Comments for Has Apple tripped up with Safari?

Yes, this would be because Apple is totally based on Unix. I'd be interested to hear Steve Jobs' comment on this, him being a very important person at Apple. Because, if Safari is that hackable, then perhaps Apple should take a hint from Linux and come with Firefox pre-installed instead of Safari.

Maybe.

But then, if they could just improve their security by *taming the code*, it would become far less hackable.

And I think that another reason Apple might be letting its guard down is that:

Mac OS has the upper hand on virus protection since no one seems to bother to hack Mac, Windows being more used.

Maybe the lack of security in Safari is based on the fact that Mac OS get so little viruses and trojans & malware?

:D:D:D

Yes, I agree that Apple is also putting its own OS in a big risk. Especially by releasing a beta Safari that has barely been tested and has probably been rushed out just to make the Mac-Fans cheer. If people manage to find a cross platform hack {for example I've already heard that there's a chance that someone could easily execute a Remote Code from their browser *straight to your computer* if you know how}

If I had to give a piece of advice to Steve Jobs, I'd say it would be:

Observe windows. Notice how many people try SUCCESSFULLY to hack it, and how, by just hacking into one computer on a server, can potentially destroy a whole network of computers. Notice how many more people are actually using Windows, despite how insecure it is. Take note that more people are actually trying to hack Windows than Mac, because Windows is so widely used.

Like you said, *Because OSX is a small platform, almost nobody tries to hack it. There's no gain in looking for hacks for it if you can only get 20 computers out of it, when looking for XP hacks might get your botnet an extra 20,000 machines.*

The *server situation* is an example of how easy it might be {on a server with poor security} to destroy a whole company, which is similar to your example.

If I were to run a huge company {which I don't}, I'd definetely make all my workers use Macs. It's not really to do with the fact that I'm a big Mac-Fan, I just like the security of Macs and the fact that so little people actually bother hacking it.

My friends also tell me that Mac as an OS has more complex coding than Windows, making it much harder to hack. If this is so, then I think the only reasons for using Windows are:

They have more software and games
They used to write software for the Mac
Mac did not do too well in its prime. They were often rushing to meet extreme dealines, and sometimes let a few bugs pass, if Jobs thought they weren't showstoppers {not to say that Windows doesn't let any bugs pass!}

I think that Safari for Windows, although it was a great excitement at first, is now probably putting millions of users at risk of having their computers hacked. Because of ONE security flaw, found within 24hrs of the first release of Safari for Windows, millions of users are at risk.

Especially if any employee happened to download Safari onto their office computer. That would be fatal if it got hacked.

I suppose the average user won't really mind about these things. I mean, probably 1 out of 30 of my friends actually know what this means. I wouldn't expect an average user to understand this. But I think that, in order to keep up Apple's reputation for being secure and stable, Jobs should have released a patch for Safari for Windows AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. I'm not sure how late it was released, but I'm sure that the time used to make a patch was more than enough time to hack a few unfortunate users.

Again, most, if not ALL of this chaos was caused by lack of good planning. If they had resisted the Mac crowd for just a few days longer, they could've let testers test it on computers that were designed for this stuff. Then so many people wouldn't have been put at risk.

However, what's done is done. I guess all that Jobs can do now is to spread word of the patch as quickly as possible and hope that the people who downloaded Safari for Windows {I was one of them, I admit I really got excited over this} are responsible enough to understand that this is only a BETA, and that there are bound to be bugs, and that it is totally their responsibility to check for updates on Safari as often as they think needed.

From what I've read on here and on 456 Berea St., this probably should have been labeled "Alpha", not "Beta". (The close button doesn't work in the Mac version? Seriously.) Nonetheless, it'll probably be worth looking at again when the final release comes.

Hmm...I'm not a Mac user so I have no idea about the bugs of the BETA in Mac.

Yes, perhaps, like Firefox, it should've been named Alpha instead of Beta, in BOLD. My reason for that would be that I have a habit of downloading a lot of Beta programs for real-time use, and I tend to have a very good opinion about them. Now I usually stay away from Alpha's, as I know they're not even safe to use yet!

So perhaps they could have changed the name to Alpha and make a note to all downloaders that it's only Alpha {or a VERY EARLY UNSAFE version of Beta}