Apple Finally Removes DigiNotar Certs In Safari 149
Trailrunner7 writes "Apple has finally released a fix for the certificate trust issue caused by the attack on DigiNotar, more than a week after the fraudulent certificates were identified and other browser vendors moved to revoke trust in them. While Microsoft, Mozilla and Google had been communicating with users about the issue and pushing out new versions and updates to eliminate the compromised certificate authorities from their browsers, Apple had been mum about the attack and hadn't given any indication of when it might issue an update for Safari. On Friday the company published a security advisory for Mac OS X users, saying that it was removing DigiNotar's certificates from its trust list."
Pointless Apple-bashing (Score:5, Insightful)
So, it took them 1 week to come out with an update to patch their browser? That doesn't seem an egregious delay to me. I haven't yet patched any of my other browsers yet. I'd be surprised if most users patch within the week of bugfix releases anyway.
And if I understand it, this "security hole" is basically that you won't get bad-certificate warnings if you visit certain fraudulent sites... which isn't likely to happen unless you're clicking links in phishing emails.
This hyperbole about apple being slow seems like hot air to me.
Re:Pointless Apple-bashing (Score:5, Informative)
Also the summary praises Google for their quick reaction but Android is still vulnerable, as is iOS BTW. You'd think that'd rate a mention at least.
That's what iSSLFix is for. (Score:2)
Android is still vulnerable, as is iOS BTW.
Once again, stock iOS is vulnerable, whereas jailbroken ones can have iSSLFix [github.com] installed on them. In addition to patching an extremely boneheaded certificate vulnerability [recurity-labs.com] and providing cert blacklists for iOS devices that have not received new firmware, the DigiNotar CA was blacklisted via a patch almost a week ago.
Anyone with a jailbroken iOS device that doesn't have the patch should download and install it. You can simply search for it in Cydia.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone with a jailbroken iOS device that doesn't have the patch should download and install it. You can simply search for it in Cydia.
Cool, I'll do that.
Re: (Score:2)
How good an idea is for people to installing lists of CAs form some site on the internet? Sure they might take DigiNotar out but who did they put in? For SSL to authenticate reliably and securely it has to be managed by the end user carefully, and that requires understanding.
Re: (Score:2)
How good an idea is for people to installing lists of CAs form some site on the internet? Sure they might take DigiNotar out but who did they put in? For SSL to authenticate reliably and securely it has to be managed by the end user carefully, and that requires understanding.
It's open source. Granted, I believe what the patch notes are saying, but if you really, really want to, audit the source and compile it yourself :P
Re: (Score:2)
So you trust a bunch of known criminals over legitimate businesses for your security needs ...
You sir aren't real bright, even if it does appear to work out in your favor this time, this is a really stupid idea.
Re: (Score:2)
So you trust a bunch of known criminals over legitimate businesses for your security needs ...
You sir aren't real bright, even if it does appear to work out in your favor this time, this is a really stupid idea.
I'm going to assume that was a joke.
If it wasn't, I'd like to point out that iSSLFix is free and open source, and I highly doubt that everyone who works on or with jailbroken iOS software, including the owner of Cydia, Jay Freeman, would endorse it in that case.
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't the iOS version of Safari need a patch too?
Re: (Score:2)
That's a pain because they have to make a whole new system image. These things should go a lot more smoothly for iDevices after the release of iOS 5 this fall which will support over the air delta updates.
Re:Pointless Apple-bashing (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, updating the trusted CA cert list shouldn't require a full system upgrade either. They have a kill switch for rogue apps; there should be a similar infrastructure in place for certificate revocation (is there? I don't know - doesn't sound like it. But there should be)
Re: (Score:2)
Browser prefetching?
Re: (Score:1)
This is actually a valid Apple-bash. The invalid certs were issued as signed root CAs, which means the holder of then could create a SSL cert for Bank Of America that appears completely valid with no errors from the browser and no errors when you check the chain of trust. Its essentially a T-2000 doppelganger that you can't detect until it changes its hand into a marlinspike and stabs you. The only folks likely to detect it, without the certificate revocation, are the same security certificate chain savvy t
Re:Pointless Apple-bashing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
they were the one major player unable to handle a necessary security task.
