Slashdot Mirror


NSA Security Guide for Mac OS X

An anonymous reader writes "The National Security Agency has just released a Security Configuration Guide for Apple Mac OS X (pdf). The guide mostly contains common sense configuration information that applies to many Unix systems. It also includes specific discussion for Apple's unique features such as Keychain and FileVault. It should be useful to most Mac OS X users and will be particularly useful for US Government organisations that use Mac OS X and for commercial IT Departments that are supporting Mac OS X. A range of other NSA Security Configuration guides for other operating systems, applications, and IT kit are also available."

73 of 250 comments (clear)

  1. Jurrasic Park on OS X by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Funny

    Lex: "It's a UNIX system! I know this!"

  2. New Government-Oriented Commercial? by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 4, Funny
    (voiceover)

    Step 45,328:

    There is no step 45,328. There is no step 45,328...*soft weeping sounds*

    --

    Obliteracy: Words with explosions

  3. What about... by Staos · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I tell you one interesting thing. While it was working back in 2003, I updated a 68030 Mac Duo laptop 7.6's modem driver from Apple site. I even had support about how to add more ram. That machine is back from 1994 or something.

    OS X updates aren't service packs, they are new OS'es. 10.3.0 is a new OS , 10.3.1 is a service pack.

    About antivirus and anti adware? As its a BSD based real OS, its run by rights. As its a pain in the ass to code a spyware on linux, its much more harder on OS X. Guess why? OS X shows a user friendly window which is centralized by OS GUI whenever a program needs administrative access.

    Oh there is a program on OS X, comes with it and has a unsolved security problem. Yes, it still exists. Guess what is it? INTERNET EXPLORER macintosh edition.

    --
    In Soviet russia, only old Koreans profit from pictures of Natalie Portman stored on Beowulf Clusters.
    1. Re:What about... by 0racle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't see how simply having a centralized 'This app needs Admin access' form makes it any harder to write malware for a system, any app could trigger that function and make the request. Windows also has a single Ask for Admin form, all you have to do to trigger it is name an application setup.exe and it will ask if you want to run it as Administrator or not and I'm sure thats not the only way.

      Malware is hard to code on Linux and *BSD not because of some standard or non-standard way of asking for access, but because of years of very intelligent people asking themselves how can we safely do that. OS X's polished GUI functions are over and above that to present the nice base OS in a non-threatening way.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    2. Re:What about... by Englabenny · · Score: 2, Informative

      Fortunately internet explorer is discontinued

    3. Re:What about... by evilviper · · Score: 2, Insightful
      As its a pain in the ass to code a spyware on linux, its much more harder on OS X. Guess why? OS X shows a user friendly window which is centralized by OS GUI whenever a program needs administrative access.

      That would make it EASIER to spread worms/viruses than a normal Unix system, NOT harder. In Unix, attempts to access resources you don't have permissions to, just fail. If it pops up a window that says "would you like to give this program access" then you're just as screwed as the rest of the world... That's because people are stupid and click yes without knowing what they're doing. If it's piggybacking on some other installation (browser plug-ins or other 'gee wiz' features) then users wouldn't have the slightest reason to suspect anything.

      Note, though, that this is only for viruses/worms, because spyware doesn't need root access to do it's job. It can spy on you in user-land just fine. It can change your browser proxy settings without root access, and pop-up ads from competing sites without root access. Am I missing any annoying features?
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:What about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not sure if this would make it more secure for the OS challenged, but when it asks for administrative permission it asks for a password. If an office admin wants to keep the OS X's in the office secure, just don't give the secretaries the password for their computers. If they need to do anything which requires the password, they have to ask the computer guy and he can say, "So why do you need to see nude pictures of Brad Pitt again?"

    5. Re:What about... by r2q2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree, I was running 10.1 and then upgraded to 10.3. There is a whole user interface redo, support for rendevous, a journaling file system much better support for unix, an x windowing system, ipv6 support expose and a host of other reasons why that was a good upgrade. Although I didn't pay full price for it it was one of the best upgrades and I believe I got my moneys worth.

      --
      My UID is prime is yours?
    6. Re:What about... by Yaztromo · · Score: 4, Informative
      I don't see how simply having a centralized 'This app needs Admin access' form makes it any harder to write malware for a system, any app could trigger that function and make the request.

