Very good points made. However, as I have stated in an earlier post, Windows 7 might be a fun for the consumer, but my bet is that most businesses will view Windows 7 as Vista, service pack 3 and therefore not adopt it. Windows XP will continue to dominate the enterprise. Imagine all of the new enterprise PC orders that ship with Seven home edition, only to be wiped and replaced with XP. It is happening now.
What kills Apple adoption in the enterprise is MS Exchange/Outlook. Kill Exchange with a superior and cheaper mail server product that a CIO cannot refuse, and then there will be no reason to buy a Mac and then be forced to run parallels/boot camp just to run Outlook. (Entourage is a crappier product than Outlook). If you need to run boot camp/parallels to run Outlook, then why buy a mac in the first place?
I was reading estremeskater post about Pre syncing with iTunes as security breach and thought more BS from this person, glad you set him straight Solipsism.
He suppose to be in IT industry and says he reads all up to date Apple issues going on, obviously not!
I never been on MS web site to discuss their products, since I do not like them, I use MS products for work and always frustrated, so made a decision, not to be cheap and buy a quality computer system (software and hardware) that give me less issues and I go to ONE computer company to resolve any issues.
Ever though I do not like MS, I would not troll on their web site, just childish and honestly and would show I am jealous, which is not the case.
MS does have 1-2 potentially good products, but the pain and frustration outweighs the good of the products.
One of those products could be Windows 7, but I wait for it to mature more before taking the plunge, since I still have bitter taste from Vista.
If you still have a bitter taste from Vista hate to see how bad of a taste you had if you used Leopard. No on has set me straight on anything because you guys like to pass by all the other issue and play word games with one issue.
You focus on the mild issue because you cant address the iPhones issues raised and the issues with hacking OSX.
Here is the definition of a security breach.
"External act that bypasses or contravenes security policies, practices, or procedures. A similar internal act is called security violation."
"breach of security
Definition
Disclosure of classified information, access to protected assets without proper authorization, or their theft or misappropriation."
"The process of ensuring confidentiality, integrity, and availability of computers, their programs, hardware devices, and data. Lack of security results from a failure of one of these three properties. The lack of confidentiality is unauthorized disclosure of data or unauthorized access to a computing system or a program. A failure of integrity results from unauthorized modification of data or damage to a computing system or program. A lack of availability of computing resources results in what is called denial of service."
Hmmm unauthorized access to a system or program. You know kind of like the Pre sycning with iTunes when Apple puts security in place to prevent it.
Very good points made. However, as I have stated in an earlier post, Windows 7 might be a fun for the consumer, but my bet is that most businesses will view Windows 7 as Vista, service pack 3 and therefore not adopt it. Windows XP will continue to dominate the enterprise. Imagine all of the new enterprise PC orders that ship with Seven home edition, only to be wiped and replaced with XP. It is happening now.
What kills Apple adoption in the enterprise is MS Exchange/Outlook. Kill Exchange with a superior and cheaper mail server product that a CIO cannot refuse, and then there will be no reason to buy a Mac and then be forced to run parallels/boot camp just to run Outlook. (Entourage is a crappier product than Outlook). If you need to run boot camp/parallels to run Outlook, then why buy a mac in the first place?
I think you are missing some very important facts about Windows in an enterprise environment.
One first is Active Directory integration. Macs don't integrate well into Active Directory.
Also the ability to write Group Policy Objects in AD that control computer behavior.
At my work they are testing the 100 iPhones in our work environment but they are finding that the iPhone is so much more insecure that a BB. The companies data is not protected as well as on a BB with device encryption. Also we have tons of products and applications that bind and tie into our other MS solutions and Exchange is certainly one of them. Apple has no competing products for anything close to what MS does for enterprise companies.
Being able to remote access a system is not the only form of security breach. Anytime a company tries to prevent something and someone can get around it that is a security breach.
There is no system in the world that someone with the determination and knowledge to do so cannot break into if they have physical access and the time. It's a meaningless point.
There is no system in the world that someone with the determination and knowledge to do so cannot break into if they have physical access and the time. It's a meaningless point.
It would only be a meaningless point if Apple didnt try to use in its ads that OSX is somehow immune from attacks.
No Charlie reported it to Apple. It was the SAME Safari exploit used the previous year.
Poor reading comprehension from your own reference is amusing.
"Did you consider reporting the vulnerability to Apple?
I never give up free bugs. I have a new campaign. It?s called NO MORE FREE BUGS. Vulnerabilities have a market value so it makes no sense to work hard to find a bug, write an exploit and then give it away. Apple pays people to do the same job so we know there?s value to this work. No more free bugs."
and
"Does it work on Safari for Windows?
