Why wouldn't it make sense for Apple to release their OS for non-apple hardware?

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: chcarnage
The unix-like Darwin base OS X uses is open source. Well I'm not saying OS X will be invulnerable forever but I consider five years without an exploit in the wild something impressive.

Another reason why Apple won't sell OS X for beige boxes is that half of the people suggesting this actually want it for free. Just because something is demanded often in the public doesn't mean there's a market for it. I mean, just look in this thread for some examples of people belittleing the OS X achievements or its performance. Guess what, OS development needs big efforts and can consume a huge pile of money.

I don't believe you are correct about 5 years w/o an exploit, but my dates could be a bit off. Are you saying from 01 to current?

What standard are you applying for it to be impressive? To me it's really small user base helps contribute to the smaller amount of vulns. This has been said over and over, but it's true.

 

[chcarnage]

Originally posted by: dnuggett
I don't believe you are correct about 5 years w/o an exploit, but my dates could be a bit off. Are you saying from 01 to current?

What standard are you applying for it to be impressive? To me it's really small user base helps contribute to the smaller amount of vulns. This has been said over and over, but it's true.

Yes, 2001-06 is exactly what I mean. There were some canards that have got media attention (MP3Concept, Opener, Mac/Cowhand.A and others) but I would like to stress that neither are there OS X viruses in the wild nor is there a known, self-replicating proof of concept.

As for the user base relativation, I'd like to cite the also not exactly new Apache vs. IIS counterargument. Five years with zero exploited weaknesses is impressive in my book. Apple must have something right with their security policy.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: chcarnage

Originally posted by: dnuggett
I don't believe you are correct about 5 years w/o an exploit, but my dates could be a bit off. Are you saying from 01 to current?

What standard are you applying for it to be impressive? To me it's really small user base helps contribute to the smaller amount of vulns. This has been said over and over, but it's true.

Yes, 2001-06 is exactly what I mean. There were some canards that have got media attention (MP3Concept, Opener, Mac/Cowhand.A and others) but I would like to stress that neither are there OS X viruses in the wild nor is there a known, self-replicating proof of concept.

As for the user base relativation, I'd like to cite the also not exactly new Apache vs. ISS counterargument. Five years with zero exploited weaknesses is impressive in my book. Apple must have something right with their security policy.

Or no one is leaking the exploits. :evil:

 

[chcarnage]

You argue like a creationist!

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: chcarnage
You argue like a creationist!

How about this?

 

[kamper]

That sounded like just as much hype as the 'advanced UNIX' stuff. Has there been any serious proof that there are going to be problems when people bother to look for them? Other than the obvious: that every platform will have problems if you look close enough.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: kamper
That sounded like just as much hype as the 'advanced UNIX' stuff. Has there been any serious proof that there are going to be problems when people bother to look for them? Other than the obvious: that every platform will have problems if you look close enough.

I don't remember details, but I kind of think I remember a previous Mac OS X security issue being one of those "duh" kinda things.

 

[chcarnage]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
How about this?

I don't know if these flaws are remotely exploitable. However even if they were, this would not contradict my statement that there are no exploits floating in the net because Mr. Archibald considers himself a "white hat" hacker.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: chcarnage

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
How about this?

I don't know if these flaws are remotely exploitable. However even if they were, this would not contradict my statement that there are no exploits floating in the net because Mr. Archibald considers himself a "white hat" hacker.

Oh, true ZDnet is not out there on the net now.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: chcarnage
You argue like a creationist!

How about this?

Exactly the one I was thinking about..

 

[chcarnage]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: chcarnage

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
How about this?

I don't know if these flaws are remotely exploitable. However even if they were, this would not contradict my statement that there are no exploits floating in the net because Mr. Archibald considers himself a "white hat" hacker.

Oh, true ZDnet is not out there on the net now.

I don't get it. Where in the ZDnet article is described how this weaknesses can be exploited?

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: chcarnage

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: chcarnage

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
How about this?

I don't know if these flaws are remotely exploitable. However even if they were, this would not contradict my statement that there are no exploits floating in the net because Mr. Archibald considers himself a "white hat" hacker.

Oh, true ZDnet is not out there on the net now.

I don't get it. Where in the ZDnet article is described how this weaknesses can be exploited?

Did you read the linked pdfs?

 

[chcarnage]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: chcarnage

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: chcarnage

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
How about this?

I don't know if these flaws are remotely exploitable. However even if they were, this would not contradict my statement that there are no exploits floating in the net because Mr. Archibald considers himself a "white hat" hacker.

