Login:
Password:

'Day One' for Safari for Windows Becomes Zero-Day Nightmare

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

June 12, 2007, 11:20 AM

It took security engineers perhaps less than two hours yesterday to introduce Apple's surprise entry in the field of Windows browsers to the big, cruel world of exploits and vulnerabilities, following its introduction yesterday morning at WWDC. As a result, much of the clout Safari had received as the secure browsing alternative to Internet Explorer and Firefox -- as long as it was on a Macintosh -- was burned off like fire to a flash fuse.

Errata Security engineer David Maynor had a report posted on the first vulnerability he found by 1:48 pm, complete with screenshots of the pre-crash letdown dialog produced by his fuzzing tool. As he admitted, it wasn't a difficult crash to find, posting a screen shot of the memory dump revealing both a stack corruption and an access violation, and then giving credit to Thor Larholm for posting a complete report on the calamity not an hour later.

"I downloaded and installed Safari for Windows 2 hours ago, when I started writing this," Larholm wrote, "and I now have a fully functional command execution vulnerability, triggered without user interaction simply by visiting a web site."

Both Larholm and Maynor have made it clear their intentions are simply to discover vulnerabilities and warn the vendor and the public as to their implications, not to profit from their exploitation...because, quite frankly, the exploits don't appear to be that difficult.

Apple's Web site touts, "Apple engineers designed Safari to be secure from day one." As Larholm explained on his blog, that may very well be correct: Its engineers obviously designed Safari to take advantage of security protocols in the OS X operating system, as evidenced by function calls to those protocols Larholm located inside the source code for the Windows version - calls which would obviously go unfulfilled.

"On the OS X platform," he continued, "Apple has enjoyed the same luxury and the same curse as Internet Explorer has had on the Windows platform, namely intimate operating system knowledge." As a result, Safari for Windows may be expecting other layers of the operating system to provide security - layers which aren't present on Windows, especially since Microsoft has naturally adapted its transport layer security for optimum use with IE7.

As an example -- one which may be as important for Firefox as for Safari -- Larholm demonstrated the use of an inline frame <IFRAME> element with embedded JavaScript code. When delivered to Safari, it passes on an unfiltered request to the old Gopher protocol, which on his system is handled by Firefox. That browser then processes the unfiltered request raw, with the result being that CMD.EXE is called, pulling up the command line.

If Larholm wished to go further with this demonstration, he could have passed a default command to CMD.EXE - which, of course, would also have been unfiltered.

Safari is built on top of an open-source Web browser engine called WebKit, whose developers announced on their blog this morning that the first nightly build of the Windows version of WebKit will be released sometime today. At that time, perhaps veteran Windows developers may become available to flesh out and plug the holes which Safari's disconnection from Mac OS X left open.

Add a Comment (146 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By rayo

edited Mar 19, 2008 - 2:48 PM

When I succumbed to the add, and downloaded/installed the little varmit, all it did was refuse to connect to anything, including Apple's web site. Told me to report this problem to that very same web site, which I later looked up on firefox, but could not come to any conclusion as to how to report any failure, so I uninstalled it. Lesson learned.

Score: 0

By darkzero63

posted Jun 18, 2007 - 7:30 PM

One good reason to avoid trying new browsers.

Score: 0

By yourmum

posted Jun 18, 2007 - 6:29 PM

Cut these guys some slack...at least their trying!! Its only in BETA for goodness sakes!

Score: 0

By tannman1

posted Jun 17, 2007 - 11:03 PM

Ok this build had some issues that need to be addressed...The next build should fix those as well as any other bugs found. If they follow through then the Beta is doing what it's supposed to do. Apple however should refrain from crowing about what may or not be true. MS has been the poster boy for that. I'll sit this one out, the browser field startin' to get crowded. IE7 sucks

Score: 0

By citaps

edited Jun 17, 2007 - 12:54 PM

I installed safari for windows, and there is no text on screen. No menu, no text, nothing but the graphics.
help
citaps

Score: 0

By Lotius

posted Jun 15, 2007 - 2:58 PM

No real surprise that safari on windows is having a rocky start, it's always tricky when you move from one system to another even in stuff that's meant to do it. I imagine it'll get there eventually.

Score: 0

By jlsand

posted Jun 15, 2007 - 11:27 AM

Won't use until I can block ads. Is there a way to block ads like in Firefox or with admuncher?

