Apple Patch Released, But Is It Enough? 338
entenman writes "Apple Computer's security update train rumbled into the station with fixes for a whopping 43 Mac OS X and QuickTime vulnerabilities. The Security Update patches 31 flaws in the Mac OS X, most of them serious enough to cause 'arbitrary code execution attacks.'" Unfortunately, InfoWorldMike writes "InfoWorld.com reports that Independent researcher Tom Ferris said there were still holes in Safari, QuickTime, and iTunes that he reported to Apple but were not patched in the latest release on Thursday. Ferris told InfoWorld he is considering releasing the details of the unpatched holes on May 14 on his Web site. He also says he has found new holes in OS X affecting TIFF format files and BOMArchiver, an application used to compress files. He did not provide details about the flaws or proof of their existence."
Stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's settle this debate.
No.
Changing CPU architectures will have absolutely effect on security.
Switching to Intel will make it easier for game developers to port their code, which will lead to more games available for the Mac. This, combined with the ability to dual-boot to Windows and eventually the ability to run Windows apps through virtualization, makes the Mac platform more appealing to consumers, which will probably lead to an increase in Apple's market share. This could lead to more malware creators taking an interest in the Mac platform, which would lead to more security holes in Mac OS X being exploited (which is not the same as more security holes existing).
Re:Stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to make the initial exploit to get "in." Once you are in you can use most standard unix libraries to do whatever you want. The hard part with PPC was finding someone who knew how to code the inital exploiit and the carefully crafted shellcode (with no null bytes, etc.). With Mac moving to Intel this part is MUCh easier for the people who know x86 ASM.
Re:Stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stupidity (Score:2)
Re:Stupidity (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stupidity (Score:2, Insightful)
x86 is coherent (Score:2)
PowerPC chips don't do this. If you try to execute something freshly written to memory, you may instead execute the prior data.
Only learning that first assembly language is hard (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you overestimate the effort required to learn PPC once you know x86. The first assembly language you learn is difficult, especially if it is x86, but for subsequent ones it is far less difficult. After many years of x86 I wrote my first serious PPC code, it beat Apple's MrC compiler quite easily.
No overestimate, it is a real barrier (Score:2, Informative)
Their machine had a default install, with default sets of applications.
It took months before anyone cracked the machine. When it was cracked, the hole used to do it was a well-known buffer overflow that had widely known x86 exploits at the time they put the machine up. An Intel machine treated
Re:No overestimate, it is a real barrier (Score:2)
Security by oscurity (Score:2)
Re:Security by oscurity (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Security by oscurity (Score:5, Interesting)
Ever since my company made it policy to move SSH away from the standard ports, the number of dictionary attacks and exploits has gone down from upwards of 20 a day across all our machines down to zero (0). Even though any automated scanning tool worth it's salt could easily identify that it's SSH running on an obscure port from the banner.
Security by obscurity is enough to break the default configuration of most automated scanning tools, which in turn is enough to stop most of the people out there attacking servers at random.
The great thing about using security by obscurity is that by effectively foiling most automated scanning tools, we limit our focus to only people who are genuinely trying to hack us, rather than just anyone, and can focus on tracking them down and turning them over to the authorities.
Security by obscurity does work, it doesn't devalue your other forms of security, and should be considered a useful and valid part of the arsenal of security defences that can be deployed to protect things.
Anyone who says otherwise has obviously never worked in a situation where their security knowledge actually made any difference. It's obvious that an SSH server getting blasted 20 times a day by attackers is at least 20 times more likely to be hacked than one that's hit 0 times a day, and security by obscurity can make that difference.
Re:Security by oscurity (Score:5, Insightful)
That being said, I disagree with your assertion that 20 dictionary attacks a day is 20 times more likely to get into an SSH server than 0 dictionary attacks. If your passwords are any good, they won't get in either way.
Yes, your "obscure" port protects you from the dumber automated scripts. That could buy you a little time if a genuine vulnerability shows up in the sshd. But it's only a matter of time before the stupid scripts scan for sshd on other ports.
Then you'll have to switch to port knocking
Re:Security by oscurity (Score:5, Interesting)
It's also probably safe to assume that if someone has the intelligence to change the port that SSH is listening on that they are also clever enough to keep it up to date and securely configured.
