[MW Forums]

Security experts said that Apple's Leopard operating system needs work more

[pmbx]

LOL

Quote:

---

Im just saying that theyve got a long way to go to catch up with Microsoft.

---

This Apple-envy is the worst kind of Windows-proponents garbage. 'Catch-up' to what? The worst security track record that will EVER be!

[kresh]

Just more talking heads grabbing for headlines by screaming that the sky is falling.

[LarryV]

Quote:

---

LOL

Quote:

---

Im just saying that theyve got a long way to go to catch up with Microsoft.

---

This Apple-envy is the worst kind of Windows-proponents garbage. 'Catch-up' to what? The worst security track record that will EVER be!

---

Perhaps they meant to refer to the work Microsoft did from XP to Vista?
I can't think of anything else they might have meant. Surely they aren't suggesting that Windows is more secure than Mac OS X?

[Felix001]

To you who've already upgraded to Leopard, is it accurate that the firewall is turned off unless you proactively turn it on?
Here's another security "expert" claiming the same thing in an easily understood article.
So, if the firewall is indeed turned off by default, what did you do? Accept it as "Apple knows best?" Or turn it on? And if so, which firewall option did you choose and your rationale?

[elCapiton]

He has some good points. In a way it seems a little like what's going on with the iPhone. The iPhone hackers said the firmware didn't seem quite finished and maybe it's the same with Leopard. They didn't get the randomization quite finished for everything and they didn't get the sandboxing working enough that it can be used for Safari or Mail. Hopefully they can fix this in an update and don't wait until 10.6

[jmincey]

I for one don't pooh-pooh or dismiss this article in the least. I think it has some merit.
Apart from mindless reflex, what is the basis for responding to the points of this article only with a laugh?

[canettijazz]

Quote:

---

To you who've already upgraded to Leopard, is it accurate that the firewall is turned off unless you proactively turn it on?
Here's another security "expert" claiming the same thing in an easily understood article.
So, if the firewall is indeed turned off by default, what did you do? Accept it as "Apple knows best?" Or turn it on? And if so, which firewall option did you choose and your rationale?

---

If the firewall is indeed turned off by default, this is a terrible decision by Apple. For years, these security experts have blasted Microsoft for this exact issue and pointed out that Apple had their firewall turned on by default. This is a definite step backward, particularly if you're upgrading from Tiger and previously had the firewall turned on. Let's hope Apple addresses this pronto.

[warlock7]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

To you who've already upgraded to Leopard, is it accurate that the firewall is turned off unless you proactively turn it on?
Here's another security "expert" claiming the same thing in an easily understood article.

So, if the firewall is indeed turned off by default, what did you do? Accept it as "Apple knows best?" Or turn it on? And if so, which firewall option did you choose and your rationale?

---

If the firewall is indeed turned off by default, this is a terrible decision by Apple. For years, these security experts have blasted Microsoft for this exact issue and pointed out that Apple had their firewall turned on by default. This is a definite step backward, particularly if you're upgrading from Tiger and previously had the firewall turned on. Let's hope Apple addresses this pronto.

---

The firewall was turned off by default in Tiger too, let's not rewrite history here. XP was also the first iteration of Windows to include a firewall, so any "security experts" haven't been making a stink that long... only about seven years. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
I agree that Apple needs to deal with this issue in a quick and complete way. I see the real issue here being that Apple not only moved where you control the firewall and made it much more complicated to use, IMO.

[Wings]

The best explanation I've seen as to why their tests are mostly FUD, is this:
In their report that they complain about services Nmap lists as "open/filtered". Nmap reports that result when it encounters a port that elicits no reply whatsoever to a probe. This happens only when a firewall is dropping all traffic to a port and not generating any ICMP error packet for the attempt. The TCP spec says if a port isn't open the client should get an ICMP error, so Nmap knows that there's something there even if access to it's being blocked. If this is any indication of the quality of this "analysis", we can discount the article.

I think those guys are so used to Window's services being so easily invaded that they think that even if an outside packet can "knock on the door" to a service that it's inherently breakable.
As with all of these security alerts for OSX, wake me when someone actually does something .

[Mindflayer]

The article over at Heise is misleading at best, ignorant and/or fanning the flames at worst. For example, their interpretation of the nmap UDP scan is misleading. Yes, you can read NetBIOS hostname with a number of methods in that case, but it's not an open hole.

[zarmanto]

Quote:

---

"I'm impressed that when they didn't have to do it, they went after low-level features that no one will understand," he said. "I like the direction theyre headed. I'm just saying that theyve got a long way to go to catch up with Microsoft."

---

That is absolutely hilarious! Basically he just said, "I'm impressed that Apple is working proactively to prevent all those remote hacks that just aren't happening yet... but they're way behind Microsoft... who, by the way, is being forced to work reactively because their OS is being hacked every day..."
Talk about a back-handed compliment! Me: I'd give Apple more credit for their proactive approach to security, rather then flame them just because it creates headlines. But hey, I'm neither a reporter nor an "industry pundant", so maybe my priorities are all wrong... /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[sqlrob]

Quote:

---

Apple takes security very seriously and has a great track record of addressing potential vulnerabilities before they can affect users.

---

So, where's the buffer overflow fix in Java that was fixed in Sun's version more than six months ago?

[veggiedude]

I see things that need to be fixed, but they are not addressed here.
I signed up for .Mac specifically to use the Screen Sharing ability in Leopard. I can now see and control my iMac from my MacBook Pro. However, it is not limited to any one account on the iMac. I can control the entire machine, no matter who is logged in.
That means I could spy on my wife, and visa versa. I know married couples aren't suppose to have secrets, but this is going a bit too far!