Score: 0

By photomann

edited Jun 14, 2007 - 10:52 PM

Safari v.3 in XP just like version in Mac but standard function is still being crash on my pc.
I can not save bookmarks, I can not search inside URL and I can not post any comments by Safari for XP.

Score: 0

By j_buckner

posted Jun 14, 2007 - 6:54 AM

Worst than Konqueror (which is rather bad itself). Not bad compared to IE6, rather good compared to IE7 which is a complete piece of junk.

Score: 0

By uberfly

posted Jun 14, 2007 - 1:39 AM

Firefox/Mozilla or Opera are the only serious alternatives to IE at this time.

Switch from Microsoft to Apple? Why would I want to replace Darth Vader with his whiny little brother?

Score: 0

By hondaman

posted Jun 14, 2007 - 9:10 AM

I would suggest, instead, that IE7 is the only serious alternative to FF.

Score: 0

By FmlyRnn

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 11:02 PM

This [Safari 3] is a incredible Browser! I never thought that I would ever change IE [Internet Explorer] as my "Default" Browser but I have switched, after all of these years. Furthermore, the "speed" of Safari 3 is what made me switch! I need the speed when I Surf, and check my E-mail. Nevertheless. I will be suggesting Safari 3 to all of my friend's, and Client's!!!
Thank you, FmlyRnn

Score: 0

By joesnow

posted Jun 14, 2007 - 2:57 AM

lol, I seriously hope you've tried Firefox or Opera on Windows... lol
just a thought.

Score: 0

By gatescape

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 2:07 PM

it sucks!!!!!!!!!!
I have to tell apple: don't bother me until you are able to create a browser, because safari is not a browser, it's a piece of crap with rounded bars

Score: 0

By efrenjo

edited Jun 13, 2007 - 11:13 PM

Hahahahah excelent comment! Loved the rounded bars part hahaha. Awesome!

Score: 0

By jenny18

edited Jun 13, 2007 - 2:00 PM

Beta means there should have been extensive testing on thier part beforehand, and we're here to help clean it up and find any bugs that slipped through the inital gauntlet of testing.

jenny
http://www.spaml.com

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 2:13 PM

Nope.

That's what RC's are for. Everything's, done, polished, and ready. Last chance to find the straggling glitches.

Beta's are the bug-hunting, "we've got a GUI on there", let's see how this baby runs stage.

Alpha's are initial design and building stage.

Everyone seems to believe this is an RC.

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 11:01 PM

Problem is, a BETA has gone through SOME testing...it needs alot more testing, but it has undergone some. Now...this was found within TWO HOURS...I guess apple doesn't do any testing of it's own at all???

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 14, 2007 - 9:31 AM

Good God, dude. This is the first browser they've ever written for the windows platform.

OF COURSE there will be problems. The two OSes handle damn near *everything* differently.

Statements like yours are incredibly easy to make. Perhaps you should actually try coding a cross-platform network application prior to telling Apple Devs how to do their jobs though, eh?

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Jun 14, 2007 - 9:51 AM

OF COURSE there will be problems...but the problems this app has is an outright joke.

I love these rediculous comments people make like "well...I bet YOU couldn't do a better job!".

No kidding Tool...I'm not a developer, I didn't spend 4 years in college studying it, and I haven't spent any amount of time in my career doing any development work...so why would I try to code a cross-platform network app??

I do however...expect PROFESSIONAL developers to do their jobs, just like people expect me to do my job well. If we switched from PIX to CheckPoint, and I leave some nice big holes open, I don't think my managers will like it if I said "oh hey, they're two different platforms, how was I supposed to know".

Apple should seriously consider learning the environment they develop for before releasing code to the public.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Jun 14, 2007 - 1:58 PM

Well, fortunately, they told us all it was a beta and that we shouldn't expect it to function like production software.

Apparently ya'll missed that.

Beta software will have a varying degree of problems, from few to massive amounts. If that's not something you can handle, you probably shouldn't be using beta software.

Criticizing anyone on beta software is pointless. You were told before you downloaded it that it was not production ready.

You guys are taking this release *way* too seriously. This is not production, is not meant to be run on production systems, security on non-production systems is not an issue.

I don't care if it allows people to remotely control your PC. If you're running it on a PC that has information or data on it you don't want anyone to have access to, you're an idiot.