I don?t know. I didn?t look."
It's true that Leopard didn't fully implement ALSR but so far most OSX exploits have relied on social engineering (getting the user to run the exploit as admin). OSX has DEP but still allows heap allocated memory execution. Snow Leopard has NX bit support in 64 bit mode but older 32 bit machines are still vulnerable.
So really, Apple only needs to fully implement ALSR to achieve security parity with Win7 on any new Macs. That and default the firewall and virtual memory to more secure modes. Personally, I think working on GCD was much more useful than hardening Snow Leopard.
The biggest advantage (from an enterprise perspective) is that Win7 works better than Vista and is far more secure than XP. OSX is between XP and Vista/Win7 in hardness.
Win7 will be a big winner for MS, both for the enterprise and for the consumer market. It also gives MS a leg up in terms of multi-touch support on the desktop vs Apple. At least in the near term before the next big kitty release. Still though, MS has some significantly nice developer tools in WPF, LINQ, Multitouch SDK, and so forth.
You focus on the mild issue because you cant address the iPhones issues raised and the issues with hacking OSX.
Heh...issues with OSX security in the wild has been mild. As in those security vulnerabilities have not translated into widespread attacks. Wake me when an OSX botnet has been created with something other than users installing pirated software...
Poor reading comprehension from your own reference is amusing.
"Did you consider reporting the vulnerability to Apple?
I never give up free bugs. I have a new campaign. It?s called NO MORE FREE BUGS. Vulnerabilities have a market value so it makes no sense to work hard to find a bug, write an exploit and then give it away. Apple pays people to do the same job so we know there?s value to this work. No more free bugs."
and
"Does it work on Safari for Windows?
I don?t know. I didn?t look."
It's true that Leopard didn't fully implement ALSR but so far most OSX exploits have relied on social engineering (getting the user to run the exploit as admin). OSX has DEP but still allows heap allocated memory execution. Snow Leopard has NX bit support in 64 bit mode but older 32 bit machines are still vulnerable.
So really, Apple only needs to fully implement ALSR to achieve security parity with Win7 on any new Macs. That and default the firewall and virtual memory to more secure modes. Personally, I think working on GCD was much more useful than hardening Snow Leopard.
The biggest advantage (from an enterprise perspective) is that Win7 works better than Vista and is far more secure than XP. OSX is between XP and Vista/Win7 in hardness.
Win7 will be a big winner for MS, both for the enterprise and for the consumer market. It also gives MS a leg up in terms of multi-touch support on the desktop vs Apple. At least in the near term before the next big kitty release. Still though, MS has some significantly nice developer tools in WPF, LINQ, Multitouch SDK, and so forth.
You need to put it context. Charlie Miller did report it to Apple in 2007 then it went unpatched and the SAME exploit was used again in 2008 Pwn 2 Own then it went unpatched and he used the SAME exploit again to compromise the Mac again. It was all over the news and the internet and Apple never patched it. Charlie was making a joke about reporting the exploits because Apple ignored him for 3 years about the same exploit.
Did you also read the part about OS X being easier to compromise than Windows? Did you just ignore that part?
Ask yourself, why are you here on a Mac forum ranting about how bad Apple is and how great Windows is?
Don't you think there's one hacker out there who would like to "put Apple in its place" the way you're attempting to on this forum?
Pay attention.
There are two reasons hackers write malware and viruses.
One reason is money. Many hackers want to infect as many machines as possible so that they can run spam farms and harvest information for profit. It makes sense that this type of hacker would target the platform with the largest market share.
But the other reasons hackers do what they do is for notoriety. Maybe they want to be "king of the hacker hill" or maybe they hope to land a job.
There's absolutely no reason this type of hacker wouldn't target OS X.
Just ask yourself this simple question:
Who would gain more notoriety?
A) The writer of the 648,014th widespread, successful exploit for windows, or;
The writer of the FIRST widespread, successful exploit for Mac OS X?
If you think there are no viruses for Mac because of market share, you're pretty short on logic.
The fact is there were viruses for the Mac back in the 68000/PowerPC days and that was when the Mac had a lesser marketshare then today. If people were willing to write some 40 Mac viruses for the Classic then with its larger marketshare MacOS X should have as many--but it doesn't. That alone should tell you something.
I have your attention. You can stop posting to me anytime
Yes, I'm sure you'd be very happy to be allowed to post your nonsense without always having to be contradicted by the facts. You have our attention because of your non-stop barrage of outright false, inaccurate, misleading and absolutely stupid claims. Propagandists are always happy to have a clear field for their brazenly false claims.
