4 ms·

I keep trying to find a way to set it lower but I can't. Maybe someone can help me.

mkaltenecker 14y ago
You can’t set a bar for Apple because they just say nothing at all. Interpreting Apple is akin to reading tea leaves. It’s not a low bar, it’s just that Apple never says anything.
- iuguy 14y ago
  That means the bar is glued to the floor. OS vendors should be looking to help their users have a more secure experience, not finally getting around to stop lying about security through obscurity as a positive feature because they're no longer obscure enough.
  - shinratdr 14y ago
    > not finally getting around to stop lying about security through obscurity as a positive feature because they're no longer obscure enough. That isn't what happened. It used to be true, now it's not so they changed it. Security through obscurity was a positive feature, there is little denying it. Just because it wasn't going to last doesn't make it positive and just because you think it's not something they should be touting doesn't make it a lie. > OS vendors should be looking to help their users have a more secure experience For the record, Apple has been working on OS X anti-malware since 2009 when Snow Leopard was released. It was a pretty cursory effort yes, but considering Microsoft hadn't even released MSE yet at that point it's still not bad. Marketing and engineering are two different departments. Just because someone is writing dumb copy about security in the marketing department doesn't even begin to indicate how engineers are tackling security issues in practice. In other words, Apple is both helping users to have a more secure experience (what do you think Gatekeeper is for?) and rolling back their boastful copy now that it's no longer true. How is that a bad thing?
    - iuguy 14y ago
      > That isn't what happened. It used to be true Stop drinking the kool aid. It was never true. OS X was exploit central for years. It was only the BSD base that stopped it from being exploitable from the network. All the client side stuff Apple added for years was RCE-you-like. Also a fundamental thing about security is the acceptance that security by obscurity is not a defensive measure. Genuine security doesn't rely on it. Smoke and mirrors might scare the wolves for a while but won't keep them away for long. > For the record, Apple has been working on OS X anti-malware since 2009 when the sixth major release of OS X was released. That's right, 5 major releases of the OS with no anti-malware effort, and it only became necessary for them to do it when it started to become an issue because people were getting owned. > It was a pretty cursory effort yes, but considering Microsoft hadn't even released MSE yet at that point it's still not bad. Don't even bother comparing it to Microsoft. The source operating system FreeBSD has been doing this for years before OSX even existed. Microsoft was doing security way before MSE. MSE was held back because it had the potential to damage industry partner relationships. If Apple releases an AV no-one cares. If MS releases a good enough AV product the AV industry jumps up and down because MS just stole their lunch. > In other words, Apple is both helping users to have a more secure experience (what do you think Gatekeeper is for?) Apple is not helping users to have a more secure experience. It's helping users to have a more controlled experience - the controller being apple. Gatekeeper is not a security measure, it's a tool designed to lock users into the Mac App Store. Do you really think that an App in the Mac App Store has no way of being malicious? Have you not seen what can be done by an app in iOS?
      - mkaltenecker 14y ago
        OS X was very safe (I won’t dare to make any claims about security) for a long time exactly because PC viruses couldn’t touch it. That’s a real and practical benefit. OS X users didn’t have to deal with viruses. To an extent that is still true – but it has now also become true to an extent for Windows users: They also don’t have to deal with viruses any longer, even if they take no precautions at all (at least most of the time). So that advantage has disappeared and if Apple continues to move so slowly the balance might tip. Still, I can’t find anything wrong with the marketing language they used.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]

You can’t set a bar for Apple because they just say nothing at all. Interpreting Apple is akin to reading tea leaves. It’s not a low bar, it’s just that Apple never says anything.

iuguy 14y ago
That means the bar is glued to the floor. OS vendors should be looking to help their users have a more secure experience, not finally getting around to stop lying about security through obscurity as a positive feature because they're no longer obscure enough.
- shinratdr 14y ago
  > not finally getting around to stop lying about security through obscurity as a positive feature because they're no longer obscure enough. That isn't what happened. It used to be true, now it's not so they changed it. Security through obscurity was a positive feature, there is little denying it. Just because it wasn't going to last doesn't make it positive and just because you think it's not something they should be touting doesn't make it a lie. > OS vendors should be looking to help their users have a more secure experience For the record, Apple has been working on OS X anti-malware since 2009 when Snow Leopard was released. It was a pretty cursory effort yes, but considering Microsoft hadn't even released MSE yet at that point it's still not bad. Marketing and engineering are two different departments. Just because someone is writing dumb copy about security in the marketing department doesn't even begin to indicate how engineers are tackling security issues in practice. In other words, Apple is both helping users to have a more secure experience (what do you think Gatekeeper is for?) and rolling back their boastful copy now that it's no longer true. How is that a bad thing?
  - iuguy 14y ago
    > That isn't what happened. It used to be true Stop drinking the kool aid. It was never true. OS X was exploit central for years. It was only the BSD base that stopped it from being exploitable from the network. All the client side stuff Apple added for years was RCE-you-like. Also a fundamental thing about security is the acceptance that security by obscurity is not a defensive measure. Genuine security doesn't rely on it. Smoke and mirrors might scare the wolves for a while but won't keep them away for long. > For the record, Apple has been working on OS X anti-malware since 2009 when the sixth major release of OS X was released. That's right, 5 major releases of the OS with no anti-malware effort, and it only became necessary for them to do it when it started to become an issue because people were getting owned. > It was a pretty cursory effort yes, but considering Microsoft hadn't even released MSE yet at that point it's still not bad. Don't even bother comparing it to Microsoft. The source operating system FreeBSD has been doing this for years before OSX even existed. Microsoft was doing security way before MSE. MSE was held back because it had the potential to damage industry partner relationships. If Apple releases an AV no-one cares. If MS releases a good enough AV product the AV industry jumps up and down because MS just stole their lunch. > In other words, Apple is both helping users to have a more secure experience (what do you think Gatekeeper is for?) Apple is not helping users to have a more secure experience. It's helping users to have a more controlled experience - the controller being apple. Gatekeeper is not a security measure, it's a tool designed to lock users into the Mac App Store. Do you really think that an App in the Mac App Store has no way of being malicious? Have you not seen what can be done by an app in iOS?
    - mkaltenecker 14y ago
      OS X was very safe (I won’t dare to make any claims about security) for a long time exactly because PC viruses couldn’t touch it. That’s a real and practical benefit. OS X users didn’t have to deal with viruses. To an extent that is still true – but it has now also become true to an extent for Windows users: They also don’t have to deal with viruses any longer, even if they take no precautions at all (at least most of the time). So that advantage has disappeared and if Apple continues to move so slowly the balance might tip. Still, I can’t find anything wrong with the marketing language they used.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]