You might be right about that. It could also be a big enough change that it would become OS 11. Just not sure how many OSes will be in between.OMG, no! Not that it wouldn't be a nice addition but that would postpone 10.7 to 2012...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Hires Former Security Director of One Laptop Per Child
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The Root of the argument is that, windows gets the attention because it is ubiquitous, This has allot of advantages for virus writers not least of which is the hardware is cheap and it is easy to steal the software. Given the ingenuity of virus writers to constantly evolve beyond the technology set to defeat them, that they could not do the same with OS X, i don't think can be seriously doubted. Its just isn't worth it given the user base. If or when there is a shift toward more market share, Apple had better be ready, particularly in the domestic market were trapping banking and personal details seems such a big target for Malware.
Just because Bitfrost is used in A netbook does not mean that Apple is about to release one themselves.
That said, I don't think that Bitfrost will be use in OS X. I think it's GPL licenced, and using it in OS X would mean that they would have to GPL OS X as well.
Well, the point the poster made above is still valid. Which is safer, driving in a Main Battle Tank in the middle of a battleground, or driving on a quiet country road in a lightweight Citroen 2CV? The Citroen would be safer, because there are fewer and lesser threats. For most average users, that turns out to be the most important thing.
(For commercial/enterprise users, it's a different story. They're going to be "shot at", so they need to have the "armour" and need to know precisely how good it is!
)I think the lack of attacks on OSX is only partly due to its inherent security (and has little to do with market-share). It might be because most people with the technical ability to write Mac exploits are Mac/Unix fans who'd rather report the vulnerability and have it fixed, rather than exploit it for mischief or profit. A lot of PC developers see their PC just as a tool, and would have no compunctions about writing malware for the platform.
"I think the lack of attacks on OSX is only partly due to its inherent security (and has little to do with market-share). It might be because most people with the technical ability to write Mac exploits are Mac/Unix fans who'd rather report the vulnerability and have it fixed, rather than exploit it for mischief or profit. A lot of PC developers see their PC just as a tool, and would have no compunctions about writing malware for the platform."
I do not agree with this at all. I was wondering what security MAC has on its computers?
I do not agree with this at all. I was wondering what security MAC has on its computers?
It has EVERYTHING to do with market share. Why would I develop ANYTHING if it only targets a very SMALL population? Be it, viruses or cars.Well, the point the poster made above is still valid. Which is safer, driving in a Main Battle Tank in the middle of a battleground, or driving on a quiet country road in a lightweight Citroen 2CV? The Citroen would be safer, because there are fewer and lesser threats. For most average users, that turns out to be the most important thing.
(For commercial/enterprise users, it's a different story. They're going to be "shot at", so they need to have the "armour" and need to know precisely how good it is!
I think the lack of attacks on OSX is only partly due to its inherent security (and has little to do with market-share). It might be because most people with the technical ability to write Mac exploits are Mac/Unix fans who'd rather report the vulnerability and have it fixed, rather than exploit it for mischief or profit. A lot of PC developers see their PC just as a tool, and would have no compunctions about writing malware for the platform.
I don't think it's as much success as luck or circumstances. Virus, etc., proliferation is big business run by mob-like organizations, many in places where the law has short arms. Even now Mac's installed base isn't large enough for them to bother writing mal-ware when there are so many millions more PCs.
However, with the possibility of the Mac's market share increasing worldwide the Mac could start to become a lucrative target. Up until now Apple hasn't had to take security seriously (compare it to the small company town back in the early 1900s where the homes didn't need locks but slowly grows to an urban center). Soon Apple will have to defend the Mac against viruses and I think that is why Apple made the hire. They can't afford to lose their position as being safer than Windows.
OLPC.... they tried to get laptops to people all over the world...
Its official apple is taking over the world.. isnt this obvious?
I never quite understood the OLPC concept. In Kenya or Haiti, just how many electrical outlets and Wi-FI are at the disposal of indigent children? Ok, how about the not-so-indigent? It seems to me the poor in developing nations need food, medicine, and a stable government in a country with some semblance of an infrastructure more than these quaint laptops.
Exactly. Windows is a huge target because of its prevalence in the market. I think there's some truth to the premise that many whackers possess Xcode, Darwin, and UNIX knowledge and would rather keep their "precious" safe from attack, but mostly, I think Mac OS X enjoys relative safety today because of Microsoft's dominance in the industry.
