This is not directly at peshue, but at all of the posters here.
Before you go on saying how sucky Apple is, or how Microsoft sucks too, think about this.
Hacking with physical contact is only data mining. This can happen with any computer, not just Microsoft or Apple, or Linux even for that matter. It is when there are back doors in the software that allow for others of outside influence to get access to your data that is worrying. Computers do what they are told, implicitly.
Therefore, if the programmer programming the software is flawed in any way, the ending result will also be flawed. This is true with everything we try to create with human hands. While humans are flawed, the things we create will invariably be flawed as well.
Therefore, be kind on others; the programmers that worked long and hard on your precious software couldn't think of everything that might go wrong. They imposed their flawed view of the world and how things work onto their programs.
None of the failures of software you might encounter on a day to day basis is personal. The programmers aren't saying they hate you, they simply didn't account for every possible outcome.
That is the reason we have updates. Humans would be doomed without the ability to think on their feet. We simply can't plan out every aspect of a situation before doing it. The updates to a piece of software are the programmer's version of "thinking on their feet".
Just take all of this into consideration before posting a hateful comment. Be nice to people, because they might be nice to you in return. People who have different opinions with us are what makes the world so interesting.
Don't post a reply comment to me saying that he didn't have direct access to the computer. Sorry. If you disagree with my first paragraph, the rest will still make sense if you ignore it.
There are two reasons why it's extremely difficult to draw any meaningful security conclusions using this type of competition. 1) Different hackers are hacking different equipment. How do you distinguish between skill of the hacker and security of the system (e.g. there's not enough data to solve a two variable equation). 2) If the hack was performed in two minutes, all he had time to do was call on a pre-developed hack already saved to the internet. This doesn't accurately reflect the time/effort required to develop the exploit. Even if it takes 24+ hours for the other systems, does this mean that the systems are more secure, or just that the Mac hacker came to the competition better prepared? About the only comparison that I would think would be meaningful would be the same hacker requiring different levels of access (different competition rule sets) to acheive a similar outcome.
"Therefore, if the programmer programming the software is flawed in any way, the ending result will also be flawed. This is true with everything we try to create with human hands. While humans are flawed, the things we create will invariably be flawed as well."
"Nobody was able to hack into the systems on the first day of the contest when contestants were only allowed to attack the computers over the network, but on Thursday, the rules were relaxed so that attackers could direct contest organizers using the computers to do things like visit Web sites or open e-mail messages."
Not quite as bad if you read that section. Assuming there was a cue of people asking things to be done to the machines. Any of the machines could have been hacked first, assuming they were eventually hacked under these conditions. Maybe the Air was just the most sought after. :) :)
You sir are right because truth is that there will always be security flaws no matter what OS you run. The problem is that fanboys from all sides will claim that their OS is better. Now that a Mac has been hacked the windows people will rejoice, and I will start backing up my Linux server and MacBook Pro with both Leopard and XP.
You, sir, are a genius. I absolutely loved your post. If I ever lectured in compsci, I will be sure to include the because human hands are flawed bit, as well as the gist of everything else. Thank you for the simple pleasure of reading that.
Thank you so much for the positive replies. I just get so ticked when i see people arguing over which computer system is better, because they always eventually end up making fun of the other's flaws. Then they cling on to those flaws and never concede.
Instead of finding flaws in other people's work (which is great for upgrades and such, but it doesn't have to be nasty and personal like it always is), maybe they should be finding ways to make themselves a better person by looking at THEIR flaws. It's really interesting, because it's a great analogy to how people react to other people. If they are really accepting to other people, they won't be too critical because they know that like people, software can change and become better.
Thank you for the positive support bob; it gives me great pleasure to give something to the internet community.
(also this post might not be as clear and articulate as the last one, as it is 6 in the morning and the coffee hasn't worked its magic yet)
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Oh my, I predict some extremely entertaining comments on this one.
This is not directly at peshue, but at all of the posters here.
Before you go on saying how sucky Apple is, or how Microsoft sucks too, think about this.