Beta software provides zero guarantee of operability, security, functionality, etc. It has always been this way.

you spoil a few folks with some decent beta releases and they get all uppity when one doesn't work like an RC. Get over it, it's a freaking beta.

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 8:16 PM

Any way you cut it, this is a beta, it's insecure, and shouldn't have been released publicly with an ANNOUNCEMENT.

Look Lots of companies release internal and external betas, but if you are the face of a very major corporation, you damn well best be sure you release a beta that is at least somewhat secure, at lease using current methodologies.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 14, 2007 - 9:29 AM

Beta doesn't mean Beta without an announcement?

Some people just need something to b*tch about, I guess.

Score: 0

By joesnow

edited Jun 14, 2007 - 2:56 AM

This is common practice in the open-source community to release what they have, when they have it, in order to work out the kinks on the public forum. It's mentioned quite a bit that safari is based on an open source project, and that's what Apple is trying to show, that they're a part of the community where this practice is normal.

I know myself from experience, that windows users are just simply not used to this. That's because all it is with windows is either closed beta, or the few 3rd party developers that release beta apps that crash all the time and aren't very popular anyway.

version .9 doesn't mean they're jumping the gun on release, it means they're exposing it to the masses to make 1.0 that much better. It's part of a process, not a price-tagged product on a shelf that's finished.

The "announcement" plays no relevance really, it's blatantly "beta", why would anyone expect anything more just because they're Apple? Apple beta is not *significantly* better or worse than any other professional beta, for it to merit any extra criticism.

One thing I don't quite understand is why people complain SO much, when the stability of Safari on the Windows platform hasn't lost them money or destroyed their data from some issues with it. It's a not quite ready for serious implementation production systems, that's been thrown into the gauntlet to work out the weakness. Old news if you ask any developer, meh, google:beta.

Score: 0

By joesnow

edited Jun 13, 2007 - 12:20 PM

i must say though, on the safari download page for windows:

"
Blazing performance.
2x Faster

The fastest web browser on any platform, Safari loads pages up to 2 times faster than Internet Explorer 7 and up to 1.6 times faster than Firefox 2.
"

Is far fetched at best. OMFGWTFBBQ it loads in 57.137474 ms compared to IE and Firefox's 57.92837 ms ! BLAZING FIRES OF LIGHTNING SPEED!

come on, seriously, until you start measuring the amount of caffeine in coke vs pepsi, nobody even notices the difference unless somebody's tainted your soft drink w/ something s***ty (malware *cough* IE)

The only thing that really counts is that it is a comparable product to the leading ones, and it renders web code correctly, any further than that is just add-on features that don't differentiate the product at all, because anybody can make a firefox extension to match a safari add-on at that point.

Score: 0

By alljer

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 11:54 AM

The most important thing about this ENTIRE issue is that whatever stage of development this software is at, Apple has failed to do one of the most BASIC forms of vulnerability testing before releasing this software, FUZZING. Fuzzing is not that new, and is used constantly by company's and yet Apple who claims to be so in tune with security doesn't even bother to run a basic fuzzer against there browser before releasing it. It shows that Apple isn't acctually in the security mindset that they market they are.

With all that said I'm not trying to hate on Apple, I use OS X at home, but Apple needs to learn how to handle security properly as they have a pretty bad track record up to this point. As the platform becomes more and more mainstream it is only going to come back and bite them if they don't sort out there handling of security properly.

Score: 0

By Ohmslaw1

edited Jun 13, 2007 - 11:32 AM

I have had nothing but problems. Constant crashing and unable to get much of any desired response. Safari is now completely off my computer and doubt of it will ever make a return.

Score: 0

By wjwoll01

edited Jun 13, 2007 - 10:02 AM

I love safari on the mac, I love how fast it is at translating the html code, and I love its neat, clean interface. Having this on windows is nothing short of amazing. I don't think that it will be an overnight takeover though. It took apple a long time to get iTunes to the point it is, and I suspect it will take them just as long to produce a browser of the same quality.
Jay Wollmann
http://www.airdistributors.com/

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 3:14 PM

you mean iTune a good software?

Score: 0

By johnathonm

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 10:22 AM

Oh yeah...another web browser on windows...woo. WJ why don't you polish steve job's knob while you're down there.

Score: 0

By DotNet_Coder

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 1:52 PM

*laughing* that is just too funny... rude as hell, but still funny.

