Microsoft Brings Security Holes to the Mac 76
eMilkshake writes "There is an MS security bulletin that reads, in part, 'A security vulnerability exists ... because of the method by which Virtual PC for Mac creates a temporary file when you run Virtual PC for Mac. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by inserting malicious code into the file which could cause the code to be run with system privileges. This could give the attacker complete control over the system.' Guess VirtualPC really brings the Windows experience to the Mac!" An update is available from the Microsoft site.
On the flip side: sking writes "Australian IT reports on Microsoft's continuing development for the Mac: 'I just want to thank Apple for providing all those great innovative technologies that let us do what we love best: creating great applications,' gushed head of Microsoft's Macintosh Business Unit Roz Ho."
Unit Roz Ho? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Unit Roz Ho? (Score:2, Informative)
(Yeah, I wish I could blame these bugs on M$, too... but it's not really fair in this case.)
Re:Unit Roz Ho? (Score:2)
I don't agree.
Once a company takes ownership and responsibility for another product, they are responsible for the auditing of that product.
With the untold amounts of MS money, surely they can audit the product. I seem to remember they were trying to improve it's OSX compatibility or something like that, so I think they have done a little more than just a cosmetic brand and version change.
Re:Unit Roz Ho? (Score:1)
Re:Let me be the first of many to say (Score:2)
Only a matter of time (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Only a matter of time (Score:5, Funny)
Why?
Ohhhh, Microsoft products. Right, gotcha.
Re:Only a matter of time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Only a matter of time (Score:2)
seriously - why is that any kind of an issue for me (Mac owner)?
The far more liekly scenario is that they'll get it 100X more from other windows users... getting it once for me doesn't change the fact that their system is the one that's insecure.
If it was secure, then it wouldn't matter to them, just as it doesn't matter to me.
Re:Only a matter of time (Score:5, Insightful)
Additionally, it might be easier to make the case for getting a Mac into a Windows office if you can point at the existence of current Anti-Virus software... at it makes the suits less nervous.
Re:Only a matter of time (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Only a matter of time (Score:2)
Re:Only a matter of time (Score:3, Interesting)
Mac virus checker? (Score:2, Interesting)
virus checker apple macintosh
produced a few results. The first one of any meaning was a mention of Norton Anti Virus for Apple Macintosh.
I'm pretty sure there has not even been such a product for quite some time. They call their products Symantec now.
Re:Mac virus checker? (Score:5, Informative)
Looking at the virus definitions, it looks like most of the signatures are for Windows viruses. There are the old Mac and HyperCard viruses that it keeps a look out for as well.
OT, but.... (Score:1)
Its about time (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Its about time (Score:2)
It really is about time (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It really is about time (Score:1)
"Where do you want to go today?" Umm... how about Linux.
Re:Obligatory Simpsons Quote (Score:1, Interesting)
And that was not one of those times, agreed.
However, you do deserve to get modded down three times as "Offtopic" for posting a whine about moderation while using you +1 bonus.
Whoever picked that title is a horse's ass. (Score:5, Insightful)
So, someone found the hole. Microsoft released the patch information to every person subscribed to their security lists. That's a lot of weenies. For all we know, if VPC hadn't become an MS product, the vulnerability would still be there, and *no* *one* would have heard about it, including the developers.
Re:Whoever picked that title is a horse's ass. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Whoever picked that title is a horse's ass. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Whoever picked that title is a horse's ass. (Score:1, Offtopic)
Troc
PS Check user number
Re:Whoever picked that title is a horse's ass. (Score:1)
Re:Whoever picked that title is a horse's ass. (Score:2)
Re:Whoever picked that title is a horse's ass. (Score:3, Funny)
-1, Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Connectix released versions 6.0, 6.0.1 and 6.0.2, and I believe the first MS release was 6.1. Yesterday's MS patches are from 6.0 forward.
Re:Whoever picked that title is a horse's ass. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Whoever picked that title is a horse's ass. (Score:1)
Re:Whoever picked that title is a horse's ass. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Whoever picked that title is a horse's ass. (Score:4, Informative)
I've been using it to hack on Access (ick!) at home, and after upgrading to 6.0.1 and then disabling all of XP's eye candy, it's surprisingly responsive on my lowly 533mhz G4. Using Codetek's software to give it it's own desktop and an extra key on my snazzy Logitech keyboard to trigger said desktop, it's like having a 300mhz PC on a KVM switch.
Oh, how I wish that were a problem.
Re:Whoever picked that title is a horse's ass. (Score:3, Interesting)
Risks from Autolauching Emulators (Score:5, Interesting)
VPC Vunerabilities Aren't New (Score:5, Informative)
Because of this, folks, VPC has always been subceptible to malware attacks, particularly in Windows. If you can infect a real PC running Windows, then VPC running the same OS configurution is just as vunerable. Running Linux? Yep, you can get rooted if you don't configure it as you would any other box.
This new security update isn't very special in itself--it's perhaps that MS detected the vunerability better because it has access to the VPC source since they own the product now. A good question is whether the vunerability is in the virtual machine code or something that makes VPC more vunerable only in an environment running Windows.
The good news is that infections will only compromise the PC environment(s) in use. The Mac that is running VPC cannot be touched as it is effectively an invisible party to the VPC environments, nor can the Mac be used as a carrier as you can with some e-mail worms.
Not to say that someone might not try to exploit VPC's ability to use USB devices or its networking processes it shares with a Mac, or options such as shared folders (where a Mac folder is shared to Windows as if it were a networked folder).
Re:VPC Vunerabilities Aren't New (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you sure? The alert seems to imply that it can gain root access to the underlying system, not just the VPC environment.
Re:VPC Vunerabilities Aren't New (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:VPC Vunerabilities Aren't New (Score:3, Interesting)
I think MS wants to be overreactive to the possibilities, rather than underestimate the potential, low as they may be.
Re:VPC Vunerabilities Aren't New (Score:5, Informative)
Re:VPC Vunerabilities Aren't New (Score:4, Interesting)
Although its a file permission issue and most users run vpc on standalone systems. It does allow priv escalation to root. I think the biggest danger would be in a lab environment where VPC has been installed...
Re:VPC Vunerabilities Aren't New (Score:1)
I fail to see... (Score:3, Informative)
AFAIK, (and IIRC) the first release of VPC from MS contained a spash screen change and made all previous disk images obsolete. You have to convert them to the 'new' MS style, and then they are unreadable by previous versions.
It has been awhile, but I think that was one of the reasons I stopped upgrading. If MS 'fixes' the BeOS keyboard issue (any keypress freezes the machine), I may reconsider, but beyond that - why should I encourage MS's poor behavior in business and coding?
VPC under MS is supposed to be faster (21%), but whatever. I don't think the connectix version had this issue. That said, this security issue looks to be rather difficult to implement..so maybe this is a non-issue and FUD.
Re:BeOS keyboard issue (Score:1)
How?! Please, send a link or something, as I give up on this some day ago...
Thanks in advance.
Re:If the OS was secure, (Score:5, Informative)
What we mean by "insecurity" here is being able to run code as a particular user _without_ having to know that user's info i.e. stack trashing, buffer overruns, or taking advantage of an error in another program (i.e. VPC) to do your nasty stuff.
Another case in point -- running a dictionary attack against a host to find out names / passwords does not mean the OS the host is running is insecure, even if the attack succeeds. It means the _host_ is not secure. If I use standard dictionary words for username and password of my root (or any other) account on my Linux box, and someone does a dictionary attack and finds them out, it's not Linux's fault -- it's mine.
Regards,
John
Balmer: EmulationEmulationEmulationEmulation!! (Score:5, Funny)
Users emulate customer satisfaction - give emulated kudos to emulated customer-centric software company.
Re:Balmer: EmulationEmulationEmulationEmulation!! (Score:3, Funny)
Something I had wondered about (Score:2)
Then it really is true... (Score:2)
VPC vs. Terminal Server (Score:4, Informative)
1. Manage the SQL Servers we use
2. Manage the IIS Servers.
There are ODBC drivers for OSX but they cost a bundle, and there is nothing available to manage IIS from OSX. That leaves me four choices:
1. Tie up one of our scarce PCs (all our workstations are mac, windows is only used on a couple servers) just to manage IIS and SQL Server. That means spending precious time just keeping the machine patched just to do these two things. Plus it would take desk space (and my mac is a Powerbook, so I am used to have a relatively clean desk).
2. Walk to the windows servers any time I need to do something. Totally unpractical.
3. Use Terminal Server, since Microsoft provides a free Remote Desktop client. This works perfectly but it does not allow me to drag and drop between the terminal server session and my desktop.
4. Use VPC with 2000 Pro or XP Pro. This means I still have to spend a lot of time keeping windows patched properly, and it takes a lot more CPU power than a terminal services session. The only advantage here is I would get drag and drop.
I tried the VPC route for a while. On a Titanium Powerbook 867 it pretty bearable on Windows 2000 if I reserve 256MB ram for it. On XP Pro it is pretty much unusable unless I give it 384MB or more, which is not acceptable since that gives me 768MB ram for everything else.
Terminal Server is my only choice now, so instead of drag and drop I am stuck using samba shares, which would only work inside of the firewall and whenever I need to work away from the office I have to use ftp. Clumsy but gets the job done. If I was able to use drag and drop with Terminal Server it would totally rock. Patching the TS itself is not an issue since it is already being done, it would not mean extra work for me.
I kept VPC for a while rationalizing that I would not always have TS available, but then I realized that was just stupid since the server I would be managing *had* to be online and it is always setup in admin mode (with admin mode you cannot use it as an applications server, so TS is only used to manage the box).
As it is right now I have no interest in moving along with VPC, and all my peers that have faced the same dilemma agree.
Re:VPC vs. Terminal Server (Score:1)
What about running something like Timbuktu (Mac and Windows clients available) or some flavor of VNC? TB2 (usally) has drag-and-drop between host and client, though it seems to be a bit flaky in the recent versions.
Re:VPC vs. Terminal Server (Score:2)
BTW, I forgot to mention something really weird that the remote desktop client has been doing, and as far as I can tell it only happens with Panther, not with Jaguar:
Sometimes when I am copying text between the remote desktop client (connecting to Windows 2000 Server) and Panther it crashes both the remote desktop client and whatever OS X application I was copying from/to. It has happened
Re:VPC vs. Terminal Server (Score:1)
You must be kidding me....
been using it for years. It is one of the best and most well written applications for the Mac, always embraces great technology, and easy to learn and use. If you have not checked it out, you owe yourself to.
--
"Why of course, the people don't want war. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders...All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exp
Re:VPC vs. Terminal Server (Score:2)
The main problem with people that, like me, are switching hats all the time is that anything that takes more than 5 minutes to figure out goes into the mythical "training to-do" list. That is of course the list of all the crap you want to look into whenever you have some breathing room from the hat-switching.
The other reason it is so easy to just take a look at Timbuk2 and push it
Re:VPC vs. Terminal Server (Score:1)
Re:VPC vs. Terminal Server (Score:2)
This is your friend [macosguru.com]
Works pretty nicely. I've stopped doing ASP/SQL server stuff now, but when I did... it was good.
It's coming.... (Score:2)