Slashdot Mirror


Apple Releases Mac OS X Patches

phoric writes "According to eWeek, Apple has released security patches to fix 16 'highly critical' holes, one-third of which deal with the open-source Apache web server. Several of the fixes address exploits such as the bypassing of security restrictions, spoofing, and potential DoS attacks."

84 comments

  1. Any exploits "in the wild"? by TFGeditor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Seems odd. Is anyone aware of any malware that takes advantage of the exploits?

    --
    Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
    1. Re:Any exploits "in the wild"? by inertia187 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yep: Virtual PC.

      --
      A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
    2. Re:Any exploits "in the wild"? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Informative

      Is anyone aware of any malware that takes advantage of the exploits?

      There was a demo exploit of the Safari pop-up redirection. Anyone could have grabbed that and set up an exploit site. That one was pretty weak though. It might have been good for phishing clueless people.

    3. Re:Any exploits "in the wild"? by JoseFilipe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Need I remind you that it is best to plug that hole before someone has time to exploit it? And no, it is not a sign that Mac OS X is any less secure than other operating systems!

    4. Re:Any exploits "in the wild"? by ThousandStars · · Score: 1

      Actually VPC is fine; it's the potential operating systems one installs that are the problem.

    5. Re:Any exploits "in the wild"? by boola-boola · · Score: 1, Interesting
      That one was pretty weak though. It might have been good for phishing clueless people.

      ...oh, so you mean 99% of users on the Internet (the masses are dumb). Anything that can take advantage of clueless people is a threat in my book.

    6. Re:Any exploits "in the wild"? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      ...oh, so you mean 99% of users on the Internet (the masses are dumb). Anything that can take advantage of clueless people is a threat in my book.

      Nah this exploit would target the clueless 50% of the 6% that are surfing with Safari. If someone is doing a phishing scam, they are probably better off using a more pervasive exploit.

  2. Cool! by wizbit · · Score: 4, Funny
    Apple has released security patches to fix 16 'highly critical' holes, one-third of which deal with the open-source Apache web server


    I've never used Software Update to apply 5.333 fixes before. This should be fun.
    1. Re:Cool! by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      How pedantic! You should round up to 5.3

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    2. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's round down, but only because I am pedantic.

    3. Re:Cool! by hunterx11 · · Score: 1

      Clearly they mean 16 / 3, not 16 / 3.0f

      --
      English is easier said than done.
  3. Now, before anyone says it... by the+pickle · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...how many of these holes had exploits in the wild?

    0 / 16.

    Every last one of them was -- and still is -- theoretical.

    Do what you have to do in the name of "balanced reporting," though, eWeek.

    p

    1. Re:Now, before anyone says it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Every last one of them was -- and still is -- theoretical

      Yep... as far as you know.

    2. Re:Now, before anyone says it... by Sancho · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's a nice contrast to Microsoft, who has allegedly known about security bugs and waited until there were out-of-control exploits before issuing fixes.

    3. Re:Now, before anyone says it... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Every last one of them was -- and still is -- theoretical.

      Well, not quite. The second Safari fix had a demo exploit published. I never got it to work on my system, but several people reported it working for them. (This was a pretty minor issue possibly tricking someone into thinking a pop-up was opened by another window). As for the other exploits, I don't know of any being leveraged either by a hacker or a worm, but that does not mean they were not found by anyone. The tiff and postscript overflows, for example, are not too different from exploits on windows and someone may have been using them.

      This patch encompasses about 5 possible remote code executions most of which were discovered by the open source community or by security firms. I find it encouraging that Apple is able to leverage the OS community to help secure their system, but it seems like Apple would benefit from some more thorough security reviews internally.

      Please note, I am not trying to pick on OSX here. OSX has an excellent security record, and I would trust it more than Windows or the average Linux distribution at this point. Eweek's coverage was not too bad, they mentioned them as potential vulnerabilities. I could have done without Secunia's 2 cents, and it might have been nice if they had emphasized that even with these vulnerabilities unpatched, there is little practical danger to the average user. All in all though, I did not think the article was too bad.

    4. Re:Now, before anyone says it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Oh yeah? Here's an exploit in the wild, created just now: http://macslash.org/comments.pl/..namedfork/data

      That's one serious hole. Hope they upgrade soon.

