Apple Issues 31 Patches

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Apple issued a total of 31 patches yesterday for a whole slew of security issues. So much for that whole “most secure OS ever” thingy.

Monday's patches included a whopping 31 updates for the Apple operating system. The Mac OS X patches fix components ranging from the Address Book and iChat software to under-the-covers operating system components such as ColorSync, the IO Storage Family, and the Perl, Python and Ruby programming languages.
Click to expand...
 
And how many updates/patches/fixes has Windows had? Hmmm . . .

Might as well say "So much for a cool OS name. I like Oranges better than Apples!!!" :rolleyes:
 
six_storm said:
And how many updates/patches/fixes has Windows had? Hmmm . . .

Might as well say "So much for a cool OS name. I like Oranges better than Apples!!!" :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
lulz. Microsoft stays more on top of things, and if you actually listen to what the 'real hackers' at Defcon have to say, they say average Mac OS user's computers are far less secure than the average Windows user's computer.

But I'd rather have an OS that admits it has vulnerabilities, then corrects the problem actively with a vast support network. With a hardware firewall, simple anti-virus, and OS/software patches, I've been Virus free since 2001/2002 on all the Windows PC's I own.

The average Mac user thinks their Mac OS is invincible to virii due to the Apple marketing. As the market share increases, we'll see more and more exploits in the Mac OS exposed, and more Mac users freaking out. All in good time.
 
w1retap said:
As the market share increases, we'll see more and more exploits in the Mac OS exposed, and more Mac users freaking out. All in good time.
Click to expand...

Well, one (1) would be "more" than exploits used by hackers to date so you might be right.
One (1) would also be more than the current number of active OS X viruses.

Remember, OS X is basically a customized BSD/Mach/Unix OS so it's far harder to infiltrate with a virus or worm. Patch rate should be similar to Solaris, Linux, HP-UX, etc. as it is.

This whole - "see, they had to patch something so it's not secure!" concept is bizarre. If you can cite actual machines exploited or zombie-fied then please do. Otherwise it's sounds a bit, well, pathetic.

Windows is great for gaming and has excellent apps, but it has a history of being exploited and zero-day virus trojans get past literally every anti-malware suite.

At my company I have anti-virus on my gateways and servers, a real statefull packet firewall, barracuda AV/anti-spam and client AV on every machine (I split the company between two different suites for maximum chance of zero-day detection) and my windows clients I still get hit every 18-24 months. Linux clients have never been hit (of course). No macs here.
 
HURR APPLE LOL AMIRITE?

How exactly does a company issuing security or other fixes equate to a product being insecure?
 
There's a detailed list of fixes available here for those interested. Not surprisingly, many of the issues don't even affect Leopard.
 
Does it patch the insecurity of the users and their need to belong /be seen to be chic ?


:p
 
Mize said:
Well, one (1) would be "more" than exploits used by hackers to date so you might be right.
One (1) would also be more than the current number of active OS X viruses.

Remember, OS X is basically a customized BSD/Mach/Unix OS so it's far harder to infiltrate with a virus or worm. Patch rate should be similar to Solaris, Linux, HP-UX, etc. as it is.
Click to expand...

The only problem with this comparison is that 95+ percent of the macs I see the users are running admin accounts and have no password protection. Also every time they just OK every admin prompt they get. No OS is secure when people run with full rights and blindly OK every prompt the get. This problem is made worse by the fact most Mac users think that since they have a Mac they are immune to all harm and don't need to run any antivirus or anything.

This whole - "see, they had to patch something so it's not secure!" concept is bizarre. If you can cite actual machines exploited or zombie-fied then please do. Otherwise it's sounds a bit, well, pathetic.
Click to expand...

Exept that they even said in the article that one of the things that was patched was something that was exploited since the beginning of the month.

Windows is great for gaming and has excellent apps, but it has a history of being exploited and zero-day virus trojans get past literally every anti-malware suite.

At my company I have anti-virus on my gateways and servers, a real statefull packet firewall, barracuda AV/anti-spam and client AV on every machine (I split the company between two different suites for maximum chance of zero-day detection) and my windows clients I still get hit every 18-24 months. Linux clients have never been hit (of course). No macs here.
Click to expand...

Then you are doing something wrong. Under my watch we have never had a virus outbreak on our windows machines. Since it is also a boarding school I also have 400 uncontrolled student computers on the network. Even those are controlled enough with our network security that we don't get outbreaks. If you are getting hit every 18-24 months with outbreaks, then you have a hole somewhere that you need to plug.
 
People will hack macs as soon as there is something worthwhile to hack ;)
 
Who cares which one is more secure? Neither is really. As long as there are idiots out there wanting to hack an OS, then it will get hacked..Doesnt matter what anyone does..

So lets just move on, and not compare..
 
brom42 said:
The only problem with this comparison is that 95+ percent of the macs I see the users are running admin accounts and have no password protection. Also every time they just OK every admin prompt they get.
Click to expand...

Well, if that's the case, it's dumb users, not an insecure OS, right? I mean if I log onto my linux machine as root then I'm basically an idiot :) seriously.


Exept that they even said in the article that one of the things that was patched was something that was exploited since the beginning of the month.
Click to expand...

That was quicktime, not the OS...doesn't everybody use VLC anyway?

Then you are doing something wrong. Under my watch we have never had a virus outbreak on our windows machines. Since it is also a boarding school I also have 400 uncontrolled student computers on the network. Even those are controlled enough with our network security that we don't get outbreaks. If you are getting hit every 18-24 months with outbreaks, then you have a hole somewhere that you need to plug.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking outbreak, but infection. Go look up time-to-detect and you'll find that everyone - from Trend, to Kaspersky to Norton - have incidents where it takes them WEEKS to have detection for some new Trojans. That's why my AV engines are different (I use ClamAV, Barracuda, Sophos and Kaspersky) - so if one is late a nearby machine will have the quicker definitions and pick it up.
 
six_storm said:
And how many updates/patches/fixes has Windows had? Hmmm . . .

