Slashdot Log In
Apple Mac OS X Update For 17 Vulnerabilities
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat May 26, 2007 08:26 PM
from the enjoy-a-less-wormy-apple dept.
from the enjoy-a-less-wormy-apple dept.
BSDetector writes "Apple has released fixes for 17 OSX vulnerabilities, ranging from system takeover to denial-of-service attacks. It was the fifth security update released this year. It also marked the first time this year that an operating system security update from Apple did not patch a vulnerability disclosed by the January Month of Apple Bugs project. Today's update pushed Apple's year-to-date patch total to over 100. More than one of the affected flaws were called 'critical' or 'dangerous'."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
It's not only about the vulnerabilities... (Score:4, Informative)
From what I've seen, Apple has been quite responsible with fixing found vulnerabilities: turn around times, etc. More-so than that other guy. So, I can't really complain.
Re:It's not only about the vulnerabilities... (Score:5, Informative)
Apple's time to patch was about twice as long as Microsoft's in 2006. From the looks of things, they may be working hard on improving that.
Apple has historically been terribly irresponsible with found vulnerabilities. This article says this is the first exploit fixed that hasn't been logged on the MOAB project.
Read up the MOAB. The MOAB project was started by security researchers who decided to release their findings publicly (and not contact Apple beforehand giving them time to fix the vulnerability before it becomes publicly known) because they got mad when Apple outright denied some existing vulnerabilities they found.
You are incorrect. Apple has a terrible track record when it comes to handling vulnerabilities when compared to the other guy. It looks like they are making progress.
Parent
Re:It's not only about the vulnerabilities... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:It's not only about the vulnerabilities... (Score:5, Insightful)
There may be some legitimacy to the complaints that Apple was unresponsive, but I agree, to bring in flaws in third party products to the mix is beyond irresponsible.
Parent
Microsoft: 10 years, Apple: 3 years. (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft's coming up on 10 years for an unpatched vulnerability this year. One that's been exploited over and over again, and is still there.
Apple's comparable vulnerability is much less dangerous, AND you can turn it off, AND it only surfaces in one program. Much lower surface area, much harder to exploit.
I'm talking, of course, about deliberate automatic code executio
Re:Microsoft: 10 years, Apple: 3 years. (Score:5, Informative)
Well, they started out caling it "Active Desktop". It's had other names, but that's where it started.
The vulnerability is that when you combine ActiveX with the API that applications use to call the HTML control the resulting design is fundamentally impossible even in principle to secure. The problem is that the HTML control is given the responsibility for deciding whether an object its called on to display should be trusted or not, but there the HTML control does not have enough information to make that determination. It's arguable whether the application calling it does, but in every exploit I'm aware of that has made use of this vulnerability to infect the computer giving the application responsibility for that decision would have prevented it.
The changes required to the API could be:
(1) Making the control would call back to the application to follow links, access embedded objects, and so on.
(2) Making the control by itself purely a display mechanism, and requiring explicit installation of extensions by the application.
(3) Making the sandbox the control uses "hard", and requiring the user or the application to explicitly install plugins based on roles, and making the application explicitly specify the role that the instance of the control takes.
In addition, in all cases:
(4) Make the inheritence of the environment absolute. If you follow a link from an application then the target of the link MUST be displayed under the control of the same application. That application can display it by running a more restricted helper application if appropriate (so Windows Explorer could call Internet Explorer) but that decision MUST be made by the application, not the HTML control.
Except in VERY limited circumstances (such as the default "open safe files after downloading" option in Safari, which CAN BE TURNED OFF) every other browser or mail software follows some variant of these rules (for example, the KHTML/Webkit "IO slaves" follow rule 2). The idea that a program failing to implement one of these rules would be treated as anything less than a critical bug to be fixed as soon as it was discovered was literally a bad joke before 1997. I mean, there were jokes going around about it, because everyone knew nobody would be so stupid as to implement something like Active Desktop.
Parent
Re:It's not only about the vulnerabilities... (Score:5, Informative)
You misunderstand. This is the first update that doesn't patch anything listed by MOAB. That doesn't mean that everything patched before was. MOAB only listed 31 bugs, whereas dozens of potential vulnerabilities have been patched by Apple in that time.
The MOAB project was started by security researchers who decided to release their findings publicly because they got mad when Apple outright denied some existing vulnerabilities they found.
That doesn't explain why they chose to give the same treatment to VLC [info-pull.com], OmniGroup [info-pull.com], and Panic [info-pull.com].
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're purposely sending people to a rigged website...? Does this mean you're in on the trap or just that you're clueless about what really lies behind MOAB?
Re:It's not only about the vulnerabilities... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:It's not only about the vulnerabilities... (Score:4, Insightful)
Mac users do not run as root, and in fact root user access is not enabled by default. Just that by itself is much more important than randomized memory paths and UAC prompts and even firewalls.
Microsoft has people doing office work running as root because their poorly managed third-party software platform has not yet adapted to a networked user model.
Apple is also way ahead of Microsoft on quality, design, execution, product management. It is a more tightly built boat.
Parent
This could just as well have a different title (Score:4, Insightful)
Since exploits of machines are meaningless if they are not used by at least a nominal portion of the userbase. Unless said machines run very interesting services (like, say, a DNS root server), machines are only interesting in numbers for a potential attacker.
So, as a Mac user I'd see this as a sign of my computer gaining ground in the market.
Re:This could just as well have a different title (Score:4, Insightful)
The installed base of Macs is estimated to be between 10% and 15% of the market. That value follows from the sales numbers established in market share, amortized across the 5-7 year functional lifespan of the average Mac.
"One machine in ten" seems like a reasonably attractive size for a target.
Besides, you're forgetting the automated nature of malware. You don't create a botnet by hand, one machine at a time. You pump out a massive number of potential attacks and glean the ones that succeed. And having a botnet means having a massively distributed system whose resources can be devoted to making itself even bigger.
It doesn't even take an infected Mac to compromise another Mac. The attack is just a package of data, so it would be trivially easy to dedicate a Windows botnet to locating and infecting Macs if someone really wanted to.
The reason malware developers target the Windows platform is that it's so much easier to find a Windows machine with an exploitable hole and take it over. Windows up through XP carries a ton of historical baggage that assumes the existence of an isolated, single-user system: All processes are launched by a user with absolute privilege. Half the processes on any given machine are running at the highest possible level of privilege, and they accept data from sources with lower levels of privilege. The directory that contains system binaries is writable by pretty much anyone, there's no index to say where any given binary came from, and it's standard practice to add or overwrite files in that directory. The absolute-privilege daemons are controlled by the Registry, which again is writeable by almost anyone, and whose format is obscure enough that it's difficult to find tampering even if you know something is wrong with the machine.
Those were all convenient and effective solutions in the days when 99.9% of the data coming into a machine came from the person at the keyboard. But they don't fare so well against a hostile internet.
OS X doesn't have that baggage. It inherited unix's experience dealing with multi-user systems in an untrusted network environment. Yes, there are weak spots, but the attack surface is much smaller than that of Windows.
The people who collect botnets don't care about market share. They care about exploitability, especially exploitability which can be automated. Windows machines offer an easy target in that respect. Macs and unix-alike systems require more work. And there's no reason for them to do the extra work when Windows machines are both so easy to find and so easy to take over.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This would indeed be true if the act of writing malware was a quest that earned a +5 Amulet Of Knowing Real User Numbers which gives them magical abilities that people who don't write malware lack. If however we reluctantly accept the fact that malware writers don't have such wondrous artefacts, then we must also accept that Windows' market dominance and its total dominance of the malware sector are merely a
Multiple Mac users (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, they can. You see, Mac users do not all speak with a single Borgified voice. There are some Mac users that believe the scarcity of exploits is due to the better design of a Unix base. And there are actually other Mac users that believe the smaller market share makes Macs a less attractive target. Amazingly, there might even be Mac users who change their beliefs according to argument and observation. What chaos!
Parent
Necessary? (Score:3, Insightful)
Too bad the update sucks! (Score:3, Interesting)
-David
Sorry... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, bring that myth of "smaller user base means less of a target" one more time. I could use another good laugh.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I feel robbed (Score:5, Funny)
Becuase the patches are all released on the first(?) Tuesday of every month.
Why doesn't Slashdot tell me when Thanksgiving is?
Parent
5 patches in 5 months (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:5 patches in 5 months (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I feel robbed (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, Slashdot never makes post like this about Microsoft. Certainly this article from two weeks ago [slashdot.org] has nothing to do with notable Windows security patches.
Parent
Re:I feel robbed (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Thats unpossible!! (Score:4, Funny)
No, most of us just want another overpriced peripheral for our iPods.
Just a hunch, but I'll bet most of your troll mods come from your sig.
Parent
Your confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Macs have no EXPLOITS (yet).
This lack of exploits, and thus they need to spend tme preventing/dealing with them, is the selling point for Macs.
You Windows people have been ever confused on the fine distinction, I guess because on Windows if there's a vulnerability there's an exploit already written and working. Us Linux and Mac users know life can be better.
Parent
Re:Your confusion (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Any of the above (Score:5, Informative)
There have been no exploits in any of those categories in the wild. Heck, some of the proof of concept exploits don't even generally work (like the Quicktime exploit, that required I RUN AN EXPLOIT GENERATOR locally and run the generated QT file - still didn't work on any of my Macs!)
Parent
Yes... (Score:3, Interesting)
Linux and Macs are nice to develop for for the same reasons - the tools are great. In fact for most of my Mac programming I still use Emacs. But XCode does have a lot of things going for it, and I've been using it more and more...
I guess my main point is, if you like development for Linux I don't see why you wouldn't like Mac development since you c
Re: (Score:3)
So what (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, and when they do - then I'll be just as poorly off as Windows users are today! So until that day, why not be better off?
Only I won't be doing as poorly as Windows users, because it will take a long time for Mac or Linux exploits to catch up to Windows exploits numerically.
Sometimes. Not always. See last month's patches. None were 0-day.
That you know of...
Parent
Re:Your confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure it'll happen eventually, but it's curious that there are no viruses on the loose that target OS X
Mac users don't account for a huge percentage of total users, but it's a large enough group -- and we're usually high-tech enough for it to be highly profitable for spammers/crackers/whatever to work for an exploit - we don't run anti-viruses, and I'm sure most non-developer mac users wouldn't even know how to find the process list, let alone figure out what's not supposed to be running.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Comeback to whom?
"Hey, you there! Yes, you--the small market share that makes up Apple users."
If Microsoft were to say anything about this, it would merely acknowledge, and therefore (ironically) reinforce Apple's (well OSX's) image of being resistant to viruses. Perhaps more importantly, it would also reinforce MS's image of Windows being prone to viruses.
- RG>
Re:Developers! (Score:4, Funny)
There is a subtle difference.
Parent
Re:Not a big deal (Score:4, Insightful)
Backend - Again, you are wrong - BSD is as best as it can get when you are talking about backends. And if it wasn't for Steve Jobs Apple would not have had OS X at all - It is based on NEXTSTEP ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEXTSTEP [wikipedia.org] ) and without it they would have either had to live with something not up to the mark or license WindowsNT. And most people buy macs for OS X and some for the hardware quality.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Could you please explain what that means?
Re:Not a big deal (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Not a big deal (Score:5, Informative)
Are you using Cocoa, Carbon, Java, BSD/POSIX APIs, X Server ?
Are you using X-Code, eclipse, something else ?
I routinely develop software for a variety of Unix systems, and I find Mac OS X just as comfortable and any other Unix. I can't think of many developer tools for Linux that is not also available for Mac OS X (Maybe the IBM/Rational Tools Suite ?). Some of the Mac OS X tools like Interface Builder, Shark, CHUD, and OpenGL Profiler are best of breed.
Parent
USB Breathalyzer (Score:5, Funny)
A. logging in as root
B. sending email
C. posting to slashdot
if my blood alcohol level is higher than 0.15%.
Parent
Re:open the gates (Score:4, Insightful)
Regardless of where it originates from, isn't any program that allows an unprivledged user to execute code beyond that users privledge a serious issue? Why would it have higher privledges because an e-mail client downloaded it?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The reboot was not appreciated... (Score:5, Informative)
By default, this is how it works:
* ASU puts up dialog showing list of installable updates; they're checked by default. Ones with restart required are marked.
* User unchecks items they don't want, presses "Install" or hits Return.
* ASU downloads and installs software. At end, flashes its own icon in the Dock as notification.
* User returns to ASU; if an update requiring restart has been installed, a modal dialog is displayed saying "The new software requires that you restart your computer..." with options "Shut Down" and "Restart." Default is 'Restart,' if user presses Return. (However, the dialog is modal only within the ASU application, you can still switch away from ASU and use the computer normally, and after clicking on it once, ASU no longer bounces in the Dock.)
* If Restart is pressed, the computer will begin the reboot process. I *think* that the process will stop if you have an application open with an unsaved document, but I haven't tested this recently.
Unfortunately, I think users are sometimes conditioned to quickly clicking the default option in any dialog they're presented with, that they sometimes don't realize until 1/4 sec after they hit it, that they just rebooted their computer.
As an aside: it's possible to avoid the reboot either by just leaving ASU in the background indefinitely (pressing Cmd-H 'hides' it so that it doesn't clutter up the UI) or by Force Quitting it, although I doubt that's recommended.
Parent
Re:The reboot was not appreciated... (Score:4, Informative)
Nope, the ASU dialog is non-modal, just like all other dialogs in OS-X. Modal means the user can do no more work on the computer until they respond. Non-Modal means the user can hide the dialog or application or switch focus and continue working. Dialogs can be modal to their application, but this is strongly discouraged as a design philosophy as well.
Yes, I am a veteran of the Modal Wars. The war is mostly over and we non-modalists and computer users everywhere won. It was a major, well understood design decision from the original OS-X architects that nothing could ever be modal in OS-X. Users who switch away from using OS-X to a system that still permits modal dialogs often comment about how jarring it is to have a modal dialog they don't understand, and being forced to make an uninformed decision before being allowed to continue working or unable even to save their work. It is a subtle but very powerful distinction about who is in control of a session, the user or the OS. Modality is just a power trip for those who hate the idea that a person sitting in front of a machine might actually know what they are doing.
the AC
Parent
Re:The reboot was not appreciated... (Score:5, Funny)
What really happened was she was presented with a dialog that clearly showed the machine would need to be rebooted if she proceeded and she then clicked the "Install Items" button. Then she was asked to authenticate as an admin user, then she was give a dialog asking for permission to reboot, which she could have ignored until a better time but didn't.
However, under no circumstances tell her this. She is your wife and this automatically makes the reboot YOUR fault. So just apologize to her and go buy flowers, you insensitive clod.
Namgge
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I prefer it to the Windows 'feature' that automatically shuts down your PC whether you want it to or not, even if you tell it you're going to restart later.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)