Safari/MacBook First To Fall At Pwn2Own 2011 492
recoiledsnake writes "A team of security researchers from the French pen-testing firm VUPEN successfully exploited a zero-day flaw in Apple's Safari browser to win this year's Pwn2Own hacker challenge. The hijacked machine was running a fully patched version of Mac OS X (64-bit). Bekrar's winning exploit did not even crash the browser after exploitation. Within five seconds of surfing to the rigged site, he successfully launched the calculator app and wrote a file on the disk without crashing the browser. Apple has just released Safari 5.0.4 and iOS 4.3 a few minutes before the Pwn2Own contest in an attempt to save face (a last minute patch for Chrome was also released) but failed."
Simple (Score:2, Insightful)
It's called "Pwn2Own": the hackers win the machines they hack.
Everyone wants Macs. They hack them first. The other computers come down minutes later.
Re:Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is the important point. It doesn't matter that the Mac failed first, it matters that it failed at all. The order isn't important - all of the exploits took a small amount of time, and all were done just by making the machine visit a malicious site. Which one was tried first is not the important bit.
The most embarrassing thing for Apple is that OS X has included a mechanism for applying fine-grained sandboxes to applications since 10.5 which Safari doesn't use. It would only be a couple of weeks worth of work for an engineer to create a sandbox policy, test it, and ship it with Safari. For some reason, Apple has decided not to invest this effort.
Re:Simple (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly. It might have been far more interesting if we'd had a summary that at least made an effort to tell the whole story, [zdnet.com] rather than just the one-sided flamebait we got...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It would only be a couple of weeks worth of work for an engineer to create a sandbox policy, test it, and ship it with Safari.
Are you a program manager, by chance?
Re:Simple (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, exactly like buying Windows Vista Extreme Ultimate Hyper Edition every so often.
If you have an Intel Mac (which you need for 10.6 and 10.7), then you have owned since *at most* January 2006. In that time you could have had 10.4 (released April 05), 10.5 (released October 07), 10.6 (released August 2009).
The first one came with the Mac, so if you started on 10.4 you needed to buy 10.5 and 10.6 - so that's $129 for 10.5 and $29 for 10.6. $158 over 4 years is not too bad I think.
If your Intel Mac came with 10.5 you've only had the option to upgrade once - for $29.
But yes, I'm sure it's a grand conspiracy to force you to spend "another" $100 (when the price of Lion has yet to be confirmed).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>>>OS X 10.6 was only $30
That was a sale price. The previous 10.x releases (and future release) cost $130 plus $10 shipping. It really was like buying a whole new Windows OS every 1-2 years.
Which is fine if you have the money to spend.
I don't.
Re:Simple (Score:4, Interesting)
>>>OS X 10.6 was only $30
That was a sale price. The previous 10.x releases (and future release) cost $130 plus $10 shipping. It really was like buying a whole new Windows OS every 1-2 years.
Which is fine if you have the money to spend.
I don't.
I know people who spend more than $500 on their gaming rig at way lower intervals than 10 years. The average person will spend more than $500 on cellphones over 10 years. Never mind the premium in fuel bills alone that people pay for an SUV or even a BMW or a slightly souped-up hatchback. I can afford to upgrade OS X every two years and IMHO I get my money's worth.
Re: (Score:3)
OS X10.0 came out in 2001 and cost $129.
OS X 10.1 came out in 2001 and cost $129 unless you already owned 10.0.
OS X 10.2 came out in 2002 and cost $129.
OS X 10.3 came out in 2003 and cost $129.
OS X 10.4 came out in 2005 and cost $129.
OS X 10.5 came out in 2007 and cost $129. It was the last to support PPC systems.
OS X 10.6 came out in 2009 and cost $29 because you wouldn't have a machine to run it if you didn't already ha
Re: (Score:3)
And neither of them were remotely ready to public consumption. Heck, 10.0 barely was (as tacitly admitted by the free 10.1 upgrade).
Yes. Just like I said.