Moving your potentially vulnerable services to a different port is effectively putting yourself in the too-hard basket as far as auto-scanning script kiddies are concerned, but doesn't do anything to stop attackers who are targetting you.
Unfortunately the soft pink human underbelly of your network is the most glaring weak point for attackers targetting your systems, and we can't really firewall their voice-boxes and fingers if we expect to keep doing business.
Re:Security by oscurity (Score:3, Insightful)
True, especially since it's easier to defend against broad, repeated scans (assuming they don't have a good way of doing it from distributed hosts).
Still, I'd argue your defense isn't as much one of obscur
What about NX? (Score:2)
Sure it's not a complete solution, it is at least another layer of protection to keep users safe and is more than what they had with PPC's... provided they are using it today.
Re:What about NX? (Score:2)
NX on PowerPC (Score:2)
Re:NX on PowerPC (Score:2)
And, at least according to "PowerPC Operating Environment Architecture Book III Version 2.01", there's also a per-page no-execute bit; I don't know whether that's a feature that was added later than the per-segment no-execute bit (which I assume is what you were referring to).
Re:Stupidity (Score:2)
Actually, no.
For the time being it means developers must make universal binaries of games. Many Mac game developers have noted that ports will have increased development times for the next few years.
Porting will speed up when PPC hardware is irrelevant and Intel only builds are acceptable.
Re:Stupidity (Score:2)
Re:Stupidity (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Stupidity (Score:2)
Wrong and wrong. (Score:2)
Wrong. For example, to exploit buffer overflows, you need to write assembly. More people know Intel assembly than PPC assembly. That makes attacks on Intel Macs more likely than on PPC Macs. This is most definitely "an effect on security."
Wrong. Most modern games contain no or very little assembly code. The chipset doesn't matter when porting games. Dire
Re:Stupidity (Score:5, Informative)
Bullshit. Buffer overflows are a software problem and have nothing to do with the CPU. The PowerPC would have been just as vulnerable, when running identical code.
And building your own PC teaches you absolutely nothing about discovering vulnerabilities.
Re:Stupidity (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Stupidity (Score:2, Interesting)
PPC makes it much harder (thought not impossible) to run code after overflow since it'll clear the stack.
And building your own PC teaches you absolutely nothing about discovering vulnerabilities.
I'm saying they have (hacked) OSX compatible machines, where previously they didn't.
The fact they are self assembled is just because they are cheap (which
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
buffer overflow (Score:2)
Bullshit. Buffer overflows are a software problem and have nothing to do with the CPU. The PowerPC would have been just as vulnerable, when running identical code.
Can a buffer overflow be a cpu as well as a software problem? According to this wiki article NX bit [wikipedia.org] if a cpu designates the data area of memory with an NX attribute then no code can run from within that memory thus proeventing buffer overflows from executing code. If thye have it wrong then maybe you can help them edit this article., well th
Re:Stupidity (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not entirely true. Buffer overflows are exploited at the assembly level, not at the source code level. So the point is that, even if a PPC is running the same source code, it's not running the same assembly, since it uses a different ISA.
More to the point, the simplest and most common buffer overflow attacks rely on the fact that the user sta
Re:Stupidity (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Stupidity (Score:4, Informative)
There are other processor features that make stack overflows harder, NX being a classic example (also mentioned above). The processors calling convention can also help - if your processor operates with three stacks, one for parameters, one for local data, the third for data flow, it renders the return stack immune from overflow of local data buffers, and mitigates the damage that can be caused by an overflow.
So yes, buffer overflows are a software problem. But the damage that they can cause is strictly a processor architecture issue.
Re:Stupidity (Score:3, Funny)
non-NX CPUs irrelevant, not shipped by Apple (Score:2)
Sorry, but no. The historical problems with x86 are irrelevant. Apple did not ship retail computers with those CPUs. The Core Duo and Solo CPUs support no-execute. The vulnerability does not lie with the CPU, it lies with Apple failing to use that capabilit
Re:Stupidity (Score:3, Insightful)
I've built literally hundreds of PCs for myself, friends, family, co-workers and clients. I couldn't craft an exploit if you paid me too.
