Apple has always had their head in their butt when it comes to security. They have gotten away with this by being a niche market. One day they are going to get bitten so badly it's gonna really hurt.
But this is what you get when you can't partner with existing services and you have such a huge ego you feel you can do everything better yourself. Right Steve?
Nonsense. The iPod is a niche market? Where are the iViruses for these HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of devices. Apple do take security seriously and from what I've seen are quicker to react that microsoft - I'm aware of issues publicly known in XP that are still not addressed. The worse I've seen from apple is a fortnight for the PDF issue last month. Two weeks isn't all that bad, and from what I heard on line (and we would have heard) this remained unexploited by all except jailbreakme.com.
Updates are all now security signed and you can't install anything or alter the system without manually typing your admin password (if you run as root, then more fool you!).
The argument that "small market share == small risk" is ridiculous. There are a LOT of people who like to damage apple with a very public virus - there hasn't been one for a reason, and that reason has nothing to with having their "head in their butt".
I repeat there has NOT been a virus in the wild on Mac, there have been proof of concepts and bugs, there has even been spyware and malware through third-party software but NO viruses. At ALL, EVER.
and from sophos themselves:
Quote:
While Ping is susceptible to spammers, iTunes 10 does pack a number of important security features. Sophos noted that the latest update patches 13 separate vulnerabilities in the WebKit components used to render the media suite for Mac and Windows.
Apple don't publicly highlight when security is (and continues to be) tightened.
It's a good thing.
General myths believed by windows users - Apple has no virus protection (wrong, it's built into the system) Apple has no firewall (again, in the system) Apple has no security and is easy to hack - simply FUD. It hasn't happened for a reason, people want to do it - plenty of them and they've so far failed.
It annoys companies like sophos, norton, mcafee because they can't sell their products to an ever increasing base of users and so stories like this are spread and blown out of proportion (normally by these self same companies).
Receiving a spam email is not an "attack", nor is it endangering your system in any way. Phishing - if this is the case here - has nothing to do with system security or viruses it's about end user action and is platform irrelevant.
Additionally, Apple approached Facebook, so they didn't try to go it alone...
So you can correspond and communicate anytime (internet cafe cell-phone etc), otherwise it's just a gimmik.
Well I have itunes on my laptop, which is with me at all times. Itunes exists on the iPad, so it's with you at all times, The PING app is on the Ipod and iPhone. Itunes is rumoured to be in the cloud - but personally - a social network about music is only of interest to me when I'm listening to said music. This is a gimmick, it's part of the store and there's nothing wrong with 'gimmicks'. This is about Apple selling more music, nothing more.
Ping has already been involved in a minor controversy as well, as the site suggested it offered Facebook connectivity when it first launched, only for the feature to be inactive. Reports have indicated that is because Facebook blocked API access to Ping after the company failed to reach an agreement with Apple, as the website demanded "onerous terms" from the iTunes maker, Chief Executive Steve Jobs said.
This sort of thing seems to be getting more and more common with Apple. They seem to announce their stuff long before any partners have signed up. Newspapers and magazines are another example. We heard all about how every magazine would be available and how Apple was going to change the whole industry, but the reality is VERY different.
Now Apple announces Facebook functionality before any deal is cut, while at the same time trying to use a public statment by the CEO to vilify Facebook and make them into some sort of greedy bad guys. That sort of negotiation tactic is nasty and amateurish.
That's like asking "if they knew the computer software was going to get hacked, why didn't they deal with it proactively". It's an inevitable fact. You deal with it as it comes. And it will probably always need to be patched at some point.
But computer software IS dealt with proactively to protect users against hackers. Security is baked-in, from the ground up.
This sort of thing seems to be getting more and more common with Apple. They seem to announce their stuff long before any partners have signed up. Newspapers and magazines are another example. We heard all about how every magazine would be available and how Apple was going to change the whole industry, but the reality is VERY different.
Now Apple announces Facebook functionality before any deal is cut, while at the same time trying to use a public statment by the CEO to vilify Facebook and make them into some sort of greedy bad guys. That sort of negotiation tactic is nasty and amateurish.
This sort of sleazy tactic is far beneath Apple.
Nope, apple don't announce anything far in advance - rumours sites do.
The fact that the facebook thing went so far and was made public suggests that something went wrong at the eleventh hour - it's nothing to do with sleazy tactics and serves only to embarrass Apple. The icons, the functionality would not have been there and tested unless facebook were on board.
On another note, there's nothing at all to stop Apple using the Facebook developer API to introduce 'share' and 'like' buttons on this service as any other commercial service interacting with facebook.