      It is my understanding that on OS X, the authorization dialog pops up because a request to a protected reqource/API has been made, as opposed to an application being able to just randomly tell the OS to pop up an authorization dialog.

      The dialog itself always displays the name (and if available icon) of the application making the request, as well as the name of the right being requested. As this is put together only by the OS, you can't substitute one right name when you really want to do something different. And getting one right doesn't automatically permit a process to use any other right on the system -- each right needs authorization.

      It's actually quite a good system, and has been very well thought out. It does, of course, rely on some vigilence by the end user -- if they're entering their password anytime it's being requested without quickly checking to see what is making the request and why, obviously they're going to get into trouble.

      Then again, if I e-mail a bunch of Linux admins and ask them for their passwords, and they send them to me, you wind up with the same end result.

      Yaz.

    7. Re:What about... by Durandal64 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      What are you thinking? That all other OSes just give you an OKAY button and don't ask for a password to get Admin rights? No, of course not. You always need the password.
      Not quite. Administrators on Mac OS X and Windows are different things. On Mac OS X, an administrator is a user who is allowed to temporarily acquire root privileges through a sudo action. To get these privileges, the user must enter his password. So, if I want to install a program that needs to write files to /Library or anywhere that isn't /Applications (the admin group has full access to the /Applications directory) or my home directory, I need to enter my password. If I choose, I can require authentication for "secure" system preferences, like the login preferences.

      On Windows, if you are logged in as an administrator (not the Administrator account), your account will automatically authenticate during program installations and such, hence why you can make changes to the system settings and install programs without ever being challenged for a password. That is what makes the Windows way of doing things inherently more risky. You don't need to enter your password for administrator actions.
    8. Re:What about... by Carnildo · · Score: 2, Informative

      That part was not mentioned. However, it is not a good practice to do much of anything as an administrator, so I have to wonder if this is of any use, anyhow.

      On MacOSX, running as an administrator is not the same as running as "root". On MacOSX, running as an "administrator" is more-or-less equivalent to having "sudo" privileges on a Unix box: entering your password in a security box permits you to do certain administrator-type operations for a limited period.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
  4. Lack of safety in numbers by YetAnotherName · · Score: 4, Funny

    Given how entrenched Micro$oft's clutches are into the US Government, a security guide for Windows based systems would be even more useful.

    (I work for NASA; almost everyone in our group has Mac OS X on our desktops and Linux in the server room. Our supervisor is the only Windows user. Yes, he's developing pointy hair.)

    1. Re:Lack of safety in numbers by Scutter · · Score: 3, Informative

      How about this? There are several linked off that NSA page besides this one.

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    2. Re:Lack of safety in numbers by lachlan76 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Had you not brought down the NSA website, you would find them here.

    3. Re:Lack of safety in numbers by hbackert · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Did you click on the second link in the story? There's a lot for Windows See under "Operating Systems".

      Given the fact that I don't use MacOSX, I checked out the Cisco one some time ago and it's quite impressive. Lots of common sense things of course, but some good ideas I would have otherwise not thought about. Definitely recommended.

      It's nice to see government agencies not waste our (sorry: your) tax dollars and instead produce something useful and not hiding it in one of their many shelfs.

    4. Re:Lack of safety in numbers by Andr0s · · Score: 2, Funny

      A security guide for Windows-based systems ?

      Talk about an exercise in futility. I'd put that book right next to Understanding Republican Mindset, Philosophical Debates of Military Intelligence and Filanthropy of Modern Man

      --
      '...computers in the future may have only 1000 vacuum tubes and perhaps weigh 1.5 tons...' Popular Mechanics, 03/49'
    5. Re:Lack of safety in numbers by general_re · · Score: 4, Funny
      Filanthropy of Modern Man

      I'll put it alongside my copy of Speling Fer Slahsdooters.

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    6. Re:Lack of safety in numbers by Andr0s · · Score: 2, Funny

      Eh... not all of us in the world are native english speakers. Still, I trust my english spelling & grammar beats your croatian, eh?

      --
      '...computers in the future may have only 1000 vacuum tubes and perhaps weigh 1.5 tons...' Popular Mechanics, 03/49'
  5. These things make a nice checklist, but.... by general_re · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ....actually implementing everything the NSA recommends in its guides will get you a system that is both highly secure and exceptionally inconvenient for its users. It's a useful reference, to see if you've forgotten anything that you particularly want, or anything obvious, but as always, individual admins will have to decide for themselves where they want their systems to lie on the security-usability axis...

    --
    ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
  6. You Bastards! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hmm the pdf is downloading at .6 k/s and dropping. Slashdotting the NSA - this qualifies for some sort of Darwin award, doesn't it? :)

    1. Re:You Bastards! by JamesTRexx · · Score: 3, Funny

      Always ready to help with foreign support. *clicks furiously on the links from his place in The Netherlands*

      --
      home
  7. File Vault by dumitrius · · Score: 5, Informative
    This is simply the encryption of the entire user's home directory. I had this enabled on my powerbook stuffed it with a few gigs of data and it ran fine for a while... maybe like 3 months. Then one day on a reboot the thing silently lost all my personal settings and dropped me into a stock desktop configuration. Was nursing this for a week or two when I started getting garbage in some source files. Was thinking maybe the hardrive was defective but have a hunch the enctyption just went haywire and was getting worse. Turning File Vault off failed with an error. Have reinstalled the os keeping a plain text home dir and things seem dandy.

    Has anyone seen this before?

    1. Re:File Vault by eyegor · · Score: 4, Informative

      It happened to me too.... I managed to get everything back though. There was a sparse diskimage file that contained my home directory. Once I mounted it, everything returned to normal.

      Your milage may vary.

      --

      Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
    2. Re:File Vault by dema · · Score: 2, Informative

      Happened to my boss less than a month ago. Spent a long time trying to recover of lot of his shit (some very important files) and had no luck. Long sotry short, no one at work uses filt vault now (: Maybe this is something that will improve in Tiger?

    3. Re:File Vault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Many people had problems with it first came out. It was caused by the "recovering space" thing not completing before the user logged in again. I still don't trust Apple's default configuration since there are warnings in their own documentation against using a sparse image, which File Vault does.

      I've used this hint for over six months now without problem.

      On the other hand, it's trivial to get the user's password from swap, unless Apple fixed this hole already, so there's not much point to File Vault right now.

    4. Re:File Vault by twalls · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's really sad, man. I had that happen and it scared the crap out of me (I've got a 15GB home directory). One day I logged in and it just sort of stared blankly at me with all the defaults. I blinked, told myself I was having a very bad dream, and logged off. When I logged back in, everything was fine and I breathed a huge sigh of relief! I guess I was one of the "lucky" ones. I keep using it and I haven't had any more issues... yet.

    5. Re:File Vault by Matey-O · · Score: 2, Interesting

      think they coulda named it something better than 'sparse diskimage'? I blew away all my settings (yeah, boo hoo, won't do THAT again) cause the diskimage was roughly the size of the two huge AVI's I just threw away and I wasn't getting my diskspace back after emptying the trashcan.

      Name it something like 'Secret Encrypted File' or something...

      --
      "Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
    6. Re:File Vault by Daengbo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't trust it with anything important though

      Kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

    7. Re:File Vault by suprax · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ditto here. Just last week I turned on FireVault and let it runs its course for like 15 minutes. Finally it said reboot but the screen was frozen. Upon rebooting the user could log in but nothing would load at all. It pretty much straight up broke. Luckily I was able to go into single user mode, and could ftp all my data off the machine before reinstalling.

      No more FileVault for me. And this was Tiger (yes I know, its not even beta software but I like to test).

    8. Re:File Vault by cosmic_0x526179 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Lets just rename it Vile Fault...

      (with appol to the Mouseketeer, who in 1984 coined the name VileFision... what happened to him anyway ?)

      --
      This msg is brought to you by the letter 'W'.. for Worthless Wuss
  8. In other news... by eventDriven · · Score: 5, Funny

    The U.S. Governement's ultra-secret monitoring system 'echelon' was briefly unavailable after the NSA's web servers were Slashdotted.

  9. NSA Security Guide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Always leave an NSA auto-secure port (9999) open on your machine.

    Disregard any unexplained background executables.

    Always use IE when surfing.

    Confine all discussing of terrorist/anti-government actions to public networks (or private ones, we don't really care)

  10. Security, Usability, Reliability by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Pick any two.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  11. Slashdotted already? by BandwidthHog · · Score: 5, Funny

    Alright, we've slashdotted the NSA!!!!!

    Now we can safely do, umm, whatever it is that we thought we couldn't do safely while the NSA had an active internet connection. Psst, any terrorists out there need a browser with 128-bit SSL enabled?

    --

    Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    1. Re:Slashdotted already? by networkBoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Got a media reference? I live in the area and have heard nothing about it.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    2. Re:Slashdotted already? by zrail · · Score: 2, Funny

      Thats because it was a SECRET warrant issued by a SECRET court. The only reason he knows is because his tinfoil hat somehow intercepted the FBI's radio communications.

  12. Screwed up by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yikes! The replies to this story are completely screwed up. I'm starting to feel sorry I ever tried to make a joke. I figured others would have something more insightful to say. Well, since no one else will, I'll try to say something insightful.

    It seems to me that most OS X users are pretty quiet on the topic because they can't find anything to say. Not because they're ashamed, but more because OS X Just Works(TM). Since the OS Just Works(TM), security guidelines like this are nothing more than hints on how to prevent users from accidentally opening security holes.

    Contrast this with Windows, where everyone is always looking for the "magic solution" that will allow them to completely close of the machine from attack. Yet Windows insists on requiring various services (e.g. RPC) to be running and publicly available before it will run properly.

    Some might argue that OS X is so secure because the developers had an opportunity to view OSes which came before them. This may seem like a reasonable argument, but quickly falls apart once OS X's heritage is investigated. You see, OS X is really the next major release of NeXTSTEPl an OS that pre-dates Microsoft's creation of Windows NT & 95. NeXT got it right back then. Why can't other OS makers get it right today?

    1. Re:Screwed up by rdc_uk · · Score: 2, Funny

      We cannot comment on the report, because we cannot read the report; because we have /.'ed the server.

      Oh bitter, bitter irony!

    2. Re:Screwed up by baywulf · · Score: 3, Funny

      Lex: "It's a UNIX system! I know how to tokening this!"
      Yacc: "It's a UNIX system! I know how to parse this!"

    3. Re:Screwed up by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're telling me there are no Mac users (besides myself) that can see The Mysterious Future(TM)? Very well then. Here's a preview of the next article. SuSE 9.2 is out. There, I said it. Now prepare something insightful to say. :-)

    4. Re:Screwed up by athanis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A lot of users that I come into contact with seem to have a false sense of security. They seem to think that if they have an antivirus software, then their computer would become immune...
      But I think more needs to be done to educate the public that security isn't any single software/component, but rather, a process.. From passwords, to firewalls, to antivirus, to spyware, there are many parts to it.

      I think it's unfair to blame the OS solely. Application developers need to be aware of bugs and potential problems. No matter how hard you idiot proof a system, they will build a better idiot, as the saying goes.

    5. Re:Screwed up by Otter · · Score: 2, Funny
      You're telling me there are no Mac users (besides myself) that can see The Mysterious Future(TM)?

      How I am supposed to afford a Mac and a Slashdot subscription?

      (Just kidding...please don't start posting Dell comparisons..I know already.)

  13. Counterintuitive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Since it's a security site, I'd expect it to display a warning and disable the site if you are clueless enough to accept the cookie!

    You gotta start with the fundamentals...

    1. Re:Counterintuitive... by jerw134 · · Score: 3, Informative

      So, what exactly does accepting a cookie have to do with security? I can't seem to figure that one out.

      If you would have said privacy, you could possibly have had a point. But security? No way.

  14. Guide for Linux? by brandonp · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is very cool, is there also a Security Guide for Linux? Sounds really helpful.

    --
    Brandon Petersen
    Get Firefox!

    1. Re:Guide for Linux? by Zinho · · Score: 2, Informative
      It doesn't look like they're maintaining a current document on Linux. Their comprehensive list of current configuration guides does not list any, in any case. I did find their list of archived guides, which has a guide for Apache 1.3.3 on Red Hat 5.1 - it had the following explanation for why guides get into the archive:
      NSA has developed and maintained configuration guidance for a number of products. Over time these products age, are superceded by newer versions, or are no longer used by it customers. As such, NSA may choose to discontinue maintenance and archive some of these guides.
      So it looks to me like they're not supporting Linux with this program, regardless of the fact that someone else in the organisation is builing SELinux. Sounds like a classic case of right-hand not knowing what the left hand is doing...
      --
      "Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
  15. Keychain Access Gripe by finkployd · · Score: 5, Informative

    I finally found something about OS X that I absolutely hate and is making me question the entire OS. OS X has its own digital certificate/private key cache (which also stores passwords, but that is irrelevant), which is convenient for applications that use certificates and private keys for identity (like safari and mail.app). It also has a nice utility for managing this environment (Keychain Access).

    HOWEVER, Apple (for reasons I cannot fathom) has decided to not allow keys and certs to be exported from this cache. This is totally unacceptable and horribly wrong. In this email, which confirms my worst fears, Peter Sagerson says it best:

    In Jaguar, private keys are never exportable. This seems kind of silly, since my digital identity should be linked to me, not the platform, the machine or that particular (and transient) installation of the OS. In Panther, Keychain Access has an Export command, but it's never enabled. I don't see a Keychain-level API for key export and the CSSM API doesn't seem to work. So it's hard to tell what the intention is.

    The intention seems to be the very incorrect idea that the digital identity belongs to the computer, and not the person. I have figured out how to move my cert and key to another Mac, that is simple creating a new keychain, copying certs to it, and moving the new keychain file to another machine. However, I still cannot get them out of Apple's proprietary format to move them to any non-OSX platform. I have posted this question to Apple's usually helpful discussion forum, but have received no answer.

    This is most disturbing and calls into question both Apple's competency with regard to security in general, and their intentions with regard to what the user can do with their own data (or in this case, their own identity)

    1. Re:Keychain Access Gripe by finkployd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Everyone has USB, why not use this instead of requiring a card reader?

      Excellent idea though, I have been in support of that concept for a while. This could be extended to requiring a password to unlock the private key on the card/usb drive or even have a small thumbprint reader on the card/usb drive itself to unlock the key. This would remove my major complaints about biometrics (ie replay attack)

      These technologies all exist and would be simple, but people simply do not see the need for them so there is no demand (outside of of some rare government, education, and corporation groups). Unfortunately the average joe is content with a digital world that relies completly on his mother's maiden name for authentication :(

      Finkployd

    2. Re:Keychain Access Gripe by MoneyT · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, it's not the best solution, but if you want to move your keychain from one computer to another, just open the Keychains folder in your User library (~/Library)

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    3. Re:Keychain Access Gripe by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not really. A reader is a $10-$20 part that can easily be added to any system. An external reader could easily market for $20-$50. The end result is that the smart card is going to be cheaper in the long run. (Keep in mind that each person who uses the computer is going to need two cards/keys. Things get particularly dicey in family situations.)

      If you look at a diagram for a smart card sometime, you'll notice how simple the things are. Basically, they fab small RAM, ROM, and processor chips right onto the card itself. This makes them cheaper to produce than wiring components together on breadboard, then encasing them in plastic.

  16. Re:is there a reason why the NSA won't by jasonbowen · · Score: 2, Informative

    I guess you haven't heard of SELinux?

  17. NSA Guide to securing Windows computers by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 4, Funny

    Step 1: Pack Windows system in appropriate shipping container
    Step 2:Mark container "Target"
    Step 3: Have courier deliver container to nearest FBI shooting range

    1. Re:NSA Guide to securing Windows computers by patman600 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sure, just add even more holes to the system...

  18. What about users of other OSes? by athanis · · Score: 2, Informative

    How come the NSA only publishes guidelines for the MacOS? Actually, I think that with the recent onslaught of network vulnerabilities, government organizations would do well to educate the public more about security.

    In fact, where I live (Hong Kong), the government had a radio show where there would be a quick tip about securing your machine. Obviously, the focus was on Windoze, but anything that elevates the awareness of the general public to computer security is a good thing.

    1. Re:What about users of other OSes? by skiman1979 · · Score: 2, Informative

      um... they don't just publish guides for MacOS. NSA has security guides for other operating systems as well. Check the last link in the article summary.

      --
      Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
  19. And in other News..... by mbrewthx · · Score: 3, Funny

    The infamous CowboyNeal was arrested today at his private hovel. The Department of Homelnd Security issued a statement saying that he was the head of a secret conspiracy to disrupt the online functions of the NSA. There was no comment from CowboyNeal or his attorney a Mr. Taco. But he is said to enjoying Steak Tar Tar with his prison mate Martha Stewart. Mr. Neal's activities apparently caused serious lag in the NSA's end of the month CS tournament.

    --
    __________ Leave me alone I'm compiling a RPG II program on my S/36...Thanks to metamucil I'm a Regular Meta Moderator
    1. Re:And in other News..... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 2, Funny

      So how did Cowboy Neal wind up in a women's prison?

