Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Huge security hole in Internet Explorer for MacOS

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the now-thats-really-funny dept.

Brad Lucier writes "Macintouch is reporting (go down the page a bit) that Internet Explorer 5.1, which comes preinstalled on MacOS X 10.1, has a huge security hole---when it downloads arbitrary programs encoded in the Macintosh's standard BinHex (.hqx) format, it automatically executes them. " Well I guess thats one way to make Unix insecure. Can anyone actually confirm this since it looks kinda sketchy. I wonder what someone's rationale would be for that:"Oh this won't hurt anyone, and saving that extra 'OK' click will be great!".

15 of 606 comments (clear)

  1. Well! by Guillaume+Ross · · Score: -1, Troll

    User friendly = often insecure Look at IIS !

  2. if you're stupid enough to run an executeable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    in the first place...

  3. Dammit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    I could have had first fucking post if you would turn that damn post delay off

    FUCK!!!

    1. Re:Dammit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      yeah, and I would have been your father, except the dog best me up the stairs.

  4. Near-Useless Security by Giant+Hairy+Spider · · Score: 4, Troll

    Most users don't care so much about the system files, which are just a matter of rerunning the install process. Their personal data is far more valuable to them.

    Maybe this will save a little data on systems with multiple users, but we're talking about personal computers here. By definition they are primarily used by one person.

    The protection offered by an administrator account is minimal.

    --

    ---
    You'd be surprised at the broadband connection available to things crawling around in your hair.
  5. Thanks, Apple by green+pizza · · Score: 0, Troll

    Didn't anyone see this coming?? I can't belive Apple would allow such a dumb "feature".

    I do have one question, though... being a Unix-derrived OS, does the average user on a Mac OS X system have sufficent privlages to destroy anything outside of his home directory?

  6. Not M$ by green+pizza · · Score: -1, Troll

    Internet Explorer on the MAC has nothing to do with Microsoft. It's developed, published, and installed by Apple.

  7. Re:That's OK ... by codeforprofit2 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Oh! Mod this up! He spelled MS with a $!!!

  8. Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Don't you know? That's not a bug, it's a *feature* !!! M$ has a lot of features like that...

  9. MAJOR SECURITY HOLE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    In ass there is a security hole that allows penises to enter it without the user's consent.

    more information

  10. Re:OS 10.0.1 IE hole. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    That's FIVE systems you cock gobbling fag.

  11. Re:Intrinsic Security in OS X - It's even worse... by MrResistor · · Score: -1, Troll
    There have been a lot of posts saying that "savvy users will disable this" and "they'd have to be logged on as admin". I can honestly say that I don't know any savvy Mac users (not syaing they don't exist, just that I don't know any), and unfortunately the Mac isn't marketed towards savvy users. Your post has basically confirmed my worst fears. None of the Mac users I know would change their user accounts from admin to user. Even if they knew how, it would be inconvenient, and therefore unacceptable. It's kind of sad, really.

    --
    Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  12. The Linux Community saw this coming years ago.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    That's why we wanted *A MICROSOFT PORT OF IE TO LINUX*

  13. Re:Preferences by Andrewkov · · Score: 2, Troll

    Wow, it's nice that Mac users can now enjoy the ease of use and power of Microsoft programs. I wonder if they'll want to switch to a Wintel machine after this one bites them in the ass!

  14. Idiots by youreanidiot · · Score: 0, Troll

    Well I guess thats one way to make Unix insecure.

    That.. and it's 10 plus year running history of remotely exploitable buffer overflows. But yeah.