Porchland
Mar 18, 03:06 PM
In interviews Steve Jobs has gone on record saying that unbreakable DRM is impossible. What you're seeing from Apple is a "good enough" strategy. After all, they don't really care, it's only there to appease the RIAA.
...
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
Suggesting that Apple isn't concerned about DRM any further than needed to appease the record labels is ridiculous. Apple doesn't care about the integrity of its business model unless the RIAA is on on its back?
That's like saying Honda doesn't care whether its airbags deploy correctly unless the airbag contract is on its back. A defective product -- whether it's an iTMS track without DRM or a Honda with bad airbags -- isn't good for the manufacturer. Apple needs for its DRM to be good to protect its OWN future revenues through iTMS -- not just the record labels' profits.
...
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
Suggesting that Apple isn't concerned about DRM any further than needed to appease the record labels is ridiculous. Apple doesn't care about the integrity of its business model unless the RIAA is on on its back?
That's like saying Honda doesn't care whether its airbags deploy correctly unless the airbag contract is on its back. A defective product -- whether it's an iTMS track without DRM or a Honda with bad airbags -- isn't good for the manufacturer. Apple needs for its DRM to be good to protect its OWN future revenues through iTMS -- not just the record labels' profits.
Apple OC
Apr 27, 09:19 PM
That's not the point. The point. The point is that even before anyone discovered microbes, microbes already existed. You're welcome to insist that there's no God. But maybe you insist that there is none because although there's evidence for theism, you doubt that it is evidence for it. I'm sure many atheistic scientists who dismiss theism a priori because they believe that if God exists, His existence would force them to revise many of their scientific assumptions. I forget the title of the television program I watched, where the host asked a neuroscientist what she thought about near-death experiences. She didn't want to consider potential evidence for an afterlife because an afterlife would disprove too many physicalist assumptions about the nature of the mind.
I am not clear on the evidence you refer to ... I am looking for solid evidence ... please link some if you can :cool:
I am not clear on the evidence you refer to ... I am looking for solid evidence ... please link some if you can :cool:
MagnusVonMagnum
May 3, 06:28 PM
It has nothing to do with being a "fanboy". It has to do with facts.
100% bullcrap. I just waded through this god-awful thread and almost every single post that said anything positive about Windows in any way, shape or form (truth or nonsense alike) got zapped with negative votes. Anything that contradicted the idea that OSX is 100% safe and that there's no possibility of any kind of malware got zapped with negative votes. Any time anyone says anything against Apple or Steve Jobs or any feature that someone doesn't like about either OSX or hardware offerings from Apple (no matter how true), it gets zapped by the usual suspects. You don't need a flipping degree in rocket science to make that observation dude. But then you ARE one of the usual suspects, so I shouldn't be shocked.
Here's a great example of 100% BS from YOU. A claim was made about 100 million Mac users and growing. A guy replied with proof that the number of OSX users is currently 50 million. Here's your reply:
That's Mac OS X installed base, not the installed base of Macs, as I said. Mac OS X is not the only Mac OS out there. Reading comprehension is fun!
You are clearly implying that the 'other' 50 MILLION "Macs" out there are pre-OSX (i.e. OS9 or earlier). And don't tell me you meant "iOS" devices as they are not "Macs" and your reply specifically says Macs.
That is just a laughing crock of BS it's just unbelievable. For god's sake man, you are telling me that there are JUST AS MANY OS9 and earlier Mac users out there as current OSX users?????? REALLY?????????? WTF!? Man, why isn't Chrome offered for OS9 if there's so many OS9 users out there? Firefox and Google alike declined to even offer it for PPC users because their statistics showed only a tiny percentage of active users even show up at their sites using PPC (let alone OS9!) and yet you want me to believe HALF of all current Mac users are using something other than OSX. I can smell that BS from a thousand miles away dude. WTF should anyone believe anything you say ever when you post such obvious BS on here?
If that's not a prime example of fanboy DRIVEL and the total biased slant against everything that isn't Apple/Mac around here, I don't know WTF is. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
The report I read in 2009 stated "OSX" users went from 25 million in 2007 (including a lot of PPC users who have since dumped their machines because they are not terribly useful or have upgraded, which is 1:1, not an increase) to 75 million but the article specifically said it included iPhone and iPod Touch devices, which aren't Macs (iOS is derived from OSX, but it's not quite the same thing and they aren't called Macs). 50 million is a fair estimate, IMO for actual active Macs. It's certainly nowhere near 100 million without iOS devices.
In any case, SOME of us don't give a crap about Apple Vs. Microsoft. I don't like EITHER company. I use whatever computer and OS suits me. Right now I have more OSX computers than Windows/Linux, but I use all three. That could change in the future, particularly IF Apple at some point decides to make OSX closed like iOS. But the point is I hate fanatical BS around here. This is not the Mac Advocate Forums, but some days I'd never guess it. I come here for news and rumors and I wish useful discussion, but I see more arguments over STUPID BS than I'd care to see and it gets OLD.
100% bullcrap. I just waded through this god-awful thread and almost every single post that said anything positive about Windows in any way, shape or form (truth or nonsense alike) got zapped with negative votes. Anything that contradicted the idea that OSX is 100% safe and that there's no possibility of any kind of malware got zapped with negative votes. Any time anyone says anything against Apple or Steve Jobs or any feature that someone doesn't like about either OSX or hardware offerings from Apple (no matter how true), it gets zapped by the usual suspects. You don't need a flipping degree in rocket science to make that observation dude. But then you ARE one of the usual suspects, so I shouldn't be shocked.
Here's a great example of 100% BS from YOU. A claim was made about 100 million Mac users and growing. A guy replied with proof that the number of OSX users is currently 50 million. Here's your reply:
That's Mac OS X installed base, not the installed base of Macs, as I said. Mac OS X is not the only Mac OS out there. Reading comprehension is fun!
You are clearly implying that the 'other' 50 MILLION "Macs" out there are pre-OSX (i.e. OS9 or earlier). And don't tell me you meant "iOS" devices as they are not "Macs" and your reply specifically says Macs.
That is just a laughing crock of BS it's just unbelievable. For god's sake man, you are telling me that there are JUST AS MANY OS9 and earlier Mac users out there as current OSX users?????? REALLY?????????? WTF!? Man, why isn't Chrome offered for OS9 if there's so many OS9 users out there? Firefox and Google alike declined to even offer it for PPC users because their statistics showed only a tiny percentage of active users even show up at their sites using PPC (let alone OS9!) and yet you want me to believe HALF of all current Mac users are using something other than OSX. I can smell that BS from a thousand miles away dude. WTF should anyone believe anything you say ever when you post such obvious BS on here?
If that's not a prime example of fanboy DRIVEL and the total biased slant against everything that isn't Apple/Mac around here, I don't know WTF is. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
The report I read in 2009 stated "OSX" users went from 25 million in 2007 (including a lot of PPC users who have since dumped their machines because they are not terribly useful or have upgraded, which is 1:1, not an increase) to 75 million but the article specifically said it included iPhone and iPod Touch devices, which aren't Macs (iOS is derived from OSX, but it's not quite the same thing and they aren't called Macs). 50 million is a fair estimate, IMO for actual active Macs. It's certainly nowhere near 100 million without iOS devices.
In any case, SOME of us don't give a crap about Apple Vs. Microsoft. I don't like EITHER company. I use whatever computer and OS suits me. Right now I have more OSX computers than Windows/Linux, but I use all three. That could change in the future, particularly IF Apple at some point decides to make OSX closed like iOS. But the point is I hate fanatical BS around here. This is not the Mac Advocate Forums, but some days I'd never guess it. I come here for news and rumors and I wish useful discussion, but I see more arguments over STUPID BS than I'd care to see and it gets OLD.