Microsoft is Lurking in the shadows apple to innovate by copying your next security move. Some actually spend money in r and d and others just wait....
I never quite understood the OLPC concept. In Kenya or Haiti, just how many electrical outlets and Wi-FI are at the disposal of indigent children? Ok, how about the not-so-indigent? It seems to me the poor in developing nations need food, medicine, and a stable government in a country with some semblance of an infrastructure more than these quaint laptops.
It's a vanity project of that tec clown negreponte, one of real gigantic MIT-size megalomaniac scope, that serves no other purpose as most "philanthropies" than a selfish one namely to develop new tec then spin it off into something marketable and that with other peoples money. Most of the people "benefiting" humanity with the olpc project are now selling the tec/getting hired or founding start ups, such as this guy.
The cruelty of the one laptop per child concept and the sadistic absurdity of it as you rightly point out becomes more apparent if one pictures a starving child with a swollen belly, sick by aids and eaten by flies. Boy would this kid love a laptop....
Requiring apps to be part of your security spec is crazy. For one thing, it's brittle. Replicating code is subject to many kinds of errors.
As for alternate security specs, I'm partial to Capability-based systems.
As for alternate security specs, I'm partial to Capability-based systems.
This is not a new idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selinux
It sounds easy until you get into the exact details. Like for example the browser does need to be able to read/writes it cache files. But it needs to be able to create and delete those files and this implies writing to the parent directory structure which means it can create and delete other files in the same folder even if it can't read those files directory access means it can delete them and create replacements.
A way to make this work is to label all the data and then implement both "mandatory access control" and "discretionary access controls" this almost exactly mimics the why classified documents are handled by real people. it say (1) every file has a "level" and if a program does not have a certificate to handle that level it can't look. So unless you have the "ultra-secret" clearance you can't see any ultra-secrets. But (2) the other system used at the same time also applies. Discretionary access means "need to know". So even if I can see ultra-secret stuff no one will give me those documents unles I'm working on a project that requires I have that document.
On a Mac you might have four levels "scratch files", "user documents" and "applactions" and "OS". Most of your software would have clearance to see only the first two levels. After that test Discretionary Access checks that you are looking at your own data, not data from another user and that if you are a test editor you are looking at a text file, not a jpg image.
I've used computers where all of this is implemented. There are standards that talk about how it works, you don't have to invent new science here
Riddle me this. Why was it that the Classic Mac (System 9 and older) had so many viruses and trojans and worms? Back then, "sneakernets" was more prevalent than the Internet and Macs enjoyed a laughable 3-4% market share. Years after the release of OS X, Apple finally break into double digit market shares yet no attacks?
So a 4% market share is significant enough to attract viruses, worms and trojans authors, but >10% isn't? That argument doesn't hold water.
That is ONE guy's opinion. But the FACT is Macs have been quickly compromised at "White Hat," and "Black Hat" confabs in the past, and in a mater of minutes. It's not that hard for a skilled hacker to subject a Mac to a virus or other mal-ware. The problem is is disseminating the virus. With so many fewer installed Macs than PCs around it makes the feat exponentially more difficult. That takes us back to market share. It's not a myth. Macs are more secure than PCs, but they are not secure.
Riddle me this. Why was it that the Classic Mac (System 9 and older) had so many viruses and trojans and worms? Back then, "sneakernets" was more prevalent than the Internet and Macs enjoyed a laughable 3-4% market share. Years after the release of OS X, Apple finally break into double digit market shares yet no attacks?
I agree but have you ever though of it this way, maybe it's harder than classic so much so that 10-15% is not worth it, but say 20% is worth the extra work?
Uh... actually. yes. Windows Vista (and XP SP 2 I believe) implemented security features (I believe it was address randomization) as a direct result of virus attacks and trojans. OS X has never had viruses or trojans, and as thus does not have as robust defenses against it.
The fact is, a Windows 7/IE 8 combo took something like 3 days to break into, while it took just hours to break into OS X/Safari.
This would make Windows more secure because it takes longer to break into, but OS X safer because you're less likely to run into any malware in the wild for it.
so much for being able to jailbreak future iPhones/iPod Touches! his expertise will be perfect for "securing" our phones from ourselves.
no OS is hackproof
Yes. A stable, democratic country with a functioning economy would be worth billions of Bono aid dollars that only buy fleets of Mercedes and palaces or all the the absurd celebrity bling adoptions. OLPC is a joke.
Maybe you never understood it because you never learned about it.