Hacking with physical contact is only data mining. This can happen with any computer, not just Microsoft or Apple, or Linux even for that matter. It is when there are back doors in the software that allow for others of outside influence to get access to your data that is worrying.
Computers do what they are told, implicitly.
Therefore, if the programmer programming the software is flawed in any way, the ending result will also be flawed. This is true with everything we try to create with human hands. While humans are flawed, the things we create will invariably be flawed as well.
Therefore, be kind on others; the programmers that worked long and hard on your precious software couldn't think of everything that might go wrong. They imposed their flawed view of the world and how things work onto their programs.
None of the failures of software you might encounter on a day to day basis is personal. The programmers aren't saying they hate you, they simply didn't account for every possible outcome.
That is the reason we have updates. Humans would be doomed without the ability to think on their feet. We simply can't plan out every aspect of a situation before doing it. The updates to a piece of software are the programmer's version of "thinking on their feet".
Just take all of this into consideration before posting a hateful comment. Be nice to people, because they might be nice to you in return. People who have different opinions with us are what makes the world so interesting.
Thanks all, and thanks Engadget.
Don't post a reply comment to me saying that he didn't have direct access to the computer. Sorry. If you disagree with my first paragraph, the rest will still make sense if you ignore it.
Where were you when Internet Explorer had these sorts of bugs? Gloating about how your Macs were superior.
I call steroids.
@ Blah
I was using firefox
(thats about the IE, not macs)
There are two reasons why it's extremely difficult to draw any meaningful security conclusions using this type of competition. 1) Different hackers are hacking different equipment. How do you distinguish between skill of the hacker and security of the system (e.g. there's not enough data to solve a two variable equation). 2) If the hack was performed in two minutes, all he had time to do was call on a pre-developed hack already saved to the internet. This doesn't accurately reflect the time/effort required to develop the exploit. Even if it takes 24+ hours for the other systems, does this mean that the systems are more secure, or just that the Mac hacker came to the competition better prepared? About the only comparison that I would think would be meaningful would be the same hacker requiring different levels of access (different competition rule sets) to acheive a similar outcome.
"Therefore, if the programmer programming the software is flawed in any way, the ending result will also be flawed. This is true with everything we try to create with human hands. While humans are flawed, the things we create will invariably be flawed as well."
The solution is simple. Destroy every human.
From the original article:
"Nobody was able to hack into the systems on the first day of the contest when contestants were only allowed to attack the computers over the network, but on Thursday, the rules were relaxed so that attackers could direct contest organizers using the computers to do things like visit Web sites or open e-mail messages."
Not quite as bad if you read that section. Assuming there was a cue of people asking things to be done to the machines. Any of the machines could have been hacked first, assuming they were eventually hacked under these conditions. Maybe the Air was just the most sought after. :) :)
You sir are right because truth is that there will always be security flaws no matter what OS you run. The problem is that fanboys from all sides will claim that their OS is better. Now that a Mac has been hacked the windows people will rejoice, and I will start backing up my Linux server and MacBook Pro with both Leopard and XP.
@mike10010100
You, sir, are a genius. I absolutely loved your post. If I ever lectured in compsci, I will be sure to include the because human hands are flawed bit, as well as the gist of everything else. Thank you for the simple pleasure of reading that.
Thank you so much for the positive replies. I just get so ticked when i see people arguing over which computer system is better, because they always eventually end up making fun of the other's flaws. Then they cling on to those flaws and never concede.
Instead of finding flaws in other people's work (which is great for upgrades and such, but it doesn't have to be nasty and personal like it always is), maybe they should be finding ways to make themselves a better person by looking at THEIR flaws. It's really interesting, because it's a great analogy to how people react to other people. If they are really accepting to other people, they won't be too critical because they know that like people, software can change and become better.
Thank you for the positive support bob; it gives me great pleasure to give something to the internet community.
(also this post might not be as clear and articulate as the last one, as it is 6 in the morning and the coffee hasn't worked its magic yet)
Thanks,
Mike(binary)
ZOMG GOSH MA MAC IS VIRUS PROOFS!!!11!one!!