    5. Re:Now, before anyone says it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude you might seriously want to consider drinking something with less caffeine, or going on vacation, or something.

    6. Re:Now, before anyone says it... by the+pickle · · Score: 1, Interesting

      And that's OS X's fault how, exactly?

      Looks more like a vulnerability in Slashcode to me...

      p

    7. Re:Now, before anyone says it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, it has nothing to do with Slashcode. That exploit works regardless of what scripts you're running, and it also works to access files that are otherwise restricted. There are two reasons it's OS X's fault:

      First, Apple provides the faulty default Apache configuration that doesn't secure against this attack. No web admin should have to know intricate details of the operating system's file system to think up every single possible exploit that could come about due to idiosyncrasies in that particular system.

      Two, they put in that nonstandard behavior in the first place. This is the kind of thing that gets Slashdot up in arms about Microsoft all the time. We feel all smug that OUR systems don't have all these extra features with no thoughts to security. Well, Apple added an extra feature for HFS+ to access a file's data and resource forks through ..namedfork/data and ..namedfork/rsrc. No other system does this, and Apache certainly shouldn't have to have special code to check for it. The burden falls on Apple to make sure that their supplied tools and configurations take care of any possible security risks due to features such as this.

      It's not surprising that it took someone this long to discover the hole, and it's been there all along. How many other applications might be out there that restrict access to files based on name, but would be fooled by using the ..namedfork/data extension? I wouldn't be surprised if there are more out there. Since this isn't a standard Unix/POSIX behavior, the burden falls squarely on Apple.

      I really hope that everyone running an OS X web server runs this update quickly. Otherwise attackers will be able to read their scripts and other sensitive date - which they thought was blocked - and scrutinize it for bigger holes to truly exploit the systems. Yikes.

      More info here.

    8. Re:Now, before anyone says it... by discstickers · · Score: 1

      That doesn't work on slashdot, fyi

      --
      I have a shitty sig!
    9. Re:Now, before anyone says it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't know what we don't know. Thank you Mr. Rumsfeld. Can this be added to the list of things that gets asterisked to every statement made by anyone.

    10. Re:Now, before anyone says it... by justMichael · · Score: 4, Informative
      And that's OS X's fault how, exactly?

      Looks more like a vulnerability in Slashcode to me...
      Yeah, that was my first thought, then I tried it on my PowerBook which I use for development. It works on any file found under docroot, including .htaccess and it doesn't have to be the OS X install of Apache, I build my own and it works.

      I'll provide the link that the very helpful AC posted below in case it doesn't get modded up as I think people should see it.

      More info here.
    11. Re:Now, before anyone says it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Disagree... the Apache bugs are not hypothetical. Computerworld has a better writeup here: http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/securi ty/story/0,10801,98038,00.html

    12. Re:Now, before anyone says it... by anothergene · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Every last one of them was -- and still is -- theoretical.

      So would you sooner have them wait until there are threats in the wild? I would call this rather proactive.
      Of course if you use your own compiled version of apache and are on top of it then you've probably patched these hole a long time ago.

      --
      Who's leg do I have to hump to get a dry martini around here?
    13. Re:Now, before anyone says it... by nystagman · · Score: 1

      The second Safari fix had a demo exploit published. I never got it to work on my system, but several people reported it working for them. Well, I hope you called 800-SOS-APPL to see if they could help you get your machine exploited, too.

      --
      Theory and practice are the same in theory, but different in practice.
    14. Re:Now, before anyone says it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe because Slashdot isn't hosted on machines running OSX?

    15. Re:Now, before anyone says it... by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      are you sure that apache actually has special code to check for it, and that it's not something that's exposed at the standard library level?

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    16. Re:Now, before anyone says it... by Fry+a+Lad+Up · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are two reasons it's OS X's fault:

      First, Apple provides the faulty default Apache configuration that doesn't secure against this attack. No web admin should have to know intricate details of the operating system's file system to think up every single possible exploit that could come about due to idiosyncrasies in that particular system.

      Two, they put in that nonstandard behavior in the first place.

      All true.

      Still, there's more blame to spread. "allow all, but these that we explicitly deny" is a standard Apache config. Shouldn't it allow only ".html", ".", and, perhaps, ".txt" by default?