Well, it's basically imp
Re: (Score:3)
Rhapsody was a developer beta. Kodiak was a public beta. 10.0 wasn't much better than Kodiak.
No they didn't. Early versions of OS X were shunned due its atrocious performance and (to many) inferior - albeit pretty - UI. Heck, Apple themselves didn't even use OS X as the default option on their systems until the beginning of 2002, and the first version of OS X that wasn't borderline-unusabl
Re:Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
It may well be that other computers fall thereafter and I expect in those cases they fall from people who similarly have knowledge of those respective systems.
So basically it sounds like you're making excuses.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you read the ZDNet summary, you'd notice that the same group had an equivalent working exploit for Win7/IE8, but they chose to concentrate on hacking the Mac first. It's a sensible move since the Mac has roughly double the resale value and makes a better test machine since it can run OS X, Windows, Linux or almost anything else.
So claiming that "OS X is the first to be hacked" is very disingenuous since it implies that it's the easiest to hack. In reality, all the exploits are prepared ahead of time and
Re: (Score:3)
Given that the prize was $15,000 plus the machine, I'm not sure that the value of the machine had much to do with it. However, from the Ars Technica article, it sounds like they had one machine open for hacking at a time. First the Mac, then the Windows / IE machine. Then the Chrome / Windows machine, which no one tried to attack (one person found an exploitable hole, but sold it to Google for $1,337 instead of entering it into the contest). FireFox on Windows is up tomorrow.
Note that the Pwn2Own conte
Re:Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole "which fell first" thing makes a huge assumption that simply isn't true. The assumption that all hardware/software combinations are available at the same time to all participants.
For example, whilst Safari and IE fell on day one, Firefox isn't scheduled to be available to anyone to try to hack till day two. Thus you can't say Safari is somehow less than Firefox.
Likewise you can't say that Safari is less than IE. It may well be that the person with a working exploit for Safari got a time slot to try it before the person with a working exploit for IE. After all, it's not as if they are actually finding the exploits at the competition. They're exploits they've spent weeks preparing.
Re:Simple (Score:5, Informative)
I assume these developers would need a Mac and extensive knowledge of its inner workings in order to develop and test an exploit. Therefore it make no sense to say this is just some hacker after the nicest prize.
Yeah, seeing as I already have one dollar, I certainly wouldn't want another dollar.
Re: (Score:3)
The bug they exploited was in Webkit, so I assume it also exists in Chrome too (and thus in Safari and Chrome on all platforms they run on) but I'm not sure exactly whether another vulnerability was also used in the OS X version, since it launched calculator and wrote a file to the hard drive.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a path - they'd be used to demonstrate two distinct actions. Running calc to demonstrate remote process execution, and writing the file to demonstrate sandbox escaping.
Re:Simple (Score:5, Interesting)
Lies. Several times now they've had to allow more access to the machine before Windows was hacked. One year, before they stopped including Linux, it made it through the entire competition without being hacked despite everyone's best effort.
At some point, you're going to have to accept that OS X just isn't that secure. It has a poor, inconsistent implementation of ASLR and DEP, Apple tends to be very slow at patching vulnerabilities, they don't prioritize security or safe coding practices, and it has absolutely nothing that compares to SELinux. It's 2011, being Unix doesn't magically make you secure.
Re:Simple (Score:4, Funny)
At some point, you're going to have to accept that OS X just isn't that secure. It has a poor, inconsistent implementation of ASLR and DEP, Apple tends to be very slow at patching vulnerabilities, they don't prioritize security or safe coding practices, and it has absolutely nothing that compares to SELinux.
AFAIK only Fedora really uses selinux, everyone else uses AppArmor or nothing. What's sad is that Apple doesn't even have ANY capabilities-based security, not even as good as AppArmor.
Re:Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually the reason Safari went down first was because it was the first target. Followed by IE8 which also went down. The researcher who was going to go after Chrome never showed up and Firefox is next in line...
Re:Simple (Score:5, Funny)
The researcher who was going to go after Chrome never showed up...
So... google has the best assassins?
Re:Simple (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Simple (Score:5, Informative)
Actually the reason Safari went down first was because it was the first target.
But they don't all hack the same computer at the same time. Everybody is allocated a 30 minute timeslot with the different computers and they all get attacked at the same time. At least, that is how it was described in previous years.
When Chaouki Bekrar was bringing down Safari, Stephen Fewer would have been launching his attack on IE8. IE took longer because as Fewer said "I had to chain multiple vulnerabilities to get it to work reliably." Bekrar only spoke of a single vulnerability in his comments. So the Mac was just easier to hack. Certainly all the excuses about hackers wanting the prize of a Macbook more than the others is just unfounded speculation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Mac reta... err.. users always got an excuse!
I doubt it's got much to do with everyone actually wanting a mac but rather more than people either shooting for the mac because of the fame and extra publicity or because of Apples (and their users) arrogance.
Re:Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called "Pwn2Own": the hackers win the machines they hack.
Everyone wants Macs. They hack them first. The other computers come down minutes later.
First one wins 15k$ cash. You are saying they risk this by not going after the easiest target first because they so desperately want a Mac?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe they already had Macs so they could research the exploits and they started with the Mac just to piss off those annoying "OS-X is so much more safe than Windows" apple fanboys. Someday apple fanboys will realize that their "security" really was "security through obscurity" all along, and on that day many apple fanboys will have to reformat their harddrives.
Re:Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Eh, let's see if your "logic" holds up. The winner wins $15,000 AND the machine they hack. So, what would a rational person do, hack the easiest in an attempt to win $15,000 AND a $2,000 laptop, or hack the hardest in an effort to (most likely) ONLY win the $2,000 laptop.
I am certain that a Mac fanboi would go straight for the "un-hackable" Apple iron, any rational person would go straight for the box he figured he could hack the fastest though. I think these guys are relatively rational.
Re: (Score:3)
Where's the Mandatory access control feature on the iMac? Will you help me find it for me please? I'm thinking about making the switch because NT6.1 doesn't have it.
Re:Simple (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow. Using 'straw men' in your creation of a straw man argument, my hypocrisy detector nearly blew a fuse.
Re:Simple (Score:5, Informative)
>>>Apple is it lately.
I don't have a problem with Apple.
I have a problem with the *owners* who act as if owning an "unhackable" Apple was like being married to the most beautiful wife on the planet. ("Why would anybody choose a different partner/ manufacturer???") Apple's personal computers are still..... just PCs. Just like Acuras/Lexuses are just Hondas/Toyotas.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Who cares? Besides, for the non-geek, and for the multimedia professional it's true -- there is nothing that can touch OS X and the software available for it. It's an idiot-proof, user-friendly *nix.
Yes, it's limited, dumbed-down, locked-down, and has an aggravating tendency to try to force users int
Re:Simple (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Apple is the computer of the trendy - you know, the people who snub nerds in high school? Is there anything more to be said about this?
Re:Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdotters like such princibles as open source, patent-free technologies, and the right to do as you wish with hardware you buy even without the manufacturer's approval. They hate DRM and any anti-tamper measures.
That should read "Some Slashdotters..." there certainly isn't universal agreement on those. Particularly those who make a living by developing and selling software very often won't agree with that entire list.
Re:Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course Apple has done more to eliminate DRM from Music than everyone on Slashdot combined.
Weird..
Re:Simple (Score:4, Insightful)
I happen to like my Macbook. The battery life is ridiculous, and the OS is not locked down. I can do whatever the hell I want with it, with everything that's hiding under the hood. But at the same time, I could hand this to my parents, my sister, anyone else and they'd figure out how to use it.
Apple designs products for the majority. Hobbyists, tinkerers and geeks are a small minority. It's been a great business decision if you look at their stock price. I don't get why a lot of people here just don't understand that. Being a geek doesn't excuse you from having an understanding of basic business principles, at least not if you want to engage in some sort of discussion that touches upon that. If you don't want to buy Apple products because you do not wish to pay a premium for a streamlined experience packaged in a shiny wrapper, that's fine, but please don't assert that your way is the right way. Clearly, Apple has carved out a niche in the market for the experience that they market. And I'm not even talking about the "feeling cool because of the Apple logo" experience. I'm talking about the streamlining and ease of use. I'd give this shit to my grandmother. Turns out, Ubuntu might be too complicated for her.
Re: (Score:3)
I understand why there are pursuing DRM. Code signing with a one time opt out, which is pretty close to what we have, isn't bad. That being said though if you are ideologically opposed to closed hardware or DRM there is good reason to oppose Apple. You are taking as a given what offers people the best immediate experience is "the best". Heroin would beat Apple every time in terms of user experience but no one is going argue Heroin is a product we should encourage people to take.
So I think disliking Appl
Re: (Score:2)
>>>with an OS tuned, tested, and optimized for the hardware.
While that's true, I prefer hackable hardware like the Ataris, Commodores, and Amigas I grew up with. Even Macs used to be hackable, until Steve Jobs locked them down with his NeXT OS (10.x). I like pushing things to the limit.
I also like using a standard format that is widely supported. Good luck trying to run Mentor Graphics or ModelSim or Utorrent or "2xAV" (double speed) or Final Fantasy 11/13 on a mac.
Re: (Score:3)
He must be a pretty fast typist to type up that malicious web site in a few seconds.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Simple (Score:5, Informative)
So it appears you may be the one whose smugness is unwarranted. :D
Re: (Score:2)
I just pointed out that it's neither blind nor irrational. The first dozen or so comments to this story were Apple apologists trying to spin it.
Re: (Score:2)
Statler and Waldorf, is that you?
Re: (Score:3)
Excusing Apple from being hacked is by definition (2) [google.com] an apology. Being emotional (something which is only your imaginative interpretation of my rather terse writing, btw) does not negate being rational, on the other hand. You're attacking my comments with false logic and false propositions. Good work for someone pretending to be the rational one.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh FFS, no-one "excused Apple from being hacked". Facts were presented, you don't like the facts, sucks to be you.
Re: (Score:3)
No one excused them, but the story is misleading. If any of the other hardware was more desirable, it would have fallen first. It was not harder to hack the other platforms, they were just lower in priority...
Re:Simple (Score:4, Informative)
Excuses, excuses. Your Mac is an insecure piece of shit.
That is just juvenile. The Mac is definitely not as magically secure as a lot of fans like to suggest, but it is not an "insecure piece of shit". Apple has been paying more attention to security these days, so the OS and browser will only get more secure as time goes by.
However, you are correct that the original poster was talking rubbish. Every year the Mac goes down first and every year people come up with the same excuse that the hackers target it because they want the prize more than the others. But as VUPEN's twitter post [twitter.com] shows, they were allocated to the Mac first by the organisers. They got IE second, but I guess they must have been too late as someone else got that one.
Le pwn? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
pvoir!
Never been an issue before (Score:5, Funny)
No one knows. Up until now the French have never had reason to use the word. You can't pwn someone and surrender at the same time.
Re: (Score:3)
Safari meurt, mais il ne se rend pas!
Firefox/Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
Firefox and Linux are under represented in pwn2own as usual.
I'm not complacent, just saying it's nice.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for googling that for me using the I'm feeling lucky button.
Re:Firefox/Linux (Score:4, Interesting)
Quoting from the link: "Linux is not an operating system that has widespread use with any one particular distribution, flavor or configuration," Portnoy said. "In general Linux is still a server-based operating system, people do use it on the desktop, but you can't go to BestBuy and buy Linux with a specific distro on it that everyone uses that has widespread market share"
To me this like a combination of two classic arguments: one that Linux doesn't have enough market share to warrant our attention, two that it given the diversity of Linux, which is one of its security strong points, it might be too difficult to crack it and even if we did, we can't make as big of a media spectacle about it. If I recall correctly, Ubuntu was included in this test a year or two ago and was the only one that was not cracked.
Re: (Score:2)
Quoting from the link: "..., but you can't go to BestBuy and buy Linux with a specific distro on it that everyone uses that has widespread market share"
I thought you could buy linux PCs off the shelf in one of big American chains (walmart???). Was a low powered eco thingy iirc.
Also as far as I know you can buy linux on laptops from Dell as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Safari and IE8 are free downloads too, what's your point? It's the hardware they get to own, an OEM OS license is pretty insignificant next to that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, fine forget linux. It's been tested in the past but not this year.
Re: (Score:2)
Ubuntu was in Pwn2Own in 2008 and was not hacked in the three-day contest:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/29/ubuntu_left_standing/ [theregister.co.uk]
(though it sounds like they might have been able to break out of flash given a bit more time, who knows)
Re: (Score:2)
But this contest is about exploiting via a browser (and perhaps email? I forget if they allow that).
Holes in GNOME aren't really relevant. Once you get some code running in the firefox process you co do whatever you like to the user's account.
Hilarious (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a Mac user and fortunately not a mindless one (honest, promise!). That Apple has been extremely lucky in not being overrun in exploited machines has more to do with the normal target area for exploiters being windows due to marketshare, but Macs have a big enough marketshare these days to make it worthwhile for crackers. I'm pretty sure that the time will come when Macs will be running dubious AV products like most Windows people do.
It is slowly ramping up (Score:5, Interesting)
We've had a few Macs (Macs that were administered by the person, not by IT) at work owned. In one case it was pure user stupidity, a world writable FTP. They couldn't see what was wrong though because "Macs can't get hacked!" In another case it was a virus that seemed to use the speech synthesizer to read ads. Was really funny.
It is rare, compared to Windows, but growing. The real problem is, as I mentioned, the "But Macs are safe!" people. They really do think that running a Mac absolves them from any security responsibility. I think there are going to be some nasty awakenings and users will have to accept that no matter what you do, you need to have good security practices. A virus scanner is a good idea as well, since it can help catch things if you slip up (and we all slip up).
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly why i am buying Macs (I also have Windows and BSD boxes). I consider no desktop OS to be secure, so i don't browse dodgy shit without using a VM, and run a firewall in front of it.
Re:It is slowly ramping up (Score:5, Insightful)
It's funny how those of that *do* say those things about Macs are conveniently ignored on slashdot, or lumped in as one job lot with people who know nothing about security and claim that OS X is immune. Or even have our intelligence questioned for our choice of computing environment. It's really quite tiresome.
The specific bug that was exploited in this case is in WebKit, so it's a concern for any browser based on it - Apple or not. The purpose of the contest is PR, but does lead to exploits being exposed and patched (albeit held back by the people going for the prizes so they have something to deploy as soon as the contest begins - it took those guys a lot of work to get it to the stage where they could deploy it quickly - they could have disclosed their method some time ago [but the same is true for all the exploits used in this contest, on all of the platforms]).
The attack order of the machines really has little ultimate value in the end - the fact that security holes exist in the first place is the take home message. I hope OS X keeps getting attacked - the more exploits are found, the more get closed off. I am careful with my machine, but I welcome disclosure and patching of bugs.
Re: (Score:3)
I can't give you a good virus scanner for Mac as I don't know yet. Macs are a new part of my responsibilities at work so I've only done some research. I can say Sophos does have a Mac virus scanner, Sophos is what we license at work. However I can also say fuck Sophos, I hate it and would not recommend it.
As for catch rate, no it is much better than that. Good virus scanners tend to get 98% or more. There is some balance between higher catch rate and too many false positives, but you can have few false posi
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Time to move to Lynx on OpenBSD :-).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. Last week my mother, who is the Mac "guru" amongst all her associates, called me to ask why and how a virus could have wiped out all the Macs at her job in one day. "That's not possible, is it?" she asked. Um...it happened, didn't it?
The "Macs are safe from viruses" mantra has been drilled into the users a little too well. The vast majority of Mac users are convinced they are safe and take no precautions.
Re:Hilarious (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect your pants are on fire.
IOW obscurity=security fails again (Score:2)
The groundwork they did will be most sought-after.
Holding back exploits to score quick victories? (Score:5, Interesting)
Given the financial incentives involved here (for example, the guy who gave up an almost certain $15,000 because he reported a bug to Google rather than keep it under wraps until he could clean up at Pwn2Own, how many bugs on all of the major platforms are kept "secret" to be used in contests like this?
I understand the nature of the event is to demonstrate the issues of security and code vulnerability, but sitting on exploits is surely counterproductive here?
Re: (Score:2)
it's a business. at least you get some bugs fixed that way. they'd keep it for other people if other people paid more (and some do!)
so yeah, it's just business. most businesses aren't very moral for that matter.
Re: (Score:2)
they're not exactly secrets. a secret is something someone else couldn't stumble upon by accident or by purpose, these flaws are there or they aren't and everybody has practically the access to the same running code to examine at their leisure.
maybe google should up the rewards and cut the paychecks of their useless academics to make it a non issue. they could just make their bounties a bit less of a joke, a thousand dollars is like 1/120th of the money it takes to employ their average guy who SHOULD HAVE F
Re: (Score:2)
I understand the nature of the event is to demonstrate the issues of security and code vulnerability, but sitting on exploits is surely counterproductive here?
You don't understand the mind-set of hackers, do you....
Re: (Score:2)
Well, given the information in the article it was non-trivial to write a working exploit of this bug, so the guy clearly put a lot of effort into it. However, if bugs like these were reported more as a matter of course then it would leave the *really* esoteric ones for contests like this, which would be a security win for everyone, since more difficult bugs would be exploited and squashed for money.
I think the people involved here are relatively altruistic in terms of security (ie, "white hat"), but I can't
Re:Holding back exploits to score quick victories? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not talking just about Apple - note that I was talking generally, and even specifically mentioned Google as an example - it's right there in my comment. I am talking about the contest as a whole, including all of the operating systems and browsers involved, but feel free to ignore my point and just have an Apple bash. After all, we are on slashdot.
Also, talking about this specific bug, it was an exploit in WebKit - so are you now saying that WebKit is an Apple product? After so many years of "Apple just took KHTML and rebranded it and claimed all the credit" posts on slashdot, now suddenly it *is* an Apple product? You can't have it both ways.
My original point was referring to all browsers and operating systems involved, both with OSS components and closed code.
Sandbox (Score:4, Insightful)
The most interesting and disappointing thing about Pwn2Own for me was that all the recent development of sand-boxing in browsers suggested that they were going to herald in a new era of browser security.
In actual fact it turns out that, thanks sloppy implementations, they aren't very good at their job.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter how good the idea is if the execution is sloppy. I do suspect browsers are more secure, and at least partially due to the sandboxing idea, than in the past, no?
misleading title on /.? never! (Score:4, Informative)
Well that headline is misleading at best I'd say. I suggest reading pwn2own day one: Safari, IE8 fall, Chrome unchallenged [arstechnica.com] in which it states that both Safari and IE fell at the first attempt, clearly it was a matter of nothing more than the ordering. Apologies for disturbing all the anti-apple ranting but both systems are weak.
Please feel free to resume posting uninformed comments now.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well that headline is misleading at best I'd say. I suggest reading pwn2own day one: Safari, IE8 fall, Chrome unchallenged [arstechnica.com] in which it states that both Safari and IE fell at the first attempt, clearly it was a matter of nothing more than the ordering. Apologies for disturbing all the anti-apple ranting but both systems are weak. Please feel free to resume posting uninformed comments now.
There is something strange about how this is worded, as the first hacker - taking down Safari/MacOS - won 15k$. It sounds really strange if that price was decided just by the ordering of attempts.
Re: (Score:3)
Well that headline is misleading at best I'd say. I suggest reading pwn2own day one: Safari, IE8 fall, Chrome unchallenged in which it states that both Safari and IE fell at the first attempt,
Nobody cares, because it's not news when IE gets compromised. It's news when Apple says "oh we're so secure" and iFanbois say "oh it's so secure" and it's the first to fall.
Re:misleading title on /.? never! (Score:4, Informative)
The successful hack came in spite of a large security patch, Safari 5.0.4, that Apple released ahead of the competition, patching some 60 security holes in the browser. As well as Safari, Apple also patched iOS to version 4.3. This is because, in a change to historic competition rules, the system configuration was frozen last week, so the last-minute fix hasn't prevented exploitation.
How to make the truth a lie.
Lets face it : Apple got served. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, and the lesson here is, people really want to win the Mac, so it gets the most attacks to start with ... THEN people go after the others.
Its the same thing ever year and well understood. Its also well ignored by most who would rather assume that its bad security.
All of them fall pretty quickly once people target them, as has already been pointed out, people are sitting on exploits waiting for pwn2own in order to win the machines they want. The macs are well sought after, hence they go first.
God forbi
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, and the lesson here is, people really want to win the Mac, so it gets the most attacks to start with ... THEN people go after the others.
Its the same thing ever year and well understood. Its also well ignored by most who would rather assume that its bad security.
All of them fall pretty quickly once people target them, as has already been pointed out, people are sitting on exploits waiting for pwn2own in order to win the machines they want. The macs are well sought after, hence they go first.
God forbid, don't let reality obscure your perspective though.
This is a silly argument for several reason:
1) They have to already own a Mac in order to develop the exploit.
2) They could buy a lot of Macs with $15,000 USD.
3) Why would you want to really, really win any particular brand of PC when you had just discovered and written something that lets anyone with a web server pwn it?
4) Even assuming your argument is accurate, that means that all it takes is a little extra effort to crack a Mac, in this case because the browser isn't properly sandboxed. This is because
I feel a disturbance (Score:4, Funny)
Ywn2Own (Score:4, Insightful)
Every year headlines claim platforms "pwned" in seconds but it's misleading and sensationalist.
The exploits are researched and practiced over days or weeks, rehearsed and simply repeated on the day. Yes it's bad, yes it demonstrates insecurity but the headlines imply that some guy just sits down at a fresh machine, sight unseen, decides to have a go at hacking it and within seconds it's done.
Of course the exploits take seconds to run - they are running them on computers - they are fast.
I'm sure they get faster every year.
Re:Chrome was updated (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Chrome was updated (Score:5, Interesting)
This article seems to indicate so:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9214002/Safari_IE_hacked_first_at_Pwn2Own [computerworld.com]
"But the Safari patches still had a part to play in Vupen winning. If the vulnerability used by Vupen to hack Safari had been fixed in 5.0.4, TippingPoint would not have awarded the $15,000 prize."
Re: (Score:3)
The organizers said that the software configuration was frozen a week ago. Nobody was allowed to do last-minute updates (like it was last year)
Re:Chrome was updated (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:no surprise there (Score:5, Informative)
They had a VAIO with Ubuntu on it in 2008, which nobody hacked. VAIOs are certainly not "cheapo".
Re: (Score:2)
Sitting on some damaging knowledge until you are paid to reveal it is plain extortion.
If I find a security hole in some software, I am under no obligation to tell anyone about it. But if a contest is set up (with the approval of the software companies) where I can use my knowledge to win a prize (and that knowledge is passed on the appropriate companies and NOT released to the public) then there is absolutely no problem.
It is only extortion if I contact the companies themselves and threaten to release the code to the world if I am not paid unless they pay me. But that is not what is happenin
Re: (Score:3)
Mac is secure is in aggregate. It all depends on how you view it.
I *KNOW* that if I cross a road, I'm putting my life at more risk than if I stay at home. It doesn't mean that I will never have an accident at home.
Similarly, if you put all your eggs in the Windows basket, you're more likely, on aggregate, to be a victim of something. It doesn't mean that a locked-down Windows PC is any less secure than a wide-open Mac. It's just a statistical average.
By that measure, Windows is excruciatingly far behind