What purpose? (Score:2)
Re:What purpose? (Score:4, Insightful)
In theory, it's possible that black-hats have already discovered the flaw, and will exploit it without telling anyone. If they've already figured it out, then releasing details to the public won't make the situation significantly worse. However, public embarassment will prompt the company to release a fix more quickly.
I'm not saying I agree with this theory.
Re:What purpose? (Score:2)
Re:What purpose? (Score:2)
Re:What purpose? (Score:2)
Re:What purpose? (Score:2)
The theory is that a policy of reporting security vulnerabilities to vendors and then revealing them publicly after a reasonable amount of time, regardless of if a patch is available, will encourage vendors to patch holes more quickly (since they know they're working against the clock). Of course, there are debates about whether this is effective, whether it's a good th
Re:What purpose? (Score:5, Informative)
If you check out his web site, it seems that he's trying to maximize advertising revenue. Not only does he have many ads, he also has many Amazon referal links. In addition, he is directly selling advertising:
From his website:
Want to advertise on the Security-Protocols website?
Below are our rates:
Banner Advertising:
10,000 impressions = $75
20,000 impressions = $135
30,000 impressions = $180
Re:What purpose? (Score:4, Funny)
Relativity (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Relativity (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway. The difference between Mac OS X and XP can be summarized thus:
Every time a potential breach of OS X security is discovered, it's front-page headline news on Slashdot.
If a new actual virus or worm comes along for Windows, making it ever more sure that you still can't even put a new Windows box online to download patches until after the patches you need are already installed... it's business as usual.
Windows users concerned about they penis size go on chanting "B B B But that's only because the Mac is less popular, so nobody bothers to write malware for it. Wait until the Mac gets more popular, then you'll be in a world of hurt!!!1!"
Whatever. The Mac is probably never going to see double-digit market share, and even if it does, it's still vastly more secure than Windows is, and you all know it. So there's no need to worry about such a scenario ever happening.
So I use Macs.
If the market dominance of Windows has anything to do with Macs being relatively free of haX0r attention, then I just gotta say to all you stubborn Windows users out there:
Hey man, thanks for taking one for the team.
Re:Relativity (Score:2)
You can thank me when I've actually taken one. I've been a Windows user for going on 15 years now, and I still haven't ever been hacked, rooted, afflicted with spyware, or even infected by a single virus of any sort.
I wonder what I'm doing wrong...
Re:Relativity (Score:2)
Re:Relativity (Score:2)
That you know of.
Re:Relativity (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Relativity (Score:2)
But just rhetorically, are you 100.000% positive that your Mac hasn't been rooted? Absolutely 100%? Running tripwire scans ain't exactly normal practice.
Re:Relativity (Score:2)
Re:Relativity (Score:5, Insightful)
I've (very) occasionally caught a virus present on the machine before it was ever executed or did any harm. I've (very) rarely wound up with spyware - but nothing major, and nothing that couldn't either be uninstalled via its own well-behaved uninstaller or removed easily via something like adaware.
Why? Because I don't run or install software if common sense says the source might be shady. The one or two spyware incidents I've had were with semi-legit software - it probably told me in a Eula all about the nasty reporting it wanted to do, and I clicked through - that, as spyware goes, was relatively benign.
Now my old roommate's machine, with the same basic setup, was another story. It was amazing she could move the mouse with all the crap going on in the background from various malware. Different computing use habits, I suppose.
never been kissed (by The Grim Reaper) (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, so far as you know. One of my clients used to think that, too, and reapeated it as a mantra for years, until I showed them clear evidence that about 200 of their systems were under the direct control of a remote cracker during a worm outbreak. Hard d
Re:Relativity (Score:3, Insightful)
So to get this straight, you run an operating system that has so many security problems that you need to run at least two other programs just to make sure that you aren't infecte
Re:Relativity (Score:3, Interesting)
Weird huh?
Re:Relativity (Score:3, Informative)
A virus which requires telnet to be on (it's off by default), another that requires ssh to be turned on (ditto), and a third which requires physical access to the machine.
All of which were hyped up on slashdot as if Mac users actually had a reason to be worried, when almost all of them did not.
