Posted on 06/05/2015 6:05:07 PM PDT by for-q-clinton
ping & spin please :-)
It’s almost as if the unstated goal of all articles, editorials etc, is to pick some controversial issue (OS security in this case), throw in some cherry-picked anecdotal ‘evidence’, make blanket statements and loosely worded proclamations.... then stand back and watch the fireworks as both sides duke it out.
No, none of this is new, or news worthy. This is FUD Season in advance of the World Wide Developers Conference starting Monday and always happens in advance of Apple's major announcements. Many of the assertions in this article are just wrong. . . Others are exaggerated. It is basically published for the purposes of FUD. . . Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
There was a screw up that I ran into with iOS 8.3. Many of the most popular GPS receivers used in aviation stopped connecting to their apps. I was able to revert a few i devices back to 8.2, but then Apple stopped “signing” versions of 8.2 leaving one of the office iPads isles for its primary purpose. Supposed to be fixed with 8.4
Apple Products are Bullet Proof, So say we all...signed ibots
Oooooh goody. Words of wisdom from a guy who’s degree is in journalism PLUS he works for that well known tech company CNN.
Just another yob who doesn’t know his head from a whole in the ground
The "fappening" was not a failure of Apple's security. Apple already had two factor identification in place before any of the others implemented it. . . But the celebrities accounts were NOT compromised by hacking their passwords. They were compromised by social engineering their security questions. . . which only worked because they WERE celebrities and they published the answers to such questions in fanzine biographies. This is an example of this article not having a clue about the topic it is talking about.
I was a hardware tester on the Win95 team. We released Win95 with over 40,000 open bugs.
But it was still a great operating system :)
In addition, for-q-Clinton, not a single one of the vulnerabilities mentioned in the article except the text crashes has resulted in any effect on users. . . and the text crashed will not result in any possibility of lost data, it’s merely a denial of service attack, easily avoided. The current one requires that the attacker gain physical possession of the computer to exploit. . . while serious on a singular user basis, it is not a major system wide problem that could effect even a few hundreds of users out of the tens of millions that could be affected were it remotely exploitable.
The same applied to the Google discovered vulnerability last year.
Amazing.
Major straw man set up in the very first sentence.
Little point in reading further.
“Apple already had two factor identification in place before any of the others implemented it”
A quick search would show this to be false. Google implemented two-factor authentication in 2011, while Apple implemented in 2013:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/advanced-sign-in-security-for-your.html
http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-adds-two-step-verification-option-for-apple-ids/
Furthermore, the initial implementation of two-factor authentication didn’t apply to iCloud backups:
http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/05/icloud-users-take-note-apple-two-step-protection-wont-protect-your-data/
http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/30/technology/security/apple-security/
Apple actually made it difficult to use two-factor authentication at the time of the fappening (3-day waiting period?):
http://www.dailydot.com/technology/apple-icloud-two-step-verification/
Of course, that all seemed to change once the fappening happened:
“But the celebrities accounts were NOT compromised by hacking their passwords. They were compromised by social engineering their security questions. . . which only worked because they WERE celebrities and they published the answers to such questions in fanzine biographies. This is an example of this article not having a clue about the topic it is talking about.”
You have no way of knowing this, the only people who know how it was done are the people who did it. Besides vague statements of how it could have been done, there is little evidence floating around about how it was actually done. One way, as even Apple-loving websites admit, was a brute-force attack that exploited a flaw in the “Find My iPhone app”:
http://www.cultofmac.com/297709/apple-aware-icloud-security-flaw-6-months-fappening/
http://www.engadget.com/2014/09/01/find-my-iphone-exploit/
Before you say “it wasn’t the Find My iPhone exploit!” Why did Apple patch it the next day?
http://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-patches-find-my-iphone-exploit/
Exactly! Apple 2-factor authentication was difficult and hidden from the user. I know Microsoft was annoying me until I turned on 2 factor authentication. Constantly telling me to turn it on...turn it on...turn it on. Finally to make the reminder stop I turned it on :-)
Eh. Apple fixes flaws that surface.
Some are FUD.
There is no question they are safer. I’ve run a MAC for 6 years without a single virus.
My Windoz machine had me working as an unpaid, full-time MS support tech.
Hi for-q. Geez, don't you ever tire of this silly exercise?
Honestly, I'm not at all impressed by this story, as it's just a slam in the form of rehashed stuff everybody already knows. It brings nothing whatsoever to the discussion except crap to throw.
Microsoft has been the target of this kind of pointless, dumb crap writing for many years, and it's annoying as hell. Apple is now the target of crap that's just as pointless and dumb, and it's annoying too.
You see, regardless of who the target is, it's just too freakin' easy to throw a bunch of crap, and then when the target responds, throw more crap and claim that the reponses are all spin. There's no arguing with crap, you can't win, it's like wrestling with pigs.
Of course there's a grain of truth in any of the things mentioned in this story, but they're all twisted out of shape. Even you must admit the slant of the writing is egregious -- I found it hard to read without either laughing or cursing at its obvious bias and blatant stupidity.
Now, it's true I think Apple (like Microsoft, Google, and others) could improve their response to bug reports. That goes without saying, because no company has what I would call a sterling history of dealing with such things. I'm not defending Apple, per se, any more than I defend Microsoft or Google when they're the target of a slam.
The important thing to take away from this thread is that the slam article is comprised of old stories, nothing new or interesting, just some tired meat for the anti-Apple folks to slaver and drool over.
Have a good time, I guess. I'm going to find a thread that's interesting. Nothing personal, you understand. But I truly have a hard time understanding how you never seem to tire of this stuff. See ya on the flip-flop.
LOL
Look, this same slam article could have been written about Microsoft with very few changes, and it still would have been crap, and if I pointed out that the article was crap, you would have said I was defending Microsoft, and you'd be wrong again.
Don't you see, if crap gets thrown at a target and someone points out that crap is being thrown, that's not defending the target, it's characterizing the crap.
Maybe you don't see that. Oh well, have a good evening. Cheers.
You’re point was not to read the article or even discuss the subject at all. So yeah, you’re right, you’re not protection Apple - you’re protecting all of them.
You really know how to hack Swordswallower off. Like waving a Christian in front of a queer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.