PDA

View Full Version : Security: 'We'll do better next time' - Apple


MacBytes
Jun 14, 2004, 03:35 PM
Category: News and Press Releases
Link: Security: \'We\'ll do better next time\' - Apple (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20040614163538)
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

Approved by Mudbug

nagromme
Jun 14, 2004, 08:46 PM
Apple's crime revealed:

"Detailed information is available at our company security Web site, but even some security companies aren't aware of it."

Of course, for the average end user, it's the fix that matters, not the "communication" about the details:

"Most of the concerns have been around communication with developers and security practitioners, rather than end users."

Let's not forget that Microsoft has a SLIGHTLY bigger problem:

"Apple has issued just 44 security updates since Mac OS X was introduced in March 2001, 3 per cent of which were classified critical. Microsoft issued 78 security updates in the same period, with 65 per cent classified as critical." (That's 51 critical Windows patches to Apple's one.)

And here's where Apple finally repents and makes good:

"Starting with the latest security update, Apple now includes a link to its security Web site." :D

It almost seems as though people complaining about Apple "communication" made a big deal out of not much....

shamino
Jun 15, 2004, 09:53 AM
Let's not forget that Microsoft has a SLIGHTLY bigger problem:

"Apple has issued just 44 security updates since Mac OS X was introduced in March 2001, 3 per cent of which were classified critical. Microsoft issued 78 security updates in the same period, with 65 per cent classified as critical." (That's 51 critical Windows patches to Apple's one.)
Ah yes, but you know how the press will spin it. Microsoft puts out more patches, so they must be more responsive to security problems. After all, it's impossible for anyone to have software better-designed than Windows. The only possible reason for releasing fewer patches is a blatant disregard for security in the first place.

(closed smilied for the humor impaired)

wdlove
Jun 15, 2004, 11:30 AM
I'm not at all surprised, it's the media putting out spin. They want to print according to their view of the world.

Common sense would say that this indicates that Apple has a more secure product. So there is less need for updates.

Qunchuy
Jun 15, 2004, 03:30 PM
...Apple has issued just 44 security updates since Mac OS X was introduced in March 2001, 3 per cent of which were classified critical. Microsoft issued 78 security updates in the same period, with 65 per cent classified as critical.
There's something odd about those numbers. 1 critical out of 44 would be just under 2.3%; 2 critical out of 44 would be just over 4.5%. How can there be "3 per cent" of 44? Are there fractional updates?

51 out of 78 rounds ever so slightly down to 65%, so that's plausible, but rounding 2.3 up to 3 is exaggerating by a third.

space2go
Jun 15, 2004, 05:40 PM
Ah yes, but you know how the press will spin it. Microsoft puts out more patches, so they must be more responsive to security problems.

Hehe I once heard a self-styled expert say one virus scanner was more thorough 'cause it took longer to run. ;)

Never mind it found less viruses and was generally a worse product than the fast one..

themadchemist
Jun 15, 2004, 10:54 PM
Yes, become I know it would make me feel more secure if Apple would just provide me with vaporware updates that did nothing.

shamino
Jun 16, 2004, 10:52 AM
Hehe I once heard a self-styled expert say one virus scanner was more thorough 'cause it took longer to run. ;)
I once had a product salesman say that his PCMCIA 56K modem card is faster than my external serial 56K modem, because the PCMCIA connector has 40 pins and serial ports only have 9. (Yes, that was the sole basis for his argument!) He was adamant about this - went so far as to raise his voice and start calling me names. He was completely incapable of understanding that a 115,200 bps data rate from a 40-pin interface is no faster than a 115,200 bps data rate on a 9-pin interface.

I suppose I should show him a serial ATA interface and watch him start bleeding from his eyes.

themadchemist
Jun 16, 2004, 07:00 PM
I once had a product salesman say that his PCMCIA 56K modem card is faster than my external serial 56K modem, because the PCMCIA connector has 40 pins and serial ports only have 9. (Yes, that was the sole basis for his argument!) He was adamant about this - went so far as to raise his voice and start calling me names. He was completely incapable of understanding that a 115,200 bps data rate from a 40-pin interface is no faster than a 115,200 bps data rate on a 9-pin interface.

I suppose I should show him a serial ATA interface and watch him start bleeding from his eyes.

I'd like to refer everyone to the two snippets of shamino's post that I have emphasized above. Let that sink in...Product salesman starts calling client names. I'm not even going to comment on it.