QCassidy352
Jul 12, 09:45 AM
I'd just like to direct all of your attention to this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=211175&highlight=conroe+merom+imac) and ask those of you who said merom was going to be in the imac: what were you thinking? :confused: ;)
I realize it's a little early to be gloating, but c'mon, it's definitely going to be conroe. Which, btw, I find even more exciting than the mac pro news because while I'll never have a mac pro, an imac is always possible. :cool: (though I'm thrilled about woodcrest in the mac pro anyway because it allows the imac to get conroe, and because it's great news for those of you who want a mac pro. :))
I realize it's a little early to be gloating, but c'mon, it's definitely going to be conroe. Which, btw, I find even more exciting than the mac pro news because while I'll never have a mac pro, an imac is always possible. :cool: (though I'm thrilled about woodcrest in the mac pro anyway because it allows the imac to get conroe, and because it's great news for those of you who want a mac pro. :))
.gif "quotes on life lessons")
jefhatfield
Oct 11, 09:12 AM
when i got my ibook, which was manufactured in summer-1999 and listed for $1599 us, i got a 300 mhz G3 processor, 32 MB of 66 mhz sdram, 3 GB hard drive, 4 MB agp graphics, and os 9.0
the next day i bought a compaq presario 1272 laptop, manufactured in spring-1999, $1599 us, and i got a 366 mhz amd k6-2 processor, 32 MB of 66 mhz sdram, 4.3 GB hard drive, 2 MB pci graphics, and windows 98
i would clearly say that these two machines were marketed for students and home users who were then looking for a bargain computer under sixteen hundred dollars
while the higher clock speed compaq presario had a larger hard drive, more output ports, more software bundled, pcmcia, and floppy against the single usb ibook;
i found the ibook to be much faster in everyday use for e-mail, internet, and word processing
it would be fun to get an $1199 ibook and get an $1199 dell laptop and use these machines every day for three years and see what kind of performance i get from them
...of course, at $1199, the pc laptop would give me a dvd optical drive vs. the cd-rom in the ibook, and a 14" inch screen vs. the ibook's 12" inch screen, and the pc would include much more software:p
the next day i bought a compaq presario 1272 laptop, manufactured in spring-1999, $1599 us, and i got a 366 mhz amd k6-2 processor, 32 MB of 66 mhz sdram, 4.3 GB hard drive, 2 MB pci graphics, and windows 98
i would clearly say that these two machines were marketed for students and home users who were then looking for a bargain computer under sixteen hundred dollars
while the higher clock speed compaq presario had a larger hard drive, more output ports, more software bundled, pcmcia, and floppy against the single usb ibook;
i found the ibook to be much faster in everyday use for e-mail, internet, and word processing
it would be fun to get an $1199 ibook and get an $1199 dell laptop and use these machines every day for three years and see what kind of performance i get from them
...of course, at $1199, the pc laptop would give me a dvd optical drive vs. the cd-rom in the ibook, and a 14" inch screen vs. the ibook's 12" inch screen, and the pc would include much more software:p
Longey Nowze
May 5, 08:25 PM
I don't think it's an iPhone problem, I live outside the US and I have never had a dropped call. I have also used the iPhone in various countries including the US in Boston to be exact and I experienced no problems.
My husband has been an AT&T user for over a decade. He never experienced dropped calls until we started dating and he was talking to me (I'm on an iPhone, he is not). We often get disconnected 2-4 times per hour as we talk during our commutes home. We have different shifts, but take the same routes home and we get dropped no matter whether I'm stationary and he's moving, vice versa, or if we're both moving. This also happens when we're on business trips - both stationary - him at home, me in a hotel - and we will get disconnected. The recurring motif has been the iPhone. When I talk with others who have AT&T but no iPhone, they only get disconnected when they are talking w/ someone who has an iPhone. The worst issue is when I am communicating w/ someone iPhone to iPhone.
IF this wasn't the iPhone and otherwise so awesome, I would have switched a long time ago... and frankly, I'm still contemplating going to another phone when my contract is up - because the dropped calls are so aggravating.
Coworkers of mine that have switched from Blackberry on AT&T to iPhone have reported an inordinant number of disconnected calls since switching to the iPhone, even though it's the same carrier, same phone number and same physical location of use.
My "assumption" is that the iPhone software is making some errant call to the tower intermittently (whether too high/low power request or other issue) at which point, the tower drops the call.
