Is Intel a safe bet for Apple security?

CNET News.Com ^ | 6/7/2005 | By Joris Evers

[Swordmaker]

Apple with Intel security questions PING!

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

[Terpfen]

Oh, come on. All Apple is doing is changing processors, and suddenly the peanut gallery has lost 30 IQ. Changing to x86 won't affect security in any way.

[adam_az]

Paging the InfoSec pinglist...
Let me know if you want to be 1 or 0. (That's ON or OFF, for those who are not binary-compliant)




A well written, factual article... a rarity on the topic of IT Security.

[Swordmaker]

Oh, come on. All Apple is doing is changing processors, and suddenly the peanut gallery has lost 30 IQ. Changing to x86 won't affect security in any way.

I agree... the Intel processor is not inherently unsecure... Any processor must be fed the code by a operating system... and it is the OS that allows or does not allow malicious code to get to the processor.

[microgood]

All Apple is doing is changing processors, and suddenly the peanut gallery has lost 30 IQ. Changing to x86 won't affect security in any way.

I think generally you are correct. There have been some hardware tweaks for some security issues like buffer overflows that offset addresses to prevent function pointers from being substituted for the next instruction after a buffer overflow, etc. but the vast majority of the changes are software.

If you can get a buffer overflow to happen on an Intel system (and I know a couple Apple has had), you can cause some damage.

[rdb3]

Yes, Macs will have the same hardware at their core as Windows PCs, but it is the operating system, not the hardware, that has made those Microsoft-based computers vulnerable to attacks, analysts and security researchers said.

Give these researchers top honors in the skill of stating the glaringly obvious!

[shellshocked]

Anyone asking the question in the title knows little of computer security.

[Terpfen]

My thinking exactly. And Intel and AMD both are working on preventing buffer overflows via hardware. I believe it's called zero-bit technology.

[Mannaggia l'America]

"Threats are not written to the silicon, because it is too hard,"

WHAT !?!?!

[6SJ7]

"Math is Hard"
    talking Barbie

[js1138]

I'm curious why Apple would go with a 32 bit company instead of AMD. Maybe Intel will have a 64 bit chip in production in two years.

64 bit chips have built in protection against the commonly used buffer overrun exploit.

[VeniVidiVici]

Whatchu Talking 'Bout Willis?

[js1138]

My thinking exactly. And Intel and AMD both are working on preventing buffer overflows via hardware.

It's a done deal with AMD64. The OS needs to work with the chip, but if the OS is aware of the security fix it covers all apps, even poorly written ones. XP with SP2 works with AMD64.

AMD64 is getting cheap. I just built a business rig with 512 megs of memory and a WD Raptor drive. It came in under $600 including Windows. Boots XP in about 10 seconds.

[Terpfen]

Not a bad setup. I'm becoming disenchanted with desktops and towers, though. They sound like vacuums, they take up an inordinate amount of space, and laptops/HTPCs are increasingly offering more than the standard desktop.

[coconutt2000]

Apple may apply some of its R&D to helping Intel improve their chips. Apple's RISC experience may be handy. But these improvements will be applicable to all of Intel's chips, if any such improvements come about.

[The Red Zone]

In addition, a secondary, security-oriented chip, known as a trusted platform module, is becoming common in Windows PCs as a means for securing encryption keys. Apple has yet to incorporate such a chip into the Mac.

"It could improve Apple security," Kolodgy said. "Previously, Apple hasn't been interested in hardware security."

Ahem, these "trusted" modules have nothing to do with the security of the system for the user. They are anti piracy measures.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Laptops are slow....

[Terpfen]

I'm typing this on a 1.6Ghz Pentium M with 1GB DDR2. This thing is every bit as responsive and quick as my 2.8Ghz P4 desktop. The only bottlenecks are the 5400RPM hard drive and the ATI X300 video chip, but I can still play games pretty decently. I just finished a replay of Half-life 2, in fact.

Laptops are plenty fast, and growing faster. Q1 2006 will see the launch of a dual-core Pentium M, which actually looks to be a proper dual-core solution (as opposed to Intel's halfassed P4 dual-core.) Seagate is getting ready to launch 7200RPM laptop drives, and the GeForce6800 is already available in some Dell laptops.

Slow nothing.

[js1138]

Take a look at the Aspire cases, or the Shuttles. That's what I like to build.