Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 20th Mar 2009 13:51 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
Privacy, Security, Encryption Fresh from winning the PWN2OWN contest yesterday, Charlie Miller has been interviewed by ZDNet. He talks about how Mac OS X is a very simple operating system to exploit due to the lack of any form of anti-exploit features. He also explains that the underlying operating system is much more important in creating a successful exploit than the bowser, why Chrome is so hard to hack, and many other things.
Permalink for comment 354197
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by sadyc
by wannabe geek on Fri 20th Mar 2009 20:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by sadyc"
wannabe geek
Member since:
2006-09-27


Except that, for one reason or other, they don't know? And even if they did, who cares who's to blame? Wouldn't it be more important to save lives than play petty blame games? I presume you would gladly let people suffer and die just to point the finger at the execs?


In the example they do know someone claims there's a problem, and they refuse to buy the details. It's easy to go like "would you let people suffer and die...?". You might as well claim that doctors should work for free, and not just doctors, but (more to the point) engineers and anyone whose work may somehow save lives or reduce human suffering.


Who cares if it's not open source? That's not the point. The point is to not expose the unknowing consumer to risks.


Look, the bottom line here is that desktop operating systems nowadays are extremely vulnerable to malware, and should never be relied upon for any kind of life-sensitive use, unless complete isolation is guaranteed. If a cobalt-60 unit is hooked to a Mac where medical students surf through porn sites, and something bad happens because of that, the last person I would blame is the guy who failed to disclose a Mac vulnerability for free.

Reply Parent Score: 4