Score: 0

By daddysboy

edited Jun 13, 2007 - 9:54 AM

It is the resonsibility of the OS designer to prevent flaws in third-party software from accessing vital components of the system. The fact that a beta version of a browser can gain such high-level access with relative ease without Windows balking is what is news here. Yes, it is important to point out the necessary problems with this new software, but based on past history, Apple will no doubt fix these known problems in a timely manner even though this shouldn't have caused more than a security message from Windows or an untimely closure of the program. It is truely frightening to think that the world's dominant OS has so little security that one can create such gaping holes just by installing a program like this yet we see that almost daily from all the vulnerabilities that are exploited by the plethora of viruses, worms, etc. being traded around the internet.

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 11:00 AM

A typical Apple fans. Just blame everyone else for their own problems.

Score: 0

By orizng

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 10:20 AM

its ridiculous, so all the crashes of osx's apps are flaws of the OSX? shameless fanboy style

Score: 0

By Will Turing

edited Jun 13, 2007 - 11:40 AM

I've been using OS X daily for over 5 years. Never had an app crash yet. Don't write about what you don't know. Who is the shameless, mindless fanboy?

Score: 0

By joesnow

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 12:33 PM

I've had an app crash almost every other time i use my mac. co-worker who didn't upgrade her ram on her macbook frequently has things crash multiple times within one session, almost relentlessly.

Not even my primary OS linux is immune to app crashes, but at least crashes are easier to recover from when running a unix oriented OS when compared to windows.

Score: 0

By Spaghetti Coder

edited Jun 13, 2007 - 12:17 PM

You've never had an app crash on OS X? Wow, I have have Safari itself crashing at least a few times a month, where the app simply disappears (taking all tabs with it, of course), and I'm greeted with "Safari crashed" (or, something to that effect) message box.

Other times, I've had to forcibly quit apps (Safari and others) because the spinning beachball wouldn't go away whenever I moused over the apps.

You can't seriously believe that OSX itself makes it impossible for an app to crash or hang, can you?

Score: 0

By qcubed

edited Jun 13, 2007 - 11:54 AM

Two can play at the anecdotal evidence game: I've used OS X intermittently on one of my computers for four years now, and have had multiple app crashes--by third-party software companies most of the time.

Apple's a third-party to the Windows environment.

Try again, Will.

Score: 0

By orizng

edited Jun 13, 2007 - 11:53 AM

u stupid, i have two macs, the apps have since been crashed on me including:
adium
crossover office
virtualdesktops
diablo 2
phoenix slides
ffview
etc
not like u, probably know nothing about windows,

Score: 0

By eunichman

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 9:56 AM

I give credit where credit is due and lay blame where blame is due. The thought was good, to gain marketshare, but since MS really isnt into REAL security, this effort was doomed from day 1. Instead of saying this sucks or that sucks, look at WHY it failed.... namely, windows inherent lack of built in security :)

Score: 0

By johnathonm

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 10:24 AM

Buggy beta broswers being released to the dumb public. It's not Microsoft's fault a third party can't code. So stop blaming them.

Score: 0

By bluestripe

edited Jun 13, 2007 - 9:24 AM

Hopefully you are using the bug report tool built into the Safari browser for Windows. The more the Apple/Safari team can learn from first-hand reports ... the better the browser will be....

Score: 0

By nschor

edited Jun 13, 2007 - 9:09 AM

Can you say BETA? This is a BETA release, IS IT NOT ?!??!? Isn't this precisely why BETA's are released, to get people with way too much time on their hands, to figure out the problems? Get a life, and let the Developers do their jobs.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 12:50 PM

Can you say BETA?

Fet..

Meta..

Butter..

Nope, I guess not.

Score: 0

By nschor

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 1:11 PM

That's good. I like that one.

Score: 0

By bsmntdwllr

edited Jun 13, 2007 - 10:03 AM

Yes, BETA. Do you KNOW what BETA means? BETA means the version before they're ready to ship out the ready product. NOT this beta. THIS beta is TERRIBLE. In FACT, you could SAY THAT IT'S ALPHA because of all the security holes, glitches, bugs, and errors that have occured. An ALPHA is the buggy version that SECURES you with the IDEA that HALF the crap in the PROGRAM won't WORK RIGHT.

BETA, on the OTHER HAND, secures you with the IDEA that most of the program works FINE, it's just ironing out the kinks.

