/saf...oftware.update/
so yes, it's another one of Apple's stupid tactics.
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.