Might as well say "So much for a cool OS name. I like Oranges better than Apples!!!" :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

no idea, but, yesterday, someone in another thread posted that they installed vista to a test system saw 3X patches and decided it wasn't for them.

so 30 something patches in 9-10 months vs 1 month? I'd say MS is doing ok.

that said, did Apple really say this was the most secure OS ever?

For years, security experts (as well as knowledgeable users and MS fanboys) have said that the lack of attacks on OS X is based on market share, not an inherently more secure OS. I suspect that will be proven correct once Apple breaks the 10% barrier, though clearly the attacks will mostly focus on MS with its mammoth market share.
 
lol too funny. Everytime Steve posts something about Macs, all you Mac freaks go up in arms.

Steve's a puppetmaster. You guys are too fucking easy.
 
To me, bug count doesn't matter. What matters is how many are actually exploited. That changes things...
 
nilepez said:
For years, security experts (as well as knowledgeable users and MS fanboys) have said that the lack of attacks on OS X is based on market share, not an inherently more secure OS. I suspect that will be proven correct once Apple breaks the 10% barrier, though clearly the attacks will mostly focus on MS with its mammoth market share.
Click to expand...

No. Unix and derivatives are inherently more secure than 98, NT, XP (I don't know enough about Vista to comment) as all use non root (i.e. administrator) accounts by default. If you're in Linux and want to install and app you have to use the sudo (su = super user do = do) command to execute it and then enter the root pwd. Technically you can set XP/NT boxes up this way, but then you have to log out, log in as Admin, install software, log out, log back in as user, etc. As a result literally 99% of XP users have admin privileges by default.

In unix/linux/mac a non-root user can trash their home directory and that's about it.
 
Mize said:
Ironically, I can find (google) no statement from anyone at Apple stating OS X is or was the most secure OS...Microsoft on the other hand, has claimed that about Vista:
http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_Vista_Most_Secure_OS_Ever/1150366131

Go figure. I'll stick with Linux and VMware Server for XPP :)
Click to expand...


You have to use your brain and read between the lines.
Since MS claims Vista is the most secure OS.
But Mac claims it is more secure than any microsoft windows OS.
Mac OS X has helped the Mac keep its clean bill of health with a superior UNIX foundation and security features that go above and beyond the norm for PCs
Click to expand...

Then Apple is claiming it has the most secure OS.:p
 
bangmal said:
You have to use your brain and read between the lines.
Since MS claims Vista is the most secure OS.
But Mac claims it is more secure than any microsoft windows OS.


Then Apple is claiming it has the most secure OS.:p
Click to expand...

Mac OSes have, first and foremost, security through obscurity.A cardboard box is the safest vault in the world if it contains nothing anyone wants.
 
bangmal said:
You have to use your brain and read between the lines.
Since MS claims Vista is the most secure OS.
But Mac claims it is more secure than any microsoft windows OS.

Mac OS X has helped the Mac keep its clean bill of health with a superior UNIX foundation and security features that go above and beyond the norm for PCs
Click to expand...

Then Apple is claiming it has the most secure OS.:p
Click to expand...

Actually, using your brain does not mean inventing new definitions for words.
For example "above and beyond the norm for PCs" does not mean "better than every other OS" because Apple knows that Linux, Solaris and even hardened linux (your firewall likely runs it) are all "OSes" and are all either equal or better to OS X for security.

What's more, even if Apple said theirs is the most secure, your logic above is entirely circular.
 
Mize said:
No. Unix and derivatives are inherently more secure than 98, NT, XP (I don't know enough about Vista to comment) as all use non root (i.e. administrator) accounts by default. If you're in Linux and want to install and app you have to use the sudo (su = super user do = do) command to execute it and then enter the root pwd. Technically you can set XP/NT boxes up this way, but then you have to log out, log in as Admin, install software, log out, log back in as user, etc. As a result literally 99% of XP users have admin privileges by default.

In unix/linux/mac a non-root user can trash their home directory and that's about it.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that's true, but I also remember a good chunk of the internet grinding to a halt in the mid 90's once or twice because of attacks on unpatched unix systems. I was affected by it at school and it made national news.

That was likely no more than 12 years ago. I have little doubt that if we put linux or unix in the hands of the average computer user, they'd be successfully attacked. It might be harder, but it'd happen.
 
Thanks for the update reminder!

Although I'm slowly starting to resent the so called, "Superior stability" of OS X. Any computer that gets a virus, of any OS, is definitely a PEBKAC.
 
Mize said:
Ironically, I can find (google) no statement from anyone at Apple stating OS X is or was the most secure OS
Click to expand...
Nor could I. I'm not sure why Steve has to impart his own (totally inaccurate) "color commentary" in his news posts.
 
Half the things on the patch list is opensource/non-Apple-Originated software. CUPS, Gnu Tar, Adobe Flash player, Perl, Python, Samba, SMB, Adobe Shockwave player, and TCPdump (maybe more, but these are not Apple created software).

Half of the patches only affect Tiger, the other half only affect Leopard. (13 Tiger, 8 Leopard, 9 both). So it's not 31 patches for the same OS.

Besides, your a bit late in the news. OSX Security patches are always like this. Mixed companies/sources, mix OS, and plenty. Just small in size and neatly packaged. Check out the other 2007-00x patches.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top