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.
Thread beginning with comment 354157
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Operating System Security
by TBPrince on Fri 20th Mar 2009 17:26 UTC in reply to "Operating System Security"
TBPrince
Member since:
2005-07-06

Miller seems to take care to differentiate the difference between security of an operating system and built-in operating system preventative measures. They are two very different things. The fact that OS X does not have the same preventative measures Windows has like randomization, no execute bits, etc, does not mean OS X is an insecure operating system. It just means once you have a vehicle into the operating system its easier to take advantage.


Not true. There's a lot of difference if operating systems provide some kind of protective measure or not.

In facts, Miller didn't say Safari is weaker than IE. If you took time to read the article, he said that EVERY BROWSER has holes and bugs.

However, while Windows (to name one) has developed some kind of protective measures to mitigate bugs and security flaws, OS X didn't. And of course that matters. He also joked about the fact that if you want fast cash, you can just concentrate on Safari on OS X.

If I was a OS X user, I would take his words in a serious way, demanding Apple to introduce all those protections other OSes enjoy. He has a good example: Firefox on Windows is very hard to break while the same software on OS X was very easy to break.

For the records, he also stated that he considers Chrome architecture a very good starting point. The fact that Safari (which he considers the weakest) and Chrome (which he considers the strongest) share the same rendering engine is a good proof of what many people say: being open-source doesn't automagically mean secure.

Kudos to Google guys, whose first browser is already a very strong implementation (and you guys know that I'm a IE user...)

Reply Parent Score: 5

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I didn't realize Safari was open source. If Chrome is very good and shares the same back end rendering engine as Safari and FOSS does not "automagically" mean it is more secure; is your point that Safari is open source or that the closed source wrapped around what is apparently a solid secure rendering engine is broken?

Granted, no source is going to magically be of high quality. Peer review helps quite a bit though and I don't think that's something Safari gets and definitely not something osX gets.

Someone mentioned OpenBSD in a previous comment though...

Reply Parent Score: 2

soonerproud Member since:
2008-03-05

Safari is proprietary, not open source. The rendering engine is open source (Webkit) but the rest of the browser is as closed as IE.

Reply Parent Score: 3

TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

My point was that while Safari and Chrome share the same (open-source) rendering engine, result is much different. Which was a variant of what you meant when you wrote that "Granted, no source is going to magically be of high quality", wether open or closed source, I'd say. Let's consider that a notice to people who would solve all problems by "open-sourcing".

Of course, Safari is not open-source.

Reply Parent Score: 2