Ah I see it's a comprehension issue. I never said he disclosed them to Apple. I said Apple refused to engage and try to find exploits in their code. They aren't being active about finding them.
Ah I see it's an honesty issue.
More context for you
"I was wondering how the Mac OSX is more secure crowd was going to respond to being the first hacked several times in a row. But what you are ignoring is that these exploits have been known for a long time and yet Apple has not fixed them."You were talking about OS X being hacked in the contest in the first sentence, referring to those exploits again in the second sentence with the claim that they have been known for a long time. There is also the general context of you criticizing Apple. Since one cannot logically criticize Apple for not fixing exploits Apple does not yet know about, the context remains that Apple was told of these exploits. If they had been told and did nothing, that would be rational criticism. You go on to say
If so the person who hacked the mac listed several exploits in ADVANCE telling Apple they have serious issues and they failed to fix it. SO he used one of those hacks to win the contest.Again counter to reality, the exploits were disclosed to Apple AFTER the contest. Also counter to your statement. Here you clearly, in context, refer to him disclosing the exploits to Apple "in ADVANCE" of the contest. Then this sentence:
While Apple is patching after the fact you think they would fix it BEFORE hand.This sentence would make NO sense unless you had claimed he disclosed them to Apple "in ADVANCE" of the contest. They could only fix the bugs "BEFORE hand" if the the vulnerabilities had been disclosed BEFORE the contest.
My comprehension is just fine. It's your "facts" that are a problem.