While my experience with disconnects are sometimes random, there are some places that either I or my husband will be travelling by, when we will experience a disconnect - a place where he never gets disconnected while speaking to others w/o iPhones... places I never got disconnected before having an iPhone, either.
This may not be just an AT&T issue. It could be when you are a certain distance from a tower (lower power or significantly higher power?) and/or the phone is experiencing a push of data, that the interrupt happens.
This has largely been the elephant in the living room that AT&T and Apple has been ignoring. I have not only not seen an improvement, I've seen the situation get worse over time - whether this has to do w/ an increase of iPhone use faster than the towers can keep up, OR problems w/ iPhone OS updates or a combination of both - who knows. They need to fix this already.
My husband has been an AT&T user for over a decade. He never experienced dropped calls until we started dating and he was talking to me (I'm on an iPhone, he is not). We often get disconnected 2-4 times per hour as we talk during our commutes home. We have different shifts, but take the same routes home and we get dropped no matter whether I'm stationary and he's moving, vice versa, or if we're both moving. This also happens when we're on business trips - both stationary - him at home, me in a hotel - and we will get disconnected. The recurring motif has been the iPhone. When I talk with others who have AT&T but no iPhone, they only get disconnected when they are talking w/ someone who has an iPhone. The worst issue is when I am communicating w/ someone iPhone to iPhone.
IF this wasn't the iPhone and otherwise so awesome, I would have switched a long time ago... and frankly, I'm still contemplating going to another phone when my contract is up - because the dropped calls are so aggravating.
Coworkers of mine that have switched from Blackberry on AT&T to iPhone have reported an inordinant number of disconnected calls since switching to the iPhone, even though it's the same carrier, same phone number and same physical location of use.
My "assumption" is that the iPhone software is making some errant call to the tower intermittently (whether too high/low power request or other issue) at which point, the tower drops the call.
While my experience with disconnects are sometimes random, there are some places that either I or my husband will be travelling by, when we will experience a disconnect - a place where he never gets disconnected while speaking to others w/o iPhones... places I never got disconnected before having an iPhone, either.
This may not be just an AT&T issue. It could be when you are a certain distance from a tower (lower power or significantly higher power?) and/or the phone is experiencing a push of data, that the interrupt happens.
This has largely been the elephant in the living room that AT&T and Apple has been ignoring. I have not only not seen an improvement, I've seen the situation get worse over time - whether this has to do w/ an increase of iPhone use faster than the towers can keep up, OR problems w/ iPhone OS updates or a combination of both - who knows. They need to fix this already.
dethmaShine
Apr 21, 09:16 AM
I own 3 macs and 5 advices. I have a PhD in electrical engineering and designed microprocessors for 14 years, including microprocessors used in many PCs. I've written millions of lines of source code in C, assembler, C++, etc.
And most of the folks I know who use Linux or solaris all day at work to design chips use macs at home and carry iPhones. I don't know a single one of them who uses an android phone (many carry blackberries however).
I am a designer at UK Design Team, TI, UK.
There were only 2 android phones: One of my colleagues (with an HTC desire) who sweared he wouldn't buy an android phone ever. The other one was me; who sold his nexusS at 3/4th the price.
Most of the employees here carry an iPhone 3Gs or an iPhone 4 or a dumbphone. Being one of the designers, designing high speed SerDes, they carry an iPhone.
Why? They better fix their SerDes, rather than a broken Android Phone. Some people have a life.
Apart from office laptops, people carry macbooks and macbook pros; although they are not used in any design work at TI, UK [SerDes].
And most of the folks I know who use Linux or solaris all day at work to design chips use macs at home and carry iPhones. I don't know a single one of them who uses an android phone (many carry blackberries however).
I am a designer at UK Design Team, TI, UK.
There were only 2 android phones: One of my colleagues (with an HTC desire) who sweared he wouldn't buy an android phone ever. The other one was me; who sold his nexusS at 3/4th the price.
Most of the employees here carry an iPhone 3Gs or an iPhone 4 or a dumbphone. Being one of the designers, designing high speed SerDes, they carry an iPhone.
