Apple Hires Former OLPC Security Director 144
imamac writes "It seems Apple is seeking to beef up security by hiring Ivan Krstic, the one-time director of security architecture at One Laptop per Child. 'Krstic, a well-respected innovator who designed the Bitfrost security specification for the OLPC initiative, joined Cupertino this week and will work on core OS security. His hiring comes at a crucial time for a company that ties security to its marketing campaigns despite public knowledge that it's rather trivial to launch exploits against the Mac.'"
Flamebait summary (Score:5, Informative)
"His hiring comes at a crucial time for a company that ties security to its marketing campaigns despite public knowledge that it's rather trivial to launch exploits against the Mac."
Public knowledge? Public knowledge? I doubt the "public" really thinks it's trivial to launch an exploit against the PC.
I feel like I just listened to a 5 year old arguing to another 5 year old... "EVERYONE knows that YOUR operating system IS STOOOPED."
Ha (Score:5, Informative)
It's not public knowledge, and the only exploit going around recently was one you had to download in a pirated application. Nice little troll slip in the summary there.
Re:I am lost here . . . (Score:5, Informative)
The Bitfrost system developed for OLPC (which is, AFAIK, completely open) is a comprehensive approach to security, data reliability, theft deterrence, and centralized management of computer systems designed for what amount to massive enterprises with extremely non-technical users.
Apple picking up the designer of that system could be seen as an indication of directions they may take in the future. Its "News for Nerds" even if its not entirely clear, obviously, how much it will turn out to be "Stuff that matters".
Re:Ha (Score:3, Informative)
security vs. safety (Score:1, Informative)
You're right, the number of exploits doesn't necessarily mean it's a more secure system, but the fact that (as you say) there aren't a proportionate amount to the size of the userbase does seem to imply decent security.
John Gruber had a good statement on this earlier today:
Security is about technical measures, like the strength of the locks on your doors and windows. Safety is about the likelihood that you'll actually suffer from some sort of attack. Microsoft has in fact implemented more advanced security measures in Windows than Apple has in Mac OS X, but that's not surprising, because Windows is where nearly all the malware is.
But it rings untrue to most ears to claim that Apple is doing a bad job with regard to security. The evidence suggests that Mac OS X has been and remains secure enough to be safe, and safety is what real people actually care about.
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/05/13/security-safety
Re:So trivial there's only one (Score:3, Informative)
Honest question, why are Apple releasing security updates if there are no security exploits in their software?
Honest answer: Because you are confusing a (theoretical) VULNERABILITY (which ALL OSes have), but which have not been "realized", and an EXPLOIT (which is deliberately malicious code RELEASED IN THE WILD that leverages a VULNERABILITY). The OP and the GP were obviously referring to OS X EXPLOITS circulating in the wild, of which there simply are NONE.
I know it sounds like I'm splitting hairs; but it is a VERY thick "hair"...
Re:So trivial there's only one (Score:2, Informative)