Thanks for proving my point.
Ummm, no... (Score:2)
I read the front page headlines only, and I can promise you that every little exploit that affects IE or Windows makes it to the headlines here. Slashdot effectively goes out of its way to point out these exploits.
On the other hand, of the 40-some patches that were just released according to today's article, I had no idea about. Maybe 2 or 3 of them made it to headlines, the rest were very quiet.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:what a ego (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess Apple is still small enough that they can do no wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:what a ego (Score:2)
doing something (Score:2)
Now if the SAME people coded a patch AND released the exploit, then I wouldnt feel the way I do. But they arnt, they are just feeling smug in proving something doesnt work while not helping in any wya to address it.
So you don't think letting users know there's a problem is helpful? Nobody should ever say anything, because someone else will exploit the knowledge? More than likely if there's a problem more than one person can find it and it's not just the good guys who find them.
Falcon
Re:doing something (Score:2)
I think he's saying they can tell them there is a problem, but not tell them what the problem is. That seems a bit silly to me, but seems a popular view now-a-days. Personally, reguardless of what company it is I think it is thier responsibility to keep the product secure and anyone who finds a problem is free to tell whoever they want about it. I know this is "bad" now, but isn't that what we always used to do? But now there are bad
Re:doing something (Score:2)
Not according to the blurb ("InfoWorld.com reports that Independent researcher Tom Ferris said there were still holes in Safari, QuickTime, and iTunes that he reported to Apple") or the article ("the latest patch doesn't cover other critical holes he reported to Apple").
If you find there is a flaw in all cars which could cause them to spontaniously explode, should you have to wait until the car companies fix th
Re:what a ego (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Falco5768 is not slashdot.
2. There are at at least [slashdot.org] a few [slashdot.org] articles [slashdot.org] which are critical of Apple's security policies.
3. Apple has not actually stifled this person. They patched something. They may have failed to patch other holes. I hope they will work as quickly as possible to patch all exploits they know.
4. Note that the grandparent post is not yet modded very highly.
In future posts, please do not clump everyone on slashdot in to one unified entity.
In future posts, only include actual facts instead of implied conjecture into actions that have not occurred.
Re:what a ego (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, we hate that.
the alternative (Score:2)
a. spammers
b. Chinese government
c. US government
d. credit card fraud groups (mafia-like)
e. Israeli government
f. French government
g. Russian government
It all depends: does he like dollars, euros, credit card numbers, whores...?
Re:the alternative (Score:2)
Re:what a ego (Score:2)
I.E Im a giant penis and I would rather expose vulnerabilites that could potentially damage systems rather than wait for the coders at Apple to make sure everything is accounted for and put into a patch that wont effect other things that I didnt forsee.
Its one thing to find holes and tell Apple and people you did, and send the info to Apple. But I am so sick of these people who feel that if said company doesnt respond NOW they are then in the right to exploit said holes and make everyones life misserabl
Grow up kids! (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you mean? That he doesn't have the right to disclose what he found? Does his constitutional rights make you sick? Well then I think that YOU are the one with a problem. You should be thanking him for warning Apple. I know many who would have kept it secret and written all kinds of worms just to make fun of fanboys like you, and I guess that's what you're really asking for with your complaints.
Here goes my karma...
extortion? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:extortion? (Score:2)
Well, the article says the vulnerabilities he's considering disclosing were reported to Apple before this patch, though when isn't specified. So it's possible Apple's had the info for some time.
Re:extortion? (Score:2)
No shit, eh. I wonder how it's expecting an awful lot from Apple, but when Microsoft is in the same situation we have the default thread with posts about how Microsoft is slow and sucks.
Also isn't everyone sick of having the same discussion over and over and over when someone mentions "Microsoft" or "Apple" (or both).
They'll just release
Re:extortion? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, Apple *is* advertising their security in their latest ads, so they should have no problems meeting these expectations.
Re:extortion? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or maybe having an open-source license excuses them from your standards?
Plus, posting exploit information before sending a nice email to the developer is just irresponsible. How would that benefit anyone other than script kiddies?
Open "safe" files strikes again (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, second time this "Open 'safe' files is a lie. WHY THE HELL IS THAT OPTION STILL THERE?" I never trusted that open from the moment I first saw the checkbox. I guess that's why they put "safe" in quotes. Buy our "free" product for only $9.95!
Re:Open "safe" files strikes again (Score:2)
Is it enough? Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is it enough? Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you arguing that it's "enough" for Apple to not patch known problems? That because Apple has a good track record that they can be lax? That Apple should imitate Microsoft's policies of the late 1990s and not take "gray hats" seriously?
If so, that's a pretty stupid and reactionary attitude. I think most Mac users, including myself, are not slobbering "macz rulez" and want Apple to take an aggressive stance toward
Would it be better if they waited another month? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not surprised (Score:4, Interesting)
Although inevitable, we need not accept that there should be quite as many flaws as there are - Apple is in a uniquely privilege position over microsoft in using the unix permission system and the mature core that mach and FreeBSD provides, it must not become complacent. Increasingly, it appears that Apple is becoming sloppy - There are reports of Apple not using automated bound checking and the such. Such arrogance is inexcusable from any developer, and as Apple's popularity increases poor security will invariably become more of an issue. Its time for Apple to seriously take stock of this issue.
Re:Not surprised (Score:2)
Depends what you mean by "slow", since it's a question of scope. Apple does alot of graphical userland applications, the most visible part to most users, but that is clearly not a priority of OpenBSD (unluss you want them to develop their own "KDE" look-alike). Apple development hardware drivers are limited to the limited s
Re:Not surprised (Score:2, Funny)
No wonder Windows is suffering if they're spending so much time on OS X...
Re:Not surprised (Score:2)
Actually, by my count, Apple has released 5 distinct versions of OSX. That would be 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4. You can even make the arguement that 10.4 PPC and 10.4 Intel should be counted seperately, making it 6.
On the other hand, I count exactly 0 releases of OSX by Microsoft.
Talk about timing... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Talk about timing... (Score:2)
It also looks like the classic "if you have no rebuttal, just make fun of them" deal.
Give me REAL WORLD proof (Score:2, Insightful)
Please someone, give me a web address that will install spy/crudware without my consent automaticly, show me how, with no user intervention, an unpatched box can be hacked to hell by spamers to use in botnets in under 2 minutes...show me this or shut the fuck up!
I understand t
Holiday weekend (Score:2)
They could have waited untill Monday, but Apple acctually released them in a HOLIDAY weekend...Someone (maybe a whole dev group) acctually came in, and got the patches out today, they could have waited till next week, hell, they could have waited till 10.4.7 if they wanted to, they didnt, THAT is what sets them apart from MS
Re:Since I hate smug Mac users, let me be the firs (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, us Mac users and our potential vulnerabilities. All the potential data I haven't lost has really cost me.
And smug people suck, no matter what computer they choose.
Re:Since I hate smug Mac users, let me be the firs (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, note the word "potential". There are thousands of vulnerabilities that have been exploited on Windows, and like 20 potential on Macs, and that's equal? The day you'll trade me 100,000 dollars for a chance at 20 bucks is the day I'll toss my Apple in the trash.
Re:Tom Ferris (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Its been stated before but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Quicktime? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Quicktime? (Score:2)
The ot
Re:Quicktime? (Score:2)
Cease and Desist (Score:2)
Missing the point (Score:5, Interesting)
Vista will probably help IF it's ever released and as I read on here on slashot the way Vista handles admin tasks (at least in it's current release state) involves an infuriating number of dialog boxes. I'll stick with my mac for now so I can just get some work done (shrug).
I guess this is what I get for responding to a troll.
Re:Are MACs more secure or just less attacked? (Score:2)
MACs are more secure, Apple's trying to fix that (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, just about everyone to some degree or another commits the sin of trusting untrustable files. Even the darling of the security set, Firefox, has an installation mechanism that involves executing files directly from the Internet without a user's explicit request.
Apple has "Open safe files after downloading" compounded by the unforgivable sin of treating things like archivers or installers as "safe" files.
I've written about this before [scarydevil.com].
On a security level, this is like shaking hands after sneezing, compared to Microsoft's fascination with running barefoot through a "Hot Ward" and snogging the Ebola patients, but it's still unacceptable.