Foundations of Mac OS X Leopard Security 213
jsuda writes "At least a half-dozen times in the book 'Foundations of Mac OS X Leopard Security' the authors state that there is a misconception that the Macintosh computer is immune from security problems. That allegation may explain why there are very few books published (and nearly none in recent years) about security for the Mac. This book is meant to change all that. The authors acknowledge that the Mac OS X software has had little of the security problem experience of Windows (and other operating systems, to a lesser extent) but they spend 455 pages detailing exactly where and how the Macintosh platform is (or may be) vulnerable." Read below for the rest of Jsuda's review.
Many of the security issues raised in the book are theoretical or deal with added elements of the Mac software install that contain non-Apple components — Apache Web server and Perl and PHP scripting packages, for example. Many of the items of concern deal with generic problem areas of computer usage in general, both software and hardware, which affect the Mac as well as any other computers and networks. While the perspective of the book is on the Mac, much of the security review will apply to any type of computer or network.| Foundations of Mac OS X Leopard Security | |
| author | Charles S. Edge, Jr., William Barker, and Zack Smith |
| pages | 455 |
| publisher | Apress |
| rating | 9 |
| reviewer | jsuda |
| ISBN | 978-1-59059-989-1 |
| summary | Best book on Mac Security |
Messieurs Edge, Barker, and Smith are seasoned Mac and security professionals who point out in a very systematic and comprehensive way the potential problems of running the Mac both in single use and networked environments. The focus is primarily on Mac OS X Leopard and the other software which comes with any new Mac computer, although there is some discussion of earlier OS X versions and earlier generations of Apple applications like Airport.
The book has five main parts covering general security matters, essential security fundamentals, networking, sharing, and workplace security issues. There are four very short appendices of modest value.
The initial first three chapters deal with general security and security fundamentals is basic stuff discussing how technical computer security issues are entwined with practical realities of using computers in a business or home, and that compromises between security and practicality generally must be made. There is discussion of types of security attacks, how the Windows booting programs, Parallels and Boot Camp, implicate Windows security issues on the Mac, and how the UNIX underpinnings of the Mac OS X allow for more sophisticated techniques and tools in securing the Mac computer and networks. Chapter 1 is a useful "quick start" guide of items which can be addressed readily by nearly any level of user to safeguard the Mac from many security concerns. Apple has provided a lot of built-in security features and services which can be adjusted by individual users to his or her own needs, like FileVault, Secure Trash, Keychain, permissions, and others. Higher-level users and maybe experienced security professionals not used to the Mac may be bored with the first part of the book.
Part two deals with protecting the Mac from malware and exploitable services in the OS and major applications like the Safari browser and Mail applications. It explains how malware can affect the Mac through script viruses, social engineering techniques, and other exploits. The book lists a number of available software tools which can help solve some of the potential problems. The section on reviewing and configuring monitoring processes and logs is especially interesting.
Securing networks, using and configuring firewalls, and wireless networking make up the bulk of part three. The content in chapters 7 through 9 is quite technical covering types of networks; routers, hubs and switches;proxy, DMZ, and other servers and hardware setups, advanced firewall configuration using both GUI and command line interfaces; filtering; traffic throttling; and more. The sections describing testing of firewalls and hacking wireless networks using tools like Kismac and iStumbler are especially useful.
Chapter 11, in part four, dealing with website security when utilizing the built-in Apple web services, includes a checklist of at least a dozen items to be dealt with in locking down a site. Security for remote conductivity is addressed also, with particular emphasis given to VPN, secure shell, and the use of network administration tools like Timbuktu and DAVE. Attention is given to both the standard Mac OS X installation as well as to OS X Server. The most complex discussions involve using Open Directory in a security plan. My favorite sections were in chapters 14 on network scanning, monitoring, and intrusion prevention tools. The book describes how to understand your own machine/network security status by learning how to attack other networks. And how to use techniques like white/black box testing, fingerprinting, enumeration, port and TCP/UDP scans, ping sweeps, and more.
The book describes how intrusion detection is accomplished. Guidance is provided on software tools like Tripwire, snort, Checkmate, and others. The last chapter concerns forensics and how to handle attempted or successful intrusions to both understand security weaknesses and to preserve evidence for civil or criminal proceedings, CSI-like.
Nearly all of the presentations cover two levels of interactivity using either GUI-based tools or the command line. Except for a handful of sections, the presentations are useful even for higher-end users, including those dealing with medium to large networks.