      BTW, how does the case-insensitive FS fall out with, for example, "file.PHP"?

  4. MSFT says URL spoofing security a feature by cuijian · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Apple fixed a URL spoofing vulnerability in Safari with this release. (The URL shown in the status bar when you click on a link was not necessarily where you were going to be taken)

    Just today, a MSFT IE secutity tester posted an entry on the IE Blog that dismisses the vulnerabilty. He feels that allowing web sites to display arbitrary text on the status bar is a feature and that users need to learn that they can only trust the address bar URL field, and the lock icon in the status bar. IE users need to know that "the status bar text is not helpful in making trust decisions."

    I'm amazed that is the mindset of an security tester and even more amazed that he feels comfortable posting that viewpoint publicly on the IE blog. No wonder they have so many security problems!

    Here is the link to the blog:
    http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2004/12/03 /274330 .aspx

    1. Re:MSFT says URL spoofing security a feature by MarkGriz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm amazed that is the mindset of an security tester and even more amazed that he feels comfortable posting that viewpoint publicly on the IE blog. No wonder they have so many security problems!

      This amazes you?
      On the one hand, you have Apple fixing potentially exploitable holes.
      One the other hand, Microsoft regularly downplays holes with "Mitigating Factors"

      Nope, seems like business as usual to me.

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    2. Re:MSFT says URL spoofing security a feature by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 0

      "He feels that allowing web sites to display arbitrary text on the status bar is a feature"

      It is and it has been for quite some time. It's part of every major browser.

      It's really *not a vulnerability* at all. Anyone who doesn't examine the address bar before entering personal information is going to get duped *anyway*.

      It is no more a flaw than the alert() function. In a loop, the alert() function allows pages to prevent the browser from recieving input.

      Should we disable that too?

      What about a link that has the proper href but uses Javascript to send users to a different page?

      Should we disable that too?

      I'm amazed that you find this an issue AT ALL. It IS NOT a security flaw.

    3. Re:MSFT says URL spoofing security a feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple fixed a URL spoofing vulnerability in Safari with this release. (The URL shown in the status bar when you click on a link was not necessarily where you were going to be taken)

      Just today, a MSFT IE secutity tester posted an entry on the IE Blog that dismisses the vulnerabilty.

      I can't seem to access the vulnerability report, but it doesn't sound like the same thing to me at all. Virtually every browser allows you to set the status bar text with Javascript. If you don't like that, you can switch client-side scripting off, or that particular feature in some browsers. The Safari hole sounds like websites can do this without any client-side scripting at all.

      What the Microsoft guy was saying is that the status bar text isn't something they intend people to trust. Something I personally think it a bit silly, but that's another matter. Other browsers are comparable to Internet Explorer in this respect, including Safari. You are comparing apples to oranges here.

    4. Re:MSFT says URL spoofing security a feature by cuijian · · Score: 1

      I disagree.

      To the average user, there is a world of diference between what is displayed as part of the browser UI and the contents of a web page.

      When I go to nytimes.com it is clear to me and the average user that the browser vendor is not responsible for the content of the page.

      However, the average user does not expect that the web page has direct control over the browsers UI. When the browser puts up a lock icon indicating that the page is secure, we hold the browser responsible for making sure the page is acutally secure. We expect the URL field to show us where we actually are (and not what the web site wants to display). The same is true for the URLs being displayed in the status bar.

      You are wrong to say that this is a feature of every major browser. Mozilla protects against this. FireFox protects against this. Safari protects against this. I'm not sure about other browsers.

      This may not be the most dire or malicous security hole ever but it is a security hole. Users could think that they were going to a site that they trust but get taken to a site filled with spyware, pop-up windows, porn, whatever. Or they could think that they are going to their financial institution only to be taken to a site that is made to look like their financial institution. If the user doesn't check the URL field w every new page they go to they might input their user name and password into a malicous site.

      Security is a important topic and security experts should be biased to protect users security not to protect "functionality" with dubious benefits. (I bet you can't find a single major site that uses this "functionality" and I don't know why the site can't display whatever message it needs to display within the browser window).

      In case you are interested, here is the test for the vulnerability from secunia:
      http://secunia.com/internet_explorer_add ress_bar_s poofing_test/

    5. Re:MSFT says URL spoofing security a feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who doesn't examine the address bar before entering personal information is going to get duped *anyway*.

      You seem to be misinformed. The IE exploit allowed the user to put fake info in the address bar. MS security docs currently tell you to copy the location of all links and paste them into notepad before entering them in the url field. That is stupid, ridiculous, and nobody is going to do it. This is definitely a security flaw.

    6. Re:MSFT says URL spoofing security a feature by cuijian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I can't seem to access the vulnerability report, but it doesn't sound like the same thing to me at all. Virtually every browser allows you to set the status bar text with Javascript. If you don't like that, you can switch client-side scripting off, or that particular feature in some browsers. The Safari hole sounds like websites can do this without any client-side scripting at all.

      Not true. Check out the Secunia test case below with IE, FireFox, and Safari. Only IE is vulnerable. FireFox and Safari do not allow the website to spoof the URL in the status field.

      http://secunia.com/internet_explorer_address_bar_s poofing_test/

    7. Re:MSFT says URL spoofing security a feature by 0racle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think that your giving a little too much credit to the average user. Actually far too much credit. To the average user, there is no difference between whats displayed on a page, in a popup or as part of a window. Thats why those "YOUR COMPUTER IS BROADCASTING ITS IP" popups work so well, the average user has no idea how to tell that its a valid OS message or just some stupid popup.

      It was originally intended to be a feture, just some people chose to use it to cause problems. Then again, some people choose to use Linux to attack other systems, should we also get rid of Linux?

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    8. Re:MSFT says URL spoofing security a feature by cuijian · · Score: 1

      It's possible that the average user has even more clueless than I estimate but that would only strengthen my arguement that browser manufacturers should go out of their way to protect the user.

      If something that was originally intendend to be a feature ends up a security risk and does not actually provide user benefit then that "feature" should be gotten rid of.

      I'm not arguing that we get rid of Linux or other things of value. I'm not claiming that we should all unplug from the net and hide in a closet.

    9. Re:MSFT says URL spoofing security a feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That isn't what the Microsoft weblog entry is talking about. The Microsoft weblog entry is talking about window.status in Javascript. Like I said, they are two completely different issues.

    10. Re:MSFT says URL spoofing security a feature by cuijian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're right. I did misunderstand the specific topic that the weblog entry was talking about. Having just read about the Safari fix I had assumed they were the same thing.

      I still find it distateful that a security expert would accept a potentially dangerous situation by trying to educate users (and expect users to know) that the status bar isn't to be trusted. Something you seem to agree with.

      Thanks for the correction.

    11. Re:MSFT says URL spoofing security a feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It surprises me that a security tester at Microsoft would say this. I would expect it from PR and management, but not the people that are actually responsible for security.

    12. Re:MSFT says URL spoofing security a feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "I'm amazed that you find this an issue AT ALL. It IS NOT a security flaw."

      That would be true it it was called the arbitray text bar, but it isn't, it is the status bar, it should show me the URL of the link or tell me status info. Rename to the, "Whatever the fuck people want to sho up here" bar and I would not mind as much.

    13. Re:MSFT says URL spoofing security a feature by Trillan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It can be a security flaw and a feature at the same time. Custom status titles are a good idea, definitely. However, when they spoof URLs, it becomes a security flaw. I haven't yet examined the fix, but hopefully Apple has eliminated the flaw in a clever way instead of eliminating the feature entirely.

    14. Re:MSFT says URL spoofing security a feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Explains a lot, doesn't it?

    15. Re:MSFT says URL spoofing security a feature by zpok · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I'm amazed that is the mindset of an security tester and even more amazed that he feels comfortable posting that viewpoint publicly on the IE blog. No wonder they have so many security problems!"

      It's a widespread problem, this mindset, shared by lots and lots of admins, power users and people who happen to just spend too much time with their computer and thus know a teensy bit more than their neighbor...

      --
      I think, therefore I am...I think.
    16. Re:MSFT says URL spoofing security a feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, several of the exploits for Windows were made from reverse engineering the patches that Microsoft put out.

      Take the blinders off, and look at the facts.