Apple has always had their head in their butt when it comes to security. They have gotten away with this by being a niche market. One day they are going to get bitten so badly it's gonna really hurt.
But this is what you get when you can't partner with existing services and you have such a huge ego you feel you can do everything better yourself. Right Steve?
Losing Google as a partner is likely to hurt them badly in the end. Apple needs search. They got nothing now. They can't do it by themselves, given that they have been trying for years and have yet to implement anything reasonable even in the App Store.
Apple has always had their head in their butt when it comes to security. They have gotten away with this by being a niche market. One day they are going to get bitten so badly it's gonna really hurt.
But this is what you get when you can't partner with existing services and you have such a huge ego you feel you can do everything better yourself. Right Steve?
Total BS, Apple always had excellent security measures in all their devices. It's close to impossible to hack into a Mac without getting physical access prior to your hack attempts.
But computer software IS dealt with proactively to protect users against hackers. Security is baked-in, from the ground up.
Or not.
As new hacks are developed, they can only be dealt with after the event. That's sort of common sense. You do all you can do pro-actively before release and deal with issues as they arise.
Losing Google as a partner is likely to hurt them badly in the end. Apple needs search. They got nothing now. They can't do it by themselves, given that they have been trying for years and have yet to implement anything reasonable even in the App Store.
Crawling to Microsoft for Bing is pathetic.
Yes they have, they've got google, bing and any other search provider you can list- it's all there in google. Providing alternatives is good for the consumer.
Google need apple as much as the inverse. Google betrayed apple and deserve a big slap.
Anyone has the right to release a new technology, or to provide alternatives to existing products and services. To sit on the board of a company obtaining useful inside information and then go into competition with them is frankly despicable. I don't see Apple entering the search market?
Actually, it makes sense that Apple is restricting their "social media" concept to iTunes. They're not trying to be another FaceBook?a community for anyone and everyone. It's a "niche" community of music lovers and fans (and perhaps?hopefully?eventually, book and movie lovers as well). If they open it up to "any browser at any time", they run into all sorts of issues regarding security, browser compatibility, hardware compatibility, etc. If it's kept in the iTunes fold, then there's the assurance that if iTunes works on the user's computer, then Ping will work as well.
So you are saying that the lack of browser accessibility is a feature?
As new hacks are developed, they can only be dealt with after the event. That's sort of common sense. You do all you can do pro-actively before release and deal with issues as they arise.
Unless you've got a crystal ball?
The problem with this logic is that it requires a level of protection to begin with to make the new hack develop. If there is no security to begin with, then even the oldest of old attacks will work.
If Apple had no protection to begin with, then the spammers would only need to dig into their already ample closet of spam programs and go at it. If Apple had installed a good deal of spam protection/user flagging from day one, then it would force the spammers to create something new.
So you are saying that the lack of browser accessibility is a feature?
Wow.
Nope, something that's missing isn't a 'feature'. Something that's missing is nothing, not included, not a part of the product or service and not needed for it to function as required. Ping is a part of the iTunes store, it requires iTunes.
Additionally, Apple approached Facebook, so they didn't try to go it alone...
Seemingly, they approached Facebook with an unacceptable offer. Steve already said that Apple was unwilling to pay enough to inspire Facebook to do the deal.
The problem with this logic is that it requires a level of protection to begin with to make the new hack develop. If there is no security to begin with, then even the oldest of old attacks will work.
If Apple had no protection to begin with, then the spammers would only need to dig into their already ample closet of spam programs and go at it. If Apple had installed a good deal of spam protection/user flagging from day one, then it would force the spammers to create something new.
So you're suggesting that Apple released this with no protection at all in place? That seems a little far fetched.
I've got more levels of spam protection on my servers than I can list - I still get spam.
The company that produce a system that 100% eradicates all spam will be very, very rich very quickly.
The protection you're talking about doesn't exist yet, so how could it be put in place?
EDIT No doubt the usual filtering will now be added to - lists of IP addresses, server, domains, key strings etc. etc.
Seemingly, they approached Facebook with an unacceptable offer. Steve already said that Apple was unwilling to pay enough to inspire Facebook to do the deal.
Nope, "seemingly" facebook asked for too much in return, according to "speculation" in the media. We don't know. But the point is, they didn't try to go it alone, there were discussions with Facebook - so your original statement is moot. Apple has made no public statement regarding this issue.
Comments
Apple has always had their head in their butt when it comes to security. They have gotten away with this by being a niche market. One day they are going to get bitten so badly it's gonna really hurt.
But this is what you get when you can't partner with existing services and you have such a huge ego you feel you can do everything better yourself. Right Steve?
