3 ms·
That's not quite accurate. iOS exploits are worth a lot, bit OS X exploits are not worth as much. There is no relation between the two in terms of value. It's a
by lawnchair_larry 14y ago
That's not quite accurate. iOS exploits are worth a lot, bit OS X exploits are not worth as much. There is no relation between the two in terms of value. It's also much easier to write OS X exploits than it is to write Windows exploits in general. Windows has always been far ahead of OS X in terms of mitigations.
Safari on OS X is considered a soft target compared to the other browsers. It is the least difficult and has the fewest users. That is why the payout is less.
- eksith 14y agoNever mentioned OS X. Parent did, I didn't. OS X's "soft target" status would explain why Pwn2own offered a lesser prize for Safari on it, but iOS is a different beast altogether and more likely to be carried around by Apple devs on their mobile devices. Hence my theory they may be after trade secrets.
- lawnchair_larry 14y agoYou did, because Mac and OS X are synonymous :) It has nothing to do with being after trade secrets from Apple employees. The people who sell both iOS and Mac (OS X) exploits do not sell them to people trying to steal Apple's trade secrets.
- othermaciej 14y agoSafari on OS X has some good mitigation a these days, such as running the web content in a separate sandboxed process, which Friefox does not do. I suspect attackers either failed to find or did not want to burn their WebProcess sandbox escape.