Slashdot Mirror
PC Mag - Mac OS X Insecure
Suki writes "In this recent story a PC Mag writer concludes that "Panther and Jaguar were not better at outrunning vulnerabilities than Windows" and as my personal fav. ends by asking "How cocky are you feeling now, Mac elite? Hmm. Suddenly it's gotten pretty quiet around here." The article discusses many previous Windows security holes against a recent Mac OS X security flaw."
He raises good points (I actually read the article), but one thing that OSX will always have over current versions of Windows, however, is the fact that in OSX you don't run as root/admin by default when you start off or create new users.
Until this is fixed, the same attacks will be much more effective against Windows users just because of the rights the current user has on the box.
dmiessler.com -- grep understanding knowledge
and a known patch is on the way. it's a very easy vulnerability to avoid. there's no virus yet...
was it worth the rant, or has he just been waiting a long time to make it?
Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
He's basically saying that since there was one widely-reported Mac security hole, Macs are as insecure as Windows? Odd comparison.
Mind you, I'm not too overwhelmed with his research; if he'd been paying attention, he'd have caught the SSH vulnerability the other month. It's not like Macs have been immune, and nobody with any clue claims they are.
What you can claim accurately is that Apple fixes holes promptly and fairly quickly, and that the MacOS X architecture does not have flaws which result in two or three active IE holes in the wild right now.
Apple isn't perfect, they're just pretty good. Microsoft isn't evil, they're just not as good as they should be. It's perfectly reasonable to use those two facts in making one's security decisions.
Can someone tell him that HIS WEBSITE IS NOT A BLOG, OTHERWISE HE WOULD BE INUNDATED WITH REPLIES!!!!
Thank you. ;-)
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
It's pretty sad when Windows-users feel they have to start defending themselves by pointing out that other operating systems are vulnerable too. The last paragraph pretty much says all in that regard...
But the mindlessly superior retort is always the same, "No, it's because the Apple OS does not have the same holes as Windows. OS X is just a better operating system."
Whatever. All OSes have their inherent problems, but next month, when Microsoft racks up another suit of deathly insecure vulnerabilities, OS X will probably be fixed and free from defects for another couple of months.
I'm not a Mac fanatic, but it's because OS X is based on Unix, and Unix is more elegant in its design that gives OS X its better security.
Ruby on Rails Screencast
Mac OS X gets one flaw and it's suddenly on par with the truckload of Windows security problems? What a funny little man...
.. This article was nothing more than +1 Flamebait. The author sounds like a little boy who finally gets to say "I told you so! I told you so!" when there really isn't anything to be told. All OSs have undiscovered holes and problems. The key is how fast the vendor deals with the problem.
Trolling is a art,
The hole he's referring to requires some particular circumstances before it's even viable.
The attacker must:
Be on your local network
Already have control of your DHCP server
If both of the above are true, you already have much more serious problems.
While I agree that remote root/admin is bad juju, in this case it's hardly equivalent to the Windows remote admin exploits to which he's comparing it.
First, let's get the obvious stuff out of the way. THIS VULNERABILITY IS NOT ON BY DEFAULT ON OSX! You have to go into an obscure app (Directory Access) that most users don't know about, and turn on an option that most users don't need, in order to be vulnerable. Also, this vulnerability was never exploited.
How can this idiot compare that to the hundreds of millions of computers ACTUALLY INFECTED by Windows vulnerabilities like Nimda, Code Red, Melissa, Klez, Sobig.f, and thousands of others? Using Windows is like buying random illegal drugs on the street to treat a headache.
The MacOS is not without its flaws, but Windows is the swiss cheese of the secure computing world. It's very telling that the author didn't allow for any feedback or provide his email address.
- Vincit qui patitur.
sigh. this argument gets old. unix is designed to be more secure than windows. not only that, but it IS more secure than windows. no amount of screensaver errors, cocoa text field overflows, or netinfo exploits will change this. the day windows is more secure than mac os x is the day i can get by without ever needing the root (Administrator) account with access to everything. yes. everything. install apps, install libraries, use current apps, develop apps (with the exception of kernel code but this needs root no matter what OS).