  5. well, it works on at least one machine by rritterson · · Score: 3, Informative

    FWIW, it worked great on my G5. The rest of the guys in the DSLR MUG haven't had any problem either()

    I, of course, cannot vouch for your sucess or failure, but no problems yet!

    --
    -Ryan
    AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
  6. kudos to apple by grocer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...for releasing 10.2.8 client and server patches, too...from someone waiting for Tiger.

  7. Knowledge Base Article by kuwan · · Score: 4, Informative

    For more info on the update, here's the description from Software Update (click on the link at the bottom for the full Knowledge Base Article)

    Security Update 2004-12-02 delivers a number of security enhancements and is recommended for all Macintosh users. This update includes the following components:

    Apache
    AppKit
    HIToolbox
    Kerberos
    Postfix
    PS Normalizer
    Safari
    Terminal

    For detailed information on this Update, please visit this website: http://www.info.apple.com/kbnum/n61798

  8. I don't see it... by adam+mcmaster · · Score: 1

    I read about this on MacSlash (I think that was yesterday) and I still don't see any updates in Software Update. Am I missing something here?

    1. Re:I don't see it... by sokoban · · Score: 2, Informative

      Probably. Everyone else I've talked to says that it has shown up just fine. I think the 10.2.8 client patch came up a little late, but if you still don't see it try repairing permissions and the usual stuff. If worse comes to worst, download the patch with the standalone installer. It will be at: http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/

      BTW, the Mac OS X Downloads slashbox usually will show you any stand alone update and is really cool regardless.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
    2. Re:I don't see it... by tverbeek · · Score: 1
      I still don't see any updates in Software Update. Am I missing something here?

      I don't think it applies to System 7. :)

      Seriously, I wouldn't expect to see it applied to OS <=10.1

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    3. Re:I don't see it... by Angostura · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily - nothing popped up on My Software Update (despite repeated checking) until about 8pm last night. I'm based in the UK.

    4. Re:I don't see it... by adam+mcmaster · · Score: 1

      I'm in the UK too, so that's probably it.

  9. Clickable link by kuwan · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.info.apple.com/kbnum/n61798

    (Doh! I hit while correcting spelling in the subject.)

  10. Snappier! by patrick42 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is it just me, or does this release make the whole OS seem snappier? Great jaerb, Apple! :)

    1. Re:Snappier! by 42 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe it is just because you rebooted! ;)

    2. Re:Snappier! by patrick42 · · Score: 2, Funny

      What are you, some sort of PC user? Reboots only make a difference on Windows!

    3. Re:Snappier! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it updated prebindings maybe?

    4. Re:Snappier! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      That's because one of the patches was to update the Job's Reality Distortion Field built into all Apple products.

      Previously, it would deactivate the first time the computer went to sleep mode, and wouldn't come back on waking.

      Now we all get constant Reality Distortion - just the way we like it!

      (Disclaimer: I own an iBook so I'm allowed to ridicule it.)

    5. Re:Snappier! by Apiakun · · Score: 1

      I think he was really mocking the folks who say every update or new build of a beta release seems snappier. You know, the same ones that say it'll be faster once the debug code has been removed. Just visit macforums in a few months when the developer builds are making the rounds, and you'll see.

    6. Re:Snappier! by aristotle-dude · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Updated the prebindings? Yeah, but what does that have to do with anything? Updating the prebindings on has to be done when you update or add things to the system. If the number of components stay the same, updating the prebindings will not give you a speed boost.

      There would have to be code optimizations at work here.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  11. "Highly Critical" according to whom? by Shag · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The on-duty editor didn't get my mail, I guess...

    Apple has not described these as "highly critical" to my knowledge.

    That label has been applied by Secunia, the Danish security company that has, in the past, gotten press for indicating that Windows is secure and OS X isn't, no matter what tests might show.

    The browser fixes are potentially significant, but the bulk of the others involve services that aren't even on by default, or things that most users wouldn't deal with.

    Sky falling, next 10 miles.

    --
    Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
  12. Error? by azav · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From the article:

    "Apple said the problem exists because its HFS+ file system handles file access in a case-sensitive way, while the Apache configuration blocks access in a case-sensitive way."

    Shouldn't that be case insensitive?

