Safari 3 Beta Updated, Security Problems Fixed

Llywelyn writes "Apple has released an update to the Windows Safari 3 Beta. According to Macworld the updates '...include correction for a command injection vulnerability, corrected with additional processing and validation of URLs that could otherwise lead to an unexpected termination of the browser; an out-of-bounds memory read issue; and a race condition that can allow cross-site scripting using a JavaSscript [sic] exploit.' It is available through either the Apple Safari download site or through Apple's Software Update."

Well!

[drhamad (868567)]

It's about time! ;) What took them so long!

Re:Excellent! Just one more thing...

[curunir (98273)]

The whole review misses what I believe is the point of the release entirely. They approach it from the point of view of a user who would be using it as their default browser. But I don't think Apple is really trying to win significant market share on PC browsers.

What they do want, however, is for developers to test their pages in Safari, not just FF and IE. Until the release, many developers used the fact that they couldn't run Safari on their development platform as a reason for not testing in Safari. Since Safari's CSS rendering is very compliant, most pages that render well in FF also render well in Safari. But Safari's JavaScript engine has a lot of quirks that developers won't catch unless they actually test in Safari. With the proliferation of AJAX-enabled sites out there, it's becoming more common for Mac Safari users to hit pages that just don't work for them. This is what Apple is trying to prevent.

But now that Safari is available in Windows (and hopefully Linux will follow), developers can easily test that their pages will work for Mac Safari users, even if they don't choose Safari as their default browser. This release many have lots of warts, but it's plenty good enough to fire up a couple of times a day to make sure that a specific site works.

More about the iPhone than the web

[Overly Critical Guy (663429)]

It's not so much that Apple wants developers to test their websites in Safari as much as it is they want to give Windows developers a WebKit platform in which to test web apps, since apps will be running in Safari on the iPhone.

Re:Well!

[CheeseTroll (696413)]

I've found that a lot of web developers just don't realize which items are truly platform-independent, and which ones are not, until they test them and find out that some break. Formatting can be temperamental, as well. Just because a site is perfectly functional, doesn't mean it *looks* as good on other platforms without some adjustments.

Horrible International Language support

[by Anonymous Coward]

Downloaded and tried to open websites in Chinese. The rendering is just horrible, unreadable and totally unacceptable. Texts are not where they should be. In this sense, this Safari is even not as good as IE 4, which could display such webpages well. I heard that, (didn't try), Safari could not open most webpages in non-western languages.

Re:Horrible International Language support

[nevali (942731)]

The issue there is that Mac OS X's own international character support does all the hard work for the applications: they don't generally need to worry about it. On Windows, it's a very different story, which means it'll take Apple more than a couple of days to make WebKit/Win32 deal with it all as elegantly as it does on OS X.

Re:Horrible International Language support

[nevali (942731)]

NT handles Unicode character storage and manipulation just fine, yes.

Unicode font rendering (automatically selecting the a font which contains a particular character, because generally no font contains all Unicode characters, and if one did exist, it probably wouldn't be the text font in use) is a different matter altogether.

Mac OS X does sane font substitution when faces don't include a particular character. On Windows, AFAIK, typing a Japanese glyph when using a font that doesn't support that code point will result in the square block--on the Mac, the type renderer will find the closest visual match (in terms of style) for a font that does include the code point and use that for those glyphs.

Naturally

[Diordna (815458)]

I'm your average rabid Apple fan, but surely they had to have a fix at least this fast to keep from looking stupid. I doubt they'll be as quick in the future.

I wonder if...

[Ant P. (974313)]

Konqueror's Win32 release will be as big a disaster.

Re:I wonder if...

[ArsonSmith (13997)]

There are far too many sites that just don't function in Safari for me to use it. Whether it is Safari's fault or the sites fault is not of importance, it works in Firefox, not in Safari.

Security is not the big problem

[MBoffin (259181)]

Fixing the security issues may help in keeping Apple from looking foolish, but security is not the real problem with Safari for Windows. The real problem with Safari for Windows that Apple should be putting focus on is the user experience.* It's horrendous. Slow window redraws, completely broken Windows conventions, a total lack of extensibility, and on and on.

As a web developer, I'm pleased as punch that they've released a Windows version of Safari that renders pixel-for-pixel the same as the OS X version (it really does, I checked). However, Safari on Windows is not even in the running as far as being a candidate as a full-time browser on Windows. The user experience is simply too painful.

* I didn't say they should not focus on security. They most definitely should.

Why so negative on Safari???

[Wingsy (761354)]

I've used it on Windows XP Pro. A friend has been using it on Vista. Neither of us can find a single thing wrong with it in 2 days of browsing (even to my bank, the acid test of browsers). The LA Times reviewer recommends it. ComputerWorld praises it. But here on Slashdot about all I see are people giving it a thumbs down. Am I seeing a bit of bias here? Someone direct me to a web page that Safari 3 on Windows XP renders horribly. Please, I wanna see.

Gee

[sid0 (1062444)]

they haven't fixed [rec-sec.co.il] all the vulnerabilities yet.

Re:Gee

[trolltalk.com (1108067)]

Which policy would you rather your OS vendor have:

1. Wait for the monthly "patch Tuesday"
2. Close vulnerabilities ASAP

Consider this - this is just a "preview" product - and not even on "their" platform. Its good publicity. They're handling the vulnerabilities the same way Tylenol handled the poisoned pill problem - actively, instead of with their head up Gates/Ballmer's rear end going "no problemo".

