Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Security technologies that have made Mac OS X secure for PowerPC remain same for Intel-based Macs
Mac Daily News ^ | Friday, January 27, 2006 - 08:51 AM EST

Posted on 01/28/2006 9:32:48 PM PST by Swordmaker

"The recent move by Apple Computer to begin shipping Macintosh computers that use microprocessors from Intel could open the door to more attacks against computers running the company's OS X operating system, security experts warn," Paul F. Roberts reports for eWeek. "The shift to Intel processors from the Motorola Power PC processors will make it easier to create software exploits for Macintosh systems, and could result in a steady stream of Mac exploits in years to come."

"The change could put more pressure on Apple to build security features into OS X, according to interviews conducted by eWEEK," Roberts reports. "Apple declined requests for interviews. In an e-mail statement, the company said that the security technologies and processes that have made Mac OS X secure for PowerPC remain the same for Intel-based Macs."

Full article, in which Roberts dredges up "experts" from the likes of Symantec (big surprise) and others to talk their way around the statement " the security technologies and processes that have made Mac OS X secure for PowerPC remain the same for Intel-based Macs" for three pages, here.

MacDailyNews Take: It is our contention that articles such as the one above are intended to confuse one very simple issue — that Apple Mac OS X users have had zero viruses in the over 5 years since Mac OS X debuted while Windows has been repeatedly decimated by viruses — in order, not to inform Mac users, but to confuse average computer buyers by implying that "Macs are or will be the same as Windows, so don't bother with a Mac" and/or to sell crappy "security" software to Mac users who might not understand the situation fully.


TOPICS: Computers/Internet
KEYWORDS: fud; intel; macintosh; security

1 posted on 01/28/2006 9:32:49 PM PST by Swordmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 1234; 6SJ7; Action-America; af_vet_rr; afnamvet; Alexander Rubin; anonymous_user; ...
The FUD article exerpted from an FreeRepublic allowed source. PING!

Sorry for the ping to a removed thread. Swordmaker.

If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.


2 posted on 01/28/2006 9:34:26 PM PST by Swordmaker (Beware of Geeks bearing GIFs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
The original article made the comment that:

OS X exploits are not uncommon.
I challenge the author to name them.
3 posted on 01/28/2006 9:37:46 PM PST by Swordmaker (Beware of Geeks bearing GIFs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Like DemocRats, the Windows fanatics are in full pucker mode now that OS X is running on Intel...


4 posted on 01/28/2006 9:42:15 PM PST by Swordmaker (Beware of Geeks bearing GIFs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

I've never actually met a Windows fanatic. I have met people who passionately hate Macs but secretly hate their Windows machine just as much.


5 posted on 01/28/2006 9:53:08 PM PST by coconutt2000 (NO MORE PEACE FOR OIL!!! DOWN WITH TYRANTS, TERRORISTS, AND TIMIDCRATS!!!! (3-T's For World Peace))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: coconutt2000
I've never actually met a Windows fanatic

Try Golden Eagle. Otherwise known around here as the "brass buzzard".

6 posted on 01/28/2006 10:24:10 PM PST by zeugma (Warning: Self-referential object does not reference itself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: zeugma

LOL, Golden Eagle seems to be a blast. He is certainly more anti-open source, anti-libertarian, and certainly anti-liberal.

But does he truly "love" his Windows, or is he just one of the many who have no alternative to Windows and recognize the reality of Windows dominance in "enterprise" deployments.

Even I, a Mac fanatic, recognize that Windows dominance in the large business world is derived entirely from the back end enterprise applications that only run on Windows servers and only interface with Windows software. Open Source solutions are still several generations behind. And Apple is developing their answer to the business back end enterprise software but they're still at least a year from deployment, assuming they ever release the results of their project. Apple consistently develops more products than they ever release. (The Intel version of Mac OS X was an open secret among those of us who followed the development of Mac OS X up from its humble beginnings.)


7 posted on 01/28/2006 10:52:14 PM PST by coconutt2000 (NO MORE PEACE FOR OIL!!! DOWN WITH TYRANTS, TERRORISTS, AND TIMIDCRATS!!!! (3-T's For World Peace))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

What makes Intel processors more exploitable than PowerPC? Is it just that there are currently more?


8 posted on 01/28/2006 11:34:55 PM PST by KayEyeDoubleDee (const Tag &referenceToConstTag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KayEyeDoubleDee

It's the Windows software... not the Hardware....


9 posted on 01/28/2006 11:39:07 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: KayEyeDoubleDee

Coding for a PowerPC is completely different from coding for x86 (the instruction set that Intel and AMD processors use.) Since most exploits are released for x86 platforms, it means the coders are familiar with x86 coding, and are therefore now familiar with the CPU-related coding for Apple computers.

However, it's just alarmism, since exploits run on Windows, not x86. OS X isn't Windows.


10 posted on 01/29/2006 4:58:27 AM PST by Terpfen (Miami goes 9-7! Go Saban!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
It's the Windows software... not the Hardware....

But we are talking about new hardware under existing OS X, which is BSD-based, not Windows.

11 posted on 01/29/2006 11:40:38 AM PST by KayEyeDoubleDee (const Tag &referenceToConstTag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen
Coding for a PowerPC is completely different from coding for x86

I understand that the machine language instruction sets, the methods of accessing memory, etc are different. But I was curious if there was actually something about it that made it more susceptible to exploits. The only think I can think of is that the vast majority of the buffer-overflow type of exploits have been geared towards the x86 instruction set, partly because Windows allows for these exploits and partly because it is simply so prevalent. So, even though you wouldn't be able to rely on the various exploitable DLLs in OS X, you might still have a bunch of machine language code that had been tested on the hardware already.

12 posted on 01/29/2006 11:48:59 AM PST by KayEyeDoubleDee (const Tag &referenceToConstTag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: KayEyeDoubleDee

Inherently? No, there's nothing about x86 that leaves a system more inherently vulnerable, which is the premise of this article.


13 posted on 01/29/2006 1:04:04 PM PST by Terpfen (Miami goes 9-7! Go Saban!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: KayEyeDoubleDee
What makes Intel processors more exploitable than PowerPC? Is it just that there are currently more?

Nothing... if it were more exploitable then all the software fixes and patches and anti-viral apps wouldn't be able to help. The processor just does that... process what's given it in the correct syntax. It's the ability to inject foreign code into the syntax or to interupt the giving of that code to the processor that is at issue... a sofware issue.

14 posted on 01/29/2006 2:12:52 PM PST by Swordmaker (Beware of Geeks bearing GIFs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: KayEyeDoubleDee
What makes Intel processors more exploitable than PowerPC?

Absolutely nothing - that's what the reply right below the article is trying to say. The processor has ZERO to do with vulnerability - it's the OS and related software that provides the vulnerabilities.

15 posted on 01/29/2006 7:12:40 PM PST by TheBattman (Islam (and liberalism)- the cult of Satan and a Cancer on Society)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson