BBC Writer Responds To Mac Security Critiques

minimunchkin writes "BBC Correspondent Bill Thompson responds to the flaming he received for an article on the vulnerabilities in Mac security. He knows that there are no Mac OS X viruses in the wild, and he doesn't believe there ever will be." From the article: "However the wider point, that there are exploitable vulnerabilities and sometimes Apple puts them there, remains. Even if I'm careful to apply updates when they are made available, some people might not and their systems could be compromised. And there is always a gap between the discovery of an issue and an available fix, a gap which could be exploited. "

The Rules

To the old rule that one should never argue politics or religion, because there is no way to win, I believe we must add operating systems as a third thing one should never argue.

Add to that the following statement (my own): "Being a Microsoft proponent in an argument about operating systems is like being a white male in a discussion on discrimination."

- Greg

Thread highjack!

We also expose those who know little about computers but chose the Mac because of its ease of use and elegance a disservice by encouraging them to think that they don't need to think about security at all.

This is the original sin of mac users. I myself, a mac user, have told someone that it is okay to open an email because they are using a mac. Security needs to be an important consideration in all computer use. In the same way that the /. community has imposed upo the world that good passwords are important, we must impose that good security practices are important.

Re:...seem to form a paradox

I agree, although I think it's a much finer line to walk. Ensuring equal rights is one thing; demanding priviledge based on past inequality is another.

As I'm sure most people have encountered in their lives, it's very easy for a very vocal minority to overwhelm a majority. Look at how many non-Americans believe that the United States is full of evangelical, "fire and brimstone" Christians. They're obviously a majority, but vocal and active enough as to appear to be a majority. They're not the only group in history who as acted as such, either.

But anyway, majorities are historically awarded rights before minorities, and, due to their majority status, are often reluctant to give up any priviledges which they perceive as rights. It can be rude and backwards, such as the perceived right of not having to hear other languages or introduced to other cultures, or it can be the idea that a company always run by black people should continue to be run by black people. True equality is exceedingly difficult to attain, as that majority you mention is usually the most reluctant to give up their priviledge.

But I Only Meant All Of You

From Thompson's original article:

Mac users demonstrate an indefensible smugness when it comes to the dangers of having their systems compromised by malicious software and opened up to exploitation by others. It's time they started behaving a bit more responsibly.

Dear Mr. Thompson:

When you accuse several million people of demonstrating "indefensible smugness" based solely on the type of computer they're sitting in front of, you must certainly expect something of a backlash from those of us who do, in fact, take security seriously. When you tell the likes of systems administrators and security experts they should behave "a bit more responsibly", they're rightly going to tell you to go piss up a rope.

On the Internet, we refer to people who make statements such as the one quoted above as "trolls". Engaging in this type of behavior is generally frowned upon. For example, if I were to say "this is the sort of idioctic drivel the world has come to expect from those effete Brits," I, too would be guilty of trolling and would receive untold amounts of well-deserved invective from the readers of this post.

Fortunately for me, I know better than to make such outrageous statements.

It's not "flamebait".

Just because a legitimate, completely truthful opinion angers some, it does not make the opinion "flamebait".

Words like "flamebait" and "troll" are most often used seriously by those who are trying to incite trouble amongst people who are pointing out real, solid facts.

We see this today in the media, where various governments label their opponents as "terrorists". Of course, in many cases those governments are partking in the very same actions that may be construed as "terrorism".

These sorts of labels are useless just because they are misapplied so often, by so many different people and groups.

Not a "troll" at all.

Please don't misuse the word "troll". Like it or not, he is pointing out a very serious issue that affects all operating systems, be it Windows, Mac OS X, OpenBSD, UnixWare, OS/2, MS-DOS, VMS, or basically any other operating system.

Frequent updates are necessary, especially when it comes to networked systems. Concurrently, many users (even experienced administrators) fail to keep their systems patched and up to date, be it for a lack of time or due to financial constraints.

Remember, Mac OS X is often targetted towards more inexperienced users, or those who just want a system that works. For the most part, that is true of Mac OS X. It does often just work. But likewise, it is necessary to keep it updated.