- tristan
Typical Windows User: Stupid virus, now I've got to use my restore disks. Stupid popups, I only want to look at the porn I ask for. Stupid spyware, I can't believe adaware only found 26 new spyware programs today.
Typical Mac User: Stupid virus, my computer is fine, but my ISP is down. Stupid popups, oops forgot to check the option in Safari, okay better now. Stupid spyware, it made me hit cancel when it tried to install itself.
Now understand I'm talking about the standard consumer, of course there are many of us that can keep the windows problems at bay.
I do the majority of my computing work on my TI-92. Havn't had a virus yet!
paintball
> a recent OS X security flaw
That's the significant word, I think. A single one
They will never know the simple pleasure of a monkey knife fight
It sounds like this is just the same "Flaw" in OSX's DHCP settup. There was a thread on this earlier. They essentially use a server to assign a number of items as well as IP. If I reacall correctly, this was never that big of a security flaw (at least not moreso than any other standard DHCP setup)
This is just some guy on a soapbox blabering on about how this "flaw" proves that OSX is just as bad as any Microsoft product. Hopefully others can see past this guy's rhetoric.
There should be a moderation category "Dumbest Comment EVER"
We do not want to encourage behavior like this, do we? Reading the article, sheesh, what's next, checking for duplicates before posting?
Sigs for Nerds. Sigs that Matter.
... that you don't put your email in your attribution or anywhere in the article.. Luckily, thanks to Google, your bio reveals your email to be:
Lance_Ulanoff@ziffdavis.com
Share and enjoy!
So an attacker who can gain access to your network -- over a wired connection or wirelessly -- can trick an affected system into trusting a rogue machine, and when the compromised machine reboots, take it over and even attack other systems on the network.
So, a guy has to get on my network, set up another machine as a trusted server, wait for me to reboot, and then...? Is this a fair comparison to email viruses, etc...?
My cube's been up for 90 days. I plan to take it down and upgrade it eventually. Does this mean I'm going to be vulnerable?
Whatever.
-- The world is watching America, and America is watching TV.
It's about time Apple did something about the POS security in OS X!
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
I can feel a big commentary fight coming on this post :)
Pro-MACs on my left, pro-PCs on my right.
I think Rush Limbaugh might take offense at being placed on the Left.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
That's the sound of no one caring what you think, Lance.
A series of what ifs, followed by the reaction of imaginary mac fields that exist only in Lance's head.
And the whole "Macs don't suffer viruses because there's so few" myth was dead and buried long ago. Sheesh. Who cares? If Lance is happy with his bloated, cheerless, abominable bugfest of an OS, more power to him.
And now, Obligatory Car Analogy: it's like Lance is sitting by the side of the road with his Chevy Vega that just flew to pieces for the fifth time that week, and he's pointing at the Lexus that just sped by because it had a defective radio knob that just fell off.
--- Ban humanity.
Excellent comments. Please post them in our forum:
s p,
http://discuss.pcmag.com/pcmag/start/?msg=32413
-----Original Message-----
From: ***
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 10:24 AM
To: Ulanoff, Lance
Subject: Eureka
Hello.
in your piece at http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1408953,00.a
you have this to say in conclusion:
Ultimately, those on the Mac fringe have to face facts: Panther and Jaguar were not better at outrunning vulnerabilities than Windows. I expect other gaps will emerge, and while the Mac OS may still draw far fewer attacks, this discovery might suck a little wind (or is it Windows?) out of Mac radicals' sails. They can scarcely claim this was a minor hole. OS root access is serious stuff. How cocky are you feeling now, Mac elite? Hmm. Suddenly it's gotten pretty quiet around here.
So, that's all it takes for you? One potentially serious loophole in an
OS to declare it "no better at outrunning vulnerabilities than
windows"?
Have you recently counted the number of Cert advisory reports that have
come out for XP? Last I checked, more than a month ago, it was in the
40-some range. For XP alone. This year only. For the past few weeks,
those reports have come in bundles of 3-to-5 at a time. Nearly every
other week.
While gaining root access is serious on a Unix machine, you also need
to point out the fact that to be able to gain access to this loophole,
you absolutely need to be on the same subnet as the compromised
computer. Therefore shielding 60%-some percent of home Mac installation
(as those connect to the interner through some phone connection like
PPP) and a great deal (don't have numbers) of the remaining 40% still
not at risk, provided their Cable or ISDN, [A]DSL ISPs have done their
work properly.
It's not like one could attack the entire machine simply by sending an
email containing some VBL script. Right?
Of course I'm a Mac head. And I'm still as cocky as I've been since
roughly 1988. Because every time I see those IT folks around here
struggling to keep the company running when the next wave of Win
trouble appears, I'll be smiling at my desk, uninterrupted, and
occasionally offering to help (okay... I'm just pointing them to some
Linux site or Apple.com... but hey... I seriously believe that would
help
them).
Keep us entertained.
Have a good day.
- Number of Macs reported/suspected to be cracked by recent vulnerabilities: ZERO
- Number of Windows PCs known to be cracked by recent vulnerabilities: MILLIONS
So... I'm feeling pretty damn cocky, thanks for asking.I've been a Mac user for four years now, but I still regularly use Windows and occasionally Linux. To me, Mr. Ulanoff seems to embody the worst type of Mac user - the cynical ex-user. All the Mac users I've talked to aren't snobby or "elite" but almost every single ex-mac user is. It's almost like they were upset that they had to leave MacOS and now all they do is spit insults at anyone who thinks that Macs are cool.
I feel bad for anyone who feels the need to put a group of users down simply due to their choice in tools. That goes for the "Mac elite" that Mr. Ulanoff has to deal with as well.
You can find a better article about the OS X vs. Windows with respect to viruses here.
I have never been able to shake my perception of PC Magazine/ZD as just a shill for their biggest advertisers. Just ask yourself: Who butters their bread?
I understand that a lot of you here on Slashdot are new to the Mac (since OS X) but those of us who have been on Macs for longer recognize this type of junk tech writing for exactly what it is: an attempt to stir the shit and increase readership. It's probably easier to sell advertising on your site or magazine if you can create just the right anti-Mac tempest in a teapot and sell a few more copies or increase your web site hits. This tactic used to run under the headline "Apple going out of business" or "Apple to close up." Now that's mutated into a "critique" of security or speed claims or whatever. Sadly, there is a fraction of Mac users out there who are still willing to take this bait and play into the game. I'm not even looking at the article. Been there, done that. I recommend that you stare out the window and observe the slow but steady growth of the grass outside--that would be far more productive that playing into this kind of shameless, professional trolling masquerading as tech reporting.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
Wrong. There is something to be said for how security is considered in the design of an OS. For Windows, it wasn't much of a consideration, which contributed heavily to why there have been so many systemic vulnerabilities.
The system was designed to be user-friendly, not secure. They got their market-share because of that fact. I think it is much easier to make a secure system user-friendly than to make a user-friendly system secure. Microsoft is finding that out as well. You reap what you sow.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Notes From Under *nix: blas.phemo.us
Is being secure the same as security? Let us take a look and see. Starting out let us compare raw numbers.
Building A has one broken window, that is kind of small and can only be breached if you can get passed the outer gate (with its own security), and have the right (specialized) equipment.
Building B has many broken windows, and windows breaks as fast as they fix them. Many of the broken windows can be breached from down the street. The latest broken window could allow anyone to imitate building C, and only when you have entered the building do you realize that you have been duped into entering Goat's house of cx.
Which building is more secure?
The issue is that security is offered in LEVELS. No place is 100% secure, however some places offer much higher levels of security, providing a safer place to be.
So which building is more secure?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Meanwhile, we can already see what happens when Apple has a broadly popular product that cuts across platforms. The Apple iPod is the number one MP3 player, and now that its companion computer utility, iTunes, is available for both the Mac and the PC, it has become a hack target. In fact, Jon Lech Johansen, the same Norwegian who cracked the DVD security code, recently circumvented the iTunes music protection scheme.
An event like that occurring makes sense to me, since iTunes' popularity makes it a target worth hacking -- and whatever mystical Mac mojo there may be, it didn't go far in protecting a popular Apple product.Steve Jobs stated when the iTunes music store was announced that the DRM would be hacked. The point was to provide a DRM solution that was not restrictive to honest users. That was delivered.
His email address: Lance_Ulanoff@ziffdavis.com
His brief bio here
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Pro-MACs on my left, pro-PCs on my right.
I'm Stuck in the Middle with you.
Yes I'm stuck in the middle with Linux.
Overheard whispers: "He's not going do it" "Yes, he is - you didn't see last months rant against one button mice?" "I dare you" "I bet his ethernet cables not plugged in" "It's been a pleasure working with you" "I knew he was an idiot, but nobody's that dumb" "Didn't his last article get taken out by the Melissa virus?"
How cocky are you feeling now, Mac elite? Hmm. Suddenly it's gotten pretty quiet around here.
I think you can add Lance Ulanoff to the list of things that are "insecure".
Quick, send him an Outlook virus!
I think I already did.
The ______ Agenda
AFAIK, Joe Blow can write to / on a new 10.2 install. This is madness.
/etc/hosts >> /hosts.txt
/dev/null to /bin/bash (or whatever). apparently somebody at apple actually thought about security BEFORE they shipped the product. evn if yo install any application, the best you can do is install it into ~/Applications. if you want to install it into /Applications, then it asks for a admin user AND a password. make shit up in chat rooms. not /.
then, apparently, you don't know jack. you absolutely cannot write to / unless you (and follow this carefully):
1) open up a terminal
2) type sudo
3) then type say: cat
4) type password
you my friend, are full of shit. now, if like me, you create another user, which i always run at, then i have to open the term, su to an admin user, then sudo. osx turns off root by default. to enable it, you have to go into net info, and specifically enable root, THEN, you have to change it's terminal from
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
No, he's doing the reasonable Mac observance that 50 versions of a greeting card program does not count.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Then you can go here to discuss what a steaming load this "commentary" is. Oh, my gosh. Someone who already has access to your network can put a malicious machine on it that will lead to your Mac being owned when it reboots. That's so freakin' simple. Not like those astonishingly difficult Windows attacks of sending emails, setting up websites and/or having users download spyware. The sky is obviously falling. AAAAAHHHHHHH!
Mac OSX has a bad set of settings. Yep, that happens. That is a bug. Likewise, there were other bugs on OSX that were actually just as bad if not worse (they use a lot of OSS and they will have the same faults as the OSS world does).
The real problem is that Mac OSX (and most other systems) have a fundementally sound architecture, while none of the the current Windows do. I suspect that Longhorn is taking a long time to get around these huge design holes, but the current ones have them and there is nothing that can really stop these. In fact, MS has confirmed it numerous times in gov. and court hearings.
So yes, the *nix based system will continue to have holes (in fact what system does not), but they have a much more sound design from the ground up. Hopefully, Longhorn will as well.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Personally I would not have made that choice, but at least there was check box to turn off the default DNS trust. If only windows came with checkboxes to remove its bugs. And I dont mean like checkboxes that say "turn off scripting and cripple my browser please".
In fact mac has not even fixed the so-called hole because its not neccessarily a mistake.
In any case the SSH vulnerability, and the screen-locker vulnerability were in fact true holes created by mistakes. These are what should be scrutinized. But these did not lead to widesperead network worms at least. they did not arrise out of a insecure by desing attitude that pervades all the Active-X philosopy, the power-user-by-default philosophy, the standards crushing embrace-and-extend, the optional log-in password philosophy, or the add features rather than fix bugs philosophy that rightfully inspires all the anti-windows zealotry.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
no point in generating revenue for them to produce more pap like this character's "analysis".
If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else.
it seems far more constructive to discuss the merits here (which I am sure he will read)...
Heehee, (giggle), that was a good one.
Get real. This guy's job is to generate ad revenue by bringing in eyeballs. Writing an inflammatory article does just that. Having done so, he goes home. He doesn't give a shit whether he's right or wrong, and he certainly won't be following up the "community's" response. He will laugh all the way to the bank, however.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
thanks for the supporting evidence. very convincing. I SAY the Doublemint Gum twins rule the world as part of a secret cabal that includes Cobra Commander and Billie Holiday.
"the starry sky above and the moral law within"-Kant
If you have to change your configuration from the default in order to have a secure system, then you have a security hole. Most of the really big microsoft security hacks are things just like this - the system is configured open by default when it should be configured closed by default.
The rationale for configuring the system this way is that it's easier to administer - you just plug it in and it starts working. This is why Microsoft used to configure the system insecure by default. This is why Apple is still configuring the system insecure by default. But part of what you're plugging in, with no authentication at all, is your authentication system. So if the thing that tells you what authentication system to use lies, you're hosed.
This is less severe than the recent Microsoft bugs because the attack is hard to do from the outside of a firewall. So probably Apple is not going to get the kind of bad publicity for this security hole that Microsoft has gotten for, e.g., the Blaster worm. But this is actually a much worse security hole, in a sense, because there is no Software Update coming down the pike that fixes it - Apple has, so far, taken the position that this is a feature, not a bug.
Because the number of people who run software update automatically is much higher than the number of people who pay attention to security alerts and do what is recommended in them, this particular security hole is going to remain on pretty much every MacOS X install in existence. So I can see why the guy from the PC magazine is acting all smug.
The right thing would be for Apple to fix this, but I don't see them doing it - there's no way to secure the DHCP transaction, and there's no way to secure the LDAP transactions either. I hope there's someone in a back room at Apple working on closing this gap, but they've been silent on the issue so far, other than maintaining that because it's a configuration thing, it's not a problem.
Shouldn't that be:
Stuck in the middle with GNU..?
"How cocky are you feeling now, Mac elite?"....Aha! At least they are now recognising that we are an elite! ;-)
"This is crazy, you realise we could all go to jail for this?" - my manager, somewhere I used to work.
Anyone notice this?
Please, please, tell me that he's not trying to convince us of his "Apple cred" by noting that the last time he used a Mac in a serious capacity was ten years ago?
OSX has the out of box simplicity edge while still having all these services off?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"If the Macintosh OS ever became dominant, the tables would turn, and there would be just as many reports of viruses, security holes, and attacks on it as we currently have with Windows."
Apparently the author thinks that it is impossible for the dominant OS, whatever that may be, to be more secure than Windows. He belives that a products percentage of proliferation in the marketplace determines its security. Not the programming.
He's saying that UNIX based operating systems with as much exposure as Windows will be subject to as many vulnerabilities and exploits as Windows is. He thinks it is not possible for an operating system to be made more secure and less vulnerable.
In effect, what he is saying is that Windows is the best the human race can do. This is it. This is the culmination of our species ability to write software. No operating system can ever improve on the constant barrage of patches and updates that must be done to keep Windows safe.
Obviously, while humans can not ever write flawless code, I certainly hope for our sake someone somewhere can do it better than Microsoft. If that someone is Apple, great. If it's a Linux distro, that's fine, too. But I am certainly going to hold on to the belief that there exists the possibility that an OS can be as dominant as Windows without being as insecure. Otherwise, we don't have much to look forward to in the realm of computing, do we?
Bryan Chaffin from The Mac Observer goes into some of the points mentioned in the original article: The Back Page: PC Apologist Asks If We Mac Users Are Now Humble
One interesting point made is that those who say that Mac OS X suffers fewer security and virus problems than Windows only because there are fewer Mac users just don't have a leg to stand on.
After reading the article, I bave two things to say:
1. These aren't exactly easily exploitable remote root's like windows has had 50 of. There really is no comparison.
2. Installing XP yesterday, I was r00ted before I could get to Windows Update. This is just. plain. ridiculous.
I don't know about you guys, but there really is no question of what OS to use if you really want it to work right, be stable, and be secure. NO QUESTION. "usability" is close enough in Linux for me. AND ISN'T A VIRUS EVERY FIFTEEN MINUTES SOME SORT OF USABILITY PROBLEM?>??
Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
Unix is more elegant, but the fact that it grew up together with the Internet as a networked OS. This was not an afterthought. Neither was multiple users and security. When you work with something long enough, it becomes second nature and solid and secure. How did Windows start out? Single user. No Internet. No concept of services/daemons. You machine was its own little island. It was all about the single user GUI in the office to do one task.
And anyway, if XP is so secure, why are they scrapping it for a complete new rewrite - again? It's because it can't be fixed and it has more security leaks than a seive. Microsoft has tried and tried to reshape the Internet into what they want it to be and, thank god, it's failing. And in a way so stupendous that now those that get sacked regularly gotta go off and complain about it. Well boo hoo to them. I've never experienced a virus or worm on OS X or Linux/Unix and I don't suppose I will be anytime soon. There's a reason for that and m$ still doesn't get it.
A bug in Windows 3.1 and forward allows a malicious attacker with access to the local network to hijack your machine and run any program he wants on the users machine.
The attack goes like this:
He sets up a DHCP server
Feeeds computers booting with fake IPs for DNS and WINS servers.
Redirects the NETLOGON server shares to a share under his control. Makes sure the login script runs his software.
It is thus recommended that all Windows users, especially coorporate users, disables DHCP in the TCP/IP settings, until Microsoft starts shippign support for DHCPS - which is DHCP over SSL/TLS.
It is important to do this, since if only some users does it, it might be difficult for thew machines to connect to each other.
"HAHAHAHAH!! Mac OS X isn't perfect! Duh, I'm so smart!"
Is this guy for real? How does a vulnerability which involves an attacker having to break into your home network (much less a corporate one), take over a machine and then set it up as a rogue DHCP server anywhere near equivalent to something like Blaster, which spread automatically, with no machine spoofing required? Honestly, if your network is so utterly open to attack that it's a trivial task to spoof a DHCP server, there are bigger problems than OS X's security flaw there.
The claim that Mac OS X would have more viruses if it was more popular holds some merit, but it says nothing about the lethality of those viruses. OS X has all sharing network services off by default, unlike Windows, shutting down a large avenue for virus propagation. Mail shows the entire file name of an attachment, preventing attackers from hiding extensions. Mail also does not automatically execute attachments. Furthermore, any application wishing to do anything as administrator has to ask for a password by default, and root is disabled by default. This is not the case in Windows, where tales of administrator accounts with blank passwords abound. While there may be more attempts at writing viruses for OS X if it was more popular, far fewer of them would actually reach the scale of damage that things like Blaster did. Windows is an ideal virus propagation platform not just because it's popular, but more importantly, because it's default setup is insecure as well.
I'll admit, right away, that I'm a Mac user. Then again, I'm also a Windows user, Linux user, SunOS user, etc. I'm really not *that* platform dependant. I guess I really don't understand the reasoning behind arguing over an OS. The argument is rather petty if you are not doing anything to improve upon the security of the operating system you favor. No OS is perfect, and no OS is totally secure.
I did find a few problems with the article (beside the fact that the author was bashing mac users who bash windows users...circular logic, anyone?). The author claimed that due to the fact that DVD Jon cracked quicktime encryption of ACC streams (used by the iTunes Music Store) doesn't mean it's going to bring either the MacOS or Windows to its knees. It's a f**king MP3 player for Chrissakes. Sure, vulnerability that could circumvent OS security might exist within iTunes, but the specific nature of DVD Jon's crack has nothing to do with OS security.
The author made this claim about the cross-platform iTunes "exploit" while failing to mention anything at all about Macros, and the possible for viruses that accompany them. To me, it seems that the author was grasping at straws without having any concrete evidence to back up his claims.
Whenever I read an article from one side of the OS wars bashing the other side, I tend to think that the author was in danger of missing his deadline and needed to come up with something in a hurry. Why does this issue never get old? Perhaps we should think about ways to make our OS of choice more secure rather than bashing others' flaws.
AgentOJ
But even back then, I had this gnawing suspicion that 18-month software development cycles could somehow hurt the platform. Before the tide really turned, however, I switched to PCs. I had joined PC Magazine, and the editorial staff used them.
That's the Mac's problem! He has nailed it! Apple develops new and vastly improved features (in the range of 150+) - basically an overhaul of the operating system - every 18 months. Rather than this whole OS X thing, they should have just created a new theme for OS 9 (oooh, maybe with Green highlights) and changed its name every so often...
If you can't taste the sarcasm, just smile and nod...
Disclaimer: This comment was generated by a Flock of Trained Microsoft Programmers for Aqua_Geek.
This means anyone can walk up to your machine and boot it into single user mode and completely root you.
oh my god you mean someone with physical access could also somehow DNS spoof net info and get root access. Oh my alert the media.
The point is where one draw the line between ease of intergration versus security becomes cloudy once one gets to the point of requiring physical access to engage in a hack. The ONLY thing that I see distinguishing these analogous root attacks is that most people are aware of the single-user boot attack and though it was well documented the DNS attack was not well known and thus could have surprised a lot of people.
Fixing this now presents apple with a dilema. Consider that happens if they were to issue a security update that went around and turned off this feature. Suddenly all networks that had actually been using it suddenly stop working and some sysadmin has to figure out why then reconfigure every machine to turn it back on.
Thus you can see why they have not rushed to change the default. But one assumes that they will ship NEW os's and new computers with it turned off in the future.
this choice for easy configuration assuming the local network can be trusted dates back to the time of NFS. And NFS is still presents almost exactly the same potential security hole (if you remote NFS mount your home directory you just pulled your pants down, grabbed your ankles, and said "ah" if I can jack onto your network. ). NFS has not fixed this problem yet either cause doing so would break a lot of networks.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
How does a default setting regarding a specific directory's permissions plus the fact it doesn't use /etc/passwd make it "unfit for production"?
/etc. That's just how it works. It uses the NetInfo database. This is one of the few actually well-documented parts of OS X. /etc is a vestigial limb, it's a dummy file which is involved in startup but it is not actually used for real user info. It's used in single user mode because single user mode is an emergency startup mode used for debugging, and NetInfo doesn't launch in this mode unless you launch it, because part of the single user mode's hypothetical purpose is to debug problems with NetInfo!
OS X doesn't use
You might as well call Linux unfit for production because you can do some potentially nasty security-related things in some versions of Lilo.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I have a router now - see, I can learn :)
Some people tell me I should set up an old PC to run Linux and configure that as a router, but they don't seem to understand that:
* That requires significant effort on my part
* My router is small (paperback book size)
* It doesn't make loads of noise and consume loads of power.
* When I occasionally get problems with my connection (about once every 2 months), whatever the problem, it's usually solved by toggling the router power switch, and takes a few seconds.
But you can't tell some people...
>Apple's response was that it doesn't happen in Panther, so just upgrade.
Those BASTARDS! How can you get any work done in Jaguar without this critical feature. I just can't believe that somebody inside Apple decided not to backport this.
*cough*
Jesus Christ.
Please also keep us posted on the progress of the bug whereby a 20" iMac cooled to nearly absolute zero incorrectly reports a temperature value of MAXINT. That one's really slowing me down at work and if they don't fix it soon I'm gonna have no choice but to switch back to Windows.
How many Safari-related security problems have you seen reported? Compared to Internet Explorer?
.ASP or whatever - it's still VB)
How many ActiveX-related security problems have you seen on OS X?
How many scripting, or RPC, or buffer overrun-related problems have you seen on OS X?
Have you ever seen any AppleScript-related security problems like the VB-related ones on Windows? (you can call it macros, Windows Scripting Host,
Most of the problems I've seen on OS X thus far are problems in the open source pieces that affect that product across the industry, including distros in Linux. This is one of the few security flaws that is _native_ to OS X - I can't even remember the last one I've seen. And it does require you to go through plenty of hoops - having control over the local DHCP server, for instance.
Yes - we're going to see security problems with OS X. But not ridiculously stupid ones that could have easily been prevented like we've seen on Windows... I think it's silly to even put them in the same league with each other.