The writing is workmanlike and without style or wit, but carefully organized and expressed. There are plenty of (grayscale) screenshots of relevant software application configurations, and sidebar Notes and Tips on many topics. Anyone who has a serious interest in Mac OS X security will benefit from this book as its main virtue is its systematic and comprehensive approach to the issues. It is designed to inform users of all levels how and why to think about OS X security. Geeks who want or need to know Mac OS X security will get a nicely organized book sufficiently filled with useful content. This is not a book intended to raise all security issues or to provide all the answers. It does answer many problems, and will point nearly all users in the right direction for their specific needs.
You can purchase Foundations of Mac OS X Leopard Security from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
A good start to the discussion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A good start to the discussion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:no mac viruses (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:no mac viruses (Score:2, Insightful)
The reason is UNIX, not Mac (Score:4, Insightful)
That allegation may explain why there are very few books published (and nearly none in recent years) about security for the Mac.
I would think the reason is more that almost any book on UNIX security gets you 99% of what you need to know, and there are online sources to cover the rest.
Not that a book is not a good thing to see, but to my mind among admins or more serious users of OS X, the misconception that OS X is totally secure is in itself a misconception. OS X know systems will have vulnerabilities, but we also know there have been basically no attacks in the wild and that by default many things which might leave un-noticed holes (like web servers) are off by default - and that helps a lot, for the eventuality of real attacks coming someday.
To my mind, another aspect stopping attacks is actually the switch to Intel. That reset the counter for when we might see OS X attacks since buffer overflow stuff can't rely on which architecture it might hit. That and a more friendly update model (than Windows) that people actually apply when updates come.
Re:A good start to the discussion (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm aware that Window's market share makes them the "low-hanging fruit," but even without considering market share, OSX has fewer security holes than Windows.
Most of the difference seems (to me, YMMV) to be remnants of OSX's background in BSD, and the security practices in the BSD world--it seems that Apple has added far more functionality to BSD, but at a cost of lowered security.
Don't forget to unplug it, too! :D
Re:A good start to the discussion (Score:3, Insightful)
OS X has a solid architecture, but all the evidence indicates that Apple has not taken security seriously as a process issue to the same extent that Microsoft has.
The recent "carpet bomb" issue with Safari on windows brought to centre stage this very issue.
MSFT is is still creating junior level mistakes with their flagship software.
Wrong reason (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think that's it at all. It's there is very little market for OS X security books at this point. Most people don't care. Let me explain.
On the home end of things, Macs are great and relatively secure. They do fine. That said, how many people buy books on Windows Security for those home computers? I'm going to say very few. Most people don't care or don't know they should do something to increase security.
The other front is businesses. Most businesses don't use Macs, by a large margin. Macs have a smaller enterprise market share than overall market share. If you are asked to secure a server or desktop, chances are it will be Windows or Linux.
These kind of books are, for the most part, targeted at administrators, businesses, etc. Since that market (administrators of Macs) is so small (compared to administrators of Windows boxes) there are very few books written.
This is compounded by the most important boxes to secure: web facing boxes (like servers). OS X Server's market share is very tiny compared Windows and Linux.
The books aren't there because the demand for them isn't very big, not because Mac users are think they are invulnerable from arrogance.
Re:A good start to the discussion (Score:5, Insightful)
By comparing the structure and functionality. If we had to wait until a system has been attacked to see how vulnerable it was, we'd all be in REAL trouble.
One basic factor is default user account privileges: Microsoft has all new users default to Admin privileges (a practice that may have stopped with Vista), while Apple (like Linux) has new users default as limited accounts that must be escalated to have Admin. Microsoft's way is more handy (in that even an inexperienced computer owner can set up an account that can do anything), but insecure (because only an inexperienced computer owner would WANT all users to have accounts that can do anything).
There are plenty of vulnerabilities on both sides, but from everything I've seen in 20+ years of working with both Microsoft and Apple products, Apple is in the lead for security. Of course, that may change without notice, if Microsoft tightens up their practices, or Apple adds more vulnerabilities.
Total bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure they have, its just not a very useful platform to write viruses for since they have such a tiny market share
There are now tens of millions of macs being used now. That's active use, not just purchased...
Now you tell me how in this day and age where viruses are all about building up botnets which are then sold, that a fairly homogenous systems with MILLIONS of systems to be had, is not a juicy target?
