4 ms·

You dodged the question. You haven't listed a single thing that Microsoft has done that Apple has not. You are right that Microsoft started to take security s

You dodged the question. You haven't listed a single thing that Microsoft has done that Apple has not. You are right that Microsoft started to take security seriously before Apple did, but Apple is not still behind. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/21/mac_os_x_lion_security/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/21/mac_os_x_lion_securi...

mindslight 15y ago
Attempting to revert the PC revolution into centrally controlled display terminals is "pretty fucking behind". Microsoft attempted to do this a decade ago and was rightfully called out for it, but it seems most of the Apple community is happy to not own the devices they rely on. Apparently Macs really are not meant to be Personal Computers.
- rbarooah 15y ago
  Are you sure you're not talking about Chrome OS? Also, what's your proposal for establishing the trustworthiness of code?
  - mindslight 15y ago
    Although what I said could be applied there as well, given that I didn't even attempt to reference it, I'm pretty sure. Sorry, arbitrary dichotomies are only fun for ultimately inconsequential things (professional sports, for instance).
    - rbarooah 15y ago
      It's not an arbitrary dichotomy, it's a factual one. Mac OS doesn't resemble a centrally controlled 'display terminal' at all, whereas Chrome OS does. You also didn't answer the part about trusted code.
      - mindslight 15y ago
        Mac OS hasn't reached the point where one needs to jump through hoops to install arbitrary programs, but given that the beginnings of such a system is present in Lion and it's the status quo on all of Apple's more recent devices (and one of their main selling points), one can only conclude that's the direction they will be taking consumer-oriented Mac OS in. > You also didn't answer the part about trusted code. Because it wasn't there when I replied. Centrally signed code repositories on their own aren't the worst thing, I rely on them myself (apt-get). The problem arises when it's fixed to one possible repository. If the proverbial "average user" cannot install and administer a friend-approved but Apple-unapproved app with the nearly the same ease as an Apple-approved one, we end up with a situation where Apple directly controls what average users are capable of. It also causes users who wish to own their device to hope for new exploits to be publicly discovered, which is utterly backwards. I understand that progress for actual security (isolation, capabilities, proper deputies, etc) takes significant work, but coarse-grained whitelists aren't the answer.
        rbarooah 15y ago
        I agree with your first point, but I disagree that it makes Mac OS into a 'display terminal'. Particularly since although hoops are being introduced for good reason, there is no evidence that Mac OS X will be closed in the way iOS is. Your second point as I've indicated, is just conjecture. I don't see good evidence for it actually happening. Certainly nothing that Apple has publicly disclosed suggests that it will. It seems pretty unlikely to me. But yes, if they did go that far, they would indeed control what average users were capable of. If it ever gets to that point, I'd hope that by that time, there would be some obvious killer apps for another OS to demonstrate why it was a problem. [edit: Coarse grained whitelists might not be the answer, but I highly doubt that Apple is going to stop there. Every OS release is a step along the way. It's worth noting that iOS has generally developed in the direction of providing more capabilities to programmers, rather than less over time.]
        mindslight 15y ago
        I've actually thought about this a bit, and it's not a "killer app" that will be missing from locked down systems, as the repository can always add anything that becomes popular elsewhere (after a little delay from porting/approval/etc). The difference starts at the foundation, and manifests in a pervasive lack of respect for the user (who's ultimate control and understanding should be a prime usability concern). For instance, that whole device-id brouhaha - iOS apps really get a unique device-id, which they are then supposed to partially-obscure according to Apple's guidelines? Why in the world is an app allowed to directly query a fixed identifier in the first place?! There should be a specific ID-Api of which the user controls via a system dialog the same way a user controls how long a browser stores cookies for. Sandboxing+auditing then make sure apps aren't using something like the ethernet addresses to get around the user's choice. But unfortunately, most of the developers who actually know enough to analyze this are on the take of the ad companies and think that their stake on the user's device is equivalent or even overrides the owner's! So Apple kowtows to the advertisers and permits uncontrollable tracking while the end-users are stuck with their only choice being 'use or not use' an app based on how much they perceive it abusing them. Instead of being introduced to a world full of self determination and limitless possibilities (as early computer adopters were), modern day users are shown a standard no-free-lunch world where "they either get you coming or going". Developers are still able to seek out freedom, but the goal of empowering an end user to solve their own problems couldn't be farther from sight. (And yes, Android has most of these same problems in addition to some of its own, which is why I said dichotomies aren't useful.)
mrich 15y ago
Please read my answer again, and you will find differences between Microsoft's and Apple's approach to security that answer your question.
- rbarooah 15y ago
  You didn't answer my question. You've offered a vague opinion about appearances. If you had answered my question you would be able to pick out at least one thing that Microsoft had done that Apple had not. You said: Microsoft did their job years ago, now Apple has to follow. This is simply not supported by the facts.
  - nirvana 15y ago
    Especially the fact that Apple's OS security has been solid, all thru the past two decades, with very few exploits, while Microsofts has bee wide open during those period, and Microsooft deliberately chose not to close the holes because they were there for "marketing initiatives". On Windows a massive industry of malware detection has sprung up and still there are millions upon millions of zombie PCs out there. Meanwhile, despite no such industry on OS X there are no reports of infections in the wild (from viruses the original commenters claim, this article is about a trojan, which also is a lot more prevalent on windows than on the Mac.) But don't let these facts get in the way-- remember, the point of this thread specifically, and a big amount of the draw of Hacker News, is that you can bash Apple and get up voted by other Apple haters. Facts are not relevant.

