Ping!
All 134 of which... I haven’t noticed.
Interesting.
I wonder how many of those vulnerabilities were due to the choice of [programming] language either in the current implementation or in ‘translating’ sourcecode/OS from one to another (that is, the *nix from which it draws on).
Never! Macs are invulnerable! ;)
Yes. People love to bitch about insecure Microsoft software, when does Adobe get its fair share of the blame?
Talking about Apple and security in the same sentence is only done by those who have never attempted to support them in an enterprise.
FileVault? Seriously?
These articles are released like clockwork EVERYTIME Apple releases an update. It never fails. Release an update... and someone writes one of these claiming "SEE! SEE! Macs are not secure! They fixed something... They Patched a vulnerability... it had a flaw! It wasn't perfect!"
Vulnerabilities are NOT EXPLOITS! This is especially true if the vulnerability is prevented from being exploited by other protections that have been put in place such as data being placed in non-executable memory locations where such vulnerabilities can do no damage.
Yes, Apple included in the upgrade from Mac OSX.6.4 to OSX.6.5 some 134 security patches and fixes... but 55 of them were fixes to Adobe Flash (a third party software whose upgrades are normally handled completely separately in Windows), others were patches for Apache, patches for UNIX utilities that are included with OSX but not part of OSX but needed updating, CUPS, PHP, Python Programing Language, and also including 16 for the optional install X-11 that allows UNIX apps to run natively.
Windows patches DO NOT INCLUDE such third party updates or patches and require these to come from the publishers them selves. Apple includes them with their updates... and gets DINGED for them by the authors of these FUD articles.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
I just started the update a few minutes and it looks like it's going to be downloading all day:
18 MB of 703.8 MB - About 5 hours