Maybe we'll finally see some timely security updates and a little transparency? Or perhaps they're finally recognizing that OS X isn't as secure as they thought![]()
Maybe we'll finally see some timely security updates and a little transparency? Or perhaps they're finally recognizing that OS X isn't as secure as they thought![]()
Hey hackers, Free exploit here, get it while it is hot!
True. Although I was thinking more about the vulnerabilities that have already been publicly disclosed such as those revealed in security/hacker conferences/competitions, those documented and already patched on other platforms, or those starting to proliferate. Apple in the past has been slow to acknowledge those vulnerabilities even though information about them is already in the wild. Here timely acknowledgement and information on mitigation steps would be useful until a patch can be released. Obviously those vulnerabilities that Apple finds internally or are directly/privately reported to them by third-parties don't need to be disclosed to the public until a patch is ready or unless it's being actively exploited.How many percent of all users would read this information? Very low.
How many percent of malicious hackers would read this information? Close to 100%.
Assuring people may give them a warm and fuzzy feeling, but assuring them this way actually makes them a lot less secure.
Apple in the past has been slow to acknowledge those vulnerabilities even though information about them is already in the wild.
Security through obscurity? Very bad idea. Hackers don't give a rats ass if you go to black hat or not. Most people don't even patch their systems properly so yeah you do have a point, bit still there are underground networks of hackers that already are very well informed, this only invites script kiddies to try and do the same.
As the genius that you are, you know that when a vulnerability appears that the first thing is to NOT tell everybody that it exists and cause panic.
Actually these days things get fixed faster when they are reported to the mass media. IE, Apple would have never fixed that JAVA issue had it not been turned into a $h!t storm.
In the case of the recent Java exploit, when they take months to patch a vulnerability that has already been patched on other platforms, such that hackers are able to take advantage of it widely, do you really consider that a fast response? When it's already being exploited in the wild, was not acknowledging the problem until the fix is ready the right course of action?Who decides what slow is? And, who decides that these issues need to be acknowledged?
I am sure they operate on a pretty good road map, just not a public one or one they are going to share with a client.
I'm sure they'll share it with a client as well, as long as that client is big enough and prepared to sign a Non Disclosure in blood.
I don't think so. Marketing is basically responsible for the 'voice' of the company, any company not just Apple, so anytime you have a person speaking publicly on behalf of the company (such as on a panel discussion) marketing/PR will be involved to make sure the person speaking knows the boundaries of what they can say.Why does marketing get the final say, weird, right?
Don't agree about never. As I wrote before bad business to not fix ANY security issue asap.
That is for all manufacturers, not just Apple.
Why does marketing get the final say, weird, right?
No company that operates without a Roadmap is going to be a defense contractor.
Apple does have a roadmap. They simply do not publish it to the general public and it is not completely static/rigid.No company that operates without a Roadmap is going to be a defense contractor.
Microsoft has a "roadmap" and it constrains them from taking risks for innovation.
Despite it being on iOS (which I presume you read), have you at all seen Mountain Lion? Gatekeeper isn't enough to assuage your ire? Jesus Christ; I can't imagine anything much more secure.
exactly why would the DOD choose apple for their needs?
What is it that a customized linux or unix based solution can't give them?
Flexibility? Reliability? High performance? Low cost?
And what about all the software they have already developed for other platforms they have to take the extra effort and cost to port them to OS X?
Not sure if I understood correctly what some of you are suggesting so I may be wrong. But I can't see a standard OS X installation run in places like the DOD, it has nothing to offer.
Well still doesn't solve an exploit issue but it will protect stupid users from doing stupid things.
I disagree with the "anything much more secure" part![]()
Apple does have a roadmap. They simply do not publish it to the general public and it is not completely static/rigid.
Roadmaps are bull poop anyway and only serve to give warm and fuzzy feelings to some corporate types.
If you have a publicly published roadmap then you are constrained in your ability to be innovative or you give your competition advanced notice of your future product lines.
Microsoft has a "roadmap" and it constrains them from taking risks for innovation.
If Apple was a defense contractor, they could publish it to their defense clients in a vague enough way as to limit damage if it were ever leaked accidentally by their clients.
I'm trying to parse what you said has anything to do with what I said. I was talking about how roadmaps constrain the ability of a company to quickly adjust course and innovate to match changing market conditions. I also mentioned that roadmaps only exist to placate corporate types with their list of checkboxes to mark off and really give not actual specific details on the future products other than telling you that there will be new ones but at the same time, they prevent a company from being able to quickly pivot around the competition as they are expected to deliver on all of the products mentioned in the roadmap.Yet they have endless corporate and professional clients.
BH = intelligence shills for the military-industrial complex. Watch Apple turn into the world's biggest defense contractor...
That would not happen because for one thing, the military-industrial complex don't **** around.
The minute the military gives Apple a contract, they demand accountability and transparency. Apple cannot afford to act like a coy little girls playing games. They have to run like clockwork and be 100% with the military upfront.
The second they **** with the military, they get dropped.
I'm trying to parse what you said has anything to do with what I said. I was talking about how roadmaps constrain the ability of a company to quickly adjust course and innovate to match changing market conditions. I also mentioned that roadmaps only exist to placate corporate types with their list of checkboxes to mark off and really give not actual specific details on the future products other than telling you that there will be new ones but at the same time, they prevent a company from being able to quickly pivot around the competition as they are expected to deliver on all of the products mentioned in the roadmap.
What exactly did you contribute to the conversation?
I was not disputing that they are entrenched on the corporate desktop but they have missed the boat on tablets and phones.