Stop being an a** with everyone else that blindly defends this as a beta. The fact remains that, yes it is a beta, but it's one of the worst betas out there to the point that it shouldn't be declared "beta."

How about you think a bit more before you go heave-hoing your half-wit opinions in the open like this again so some random visitor can school you in why everyone doesn't really like this particular BETA BUILD.

And, you know what, get rid of your shift key. You have no reason to yell.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 14, 2007 - 9:26 AM

BETA means the version before they're ready to ship out the ready product.

I think you're thinking RC, not beta. Thanks for playing.

Score: 0

By joesnow

edited Jun 13, 2007 - 12:29 PM

"beta" for microsoft at one point for say, whistler beta 1, was basically win2000 with a new media player and a few refinements to the network stack, "ready to ship" was a year and a half off and consistently called "RTM" or, release to manufacturer (which was preceded with RC1,RC2, etc. "release candidate" not beta), usually following a third beta that had gotten to a feature and patch freeze in the devel process.

People b****ing about beta firefox were shamed in a swirl of obvious "beta beta beta" claims, and it was justified and considered a directly rational argument for flaws. But Safari on the same exact path, with a few holes that the exploiters themselves considered "nothing really major and easy to fix" is getting commentary such as "THIS beta is TERRIBLE. In FACT, you could SAY THAT IT'S ALPHA..." The number of errors identifies a problem, but by no means does it universally imply that there are numerous problems in all areas, it may take a single patch to fix most of them, until you claim to be a developer, your claims hold no real credibility even if they are responding to a prior claim.

On the same round, once the more direct and obvious flaws are patched up, how is this any different from the "blatently sloppy" coding of IE, whom the MS fanboys claim are not the ones to blame.

do you know what beta means?

Preliminary or testing stage of a software or hardware product; "a beta version"; "beta software"

That in no way implies that it is "ready to ship", that it's "complete," "finished," or any other similar description. It only means that this product:
(1) isn't ready for ship (which one can debate whether the product will ever "ship" in the first place, since it is free),
(2) isn't ready for serious implementation in a production environment, and
(3) is typical practice of the open source community to release to the public before official release, which in the opensource world has prevented software from going the way of their closed-source counterparts; hence, comparably insecure, and with vulnerabilities that go unpatched for years.

If you are a part of the open source community, and you see "beta," it's like seeing a road construction sign saying "keep left", whereas if you don't, you'd better be driving a tank to cross over the obvious trench...the road is ready for prime time, they're just running some last minute wiring. Those people driving right into the trench shouldn't be surprised when they find one, it's a part of the development process that occurs with all streets.

I hope that's clear in case there is any misconception, fanboy bias and finger pointing has no place in this situation, until the product has matured beyond officia l beta. They don't spend the time making "this product is beta" graphics for nothing....

http://images.apple.com/...ro_safari3_20070611.gif
http://www.apple.com/safari/

Score: 0

By nschor

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 12:37 PM

Touche! Thank you for your thoughtful and explanatory retort. It IS appreciated, and should help to squelch the people who think they know what they're talking about.

Score: 0

By nschor

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 10:30 AM

I see a lot of that shift key used in your post as well as a couple of asterisks. What are YOU yelling about? Like I replied to the reply before you, "Your argument would never hold up in court. A Beta is a Beta is a Beta."

Score: 0

By orizng

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 10:38 AM

attack personality rather than discuss material is republican style.

Score: 0

By nschor

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 10:53 AM

As an Independent, I couldn't agree more; but I didn't realize this was a political argument. To which I'm sure you'll believe 'everything is political.'

Score: 0

By johnnybluejeans

edited Jun 13, 2007 - 9:56 AM

What isn't a Beta these days. The word Beta loses its meaning when a company touts the software in a widely anticipated conference and keynote, then releases the "Beta" to the public at large.

A Beta should be given to a small closed community of testers to find bugs i.e., "Guys with too much time on their hands." When you give software like this to the masses, mostly whom do not knot what a Beta is (my parents surely wouldn't know what that means), you are putting the average computer user at risk.

Furthermore, it didn't take these "guys with too much time on their hands" much time to exploit Safari. They did nothing new or ingenious, they just used common exploits that compromised older browsers in years past. Surely the Apple engineers should have done this themselves before Apple released such a browser to the public.

