zero-click? that is a very low bar to set given that most of the ransomware that plagues windows these days is zero-click.
In case you haven't noticed, OS X appears to be somewhat (read: Insanely) more Robust in that regard than any version of Windows to date.
I offer as proof the fact that we are at SIXTEEN YEARS of OS X, without a single infection that did not exclusively rely on Social Engineering and active participation by the User.
Non-compliance doesn't only mean using unauthorized copies of software, it also means unauthorized use of authorized software.
Depends on what is considered "Unauthorized use".
the DMCA can be used on you for reverse-engineering a product in order to modify or augment it.
Show me ONE case of that ACTUALLY happening. NO Jury would Convict, if the "reverse-engineering" was simply for the private use of an end-user.
I agree that this MIGHT be technically illegal; but in a practical sense, it would NEVER fly in Court; nor would you find a Persecutor with enough time on their hands to mess with it.
The Feds will typically only get involved if the "damages" exceed $100k. Most software that isn't Government-Contracted or Oracle-based fails to meet that standard.
I see you've been living under a rock and never heard of these things called patent trolls, or SCO, or Oracle.
And how, pray tell, are any of those entities going to find out about your private little contract with a vendor to fix your particular instance of whatever code?
What about using ZFS and essentially foregoing traditional backups?
I know that is heresy to traditional data-management methodology; but with ZFS' resilvering and anti-bit-rot self-healing capabilities, it would seem that, other than a fire or tornado hitting the server closet, or outright theft, that ZFS totally answers the need for traditional backup. And if you combine that with incremental backup to an offsite data-store (also ZFS?), then how wonderful would that be?
I admit my interest in ZFS FAR outstrips my knowledge of same; but it seems that the OpenZFS community pretty much has their act together.So, are there any backup tools that can backup a ZFS Pool to another ZFS Pool, or a network-full of Mixed-Platform Servers to a ZFS Pool?
You can pay any vendor to support your open source solution. It's illegal for a third party to fix the bugs in your proprietary software.
I would believe it is only illegal if the vendor then turns around and tries to sell the fixed code to another.
Oh, and if the company that wrote it is out of business, who then has the standing to sue? The government might (probably does), under Copyright laws; but won't. So who?
IF they do it's certainly not doing very well is it.
Ahem.
Even if you read the TFS, you will see that they said that there is a "Potential" that some Apps could be "configured" to steal data.
Theoretical Exploit: Not a realized one. BIG difference!
And of course, no explanation of how Apps could be "configured" in said manner.
And if you actually break the rules and at least read SOME of TFA, you will see this most important factoid:
"While the apps were not stealing data, security experts said it would have been trivial for attackers to configure them to do so. "
And then the article goes on to harp about XCodeGhost; with vastly inflated numbers of supposedly "infected" Apps, and after the originator of the Tainted XCode download already apologized.
And then, TFA focuses on MobiSage SDK, which appears to be an Ad-Insertion function that even the security firm FireEye said didn't appear to be doing anything malicious. But yet, FireEye took it upon themselves to label MobiSage "High Risk" (based on the fact that it appeared to be nothing more than an ad-insertion framework, right?).
So, ONCE AGAIN this is nothing more than a clickbait rehash of month-old FUD. Pure and simple. Thanks, Slashdot.
And I would say that either the "Permissions System" is either not really being challenged afterall, OR that it IS working just fine...
for anything that you search for there are 200 knock off Chinese apps.
They'll never clean up their shit, it keeps feeding to marketing that they have X more apps than anyone else.
And how, pray tell, do you think the Google Play Store makes the same claims?
*snickers* C'mon now! You? Calling someone a fanboy like it's a negative? Sheesh... I'm inclined to think you're just trolling at this point. It did make me chuckle, so there's that.
Ah well, everyone's got their role to play.
LOL! Point taken!!!
And I know I still owe you a suggestion on Mac stuff for your "charges", sorry! I promise I will put some thought into that...
