I understand WHY Apple wants to bring Safari to Windows, but if people use it on Windows, they are still going to get viruses, and then they'll blame Safari.... and that isn't going to help Apple or Safari names in the long run.
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.
Safari Beta Security Slammed; 8 Vulnerabilities Found
- Thread starter yellow
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Does the guise of being beta allow a program to open your computer up to vulnerabilities?
I am absolutely certain if ms or any other company did something like this to apple, you would be lambasting them till the end of the universe.
Please, admit this is a mistake and DEMAND apple to make security a number one priority. Being an apple loyalist/fanboy will only hurt every mac user in the end.
This is what I thought after actually reading the original article and not just these headline. All but 1 of these simply crash the program. This seems more than expected for a Beta. I crash MS Word 2001!!! at least once a week and I don't use it that much.
I really seems that these security type are really out mostly for job security.
Dear chairguru22, you can find an article related to this problem on TUAW
Link here : http://www.tuaw.com/2007/06/12/safari-3-heads-up-your-widgets-may-break/
Main Entry: iro·ny
Pronunciation: 'I-r&-nE also 'I(-&)r-nE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -nies
Etymology: Latin ironia, from Greek eirOnia, from eirOn dissembler
1 : a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning -- called also Socratic irony
Firefox BETA when 1st released had NO WHERE NEAR the exploits/security issues that the Safari BETA has.
To me this more like an ALPHA.
w00master
hmmmmmm...
So we'll potentially see more safari exploits now, no doubt partly because of yesterday's announcement, partly because it will be running on more computers, including windows boxes, and of course partly because they've found vulnerabilities already...
So we'll potentially see more safari exploits now, no doubt partly because of yesterday's announcement, partly because it will be running on more computers, including windows boxes, and of course partly because they've found vulnerabilities already...
Dude, I'm having the same issue. Figured it probably was the new Safari, but now it looks very probable.
LOL!!
Bullseye.
Yet another flood of mentalists bent on smearing any and all of Apple efforts at all costs.
The loonies (article editors I should add) at Engadget dared to suggest it was a DELIBERATE effort by Apple to compromosie Windows pc's...it's just software - beta software - 'Caveat Emptor' which is not quite true in this case as it's FREE!.
Does beta mean it's allowed to have security holes?
Would you ever install ANY software that could or could not have security holes?
Finding bugs so they can be fixed is a very good thing, even if occasionally motivated in part by emotions against Apple.
Maynor's policy of not telling the vendor BEFORE the public sounds like it's childish and bad security practice--and could potentially do more harm than good. So far so good though.
Maynor's policy of not telling the vendor BEFORE the public sounds like it's childish and bad security practice--and could potentially do more harm than good. So far so good though.
Umm yes... If i'm a developer trying to get a headstart on making my pages compatible for a potential new browser.
If you need security and reliablity don't use a Beta.
Mmmm complacency.
I think the only thing I haven't read so far is "Why are they complaining? It's free!"
I think the only thing I haven't read so far is "Why are they complaining? It's free!"
Absolutely, this is a public beta, and this is the time to find these vulnerabilities. But in the case of the Mac OS X, the beta overtakes the old Safari.app.
It would have made MUCH more sense for Apple to just install an additional Safari application so you could switch back to the old Safari easily if you wanted. As it is, it looks like you first have to un-install the beta (using the included uninstaller),and then re-install Safari from your installation CD. That is NOT how a public beta is supposed to be handled, in my opinion.
EDIT: Ah... looks like I was wrong about the installing from CD part (I was only guessing). However, I still think it could have done better by installing two separate copies.
While some may not agree with it, Denial of Service vulnerabilities (aka "crashers") is broadly considered a security vulnerability, although it is typically ranked lower than privilege escalation, arbitrary code execution, and remote vulnerabilities. Here's what Secunia gives advisories for, for instance:
http://secunia.com/about_secunia_advisories/
Also, regarding Maynor... don't discredit the guy just because of one mistake, even though it was a big one.