mindslight 15y ago

Attempting to revert the PC revolution into centrally controlled display terminals is "pretty fucking behind". Microsoft attempted to do this a decade ago and was rightfully called out for it, but it seems most of the Apple community is happy to not own the devices they rely on. Apparently Macs really are not meant to be Personal Computers.

rbarooah 15y ago
Are you sure you're not talking about Chrome OS? Also, what's your proposal for establishing the trustworthiness of code?
- mindslight 15y ago
  Although what I said could be applied there as well, given that I didn't even attempt to reference it, I'm pretty sure. Sorry, arbitrary dichotomies are only fun for ultimately inconsequential things (professional sports, for instance).
  - rbarooah 15y ago
    It's not an arbitrary dichotomy, it's a factual one. Mac OS doesn't resemble a centrally controlled 'display terminal' at all, whereas Chrome OS does. You also didn't answer the part about trusted code.
    - mindslight 15y ago
      Mac OS hasn't reached the point where one needs to jump through hoops to install arbitrary programs, but given that the beginnings of such a system is present in Lion and it's the status quo on all of Apple's more recent devices (and one of their main selling points), one can only conclude that's the direction they will be taking consumer-oriented Mac OS in. > You also didn't answer the part about trusted code. Because it wasn't there when I replied. Centrally signed code repositories on their own aren't the worst thing, I rely on them myself (apt-get). The problem arises when it's fixed to one possible repository. If the proverbial "average user" cannot install and administer a friend-approved but Apple-unapproved app with the nearly the same ease as an Apple-approved one, we end up with a situation where Apple directly controls what average users are capable of. It also causes users who wish to own their device to hope for new exploits to be publicly discovered, which is utterly backwards. I understand that progress for actual security (isolation, capabilities, proper deputies, etc) takes significant work, but coarse-grained whitelists aren't the answer.
      - rbarooah 15y ago
        I agree with your first point, but I disagree that it makes Mac OS into a 'display terminal'. Particularly since although hoops are being introduced for good reason, there is no evidence that Mac OS X will be closed in the way iOS is. Your second point as I've indicated, is just conjecture. I don't see good evidence for it actually happening. Certainly nothing that Apple has publicly disclosed suggests that it will. It seems pretty unlikely to me. But yes, if they did go that far, they would indeed control what average users were capable of. If it ever gets to that point, I'd hope that by that time, there would be some obvious killer apps for another OS to demonstrate why it was a problem. [edit: Coarse grained whitelists might not be the answer, but I highly doubt that Apple is going to stop there. Every OS release is a step along the way. It's worth noting that iOS has generally developed in the direction of providing more capabilities to programmers, rather than less over time.]
        mindslight 15y ago
        I've actually thought about this a bit, and it's not a "killer app" that will be missing from locked down systems, as the repository can always add anything that becomes popular elsewhere (after a little delay from porting/approval/etc). The difference starts at the foundation, and manifests in a pervasive lack of respect for the user (who's ultimate control and understanding should be a prime usability concern). For instance, that whole device-id brouhaha - iOS apps really get a unique device-id, which they are then supposed to partially-obscure according to Apple's guidelines? Why in the world is an app allowed to directly query a fixed identifier in the first place?! There should be a specific ID-Api of which the user controls via a system dialog the same way a user controls how long a browser stores cookies for. Sandboxing+auditing then make sure apps aren't using something like the ethernet addresses to get around the user's choice. But unfortunately, most of the developers who actually know enough to analyze this are on the take of the ad companies and think that their stake on the user's device is equivalent or even overrides the owner's! So Apple kowtows to the advertisers and permits uncontrollable tracking while the end-users are stuck with their only choice being 'use or not use' an app based on how much they perceive it abusing them. Instead of being introduced to a world full of self determination and limitless possibilities (as early computer adopters were), modern day users are shown a standard no-free-lunch world where "they either get you coming or going". Developers are still able to seek out freedom, but the goal of empowering an end user to solve their own problems couldn't be farther from sight. (And yes, Android has most of these same problems in addition to some of its own, which is why I said dichotomies aren't useful.)

mrich 15y ago

Please read my answer again, and you will find differences between Microsoft's and Apple's approach to security that answer your question.

rbarooah 15y ago
You didn't answer my question. You've offered a vague opinion about appearances. If you had answered my question you would be able to pick out at least one thing that Microsoft had done that Apple had not. You said: Microsoft did their job years ago, now Apple has to follow. This is simply not supported by the facts.
- nirvana 15y ago
  Especially the fact that Apple's OS security has been solid, all thru the past two decades, with very few exploits, while Microsofts has bee wide open during those period, and Microsooft deliberately chose not to close the holes because they were there for "marketing initiatives". On Windows a massive industry of malware detection has sprung up and still there are millions upon millions of zombie PCs out there. Meanwhile, despite no such industry on OS X there are no reports of infections in the wild (from viruses the original commenters claim, this article is about a trojan, which also is a lot more prevalent on windows than on the Mac.) But don't let these facts get in the way-- remember, the point of this thread specifically, and a big amount of the draw of Hacker News, is that you can bash Apple and get up voted by other Apple haters. Facts are not relevant.