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
I think you're a bit off track. Apple released Safari for Windows because they need to get more Safari browser hits to http-logs. Until they manage to get safari to +10%, Safari is "meaningless" for web developers. But once they do, it has to be taken more seriously. And that will mean web developers have to stick to the standards [and not dive into the ActiveX nonsense].
Then why forget Linux?
I don't think so.
To all of you repeating "it's a beta!"-mantra. What does Apple's Safari-website say about security?
Apple sure has weird definitions for "now" and "day one"... If I used Safari on Windows right now, I WOULD have to worry. Hell, this is day three, and they have already discovered multitude of security-holes!
Apple sure has weird definitions for "now" and "day one"... If I used Safari on Windows right now, I WOULD have to worry. Hell, this is day three, and they have already discovered multitude of security-holes!
I am going to say that you, too, have not read all the posts in this thread. Linux is even more meaningless than OSX. And, yes, a side benefit (or possibly a direct, intended benefit) of the Safari on Windows is money generated from web searches via the built in search bar.
Even if that software is prominently being displayed at the frontpage of the vendor for download, and it's being advertized as "secure"?
oh my god..
as i read this thread, i have still to say, that there is wayyyy toooo much apple goodwill.
apple made this time a big mistake. like it has been said before, releasing a browser as a, i say, "early beta (with goodwill
)" is not really a good idea this days.
hey, it's the web. it's not ilife. if a browser has security problems this hard, he has absolutly no chance these days.
i didn't accepted internet exploder, so i will also not accept a crappy safari port.
so i just say, don't use it at all and wait for beta2.
as i read this thread, i have still to say, that there is wayyyy toooo much apple goodwill.
apple made this time a big mistake. like it has been said before, releasing a browser as a, i say, "early beta (with goodwill
)" is not really a good idea this days.hey, it's the web. it's not ilife. if a browser has security problems this hard, he has absolutly no chance these days.
i didn't accepted internet exploder, so i will also not accept a crappy safari port.
so i just say, don't use it at all and wait for beta2.
In the long run, I think it's a good idea. Yes, the security-holes that have been discovered are a bad thing. But looking at it optimistically.... Eight security-holes have been found. In the future, we will have eight holes less in Safari.
So, let me make sure I've got this right.
- Someone (OK, it was Apple but this isn't relevent) releases the first beta version of a web browser for Windows.
- It is found to contain vulnerabilities.
- People are surprised.
Tempest in a teapot
Oh good.
The pitchforks are out and the villagers are drunk on their own sense of entitlement and superiority.
Not only do we have several instances of the old ad hominem "fanboi" or the slightly less offensive "loyalist" we also have the consistent theme that Apple must immediately "apologize" and "make security a priority." Good show, you know who you are.
Now, personally, I find this tactic a useless and disrespectful way to conduct a discussion. Just be honest and call your poor target an idiot rather hiding behind a cute and trite phrase. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean you have the right to insult them.
Furthermore, it does bear to mention that Firefox's 2.0 beta also contained more than a dozen flaws, and thus it might be more than a little unfair to compare Safari's beta to a product which is nearing it's third interation. That IE 7.0 also contains several current flaws is also worth noting. Obviously, the term beta has become bastardized to mean nearly finished as opposed to what beta should be "mostly works, may explode, use at own risk." And, with this kind of overripe reaction to a public beta, I'd expect more companies to be wary of releasing their software into the public eye too soon for fear of an immediate and irrational backlash.
Of course, Apple should review their code and fix the damn exploits, but I am fascinated to see how fast the long-knives came out on this one.
Oh good.
The pitchforks are out and the villagers are drunk on their own sense of entitlement and superiority.
Not only do we have several instances of the old ad hominem "fanboi" or the slightly less offensive "loyalist" we also have the consistent theme that Apple must immediately "apologize" and "make security a priority." Good show, you know who you are.
Now, personally, I find this tactic a useless and disrespectful way to conduct a discussion. Just be honest and call your poor target an idiot rather hiding behind a cute and trite phrase. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean you have the right to insult them.
Furthermore, it does bear to mention that Firefox's 2.0 beta also contained more than a dozen flaws, and thus it might be more than a little unfair to compare Safari's beta to a product which is nearing it's third interation. That IE 7.0 also contains several current flaws is also worth noting. Obviously, the term beta has become bastardized to mean nearly finished as opposed to what beta should be "mostly works, may explode, use at own risk." And, with this kind of overripe reaction to a public beta, I'd expect more companies to be wary of releasing their software into the public eye too soon for fear of an immediate and irrational backlash.
Of course, Apple should review their code and fix the damn exploits, but I am fascinated to see how fast the long-knives came out on this one.
it IS relevant that it is apple.
"Now you can enjoy worry-free web browsing on any computer. Apple engineers designed Safari to be secure from day one." - NOT
day one includes betas.
Safari in RealBasic
How much does apple pay their Safari developers? Because I am sure I could release a better Safari for Windows using RealBasic. At least I could compile for 3 platforms and we'd see a Linux Safari too.