Oh, true ZDnet is not out there on the net now.

I don't get it. Where in the ZDnet article is described how this weaknesses can be exploited?

Did you read the linked pdfs?

Why should I? The article states that the vulnerability of one PDF was "recently patched" and the other affected OS X version 10.4.0-10.4.2, but the current version is 10.4.4.

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: chcarnage
Why should I? The article states that the vulnerability of one PDF was "recently patched" and the other affected OS X version 10.4.0-10.4.2, but the current version is 10.4.4.

So? Fixing something after the exploit has been published doesn't count. If windows has taught us anything, it's that patching is only half the battle. Getting the patch applied is the other half. Of course os x has probably got a pretty rate of patch push through since they bundle new features with bugfixes every new version but it still doesn't mean you can just pretend the exploit doesn't exist.

 

[Ol Bob]

The answer is obvious; Apple should liscense their OS-X included apps and GUI to interested parties in the linux developers communitiy.Apple logo's and branding would have to be removed and replaced with the license's own brand but the gui and kernel with all of the i-tune, i-photo and other native apps could remain .Apple would then just sit back and make money while all of the burden of support and driver development would be on someone else's shoulders.Of course this would be the end of free linux.

 

[chcarnage]

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: chcarnage
Why should I? The article states that the vulnerability of one PDF was "recently patched" and the other affected OS X version 10.4.0-10.4.2, but the current version is 10.4.4.

So? Fixing something after the exploit has been published doesn't count. If windows has taught us anything, it's that patching is only half the battle. Getting the patch applied is the other half. Of course os x has probably got a pretty rate of patch push through since they bundle new features with bugfixes every new version but it still doesn't mean you can just pretend the exploit doesn't exist.

Where's written that these vulnerabilities were public before they got patched? The entire article is about Apple's response time (that apparently leaves some experts unsatisfied) after they got contacted directly by those searching the flaws.

(Slightly offtopic: Third digit OS X updates normally don't come with any added functionality and second digit updates usually aren't free. The average Mac user keeps his computer updated because it checks the internet once a week for updates in default mode. If there are some available, an understandable dialog box pops up and the user then decides if and which updates he wants to download. In other words: It is simple. Now I don't know how effective the Microsoft Patchday approach is, I hope better than the uncoordinated patch orgies they had before that.)

So, for one more time: I said that there are no OS X viruses in the wild. I said that there are no proof of concepts (read: executables) in the wild. I said that's the way it's always been since the introduction of OS X 10.0 five years ago. I said I think that's impressive.

I did not say that OS X is flawless. I did not say that OS X flaws couldn't be exploited in the future.

 

[chcarnage]

Originally posted by: Ol Bob
The answer is obvious; Apple should liscense their OS-X included apps and GUI to interested parties in the linux developers communitiy.Apple logo's and branding would have to be removed and replaced with the license's own brand but the gui and kernel with all of the i-tune, i-photo and other native apps could remain .Apple would then just sit back and make money while all of the burden of support and driver development would be on someone else's shoulders.Of course this would be the end of free linux.

And what do you write on the box?

"System Requirements: May or may not work with any beige PC hardware out there"?

I don't think people would pay money for this.

 

[Ol Bob]

System requirments would be best determined by the developers who would make OS-X ready for retail.It's going to take someone with financial backing to get the ball rolling; You,I, nor the free linux community woudn't get in Apple's front door.Someone like Sun Microsysytems, though,would have the financial resources to talk to Steve Jobs about this licensing proposal.The open source linux license would be a thing of the past I'm sure.And the linux development community would have to write a driver layer model for the unix kernel that would allow for ease of use in upgrading and adapting to older hardware.Perhaps they could even come up with a driver layer api that could use standard wdm of vxd drivers making "sun OS" universal in its usability.
I wouldn't pretend to have all of the answers . But I, for one , would consider purchasing an Unix based OS from a reputible company insted of Windows.Many people are dissatified with microsoft and their consumer unfreindly DRM and product activation.And it seems to be only getting worse with Vista. Competition is needed in this market like no other and the time to start development is now so as to be ready to offer an alternative to Vista.

 

[chcarnage]

Mm but Apple would have to do quality tests on this bundled software, and the external developers would like their piece of the revenues, too. I don't say this could never work but it's hardly an obvious way. I mean, their programmer ressources aren't the obstacle that impedes an OS X version for PC hardware. Exchange with open source programmers is something Apple practices already, e.g. for their Webbrowser Safari which uses Konqueror's K-engine.