Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 21st Apr 2006 22:08 UTC
Mac OS X Secunia said there are potential vulnerabilities in the Mac OS X operating system, first noticed by Tom Ferris. The firm described the holes as 'highly critical', meaning that systems could be compromised if crooks dive in. Secunia said the potential holes are in version 10.4.6, but other versions might be affected too.
Thread beginning with comment 117058
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
System calls...
by hhcv on Fri 21st Apr 2006 22:41 UTC
hhcv
Member since:
2005-11-12

I am not sure whether it was here or on slashdot where there was a link to an article showing the various system calls needed to render one html page with an image. Basically, linux required a lot less (compared to XP), and so left fewer possible 'holes' in the system.

Now, we all consider OS X a UNIX.. I'd just love to see a similiar diagram for OS X, maybe it is less complicated, more complicated, or similiar to other *NIXs... Maybe such a diagram can give us an idea at the scale of the potential issue (I know this would not consider important things such as the general architecture of the OS, and add-on applications?)

Or, am I missing the point? Because OS X is POSIX compliant (is it?) do the system calls remain the same?

Also, TFA does not suggest what the hole could be, if it is in iLife, etc, the question must be asked... where do we draw the line between the Operating System and the Packaged Operating System?

Reply Score: 2

RE: System calls...
by sappyvcv on Fri 21st Apr 2006 22:47 in reply to "System calls..."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, it was to serve a web page, using Apache v. IIS.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: System calls...
by kaiwai on Sun 23rd Apr 2006 02:44 in reply to "System calls..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I am not sure whether it was here or on slashdot where there was a link to an article showing the various system calls needed to render one html page with an image. Basically, linux required a lot less (compared to XP), and so left fewer possible 'holes' in the system.

It was here and on Slashdot IIRC.

You're referring to the number of system calls required to serve up a webpage on the internet; it was a comparison between Apache/Linux (replace Linux with any *NIX as the results will be around the same) and Windows 2003/IIS 6.

The statement made was the fact that when there are more complex moves, there are more likelihood of things going wrong; hence the corner stone of engineering that should always be aheard to; KISS; Keep It Small, Stupid!

Microsoft seems to have this fetish that they should make things more complicated than they need to be, so that they can most about how 'complex Window is!" and how "difficult it is to get things working!" - its the typical martyr syndrome, the 'look at me! I suffer! I have to deal with such complex problems!" <-- Which they created *snicker*

Reply Parent Score: 1