Score: 0

By nschor

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 10:26 AM

Your argument would never hold up in court. Beta is Beta is Beta.

Score: 0

By ZenWarrior

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 10:37 AM

Things have changed. Beta once did indeed mean beta, but we're seeing more and more alpha being released as so-called beta. (Microsoft may well be the worst offender.)

I do not mind having true beta software on my system, but it really irks me when I realize someone has conned me into installing their alpha release(s) so I can do the work their programmers should have done in the first place.

That said, this version of Safari does seem to be a true beta.

Score: 0

By nschor

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 10:55 AM

THANK YOU!

Score: 0

By AnthonyB

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 7:18 AM

You're only secure as the number of hackers and security research labs bother to test your product.

Moving Safari out of it's comfort zone and onto Windows is a red rag to a bull. Given the appalling track record of Apple software engines to write decent Windows software this should be VERY amusing. Popcorn please!

Score: 0

By ferhelping

edited Jun 13, 2007 - 12:29 PM

Welcome to the real world Apple!!
Now your engineers know how it is to write code that requires a high level of adaptability depending on different hardware and other conditions. It is not the same to only code for one architecture that you built than to have to worry about so many different parameters.
Hahaha, you guys should make a TV Commercial out of this!

Score: 0

By Spaghetti Coder

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 12:28 PM

BINGO!!

Score: 0

By cranbers

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 5:02 AM

I am not really sure how to take this. I mean if your browser has a small percentage of marketshare, were talking 1 or 2 percent how many people would realistically be affected by this? I mean do you really think a hacker or whoever will actually take the time to implement this for a real world attack just to have the ability to attack a few people?

Also in regards to apple, they definetely are opening up themselves, thanks to their small market share they haven't been targeted like windows and ie have. If that changes though im sure they will become swiss cheese.

Score: 0

By kaminariko

edited Jun 13, 2007 - 1:22 AM

Your favorite OS and browser sucks. Your favorite PR personality for your favorite OS company is ugly and stupid. Your apps are worthless on my OS because your apps are coded by monkeys.

nobody cares but you, fanboys

Score: 0

By cool_guy

edited Jun 13, 2007 - 7:41 AM

hehehe that's funny :)

Score: 0

By phenomnaruto

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 3:01 AM

this guy's worth listening too .... lol

Score: 0

By h377r1d3r

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 12:58 AM

No, because Apple claims to be most secure. Their aps are most securem their system ismost secure.

Apple does not want u to know it is not secure. It is their faliure.

More: When Apple is evaluating Microsoft apps in writing, public or whatever, they are biased, and evaluate apps in beta stage, but when apple releases beta software, they don't want u to evaluate it, they don't want anyone saying anything bad aobut it.

So taka your pity for Apple and bury it alongise your kewl-apple ego.

Score: 0

By Ramhound

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 12:27 AM

I don't understand the big deal, a security/(major bug) in first release software on Windows based on a Mac program.

I mean did anyone really think fresh released software, wouldn't have bugs like this, when nobody can try those "strange" things only real users might attempt to do.

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 11:22 AM

You don't get it don't you? Apple claims it to be the most secure, and yet, within 2 hours, bugs were found.

Score: 0

By Oli4000

edited Jun 13, 2007 - 11:47 AM

Apple claims OS X doesn't have the bad stuff (malware, virusses etc.) windows has. Also they claim they have the most advanced operating system.

To prove that they ported their favorite browser to that other OS. Guess by the result they got within 2 hours you can see that plan worked, don't you?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 4:30 PM

Sweet!

So, if I don't like a product, all I have to do is create a add-on or something for it that doesn't work and it'll be that product's fault?

Excellent!

Score: 0

By Sexbarril

posted Jun 18, 2007 - 12:52 PM

So by that you mean theat WIndows is secure except if you add otehr software?

Interesting...

Latz, SB

Score: 0

By phenomnaruto

posted Jun 12, 2007 - 8:56 PM

This only reinforces my opinion that anything Macintosh can be exploited if it was popular enough ... the Safari is a reflection of the so called "superior" macintosh infrastructure and they only proved that if your a big enough target .. you will get exploited.

Score: 0

By wyseguy

edited Jun 13, 2007 - 11:50 AM

The myth of a small market share protecting Apple simply isn't true, especially in regards to viruses.