      Wait! Don't answer that!

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  20. Re:is there a reason why the NSA won't by psyconaut · · Score: 2, Informative

    They did, didn't they? In the form of their own Linux distribution.

    http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/

    If you read the source and documentation, it's quite clear what they did. Producing a "boiler-plate" security document for all Linux distributions would be futile -- there are too many variables involved.

    A commercial product such as OSX is quite a bit more linear, and this easier to release a straightforward guide.

    -psy

  21. Re:Slashdotted already? Nope. by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 3, Funny

    They didn't /. us^H^Hthe NSA.

    They /.'d the NSA OS X hacker honeypot. Traffic recording and analysis is proceeding just fine, thank you. As are the webcams. I hope your co-workers don't use that keyboard-- don't you have a handkerchief?

  22. They're... still... up by twalls · · Score: 5, Funny

    Several people have already called the slashdotting. They're still alive and kicking! Gotta give em credit for trying. "Mr. President, we're giving her all we can! She just doesn't have enough bandwidth!" "Well, why not just use one of the other Internets?"

  23. Another excellent OS X security guide by daveschroeder · · Score: 4, Informative

    Corsaire Ltd has an excellent practical OS X security whitepaper in this same vein.

  24. Re:FU SLASHDOT by berbo · · Score: 2, Funny
    I agree grandparent is childish, but I also agree the moderators smoke crack.

    Not all of us - some of us prefer Guatemalan insanity peppers.

  25. Keychain itself deisgned to be portable by daveschroeder · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apple is most certainly not tying digital identity to the computer.

    Your Keychain, in ~/Library/Keychains, is perfectly portable, and designed to be moved from computer to computer, or stored on a device for storing such tokens, such as a USB flash drive.

    Further, that certificates are even in your keychain at all implies that you should have access to the original source certificate files, which clearly remain portable.

    And finally, rumor has it that Tiger will include much more advanced features for managing, importing, and exporting certificates and CAs.

    1. Re:Keychain itself deisgned to be portable by finkployd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Your Keychain, in ~/Library/Keychains, is perfectly portable, and designed to be moved from computer to computer, or stored on a device for storing such tokens, such as a USB flash drive.

      I mentioned it is possible to copy keychain files. Which is perfectly fine if you are only talking about OS X computers, but that isn't the only OS out there. Calling keychain portable is fine as long as you note that the portability is only extended to other Macs.

      Further, that certificates are even in your keychain at all implies that you should have access to the original source certificate files, which clearly remain portable.

      False, if you generate a personal identity cert using a service like Thawte or Verisign (which do this over a web interface) then the private key is generated as a request from their webserver on your machine, and ONLY stored in Keychain. Try it yourself, use Safari and go to Thawte's page and create a personal cert. The cert is downloaded in whatever format you desire, but the key is generated locally and there is NO way to get it out of Keychain (despite the permanently grayed out "export" menu option).

      This kind of situation does not happen on any other OS. (and arguably wouldn't have happened on OSX had I used Mozilla or Firefox to generate the private key).

      Lastly, what happens to the person who maybe generates their private key using, say, openssl and then imports it to keychain? Practicing good security maybe they decide that having multiple private keys is bad and the delete the file assuming that it is possible to export a private key out of Keychain. Is that such an unreasonable assumption? What good reason is there for OSX to not allow you to do that?

      The changes to Keychain you referenced are certainly welcome (since that app has hardly changed at all over the years and could do much more), but I wonder if they will fix the exporting problem? I certainly hope so.

      Finkployd

  26. Pardon Me while I take a NAP while waiting for my by sir+lox+elroy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    download to complete, DOH it's now stalled. /me wants to call the NSA and ask if they can mail me a printed version of the document it would be faster

    --
    Kosh: "Understanding is a 3 edged sword, your side, their side, the Truth."
  27. Here's a summary by DevolvingSpud · · Score: 2, Funny

    To secure your Macintosh, please download the NSA_KEY file and place it in your system directory.

    (For those who missed this way back when, here's a good summary: http://cryptome.org/nsakey-ms-dc.htm

    --
    Keep your friends close.
    Keep your enemies in a little jar on your desk.
  28. It's a little more complex than that by SethJohnson · · Score: 2, Informative

    FIle Vault is actually an encrypted file system. It mounts your user dir as a volume and accesses the data on that system via the key you create.

