Mac OS X riddled with security holes

[TimP]

http://idg.net.nz/news.nsf/UNID/66B9CD15EAA66311CC256E8C0069B331

[WeekendLazyness]

HAHA. I'm going to rub that in all of the faces of people who say that Mac OS X is more secure.

Even funnier, they tried to patent translucent windows:
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/15/1332215&mode=flat&tid=107&tid=155&tid=187&tid=99

[Whiteknight]

http://idg.net.nz/news.nsf/UNID/66B9CD15EAA66311CC256E8C0069B331It said that they are fixing them, which is more than I can say for windows. Besides, that is not an apple site, and there is no official proof.

And what, 3 or 5 holes in mac compared to, what, 1000 in windows?

HAHA. I'm going to rub that in all of the faces of people who say that Mac OS X is more secure.

Even funnier, they tried to patent translucent windows:
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.p...&tid=187&tid=99 (http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/15/1332215&mode=flat&tid=107&tid=155&tid=187&tid=99) Think about it, if they didn't patent it, some other company would.

It's sad that the world's coming to all these patents but if Apple doesn't patent this some other company might. Given Apple's involment in the open source community with Darwin, http://www.opensource.apple.com/ , I would rather see them with a patent for this than some company based on patents only. No, that's a mistake a lot of people make. If Apple really did do it first then no one else can patent it anyway (prior art).
Ideally, that's what's supposed to happen. In the real world, someone might get a patent passed even if they're not legally entitled to it, then force Apple into a litigation battle to prove prior art that will cost them money whether they win or lose...whereas if they get the "defensive" patent, they can simply say, "We patented this too, and we patented it first," which is simpler.

[TimP]

It said that they are fixing them, which is more than I can say for windows. ... And what, 3 or 5 holes in mac compared to, what, 1000 in windows.You have got to be kidding me. Unless you've been living in a hole for the last few months, you've seen that Microsoft has been one of the most active companies in fixing its security holes. Security is one of the primary focuses in Windows XP SP2 and in the upcoming Longhorn.

1000 security holes in Windows? Where are you getting that from? Not from Microsoft. As a matter of fact that's not from anywhere other than your head. Look at Microsoft's track record lately. In the first year following release, Windows Server 2003 had exactly 13 "Critical" or "Important" security bulletins. If you do the math that's only one every four weeks.

[Whiteknight]

Okay, granted, but that is still more than Mac. You are only looking at critical or important. Windows has many moderate ones too.

[TimP]

Keep in mind though that this is just the tip of the iceberg and a wakeup call to those who thought that OS X was invincible. I wouldn't be surprised if more security holes start surfacing. This isn't really much of a Windows vs. Mac argument. It just goes to show that no OS (Linux, Mac, Windows) has perfect security.

[WeekendLazyness]

Besides, that is not an apple site, and there is no official proof.
That's right, anything posted on Slashdot must not be true. And I thought they couldn't print lies on the Internet.

[AJ]

children, down.
no operating system is impervious to security loopholes and glitches, they always happen to an extent, and has been historically much less in Apple's Mac OS than whatever flavor of Windows you care to compare.

OS X brings with it a UNIX underbelly and as such many more layers of possible security holes. However, I do not see the problem with Apple posting low-key warnings regardings their stance on these holes.. I think that the majority of those using computers these days are smart enough to take a Security Update for what it is and just download it. And the company choosing to not make a big deal out of what it fixed, is simply a smart company trying to obscure the seriousness to avoid further numbers of users being taken advantage of via that hole.

You need to tone down your arguments in here to some solid facts -- too much mud slinging.

[Neo]

*cough*

Funny that a Mac Fan started it *whiney voice*

/sarcasm

Anyways it doesnt surprise me, People who think there OS is perfect and/or secure need some serious help... Nothing is that secure. Granted Linux comes very close, but security holes are still found from time to time...

-Neo

[Exedore]

Sure, windows 2003 only had 13 Critical or Important updates, but many of those patches are for multiple vulnerabilities. I know one of the recent patches for WindowsXP fixed at least 5 different vulnerabilities.

But like AJ said, this isn't about Windows vs. Mac. Hell, even Linux distributions have had problems with SSE vulnerabilities months ago. And some still have trouble with local users using the map command to gain super-user status, although all known ones were patched. The main reason we stress windows security flaws over Mac ones is that Windows makes up a significantly larger portion of the world-wide OS share.