I do, because they sound fine and I don't feel like shelling out a few hundred extra bucks to get anything "better"... don't care about surround sound, or subwoofers, etc.
It's not like I have a Vizio TV, so it actually sounds decent.
I have 2 "modern" (Flatscreen) TVs. One, a 47 inch LG "Smart TV" that I purchased almost 3 years ago, and the other, a 32 inch Emerson, which I have in the Bedroom.
Leaving the Emerson out of of for a moment, the LG is certainly not a Vizio-quality TV, I paid $999 for it at Fry's; but both of my TVs have HORRIBLE built-in speakers. Horrible, I say. But I don't care, because I never hear them. I use my "Stereo" instead.
I don't have a Surround Sound speaker setup (I do have an early Surround Receiver; but don't really have a livingroom that will let me place 4 or 5 speakers), nor do I have a Sub; but the Stereo sounds SO much better than any TV speakers (any!), that I just couldn't imagine having to go back to using the built-in speakers on my TV (or any TV).
But, if your TV has HDMI in, and you enjoy its speakers, then the Apple TV should work great for you, since the audio comes out along with the HDMI Video.
They made their engineering choices VERY wisely. This was NOT intended to be the next PS4/XBox. It was intended to be a Set Top Box that would let a couple of family-members play fairly nice games, but as only ONE of the types of uses, not in any way the central one, which is delivering streaming entertainment through your TV.
In addiotn, by t not trying to make it a gaming console they avoid all the comparisons to dedicated consoles that the Apple TV would lose. If game makers start producing games that come close to console level Apple can easily upgrade the Apple TV to accommodate them. It's a case of ensuring you have a successful launch and then seeing where the market goes and responding to it.
Right. For example, when the next generation of the Apple TV uses the A9 (or later) SoC, THEN we'll see some fairly-respectable gaming abilities. But I think that the hardware design of the Apple TV was frozen before the A9 was approved for new designs.
Just curious, do you know if the regular "Google" app on iOS has the same vulnerability as Chrome?
I don't use Chrome on iOS, but I do use the Google app for quick searches and asking questions Siri should know, but doesn't (business hours, etc.).
Sorry, don't know. My guess would be "no", though.
The real answer is that Apple has never focused on games and gamers. There's no secret technical issue. They're making half-efforts. If they someday decide to care, then maybe they'll release a competitive solution.
Or, that's the whole point. Apple strives to give the best "user experience". Releasing a half-baked product is NOT in their business plan. Why would Apple advertise this device as a "gaming console"? To be mocked by Sony and Microsoft (and the Glorious PC Gaming Master Race)?
Show me where Apple is advertising the Apple TV as a "Gaming Console"? Just because they show that one of the Applications of the Apple TV is "Games" does not mean that they are saying "Time to throw away that XBox!"
On the main Apple TV Product Page, there are four "vignettes". Only one of the four discusses Games. And it isn't the top one.
On the Apple TV "site", there is indeed a "Games and More" Tab at the top, but again, it isn't the FIRST Tab, the content under that tab has Games mixed in with other Apps. Hardly a "This should be THE Game Console for you!" feel to the content on that Page.
Android, Chromecase, and Apple TV haven't "haven't made the cut"; they are simply seen as "Deadly Competitors", to be feared and eradicated from their little "Shopping-Service-That-Wishes-It-Was-A-Media-Platform".
I see a lot of possiblities in this. One big diff will be when you can control apple radio with siri, the way you can on the iphone. a problem tho with apple radio playing on a tv is that tv speakers usually suk where as stereo speakers are often better. I'm not sure if there's a way to direct the sound output within the apple tv itself.
Who uses their TV speakers?!? Yuck!!!