Again, the reason there are no exploits in the wild targeting OS X has nothing to do with market share, and anyone who says it does just looks stupider and stupider.
The hacker who writes the first widely effective malware of any type for OS X is going to be famous. Don't you think there are hackers out there who want to be famous?
There's no doubt that some have tried. They have failed, because OS X is a safer environment than Windows. Full stop.
Again, the reason there are no exploits in the wild targeting OS X has nothing to do with market share, and anyone who says it does just looks stupider and stupider.
The hacker who writes the first widely effective malware of any type for OS X is going to be famous. Don't you think there are hackers out there who want to be famous?
There's no doubt that some have tried. They have failed, because OS X is a safer environment than Windows. Full stop.
You keep telling yourself that. Its all about market share. People don't become famous for writing viruses.
iTunes and Qucktime have been exploited and Sarfari for Windows was hacked in 24 hours. Which shows Apple sucks at security.
No Exploits ever on the Mac? This was a harmless virus as most are but it still worked.
Macs are not hacked because its not worth the time to hack them.
Tell that to you beloved Charlie Miller. Made him a household name. So much so, he ended up looking like a total ass when he lambasted Snow Leopard for not having 64-bit ASLR and that made it less secure than Windows.
Right after, Microsoft put out an advisory to shut down an open port (open by default) that would allow remote code execution on their flagship operating system of the time, Microsoft Vista. I'm sure he did a facepalm.
Tell that to you beloved Charlie Miller. Made him a household name. So much so, he ended up looking like a total ass when he lambasted Snow Leopard for not having 64-bit ASLR and that made it less secure than Windows.
Right after, Microsoft put out an advisory to shut down an open port (open by default) that would allow remote code execution on their flagship operating system of the time, Microsoft Vista. I'm sure he did a facepalm.
You mean the guy who was the first to hack the iPhone. Here you go here is a good read for you.
Comments
.. ... .
Very good points made. However, as I have stated in an earlier post, Windows 7 might be a fun for the consumer, but my bet is that most businesses will view Windows 7 as Vista, service pack 3 and therefore not adopt it. Windows XP will continue to dominate the enterprise. Imagine all of the new enterprise PC orders that ship with Seven home edition, only to be wiped and replaced with XP. It is happening now.
What kills Apple adoption in the enterprise is MS Exchange/Outlook. Kill Exchange with a superior and cheaper mail server product that a CIO cannot refuse, and then there will be no reason to buy a Mac and then be forced to run parallels/boot camp just to run Outlook. (Entourage is a crappier product than Outlook). If you need to run boot camp/parallels to run Outlook, then why buy a mac in the first place?
I was reading estremeskater post about Pre syncing with iTunes as security breach and thought more BS from this person, glad you set him straight Solipsism.
He suppose to be in IT industry and says he reads all up to date Apple issues going on, obviously not!
I never been on MS web site to discuss their products, since I do not like them, I use MS products for work and always frustrated, so made a decision, not to be cheap and buy a quality computer system (software and hardware) that give me less issues and I go to ONE computer company to resolve any issues.
Ever though I do not like MS, I would not troll on their web site, just childish and honestly and would show I am jealous, which is not the case.
MS does have 1-2 potentially good products, but the pain and frustration outweighs the good of the products.
One of those products could be Windows 7, but I wait for it to mature more before taking the plunge, since I still have bitter taste from Vista.
If you still have a bitter taste from Vista hate to see how bad of a taste you had if you used Leopard. No on has set me straight on anything because you guys like to pass by all the other issue and play word games with one issue.
You focus on the mild issue because you cant address the iPhones issues raised and the issues with hacking OSX.
Here is the definition of a security breach.
"External act that bypasses or contravenes security policies, practices, or procedures. A similar internal act is called security violation."
"breach of security
Definition
Disclosure of classified information, access to protected assets without proper authorization, or their theft or misappropriation."
"The process of ensuring confidentiality, integrity, and availability of computers, their programs, hardware devices, and data. Lack of security results from a failure of one of these three properties. The lack of confidentiality is unauthorized disclosure of data or unauthorized access to a computing system or a program. A failure of integrity results from unauthorized modification of data or damage to a computing system or program. A lack of availability of computing resources results in what is called denial of service."
Hmmm unauthorized access to a system or program. You know kind of like the Pre sycning with iTunes when Apple puts security in place to prevent it.
You need to get a clue.
Fact is I own more Apple products then you do and I have owned more then you will be able to afford in our lifetime.
There! Right there is where you let yourself down.
