What apologists? Were the comments deleted or something, because I really don't see anyone defending Apple in this thread.
> To be fair, OS X updates are free and usually run well even on 5+ years old hardware. OS X has kinda gone the way of Chrome, with most users on the newest version.
> While this is a significant vulnerability, I don't think the article is correct when it calls it a 'backdoor.' The term backdoor typically implies something that was intentionally left to allow illicit access, and while this is a significant bug, I don't see anything to indicate that's the case here.
> Title is a little generous about "hidden", the exploit revolves around API & Framework used to power the parts of the control panel, and its authorization scheme being broken.
> Smells like an oversight to me. Some new developer got assigned to implement or tweak the SSH enabling switch (or whatever), and this was their solution, which never got reviewed.
> Referring to Snow Leopard now not secure > Still pretty much the best OSX.
> Among other things upgrading (to 10.10.3) will do, it'll fix the issue in the article.
>Apple's model customer is one who upgrades often. If you want solid support for old products, stick with Microsoft, and accept that their products can be clunkier because of deliberate choices to maintain backwards-compatibility.
He was rebutting that regular upgrades are somehow a type of revenue to apple since they are free and work on some previous generation hardware. How is that apologetic?
A similar force seems to drive politics, or at least motivates disturbingly huge blocs of voters. :(
I don't like Apple's business practices, hard to hack devices and technology philosophy doesn't mean I am Tribal.
I have many machines that are over 5 years old.
I have never seen Apple as being honest or making products for me as a nerd. So I live mostly in Linux nowadays.
I have no credibility since I don't like a company? What about the opposite people who like the company?
Credible people are always upfront with their biases. I never trust anyone that says they are neutral.
Well the answer to that is when someone says something you call for proof. You don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. That's what I do with David Pouge and Walt Mossberg. But I usually get my news from Tech Press that has been black balled by Apple.
I don't intend that to be apologetic for Apple. I called it a 'significant vulnerability' but at the end of the day, it's a privilege escalation like those that have come before and will likely continue to be found occasionally, regardless of OS. I don't see what's apologetic about acknowledging a significant vulnerable while questioning whether it should be called a backdoor.
If you want to talk about Apple's response - I find it concerning that they aren't backporting the fix.