    --
    - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
    1. Re:Error? by Shag · · Score: 1

      The first instance of "case-sensitive" should, indeed, read "case-insensitive."

      (The second instance of "case-sensitive" is correct as written.)

      --
      Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
    2. Re:Error? by cookd · · Score: 2, Funny

      Are you some kind of insensitive clod or something? :)

      --
      Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
    3. Re:Error? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I'd say that's the case.

  13. For successful updates... by madsenj37 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Always remember to repair permissions first via Disk Utility. And the hard drive, if you have time.

    --
    Choosing the lesser of two evils is a choice for evil.
    1. Re:For successful updates... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean by "And the hard drive"?

    2. Re:For successful updates... by madsenj37 · · Score: 1

      Repairing permissions and repairing the hard drive are two different functions. Permissions should be repaired before and after any program is installed. Hard drives need to be repaired less often.

      --
      Choosing the lesser of two evils is a choice for evil.
  14. Interesting note: by ZackSchil · · Score: 4, Interesting

    According to the details on the update, Apple patched an internal system bug that stopped other locally running programs from intercepting data entered into a secure text field. You know, the kind that shows up as dots when you write in it. Nice to see Apple protecting users from phishing spyware before it even exists in OS X.

  15. From the Secunia mailing list: by SillyWilly · · Score: 3, Informative

    Apple has issued a security update for Mac OS X, which fixes various vulnerabilities.

    1) A vulnerability in the Apache "mod_digest_apple" authentication can be exploited by malicious people to conduct replay attacks.

    2) Multiple vulnerabilities in Apache and mod_ssl can be exploited to inject potentially malicious characters into error logfiles, bypass certain security restrictions, gain escalated privileges, gain unauthorised access to other web sites, cause a DoS (Denial of Service), and potentially compromise a vulnerable system.

    For more information:
    SA8146
    SA10789
    SA11170
    SA11534
    S A11841
    SA12787
    SA12898

    3) A security issue in Apache results in access to ".DS_Store" files
    and files starting with ".ht" not being fully blocked. The problem is that the Apache configuration blocks access in a case sensitive way, but the Apple HFS+ filesystem performs file access in a case insensitive way.

    4) A security issue in Apache makes it possible to bypass the normal Apache file handlers and retrieve file data and resource fork content via HTTP. The problem is that the Apple HFS+ filesystem permits files to have multiple data streams.

    5) Multiple vulnerabilities in Apache2 can be exploited by malicious people to cause a DoS or potentially compromise a system, or by malicious, local users to gain escalated privileges.

    For more information:
    SA12434
    SA12540

    6) A security issue in Appkit causes secure text fields to not enable secure input correctly in some circumstances. This allows other applications in the same window session to read the entered characters.

    7) Multiple vulnerabilities in Appkit can potentially be exploited by malicious people to compromise a user's system or cause a DoS (Denial of Service).

    For more information:
    SA12818

    8) A vulnerability in Cyrus IMAP when using Kerberos authentication can be exploited by malicious, authenticated users to access other mailboxes on the system.

    9) A security issue in HIToolbox can be exploited by malicious users to quit applications in kiosk mode via a certain key combination.

    10) Multiple vulnerabilities have been reported in Kerberos, where the most serious potentially can be exploited by malicious people to compromise a vulnerable system.

    For more information:
    SA12408

    11) A vulnerability in Postfix when using CRAM-MD5 can be exploited by malicious users to send mails without being properly authenticated. The problem is that the credentials used to successfully authenticate a user can be re-used for a small time period, which can be exploited via replay attacks.

    12) A vulnerability in PSNormalizer can potentially be exploited by malicious people to compromise a user's system. The vulnerability is caused due to a boundary error when converting PostScript to PDF.

    13) A vulnerability in QuickTime Streaming Server can be exploited by malicious people to cause a DoS via a specially crafted DESCRIBE request.

    14) A weakness in Safari can be exploited by malicious people to trick users into visiting a malicious web site by obfuscating URLs.

    For more information:
    SA13047

    15) A vulnerability in Safari can be exploited by malicious web sites to spoof dialog boxes.

    For more information:
    SA12892

    16) A weakness in Terminal may result in the "Secure Keyboard Entry" menu setting erroneously looking like it is active when it's not.

