Apple recall again

"Apple Recalls More Batteries:
For anyone that might have missed it, Apple is recalling more laptop batteries because they can overheat. Oddly enough, after the last recall, Apple continued to use batteries from LG Chem, now the recall is 5 times as big as the last one.


Apple Computer is recalling 128,000 batteries that were shipped in its PowerBook G4 and iBook G4 laptops over the past eight months, marking the second time since last summer that it has issued such a warning."
http://news.com.com/Apple+recalls+more+G4+batteries/2100-1005_3-5715002.html?tag=nefd.top

Ouch!!!

Yup it's a pretty big deal. Unfortunately my PowerBook wasn't recalled either time so no free battery for me.

The bigger question here is how many other laptop companies have volitale batteries and have not discovered or admitted to it...

NewBie aka Jarhead,

You seem to be an anti-Apple kind of guy judging by some of your recent posts? Is that so?

In any case, I can say, as a sort of man-on-the-street perspective, that my G4 that I have at home, and the G3 that we have in the Control Room here at work, are both WAY MORE RELIABLE in every conceivable way than ANY of the PC's I've had the misfortune to have to use (such as the one I'm using right now).

A recall now and again is nothing to get too excited about, especially when considered in the larger context of what Apple delivers and how well the products acquit themselves.

That's my experience at least.

Plus, OS X kicks Windows' *** all up and down the street, no contest whatsoever. It's such an excellent operating system, it's a miracle that any company ever produced it and offered it for sale.

[ QUOTE ]
js said:
NewBie aka Jarhead,

You seem to be an anti-Apple kind of guy judging by some of your recent posts? Is that so?

In any case, I can say, as a sort of man-on-the-street perspective, that my G4 that I have at home, and the G3 that we have in the Control Room here at work, are both WAY MORE RELIABLE in every conceivable way than ANY of the PC's I've had the misfortune to have to use (such as the one I'm using right now).

A recall now and again is nothing to get too excited about, especially when considered in the larger context of what Apple delivers and how well the products acquit themselves.

That's my experience at least.

Plus, OS X kicks Windows' *** all up and down the street, no contest whatsoever. It's such an excellent operating system, it's a miracle that any company ever produced it and offered it for sale.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your remarks are an example of why threads about Apple end up being a hopeless situation of Apple vs PC rhetoric. Newbie's post wasn't anti-Apple. It's a current news story.

If there were those waiting with bated breath to post anything negative, this would have already been posted:

US-CERT Vulnerablities Concerning Apple Computers; some as long ago as December.

[ QUOTE ]
* US-CERT Vulnerability Note VU#582934 -
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/582934

* US-CERT Vulnerability Note VU#258390 -
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/258390

* US-CERT Vulnerability Note VU#331694 -
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/331694

* US-CERT Vulnerability Note VU#706838 -
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/706838

* US-CERT Vulnerability Note VU#539110 -
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/539110

* US-CERT Vulnerability Note VU#354486 -
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/354486

* US-CERT Vulnerability Note VU#882750 -
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/882750

* US-CERT Vulnerability Note VU#537878 -
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/537878

* US-CERT Vulnerability Note VU#125598 -
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/125598

* US-CERT Vulnerability Note VU#356070 -
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/356070


[/ QUOTE ]

Apple finally got around to addressing them eight days ago, according to this memo from US-CERT with it's notice of an update.

[ QUOTE ]

Apple Security Update 2005-005 resolves a number of vulnerabilities
affecting Mac OS X and OS X Server. Further details are available in
the following Vulnerability Notes:

VU#356070 - Apple Terminal fails to properly sanitize input for
x-man-page URI

Apple Terminal on Mac OS X fails to sanitize x-man-page URIs, allowing
a remote attacker to execute arbitrary commands.
(CAN-2005-1342)

VU#882750 - libXpm image library vulnerable to buffer overflow

libXpm image parsing code contains a buffer-overflow vulnerability
that may allow a remote attacker execute arbitrary code or cause a
denial-of-service condition.
(CAN-2004-0687)

VU#125598 - LibTIFF vulnerable to integer overflow via corrupted
directory entry count

An integer overflow in LibTIFF may allow a remote attacker to execute
arbitrary code.
(CAN-2004-1308)

VU#539110 - LibTIFF vulnerable to integer overflow in the
TIFFFetchStrip() routine

An integer overflow in LibTIFF may allow a remote attacker to execute
arbitrary code.
(CAN-2004-1307)

VU#537878 - libXpm library contains multiple integer overflow
vulnerabilities

libXpm contains multiple integer-overflow vulnerabilities that may
allow a remote attacker execute arbitrary code or cause a
denial-of-service condition.
(CAN-2004-0688)