Marketshare alone is meaningless as a reason not to write viruses when you get to those kinds of numbers.
The Fullest Measure (Score:5, Insightful)
Take 'em all down, Fanboi! Good dog!
And with that message, your contentless response to a well-written message puts on display the fullest measure of your intelligence.
Re:A good start to the discussion (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit.
If you build it, they will come.
If nothing else they will do it to claim bragging rights.
This notion that small marketshare saves you or large marketshare dooms you is just nonsense spouted by people that haven't been around long enough to have used anything else (besides Windows).
Re:Total bullshit (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Look at how they are attacked. (Score:3, Insightful)
Gah.
A zombie can scan IPs for known security holes, but the programmer still has to design a virus, worm, etc. specifically for the Mac that will exploit that hole. The viruses that attack windows won't work on Mac...you have experiment and find different avenues of attack...identify the security hole to exploit. I maintain that few security holes have been identified because fewer people are looking for them, not because there are fewer of them.
Remind me again what makes the Mac very secure in an absolute sense? How do you measure it. Because the some of the well known vulnerabilities in other systems don't exist in the Mac?Are you saying the Mac doesn't receive email attachments, has a 100% secure browser, and isn't suseptible to worms?Removing avenues increases security, but it doesn't mean that a completely different system doesn't have different avenues of attack that don't exist in the competition. If you have an existing product, and close up one avenue of attack, odds are good that it hasn't opened up a new one, and the newer version will be more secure. When you build a different product, you can look at the mistakes made elsewhere and correct for them, but it's a pretty good bet that you've had the oversight or mistake elsewhere in your own design.
And it still seems like you're implying that the people at Apple have somehow come up with a brilliant way of stopping all attacks by worms, email attachements and browser exploits.
All I'm saying is that Mac's current security is due to market share, not intrinsic to design. Look, I'm a Mac user, too, but don't blind yourself or fool yourself into thinking that somehow those folks at Apple are geniuses who've made the perfect impenetrable system, while the dunces in Redmond couldn't figure out how to lock a door.
Re:Total bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
And it's still way more than the largest botnet. So it's still a good target. But it's never been exploited - I wonder why?
Re:A good start to the discussion (Score:1, Insightful)
The fifth part was that they broke all legacy compatibility and forced everyone to rewrite their applications. ("Classic" was actually humongous setuid root security hole). Not that MS hasn't made some huge mistakes, but the biggest anchor around their necks is the legacy compat issues which their market position demands they keep.
Re:A good start to the discussion (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Look at how they are attacked. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well...
Mac OS X has some advantages in security. But I can't really say those advantages are due to Apple being somehow inherently 'better' coders than Microsoft or having made some kind of perfect system.
In my opinion, Mac OS X is less vulnerable than Windows in many areas is due to Apple being willing to go 'okay, this particular technology is dead, move along.' Microsoft relies on backwards compatibility for large market share; break backwards compatibility, and people do not upgrade. (Case in point: Vista.)
Apple has a smaller market share (and speaking as a Mac user and developer, we tend to sort of go, 'yes please, whatever you say' when they want to change things). We might bitch about it periodically (whither thou, 64-bit Carbon?), but this gives them the freedom to throw out legacy code and simplifies the code maintenance.
Or, in short: Apple's coders are not inherently better, but they end up with less old cruft to support and try to be aware of.
As a case in point, I'll note that the worst offender in terms of security on Mac OS X has, historically, been Quicktime. Quicktime is perhaps the oldest, most legacy-laden bit of crud in Apple's library. (The Quicktime APIs are darn near prehistoric, especially compared to things like CoreImage et al.) One would assume this means that Quicktime, more than almost anything else, has chunks of code that predate most of the programmers working on it, and which no one remembers or thinks about.
And in my experience, that's often where those kind of bugs come from... you change something, add a new bit of code that passing something into a function somewhere, completely unaware that four levels deeper there's some function which assumes the buffer is only 4k long. The old programmers knew there was an implicit limit down in this ancient routine, but no one now knows of that limit, and so -- unaware of this lurking nightmare 5 levels deeper in the stack -- they pass in a 6k buffer. Boom, security issue.
Windows has this problem in almost every corner of the OS. Worse, they cannot readily get around it... you can't just rewrite things from scratch, or you break legacy support! But as a result, there often are quite a few lurking behaviors that newer coders aren't aware of somewhere deeper in the system, things that never got documented, and which will eventually reach out to bite them.