Nonsense. The iPod is a niche market? Where are the iViruses for these HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of devices. Apple do take security seriously and from what I've seen are quicker to react that microsoft - I'm aware of issues publicly known in XP that are still not addressed. The worse I've seen from apple is a fortnight for the PDF issue last month. Two weeks isn't all that bad, and from what I heard on line (and we would have heard) this remained unexploited by all except jailbreakme.com.
Updates are all now security signed and you can't install anything or alter the system without manually typing your admin password (if you run as root, then more fool you!).
The argument that "small market share == small risk" is ridiculous. There are a LOT of people who like to damage apple with a very public virus - there hasn't been one for a reason, and that reason has nothing to with having their "head in their butt".
I repeat there has NOT been a virus in the wild on Mac, there have been proof of concepts and bugs, there has even been spyware and malware through third-party software but NO viruses. At ALL, EVER.
and from sophos themselves:
While Ping is susceptible to spammers, iTunes 10 does pack a number of important security features. Sophos noted that the latest update patches 13 separate vulnerabilities in the WebKit components used to render the media suite for Mac and Windows.
Apple don't publicly highlight when security is (and continues to be) tightened.
It's a good thing.
General myths believed by windows users - Apple has no virus protection (wrong, it's built into the system) Apple has no firewall (again, in the system) Apple has no security and is easy to hack - simply FUD. It hasn't happened for a reason, people want to do it - plenty of them and they've so far failed.
It annoys companies like sophos, norton, mcafee because they can't sell their products to an ever increasing base of users and so stories like this are spread and blown out of proportion (normally by these self same companies).
Receiving a spam email is not an "attack", nor is it endangering your system in any way. Phishing - if this is the case here - has nothing to do with system security or viruses it's about end user action and is platform irrelevant.
Additionally, Apple approached Facebook, so they didn't try to go it alone...
So you can correspond and communicate anytime (internet cafe cell-phone etc), otherwise it's just a gimmik.
Well I have itunes on my laptop, which is with me at all times. Itunes exists on the iPad, so it's with you at all times, The PING app is on the Ipod and iPhone. Itunes is rumoured to be in the cloud - but personally - a social network about music is only of interest to me when I'm listening to said music. This is a gimmick, it's part of the store and there's nothing wrong with 'gimmicks'. This is about Apple selling more music, nothing more.
Ping has already been involved in a minor controversy as well, as the site suggested it offered Facebook connectivity when it first launched, only for the feature to be inactive. Reports have indicated that is because Facebook blocked API access to Ping after the company failed to reach an agreement with Apple, as the website demanded "onerous terms" from the iTunes maker, Chief Executive Steve Jobs said.
This sort of thing seems to be getting more and more common with Apple. They seem to announce their stuff long before any partners have signed up. Newspapers and magazines are another example. We heard all about how every magazine would be available and how Apple was going to change the whole industry, but the reality is VERY different.
Now Apple announces Facebook functionality before any deal is cut, while at the same time trying to use a public statment by the CEO to vilify Facebook and make them into some sort of greedy bad guys. That sort of negotiation tactic is nasty and amateurish.
This sort of sleazy tactic is far beneath Apple.
It's me. I'm the spammer. I just really need to get rid of this generic viagra at ultra l0w price$
you must be tortured with blunt spoons!
That's like asking "if they knew the computer software was going to get hacked, why didn't they deal with it proactively". It's an inevitable fact. You deal with it as it comes. And it will probably always need to be patched at some point.
But computer software IS dealt with proactively to protect users against hackers. Security is baked-in, from the ground up.
Or not.
This sort of thing seems to be getting more and more common with Apple. They seem to announce their stuff long before any partners have signed up. Newspapers and magazines are another example. We heard all about how every magazine would be available and how Apple was going to change the whole industry, but the reality is VERY different.
Now Apple announces Facebook functionality before any deal is cut, while at the same time trying to use a public statment by the CEO to vilify Facebook and make them into some sort of greedy bad guys. That sort of negotiation tactic is nasty and amateurish.
This sort of sleazy tactic is far beneath Apple.
Nope, apple don't announce anything far in advance - rumours sites do.
The fact that the facebook thing went so far and was made public suggests that something went wrong at the eleventh hour - it's nothing to do with sleazy tactics and serves only to embarrass Apple. The icons, the functionality would not have been there and tested unless facebook were on board.
On another note, there's nothing at all to stop Apple using the Facebook developer API to introduce 'share' and 'like' buttons on this service as any other commercial service interacting with facebook.
Apple has always had their head in their butt when it comes to security. They have gotten away with this by being a niche market. One day they are going to get bitten so badly it's gonna really hurt.