Very good points made. However, as I have stated in an earlier post, Windows 7 might be a fun for the consumer, but my bet is that most businesses will view Windows 7 as Vista, service pack 3 and therefore not adopt it. Windows XP will continue to dominate the enterprise. Imagine all of the new enterprise PC orders that ship with Seven home edition, only to be wiped and replaced with XP. It is happening now.
What kills Apple adoption in the enterprise is MS Exchange/Outlook. Kill Exchange with a superior and cheaper mail server product that a CIO cannot refuse, and then there will be no reason to buy a Mac and then be forced to run parallels/boot camp just to run Outlook. (Entourage is a crappier product than Outlook). If you need to run boot camp/parallels to run Outlook, then why buy a mac in the first place?
I think you are missing some very important facts about Windows in an enterprise environment.
One first is Active Directory integration. Macs don't integrate well into Active Directory.
Also the ability to write Group Policy Objects in AD that control computer behavior.
At my work they are testing the 100 iPhones in our work environment but they are finding that the iPhone is so much more insecure that a BB. The companies data is not protected as well as on a BB with device encryption. Also we have tons of products and applications that bind and tie into our other MS solutions and Exchange is certainly one of them. Apple has no competing products for anything close to what MS does for enterprise companies.
There! Right there is where you let yourself down.
Let me see. Nope don't feel like I let myself down.
Being able to remote access a system is not the only form of security breach. Anytime a company tries to prevent something and someone can get around it that is a security breach.
There is no system in the world that someone with the determination and knowledge to do so cannot break into if they have physical access and the time. It's a meaningless point.
No on has set me straight on anything because you guys like to pass by all the other issue and play word games with one issue.
No one has set you straight because you aren't here for rational discussion.
There is no system in the world that someone with the determination and knowledge to do so cannot break into if they have physical access and the time. It's a meaningless point.
It would only be a meaningless point if Apple didnt try to use in its ads that OSX is somehow immune from attacks.
No one has set you straight because you aren't here for rational discussion.
I have your attention. You can stop posting to me anytime
No Charlie reported it to Apple. It was the SAME Safari exploit used the previous year.
Poor reading comprehension from your own reference is amusing.
"Did you consider reporting the vulnerability to Apple?
I never give up free bugs. I have a new campaign. It?s called NO MORE FREE BUGS. Vulnerabilities have a market value so it makes no sense to work hard to find a bug, write an exploit and then give it away. Apple pays people to do the same job so we know there?s value to this work. No more free bugs."
and
"Does it work on Safari for Windows?
I don?t know. I didn?t look."
It's true that Leopard didn't fully implement ALSR but so far most OSX exploits have relied on social engineering (getting the user to run the exploit as admin). OSX has DEP but still allows heap allocated memory execution. Snow Leopard has NX bit support in 64 bit mode but older 32 bit machines are still vulnerable.
So really, Apple only needs to fully implement ALSR to achieve security parity with Win7 on any new Macs. That and default the firewall and virtual memory to more secure modes. Personally, I think working on GCD was much more useful than hardening Snow Leopard.
The biggest advantage (from an enterprise perspective) is that Win7 works better than Vista and is far more secure than XP. OSX is between XP and Vista/Win7 in hardness.
Win7 will be a big winner for MS, both for the enterprise and for the consumer market. It also gives MS a leg up in terms of multi-touch support on the desktop vs Apple. At least in the near term before the next big kitty release. Still though, MS has some significantly nice developer tools in WPF, LINQ, Multitouch SDK, and so forth.
You focus on the mild issue because you cant address the iPhones issues raised and the issues with hacking OSX.
Heh...issues with OSX security in the wild has been mild. As in those security vulnerabilities have not translated into widespread attacks. Wake me when an OSX botnet has been created with something other than users installing pirated software...
Poor reading comprehension from your own reference is amusing.
"Did you consider reporting the vulnerability to Apple?
I never give up free bugs. I have a new campaign. It?s called NO MORE FREE BUGS. Vulnerabilities have a market value so it makes no sense to work hard to find a bug, write an exploit and then give it away. Apple pays people to do the same job so we know there?s value to this work. No more free bugs."
and
"Does it work on Safari for Windows?
I don?t know. I didn?t look."
It's true that Leopard didn't fully implement ALSR but so far most OSX exploits have relied on social engineering (getting the user to run the exploit as admin). OSX has DEP but still allows heap allocated memory execution. Snow Leopard has NX bit support in 64 bit mode but older 32 bit machines are still vulnerable.