I don't know "unable" means in your world, but it my world, it means "not able to be done." Were they slower than others? Yes. Were they the last one? No. Depending on who you consider "a major player", they weren't the last. If you deal with servers, Redhat and Ubuntu also patched the same day. MS only patched 3 days before Apple.
Re:Pointless Apple-bashing (Score:5, Informative)
They didn't patch their browser. That's not the way to fix the problem. The certificates Safari trusts are in the system keychain. Security Update 2011-005 [apple.com] addresses the problem.
So (1) it pulls DigiNotar from the chain of trust, and (2) sends all browsers (and email apps, and anything else that cares to validate certs) accurate information for EV certificates that chain off an untrusted root. Patching the browser shouldn't be necessary and wouldn't address the actual problem, although considering it took Apple an unusually long time to get this update out the door, I can see why some other browser vendors hardcoded out DigiNotar.
But for Apple this wasn't merely a matter of pulling a cert, they also had to fix a bug. Rushing a security bug fix out the door without testing it is arguably a worse security respopnse than taking a few days longer to test before pushing. (it's not like it took months like a few other big names I could toss in the ring to ignite a flame war)
Re: (Score:2)
> (2) sends all browsers (and email apps
Only the ones that use the OS certificate store as their trust store.
For browsers, that happens to be "Safari", out of the commonly-used ones. Firefox uses its own certificate store, as do Chrome and Opera, and don't rely on the one in the OS itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Chrome was exposed because it had this CA in its set of trusted certs, no?
Once they shipped an update to their own cert store, they were not exposed any more, independent of what Apple did with the OS-default cert store.
Re: (Score:2)
Chrome only uses its own store on Linux where there isn't a system wide store, and you have to patch each app individually. On any sane OS it uses the one provided by the OS like a good little application should.
Re: (Score:2)
That _used_ to be the case, but they were planning to change it last I heard. Maybe they haven't done that yet, though.
Re: (Score:2)
The same is true of IE on Windows too BTW, which uses the system SChannel and thus the system cert store.
Re: (Score:1)
As much as I love Apple products I got to admit, this tiny week delay may be more significant than apple fans would like to think.
Early today I got my first ever virus infection (in my Windows machine) while running Safari. Not sure if its related, but I'm guessing it is. For the first time I got to give a tip of the hat to Microsoft, Security Essentials caught the virus infection immediately and got rid of it. Good thing it was a well known trojan and not a new unknown virus... then again if that was the c
Re:Pointless Apple-bashing (Score:4, Informative)
You got a virus because you downloaded something from somewhere you shouldn't have.
Unless you downloaded something from a SSL site, also had your DNS and your upstream DNS compromised to direct you to a fake SSL download site, and then actually downloaded something via SSL with a stolen cert ... then well theres no way this had anything to do with it.
You got a virus because you did something stupid, not because someone else did.
You got a virus for the same reason every windows user gets a virus, STOP CLICKING ON RANDOM LINKS FROM EMAIL ADDRESSES YOU'VE NEVER SEEN. THERE IS NO PACKAGE WAITING ON YOUR FROM DHL OR REPORT FOR YOU TO REVIEW IN ORDER TO GET YOUR MILLIONS.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't yet patched any of my other browsers yet
And if I understand it, this "security hole" is basically that you won't get bad-certificate warnings if you visit certain fraudulent sites.
You might want to check a site like slashdot, maybe there is an article on the problem? Could be something else than what you guessed without checking.
Re: (Score:1)
A whole week? Thats just insane! Anyway, stop the Apple bashing. I miss CmdrTaco editorial ...
Re: (Score:2)
And if I understand it, this "security hole" is basically that you won't get bad-certificate warnings if you visit certain fraudulent sites... which isn't likely to happen unless you're clicking links in phishing emails.
Or you live in Iran, or North Korea, or China... And maybe the UK and US too if you are paranoid. Many governments would like to be able to read their citizen's email, or see how much they have in that Swiss bank account.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean for the user, not for the company. For a big company even removing one line from a config file could take weeks and still be believable as being ASAP.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the browser.
Chrome, you wont ever know. It will patch itself regardless of you wanting it to or not (hate that, reason it's the only browser I dont have on my windows machine.)
With Firefox, many users run old versions still due to old add-ons and refuse to update.
Internet Explorer... 6.... do I have to explain that? :P
With Safari, in the mac, at least with my default configuration, it does not check for updates very often. I am not sure for the PC... i think they offer an updater for PC as a sepa
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically Microsoft beat Apple on fixing this. Also oddly enough since Windows uses a OS wide certificate store after they did update the certificates IE 6 actually isn't vulnerable to this anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Is Safari for windows subject to those OS wide certificate stores?
I suffered my first ever virus infection today in my windows machine and I think this may be part of how it got in. Windows Security Essentials caught it fast though.
At the time i was browsing with Safari but not sure if the issue was due to an unpatched windows Safari or just my personal procrastination on installing windows updates :P
(BTW add that to the list of "how hard it can be", I know im not the only person I know that rarely shuts do
Re: (Score:2)
Safari on Windows uses the Windows store, and so as soon as you've applied the MSFT patch, Safari on Windows is no longer vulnerable.
Stop procrastinating on installing windows updates.
Re: (Score:1)
Stop procrastinating on installing windows updates.
Stop procrastinating on installing *nix.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop being a twit and thinking some UNIX variant is somehow magically different and doesn't need updates and security fixes. idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
I suffered my first ever virus infection today in my windows machine and I think this may be part of how it got in.
You got it because you're stupid. I can say this because you clearly have absolutely NO IDEA what a root certificate does, or you'd know why the statement was fucking stupid in the first place.
All this cert issue will do is allow someone who isn't say ... google, to pretend to be google ... over ssl ...
Which means in order for it to actually work, they'd also have to compromise your DNS, or someone up the food chain, so your ISPs DNS.
And they would have to have infected a site YOU VISIT via SSL, and of cou
Re: (Score:3)
Firefox is not that clear cut, there are security updates for older versions, AFAIK. At least 3.5 got many updates even after 3.6 was released.
Re: (Score:2)
The current supported versions are 3.6.22 and 6.0.2
Re: (Score:1)
Your reply is completely non sequitur. So obviously so that you must know that's the case, so I wonder, why exactly did you make that completely irrelevant reply?
To answer your question, with a more apt example, you patch the browser by clicking "Continue" in the window that comes up on its own (automatically configured to run via a mechanism similar to, but superior to, cron), then click on "Restart" (if necessary).
So, yeah, it's pretty simple. Much simpler than your non-relevant example. However, I'm stil
Re: (Score:1)
"If necessary"? way to downplay it. It IS necessary, but not on windows or Linux. Deal with it, they are facts.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>> "Restart" (if necessary)
"If necessary"? way to downplay it. It IS necessary, but not on windows or Linux. Deal with it, they are facts.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't (just like sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't on Windows and Linux).
Demonstrating your ignorance of Macs, as usual, I see...
Re: (Score:1)
Do you know what the word "sometimes" means?
Re: (Score:2)
How hard is it to patch safari on a Mac?
softwareupdate -ia && [conditional reboot], done. You can cron that shit.
There, fixed GP for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there an echo in here ?
Re: (Score:2)
Mandatory restart? (Score:3, Funny)
I just applied the fix and now I have to restart my Mac. What the hell? Is my MacBook masquerading as a Windows machine all of the sudden?
It just works. After a slight delay.
Re: (Score:1)
Updates to Safari always require an OS X restart, for the same reason IE updates on Windows do: the "browser" is really just a UI wrapper around a core system component.
Unlike Windows, OS X allows you to replace in-use files without restarting, so you may be able to get away with restarting only the affected apps, rather than the entire system, but I don't think I'd take that risk.
Re: (Score:1)
This fix didn't touch Safari... it fixed a bug regarding revocation in the system keychain, and then revoked the key. Since the entire OS hangs on the keychain, making a change to fix a bug in the revocation code requires a restart (all Apple authentication goes through this system, so leaving an authenticated process running while patching would be a bad idea).
Seems to me Apple could easily set up another option for updates though, even though it wouldn't have worked for this instance -- kill and restart
Re: (Score:2)
Run softwareupdate -i -a from the command line. You won't ever need to restart although sometimes, if you do that, the applications you updated might not start (eg. iTunes and Safari).
Restart is necessary so it can reload the correct kernel extensions and clear out the applications that have it in-use. It's not super important in most cases but even if you unload/reload the kext files you could make the system unstable or make it panic. I usually don't restart the system especially the server systems for th
Re: (Score:2)
With Lion's window reopening, I find restarts to be *much* less painful.
That said, when Software Update tells you to restart, you can usually Force-Quit it and continue working.
Re: (Score:2)
Lion's window reopening is great ... right up till you start an app with an old document in it ... that the person looking over your shoulder sees ... and its about the day they are getting fired.
That was turned off as soon as I could find a way.
when Software Update tells you to restart, you can usually Force-Quit it and continue working.
You do realize that all it does before that is essentially downloads the items, runs the updates on things that don't need restarting, and preps the ones that require restarts ... if you kill software update when it says a restart is needed then you aren't actually
Re: (Score:2)
Windows needed a cert removed. There was no bug, just bad data.
OS X had bad data AND a bug. They fixed both. The bug needed a restart as it was a system wide facility.
Certs are broken. (Score:5, Insightful)
Diginotar was just the beginning of the reports, but truth is, CAs have been broken for a long time and SSL sessions that depend on CA certs are useless. A couple weeks ago, there was a handy how-to page to show how you can go into Mac OS X's keychain to reject Diginotar... one CA entry down, but several hundred others. If you think the NSA, Mossad, MI6, and fifty other countries haven't slipped MitM SSL boxes on various trunks hoping to score a session depending on these CAs, you're deluded.
Re: (Score:1)
Thank you.
I finally understood why everyone says SSL is broken.
Re: (Score:2)
I may be deluded, but I certainly don't believe that Algeria, Romania or Peru have done that (to pick a few of the 50th largest countries ranked by GDP). I think their intelligence departments just aren't that well financed or modernized.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with SSL has always been that there's a single point of failure. If you compromise the CA, you ultimately compromise SSL itself until trust for that particular CA gets revoked.
In the short term, browsers should remember the last CA of each site. If it changes, throw up a warning page. That's a good stop-gap measure for MITM (instead of the stupid warning page for self-signed certs). In the long term, there needs to be some combination of distributed (P2P) certificate validation, and multiply sig
Re: (Score:2)
I've always had and still have "mixed feelings" about this.
There are 2 types of MitM attacks on SSL:
- force a normal CA to create a certificate for a nation for a certain website on request, maybe even create a subCA so they can sign anything they like
- a lot of nations have governmental organisations that have their own CA
If they use the last one, the one you probably meant, is detectable by a user (if properly instructed). gmail.com should obviously not be signed with a cert from CCNIC. If you really are
Re: (Score:2)
There are 2 types of MitM attacks on SSL:
You forgot #3:
- ship your customers an installation CD which helpfully updates your certificate store with ISP-provided CA certs. AT&T did this at one time, I declined to install the cert despite the warning from the installer that if I didn't click OK on the popup I would not be able to configure the modem/router (configured it just fine, thanks).
Of course, this is a much riskier version since if they actually attempted to use that CA, everyone who rejected the
Managing Support (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Microsoft is indeed upfront about setting clear expectations. That's why everyone on the planet knows ctrl+alt+delete.
What about Safari for Windows and Leopard? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's got nothing to do with Safari.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but the releases of Snow Leopard and especially Lion have already demonstrated the bug FU to PPC owners AND developers. So this is nothing new.
Apple behind in security per usual (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, back in the bat cave... (Score:2)
In other news, Microsoft posts security bulletins 4 days early, scrambles to fix mistake [arstechnica.com].... oh, sorry I didn't realizes /. was in "bash apple" mode again.
Re: (Score:3)
your point?
Microsoft is exceeding their patch target dates, while Apple is trailing the pack with shoddy patches only for its current-gen non-PPC machines?
Wrong - you should read the article before making knee-jerk statements. Microsoft accidentally published the security bulletins describing the upcoming patches. Then they scrambled to remove them.
In other words they posted specific information regarding vulnerabilities that will be patched next Tuesday. Hackers might find that a tad useful, what with a four-day window of opportunity.
Re: (Score:2)
I was merely pointing out a simple fact that everyone around here seems to be "soooo" focused on bashing Apple as of late, that a very interesting and important security story, based on an operating system that has 90% market share (while Apple only has a tiny 5%-9% as people seem to like to point out), seemed to slipped through unnoticed.
It was an social experiment to see if anyone would comment on it and slip in a dig at Apple at the same time....
