RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
 ·AT&T Midwest
edit:
March 28th, @04:16PM
| reply to daveinpoway
Re: Highly-critical flaws found in Safari for Windows
If you didn't see it, try again. You might open your eyes.
Neither of the other platforms suffered this fate. Considering the massive amount of attention paid to browser security both at the consumer and vendor level, Apple releasing such a flawed product in 2008 is a huge deal. Maybe in 2002 this would be understandable or even acceptable, but certainly not today. This is a comparative issue. Your attempt at changing the subject to "100% security" is indicative of a flawed argument.
Firefox is a third party product. It is not bundled with any OS. Maybe when installed on a computer it opens security holes, but that it certainly not the subject of yesterday's challenge. In fact, it would be today's.
Apple ships Safari with OS X, and it is enabled by default. It is essentially part of every Mac. Apple's advertising implies that their product is "safe" and "just works". Safari is probably one of the first programs run on a new Mac. A new user, lulled into a false sense of security, could easily get themselves into trouble by merely websurfing. I don't see that in any Apple ads.
This boils down to a major fault in Safari and OS X. One which should be treated as serious and not downplayed with irrelevant comparisons to unrelated scenarios. The same thing did not happen to Vista or Linux. That's the bottom line.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
daveinpoway
join:2006-07-03
Poway, CA
| The reason I mentioned "100% security" is that unless a browser can achieve this level, then there will be at least one flaw that a hacker can exploit. Unfortunately, advertising hype notwithstanding, there is no flaw-free software product presently out there, from Apple, Microsoft, or anyone else.
If you read carefully, he said that he chose OS X because he thought it would have been easier, but he (and probably other hackers) could have come up with something for Windows or Linux, also. Meaning here: if the contest hadn't been stopped once the Mac was taken over, one (or both) of the other computers would also likely have fallen. You said "The same thing did not happen to Vista or Linux", but the only thing that truly did not happen to the other 2 systems is that they were not the first to be hacked. This doesn't even begin to indicate that they are free of security problems. |
|
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| said by daveinpoway  :If you read carefully, he said that he chose OS X because he thought it would have been easier, but he (and probably other hackers) could have come up with something for Windows or Linux, also. Meaning here: if the contest hadn't been stopped once the Mac was taken over, one (or both) of the other computers would also likely have fallen. You said "The same thing did not happen to Vista or Linux", but the only thing that truly did not happen to the other 2 systems is that they were not the first to be hacked. This doesn't even begin to indicate that they are free of security problems. Contest wasn't stopped. The Vista box didn't "fall" until the rules were relaxed and the prize reduced. Are you seriously suggesting that they did not go after the other two and just concentrated on the Mac?
The same thing didn't happen to the Vista or Linux box. The rules were relaxed. The Mac installation was compromised under tighter restrictions. No amount of apologistic, diversionary orating from the Mac camp can change it.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
daveinpoway
join:2006-07-03
Poway, CA | Basically, you are correct. |
|