1. For those who have forgotten history, look back at the late 1990s, when Apple's marketshare was lower than it is today. MacOS 7, 8, and 9 versions *did* have viruses. Once the switch was made to Unix-based MacOS 10.x, things changed. No viruses "in the wild," and Apple has done a decent job of providing patches for security vulnerabilities as they are discovered.

2. If the virus authors only consider marketshare, consider this: If the Windows platform has 114,000 known viruses and 95% marketshare, the Mac platform, with 5% marketshare, should have about 5,700. It doesn't.

3. Anybody can write a moderately successful Windows virus these days. The real challenge (and glory) would be hitting those smug Mac users where it hurts. Why hasn't this happened?

The Mac platform isn't invincible, and it isn't perfect. But jealous Windows Fanboys have a hard time accepting that Windows is the security "swiss cheese" of operating systems. They always scramble to play the "market share" card whenever someone points this out. Security never has been a very high priority in Windows design. Vista is the best so far, but they still haven't gotten rid of the registry. Maybe in another 5 years when they release the successor to Vista they'll finally get it right.

Score: 0

By ferhelping

edited Jun 13, 2007 - 2:35 PM

Defending Apple's Safari by attacking Windows is lame, not even because one is a browser and the other one an OS, but because that has nothing to do with this conversation. That is just what people without good arguments do.

Also, you forget the fact that Apple builds their own computers so they don't need to worry about that when writing code. That is a big advantage and that is why it is amusing to see that when those who brag about being so good in terms of security in their own environment get practically humilliated within two hours of getting their product into the real world.

I know you guys will immediately compare everything with Windows, IE, etc. but that is not the point, we are talking about Apple, and their claims that are only realistic when in a controlled environment.

Score: 0

By wyseguy

edited Jun 13, 2007 - 1:34 PM

"Defending Apple's Safari by attacking Windows is lame, not even because one is a browser and the other one an OS, but because that has nothing to do with this conversation. That is just what people without good arguments do."

You must not have been following the thread. I was comparing Windows and Mac platforms to illustrate my point about market share being an overestimated factor in the apparent security of the Mac vs. Windows. The poster I was responding to was talking about the Mac, not Safari specifically.

"Also, you forget the fact that Apple builds their own computers so they don't need to worry about that when writing code."

What does that have to do with Windows being designed with little emphasis placed on security? How much of that relates to the hardware?

"That is a big advantage and that is why it is amuding to see that when those who brag about being so good in terms of security in their own environment get practically humilliated within two hours of getting their product into the real world."

Safari is in the real world. It has been for years. Exactly how is finding problems in a beta release of anything humiliating? Was it humiliating when later Vista betas had security holes in the new IP stack that had been fixed in other operating systems (including XP) years before?

"I know you guys will immediately compare everything with Windows, IE, etc. but that is not the point, we are talking about Apple, and their claims that are only realistic when in a controlled environment."

The reality is that all systems have bugs, and always will. That's just the way it is. With a beta release of anything, there will be problems. That's why it's call a beta. It's great that bugs have been found. Now they'll get fixed before the general release.

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Jun 12, 2007 - 11:58 PM

Try RTFA. :P

Score: 0

By Adrian79

posted Jun 12, 2007 - 10:58 PM

2nd that

Score: 0

By Esquire

posted Jun 12, 2007 - 8:36 PM

Since when is any software totally bug free? May be they are new to programming browsers in Windows, i.e., can't rely on the OS to be as secure as MacOS :)

Anyway, I think I'll stick to just running Windows IE7 for now. Heehee

Score: 0

By absvinyl

edited Jun 13, 2007 - 11:59 AM

please, for the love of god, don't run your IE7. use IE6 or preferably firefox. ask any "it" guy and he will tell you how many IE7's he has uninstalled because it has way too many bugs.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 2:07 PM

I have yet to find one.

Sorry, but regardless of the issues with it, it is *by far* more secure than IE6.

Score: 0

By smarterthanyou

edited Jun 13, 2007 - 12:45 AM

Score: 0

By AntiochMedia

edited Jun 12, 2007 - 5:25 PM

Well, it IS a beta. From my own observation, Apple seems to have a faster turn-around time for fixing problems and delivering great products. IE6 had an amazing number of security flaws and it took years for IE7 to arrive with proper CSS standards and proper website rendering.

Score: 0

By qcubed

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 11:58 AM

Actually, IE7 doesn't have proper CSS standards either.