Really, how did they program Safari for Windows? With Amiga Basic? Or Macromedia Director? The software is not Beta. It's closer to pre-alpha
How much does apple pay their Safari developers? Because I am sure I could release a better Safari for Windows using RealBasic. At least I could compile for 3 platforms and we'd see a Linux Safari too.
Really, how did they program Safari for Windows? With Amiga Basic? Or Macromedia Director? The software is not Beta. It's closer to pre-alpha
Wow, some people have found the purpose of a beta.
A beta is a stage used to identify and fix bugs in the application. It's not that apple thought they'd be nice and give safari to you before October. They want you to find the bugs so they can fix them.
By using beta-level software, you have to accept that there will be bugs and security holes. You can't just turn around and start slamming the security of it. If anything, you should be trying to find more holes.
Anyway, the increased publicity will probably get these flaws up to the top of the bug fix list.
(admittably, I haven't used safari 3 yet)
A beta is a stage used to identify and fix bugs in the application. It's not that apple thought they'd be nice and give safari to you before October. They want you to find the bugs so they can fix them.
By using beta-level software, you have to accept that there will be bugs and security holes. You can't just turn around and start slamming the security of it. If anything, you should be trying to find more holes.
Anyway, the increased publicity will probably get these flaws up to the top of the bug fix list.
(admittably, I haven't used safari 3 yet)
i'm sorry, but fact is, that the only thing that point to instability is the "Beta" on the apple site. They got the browser on their frontpage. Man, it's right there with leopard and iphone. i thought "hey this can't be that bad, it's on their frontpage" so i expected (like a lot of other users i think) a more stable than instable version.
that's the point. but technically you are right.
Whilst I agree with posters who feel that Apple has made some claims for this download that might lead potential users to expect something less buggy than a standard public beta, I was mildly amused by this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6747669.stm
And also found this (regarding Safari's "blurry" fonts) interesting:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/06/12.html?hi=joel
Which is absolutely bang on - I'm acutely aware of the pixels in screen text when I have to use a Windows machine at work. It's not a case of one approach necessarily being right and the other wrong, they're just different and people instinctively dislike what they don't know.
My £0.02.
Cheers!
Jim
I like Apple, but to be honest I think they need to be knocked down a notch or two. Their arrogance is getting out of hand.
So I'm gonna highlight an awesome quote.
"We think Windows users are going to be really impressed when they see how fast and intuitive web browsing can be with Safari,"
lol. In Apple's defence, they had to be positive.
So I'm gonna highlight an awesome quote.
"We think Windows users are going to be really impressed when they see how fast and intuitive web browsing can be with Safari,"
lol. In Apple's defence, they had to be positive.
Well I have to say having finally got round to installing a copy of Windows Safari on XP I'm very impressed.
The font smoothing is the most impressive feature. Everything looks nice!
I really don't see what Windows users have got to be so defensive about. It's a nice app - it's free and it's a personal choice and if anything it's a nod from Apple that they can't, won't and shouldn't turn their backs on the windows users.
Whichever way you care to twist it it's a 'gift horse' and a very nice one.
The font smoothing is the most impressive feature. Everything looks nice!
I really don't see what Windows users have got to be so defensive about. It's a nice app - it's free and it's a personal choice and if anything it's a nod from Apple that they can't, won't and shouldn't turn their backs on the windows users.
Whichever way you care to twist it it's a 'gift horse' and a very nice one.
There is something many of the "Firefox never had these problems" people don't get. Firefox was a sequel of a browser that already worked, Mozilla. And I wonder, what Firefox beta are you talking about? because if we're talking about the early stages, it did have crashes, like most other browsers (although I can't speak about Windows). It's just the tone you use when posting these flaws, and how you want it to look.
It's hard to compare, because maybe there's a lot more people trying to slam right now Safari 3 for windows than there were people trying to find out how many flaws they could catch on Mozilla or Opera.. you see.. it's all about points of view. It's really hard to be objective about something like this, the short answer is.. Apple, fix it so that when it is released, it's good.
Edit: I can't wait to see this on CNET news. lol.
It's hard to compare, because maybe there's a lot more people trying to slam right now Safari 3 for windows than there were people trying to find out how many flaws they could catch on Mozilla or Opera.. you see.. it's all about points of view. It's really hard to be objective about something like this, the short answer is.. Apple, fix it so that when it is released, it's good.
Edit: I can't wait to see this on CNET news. lol.
And also, to the 'it's a beta' brigade, yes, we know it's a beta, as it says: Safari Beta Security Slammed.
i know you are talking about firefox versions that was NOT released to the public as beta!, yes, u can call firefox 0.8~1.0beta as beta, but those were not released to general public with thunder like PR campaign. take a look at 1.5beta, 2.0 beta, even 3.0 alpha 5, which one has more crashes than safari 3 beta?
PS, even consider phoenix, firebird, firefox in past 5 years (i have been using mozilla-?firebird->firefox since 1998), I don't see these kind of reported crash since mozilla 0.9.7. Only case I can think of is firefox 3.0 nighty build, when it just switched to cairo, it crash every time i try to do anything. but hey, thats not even alpha!, and u need to dig into 5 level of mozilla's ftp server to get it.
Also, the bug finder says: