ehenning writes "SecuriTeam has posted a paper on some known vulnerabilities in Mac OS X. It lists methods for developing shellcode based on the PowerPC architecture. They note that there are similar vulnerabilities in Mac OS X and Darwin as in IA32 machines."
No actual security issues here, just "shellcode" -- compiled assembly -- to do things like print messages, run/bin/sh, or reboot the machine. Unimpressive.
--
TANSTAAFI: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free iPod.
The paper isn't talking about specific OSX vulnerabilities. It is just an exploration of writing shellcode for the Darwin OS on the PPC architecture, which hasn't gotten much coverage up 'til now.
So far, we OSX users have been able to rely on security via obscurity.. Thanks to fink etc. we have the same vulnerabilities as other unix software, but the stock exploits (which are all sun/x86 targeted) just bounce off. B-root took the time to figure out some of the more fun snafus of PPC shellcode (lots of NULs due to the 32-bit alligned instructions mainly.)
I don't see why this made Slashdot
by
ZackSchil
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I guess Slashdot is just about as sensationalist as your average Dateline or 20/20. The truth of the matter is as follows for all of you who read the article but still didn't get it.
The document contained bits of assembly code that do all sorts of nasty things once slipped into a system. The code could elevate privileges, stat/stop processes, or reboot the machine. It's scary stuff but nothing you should be alarmed or surprised about. Anyone could harm a machine by writing code, that part isn't difficult at all. I could make an Applescript that wipes out your home directory or masks its self as another application, asks for an admin password, then proceeds to wipe your whole HD and overwrite it with ASCII garbage. Creating malware isn't the problem at all. Do you follow me?
What this guy did was create malware that could be slipped into a system remotely through another security exploit, a buffer overflow for example (a buffer overflow is the same type of bug that caused that whole OS X screensaver crashing nonsense a while back that was promptly fixed by Apple). The reason the article is not a reason for concern is that there isn't currently a well know exploit of this nature for someone to use the code featured in this article. The same "security flaws" exist in almost any modern computer system. The thing is, the code isn't the security flaw, an exploit that allows the code would be. The article names no such new exploit.
Slashdot Mirror
No actual security issues here, just "shellcode" -- compiled assembly -- to do things like print messages, run /bin/sh, or reboot the machine. Unimpressive.
TANSTAAFI: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free iPod.
The paper isn't talking about specific OSX vulnerabilities. It is just an exploration of writing shellcode for the Darwin OS on the PPC architecture, which hasn't gotten much coverage up 'til now.
So far, we OSX users have been able to rely on security via obscurity.. Thanks to fink etc. we have the same vulnerabilities as other unix software, but the stock exploits (which are all sun/x86 targeted) just bounce off. B-root took the time to figure out some of the more fun snafus of PPC shellcode (lots of NULs due to the 32-bit alligned instructions mainly.)
I guess Slashdot is just about as sensationalist as your average Dateline or 20/20. The truth of the matter is as follows for all of you who read the article but still didn't get it.
The document contained bits of assembly code that do all sorts of nasty things once slipped into a system. The code could elevate privileges, stat/stop processes, or reboot the machine. It's scary stuff but nothing you should be alarmed or surprised about. Anyone could harm a machine by writing code, that part isn't difficult at all. I could make an Applescript that wipes out your home directory or masks its self as another application, asks for an admin password, then proceeds to wipe your whole HD and overwrite it with ASCII garbage. Creating malware isn't the problem at all. Do you follow me?
What this guy did was create malware that could be slipped into a system remotely through another security exploit, a buffer overflow for example (a buffer overflow is the same type of bug that caused that whole OS X screensaver crashing nonsense a while back that was promptly fixed by Apple). The reason the article is not a reason for concern is that there isn't currently a well know exploit of this nature for someone to use the code featured in this article. The same "security flaws" exist in almost any modern computer system. The thing is, the code isn't the security flaw, an exploit that allows the code would be. The article names no such new exploit.