Apple Quietly Releases Safari 3.2
99BottlesOfBeerInMyF writes "Yesterday Apple quietly slipped out an update to their Safari Web browser to version 3.2. The notable feature is that it finally adds anti-phishing technology, an area where Safari has lagged behind competitors. Aside from that, it provides some security fixes, improved JavaScript performance, and a slightly newer version of Webkit, pulling their Acid3 score up to 77." Apple forums across the Net are reporting frequent crashes in Safari 3.2, some possibly caused by 3rd-party add-ons, others perhaps related to the anti-phishing feature.
Personally I don't use Safari (I don't have a Mac, nor do I use MS Windows). I just thought I would take the time to rant about "anti-phishing" things.
I always turn such "features" off on my own computers, and would do so on any computer where I was the "tech support" (after appropriate consultation and education).
Why? Because blacklists don't work. Want to not get phished? Simple instructions that even the most computerphobic person can understand:
When you want to go to the website of your bank, credit union etc., type in what you see on the printed material you have in front of you! (Alternatively, for the more computer literate folks, create a bookmark/favourite after having typed in the address from the printed material from your bank. And only access it via that link.)
Never trust a link via an email, never trust a link from another website, not even if the address looks the same. (Character encoding, bad eyes and other things can make two strings look the same, even when they aren't.)
Simple advice and works for everyone whom I've told it to. (The same with, "don't download files from your email unless you were expecting them, which is a bit over the top, but the slightly more complicated, don't download executable files got reduced somehow.)
End rant.
I did have a look at the article, and to be frank, there isn't anything exciting in there. It seems that the only reason this got to the front page is that Safari crashes a lot. Umm..., I guess I don't care.
I wank in the shower.
Apple forums across the Net are reporting frequent crashes in Safari 3.2, some possibly caused by 3rd-party add-on
Yep, PithHelmet (anti-ad plug-in) causes 3.2 (Mac, of course) to blow up every time when using multiple tabs. Removing its bundle from /Library/Application Support/SIMBL/Plugins/ made it stable as a rock again (no problems at with about 15 tabs open, with varying kinds of embedded content), but, sadly, I'm buried with ads again.
An update addressing one of the most important shortcomings of one of the most important web browsers;
We really need sarcasm tags.
I'm sure they attempted to force it on every user with iTunes... hardly quiet.
I hear they're working on iLube to adress this problem.
If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
Its odd that Apple released this version quietly. Last time a major point release was available, Steve Jobs was walking down the streets of Cupertino firing a shotgun into the air screaming, "Time to download the next motherf*cking version of Safari!" followed by USC Trojan band playing John Philip Sousa marches.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
It also now supports EV-SSL. That and the anti-phishing were two major beefs of companies like PayPal.
What's more, Safari is playing a great role in creating an "arms race of web standards". All in all, I'd say Safari, though not as much as Firefox, is more *important* than IE.
Windows version is there too and it is a serious sounding security update.
The actual release notes are at http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3298
You should subscribe to Apple Security Updates mailing list for non PR infested update announcements.
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/security-announce
How does putting Safari 3.2 on Software Update, where by default it will be received by every internet-connected Mac OS X user in the world, count as a release that was "quietly slipped out"?
Granted, they're the new Bad Guy on /., but can we be a little less lazy and more accurate in our snide characterization of Apple's activities?