    Yes, the nature of this architecture means that there can be zero disk corruption or you won't be able to mount it. So in a normal disk corruption setting, you would lose a few files or somthing. Having your user dir as an encrypted volume forces a sort of checksum on all the data and if even a single byte is incorrect, then the whole thing fails to mount.

    It's actually a very secure method of storing your user data. Performance-wise, I've noticed that you can't use iMovie to import video files to your home dir if you're using file vault. The overhead on writing to the encrypted file system is too much for my 1.3gz powerbook. The video import is all kinds of choppy. Importing to the regular hard drive is fine, though.

  29. MacOSX attacks... by mveloso · · Score: 4, Informative

    Attacks on MacOS X will be driven by user interaction.

    The biggest problem for malware writers in MacOS X is that it's hard to remotely attack the box.

    Mac OS 9 and its ilk were pretty much impossible to compromise remotely, because, well, they were designed as single-user OSs with no network services (no network daemons) installed by default.

    Mac OS X isn't quite like that, but it's close. The downside is all those bsd-level things probably have holes of one sort or another. Has anyone actually checked the robustness of Apple's X-11 implementation? .

    OTOH, it's must easier to get the user to click and download something. The "prompt for your admin password" thing is great, but everyone does it without thinking these days, giving any installer root access.

    Once that happens, you can install anything, anywhere, and given the structure of MacOS X you can hide your stuff in places a normal user won't be able to find. The "Opener" guys (see www.macintouch.com) should have edited the rc scripts, not stuck their stuff in /Library/StartupItems.

    Luckily, the web/email based attacks haven't worked so far (unlike on Windows), so you really do need to get someone to run an app. These days that isn't as hard as it used to be.

    Apple could protect against that by doing a system restore/diff after every installer run. It would be useful after-the-fact, and most users may not understand any of it, but it would be nice to have. Or (assuming the metadata stuff works in tiger) you could stash metadata info on the installed files somewhere, then search across your filesystem for matching stuff?

    Ideally (and this is what MS tried) each publisher would sign all their files, and that sig would be part of the file metadata. So you could list, see, and search across it. Malware would bypass that, though, but you never know.

    1. Re:MacOSX attacks... by Matthias+Wiesmann · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Has anyone actually checked the robustness of Apple's X-11 implementation? .
      Well, given the fact that it is XFree86 4.3.0 it is as robust as on Linux or other BSD...
  30. Re:Mirror anyone? by npongratz · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm probably stating the obvious, but here's the mirror:
    http://mirrordot.org/stories/111603fdae30 b9727bb43 2e622eff8e3/osx_client_final_v.1.pdf

  31. It's too bad these won't last by ubrgeek · · Score: 2, Informative

    The NSA has decided that they don't have the resources to continue putting out new lockdown docs. They're going to let the vendors do it for them. No joke.

    --
    Bark less. Wag more.
  32. Password length related... by cft_128 · · Score: 2, Informative
    I blinked, told myself I was having a very bad dream, and logged off. When I logged back in, everything was fine and I breathed a huge sigh of relief! I guess I was one of the "lucky" ones. I keep using it and I haven't had any more issues... yet.

    I've had both problems happen (the bad and the recoverable), the bad one has not happened since I updated to 10.3.1. For the recoverable with a re-login one, near as I can tell this comes from some legacy 8 character password weirdness. As this post indicates, if you have upgraded your computer from jaguar to panther you will only need 8 characters of your password to be correct to log in. What I have noticed is that is FileVault does not have the 8 char limit and needs *all* of the characters in your password to be correct. This causes some weirdness if you have a 12 character password and have a typo in the 10th character: you will be logged in but not see any of your data. The really stupid thing is there is no error message displayed*.

    Having said that, I haven't had the problem crop up in a while so they might have fixed it.

    *Sort of: if you do not have FileVault on, your keychain will choke and ask for your password again.

    --

    Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org

  33. Re: You spelled it wrong by wheatwilliams · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Americans spell it one way, and the British (and all other English speaking peoples besides the Americans) spell it the other way. Same with "color" and "colour" and many other examples. It's been that way since the American, Noah Webster, wrote his dictionaries the early 1800s. He not only single-handedly "reformed" English spelling, he also wanted to create a distinction between "American English" and that of Great Britain, possibly for political reasons or a sense of nationalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster