Apple Issues Patches For 25 Security Holes

TheCybernator writes "Apple today released software updates to plug more than two dozen security holes in its Mac OS X operating system and other software. The free patches are available via the Mac's built-in Software Update feature or directly from Apple's Web site. All told, today's batch fixes some 25 distinct security vulnerabilities, including a dangerous flaw present in the AirPort wireless devices built into a number of Apple computers, including the eMac, the iBook, iMac, Powerbook G3 and G4, and the Power Mac G4. Apple said computers with its AirPort Extreme wireless cards are not affected. Earlier this month, Apple released a software update to fix a vulnerability in its wireless router, the AirPort Extreme Base Station. That update and instructions on how to apply it are available at the link."

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Why

[Mockylock]

Why isn't this listed under "HaHa" as well? Not trolling, as much as wondering what the reasoning of that was for. Bias?

Re:Quick summary to avoid reading TFA

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

The remote attacks seem to be coming out of the Kerebros admin daemon distributed by MIT 3 holes.

That's the beauty of Open Source (from Apple's POV).

When things go well: Hey - look at us! We 'support' OSS by leveraging all that free software.
When things go bad: Oh well - it's MIT's software! Not ours...

Seriously - I for one am really glad that one closed O/S vendorout there lets OSS do the heavy lifting security wise on their products. Apple users are left in a far less leaky boat. Thanks MIT, Thanks FOSS, Thanks Apple!

Re:MS flaws = bad, Apple flaws = good...?

[Mockylock]

Yeha, that's usually how it happens. Microsoft has holes because the OS supposedly stinks, all other OS's Just patch holes to make their OS even better.

Basically saying, "I'm not screwing the sheep. I'm Merely helping it through the fence."

Re:Why

[aicrules]

I think because no one really believes that Apple software is completely bulletproof. No software is completely bulletproof. I'm sure someone could find an exploit even for a Hello World program. Windows gets the majority of the "bad press" from flaws because it has a gigantic market share compared to Apple, so the security holes and related patches affect many more people.

Yes, some Windows folks will see this as a "haha" nelson moment. However, it isn't a haha moment until the headline reads that someone found 25 Apple exploits and released a huge virus to exploit them. And while I am firmly planted in my Windows environment, I will not be interested in laughing at my Apple compadres when or if that happens.

Re:but ...

[tji]

No, there are no OS's without security issues. Even OpenBSD has had a few. Since Mac OS X uses many open standards / open source components, they benefit from the wide deployment, review, and testing that turns up bugs in that code and generates fixes. In closed OS's, the holes are still there, they just cannot be easily analyzed, so it's mostly the highly motivated "black hat" types that discover them and use them for their devious purposes.

The Mac ads clearly referred to all the viruses, worms, spyware, etc. Which are VERY common on Windows PCs, and for whatever reason, are very uncommon on Macs. (I don't really care why they are not prevalent on Macs, I just care that my MacBook Pro is free of exploits, as are my Linux servers.)

Patched bugs are a good thing. Bugs are practically unavoidable. Unpatched bugs, as evidenced by rampant exploits, are the real problem.

Not news...

[IwarkChocobos]

Don't ALL operating systems have holes? I think the only thing different here is that Apple waited until there were a lot found and fixed to release the patch. MS and Apple release patches differently; MS releases them as soon as they can, one at a time usually, while Apple chooses to wait until there are a lot of patches to release it. Not really the best idea, but not the worst for both companies. Not news.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:I'll tell you what's news:

[frdmfghtr]

If you are in charge of a business's IT department, do you want to go through and thoroughly test new patches every few days, or do one test covering multiple patches? Didn't feedback from big IT shops compel MS to release patches in bigger batches with less frequency (hence the introduction of "Patch Tuesday")?

I don't do IT, so maybe releasing 25 fixes at once can require 25 separate test cycles. Anybody care to enlighten me?

Re:Cue Apologists

[thejynxed]

Not to be to flameable here, but who says they aren't part of botnets? The various Unix flavours and derivatives are the reason why we know what a rootkit is.

As my CS professor said once, "With Windows, you know it's broken right up front, and that you have to take certain steps right away to fix it. such as slap an AV program on. With the various Unix-based OSes, you have to go over every little detail with a fine-toothed comb, putz around in the code, recompile, and all of that other hassle because they put the Root into Rootkit."

If you ask me, the only botnet secure OS is the one not sitting with an allowed/established connection to the internet to begin with. If it's human-created code, it's vulnerable, period.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:I'll tell you what's news:

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

They rolled out these patches all at once. But the patches were almost certainly not done all at the same time. That's right, Apple has deliberately left you (and me! although I only have one mac to deal with and it's not my primary machine) vulnerable so that they could roll out a bunch of patches at the same time instead of one at a time.

Sigh. Have you ever worked in the software development industry. There is this thing called "testing" that some people find important. If you work on Kereberos and find a bug and patch it, you then test just it before distributing. If you work at Apple or Redhat where you are shipping an entire OS with a bunch of packages, it is impossible to patch and test those patches in conjunction with all other hardware in the same timeframe because you have multiple things to patch at once. Thus, the only real solution s to do it in bundles, where you stick a group of patches together then QA them all at once. This results in longer delays for some fixes, but it also means the patch is actually tested in conjunction with the other patches so one does not break another. Any responsible vendor uses this method for dealing with bugs.

Once again, the methodology commonly used by Linux distributions in which patches are rolled out as soon as they are ready provides greater security than Microsoft or Apple (who do the very same thing.)

Individual developers roll out patches and you could have patched your OS X box from them if you felt it was an emergency for you. As for what Linux vendors do, I don't know of any who roll one-off fixes into the stable branch intended for real use, instead of testing patches in bundles. You don't seem to know what you're talking about.

Re:Quick summary to avoid reading TFA

[ClosedSource]

Well, some FOSS supporters on Slashdot are known to equivocate about what "Linux" consists of. When trying to compare functionality with other OS's they consider the entire distro, when comparing stability or security the definition shrinks down to only the kernel.

Re:I'd like to propose a tag

[drsmithy]

It means that the designer specifically designed the device to not do something that is normally expected or wanted, or has been designed in such a way as to annoy the user constantly. In other words, they had to work harder to make sure the device did not work. Typical MS things that are defective by design are DRM, Clippy, and that new security thing in Vista that is so annoying.

Ah. So you mean like a media player that can't display full screen videos ?

(It would be interesting to see what you thinkg DR, Clippy and UAC are stopping you doing that is "normally expected", as well.)

Re:Cue Apologists

[nevali]

Yeah, 'cos patched local privilege escalation vulnerabilities that nobody has bothered to exploit is exactly the same as unpatched remote code-execution vulnerabilities affecting a default installation for which exploits are widely circulated in the wild for nefarious purposes.

If you think the two are the same, it's no wonder you think they're all fanboys.

Re:Quick summary to avoid reading TFA

[Bat Country]

How is it FUD to call a dangerous flaw dangerous?

I administer a network of 50 systems and the only thing protecting those machines is that I don't allow users to execute downloaded software.

Any program which issued those malformed instructions while claiming to allow the users to punch the monkey or something could install the first OS X backdoor worms, installing them with root privileges then effectively hiding themselves.

This flaw allows exactly the same attack as the P2P "hot_teen_action.mpg.exe" trojan scams on OS X - which is supposed to be secure against that kind of attack because it requires an administrator password to obtain higher than user-level access to the machine.

Telling users that this is serious and dangerous is certainly not spreading FUD, it's just getting them to stop ignoring the Jack Russel Terrier update icon.

Re:Why is this news?

[Scudsucker]

Did you really mean to say that Apple releases patches more often than Microsoft? Because that is just plain wrong.

Because Microsoft has a lot more to patch.