Safari 3.1 For Windows Violates Its Own EULA, Vulnerable To Hacks

recoiledsnake writes "The new Safari 3.1 for Windows has been hit with two 'highly critical'(as rated by Secunia) vulnerabilities that can result in execution of arbitrary code. The first is due to an improper handling of the buffer for long filenames of files being downloaded, and the second can result in successful spoofing of websites and phishing. This comes close on the heels of criticism of Apple for offering Safari as a update for approximately 500 million users of iTunes on Windows by default, and reports of crashes. There are currently no patches or workarounds available except the advice to stay clear of 'untrusted' sites." Further, Wormfan writes "The latest version of Safari for Windows makes a mockery of end user licensing agreements by only allowing the installation of Safari for Windows on Apple labeled hardware, thereby excluding most Windows PCs." Update: 03/27 17:23 GMT by Z : Dave Schroeder writes with the note that the license has been updated to correct this mistake.

Comments

Re:Violating the EULA

[ari_j]

You are mistaking "signature" and "agreement." Signatures are not a prerequisite to a valid contract, they are merely very good evidence of agreement. You can get out of some contracts you signed and you can be held to some contracts you didn't. The lack of a signature is not the reason EULAs are of questionable enforceability.

Re:It has begun...

[eck011219]

Look at it another way. You have a Mac, and you run Office. Somewhere during the routine update process, some new, not-ready-for-primetime version of IE gets installed and is set as your default browser.

The issue is in part that Safari is not related to iTunes or Quicktime. There's no reason to believe that by installing music software, the manufacturer will also push a browser to you.

All this will do is piss people off and make them turn off automatic update options, which will eventually result in some flaw in iTunes or Quicktime being less widely patched. It was not a capital crime, but it was dumb and irresponsible of Apple.

And the EULA thing is just funny. What with the ample fleet of lawyers they have in Cupertino, I'm surprised ANYTHING gets out without a full legal vetting. Software gets out with bugs, but EULAs don't typically get out without great scrutiny.

Re:It has begun...

[recoiledsnake]

Good god, man! We've got to get them back on Internet Explorer! Though you meant it as a joke, for users on Vista, that could actually be a good thing. IE on Vista runs in a sandbox, so any code owning IE can only mess with the cache folder or something, and can do nothing to your system as well nor any thing to your user files like documents. Whereas, almost every other browser out there runs with the user permissions(not root or admin) by default(on all OSes, AFAIK), so that a compromise can result in viruses/keyloggers etc. that can run on startup, delete your user files/documents and/or email them to Nigeria whereas that's not simply possible with IE on Vista.