Sure, there's situations which are just plain dumb (the carpet-bombing attack, for instance, is inexcusable behavior on IE's part), but most of those seem to be the minority.
So, yeah, Mac OS X has some advantage, as they have less legacy stuff to deal with. But even with that sort of advantage, no operating system -- not even Linux! -- is completely free of all flaws. We as users need to accept as a given that almost nothing is completely secure (at least, not and still be usable). This is especially true when many viruses and trojans rely on social engineering.
Even if Mac OS X prompts the user before allowing a program to elevate privileges, does that matter if users just click without looking? After all, lots of programs prompt for such things in order to install some shared framework they use at the installation or first-run stage. I know a lot of Mac users who just click on that warning blindly. And the warning doesn't matter if the user doesn't really pay attention.
So, yeah. Mac OS X may have less tangled, jungle-like legacy code for scary security holes to lurk in, but that does not mean it is invulnerable. Certainly not immune even to automated bugs, and especially not immune from social engineering.
Because the biggest security hole -- on ANY operating system -- is often user behavior.
There's my $0.02, anyway. :)
Re:A good start to the discussion (Score:3, Insightful)
If i recall the requirements of that contest correctly, contestants were required to use an unknown vulnerability to compromise the machine. All of the windows vulnerabilities that were being exploited in the wild or had been published by security researchers were not allowed to be used. In that case, the frequency of exploits and their discovery by researchers and bad guys alike probably actually worked to make it harder to win against the windows box.
I'm not taking a position one way or the other on the overall quality of security of any of the operating systems involved in the contest; i'm just saying the rules for the contest seem like they make it not terribly useful in determining the overall security of an operating system.
The two OSes are products of different ages (Score:4, Insightful)
Back when Windows was first designed Microsoft assumed there was only one user on the computers and there was not way to get at the computer other than via the keyboard/mouse.
Unix was designed from the first to be used on a shared computer. The idea was that computers were so expensive that you could only afford one for an entire department, so you hooked up a bunch of terminals and let lots of peopleuse the machine at the same time. The "prime directive" of OS design was "it should not be possable for one user to screw up an others users work."
Unix was designed to run on very expensive shared computers while Windows was designed to run on cheap in-expensive personal computers that were owned and used by just one person. Mac OS X is based in Unix and ha very stong abillty to pertition users from each other. Untill recent years Windows did not even have to concept that there might be more then one user
Mac users don't want to damage their platform (Score:3, Insightful)
I've always thought there's a slightly different phenomenon at work for Mac users.
See, Mac users really like what they're using. If you go to the trouble of buying a Mac, you're joining a group of people that is generally supportive of their computing platform.
So I think there are a lot fewer people who are really interested in breaking into Macs and damaging their computing platform's reputation.
To show this principle in action, take a look at the iPhone hacking community and how quickly they found exploits. The difference? The motivation for breaking iPhone's security was to be able to write software for the device. They were not trying to be destructive and did not see themselves as destructive.
So it would appear that there are fewer "destructive hackers" for Apple products than there are for other platforms. People are only really interested in breaking into Apple systems when there is some kind of hacking challenge, or when a product like iPhone or Apple TV is preventing them from using the devices as they wish.
I do believe that Apple has better security overall than Windows, but at the same time I also think the overall software environment is far more benign.
D
Re:A good start to the discussion (Score:5, Insightful)
You poise a logical fallacy.
"Let us not forget Windows also faces much more exposure due to it's market share. "
I order for that to be a factor worth considering, the OSes must be designed with the same architecture, management, coder skill, etc. . . .
The MAc has not been in a locked room with no network, there are many groups of people trying to find remote flaws all the time, with almost no success. And the success they did had relied on 3rd party hardware and drivers.
While I understand it's not perfect, it is far better then Windows by design, and it is reflected in the many tests groups outside of Apple do every day.
Insightful my ass.
Re:A good start to the discussion (Score:4, Insightful)
Others have already replied about Apple's intrinsically superior security based on its BSD roots and more sensible user permissions. There's no need to go into that agaiin.
But there's an additional by-product that good design gets you: If people believe that cracking your system is harder, they won't be as inclined to try.
Case in point: All Debian-based SSL encryption was fundamentally broken for over a year, and yet (as far as we know) it didn't occur to sysadmins and developers to actually test the security of their certs etc. More interestingly, it doesn't seem to have occurred to crackers to even probe Debian's SSL implementation for vulnerabilities.
I wrote a quick run-down on this phenomenon (with a few caveats) on my website [imagicity.com]. In hindsight, it's nothing short of astounding that nobody caught this error. Considering that the payoff for a computer criminal would be potentially huge, I can only attribute the failure to comprehensively exploit the vulnerability to a folk-wisdom phenomenon, which is that if your software is generally considered safer, rightly or wrongly, people will tend to treat it as if it were, and leave it alone.
The converse, of course, is that if your software (e.g. Windows) is generally considered insecure, people will go to great lengths to exploit it. When you look at the cleverness of some of the hacks used to infiltrate a Windows system and compare the level of knowledge and skill required to simply brute-forcing Debian's broken SSL, you'll see what I mean.
Re:small clarifications (Score:4, Insightful)
That does not mean that you can't set your kids up with a limited account--it simply means that due solely to the way Alpha Centauri is written, it won't work with a more secure setup. But that's not Microsoft's fault--complain to Firaxis.
Re:Look at how they are attacked. (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if Mac OS X prompts the user before allowing a program to elevate privileges, does that matter if users just click without looking? After all, lots of programs prompt for such things in order to install some shared framework they use at the installation or first-run stage
I think in this area apple has an advantage that often goes overlooked. The number of warnings and popups a windows system presents the user with is a magnitude greater than what an OS X user sees. My god, plug in a flash drive. Can you escape with fewer than three popups? There's a reason windows users have the "click the button in the new window that just opened without reading it" mentality. Windows has gone from just letting programs do as they please, to popping up dialogs every 25 seconds. This is not an improvement, it just conditions the user to ignore the message and click the button to get on with it.
So although the windows and the mac user base will both have a degree of "make the interrupting box go away" mentality, a lot more os x users stop and read the box when it pops up, because they're not used to being harassed constantly by it and have an actual interest in seeing what it's about.
My other unrelated point is developer assumptions. I have, to date, ran into three pieces of OS X software that REQUIRE you to be logged in as an admin to either install, or to run, their software. In all other cases, they will either install or run if you provide an administrator's login and password.
And the grand majority of software for OS X does not require installation to run, you can drag it to your desktop and kick it off. Again the and also the grand majority of software for OS X, particularly that which your "average user" would want to use, does not require any authentication to run because it can function from within a basic user's privileges.
Compare that with windows. It's very hard to find a single app that will run without installing, and neigh impossible to find an app that a non admin can install. Once installed, about 8% of the programs won't run at all or won't run properly if you are not an admin user. Numerous programs will only run if you are the specific (admin) user that installed them.
Some of this is windows' fault, and some of it is programmers' fault. The programmers have come to expect all users to be admins because that's been the default. And it's easier that way, there's so much less you have to deal with if you can assume the user is an admin. So they take the short way and simply demand you be an admin to install it.
This perpetuates the problem, because now everyone wants to be an admin because they can't install software or run some software etc without logging out and back in as the admin, so for pure convenience they use an admin account.
There is a third point this just reminded me of. Assumed administrator rights. There is a group "admin" on OS X, that DOES give you write permission to certain folders that an unprivileged user does not have. But the scope is very small. On windows, merely logging in as an admin gives you a whole basket full of extra powers. This is probably why the programmers want the users to simply be admins, because it makes their jobs (particularly on installing) soooo much simpler. Instead of dealing with a dozen different permissions, you can either say are you an admin or not and be done with it. If you are, go do whatever you like. Otherwise, take a hike.
This again perpetuates windows wanting to default to admin, users wanting to default to admin, and developers wanting to default to admin. That throws a pretty daunting wrench into the works when trying to secure a system by default.
Re:A good start to the discussion (Score:2, Insightful)
I've done the research.
So you really think that because it uses a BSD like kernel interface API, it is just more secure then?
How about if I throw you this little fact:
Windows XP and Vista have a full BSD subsystem (SUA), does this automatically make Vista and XP even 'more more more more' secure by design? (Or at least software running in the Vista/XP BSD subsystem 'super duper' secure?)
Here is the answer to the trick:
What you are saying just re-establishes that you have no idea even what BSD is, and your 'assessment' of OS X and security based on your understanding of its BSD underpinnings don't even make sense, let alone establish any foundation to your argument.
