Miller on Mac OS X, Chrome, Firefox, Economics
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.
E-mail Print r 11   · Read More · 138 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/gc3
Thread beginning with comment 354134
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by sadyc
by dagw on Fri 20th Mar 2009 15:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by sadyc"
dagw
Member since:
2005-07-06

Basically, however, what he's saying is he'd rather make money than prevent others from getting royally screwed,

On the other hand, shouldn't it be Apples responsibility to make sure their customers don't get royally screwed. If Apple really cared they'd pay the money to hire people like Mr Miller. If Apple has such a lax approach to security why should other people do Apple's job for free.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[3]: Comment by sadyc
by darknexus on Fri 20th Mar 2009 16:02 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by sadyc"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

I didn't bring Apple into this at all, I was speaking generally about my feelings concerning the way Mr. Miller handles this. My reaction to him would be the same regardless of whose product in which he found a bug, it's still a very low and extortionist tactic, no matter how you look at it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by sadyc
by polaris20 on Fri 20th Mar 2009 16:29 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by sadyc"
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

I Agree. I don't care what the vendor is, the fact that this clown holds onto the exploit for a year, just so he can use it this year is BS. He's no better than the virus writers.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by sadyc
by dagw on Fri 20th Mar 2009 17:00 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by sadyc"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

I didn't bring Apple into this at all

Well in as much as this whole topic was about Apple I felt they'd make a good example. But feel free to replace Apple with any other software company you wish, it won't change my argument.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by sadyc
by kaiwai on Sat 21st Mar 2009 00:33 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by sadyc"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Basically, however, what he's saying is he'd rather make money than prevent others from getting royally screwed,

On the other hand, shouldn't it be Apples responsibility to make sure their customers don't get royally screwed. If Apple really cared they'd pay the money to hire people like Mr Miller. If Apple has such a lax approach to security why should other people do Apple's job for free.


That is almost like saying that the financial scandals that have occurred over the last several decades aren't due to the individuals lack of morals but due to a lack of regulation; that some how individuals aren't accountable for their own actions because they need regulation to guide them because they don't have the capacity to make moral judgements on their own. Its a way of mitigating individual responsibility and transferring this responsibility ultimately to the victim.

Its like saying, "you were shot by that gentleman, its your fault for not wearing a bullet proof vest".

Edited 2009-03-21 00:34 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3