Most of the bugs are already in widespread exploitation by Karl Rove and Bush's Florida Cybercrime Operation. By way of comparison to those politicians and their favored businessmen who exploit these bugs, publishing these bugs is a commendable step. Since OS Xs superior security comes from its open source attributes, publishing the bugs is even more justifiable. Al Gore would have done a far better job protecting America from cybercrime than Bush, who tried to utilize cybercrime to obstruct competitors of his pioneers. Bush's failures in protecting America from cybercrime gave Al Qaida fantastic new tools against Americans.

"Of the 600 million computers currently on the internet, between 100 and 150 million were already part of these botnets, Mr Cerf said."

Any bets on how many of these are PCs and how many are Macs?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6298641.stm

I'm surprised you think you can still talk about Wi-Fi flaws after the great phantom Wi-Fi hack. A little contrition is in order.

Right, that's why Apple put out at least 5 patches for bugs in its wireless drivers since your supposed "phantom attack." Of course, they never had any problems with their builtin wireless that could have endangered precious Mac users, especially not those who get paid to feed blogs with Apple PR FUD.

Ok, dummy. FUD stands for fear, uncertainty, and doubt. It is not spreading fear to say there was no wireless hack. You may think I'm a shill or a fanboy, but it's *not* FUD. No, FUD would be, "Hijack a Macbook in 60 Seconds or Less!" Good God, this was my whole point.

6 long months later and... nothing, nada, zero, zip, bupkis. You can complain about updates, but the cold, hard fact remains that Maynor never demonstrated a verifiable wireless hack against *any* version of Mac wireless driver, with or without updates. If your implication that the updates indicate a dangerously vulnerable driver, then it should have been that much easier to prove it.

Those are the facts. Of those who argue based on emotion, I can at least understand people who blindly defend Apple - they probably own a Mac. People like you, however, are a mystery. What do you care if a Mac is insecure? You're pathetic.

"At least nine other Apple-specific kernel bugs remain unpatched from the project."

Yes, not good going.

And some of the stuff coming out of MoAB now is a cause for concern to say the least. I'd feel happier if Apple were patching these more promptly, and even happier if they'd done some proper QA in the first place.

Unfortunately, Apple talks about being "secure by design" in its advertising material but, in practice, relies on security by obscurity.

And I've still to hear Apple advise against applying third-party patches. The silence is deafening. They ought also to apologise for distributing patches _via_ a third party (MySpace), promising not to do the same again. Both omissions help to create a situation in which customers are set up for social-engineering-type attacks. The position should be clear: patches for the OS come from us and us alone. Microsoft, for all its many faults, gets this, at least, right.

Apple has the best desktop OS on the market bar none - and by a long way. But it badly needs a shake up in its attitudes with respect to security.

George is stoopid and Nick is smart.

George is a hater of Brian and I think we all know this. So, when you read his posts you just have to wipe what you read from your memory banks. He is a total idiot.

Nick brings up some good points about Apple. One that they aren't saying a word about the third-party patches. Microsoft doesn't ever recommend doing that. SANS has only recommended it once and that was for the WMF vulnerability just over a year ago. I don't see them recommending the third-party patches for Mac.

LMH, I say just make Apple Bugs a permanent thing. These folks need to be spanked without mercy.

My goodness! Let's get some editing of these posts! The ones that don't add to the dialogue should be banned. Thanks!

At home I use my mac; at work I'm a slave to Redmond's output. At home, when I log onto the internet and finally surf to the Apple.com homepage. I see a vastly different site then when I do it at work. Yep, I have a .mac account, but I'm talking about a basic surf.

Brian, after reading your last post, I followed one of your reader's post to Secunia. For over a week now I have been trying to update Apple QuickTime for Windows to the more secure version. I can't seem to get the software to do this and I can't seem to find the correct link. Is there one? On the mac, the software updates handled this task for over a week ago. Using Secunia, I saw the actual version all the way to 7.1.3.170.

At home on the mac, I thought I saw a link for Quicktime for Windows, but when I tried to find it today at work, I found nothing but the older version of Quicktime for Windows. Since, I have a mac it's really easier for me to use iTunes. (No, I don't encode with it!) However, it appears it's not possible to download one program without the other on a Windows system.

If there is not link, should I remove QuickTime all together? It makes it kinda of tough to show computer users who are thinking of switching to Apple how much easier their system is as opposed to the Windoze way.

To umm.huh

For heavens sake, YES uninstall QuickTime for Windows until the patched version becomes available. You have the built in Windows Media Player and:

RealPlayer:
http://www.real.com

VLC media player:
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/

Download them and use them in good health. Which you pick as your master player is up to you. They all seem to compete in trying to take over the world. Check back for a fixed QuickTime player around March. If it isn't working by then, PUNT! Oh yes, the MoAB people showed a flaw in the VLC player as well - guess what - it was fixed in less than two weeks.

Thanks hhhobbit

I use VLC on my mac and simply hate any version of Windows MP. I have never used it! After a bout of automatic downloads, I notice I have about seven versions of WMP; too bad the update doesn't remove old files, versions, etc.

Basically, I think I would rather take my chances with Apple, then MS.

To download the patch for Windows you need to have installed the Apple Software Update application to actually install the update. Attempting to get the update after opening the program, going to 'Help' and clicking on the 'Update Existing software' doesn't get you the update. A user needs to have Apple Software Update installed to get the patch, otherwise, all attempts are futile!

Yes, I am sure I saw the patch download and, uh, supposedly load.

After running the Secunia Software Inspector, it says I have the correct version. However, my MS favorite, Add/Remove Programs still displays the older version

I wondered it the patch worked for other users?

No matter i download, when i reboot it
will disappear from my computer.

i will apreciate any suggestion.

Thanks.