At 11:20 AM -0500 1/27/06, Kenneth R. van Wyk wrote: > Interesting article, I suppose, but I'm not convinced of its conclusion: > > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1915923,00.asp > > The article claims that Apple's use of Intel chips will result in more > software exploits because, "'Attackers have been focused on the [Intel] x86 > for over a decade. Macintosh will have a lot more exposure than when it was > on PowerPC,' said Oliver Friedrichs, a senior manager at Symantec Corp. > Security Response." > > I was hoping to find some hint of a hardware architectural feature that the > powerpc has that provided an additional means of protection, but the article > mentions none. Instead, the only reason that it cites for the (presumed) > increase in software exploits is attackers' knowledge and experience base. > > After all, didn't attackers also have access to powerpc systems to build > attacks on during the same timeframe that Symantec suggests? Does the > powerpc architecture provide some inherent protection against (say) stack > smashing than the x86 does? > > Am I missing something here?
The most charitable (to the writer of the article) interpretation I can think of is that the sociopaths have experience dealing with BIOS and that sort of thing. But I do not know that Intel Macintoshes boot the same way Intel PCs do -- certainly they have aspects to support MacOS running that are missing from Intel PCs. -- Larry Kilgallen _______________________________________________ Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L) SC-L@securecoding.org List information, subscriptions, etc - http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l List charter available at - http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php
