[zdnet] Pwn2Own 2009: Safari/MacBook falls in seconds - Page 4 - Overclock.net

sdla4ever · 03-19-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Modki

Proving that once again the greatest security flaw is users.

no way man its that mac thing!

Emmanuel · 03-19-09

MACs are safe, unhackable...

OrphanShadow · 03-19-09

Did the article specify whether the machine utilised Safari 3 or the Beta version 4? Im running V4 Beta now and I wanna know what to watch for.

I still want a mac though. Being a student doesnt pay well enough.

pLuhhmm · 03-19-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrphanShadow

Did the article specify whether the machine utilised Safari 3 or the Beta version 4? Im running V4 Beta now and I wanna know what to watch for.

I still want a mac though. Being a student doesnt pay well enough.

Uhmmm macs cost a ridiculous amount

The Hundred Gunner · 03-19-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathris

When it comes to Apple, nobody is worse at programming.

That's not true. They make a great OS. Garageband is pretty good, iMovie is pretty good, Final Cut is supposed to be good. iCal/Address Book/Mail make a great productivity suite. Compare those products to your equivalent microsoft programs, for example.

Of course on the other hand there's itunes, which is getting increasingly worse with every update, and quicktime, which was never that good to begin with. So they've got some good and some bad stuff.

I think you're exaggerating a bit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathris

Apple consistently produces software that generally works, but has more than a few glaring bugs and mind boggling design flaws.

I get that in Linux but not OSX, and usually not windows.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathris

Safari 4 is fast, but it doesn't even have autoscroll, a feature that is essential for laptop owners.

What browser besides FF has autoscroll? Camino doesn't, Safari doesn't, Opera doesn't.

Oh, and in OSX, we've got this thing called "click-to-here" scrolling where you can just click any position on the scroll bar, and it goes right to that point rather than you having to click, hold, then wait for the scroll bar to get there. If windows had that, then you'd have that problem solved; I always loved autoscroll too and hated browsers that didn't have it, but "click-to-here" scrolling got rid of that problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathris

iTunes works alright, but the minimalist design makes it a headache to use compared to most other media players.

The concept of itunes is good, but they've made it way too big with crap like genius and some new garbage that they just added that no one I've ever heard of ever uses. As a result, it's slow, and with the latest update, there have been bugs that weren't there before.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathris

The only reason Apple gets away with this is through redirection: by constantly harping on Windows they direct attention away from their own flaws, and by the general brainwashing that goes with being an Apple user. Nobody talks about the numerous issues with Apple's products because they are too busy making up false information about Vista.

lol you're reading too much into it. Whatever helps you sleep at night, though.

Liability · 03-19-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by OC'ing Noob

You can make the most secure OS in the world and all you have to do is find one exploit and a hyperlink to it titled "Do not click me" I promise by the end of the day, someone WILL click on it. I read a report somewhere and the exact statistics escape me but like a a scientist had placed a realistic rubber poisonous snake in the middle of a road and monitored it for a week. I think about 3 cars actually avoided it and the rest either never noticed (and ran over it) or ran over it on purpose, with at least one running it over repeatedly. The point is, people will do stupid things and when they suffer stupid consequences, they have only themselves to blame.

Why would you be afraid of a snake if you were in a car? I'd run over the sucker too.

GodofGrunts · 03-19-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathris

x2.

OSX and linux really aren't more secure than Windows. Most of the Windows viruses need user interaction to work. As long as you aren't stupid you are no more likely to get a virus using Windows as you are with Linux/OSX. In fact Windows is likely more secure as most Windows users have anti-viruses that protect the user from their own stupidity.

It comes down to the market share. This contest is proof that if people cared about writing non-windows viruses, its pretty easy to do.

Hackers don't care about OSX, and of the non-revenue driven Windows viruses, I would wager that most of them are made by linux enthusiasts, who would have no desire to target their own system.

This pwn to own just uses exploits in certain programs to take over a computer. Up until Kernel 6 in Windows (Vista) Window's kernel was really tightly intertwined and crashing anything would crash the whole system. (eg. I'm sure you've had explorer.exe crash in XP and the whole system needed to be rebooted as opposed to Vista and 7 which you can end explorer.exe and then restart it.)

In Kernel structure alone. OSX and Linux are much more secure just because of how they are built; however, Windows is moving in the same direction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Hundred Gunner

I get that in Linux but not OSX, and usually not windows.

I think that it depends on how the Linux apps are built. The general multipurpose apps tend to crash more, but if you compile it yourself, and you do it right

, it'll work better with your system. As far as I know, you can't do that with Windows and Mac apps are already made to work on certain hardware.

cometman · 03-20-09

Rofl! Steve be like I only got owned once before that fast in my life (the moment when he declared, who uses A2DP these days anyways)

r34p3rex · 03-20-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by GodofGrunts

This pwn to own just uses exploits in certain programs to take over a computer. Up until Kernel 6 in Windows (Vista) Window's kernel was really tightly intertwined and crashing anything would crash the whole system. (eg. I'm sure you've had explorer.exe crash in XP and the whole system needed to be rebooted as opposed to Vista and 7 which you can end explorer.exe and then restart it.)

In Kernel structure alone. OSX and Linux are much more secure just because of how they are built; however, Windows is moving in the same direction.

I think that it depends on how the Linux apps are built. The general multipurpose apps tend to crash more, but if you compile it yourself, and you do it right

, it'll work better with your system. As far as I know, you can't do that with Windows and Mac apps are already made to work on certain hardware.

Actually, XP was the first version to really seperate teh different parts of the kernel. you can end explorer.exe and restart it and everything is back to normal

thiussat · 03-20-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathris

x2.

OSX and linux really aren't more secure than Windows. Most of the Windows viruses need user interaction to work. As long as you aren't stupid you are no more likely to get a virus using Windows as you are with Linux/OSX. In fact Windows is likely more secure as most Windows users have anti-viruses that protect the user from their own stupidity.

You can get viruses and spyware with Windows simply by browsing the wrong website. It takes no user interaction other than that. Getting viruses like this is impossible with Linux and OSX because of limited privileges and file permissions that are enabled by default.

Quote:

It comes down to the market share. This contest is proof that if people cared about writing non-windows viruses, its pretty easy to do.

There have been many Unix viruses written, yet there are none in the wild. Why not?

Quote:

Hackers don't care about OSX, and of the non-revenue driven Windows viruses, I would wager that most of them are made by linux enthusiasts, who would have no desire to target their own system.

Hackers may not care that much about OSX. However, Unix/Linux runs the majority of the world's web servers, they most certainly care about it. Yet, there is no Unix malware out there at all. Again, why not?

One thing this article didn't mention is that the contest stipulated that "owning" equates to "code execution within the context of the application." In other words, all the guy did was get the browser to run some code. This is NOT the same thing as rooting the box (which would allow complete control).

Furthermore, many Linux distros are now coming standard with Mandatory Access Controls (SELinux, App Armor) that would completely stop this attack cold.

		Overclock.net - Overclocking.net > Industry News > Software News
[zdnet] Pwn2Own 2009: Safari/MacBook falls in seconds

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)