Although I would have personally liked to see more audio-out options on the Apple TV (at LEAST a TOSLink Port, guys!), the sound comes out along with the rest of the HDMI signals (just like with an HDMI-equipped DVD/BD Player). And if you have a Receiver built in the past 5 years as part of your Entertainment system, it will be able to "Extract" the Audio from the HDMI signals (actually the audio is on its own pair of wires in the HDMI connector).
Or, if your audio gear doesn't support HDMI, then there are a fair selection of HDMI "Audio Extractors", often built-into a multiport HDMI Switcher, for as little as $20 or so on Amazon. Those output Stereo and/or 5.1/7.1 over Analog (RCA) and/or TOSLink/Coax for use with older audio setups.
They already offer the Nimbus Steel Series game controller as an AppleTV "Accessory" (even prominently showing it on the main AppleTV Product Page); so obviously, they don't have any illusions that the standard Siri Remote is going to be adequate for all games in all situations.
What they don't want to do, is to create entire categories of games that have NO WAY of playing with the Siri Remote.
As for the incremental download stuff, that is intended to avoid a frustrating wait (and unnecessary server load and download-cap teasing) while scene after scene, level after level, loads in, which most casual gamers won't even get to in that session.
On the other hand, they didn't want to price themselves out of the settop-box market, by making the AppleTV cost as much as a PS4 or XBox 1.
They made their engineering choices VERY wisely. This was NOT intended to be the next PS4/XBox. It was intended to be a Set Top Box that would let a couple of family-members play fairly nice games, but as only ONE of the types of uses, not in any way the central one, which is delivering streaming entertainment through your TV.
Sorry, everything doesn't have to do everything equally well. That's why our DVD Players don't make Toast. Or, more properly, why you CAN make Toast in a "Toaster Oven"; but most of them pretty well suck as Toasters, compared to the dedicated appliance for that function.
I think you missed the point here. Innocent people went to jail instead of the guilty.
Oh, I understood PERFECTLY. I just didn't word what I meant clearly, trying to be clever...
What I didn't do, was use the Sarcasm Tag. What I meant was that she probably said that EVERY sample that she touched was "Positive"; so, if the sample just HAPPENED to be from a truly "Guilty" person, I am SURE those people got Convicted, ***TOO***.
And that was CERTAINLY not INTENDED to SUPPORT this piece of human excrement; I am truly sorry if it came out sounding that way...
Personally, I'm in the "Add up the time for all the innocents convicted, TRIPLE it (the usual punishment for doing something willfully, wantonly, and/or with reckless disregard to another), and let that be her sentence" crowd.
Well, if it is only accessible through Chrome, then it is more likely a Chrome vulnerability than an iOS one.
If the security of the system can be compromised via a supposedly sandboxed application then it is most definitely the fault of the operating system that implements that failed sandbox.
And as I was entering my comment, that is exactly what I was thinking, too. HOWEVER, I broke the rules and actually read TFA, and there are so few details that there is absolutely no way to verify that it isn't all a complete lie, or even if it is true, that the exploit doesn't require active participation by the user.
Slashdot Mirror
zero-click? that is a very low bar to set given that most of the ransomware that plagues windows these days is zero-click.
In case you haven't noticed, OS X appears to be somewhat (read: Insanely) more Robust in that regard than any version of Windows to date.
I offer as proof the fact that we are at SIXTEEN YEARS of OS X, without a single infection that did not exclusively rely on Social Engineering and active participation by the User.
You have to actually download it, choose to run it, close the warning box that is popping up to warn you exactly of this sort of software.
So, IOW, nothing to see here, move along.
Nice Try, Dice/Slashdot. I'm sure you'll get a lot of clicks from mouth-foaming Apple-Haters, though; so good job!
Non-compliance doesn't only mean using unauthorized copies of software, it also means unauthorized use of authorized software.
Depends on what is considered "Unauthorized use".
the DMCA can be used on you for reverse-engineering a product in order to modify or augment it.