Now, he isn't a "troll" for pointing out that very real, very serious fact. Sure, it might have angered some people, but that's not his fault in any way.

If your doctor were to diagnose you with AIDS, and you did indeed have the syndrome, he would not be a "troll", regardless of how much you were angered by his diagnosis. In much the same way, this BBC author is not a "troll".

Re:Not a "troll" at all.

Please mod parent down "-1 Troll".

Re:Not a "troll" at all.

"Remember, Mac OS X is often targetted towards more inexperienced users"

Uh, says you. I know exactly what I'm doing, and I think MacOS X is pretty rockin'.

Re:Not a "troll" at all.

Now, he isn't a "troll" for pointing out that very real, very serious fact. Sure, it might have angered some people, but that's not his fault in any way.

Wait, it's a fact that "Mac users demonstrate an indefensible smugness when it comes to the dangers of having their systems compromised"? You'll note that I don't take issue with his assertions that there are very real dangers that all computer users need to be aware of; I take issue with his saying, in essence, "If you use a Mac, you're irresponsible and smug when it comes to security".

That is indeed trolling--at least, it's either trolling or flaming, depending on how you judge his motives. Had he said, "for many casual computer users, there is a common misconception that the Mac is perfectly secure," I would have absolutely no beef with his statement. As it is, though, you'll generate a lot more attention and traffic if you simply say that Mac users on the whole are smug and irresponsible. If making inflammatory statements for the apparent purpose of drumming up attention and agitating readers doesn't count as trolling, I don't know what does.

If your doctor were to diagnose you with AIDS, and you did indeed have the syndrome, he would not be a "troll", regardless of how much you were angered by his diagnosis. In much the same way, this BBC author is not a "troll".

Absolutely true. However, if your doctor were to then go on and say, "so, are you homosexual, or are you a junkie?", would his actions still be defensible, or would you smack him upside the head for making an innacurate and crass assumption about you based on a sweeping generalization?

Re:But I Only Meant All Of You

When you accuse several million people of demonstrating "indefensible smugness"...

Smugness is highly subjective, and says much more about the person making the judgement than the person being judged.

I doubt that many Mac users think to themselves "I'm very pleased with myself because my Mac is immune from viruses." They just don't really think about the problem at all.

That isn't smugness in any objective sense.

The Mac user may appear 'smug' to the embattled Windows user who has just had to do a clean install for the 3rd time due to virus damage. But that's purely subjective.

I think Bill writes a great deal of excellent stuff in his columns. Let's not get hung up on one sentence and then miss the entire point of the essay.

Re:But I Only Meant All Of You

Also from TFA: I believe that security through obscurity is no security at all,

So it's probably just as well that OSX doesn't rely on it then.

This guy is full of it

It doesn't matter whether how secure the OS is, all that matters is how secure your data is. You could have an OS with more holes than a sieve, but if for one reason or another your data is less likely to be compromised then that is all that matters. Apple has unfound theoretical vulnerablities. So what, it doesn't matter. All that matters is that my word documents stay mine.

Re:This guy is full of it

The whole matter of computer security comes down to make sure your system is just a little bit harder to exploit than the one down the street. Apple has done this. Microsoft systems are much easier to gain control of than just about any other system out there. Mind you that there are Microsoft Windows systems that are very secure. The admins on those systems have take the time to patch the holes and take measures to secure those systems. Is this true of all Windows systems? No. Are all Apple systems secure? No. It comes down to how much does the end user of that system care about security and how much time, effort, and money do they want to expend securing the system. This is true of all systems.

As another poster wrote the orginal article is at best flamebait.

It does matter

Invariably the security of your data is dependent on the security of your OS. If you have some wonderfully encrypted data files you have to interact with them via the OS. So somebody exploits a vulnerability, you end up with a key logger on your machine, and now your intricate password to protect your encrypted files is forfeit.

As for the article's conclusion that viruses are unlikely, I think he's wrong. What makes Unix safer from viruses, etc, is the isolation between user level activity and administrator activity. Thus while one account may be compromised a whole system isn't. So this makes it harder for viruses, but not impossible by any stretch.

