Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by Zonk on from the you-have-chosen-poorly dept.

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.

2 of 368 comments (clear)

  1. But but but Microsoft! by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1, Troll

    Apple is the new Microsoft. Even the Apple zealots agree. Point out some flaw with Apple products, and they will invariably link to a similar example by Microsoft. I don't know why they are so quick to make the association, but I think it is similar to how Republicans like to ingratiate themselves to the public by showing how similar they are to Bill Clinton.

  2. Re:It has begun... by Lussarn · · Score: 1, Troll

    Can you imagine the shitstorm of a comment thread that would result from this exact same thing being the result of MS's doing?

    So what. Why would I care about a shitstrom of comments on slashdot.

    My point was that there would be no security hole on these computers if Apple didn't go to great lengths to install Safari on them in the first place. And thats the big issue here. I consider all software insecure, if you don't need it you shouldn't have it on your computer.

    You mean like, MS should give you guidelines on what you should and should not do with your PC?

    No, I was talking about developer guidelines. I thought that was pretty clear, but apparently not.