But this is what you get when you can't partner with existing services and you have such a huge ego you feel you can do everything better yourself. Right Steve?
Losing Google as a partner is likely to hurt them badly in the end. Apple needs search. They got nothing now. They can't do it by themselves, given that they have been trying for years and have yet to implement anything reasonable even in the App Store.
Crawling to Microsoft for Bing is pathetic.
Apple has always had their head in their butt when it comes to security. They have gotten away with this by being a niche market. One day they are going to get bitten so badly it's gonna really hurt.
But this is what you get when you can't partner with existing services and you have such a huge ego you feel you can do everything better yourself. Right Steve?
Total BS, Apple always had excellent security measures in all their devices. It's close to impossible to hack into a Mac without getting physical access prior to your hack attempts.
But computer software IS dealt with proactively to protect users against hackers. Security is baked-in, from the ground up.
Or not.
As new hacks are developed, they can only be dealt with after the event. That's sort of common sense. You do all you can do pro-actively before release and deal with issues as they arise.
Unless you've got a crystal ball?
Losing Google as a partner is likely to hurt them badly in the end. Apple needs search. They got nothing now. They can't do it by themselves, given that they have been trying for years and have yet to implement anything reasonable even in the App Store.
Crawling to Microsoft for Bing is pathetic.
Yes they have, they've got google, bing and any other search provider you can list- it's all there in google. Providing alternatives is good for the consumer.
Google need apple as much as the inverse. Google betrayed apple and deserve a big slap.
Anyone has the right to release a new technology, or to provide alternatives to existing products and services. To sit on the board of a company obtaining useful inside information and then go into competition with them is frankly despicable. I don't see Apple entering the search market?
It's me. I'm the spammer. I just really need to get rid of this generic viagra at ultra l0w price$
But you're making it hard for yourself. Your prices are too stiff.
Actually, it makes sense that Apple is restricting their "social media" concept to iTunes. They're not trying to be another FaceBook?a community for anyone and everyone. It's a "niche" community of music lovers and fans (and perhaps?hopefully?eventually, book and movie lovers as well). If they open it up to "any browser at any time", they run into all sorts of issues regarding security, browser compatibility, hardware compatibility, etc. If it's kept in the iTunes fold, then there's the assurance that if iTunes works on the user's computer, then Ping will work as well.
So you are saying that the lack of browser accessibility is a feature?
Wow.
As new hacks are developed, they can only be dealt with after the event. That's sort of common sense. You do all you can do pro-actively before release and deal with issues as they arise.
Unless you've got a crystal ball?
The problem with this logic is that it requires a level of protection to begin with to make the new hack develop. If there is no security to begin with, then even the oldest of old attacks will work.
If Apple had no protection to begin with, then the spammers would only need to dig into their already ample closet of spam programs and go at it. If Apple had installed a good deal of spam protection/user flagging from day one, then it would force the spammers to create something new.
So you are saying that the lack of browser accessibility is a feature?
Wow.
Nope, something that's missing isn't a 'feature'. Something that's missing is nothing, not included, not a part of the product or service and not needed for it to function as required. Ping is a part of the iTunes store, it requires iTunes.
Additionally, Apple approached Facebook, so they didn't try to go it alone...
Seemingly, they approached Facebook with an unacceptable offer. Steve already said that Apple was unwilling to pay enough to inspire Facebook to do the deal.
The problem with this logic is that it requires a level of protection to begin with to make the new hack develop. If there is no security to begin with, then even the oldest of old attacks will work.
If Apple had no protection to begin with, then the spammers would only need to dig into their already ample closet of spam programs and go at it. If Apple had installed a good deal of spam protection/user flagging from day one, then it would force the spammers to create something new.
So you're suggesting that Apple released this with no protection at all in place? That seems a little far fetched.
I've got more levels of spam protection on my servers than I can list - I still get spam.
The company that produce a system that 100% eradicates all spam will be very, very rich very quickly.
The protection you're talking about doesn't exist yet, so how could it be put in place?
EDIT No doubt the usual filtering will now be added to - lists of IP addresses, server, domains, key strings etc. etc.
Seemingly, they approached Facebook with an unacceptable offer. Steve already said that Apple was unwilling to pay enough to inspire Facebook to do the deal.
Nope, "seemingly" facebook asked for too much in return, according to "speculation" in the media. We don't know. But the point is, they didn't try to go it alone, there were discussions with Facebook - so your original statement is moot. Apple has made no public statement regarding this issue.
The icons, the functionality would not have been there and tested unless facebook were on board.
Recent events suggest otherwise.
Recent events suggest otherwise.
Nope, they don't. What's your logic?