Show me ONE case of that ACTUALLY happening. NO Jury would Convict, if the "reverse-engineering" was simply for the private use of an end-user.
I agree that this MIGHT be technically illegal; but in a practical sense, it would NEVER fly in Court; nor would you find a Persecutor with enough time on their hands to mess with it.
The Feds will typically only get involved if the "damages" exceed $100k. Most software that isn't Government-Contracted or Oracle-based fails to meet that standard.
I see you've been living under a rock and never heard of these things called patent trolls, or SCO, or Oracle.
And how, pray tell, are any of those entities going to find out about your private little contract with a vendor to fix your particular instance of whatever code?
What about using ZFS and essentially foregoing traditional backups?
I know that is heresy to traditional data-management methodology; but with ZFS' resilvering and anti-bit-rot self-healing capabilities, it would seem that, other than a fire or tornado hitting the server closet, or outright theft, that ZFS totally answers the need for traditional backup. And if you combine that with incremental backup to an offsite data-store (also ZFS?), then how wonderful would that be?
I admit my interest in ZFS FAR outstrips my knowledge of same; but it seems that the OpenZFS community pretty much has their act together.So, are there any backup tools that can backup a ZFS Pool to another ZFS Pool, or a network-full of Mixed-Platform Servers to a ZFS Pool?
You can pay any vendor to support your open source solution. It's illegal for a third party to fix the bugs in your proprietary software.
I would believe it is only illegal if the vendor then turns around and tries to sell the fixed code to another.
Oh, and if the company that wrote it is out of business, who then has the standing to sue? The government might (probably does), under Copyright laws; but won't. So who?
IF they do it's certainly not doing very well is it.
Ahem.
Even if you read the TFS, you will see that they said that there is a "Potential" that some Apps could be "configured" to steal data.
Theoretical Exploit: Not a realized one. BIG difference!
And of course, no explanation of how Apps could be "configured" in said manner.
And if you actually break the rules and at least read SOME of TFA, you will see this most important factoid:
"While the apps were not stealing data, security experts said it would have been trivial for attackers to configure them to do so. "
And then the article goes on to harp about XCodeGhost; with vastly inflated numbers of supposedly "infected" Apps, and after the originator of the Tainted XCode download already apologized.
And then, TFA focuses on MobiSage SDK, which appears to be an Ad-Insertion function that even the security firm FireEye said didn't appear to be doing anything malicious. But yet, FireEye took it upon themselves to label MobiSage "High Risk" (based on the fact that it appeared to be nothing more than an ad-insertion framework, right?).
So, ONCE AGAIN this is nothing more than a clickbait rehash of month-old FUD. Pure and simple. Thanks, Slashdot.
And I would say that either the "Permissions System" is either not really being challenged afterall, OR that it IS working just fine...
for anything that you search for there are 200 knock off Chinese apps. They'll never clean up their shit, it keeps feeding to marketing that they have X more apps than anyone else.
And how, pray tell, do you think the Google Play Store makes the same claims?
Spotify has 75m users of which 20m are paying
...and it has had since 2008, IIRC, to get to that point; so...?
Oh well, I rebooted my work colleagues iPhones literally hundreds of times. Sometimes the phones spent only seconds turned on between reboots.
That's just cruel! ;-)
My toaster oven makes Texas Toast just fine, thank you. It goes quite well with my Chef Boyardee spaghetti.
I like the Ravioli better; but the Spaghetti and Meatballs are pretty good, too...
*snickers* C'mon now! You? Calling someone a fanboy like it's a negative? Sheesh... I'm inclined to think you're just trolling at this point. It did make me chuckle, so there's that.
Ah well, everyone's got their role to play.
LOL! Point taken!!!
And I know I still owe you a suggestion on Mac stuff for your "charges", sorry! I promise I will put some thought into that...
Who uses their TV speakers?!? Yuck!!!
I do, because they sound fine and I don't feel like shelling out a few hundred extra bucks to get anything "better"... don't care about surround sound, or subwoofers, etc.
It's not like I have a Vizio TV, so it actually sounds decent.
I have 2 "modern" (Flatscreen) TVs. One, a 47 inch LG "Smart TV" that I purchased almost 3 years ago, and the other, a 32 inch Emerson, which I have in the Bedroom.
Leaving the Emerson out of of for a moment, the LG is certainly not a Vizio-quality TV, I paid $999 for it at Fry's; but both of my TVs have HORRIBLE built-in speakers. Horrible, I say. But I don't care, because I never hear them. I use my "Stereo" instead.
I don't have a Surround Sound speaker setup (I do have an early Surround Receiver; but don't really have a livingroom that will let me place 4 or 5 speakers), nor do I have a Sub; but the Stereo sounds SO much better than any TV speakers (any!), that I just couldn't imagine having to go back to using the built-in speakers on my TV (or any TV).
But, if your TV has HDMI in, and you enjoy its speakers, then the Apple TV should work great for you, since the audio comes out along with the HDMI Video.
So, what was your question again?
They made their engineering choices VERY wisely. This was NOT intended to be the next PS4/XBox. It was intended to be a Set Top Box that would let a couple of family-members play fairly nice games, but as only ONE of the types of uses, not in any way the central one, which is delivering streaming entertainment through your TV.
In addiotn, by t not trying to make it a gaming console they avoid all the comparisons to dedicated consoles that the Apple TV would lose. If game makers start producing games that come close to console level Apple can easily upgrade the Apple TV to accommodate them. It's a case of ensuring you have a successful launch and then seeing where the market goes and responding to it.
Right. For example, when the next generation of the Apple TV uses the A9 (or later) SoC, THEN we'll see some fairly-respectable gaming abilities. But I think that the hardware design of the Apple TV was frozen before the A9 was approved for new designs.
IMHO Apple should have created an iDevice controller app & SDK for developers to use.
I believe I saw in the Apple TV Keynote Video at least one game that already uses an iPhone/iPod Touch as the second-player game controller.
And, no time to look it up right now; but I am nearly positive I saw an API in iOS 9 for use by Developers wanting to interact with TVOS.
Just curious, do you know if the regular "Google" app on iOS has the same vulnerability as Chrome? I don't use Chrome on iOS, but I do use the Google app for quick searches and asking questions Siri should know, but doesn't (business hours, etc.).
Sorry, don't know. My guess would be "no", though.
The real answer is that Apple has never focused on games and gamers. There's no secret technical issue. They're making half-efforts. If they someday decide to care, then maybe they'll release a competitive solution.
No, of course not.
Or, that's the whole point. Apple strives to give the best "user experience". Releasing a half-baked product is NOT in their business plan. Why would Apple advertise this device as a "gaming console"? To be mocked by Sony and Microsoft (and the Glorious PC Gaming Master Race)?
Show me where Apple is advertising the Apple TV as a "Gaming Console"? Just because they show that one of the Applications of the Apple TV is "Games" does not mean that they are saying "Time to throw away that XBox!"
On the main Apple TV Product Page, there are four "vignettes". Only one of the four discusses Games. And it isn't the top one.
On the Apple TV "site", there is indeed a "Games and More" Tab at the top, but again, it isn't the FIRST Tab, the content under that tab has Games mixed in with other Apps. Hardly a "This should be THE Game Console for you!" feel to the content on that Page.
Based on what Apple's streaming music service has been able to slay competitors, Netflix has nothing to worry about.
I'm not sure what sources you're looking at; but 2 seconds conversation with Google seems to show quite a different picture of Apple Music's success so far.
Android, chromcast, Apple TV haven't made the cut
Oh look! An Amazon Fanboi! How cute.
Android, Chromecase, and Apple TV haven't "haven't made the cut"; they are simply seen as "Deadly Competitors", to be feared and eradicated from their little "Shopping-Service-That-Wishes-It-Was-A-Media-Platform".
