Safari: "Secure from day one" ... I guess we're not at day one yet

Safari: "Secure from day one" ... I guess we're not at day one yet

Summary: That's it, I've had enough of Safari for Windows beta.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Apple
68

For the second time in under two weeks, Apple has issued updates to fix serious security vulnerabilities in the beta version of Safari 3 web browser.

Safari 3 for Windows betaOK, I gave Safari 3 for Windows beta a good chance, but after two updates in less than a week I'm declaring it a leaky bucket and it's banished from the PC Doc HQ for the foreseeable future.  It's only installed on a few systems so getting rid of it won't be a big deal.  Yes, it's just a beta and yes Apple has been pretty quick with the updates but there's nothing that the browser offers that makes it worth running.  For regular day to day browsing, having IE, Firefox and Opera presents enough of an attack surface without adding another.

I'm really starting to question the whole "Apple engineers designed Safari to be secure from day one."  I guess we're not at day one yet.

Topic: Apple

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

68 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Taken in context

    It does say the "engineers designed" it to be secure from day one, so according to Apple, this browser was secure after design phase. <br>
    So, let's assume the engineers got it right. That would indicate the Apple developers and testers aren't capable of implementing the design.
    xuniL_z
    • Apple = Inferioir

      Always been and always be. Apple products are low quality, overpriced, overhyped and unsecure.

      Easy to be secure when your alone in your own little bubble, but as soon as you leave this artificial feary tales world and visite the REAL world, well... the result speak from it self.
      Mectron
      • Yet....

        Apple is expected to sell 12 million iPhones in 08 and other manufacturers chasing their tail. Talk about a bubble.
        People
        • talk about a bubble

          http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/ContrarianChronicles/WallStreetBetsItsChipsOnFantasy.aspx


          "Beyond that caveat, he failed to address the size and scope of the iPhone: Maybe 1 million units will be produced this quarter, and Apple says it will sell around 10 million in the next 18 months. In that time, there will probably be sales of 1.5 billion cell phones and 400 million personal computers. So it's laughable to think that the addition of a puny 10 million iPhones will move the needle at any foundry anywhere -- but again, those details don't make it into Wall Street's version of "analysis.""
          Joeman57
      • Apple is not inferior.

        "Apple products are low quality, overpriced, overhyped and unsecure."

        I have to disagree that they're low quality. Overpriced possibly depending on your
        needs. For the configurations that Apple offers they're certainly not over priced. In
        some cases they're even lower cost. For things outside of what Apple offers they can
        be overpriced. A big hold, IMO. Overhyped? Well, people do really like them so I can
        see where that comes from. Unsecure? They're secure. At least they're no worse than
        the competition.
        ye
        • I have found the software they write for Windows

          tends to be much more resource intensive than a comparable application written by other vendors including Microsoft. <br>
          It does tend to have security flaws as well but I have no data to indicate if the occurance/severity is more/less than other vendors.
          xuniL_z
      • Apple Inferior?

        I continue to use Windows XP Pro on a Dell which is noisy. There are many programs which conflict or don't work or take hours to install. (Try Norton 360 if you dare. It is awful, doesn't work and tech support stinks.) My wife's iMac with 20" monitor is quiet (no fan), reasonably priced and very stable. Nearly all the software needed by most people comes with the computer.

        I would not want you to use a Mac as you are already biased against it. But here is a noce Apple touch. If you have trouble hitting the caps lock key by mistake, there is a simple preferences setting to disable the key. With windowws you have to search the Internet, find a registry modification and then change the registry. Not a simple and elegant solution.

        The spell checker for the Apple Mail program is nearly brain dead. It cannot suggest even the simplest corrections for some common words. All is not perfect.

        You can update the OS for a Mac without having to buy a new computer most of the time. Anyone happy with upgrading to Vista on lod machines?
        radar_z
    • Developers and Testers are engineers too...

      Stop it with the BS spin on it. Apple f'd up with their statement. But of course, leave it to the pompous prick to talk big and not deliver. Blah.
      tikigawd
    • No threat model I bet.

      If it was "designed" to be secure then they would have done a threat model on this thing back in the design phase well before any code was written or testing done.

      I think that's unlikely given the types of vulnerabilities that have surfaced, some of which have been of the "no-duh" type.

      I think this whole thing has been very instructive. For the first time Apple has released a piece of software that would appear to have generated serious interest from the security research community and others to find vulnerabilities.

      I wonder what would happen if they paid as much attention to OS-X and the applications that ship with it.
      BFD
  • Apple as a software company is hilarious

    What a joke. Apple hardly knows a thing or two about software and to call Apple a software company is the biggest joke.
    code_Warrior
    • I agree!

      It's obvious Apple has had no involvement with one of the greatest operating systems known to mankind.
      People
    • Their software routinely receives praise.

      They must be doing something right.
      ye
    • Not a software company??

      I usually don't like to comment on stupid posts, but I couldn't resist this one.
      For anyone to say that Apple is a sub-par software maker they'd either have to be
      utterly stupid (of the class of people who jam pencils in their ears because it looks
      like fun), or they've never used real apple software before. By "real" Apple software,
      I'm talking about the upper-tier of Apple's software. Not iTunes (which is pretty
      good) and not QuickTime (which is a great app, but most consumer end users never
      get beyond the play button). I mean, iLife alone is enough to define Apple as an
      amazing software maker. I have some issues with Aperture, and even with those
      issues Aperture is a pretty awesome app, but apart from that every other Apple-
      made application I've ever used has impressed me, or wowed me.
      I wish people who have no perspective would keep their traps shut because their
      ignorant posts make the internet smell bad.
      theMac_Daddy
    • What you talkin about Willis!?!

      OSX
      Safari
      FIleMaker
      iLife
      iTunes
      Pages
      Keynote
      Final Cut

      Apple does a lot with a lot fewer resources then say a MS. Take the two together
      and list products and ask yourself of the two with their individual resources who's
      accomplishments to date are more impressive? Why is it when Apple talks people
      listen?

      Pagan jim
      Laff
      • Let's look at your list

        OSX: Basically a rebadged BSD. Apple's contribution was to write a windows manager on top of that. Wow.

        Safari: Basically a rebadged Konqueror.

        The rest are basically inferior versions of what MS offers with Office. Apple hardly competes well in this area.

        [i]Take the two together and list products and ask yourself of the two with their individual resources who's accomplishments to date are more impressive?[/i]

        Where is Apple's OS? They don't have one. Microsoft has 2 (NT and CE).

        Where is Apple's database? They don't have one. Microsoft does.

        Where is Apple's web server? They don't have one. Microsoft does.

        Where is Apple's development platform? They don't have one. Microsoft does (.NET).

        Where are Apple's video, audio, and network abstraction libraries? They don't have any. Microsoft does (DirectX).

        Where is Apple's business workflow engine? They don't have one. Microsoft does (BizTalk).

        Where is Apple's collaboration engine? They don't have one. Microsoft does (Sharepoint).

        Where is Apple's gaming platform? They don't have one. Microsoft does (XBox).

        Where is Apple's online portal? They don't have one. Microsoft does (Live).

        Where is Apple's Web 2.0 platform? They don't have one. Microsoft does (Silverlight).

        Where is Apple's business management platform? They don't have one. Microsoft does (Dynamics).

        Where is Apple's virtualization software? They don't have one (in fact, they specifically [b]stop[/b] you from virtualizing OSX). Microsoft has 2 (Virtual PC and Virtual Server).

        Where is Apple's enterprise email / calendaring / messaging / application software? They don't one. Microsoft does (Exchange).

        And I've only covered a fraction of the software that MS provides. I'm sorry Jim but you are fooling yourself if you think that little list you provided for us is in any way impressive.

        I also think it is funny how you like to play up Apple as the "little guy". Jobs is a multi-billionaire and he got that way on the backs of people like you who were fooled into overpaying for inferior things when superior alternatives were available elsewhere, usually for less money. He isn't a little guy like you or me. Neither is Bill Gates but no one claims he is.

        So who is more impressive in the end? Neither. Apple is a smaller company that profits by branding commodity products and then jacking the price. Microsoft is a larger company that profits by providing solutions to those who want to purchase their solutions from Microsoft. Both are successful businesses. Both owners are multi-billionaires who care only about making more money. Well, except that Gates donates billions to charity. Jobs doesn't. You do the math.
        NonZealot
        • As I've often said to Vily Clay just because you make a

          statement does not in and of itself make it true. I don't agree with you
          assessment of Apple's produts nor did I provide a complete list of said. To add to
          your question phase where is MS's computers systems oh nothing eh? Please
          dude yes Jobs is rich but that was not my point it's Apple Inc vs MS and their given
          resources. All in all I'm very impressed by Apple's achievements being the David
          to MS Goliath and we all know how that story ends....heh heh heh.

          Again just because you say Apple's products are inferior means what exactly an
          opinion...OK but it's hardly an arguement. I did not compare the two in that
          fashion I did not make the claim of superiority one way or the other I stated that
          with limited resources Apple's achievements and continued achievements are
          impressive. If Goliath manages to pick up a heavy bolder it's ho....hum. If David
          does the same it's WOW!

          Pagan jim
          Laff
          • Goliath's boulder is much bigger

            [i]If Goliath manages to pick up a heavy bolder it's ho....hum. If David does the same it's WOW![/i]

            Except that I've shown how David is only picking up a pebble and that isn't impressive.

            [i]nor did I provide a complete list of said.[/i]

            Fair enough. Why don't you start by going down the list of Microsoft products I mentioned and describe to us Apple's product that is functionally equivalent. I think that would be a great start to completing your list of impressive Apple products. You already got one: Apple does put their badge on commodity computers that are assembled in China. MS doesn't. Next!

            People get so caught up in Microsoft Windows that they forget Microsoft has a [b]lot[/b] of other products. MS is bigger than Apple, yes, but MS has [b]far[/b] more products than Apple and the products that MS has created are full products, not some window manager dressing over someone else's OS. Apple did [b]not[/b] write, nor do they own most of what you call OSX. Apple does not have an OS, period. That is a fact that simply isn't debatable.

            Don't get me wrong, I'm not putting down Apple. Apple is very profitable with the few products that it sells and that is really great for Jobs' bank balance! If you were to divide the amount of profit by the number of products to build that profit, Apple looks far better because Apple is able to charge incredibly high prices for the commodity products they sell. So if you are talking about creating profit for Jobs, yes, Apple has done amazingly well with so few products. Don't, however, try to convince us that Apple has actually [b]created[/b] anywhere near the same number of products that Microsoft has. That is not a defensible position.
            NonZealot
          • Wrong again, of course...

            Wrong again, of course.

            [i]You already got one: Apple does put their badge on commodity computers that are assembled in China. MS doesn't. Next![/i]

            Microsoft doesn't make computers, and whatever hardware they sell (including the XBox) are also assembled in China.

            A lot of products from Apple are also assembeled in Ireland, not China.

            [i]Apple did not write, nor do they own most of what you call OSX. Apple does not have an OS, period. That is a fact that simply isn't debatable.[/i]

            Neither does Microsoft. A lot of what they include in their OS (just like many other companies) is software acquired through acquisitions of other companies. It does take a lot of work to adapt that code or even just the concepts into a working products. I'm not trying to minimize the effort it takes, it's a monumentous task considering how big the Windows code base is. I'm also not marginalizing the programmers, either, Microsoft has some of the smartest and creative people.

            [i]Don't get me wrong, I'm not putting down Apple.[/i]

            Yes you are.

            [i]Don't, however, try to convince us that Apple has actually created anywhere near the same number of products that Microsoft has. That is not a defensible position.[/i]

            It's too bad that Microsoft can't create more quality products given the number of products they actually produce. Apple may be consolidated in regards to their product roadmap, but they produce top-notch products.
            olePigeon
          • I know you are but what am I?

            [i]Microsoft doesn't make computers[/i]

            Apple doesn't make computers either though. Apple brands computers. However, I did concede that one point. Apple brands computers, Microsoft doesn't. Next!

            [i]A lot of what they include in their OS (just like many other companies) is software acquired through acquisitions of other companies.[/i]

            Great! So from your other post where you mentioned things like Apache and Cyrus, you just need to show us where Apple acquired those "companies"! Or does Apple simply provide them on the install disc? Yup, I thought so. Apple neither wrote those packages, nor did they purchase them. Apple simply provides it on the install media. I've installed both Apache and Cyrus IMAP on my Linux box but I wouldn't go around saying Linus created them.

            [i]Apple may be consolidated in regards to their product roadmap, but they produce top-notch products.[/i]

            This is a point I won't argue because it is a subjective statement. However, thanks for agreeing with me that Apple doesn't have [b]anywhere[/b] near the product portfolio that Microsoft has. Jim was trying to make it sound like Apple had created so much with so few. You are now agreeing with me that he is wrong. Thanks!
            NonZealot
          • You would be...

            Even wronger (to use the correct "Californian english") little zealot.
            zkiwi