This isn't just a beta... this is a PUBLIC beta. It is held to a bit of a higher standard than just a regular, more private beta.
It would have made MUCH more sense for Apple to just install an additional Safari application so you could switch back to the old Safari easily if you wanted. As it is, it looks like you first have to un-install the beta (using the included uninstaller),
EDIT: Ah... looks like I was wrong about the installing from CD part (I was only guessing). However, I still think it could have done better by installing two separate copies.
While some may not agree with it, Denial of Service vulnerabilities (aka "crashers") is broadly considered a security vulnerability, although it is typically ranked lower than privilege escalation, arbitrary code execution, and remote vulnerabilities. Here's what Secunia gives advisories for, for instance:
http://secunia.com/about_secunia_advisories/
Also, regarding Maynor... don't discredit the guy just because of one mistake, even though it was a big one.
This isn't just a beta... this is a PUBLIC beta. It is held to a bit of a higher standard than just a regular, more private beta.
Umm - maybe not for you...
My personal experience? FF beta crashed quite a bit on me back when it came out and I had problems loading a lot of pages. My current experience with the Safari Windows beta is decidedly less buggy than my experience FF beta. So speak for yourself...
My personal experience? FF beta crashed quite a bit on me back when it came out and I had problems loading a lot of pages. My current experience with the Safari Windows beta is decidedly less buggy than my experience FF beta. So speak for yourself...
iPhone uses a tweaked version of Safari 2.0, a stable and often used program.
What we are talking about here is a beta version for Safari 3.0, a ton of new code, with a ton of rewritten code, running on two different operating systems from the iPhone, though one is similar.
Apples and Oranges, and to prove this, none of the 8 found would have any effect on the iPod.
But fine, link it to the iPhone and talk about how Safari vulnerablities effect the iPhone. But don't make yet ANOTHER leap and talk about the iPhone and it's other perceived problems. For Pete's sake..
And I think we shoulod tereform Mars.
Sorry, just rounding up my thoughts on the matters at hand. At least the matters at hand in my reality.
I'm pretty sure most of the people in the audience thought to themselves "yeah, whatever" when Steve claimed Safari was the fastest.
Maybe if we sat at our desks running benchmarks all day instead of browsing the web it would be...
This is why I'm against Apple having to coincide this crap with keynote speeches and events. Release it when you're ready. Hyping up beta software as a "one more thing" only increases the scrutiny and bad press it will get when the Windows fanboys and websites like CNET kick the crap out of it before its even released. It hurts Apple and it hurts the Safari 3 general release, even though these problems will be licked by then. This could have happened quieter without the hoopla. They can make their claims and have their party when the thing is ready for consumption.
In my world a "beta" should at least "work" on 90+% of all machines where it could be installed. This isn't even good enough to be considered an "alpha" IMO
Maybe apple should at least RUN it on a Windows machine (even though it surely hurts and the guy with the windows machine isn't allowed to sit at the same table in the cafeteria?) at least once before releasing it to the world instead of just making sure it compiles and releasing it?
Umm - you're on a computer, right?
Seeing as how you are on the internet I'm guessing you did install software "that could or could not have security holes"
Seriously - where is the wheel of cheese - we need it - NOW!!!
Seeing as how you are on the internet I'm guessing you did install software "that could or could not have security holes"
Seriously - where is the wheel of cheese - we need it - NOW!!!
I most certainly would not lambast them. Beta software is Beta software. I'm pretty sure every piece of beta software out there has come with "use at your own risk" warnings, and if it trashes your HD, so be it. I am prepared for that scenerio, and if I'm not, I don't touch beta software, ESPECIALLY beta software as complicated as a web browser.
Want to test fly a plane for me? We put it through a lot of ropes, but we haven't had the chance to fly it in really hot weather and land on a short runway. Oh, that's where you live? Well be warned, we don't know how it'll perform yet. You can always wait until it's certified and we release the market version...
I don't understand why Apple didn't do this. They should have released the beta separate from the GM.