Why? They better fix their SerDes, rather than a broken Android Phone. Some people have a life.
Apart from office laptops, people carry macbooks and macbook pros; although they are not used in any design work at TI, UK [SerDes].
rkriheli
Sep 25, 11:39 PM
yeah, this will be great if we want to run a small country with.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 01:53 PM
As in he hopes since you have the view of people should not infringe on your rights, that you should hopefully not infringe on others....such by opposing gay marriage
Oh, that wasn't very clear, or maybe I'm being obtuse lol
I don't see how gay people marrying would infringe any of my rights.
I value the freedom of expression and speech a lot.
Oh, that wasn't very clear, or maybe I'm being obtuse lol
I don't see how gay people marrying would infringe any of my rights.
I value the freedom of expression and speech a lot.
Satoneko
Mar 13, 11:46 PM
Well they shot a lot of nukes at Bikini Atol and that was near the islands where they can observer it. It didn't "create a tsunami" either. Maybe some small waves and such only and they fired off a lot of nukes there. Of course there will be some degree of radioactivity increase, but think about how much damage a tsunami like this does. It's a tradeoff.
I hope you are aware that Bikini Atol is exactly where Godzilla was born.
I hope you are aware that Bikini Atol is exactly where Godzilla was born.
alexf
Aug 29, 12:02 PM
Greenpeace can suck my left toe.
Thank you for the very intelligent and enlightening comment. People like you (who don't give a rat's a$$ about environmental issues) are exactly what the world needs more of at this point in time.
Thank you for the very intelligent and enlightening comment. People like you (who don't give a rat's a$$ about environmental issues) are exactly what the world needs more of at this point in time.
legacyb4
Jul 12, 01:55 PM
The MacBooks sound so underpowered (even though that's really not the case) with the new announcement...
miketcool
Oct 7, 04:22 PM
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, a cupcake is going to take down iPhone?
We currently have Donut. Eclair is coming, followed by many others. I will always take a nice pastry over an apple any day of the week. :D
We currently have Donut. Eclair is coming, followed by many others. I will always take a nice pastry over an apple any day of the week. :D
Mac'nCheese
Apr 23, 09:40 PM
How many people became theistic because of atheism? Or have their religious views strengthened as a result of atheism?
How many people became atheist because of religion? Or have their atheistic views strengthened as a result of religion?
This was my point in that statement.
And of course atheists will be less trusted. Atheism rejects non-societal Morals (unless you want to pull the "absolute morals exist and god(s) do not" version of atheism). Morality is completely defined by society at that point or at a more direct sense, by us.
Someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of Morals to abide by. Granted, a lot - if not most - of politicians are the "I'm a once a month Christian so people will vote for me" type but some (like GWB for better or worse) appear to take their faith with them to the office. This is a far more reliable set of beliefs, whether or not you agree with them, than someone who has arbitrary or personally decided morals.
I'm not sure I understand the point in the first part of your post so I'll have to skip that for now. Maybe you can phrase it a different way to help me out. Anyway, the whole "moral" issue has been raised and argued before. In my mind, there are many reasons why, logically, atheists are, by far, more moral then religious people. I'll just throw one out at you: your statement of someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of morals to abide by isn't something I can agree with for many reasons. One, why does one have to have a religious book to have a standard of morals. Atheists can know right and wrong and make laws based on common sense morals. We don't need some made up god to tell us what is right and wrong. Secondly, have you read some of the "morals" in the holy books. If so, and you still follow these rules, you have very low standards for what good morals should be. One needs to look no further then the section on how to treat your slaves in the bible to see this fact!
How many people became atheist because of religion? Or have their atheistic views strengthened as a result of religion?
This was my point in that statement.
And of course atheists will be less trusted. Atheism rejects non-societal Morals (unless you want to pull the "absolute morals exist and god(s) do not" version of atheism). Morality is completely defined by society at that point or at a more direct sense, by us.
Someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of Morals to abide by. Granted, a lot - if not most - of politicians are the "I'm a once a month Christian so people will vote for me" type but some (like GWB for better or worse) appear to take their faith with them to the office. This is a far more reliable set of beliefs, whether or not you agree with them, than someone who has arbitrary or personally decided morals.
I'm not sure I understand the point in the first part of your post so I'll have to skip that for now. Maybe you can phrase it a different way to help me out. Anyway, the whole "moral" issue has been raised and argued before. In my mind, there are many reasons why, logically, atheists are, by far, more moral then religious people. I'll just throw one out at you: your statement of someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of morals to abide by isn't something I can agree with for many reasons. One, why does one have to have a religious book to have a standard of morals. Atheists can know right and wrong and make laws based on common sense morals. We don't need some made up god to tell us what is right and wrong. Secondly, have you read some of the "morals" in the holy books. If so, and you still follow these rules, you have very low standards for what good morals should be. One needs to look no further then the section on how to treat your slaves in the bible to see this fact!
rdowns
Mar 24, 07:17 PM
The Catholic Church doesn't hate homosexuals
Hate the sin, love the sinner. ;)
Hate the sin, love the sinner. ;)
GroundLoop
Sep 12, 03:49 PM
As long as I can use the USB port on it to hook up my printer (thereby replacing the Airport Express), then I will likely get one of these.
Hickman
Hickman
Tulse
Mar 20, 10:51 AM
Yeah, you can't. Instead of being out protesting you are stuck at your computer dissing IP geeks. Mmm...Sad and hypocritical. Now that's sad.Stage, I work for a charity -- I think I'm doing my part.
People can certainly disagree over whether DRM is appropriate or not. But like it or not, it is the law (copyright law, DMCA, and EULA law). You can break that law as a form of protest if you like, but, as eric_n_dfw says, the way to do that is by making your lawbreaking public, to be willing to accept the consequences of the lawbreaking, and thus work within the system. That's precisely what the civil rights movement did, that's what Gandhi did, that's what Thoreau wrote about. Anything else isn't protest -- it's no more "noble" than sneaking into movies for free.
Of course, there are a multitude of other ways to fight the law, including financially supporting the EFF and other like organizations, contacting your lawmakers, contacting recording companies, and, most effective, not buying products you feel restrict your rights. If folks were doing all of these things, then I'd have some respect for the notion that this is a moral and political issue. But as far as I can see, most people stripping DRM out of iTunes aren't doing it out of protest, but simply to make their lives easier, even if that impacts on the rights of the music writers and creators.
Protest and political change almost always involves sacrifice -- of time, of money, even in extreme cases of personal freedom (as in being jailed). If people aren't facing those kind of sacrifices, then I have serious doubts that they're actually "protesting".
People can certainly disagree over whether DRM is appropriate or not. But like it or not, it is the law (copyright law, DMCA, and EULA law). You can break that law as a form of protest if you like, but, as eric_n_dfw says, the way to do that is by making your lawbreaking public, to be willing to accept the consequences of the lawbreaking, and thus work within the system. That's precisely what the civil rights movement did, that's what Gandhi did, that's what Thoreau wrote about. Anything else isn't protest -- it's no more "noble" than sneaking into movies for free.
Of course, there are a multitude of other ways to fight the law, including financially supporting the EFF and other like organizations, contacting your lawmakers, contacting recording companies, and, most effective, not buying products you feel restrict your rights. If folks were doing all of these things, then I'd have some respect for the notion that this is a moral and political issue. But as far as I can see, most people stripping DRM out of iTunes aren't doing it out of protest, but simply to make their lives easier, even if that impacts on the rights of the music writers and creators.
Protest and political change almost always involves sacrifice -- of time, of money, even in extreme cases of personal freedom (as in being jailed). If people aren't facing those kind of sacrifices, then I have serious doubts that they're actually "protesting".
munkery
May 2, 05:41 PM
What is "an installer" but an executable file and what prevents me from writing "an installer" that does more than just "installing".
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system.
I don't know of any Javascript DOM manipulation that lets you have write/read access to the local filesystem. This is already sandboxed.
The scripting engine in the current Safari is not yet sandboxed.
