Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Data Security Framework

Posted by michael on from the polish-it-till-it-shines dept.

rschroeder writes: "Apple has opened their Common Data Security Architecture framework, which "contains an expandable set of cryptographic algorithms to perform code signing and encryption operations while maintaining the security of the cryptographic keys." Lots of good info in addition to the code."

12 of 77 comments (clear)

  1. Intel CDSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3

    Ummm... who cares about Apple? CDSA was developed by Intel. Intel is responsible for the bulk of CDSA. Intel built the code with portability in mind. That's why Apple was able to port it. http://developer.intel.com/ial/security/ http://developer.intel.com/ial/security/press.htm Intel released the source code in 2000: http://developer.intel.com/pressroom/archive/relea ses/in092500.htm

  2. Re:OpenSSL? by awa · · Score: 3

    Short answer: No.

    Longer answer: It's a security framework with hooks to a lot of things. If you'd read at least the introduction you'd have seen that it does, indeed, contain support for SSL, PGP and many other standard security/encryption/ham-and-cheese-sandwich technologies. Actually it's the MacOS X implementation of the OpenGroup standard. I do not know (did not find information more like it), however, if they _did_ implement the whole schmiel.

    Longer longer answer: read the OpenGroup documentation. Download the code. Read the code. Come back and tell us about it.

    --
    --Moo
  3. Some Background by maggard · · Score: 5
    First of all it needs to be pointed out Apple has been supporting encryption in their products for several years now.

    One of the features of MacOS 9 has been the ability to encrypt any file via a set of system-level services. A second feature has been the ability to use a "Keychain" service where passwords & other information can be securely stored & automatically retrieved by authorized applications. A third feature has been the ability to use a Voiceprint as a password.

    Here are a number of examples of how these features can be used:

    1. Macs running MacOS 9 and greater support Multiple Users. Thus folks can (or must) log in in order to access their materials. This login can be accomplished via typed password or Voiceprint. Macs with access to an appropriate server can store individual preferences on the server and these can used applied from client Macs as the user logs in.

    2. In order to encrypt or decrypt a file under MacOS 9 and greater on need simply drag-and-drop the file/folder/drive to the encryption application. This service can also be called from within any application utilizing the cryptographic API's.

    3. Utilizing the "Keychain" any program can store or retrieve settings, passwords and other secured bits of information. Thus instead of saving one's web-account passwords in an easily read text file they're stored encrypted in a file where explicit authorization must be given for access. The same for the other various servers one might utilize regularly or occasionally - their login information and passwords can be stored under a single master-password and applied at need.
    Now, lots of folks are going to start reading this and trying to imagine lots of ways they could break this, the possible downsides, etc. Yes, it's not completely foolproof. On the other hand it's a lot better then many other OS's offer, particularly when you realize it's widely supported throughout the OS and by many (most?) applications. Furthermore it seems fairly well thought out and after being out in the field a bit it seems to be working well.

    It's good to see Apple is finally documenting the same hooks in MacOS X. Presumably by completely opening the material a better evaluation of the processes can be made and improvements implemented by third parties. Furthermore since it's a standard promulgated by a number of companies all in the security field this has a good chance of being implemented in a wide range of products.

    It would also be great if other OS development folks could take this code and use it to compare/contrast their own efforts in this direction and use them to improve themselves, possibly even work towards adopting some common material where the specs are vague.

    Finally, before going and making wild-assed assumptions based on how you assume this stuff is implemented or blue-skying on it's possible flaws howzabout investing the 10 minutes and actually getting the facts first, not wasting all of the rest of ours time? This is all Open Source and it's well documented so it's not up to everyone else to teach you: Go read it for yourself.

    --
    I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
  4. No, Darwin isn't MacOS X lite by maggard · · Score: 5
    Darwn is the base of MacOS X. Yes it's OpenSource. Yes it's freely avialable, Apple even hosts the servers & has engineers assigned to porting it to non-Apple platforms (to wit the x86.)

    That said there's a long distance between Darwin & MacOS X. Carbon, Quartz, Aqua, QuickTime, Classic - all are critical parts of MacOS X that aren't in Darwin. Without them Darwin is an interesting BSD variant with a Mach-based kernel, reworked IO & some nifty OO & "Frameworks" support and innovative configuration-files-settable-via-XML technology.

    That doesn't a clone make. Indeed it's debatable if Apple could themselves easily make a clone-able Mac at this point. So much of MacOS X (not Darwin) is PPC-specific and relies so heavily on Apple hardware implementations it might not be easily possible.

    Sure Next was ported many times & MacOS X has inherited much of that flexibility but since then there's been massive rewrites. It's likely that most of everything above Darwin might require a lot of work now move to another architecture or even motherboard design, there appear to be lots of assumptions made in the design.

    Sure there are always rumors of MacOS X running on x86/Alpha/etc. chips and there was a Rhapsody release that was cross-platform as well as stories of a beta MacOS 8 runnable on an IBM RS6000 but at this point it seems unlikely that the MacOS X now out there could be easily moved to either an Intel-standard motherboard architecture (BIOS/ Northbridge/Southbridge etc.) or to another workstation architecture using OpenFirmware etc.

    Possible: Yes.
    Easily Achieved: No
    Possible by someone other then Apple? No

    Darwin does not MacOS X make.

    --
    I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
  5. Re:Thanks Apple by TWR · · Score: 3
    . I'd personally like to see Apple take the initiative to install the operating system in a very secure state.

    Uh, it is. By default, Mac OS X ships with Mac file sharing off, FTP off, Apache off, and ssh off. Telnet is disabled in all versions since 10.0.1. If you want to turn them on, it's just a checkbox, but 99% of all Mac users won't turn on any of them except for Mac file sharing, which should be pretty safe; I don't know of any AppleTalk exploits.

    -jon

    --

    Remember Amalek.

  6. Re:Wow... more more more... by TWR · · Score: 3
    Darwin makes Mac cloning possible, at least for small operators.

    No, it doesn't. Darwin alone isn't much more than a BSD variant, and I'd be pretty surprised if Apple isn't using the copyrighted ROMs on every Mac's motherboard as some sort of dongle for the higher-level Mac OS X functionality. You couldn't copy those ROMs without Apple's permission and that will happen over Steve's cold, dead body.

    Whether or not Apple could survive under a licensing system is a different debate. But I doubt that it'd be possible technically without Apple's blessing.

    -jon

    --

    Remember Amalek.

  7. Re:OpenSSL? by MochaMan · · Score: 3

    Is the the MacOSX equivalent of OpenSSL?

    No. This is an extensible architecture that allows you to add modules for a ton of algorithms. Think of it more as a pluggable architecture something like Java's JCE.

    I'd assumed that OpenSSL would work on MacOSX, given all the spiel about it being Unix based.

    Mac OS X ships with TCPWrappers, OpenSSL and OpenSSH installed by default since version 10.0.1. There's a GUI interface available in the System Preferences panel to turn it on and off (if you're an administrator - ie. are in the wheel group).

  8. CDSA specification... by victim · · Score: 3

    For those of you wondering what a CDSA might really be, you can read all about it here at the opengroup.

    Good stuff.

  9. Thanks Apple by macdaddy · · Score: 4
    Thanks for taking a step or two towards security responsiblity. It's nice to see a company step up to the plate and swing once in a while. If you can maintain or even better improve security with your OS's, you can take a much needed step in front of a number of other companies that don't worry about security concerns until their blunders go public and threaten to hurt their bottomline or public image. Security never has ben a major problem for Apple because very little can be done to a Mac remotely. Now with OS X upon us, those old beliefs are out the window. I'd personally like to see Apple take the initiative to install the operating system in a very secure state. Pre-configure TCP wrappers in a DENY ALL state. Turn off everything that doesn't absolutely have to be on. Wrap everything wether it's on or not. Even packet filter certain things would be nice. Take the initiative to make things a litle more secure, unlike Irix and Redhat that tend to turn on way more services than are really needed. That could greatly limit the number of security concerns now and down the road. Sure you may find a new sploit for ftpd down the road but if it's already disable and/or secured to allow access only to a few hosts.... Of course this is just my opinion, I could be wrong.

    --

  10. Re:Is this even a valid observation? by Noer · · Score: 3

    Hardly. Microsoft is a minority shareholder, and hardly has much weight to throw around in that manner.

    The main leverage Microsoft has on Apple is the threat of cancelling MS Office for the Mac. But that does make MS a ton of money, so they're not just doing it for leverage purposes.

    --
    -- "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -Joseph Stalin
  11. Good first step by Noer · · Score: 3

    This seems like a good first step for Apple to be taken more seriously, especially given public concerns about Apple not taking security seriously.

    I'm glad to have the opportunity to look into this framework now. Hopefully Apple will keep addressing the security holes that'll pop up elsewhere in the OS from time to time.

    Will this silence the rabid anti-Apple critics who haven't used a Mac since 1984 (if ever)? Not a chance.

    --
    -- "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -Joseph Stalin
  12. Re:All that security, but insecure setuid by MichaeI+Sims · · Score: 3

    That's true, but MacOSX ships with almost all of its services turned off, as did Mac OS 9 and its predecessors. For instance, the two services (ftpd and ntpd) which were the subject of recent Apple advisories are not enabled in the default configuration. So it will still take a substantial amount of work to get a shell on an OS X desktop from which an attacker can exploit the local vulnerabilities.