No they couldn't. Apple isn't popular with most people, they just have a very devoted cult following.
So, since they are pretty much the highest-valued corporation of ANY kind in the World, that must be a pretty damn big "cult", eh?
So, how big does a Cult get to be before IT is the "Mainstream"?
Seriously. The Catholic Church, like ALL religions, started as a "Cult". But few would attempt to label them like that, now.
How is Apple any more of a "Cult" than Linux?
I see a lot of possiblities in this. One big diff will be when you can control apple radio with siri, the way you can on the iphone. a problem tho with apple radio playing on a tv is that tv speakers usually suk where as stereo speakers are often better. I'm not sure if there's a way to direct the sound output within the apple tv itself.
Who uses their TV speakers?!? Yuck!!!
Although I would have personally liked to see more audio-out options on the Apple TV (at LEAST a TOSLink Port, guys!), the sound comes out along with the rest of the HDMI signals (just like with an HDMI-equipped DVD/BD Player). And if you have a Receiver built in the past 5 years as part of your Entertainment system, it will be able to "Extract" the Audio from the HDMI signals (actually the audio is on its own pair of wires in the HDMI connector).
Or, if your audio gear doesn't support HDMI, then there are a fair selection of HDMI "Audio Extractors", often built-into a multiport HDMI Switcher, for as little as $20 or so on Amazon. Those output Stereo and/or 5.1/7.1 over Analog (RCA) and/or TOSLink/Coax for use with older audio setups.
They already offer the Nimbus Steel Series game controller as an AppleTV "Accessory" (even prominently showing it on the main AppleTV Product Page); so obviously, they don't have any illusions that the standard Siri Remote is going to be adequate for all games in all situations.
What they don't want to do, is to create entire categories of games that have NO WAY of playing with the Siri Remote.
As for the incremental download stuff, that is intended to avoid a frustrating wait (and unnecessary server load and download-cap teasing) while scene after scene, level after level, loads in, which most casual gamers won't even get to in that session.
On the other hand, they didn't want to price themselves out of the settop-box market, by making the AppleTV cost as much as a PS4 or XBox 1.
They made their engineering choices VERY wisely. This was NOT intended to be the next PS4/XBox. It was intended to be a Set Top Box that would let a couple of family-members play fairly nice games, but as only ONE of the types of uses, not in any way the central one, which is delivering streaming entertainment through your TV.
Sorry, everything doesn't have to do everything equally well. That's why our DVD Players don't make Toast. Or, more properly, why you CAN make Toast in a "Toaster Oven"; but most of them pretty well suck as Toasters, compared to the dedicated appliance for that function.
I think you missed the point here. Innocent people went to jail instead of the guilty.
Oh, I understood PERFECTLY. I just didn't word what I meant clearly, trying to be clever...
What I didn't do, was use the Sarcasm Tag. What I meant was that she probably said that EVERY sample that she touched was "Positive"; so, if the sample just HAPPENED to be from a truly "Guilty" person, I am SURE those people got Convicted, ***TOO***.
And that was CERTAINLY not INTENDED to SUPPORT this piece of human excrement; I am truly sorry if it came out sounding that way...
Personally, I'm in the "Add up the time for all the innocents convicted, TRIPLE it (the usual punishment for doing something willfully, wantonly, and/or with reckless disregard to another), and let that be her sentence" crowd.
Well, if it is only accessible through Chrome, then it is more likely a Chrome vulnerability than an iOS one.
If the security of the system can be compromised via a supposedly sandboxed application then it is most definitely the fault of the operating system that implements that failed sandbox.
And as I was entering my comment, that is exactly what I was thinking, too. HOWEVER, I broke the rules and actually read TFA, and there are so few details that there is absolutely no way to verify that it isn't all a complete lie, or even if it is true, that the exploit doesn't require active participation by the user.