VU#331694 - Apple Mac OS X chpass/chfn/chsh utilities do not properly
validate external programs

Mac OS X Directory Service utilities do not properly validate code
paths to external programs, potentially allowing a local attacker to
execute arbitrary code.
(CAN-2004-1335)

VU#582934 - Apple Mac OS X Foundation framework vulnerable to buffer
overflow via incorrect handling of an environmental variable

A buffer overflow in Mac OS X's Foundation Framework's processing of
environment variables may lead to elevated privileges.
(CAN-2004-1336)

VU#706838 - Apple Mac OS X vulnerable to buffer overflow via vpnd
daemon

Apple Mac OS X contains a buffer overflow in vpnd that could allow a
local, authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code with root
privileges.
(CAN-2004-1343)

VU#258390 - Apple Mac OS X with Bluetooth enabled may allow file
exchange without prompting users

Apple Mac OS X with Bluetooth support may unintentionally allow files
to be exchanged with other systems by default.
(CAN-2004-1332)

VU#354486 - Apple Mac OS X Server Netinfo Setup Tool fails to validate
command line parameters

Apple Mac OS X Server NeST tool contains a vulnerability in the
processing of command line arguments that could allow a local attacker
to execute arbitrary code.
(CAN-2004-0594)

Please note that Apple Security Update 2005-005 addresses additional
vulnerabilities not described above. As further information becomes
available, we will publish individual Vulnerability Notes.

just checked our batteries here, not in the proper serial number range, oh well would have liked a new battery for free. I did get a new power adaptor for free from them once.

as to the other list of fixed vulnerabilities I'll just respond in kind /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]

VU#356070 - Apple Terminal fails to properly sanitize input for
x-man-page URI

Apple Terminal on Mac OS X fails to sanitize x-man-page URIs, allowing
a remote attacker to execute arbitrary commands.
(CAN-2005-1342)


[/ QUOTE ]

But only if outside person already has an account and is signed into your computer. remote access shell accounts turned off by default, not a problem for average web connected users.

[ QUOTE ]

VU#882750 - libXpm image library vulnerable to buffer overflow

VU#125598 - LibTIFF vulnerable to integer overflow via corrupted
directory entry count

VU#539110 - LibTIFF vulnerable to integer overflow in the
TIFFFetchStrip() routine

VU#537878 - libXpm library contains multiple integer overflow
vulnerabilities


[/ QUOTE ]

Multiple buffer overflows, potentially bad, fixed before any exploits are ever found in the wild.

[ QUOTE ]


VU#331694 - Apple Mac OS X chpass/chfn/chsh utilities do not properly
validate external programs

Mac OS X Directory Service utilities do not properly validate code
paths to external programs, potentially allowing a local attacker to
execute arbitrary code.
(CAN-2004-1335)



[/ QUOTE ]

Again, local attacker, meaning person sitting at your computer. Not a concern to regular web connected computer users.

[ QUOTE ]


VU#582934 - Apple Mac OS X Foundation framework vulnerable to buffer
overflow via incorrect handling of an environmental variable

A buffer overflow in Mac OS X's Foundation Framework's processing of
environment variables may lead to elevated privileges.
(CAN-2004-1336)



[/ QUOTE ]

this is rather vague, further reading shows it also only when running some programs locally. Not a problem for web connected users that practice good internet hygiene. Also fixed before any exploits appear in the wild.

[ QUOTE ]


VU#706838 - Apple Mac OS X vulnerable to buffer overflow via vpnd
daemon

Apple Mac OS X contains a buffer overflow in vpnd that could allow a
local, authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code with root
privileges.
(CAN-2004-1343)



[/ QUOTE ]

again, local attacker, person sitting at your computer might run a command with higher privs. Not a concern for an internet connected user, fixed prior to any exploit being created in the wild.

[ QUOTE ]


VU#258390 - Apple Mac OS X with Bluetooth enabled may allow file
exchange without prompting users

Apple Mac OS X with Bluetooth support may unintentionally allow files
to be exchanged with other systems by default.
(CAN-2004-1332)



[/ QUOTE ]

But no specifics on how this might have happened. Blue Tooth file transfer turned off by default. Not a concern for web connected users, fixed before any exploit turned up in the wild.

[ QUOTE ]

VU#354486 - Apple Mac OS X Server Netinfo Setup Tool fails to validate
command line parameters

Apple Mac OS X Server NeST tool contains a vulnerability in the
processing of command line arguments that could allow a local attacker
to execute arbitrary code.
(CAN-2004-0594)



[/ QUOTE ]

again, local attacker, must already have account on machine and be sitting there. Not a concern for web connected users, fixed before used in any exploit in the wild.