    --
    Online & Feelin' Fine
  16. MAJORS PROBLEM with update! Read this! by nordicfrost · · Score: 4, Informative

    OK. This update b0rked my PowerBook up really well. Afteer an update and Repair Permissions (Always a good idea), I restarted the PB. After a seemingly normal reboot, it halted at Logon Window staring... And did not go any further.

    On Apple Discussions, arguably the best official tech solution pages from any major computer company, a possible solution has been posted.

    If the problems appear, reboot into single-user mode. Go to the /etc directory (type cd /etc and hit enter for those who seldom wander into Terminal)

    There you will find a screwed up file, 'ttys' and a backup of the same file called 'ttys.applesaved'. Overwrite the borken file by typing 'sudp cp /etc/ttys.applesaved /etc/ttys' and hit enter. Type in your admin password, hit enter. Reboot the machine, rejoice as you now get in.

    I was less fortunate, as the machine was the only ne at home so I never ot to read the advice. I did archive and reinstall, it worked surprisingly well. I have done this under Windows, and lost all settings ang programs. When the 10.3 system was in, even my desktop icons were right where I left them. I did another updated and it worked swell!

    1. Re:MAJORS PROBLEM with update! Read this! by ravenspear · · Score: 2, Informative

      sudp cp /etc/ttys.applesaved /etc/ttys

      No need to use sudo in single user mode. You are already root.

    2. Re:MAJORS PROBLEM with update! Read this! by nordicfrost · · Score: 1

      True, I was a bit uncertain about this so I included a sudo anyway... ;) Better safe than sorry.

  17. WindowShade Confilct by Pooldraft · · Score: 0

    I updated to the new security update and now WindowShade is not working. I was just wondering if anyone eles was having this issue and if they knew what to do about it i did a reinstall but that didn't work.

  18. For MacOS X users who customise their httpd.conf by HSpirit · · Score: 5, Informative

    Two of the vulnerabilities reported attempt to modify the

    /etc/httpd/httpd.conf
    configuration file used by Apache 1.3.

    Those MacOS X users (like me) who manually reconfigure their Apache configuration should note that the update (sensibly) will not modify a customised httpd.conf. If you fit into this category you should read the advice posted by Apple on how to manually update your httpd.conf to ensure your Apache is not serving up content which should not be available.

  19. Re:For MacOS X users who customise their httpd.con by HSpirit · · Score: 2, Informative

    Oops... my mistake: Two of the vulnerabilities reported attempt to modify the...

    What I meant to say was: The fixes for two of the vulnerabilities reported attempt to modify the...

    My apologies...

  20. Re:For MacOS X users who customise their httpd.con by geoffspear · · Score: 2, Informative
    Actually, as stated in the advice you linked to, "under some circumstances" it won't modify it. My http.conf is manually customized, and Software Update did actually patch it just fine (miraculously, it did so without breaking any of the customizations I did, like earlier software updates have sometimes done).

    I'm not sure what the circumstances are that prevent modification. I assume it would have something to do with whether or not you'd manually modified the specific section that contained the vulnerability.

    --
    Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
  21. Dear Steve Jobs: retire HFS+ for Chrissakes! by jbordall · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It looks like most of the Apache problems stem from Apple's own HFS+ filesystem and its lack of case-sensitive filenaming. HFS+ needs to be retired. I mean, what kind of *nix uses a default filesystem that is *not* case-sensitive? There's a myriad of worthy file systems out there (UFS being my personal favorite.) Before you Mac people flame me, I must point out that I am writing this on my iBook, which I treasure dearly.

    1. Re:Dear Steve Jobs: retire HFS+ for Chrissakes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought i came over something about case-sensitive HFS+ while installing an Xserve last week. I couldn't recall where i saw it, but i found this for you on the web:
      'Disk Utility does not give me Case Sensitive HFS+, so I install the 10.3.4 patch (probably unnecessary, but I'll report it anyway). Reboot again on the external volume. Still Disk Utility does not give me the result I want. So I go to the command line and type diskutil eraseVolume 'Case-sensitive HFS+' UsrLocal /Volumes/UsrLocal'
      (http://lists.apple.com/archiv es/macos-x-server/20 04/May/msg01492.html)