...I'll just mark you down as a positive. Thank you for pa
Not for everyone (Score:1)
Worth noting that, keeping in line with maximizing a forced adoption of the latest cat, the fix is only available for those using the latest version of Snow Leopard or Lion. At least at this time (5 PM CDT, 9 Sep 2011) the rest of the MacOS universe can go suck an egg...
Just like the case of adopting Lion. If you want to skip a cat and not have to pay for Snow Leopard, tough luck, compadre. Lion ONLY installs on top of Snow Leopard.
Re: (Score:2)
MacOS hasn't existed since version 9. Yes, I think computers from the early 2000s can go suck an egg, to include my 1999 G4 that still runs, but I don't pretend to use it for daily computing, banking, and maintaining valid certs.
Lion only installs on top of Snow Leopard because it is an upgrade, not a stand alone release. Even the Apple Lion pages use "upgrade" all over the place. The price of $29 reflects that as well. http://www.apple.com/macosx/how-to-buy/ [apple.com]
Not viable for many users (Score:3)
It's only for OS 10.6.8 and 10.7.1. Users of PowerPC Macs can't use any OS after 10.5.8, and many users of Intel based Macs won't update past 10.6.6 because 10.6.7/10.6.8 introduce some significant compatibility issues. It's great that they released a fix, but it's only a fix for 50%-80% of the user base. I guest the rest have to manually remove the Diginotar root cert?
Re: (Score:2)
and many users of Intel based Macs won't update past 10.6.6 because 10.6.7/10.6.8 introduce some significant compatibility issues.
Like what?
Re: (Score:2)
10.6.8 broke optical audio out for many, many users.
Re: (Score:2)
You can start here [macintouch.com] and read all the problems you want to.
Mac OS X 10.5.8? (Score:2)
No updates for this one? :(
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, wait, I'm sorry, you're just another retard that capitalizes the whole word instead of the first letter. It's a proper noun, not an acronym, you dimwit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no. We claim that Macs are the best computers.
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty easy to figure out the logic behind this one, actually. There were known fraudulent google certs, known fraudulent Windows Update certs and known fraudulent mozilla.org certs faked. Were there any apple.com certs?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
On Slashdot, an "Apple Apologist Fanboi" is anybody who doesn't incessantly whine in a shrill voice about how awful Apple and Steve Jobs are, annoying anyone within a four-mile radius, most of whom don't care one way or the other.
Re: (Score:1)
Around here you have to HATE HATE HATE everything in the world with a smug, superior sneer or else you're called a "fanboi"!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, this affects everything that uses the system certificates - anything from cURL to Chrome. Safari is included in that list. Almost every other desktop app is also affected - so something like a desktop RSS reader that pulls from Google Reader was equally vulnerable. Firefox (and maybe others) manage their own CA certs so they weren't directly affected, but had this been patched earlier it might have been that Firefox was the application that is still vulnerable.
Still, don't feed the trolls.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except of course when they don't. When you create a culture of careless idiots by making them think they are invulnerable to any threats this is the only way to handle them.
Care to explain how this is a case of Macs not "just working"? Or how may "careless idiots" were adversely affected by this?
This looks like simple mindless anti-Apple trolling.
If they just came out and said "Yeah we got screwed too" they might have some credibility, but instead they have to act like something like this doesn't actually affect them and quietly sweep the dirt under the rug.
"Got screwed"? How, exactly? This is exactly how the system is supposed to work.
On the other hand of that is the legion of careless users that are made even more careless because they have been given the false belief that they are impervious to any kind of cyber threat. If they just said "Yeah all that 'most secure' stuff we've been telling you is utter nonsense" then they might lose a moron or two to the competition.
So, where are all the infected Macs? And where are all these people who say Macs are "impervious to any kind of cyber threat"? Straw men don't count, I'm talking about actual human beings.
The problem with you anti-Apple trolls is that you rail against an i
Re: (Score:1)
Why so insecure?