For example, a virus can be destructive without becoming root. It can, as you allude to, attack only your data, instead of a whole system's data, but in the end, it's still your data getting corrupted. Furthermore, most of the exploits I've seen of Linux systems involve taking a non-root exploit and then using another vulnerability to make it a root exploit.

Something else to consider on OSX is the sudo. As I understand it, any user on an OSX system can use sudo. So, if an exploit can gain user level privleges, it can then use social engineering, keylogging, etc, to gain the users password and then, in effect, gain root priveleges through sudo.

What protects OSX for now is that it has a smaller share of the market so there are less people trying to exploit it. Eventually if OSX gains market share, then there will be far more incentive to write malware for it. Certainly it will take greater skill to exploit OSX and it will be easier to defend against those exploits, but it only takes one clever hacker to completely ruin your day.

Re:It does matter

As I understand it, any user on an OSX system can use sudo.

You have to be a member of the admins group in order to use sudo on OS X.
Ordinary users don't get to play.

All is forgiven

We forgive you on one condition: you admit publicly that emacs is the one true editor. [dina.kvl.dk] Then you won't have to worry about anyone flaming you ever again.

And in another bit of pure wisdom.....

But spyware and keyloggers are written for Mac OS as for other Unixes, and could be installed on a compromised system by a worm or even by a Trojan that is installed with user permission.

Gee, who would think? This statement gives the impression that Unix is especially vulnerable to this issue and that there is some solution to this problem. The fact that Unix's user segregation is one of the cleanest and most secure out there obviously doesn't factor into his security assessment and what I really wonder is what his suggestion for changing this "vulnerability" is. If he's looking for a technical one, I think he'll be looking for a while, since there is none. The human is always a security risk on the system. The question is only to what degree. Technology can help minimize the damage but in the end, it's always the same problem.

The simple fact of the matter...

is that nothing is perfect. We flawed humans created flawed machines and flawed software. No matter what OS you run there will always be flaws that someone could exploit. I use Macs but I certainly don't count on OS X being secure enough for me to connect to the internet without using a correctly configured firewall.

Re:The simple fact of the matter...

nothing is perfect

Agreed, and for the discussion at hand, this also includes OS X.

I use Macs but I certainly don't count on OS X being secure enough for me to connect to the internet without using a correctly configured firewall.

While I don't mean to discourage the use of a firewall, it is wholly unnecessary, at present, with Mac OS X, and is likely to remain that way for quite some time.

Since I have a LAN, I have a hardware firewall by default (WiFi+10/100 Ethernet router), but I've run with Macs connected directly to the cable modem, and would do so again without fear. I most certainly would not do that with Windows. I would do it with Linux as well, although I'd run a portscan first and make any necessary configuration settings.

Really, Mac OS X does not need a firewall. But it's still a good habit, it makes it easier to add other computers (especially Windows machines) to your network, and "some day" may even be necessary on OS X (although that mythical "some day" is more theoretical than imminent).

Is that the "smugness" people are always talking about? It's not that I feel smug, so much as I am unconcerned (based on a rational assessment of the facts). Are Windows users "smug" because they can run the most games? Or are they just taking advantage of the fact that there are more Windows games than Mac games? Sure, one can be smug about these things, but they are true, and acting on those truths does not equate to smugness.

That's a naive statement...

>>doesn't believe there ever will be.

Let's not be too naive and write statements like there will never be a worm for Macs. If someone wanted to they could write a worm to infect them. Saying I don't believe anyone will write one is sticking your head in the sand. You have to assume there will be one and then start to protect yourself, not the opposite.

Yeah?

so sayeth Bill Thompson in a fluffy article:

some people might not update and their systems could be compromised. And there is always a gap between the discovery of an issue and an available fix, a gap which could be exploited.

(emphasis in italics mine)

Dear M. Thompson:

No Shit, Mr. Holmes(ne: Thompson). Welcome to the real world, where there are unscrupulous characters just waiting for you to wander past that allegorical dark alley, and get gobsmacked for doing something unconditionally stupid.

defensibility

Firstly, saying that vunerabilities exist is akin to saying that there are bugs in someone's software. You're just about guaranteed to be right.

Smugness, I'm not sure about (I'm a linuxite). Certainly there is something that most Windows users don't experience, and that is actual *enjoyment* from their OS. Microsoft has never tried especially hard to make their OS enjoyable, only usable.

Would things be different if OS X were the predominant OS? Without doubt. However, OS X, both the kernel (Darwin), and user interface, have been precisely engineered. Windows, one might argue, more evolved. They claim complete rewrites of the OS occured, but I'm willing to bet tons of code was copied-and-pasted in the process.

This does not guarantee it is fool-proof. Only time can tell that. But I would be willing to hedge a bet that less exploits exist for OS X than for Windows.

Unsafe behind closed doors.

Also of note is that Apple, like Microsoft, reserves the right to refrain from public distribution of information on vulnerabilities and known exploits. Both companies pursue that old-fashioned model of closing their codebases and asking developers to sign NDA's.

If there is no opening for the wider developer community to find and report vulnerabilities then how can a user of either platform feel confident in their machine's relative security? Are we supposed to trust these companies to keep us informed, companies whose very share prices rise and fall with criticism (particularly on the level of security)?

Personally, this is reason enough to shy away from either platform - and perhaps explains why both platforms are very rarely found in mission critical applications.

The only good bug...

...is a squished bug. (See xroach for details.)

Seriously, the argument that there are exploits is an important one to keep in mind. Nobody questions that Firefox is so far ahead of IE on security that the difference can be measured in red-shift. However, anybody who then concludes that Firefox users can afford to be complacent is completely outside the Universe entirely. The same is true of OS vulnerabilities. If a vulnerability is detected, it needs fixing. Ideally, you write the software correctly in the first place so that there are extremely few vulnerabilities that ever need to be fixed, but that doesn't generally happen.

Is Bill Thompson a troll? To a degree. He has absolutely zero diplomatic touch, which is presumably why the BBC put him on the technology desk and not in foreign affairs. If you're in a war-zone, tact is an important skill to have.

The part that concerns me most, which I'm not seeing enough commentary on, is the extremely serious allegation that Apple have deliberately installed backdoors into their systems. If this allegation has any foundation in fact, Apple should face intense questioning on their conduct. Cisco got burned when the backdoors they installed were discovered and although you can argue that an Apple is not quite as critical a part of the infrastructure, backdoors are certainly not ethical and possibly not legal.

I've heard people arguing that you can't prove a program bug-free (actually, the Halting Problem only proves you can't do so for the general case, it says nothing about specific cases), but the more I hear of people abusing trust (eg: Sony), wilfully releasing defective software with known and documented bugs on the grounds people will update eventually anyway (Microsoft) and incorporating deliberate backdoors (Cisco), the more I am convinced that there should be consumer protection legislation that forces software companies to maintain certain standards. These sorts of wilfull, knowledgable, abuse of consumers is simply not acceptable.

And, yes, I don't care if it takes a BBC hack journalist to point this out.

Slashdot story is misleading

The Slashdot story is misleading by saying "[Bill Thompson] knows that there are no Mac OS X viruses in the wild, and he doesn't believe there ever will be.". Actually Bill Thompson thinks it is possible but unlikely, quoting TFA: "I don't believe that Mac viruses already exist, and I think it's very unlikely that they ever will."

There is a big difference between saying "I don't believe in <foobar>" and "<foobar> is very unlikely". Such subtle differences in phrasing totally explain why some people agree with Bill and some others disagree.

He did his job well

Look at all the discussion. His article has gotten 2 days of coverage, and lots of attention. I applaud the article, and if some of us Mac users get a little bothered, I hope they at least look at the points he made.

I do expect, though, that Mac users will take umberage anytime some one, especially another Mac user, points out anything less than glowing about our favorite platform. I don't think of it so much as smugness, rather a learned response to all the years of FUD targeted at Apple through the well know "business" practices of Microsoft. It is hard at times to not appear smug when the truth aboout Windows vulnerabilities is so predominant.

Mac viruses and such

I believe our Bill may have thrown down the gauntlet to all the hackers out there :)

expect a flurry of updates and patches for the mac o/s from Apple very soon :P

The key issue is that...

OS X and Linux are currently less popular. This means they will be infected with less stuff. They are gaining popularity, though slowly. However, becuase of the nature of open-source software, patches can be applied every time there is a new vulnerability discovered or exploited, so that by the time it is a really big target most of the obvious problems will be fixed. At least that's the theory. I've heard that one current example of this is the fact that MS IIS is a fraction of its market compared to Apache, but that IIS gets a disproportionately large amount of attacks compared to Apache (which receives a very tiny number of attacks).

Not so fast

He was, in fact, a pontificating Mac owner.

An analogy...

On a planet far far away live two races of people; The Gatesians (who make up 90-95% of the poulation) and the Jobsians (who make up the rest).

The Gatesians have weak immune systems and frequently suffer from viral and bacterial infections, often necessitating a hospital stay. The problem is so bad that almost all Gatesians wear face masks and rubber gloves, use copious amounts of anti-bacterial soap, sterilize all items they come in contact with and get immunisation shots on a weekly basis. And despite all this they continue to get sick.

Jobsians, on the other hand, have very strong immune systems, so strong that no Jobsian has gotten so much as the sniffles in the last few years. Many Gatesians make the claim that the Jobsians don't get sick simply because there aren't enough of them for an infection to spread. The Jobsians point out that there are no known viruses or bacteria that affect Jobsians (the odd rumoured virus built in a secret government lab aside).

A few scare mongers (like Bill Thompson) like to argue that the Jobsians need to take the same precautions against disease that the Gatesians do and that if they don't if a virus or bacteria that can infect them ever shows up will wipe them all out. For the most part the Jobsians just ignore the ranting and get on with enjoying their carefree life and laugh at all the sneezing, coughing and hospitalized Gatesians.

It's not like he's never done this before.

Thompson has a track record of writing articles that are either ill-informed or technically incorrect and then defending himself with the lame excuse that his is an 'opinion piece'. I can never understand why Slashdot (or the BBC for that matter) give him the space he clearly doesn't deserve. He tries to present himself as something of a guru, but probably couldn't get a job as a junior IT helpdesk worker (apologies to all the highly competent helpdesk guys out there).

He's the poster-boy for the phrase "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". If you look at his resume it's clear that he tried to make it as a techie, but didn't have what it takes, and so became a "commentator". It's funny - there used to be a feedback section on his BBC column, but it mysteriously disappeared a few months ago, shortly after he posted some badly researched drivel about problems copying his archived email from Windows to OS X and got shot down in flames by almost everyone who responded.

What's "possible", versus what is observed.

I've never come across perfect software, but at this point (using a Mac) my time is better spent worrying about failing hardware than it is about Mac viruses and worms. I've had failed power supplies, memory gone bad, disks crashed, and three chips smoked into nonfunctioning lumps. I worry that the flight attendent will dump a drink into my laptop on the airplane, or that one of my kids will use my laptop for something Horribly Inappropriate; those are the more likely failures.

It is also worth noting that "if Macs were as popular as Windows" is one of those hypotheses contrary-to-fact; perhaps, if that were the case, OS X would contain further safeguards. Perhaps Apple would bundle their own antivirus software, and perhaps it would work, and perhaps it would not pester me for yet another year's subscription to continue my protection. Perhaps they would release that information on an RSS feed, and perhaps they would propagate it via a peer-to-peer network. If I can assume that pigs fly (that a false thing is true), there's no limit to the possibilities. We can argue endlessly about what might be; what is, is an OS that is more secure by design (never had ActiveX, root privileges require a password for each activation, ports kept shut by default), that has not been host to anything like all the vermin that infest and attack Windows boxes.

what he said...

...was that Mac users are smug and complacent, that they are ignoring their vulnerabilities. To wit, "I worry that we do not take security seriously enough as a community."

What, pray tell, are Mac users *not* doing (in their complacency) that they *should* be doing? Are they not updating their software as often as other users? Do they not run firewalls? Do they not backup data? Are they not spending millions of dollars for security software? Are they somehow *more* complacent than other users?

Where's the data? Whose *scientific* survey or research was quoted?

This is just another example of shoddy I-got-a-deadline tech journalism. The reference to the SANS trash should be enough to tip you off. If he really wanted to do the Mac community a service, he could expose the security software ripoff that's been sucking millions from Mac users for years to protect them from ghosts and goblins.

Sony's DRM hits Macs, too.

Sony's infamously intrusive DRM on their audio CDs hits Macs, too. [slashdot.org] More user interaction is required for the install than on Windows, apparently.

A question I haven't seen answered: apparently the Windows version installs the spyware and backdoor even if you reject the EULA. Is this true for the Mac version?

On the other hand. . .

On the other hand some Mac users are setting themselves up for failure. I have one client who INSISTS on chmod 777 -R / because he finds security "inconvenient" -- and any viruses that DO hit the wild are 100% guaranteed to hit their network. They miss the old MacOS and its total lack of security. I'm sure they're not the only ones with that shortsighted and foolish outlook based on the false sense of security that "if it hasn't happened yet, it never will"

Not only that, but if you have any shares/dropboxes/etc. openly accessible in a heterogeneous network, windows viruses can plant viruses there or infect documents which other windows users can pick up from that share and infect their machines with the scumware. Heck, even Linux or Solaris servers running file shares will be running clamav and antivir, and be scanning the samba shares any time a file is accessed.

Additionally, like it or not, there are worms which coulc conceivably infect your mac and add it to script kiddie's DDoS attacks. If you're running a web server with OpenSSL (or a commercial variant thereof) chances are you're vulnerable to slapper. ClamAV detects slapper and can remove it.

Mr. Bill Thompson I KNOW you're reading this thread on /. so take my advice: download clamav (it's FREE - as in beer, as in speech, etc.), install it, and run it on occasion. I'd point you at the project page only I know that you know how to google. :) clamav is a very small project, taking up very little space, and again it's FREE and virus signatures are usually updated more than once per day.

Naive question about network propagation

This is an entirely naive question as I have no knowledge of viruses or how they spread, etc. But is it possible that at 3%, there simply aren't enough Macs to support network propagation of a virus? Or rather, that the density of Macs simply won't support it? Just thinking aloud and wanted to put the thought out there.

There No exploits because theres no cash

once the mac market becomes big enough to build profitable zombie networks

will you see the exploits .

until then, the enginers of these networks will continue to focus on what works and works well

Bill Thompson

What a donkey! In one sentence he's going on about how macusers are irresponsible when it comes to viruses/malware, in the next sentence he says that he doesn't use anti-virus s/w on his mac. The phrase "Twat" springs to mind, I guess its alright for twat journos to get viruses in email and happily forward them on to their pc mates but not us dweeb members of the public.

"Indefensible" smugness?

"Sure, there haven't ever been any viruses for OSX, and there probably never will be, while there are thousands upon thousands of Windows viruses out there... but you Mac users are INDEFENSIBLE in your smugness!"

This sounds like a case of rather defensible smugness to me.

Mac Virus Out There!!!

Only yesterday I got a little window telling me there was "Security Update" and wanted me to "click to install".

I trashed it before it could do more harm, thank god!

Serious though, while I agree with the guy in general (yes we are smug, no we don't care) I'd like to see more proof from him that lots of mac users aren't updating their computer when asked to.
Everybody I know does the intelligent thing the moment Software Update pops up and has their firewall on at all times. This apart from maybe being a bit smug about it. That may not be enough for real security maniacs, but has proven to be more than sufficient for all regular (professional or home) mac users the last five years. So, what else does he want us to do? Shout "the end is near"?

And BTW most people I know really don't know who this mythical ROOT person is and wouldn't know how to log in as him anyway.

He doesn't take security seriously enough...

No wonder he's worried about Mac users being naive about security, when he writes "The security model in Unix-based operating systems like Darwin means that it is very hard to see how an infection could spread, even if an executable could be compromised."