So really, few of these pose a concern, and none were ever used to DO any of the things that could have been done with them, and they were all fixed prior to anybody doing so.

So really, not all that bad when compared to the list of windows vulnerabilities that are fixed only after huge number of machines are zombied using them /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif So stop trying to tell me I'm just as bad off as you are, cause I'm not /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Empath said:
[ QUOTE ]
js said:
NewBie aka Jarhead,

You seem to be an anti-Apple kind of guy judging by some of your recent posts? Is that so?

In any case, I can say, as a sort of man-on-the-street perspective, that my G4 that I have at home, and the G3 that we have in the Control Room here at work, are both WAY MORE RELIABLE in every conceivable way than ANY of the PC's I've had the misfortune to have to use (such as the one I'm using right now).

A recall now and again is nothing to get too excited about, especially when considered in the larger context of what Apple delivers and how well the products acquit themselves.

That's my experience at least.

Plus, OS X kicks Windows' *** all up and down the street, no contest whatsoever. It's such an excellent operating system, it's a miracle that any company ever produced it and offered it for sale.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your remarks are an example of why threads about Apple end up being a hopeless situation of Apple vs PC rhetoric. Newbie's post wasn't anti-Apple. It's a current news story.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are totally correct. Sorry, Empath. I should have placed this post in the other thread, if anywhere at all. If you like, I can edit my post. Just let me know.

Sorry, again. Knee-jerk reaction.

[ QUOTE ]
James S said:
So stop trying to tell me I'm just as bad off as you are, cause I'm not

[/ QUOTE ]

Right out of the blue. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/banghead.gif

To tell the truth, I'm finding more fault with the users than the machines.

Your accusation lacked a reference.

Whew! I read the subject and was afraid this was about fruit. Nevermind.

[ QUOTE ]
Right out of the blue.

To tell the truth, I'm finding more fault with the users than the machines.

Your accusation lacked a reference.


[/ QUOTE ]

The only brick wall is the one in your mind /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I don't really understand why some people get so upset whenever someone expresses their like for a Mac product and/or their dislike for a windows product. This board is FULL of people saying "this rocks" "such and such is better than such and such" "I think that is not as good as this one" (oh and "get both!")

And nowhere do people freak out unless it's about Macs and PC's. Even the most ardent ArcAAA fan doesn't get as bent out of shape in the threads comparing them to Peak offerings. This thread is about Apple to begin with! How can I not post about Apple stuff in it?

I'm just spreading the good news that I perceive about my favorite operating system. Just as everyone here tells us about their favorite flashlight brand/model or car brand/model or any number of a million things we discus every day. How is this different than my posting that I think the Everedy 8D lantern knocks the mudflaps off the Newui lantern?

Hey NewBie, Apple hire you as a consultant?

This morning we read they're considering changing from Japanese to Tiwanese battery suppliers.

LOL Saaby

Actually, they were not using Japanese or Taiwan parts:

"According to the reports filed by Apple with the government's consumer watchdog group, the batteries involved in the recall were manufactured by LG Chem of South Korea, the same supplier involved in its earlier consumer warning. In both cases the computer maker said that an internal short in the batteries could cause their cells to overheat, posing a fire hazard to consumers."

I'll pass on your bait js. I will say, it is funny how Apple folks immediately jump up on the defensive, having to teardown/discredit/etc or mine isn't like or doesn't do xxxx.

No amount of this will change the fact that it is.

iirc this is an assembly issue not bad cells.
and apple is not alone.
i have 2 big boxes of dell packs that are part of a recall that dell and their monkeys with scripts in india refuse to take care of.think about that before you bash apple for the battery issue.

[ QUOTE ]
NewBie said:

I'll pass on your bait js. I will say, it is funny how Apple folks immediately jump up on the defensive, having to teardown/discredit/etc or mine isn't like or doesn't do xxxx.

No amount of this will change the fact that it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I already admitted I was in the wrong. Why bring this up again? I made a mistake, I apologized, isn't that enough? I would have edited my post, but Empath already quoted it in full, so that would have been pointless.

And, in any case, as I said, mine was only a "man on the streets" uninformed opinion. Not worth much perhaps, but not totally worthless, I should think. It has simply been my experience that the G4 Apples running OS X are incredibly stable and powerful and nearly trouble free. I have used both Apples and PC's, laptops and desktops both, and in terms of hardware and software reliability, there is just no contest. No contest at all. Apples win hands down. Just one man talking here; just my own personal experience. Take it or leave it.

I apologize if you think I was (or am) baiting you, and I am happy to let the whole issue go away, but you did bring it up, and after I had apologized, too.

Ah, I see your apology.

Sorry missed that.