Mac's don't have patches, but here are 130 vulnerability patches

[Mikes2nd]

I love to hear Mac users go "i never have to reboot and patch!"..

130 more patches, on top of the 90 vunerability patches in march...

http://www.infoworld.com/d/mac/apple...tic-update-889

mind you alot of that was flash... hahh I remember when Apple loved adobe... tragic divorce...

[skyrunner]

You act like this is news??? Have you ever used a Mac?? Yes they have patches (I would hope!) just like any well supported commercial system does. The number of patches means nothing in the real world, other than the fact that they have an active development team that is good at catching, disclosing, and patching bugs and security holes.

I like this part of the article:
"At the 2010 event, Nils sidestepped two major defensive technologies in Windows 7, DEP and ASLR, to exploit Mozilla's Firefox and walk away with a $10,000 cash prize. The year before, Nils grabbed $15,000 by exploiting not only Firefox, but also Safari and Internet Explorer 8."

I think you are confusing Mac with *nix users... Granted, Mac as BSD underpinnings, but really the whole "reboot required" concept is actually a policy of the providers, not limitation of the system, even on Windows. The whole reasoning is that in order to allow for the easiest patch development possible, simply require a reboot to guarantee all of the new libraries are loaded and none of the vulnerable libraries remain in memory. If you know what you are patching, what libraries it is replacing, and what services use those libraries, there is no need to reboot, just restart those services... Anyway, since there is no central database tracking what libraries are loaded by what processes (on any system I know of) the easy solution is just to force a reboot. *nix systems put the burden on the admin applying the patch, by requiring the admin to restart said vulnerable services hence the ability to avoid a reboot.

[Atrosity]

The Apple Macintosh computers definitely have patches. I am not a huge fan of the article it is very misleading. As skyrunner put it, the number of patches don't mean anything at all. Usually patching isn't something that needs to be taken care of right then and there on an apple computer and can be put off until you are done with your tasks for the day and you shut down your computer. It usually takes place when you shut down your machine or when you start your machine. Windows used to be like this and you are forced to reboot and restart your services once the patch has been implemented. Windows 7 has now switched to patching after your shut down.

"Apple releases huge patch, still miss all my bugs," said Miller in a tweet late Wednesday. "Makes you realize how many bugs are in their code, or they're very unlucky."

I like how they question how many bugs are in their code for the mac OSX operating system...Windows isn't any different not to mention that mac is on a bsd kernel and a unix based operating system, these bugs they are catching is not that big of a deal really, I think the number of virus's a windows machine are susceptible and the constant updating of your anti-virus software poses more of a bigger threat then these lil bugs in the osx software.

Personally I am glad apple is ditching flash. Flash is old technology...we aren't living in 2004 anymore...HTML 5.0 is now becoming more popular and flash is too slow and annoying, yes live stream is being used as flash but just watch in 5 years flash will wither away as new technology comes in such as html5.

[skyrunner]

Totally! The html5 version of Youtube is AMAZINGLY better than the flash version. So much faster, it will run on a much slower machine than a flash stream with much better playback to boot! I can't wait until everyone (like Hulu) ditches flash for video streams...

[Atrosity]

Oh for sure!!

Still in beta but there is so much potential! I can't wait!

http://www.youtube.com/html5

[Mikes2nd]

no I hate Adobe... its as bad as Apple and its quicktime virus buggy junk

[Blurr]

I think the point of the article, and Mikes2nd post, is to say that Apple likes to act like nothing is wrong, ever. What Apple does, and people seem to buy it, is exactly what the cop from South Park does. "Nothing to see here folks, nothing at all." When it's obvious that it's a lie.

Apple likes to get it's fans to remember the hits and forget the misses.

[EZnTn]

my first puter ... a Zeos 486 DX2
It ran Windows 3.1
At work we were using MS-DOS
We now run OS 10.6.4 on all computers in this house
It runs flawlessly for the most part
Apple now .. can't see anything different for the near future
We'll see what technology brings in 10 years

[Atrosity]

Apple likes to get it's fans to remember the hits and forget the misses.

Wouldn't you? It's good for business by doing that is it not?

[jba3]

Virus writers are lazy good-for-nothing f**ks who have nothing better to do with their life and time than screw with other people's machines.

The reason that Windows has so many virus vulnerabilities is because Windows has most of the PC user market share. There are umpteen variations of *nix available, with different kernel versions too. Windows users are often of a lower "PC IQ" group than *nix users, in large part because Windows is so easy to use and *nix was incredibly unfriendly until fairly recent years. Which means the people who can successfully set it up, install software, update software, and so on, tend to know better than to click on "OMG I think I went to school with you ... is this pic of us?" attachments, and tend to know not to click on the flashing "You won an iPod!" banners.

So ... why bother trying to write a virus for something with 6% market share, when the users of said market share are typically smart enough not to get the virus to start with?

If Apple had the market share, Apple would have more vulnerabilities. And desktops would cost $2,500, be constantly crippled, and a new one would come out every year that is 0.2" smaller and 5% faster.