---
And did you Google the security holes in Vista vs OS X yet? Truly go even with OS X 10.5 which is almost a year newer than Vista even. Hint: Not only has 10.5 OS X had more security holes/problems but it also has had several that are far more severe...
I won't do your research for you, but just in case you think I'm trolling here is something from 2007 to wet your whistle:
http://software.silicon.com/os/0,39024651,39169503,00.htm [silicon.com]
"While Mac OS X had 234 highly critical vulnerabilities reported in 2007, Vista and XP combined had 23, Ou wrote"
(Just guess what happens to even the staggering 10 to 1 ratio when you take XP out of the equation?)
Happy researching...
Full of shit (Score:5, Insightful)
DISCLAIMER: I work at Microsoft.
Pretty much everyone who posts about this is full of shit.
Vista has had 34 vulnerabilities over the last 1.5 years. That's less than Mac OS X over the same period.
If you want to argue that Mac OS X is "more secure", you need to do it on grounds other than vulnerabilities. At best, Mac OS X and Vista are similar in the number and severity of vulnerabilities.
So the new big thing on Slashdot, since the vulnerability statistics don't back up the "more secure" argument, is to argue that Mac OS is "intrinsically" more secure than Windows.
I have no idea what people are talking about there. Vista has ACLs, just like Mac OS X. Vista has sudo (UAC in Vista), just like Mac OS X. Vista disables network-facing services by default, just like Mac OS X. Vista has a firewall, just like Mac OS X.
So, you can wave your hands and say that Mac OS X is secure because it's "UNIX". But I'm not impressed. There's nothing "intrinsically" secure about UNIX compared to any other modern OS.
What I can say is that Apple doesn't take security bugs seriously. Microsoft acknowledges when there is a reported vulnerability and reports when a fix is delivered. Apple pretends that vulnerabilities don't exist. Apple sometimes stealth-patches vulnerabilities away. And Apple frequently tries to downplay the severity of vulnerabilities.
Take, for example, the root privilege escalation vulnerability reported several days ago in Mac OS X. That kind of bug is extremely serious, yet we had 20 people on Slashdot commenting about how it's not a big deal. Apple hasn't even acknowledged that there's a problem.
Re:A good start to the discussion (Score:3, Insightful)
No, UNIX style security cannot ever work on the desktop. It's a system that is doomed to fail by design because it has insufficient layering and a confusing setup for the end user. Do I really need to point you at the usability studies done on user-based DAC security? Or will you take it on my word that the vast majority of users will type in their root password whenever they are asked to?
There are much more robust designs for desktop security systems around. Read the security paper for Singularity (a Microsoft OS, in fact) - that's how it should be done. BitFrost is another interesting design.
One thing we do know, though, is that the UNIX design doesn't work. How long has MacOS X had this 1-line ARD privilege escalation vulnerability in it? You realise that one vulnerability like that wipes out the entire security system permenantly, until you reinstall it, because you never know if a program you ran used it to rootkit your kernel?
How do you know? The nature of such vulnerabilities is that they're worth a lot of money, and are traded on the black market. The details of the vulnerabilities are kept closely guarded because when they are known publically, the exploit becomes much less commercially valuable. That's why there was such an uproar about it - people could have been silently getting owned for months or even over a year ... and they'd never have known.
Re:Mac users don't want to damage their platform (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's simpler than that. The people on this site are conditioned to be cynical and negative about just about anything. They can't understand positive emotions in favour of a product, especially when that product is made by big business.
This is why you see so many people who are contemptuous of "Apple Fanbois" and slaves to Steve Jobs, without thinking that there might be valid reasons for people to like and appreciate Apple.
People are especially cynical about corporations, which is a little sad since Linux probably would have been litigated out of existence if IBM hadn't spent tens of millions of dollars litigating the SCO cases.
Steve is not God, and Apple has some policies that are far from praiseworthy, but if you pick up the big picture he's tried very hard to satisfy his customers, and you can't say that of Gates and Ballmer.
I can guarantee you that iTunes DRM will function for eternity, and Steve would never promise that his systems would work well with an upgrade and then break that promise. Gates and Ballmer have violated both of those principles, in publically embarassing ways, and they don't even seem to feel they've done anything wrong.
Or it might just be that few people saw the post. It's buried at the end of a long string and if you read messages in the usual threaded format you will never see it.
And eventually it did get modded up, but I think those two factors are why that didn't happen earlier.
D