Hey, he's running Windows to begin with... /hides
Re: (Score:2)
While he is a troll, having worked in support (at a University in Oregon) with Apple users they do often say the following repeatedly:
"Mac's don't get viruses"
"My Mac is secure"
Why do they do this? Its what the employees at the Apple store say (seriously - ask any sales person about viruses, root certs or exploits - the answer always is "nope - we don't get those")! None of them have any idea what a trusted root certificate authority is, or why being compromised is such a big problem.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While he is a troll, having worked in support (at a University in Oregon) with Apple users they do often say the following repeatedly:
"Mac's don't get viruses"
"My Mac is secure"
Both are true. Neither mean (what the OP said), "they are invulnerable to any threats" or "they are impervious to any kind of cyber threat".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple sales people are not allowed to position statements like "we don't get those". There are carefully crafted positioning statements around everything in the Apple economy. Like it or not, it brings a consistency to the brand. I think the Apple retail market has been pretty successful--because the salesforce doesn't go around making rogue statements like you posit.
Granted, most people IN THE WORLD don't know what a root cert authority is, let alone the salesforce at an Apple store.
Re: (Score:2)
And for any reasonable person, the first statement is true.
Mac's don't get viruses.
Its not that they are immune, we all know thats not the case, its that they aren't targeted.
However, none of that changes the fact that from a practical perspective, Mac's don't get viruses.
I could defend the second one too, if you stop being so technical and think like users not techies. Users use words like 'secure' to mean a completely different thing than techies.
Having worked in desktop support for any length of time at
Re: (Score:2)
"Got screwed"? How, exactly? This is exactly how the system is supposed to work.
No, Google, Mozilla, and even Microsoft showed how the system is supposed to work. Apple sat on its hands for nearly two weeks, while its users were still exposed to possible rogue certificates because apparently Apple didn't think removing the CA's root certificate from the user's Keychain should also remove its EV certs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That post is full of crap. So, the battery goes after 2 years. You either replace the part yourself (which involves opening the case up) or you take it back to Apple and have it replaced by them. You certainly do not have to trash the laptop. He then goes on to say buy the Macbook Pro - which suffers from exactly the same issues...
Details on replacing the battery. http://www.apple.com/support/macbookair/service/battery/ [apple.com] - details on replacing the battery.
And while I'm not an Apple "fanboi", I have owned a n
Re: (Score:2)
I repair my stuff, it is a nice hobby, you feel as good as a maker but you work way less because, most of the time, it is the simple things that breaks. I only had to replace an IC once in my life and it was in 2010, the faulty component was a DAC in a receiver from 1995. 75% of what I have repaired was broken due to an old capacitor that had leaked or new capacitor that had bulged*1 and when I replace something like a capacitor, I always over-spec the voltage and the Tmax. Depending on it's usage in the de
Re: (Score:2)
Apple only cares about the sale of the product, not support
Sales of their products are affected by support.
that's why so many of their products fail 2-3 years off shelf life conveniently after warranty.
Then, why do so many *MORE* of their products *NOT* fail 2-3 years after warranty? You imply some sort of "planned failure" to get people to buy new products, but Apple (like most quality brands) take a different tact, and instead come out with new and improved products to entice new sales. And Apple, specifically, is having no problem whatsoever getting people to buy their new products.
That wouldn't happen if they kept failing on people.
And, what does this ha
Re: (Score:1)
Taking a week to get a critical patch done is the point with it's competitors exceeding them by a mile, as there are almost no AV vendors for Macs, Apple is responsible.
Going back to discussion though about why it takes apple a week to do things: Apple is great on presentation, however when i pay 3k for something I don't expect it to go out in 2-3 years, Maybe the airbook was a bad example, all laptops have replaceable batteries lo, on that note I didn't bother reading the article too closely, replicating t
Re: (Score:2)
AV software on a Mac...hahah, funny.
The reason it took them a week is because they are in the middle of their second update (10.7.2) of a new OS release. Is Windows in the middle of a service pack for Win7? Did Win 7 come out less than 6 weeks ago? Does Microsoft have thousands of developers NOT working on OS X.7.2 right now?
Re: (Score:2)
Laughable. Apple likes to make money, and selling support is one way to do that. Providing good support has gone a long way to build a loyal fan base and repeat customers as well.
AppleCare is one of the few computer company tech support divisions that actually makes money. Selling extended support after 1 year (not 2-3 years like you stated) is a money maker. Doing so also means having to support devices that are no longer sold. If you bought extended warranty for your xserve in January, you get support f
Re: (Score:2)
At least you guys have a clue...
Speaking of clues, here are a couple:
Steve Jobs is no longer in charge.
Apple no longer makes any hardware in "brushed" aluminum.