Score: 0

By cool_guy

posted Jun 12, 2007 - 5:06 PM

Please do your research before you post.

"**PLEASE DO NOT POST A COMMENT IF ITS ABOUT SAFARI IN BETA**
These bugs have been verified in the current PRODUCTION copy on OSX."

http://erratasec.blogspot.com/2007/06/niiiice.html

It is NOT about being beta.

Score: 0

By inviscid

posted Jun 12, 2007 - 6:47 PM

There is no evidence that any of these bugs provide a security exploit in OS X. The link here is to David Maynor, who previously claimed for a long time (without showing evidence) to have found a wireless exploit in OS X which turned out to be not true. I've been told that people have been able to crash Safari in OS X, but that's not the same thing as an exploit.

Score: 0

By Program86

posted Jun 12, 2007 - 5:21 PM

"Please do your research before you post."

You should follow your own advice. That data is spoofed to make you think it is.

Its amazing what noobs will fall for nowadays. LOL

Score: 0

By cool_guy

posted Jun 12, 2007 - 5:26 PM

Prove it, show me a link

Score: 0

By CarLox

posted Jun 12, 2007 - 6:52 PM

how about your momma's link "cool guy"

Score: 0

By cool_guy

edited Jun 13, 2007 - 4:12 AM

Oh wow, personal attacks! You people can't face the reality that Mac OS X is not perfect. Hey at least I present you with links, where is yours hey? Your comments are voided without any proofs.

Score: 0

By CarLox

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 6:25 PM

no it was just a joke dude, i know that every software is not secure, for me windows is better, im not a mac fanatic but i personally dont use it lol

Score: 0

By The Dave

posted Jun 12, 2007 - 9:28 PM

ROFLcopter

That's some funny stuff. Just reading comments alone on this site is entertainment.

Score: 0

By yourmum

posted Jun 12, 2007 - 4:59 PM

I think they realised that they're gonna have to start using MS technology, or they're going to lose their battle..

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Jun 12, 2007 - 3:58 PM

No surprise. This quote says it all:

"On the OS X platform," he continued, "Apple has enjoyed the same luxury and the same curse as Internet Explorer has had on the Windows platform, namely intimate operating system knowledge."

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 12:00 AM

And yet MS has had some serious trouble securing IE on Windows, yet Apple hasn't had any issue with Safari on OSX?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 14, 2007 - 1:49 PM

Really? No vulnerabilities at all?

Funny...

Betanews.com seems to disagree.

Score: 0

By iamtux

posted Jun 12, 2007 - 2:39 PM

Eh, its in beta. Not worried.

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Jun 12, 2007 - 5:09 PM

Except when you get a line like this:

"Apple's Web site touts, "Apple engineers designed Safari to be secure from day one." "

Huh, really from day one?? Looks like security moved from "day one" design to a last minute afterthought.

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 12:08 AM

Are people blind, or what? RTFA.
"Its engineers obviously designed Safari to take advantage of security protocols in the OS X operating system...which aren't present on Windows."

From day one would be when Safari was released on OSX. Stupidly, perhaps, the guys managing the Safari port to Windows didn't consider how inadequate the security within the operating system would be.

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 10:58 PM

"Stupidly, perhaps, the guys managing the Safari port to Windows didn't consider how inadequate the security within the operating system would be. "

That's a good one right there...Apple creates an application for Windows...forgets that people will actually use it, and people blame Windows for apples lack of understanding of how to implement security on the OS. That is fanboism at it's best...

You know what it almost sounds like...it sounds like exactly the opposite of the linux argument..."no no, linux is secure guys! It's the applications that are insecure! The thousands of patches you need to download for linux every month are patches for the application which are not secure!".

No wait...that sounds EXACTLY the same!

Score: 0

By ZenWarrior

posted Jun 12, 2007 - 12:59 PM

Even with this new entrant in the so-called browser wars, it's still a matter of picking one's poison.

Score: 0

By GS5

posted Jun 12, 2007 - 12:54 PM

Doh!!!

Score: 0

By rsx508

posted Jun 12, 2007 - 12:53 PM

God almighty. DO WE NEED ANOTHER FRIGGIN BROWSER???

Score: 0

By CarLox

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 6:26 PM

i guess "we do"

Score: 0

</

By johnathonm

posted Jun 13, 2007 - 10:27 AM