Headline FeedsMacNewsWorld Talkback
|
|
See Full Story
Apple has completed a major security overhaul of its Leopard operating system. The fix addresses more than 40 crucial security flaws, including one in iCal that allows hackers to attack the computer remotely. Plugging the iCal hole was the most immediate need Apple had to address. Besides the iCal flaw, the patch addresses collaborative functions that could be used as vectors for attack. Security Update 2008-003 also has a non-security function: It enables iPhone users to sync Mac address book contacts with Google contacts.
Erika, your thesis is illogical...
Posted by: asdfasdfadsf 2008-05-30 19:24:01 In reply to: Erika Morphy
This is precisely why girls should not be allowed to discuss technical topics- complete and utter incompetence.
You state: "... has further deflated the claims of some fans that Macs are intrinsically superior in the security department."
This implies:
1) Issuing security updates deflate security merits.
This is just wrong- by actually FINDING them, you are increasing overall security. Turning a blind eye and never issuing an update, by your logic, would make a piece of software the MOST secure?!?! Just flat wrong.
2) The number of updates in a patch are proportionally correlated to the actual number of total bugs.
Because Leopard had 40 critical bugs, and Vista has, lets say for fun, just 1 critical bug in SP1- are we to believe Leopard is less secure? How does the number of bugs patched correlate to the total number? If Macs had, for fun, just 80 total critical bugs and they patched 40, then have had just decreased their vulnerability by 50%. If Vista had 100,000 bugs, a patch of 1 would be insignificant.
Your first statement of your thesis alone leaves you open to ridicule. Take a course in discrete logic and learn to connect the dots!
You state: "... has further deflated the claims of some fans that Macs are intrinsically superior in the security department."
This implies:
1) Issuing security updates deflate security merits.
This is just wrong- by actually FINDING them, you are increasing overall security. Turning a blind eye and never issuing an update, by your logic, would make a piece of software the MOST secure?!?! Just flat wrong.
2) The number of updates in a patch are proportionally correlated to the actual number of total bugs.
Because Leopard had 40 critical bugs, and Vista has, lets say for fun, just 1 critical bug in SP1- are we to believe Leopard is less secure? How does the number of bugs patched correlate to the total number? If Macs had, for fun, just 80 total critical bugs and they patched 40, then have had just decreased their vulnerability by 50%. If Vista had 100,000 bugs, a patch of 1 would be insignificant.
Your first statement of your thesis alone leaves you open to ridicule. Take a course in discrete logic and learn to connect the dots!
Their reputation has not been tarnished at all. There still has never been a true virus in the wild for OS X. With that fact still existing how would their reputation for security be hurt yet?