The main reason that Mac OS X is more secure than Windows is that Mac OS X has a smaller surface area exposed to attack, but it has a smaller surface area exposed to attack than most default Linux distros, or most historical networked UNIX systems... and the main reason it's got a smaller surface area exposed to attack is because of the way the browser works... not because of the UNIX roots of OS X. Browsers on OS 9 were also safer than on Windows, and for the same reason.

Once an executable is compromised, it's little harder to transmit an email virus or set up a trojan horse in OS X than in Windows. You don't need "root" to send email or listen on a high port or sneak a credible-sounding backdoor program into a user's login preferences.

Re:OS Vulnerabilities

Oddly enough I have yet to see a vulnerability in a major Apple implemented library.

That's because your rose colored mac-glasses filter them out.

There are a bunch of vulnerabilities listed there that are from Apple implemented libraries.

Some of the really bad ones ("arbitrary code execution"):

CoreFoundation: Resolving a maliciously-crafted URL may result in crashes or arbitrary code execution

Quicktime: A heap buffer overflow could allow attackers to execute arbitrary code

QuickDraw Manager: Viewing a maliciously-crafted PICT image may result in arbitrary code execution.

AppKit: Opening a malicious, rich text file could lead to arbitrary code execution.

AppKit: Opening a maliciously crafted Microsoft Word .doc file could result in arbitrary code execution.

The JavaScript engine in Safari uses a version of the PCRE library that is vulnerable to a potentially exploitable heap overflow.

WebKit contains a heap overflow that may lead to the execution of arbitrary code.

Clicking on a link in a maliciously-crafted PDF file in Safari could lead to arbitrary command execution.

And those are just from the past 4 months!

The language is what upsets people.

The term "smug" carries a negative connotation. This is what upset most Mac users that I know. If he had used the term "proud" or "content" there would have been very little in the way of flaming.

It's all about the connotation that was carried by the headline.

A group that has been bashed for nearly the last twenty years are touchy about how you represent them?!?! What would you expect? The Windows crowd have tried every conceivable way in the world to put the Mac community down and get them to give up the OS and hardware selection that they chose and they're touchy? Again, what do you expect?

I hate to break this to you, but your lack of knowledge of the community is one of the key reasons that all the other "communities" have chosen to attack those in the Mac camp for all this time.

Re:Looks like he pissed off the Mac People

It seems easy enough to piss of Apple/MAC fans: just say something slightly negative, no matter how grounded in fact, about Apple or Mac.

Only if you say it without knowing what you're talking about.

It reminds me a bit of the Linux zealots.

Only if you say it without knowing what you're talking about.

This guy did that, so he got flamed.

This guy didn't know what he was talking about and now is backpeddling. That's what the higher profile trolls do, they say "If you think you're safer on a Mac, you're completely mistaken!", and then "Of course I don't mean in reality, nobody who read my article could think I was talking about reality! I was talking about my own little fantasy world where you're less safe on a Mac!"

Of course, if he had said it that way, he probably would've at least gotten a laugh. Instead his retort was to play the semantics game, and no wonder lots of people got upset.

Here's a person who either doesn't know what he's talking about (that is, merely repeats stuff people tell him, or is making conclusions that he isn't knowledgeable enough to make) or he's a mean old troll trying to piss people off. Either way, he's to be detested.

I personally didn't know much about the Mac crowd until recently -- but they are very touchy.

Good for you! Bridge that race gap!

Meanwhile, I know many Mac users and many Windows users, and I'd agree that most Mac users are most certainly touchier than Windows users, but that most Windows users don't even know they're running users and in fact, the defenders of Windows can't ever seem to do it with something even resembling a trace of logic. These people are far more touchy than Mac users, and worse still, are morally reprehensible because they defend it at the expense to themselves and others!

Here's a clue: In the last 5 years, not a single exploit that has been deployed for Linux has affected me, and yet all those dasturdly Blasters and Code-Reds are still affecting me - despite the fact I don't run Windows.

I don't care if you patch your system, I care that all these other people don't.

I contend- and others often more so that everyone would be much happier if there were no Microsoft and no Windows. I most certainly would be: You wouldn't be talking to me, and I wouldn't need to buy more bandwidth right now.