<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="/stylesheets/rss.css"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/">
  <channel>
    <title>NotRocketSurgery: Hacking Safari on Windows</title>
    <link>http://notrocketsurgery.com/articles/2007/06/27/hacking-safari-on-windows</link>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <ttl>40</ttl>
    <description>Relax.</description>
    <item>
      <title>Hacking Safari on Windows</title>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;If Mac is only secure because of its small marketshare&amp;mdash;which is a plausible, if unverifiable, claim&amp;mdash;then why is it that the moment Safari was ported to Windows, it was &lt;a href="http://www.betanews.com/article/Day_One_for_Safari_for_Windows_Becomes_ZeroDay_Nightmare/1181661606"&gt;hacked every which way&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;


	&lt;p&gt;If hackers only care about &amp;#8220;market share,&amp;#8221; why was a browser with 0% of the market (Safari on Windows) so readily hacked and not Safari on the Mac (with a significantly higher share at the moment)?&lt;/p&gt;


	&lt;p&gt;Can this really be because hackers have better tools to detect vulnerabilities on Windows?  I doubt it.  Rather, it looks to me like Windows is simply a platform so rife with holes that &lt;em&gt;even Apple developers&lt;/em&gt; have a hard time making secure, which is really saying something.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2007 03:56:00 -0400</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">urn:uuid:a66bf09b-5f70-4c66-b8ac-ed3b8d414db1</guid>
      <author>ryan</author>
      <link>http://notrocketsurgery.com/articles/2007/06/27/hacking-safari-on-windows</link>
      <category>microsoft</category>
      <category>windows</category>
      <category>mac</category>
      <category>safari</category>
      <category>apple</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
