Re: the exploit that wasn't
- From: Snit <CSMA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 09:13:22 -0700
"PC Guy" <pcguy@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
dddk231d2dt6pl0arod3tsbjdecc7rkni5@xxxxxxx on 4/21/07 9:03 AM:
Opening an email URL that exposes a security flaw in Safari is both news
to report and a problem for Apple to tackle, but reporting it as a
remote exploit is inaccurate, irresponsible, and sloppy journalism,
particularly for IDG's InfoWorld, which purports to be an authority on
computing.
If the reports are true then this is a big problem for Apple to "tackle".
Allowing a computer to be taken over by merely viewing a web site is not a
small deal... it is the type thing that has hit Windows time and time again
and the far lower risk of this on Macs has always been an advantage. I hope
Apple fixes this very, very quickly.
And what about the others? Recall that this was a FULLY patched
system.
What about the other what?
--
? If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
? Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
? One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: the exploit that wasn't
- From: DanielEran
- Re: the exploit that wasn't
- From: PC Guy
- Re: the exploit that wasn't
- References:
- the exploit that wasn't
- From: none
- Re: the exploit that wasn't
- From: Snit
- Re: the exploit that wasn't
- From: PC Guy
- the exploit that wasn't
- Prev by Date: Re: Apple pricing
- Next by Date: Re: Hack a Mac, get $10,000
- Previous by thread: Re: the exploit that wasn't
- Next by thread: Re: the exploit that wasn't
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|