eWeek says "Apple's Switch to Intel Could Allow OS X Exploits"

[ljknews at mac.com (ljknews)]

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