So really, Apple only needs to fully implement ALSR to achieve security parity with Win7 on any new Macs. That and default the firewall and virtual memory to more secure modes. Personally, I think working on GCD was much more useful than hardening Snow Leopard.
The biggest advantage (from an enterprise perspective) is that Win7 works better than Vista and is far more secure than XP. OSX is between XP and Vista/Win7 in hardness.
Win7 will be a big winner for MS, both for the enterprise and for the consumer market. It also gives MS a leg up in terms of multi-touch support on the desktop vs Apple. At least in the near term before the next big kitty release. Still though, MS has some significantly nice developer tools in WPF, LINQ, Multitouch SDK, and so forth.
You need to put it context. Charlie Miller did report it to Apple in 2007 then it went unpatched and the SAME exploit was used again in 2008 Pwn 2 Own then it went unpatched and he used the SAME exploit again to compromise the Mac again. It was all over the news and the internet and Apple never patched it. Charlie was making a joke about reporting the exploits because Apple ignored him for 3 years about the same exploit.
Did you also read the part about OS X being easier to compromise than Windows? Did you just ignore that part?
This same naïve argument again and again.
Ask yourself, why are you here on a Mac forum ranting about how bad Apple is and how great Windows is?
Don't you think there's one hacker out there who would like to "put Apple in its place" the way you're attempting to on this forum?
Pay attention.
There are two reasons hackers write malware and viruses.
One reason is money. Many hackers want to infect as many machines as possible so that they can run spam farms and harvest information for profit. It makes sense that this type of hacker would target the platform with the largest market share.
But the other reasons hackers do what they do is for notoriety. Maybe they want to be "king of the hacker hill" or maybe they hope to land a job.
There's absolutely no reason this type of hacker wouldn't target OS X.
Just ask yourself this simple question:
Who would gain more notoriety?
A) The writer of the 648,014th widespread, successful exploit for windows, or;
If you think there are no viruses for Mac because of market share, you're pretty short on logic.
The fact is there were viruses for the Mac back in the 68000/PowerPC days and that was when the Mac had a lesser marketshare then today. If people were willing to write some 40 Mac viruses for the Classic then with its larger marketshare MacOS X should have as many--but it doesn't. That alone should tell you something.
It would only be a meaningless point if Apple didnt try to use in its ads that OSX is somehow immune from attacks.
Compared to windows, it is. You're desperately clinging to a rather thin thread.
I have your attention. You can stop posting to me anytime
Yes, I'm sure you'd be very happy to be allowed to post your nonsense without always having to be contradicted by the facts. You have our attention because of your non-stop barrage of outright false, inaccurate, misleading and absolutely stupid claims. Propagandists are always happy to have a clear field for their brazenly false claims.
Let me see. Nope don't feel like I let myself down.
I never expected that you would. Perhaps you have been posting unsubstantiated boasts about your, anonymous, self for a little too long.
The hacker who writes the first widely effective malware of any type for OS X is going to be famous. Don't you think there are hackers out there who want to be famous?
There's no doubt that some have tried. They have failed, because OS X is a safer environment than Windows. Full stop.
Again, the reason there are no exploits in the wild targeting OS X has nothing to do with market share, and anyone who says it does just looks stupider and stupider.
The hacker who writes the first widely effective malware of any type for OS X is going to be famous. Don't you think there are hackers out there who want to be famous?
There's no doubt that some have tried. They have failed, because OS X is a safer environment than Windows. Full stop.
You keep telling yourself that. Its all about market share. People don't become famous for writing viruses.
iTunes and Qucktime have been exploited and Sarfari for Windows was hacked in 24 hours. Which shows Apple sucks at security.
No Exploits ever on the Mac? This was a harmless virus as most are but it still worked.
http://news.techworld.com/security/5...us-hits-apple/
Macs are not hacked because its not worth the time to hack them.
Tell that to you beloved Charlie Miller. Made him a household name. So much so, he ended up looking like a total ass when he lambasted Snow Leopard for not having 64-bit ASLR and that made it less secure than Windows.
Right after, Microsoft put out an advisory to shut down an open port (open by default) that would allow remote code execution on their flagship operating system of the time, Microsoft Vista. I'm sure he did a facepalm.
Tell that to you beloved Charlie Miller. Made him a household name. So much so, he ended up looking like a total ass when he lambasted Snow Leopard for not having 64-bit ASLR and that made it less secure than Windows.
Right after, Microsoft put out an advisory to shut down an open port (open by default) that would allow remote code execution on their flagship operating system of the time, Microsoft Vista. I'm sure he did a facepalm.
You mean the guy who was the first to hack the iPhone. Here you go here is a good read for you.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2941