Patch Tuesday...

[sid0 (1062444)]

...is there for a reason [wikipedia.org].

Though I really would prefer vulnerabilities fixed asap, I can see the reason for Patch Tuesday, especially for non-0day exploits.

Safari 3.0.1, however, is just damage control.

Take your tinfoil hat off, man

[sid0 (1062444)]

First: complex software written for use on a wide variety of configurations WILL HAVE BUGS. I just don't see any way around it. This has nothing to do with competition. OS X in the past 2 months has had a huge number of patches, hasn't it? That too, with a BSD based kernel and a much smaller hardware base.

Second: Not every bug is a showstopper. Even if a bug is found after code freeze, it might be better to release a patch separately. You know, like those "errata" sheets of paper in books.

When a patch is released the vulnerability *has* to be disclosed! That means sysadmins would run around trying to keep systems up to date the whole month.

I agree that more out of cycle patches should be released for serious vulnerabilities that are being exploited, but I see nothing wrong with the Patch Tuesday method otherwise.

Re:Bugs reported one day, fixed the next.

[by Anonymous Coward]

In the interest of having a viable stable platform for iPhone development, they're going to have to keep up this quick turnaround on defect resolution. As someone mentioned a couple of days ago when Win Safari was first released, they're also going to have to work really hard for this software to compete with other browsers (which many think it can't). While I agree that it's an impressive turnaround, for Apple's sake, I hope they can keep up the momentum.

I disagree

[WrongSizeGlass (838941)]

As someone mentioned a couple of days ago when Win Safari was first released, they're also going to have to work really hard for this software to compete with other browsers (which many think it can't).

I may be wearing my ass as a hat, but I honestly don't see Apple expecting Safari to compete in the Windows browser market. It is my (potentially asshattian) opinion that Safari is available on Windows solely for the purpose of providing a testing environment for iPhone development for Windows developers. It's never going to take over the Windows browser market (or even made a serious dent).

Having Safari available on Windows removes the 'Apple Only' hardware requirement for any company who wants to develop Web 2.0/AJAX applications that run on the iPhone which opens Safari development to a much much larger pool of developers.

Re:Bugs reported one day, fixed the next.

[jellomizer (103300)]

I think Apple just wants a solid #3 Browser Spot. That way when people test their webpages they will check 3 browsers IE, Firefox, Safari. Before safari for windows Web Developers needed a Mac to test Safari. Thus making #3 Opera. With with the bulk of Mac People using Safari and a modest Windows people (because once it is finalize it will be shipped with Quicktime and iTunes.) So some people will try it and like it better then IE. So it could be a solid #3 and probably more tested for compatability on web pages... Now with websites better designed for Safari it would make the migration to Macs one more step simpler. (fear of compatibility of web pages) I doubt that Apple has plans to make a profit with Safari for windows but more of a case to make sure they don't get left out in the loop. Apple is realistic, they realize not everyone wants or will get a Mac. But they feel if more people given the choice they would actually prefer one. Offing Safari, iTunes, QuickTime for Windows makes sure that these are also well supported to in real life allowing apple to maintain control on the global standards. Otherwise companies of new technologies could forget about Apple. Say make a codex that there is no QuickTime port. or a webpage that doesn't work with Safari. It is all about keeping control on their interests.

Re:Browser Statistics

[WrongSizeGlass (838941)]

That is one large group of browsers, as 192.03% of anything is pretty big.

Well, we are talking about Web 2.0 (which should equal 200% IIRC). I guess I forgot
* 7.97% - Other

Anyone have a download link to the latest version of Cowboy Neal?

I'd post it again, but I don't want to receive another DMCA takedown notice.

Re:not worth it

[nevali (942731)]

Er, you don't have to give an e-mail address to download it, just to sign up.

Leave the box blank and the check-box ticked and it still downloads.

Re:not worth it

[paanta (640245)]

it's likely to just disappear and not make it back onto my machine the next time I reinstall Windows.

Best advertisement for OS X I've seen all day. :P

Re:I dont care what you say

[Baricom (763970)]

I think the reason's pretty simple: companies like Google have been abusing the "beta" moniker lately. The betas I've seen from Apple (including Safari and earlier, Quicktime 7) have been more consistent with what I would consider a beta: they mostly work and are useful for testing, but still have significant problems.

Perhaps what they might have done is require an Apple Developer Connection account to download instead of making it available through general release.

Re:Now if they would fix the text problem...

[Henry V .009 (518000)]

Yes, I've got this problem on my Vista install at work. Clicking the little spider icon to report the bug crashes the program.

Mini-review of Safari on my home Vista install: The non-standard Windows UI is annoying. If I wanted to resize only from the bottom right corner I would have bought a Mac. The lack of an advertisement blocker makes the software a poor alternative to Firefox. The bundling is annoying. I don't want Quicktime. Quicktime is ugly, ugly software. It makes Firefox crash, grabs all sorts of MIME types, throws its icon up on the desktop every time it updates no matter how many times you delete the icon, it installs a systray icon (for a media player?!? come on), and it won't play full screen videos. ITunes is only a good media player if you own a Ipod. Don't want that either. The Apple update service is annoying as well. Why a separate service? I want my apps to check for updates when I start them or not at all.

Good points? Well, Safari displays web pages, I guess. Good for Apple.

Re:Now if they would fix the text problem...

[Goaway (82658)]

If you didn't want QuickTime bundled, why did you select to download the version that bundles it?