Here is a list of Javascript vulnerabilities:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+Javascript
The issue is Safari is launching an executable file that sits outside the browser sandbox.
In the current Safari, only some plugins are sandboxed, so this wasn't execution outside the sandbox.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
Except this:
Switching off or turning down UAC in Windows also equally impacts the strength of MIC (Windows sandboxing mechanism) because it functions based on inherited permissions. Unix DAC in Mac OS X functions via inherited permissions but MAC (mandatory access controls -> OS X sandbox) does not. Windows does not have a sandbox like OS X.
UAC, by default, does not use a unique identifier (password) so it is more susceptible to attacks the rely on spoofing prompts that appear to be unrelated to UAC to steal authentication. If a password is attached to authentication, these spoofed prompts fail to work.
Unix DAC is turned off in OS X in the root user account.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system.
I don't know of any Javascript DOM manipulation that lets you have write/read access to the local filesystem. This is already sandboxed.
The scripting engine in the current Safari is not yet sandboxed.
Here is a list of Javascript vulnerabilities:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+Javascript
The issue is Safari is launching an executable file that sits outside the browser sandbox.
In the current Safari, only some plugins are sandboxed, so this wasn't execution outside the sandbox.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
Except this:
Switching off or turning down UAC in Windows also equally impacts the strength of MIC (Windows sandboxing mechanism) because it functions based on inherited permissions. Unix DAC in Mac OS X functions via inherited permissions but MAC (mandatory access controls -> OS X sandbox) does not. Windows does not have a sandbox like OS X.
UAC, by default, does not use a unique identifier (password) so it is more susceptible to attacks the rely on spoofing prompts that appear to be unrelated to UAC to steal authentication. If a password is attached to authentication, these spoofed prompts fail to work.
Unix DAC is turned off in OS X in the root user account.
Cougarcat
May 2, 09:35 AM
Bigger, most Windows PC have anti-virus, can you say the same for Macs?
All macs do have built-in anti-malware:
http://www.macworld.com/article/142457/2009/08/snowleopard_malware.html
Don't know how good it is, though.
All macs do have built-in anti-malware:
http://www.macworld.com/article/142457/2009/08/snowleopard_malware.html
Don't know how good it is, though.
DeathChill
Apr 20, 10:09 PM
Outside of Apple's app and music apps, all other applications go into a saved state; i.e. not running in the background.
Uh, that's not true. Applications that don't use any of the seven (I think) multitasking API's go into a saved state; an application that uses one of those API's continues running (the particular task that the API allows).
The funny thing is that it is almost identical to Android's implementation. Unless an application is explicitly programmed to run in the background it goes into a saved state.
Uh, that's not true. Applications that don't use any of the seven (I think) multitasking API's go into a saved state; an application that uses one of those API's continues running (the particular task that the API allows).
The funny thing is that it is almost identical to Android's implementation. Unless an application is explicitly programmed to run in the background it goes into a saved state.
Sydde
Mar 14, 12:20 PM
This here page, fwiw (http://week.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/MMOnline.dll/portal/ep/contentView.do?contentId=8976200&programId=1073754912&pageTypeId=1073754893&contentType=EDITORIAL), says the carrier RR was exposed to thirty days radiation in an hour. There are more than 700 hours in a month. You do the math.
EagerDragon
Jul 12, 12:23 PM
Sounds like these new Mac Pros are going to be expensive.
Very, remeber that they may also have multiple GPU(s).
:D
Very, remeber that they may also have multiple GPU(s).
:D
eternlgladiator
Mar 11, 08:50 AM
This is just crazy. They quoted a girl on cnn from their facebook comments saying the failnami was a big letdown. What a gigantic "tw*t".
Evangelion
Jul 13, 02:38 AM
Saying that a dual-socket system is "SMP" and a single-socket dual-core system is "not SMP" shows that you don't quite understand the computer technology required to do multi-processing.
it depends whether you are looking at it from software-perspective or hardware-perspective.
it depends whether you are looking at it from software-perspective or hardware-perspective.
No comments:
Post a Comment