Apple Releases 'Highly Critical' Patch

Toothpick writes "Apple Insider reports that a new security update is available for download from Apple. This addresses issues identified in sudo, Safari, and OpenSSL among others. The gory details are, predictably, available on the Apple Info site." Commentary from ZDNet is also available.

Comments

How is this news?

[Paul Bristow]

So called highly critical patch installed itself yesterday on my iBook.

For those of us who need it, Apple update takes care of it.

If there was an exploit that meant we should click on "Software Update" instead of waiting for it to cycle round, great but this is just Apple-bashing. Is this a microsofty going "look! other OS's have security updates too" while there are many many exploits in the wild for them?

    Anyway it's a day late. This is "internet time", if you can remember that far back :-)

Re:How is this news?

[jht]

Yes, it would be better if this (and other flaws) never occurred. The main point here, though, is that Apple typically does a pretty good job of finding and addressing these flaws when they occur, and in a timely fashion. Microsoft does so in many cases, but in others they sit on the problem long enough that there's an opportunity for crackers to find and exploit it.

So for the most part Apple's methods work well. Of course zero bugs is a good target, but prompt identification and dissemination of fixes is reasonable. It's also pretty tough to craft an exploit that will simply zap Mac users and then get to them before Apple has an opportunity to get the patch out.

One thing Apple should do, though, is make Software Update a bigger part of the Guided Tour, and set it to default to check daily and download critical fixes automatically (right now, it just notifies as default behavior, and checks weekly). I've noticed users who simply ignore Software Update's dialog boxes because they don't understand what it's doing.

Re:How is this news?

[prichardson]

Users don't ignore software update dialogues because they don't know what it's doing, they ignore them because they've been trained that they won't know what it's talking about. If they actually took a minute to READ the dialogue, I think all but the most naive and illiterate would find it pretty self-explanitory. The window is titled "Software Update," and that is the extent of the vocabulary required to know what's going on. The word update is a common english word, so everyone should be able to get it, and the word software is far from obscure computer vocabulary. Right below that is a text space that says in bold "New software is available for your computer." Finally, the words "Security Update" are in the name of the patch itself, which is visible and the user can click on it to get a more detailed description.

This is a not a difficult dialog box, and it's explained in the (very short) OS X manual. If a user can't figure this one out either they're illiterate or they just don't want to (much more likely). An absolute worst case scenario would be to ask someone else what it was. The explanation would take mere minutes.

Re:The interesting commentary

[Morgalyn]

SecurityFocus is apparently owned by Symantec, so I'm unsure just how much salt you might want to throw on that article. I'm guessing at least a grain or two.

Two things...

[Space cowboy]

1) Securityfocus is owned by a company with a vested interest in selling anti-virus software to Mac (and PC) users. It does serve a useful purpose, but when the points made are so vague, I consider it more advertising than service.

Say I wanted to market X, and say that I'm a sneaky and underhand individual. I might purchase or support a website dedicated either to X or anti-X and have *some* articles on it that suit my purpose. I wouldn't undermine the integrity of the site (well, much), but I would use it as an authoratitive mouthpiece that mouthed off about *my* preferred direction.

So, ok I'm a cynic, but so far my cynicism has been proved right depressingly often. Sigh.

2) "Looking at the numbers" is no useful guide to pretty much anything to do with security. The phrase works when the numbers themselves are the pertinent facts (eg: a bank-balance sheet). "Humans are obviously not the dominant species on the planet - there are millions more houseflys. Look at the numbers".

The point is that one dose of cancer can kill you, but you may survive fifty or more infections of the common cold without significant harm. The numbers don't tell you the relative importance of the problem, and indeed may just reflect different counting methods or diligence in detection.

Simon.

Re:These are serious.. but kudos for fixing them.

[javaxman]

How many people haven't updated Windows to SP2 still??

Forget SP2, how many haven't updated to XP ??

Re:These are serious.. but kudos for fixing them.

[argent]

I have no plans to update to XP until I'm actually required to by software that doesn't work on 2000.

A more complex system with boobytraps deliberately hidden in the kernel and dubious anti-virus enhancements that actually make cleaning up malware harder? Yeh, I've gotta get me some of that. Plus, 2000 ships with a version of Windows Media Player old enough that it doesn't have its DRM tentacles coiled around the kernel's balls.

I'm also going to be staying clear of the new Intel-based Macs until I'm reasonably confident they don't have boobytraps or effective "strong DRM" support. Not because I want to pirate software or rip protected CDs, but because that stuff's toxic.

Microsoft vs Apple

[argent]

Microsoft: the latest security hole in the HTML control is a buffer overflow in Javascript. They've known about it for months. Nothing happens until a sample exploit is released.

Apple: the latest security hole in Webkit is a buffer overflow in URLs. The first anyone hears of it is a patch through Software Update.

Re:Highly Critical? Huh?

[argent]

Given Microsoft's security record this should mean that Apple's share of PC market is at least 70%...

If most people were as easily frustrated and as aware of why they should be frustrated and care about security as you and I are, it would be. But it's amazing how much crap people are willing to accept as a normal cost of using computers.

I find myself regularly watching people put up with horribly broken systems and, after I fix the problem (because I can't even stand watching someone suffer), they're shocked. They didn't even realise the problem was a problem that could be fixed, they just EXPECTED it.

And security?

After having a contractor who is technically very good, and has been working in this business longer than me, stand there and argue why he should be an exception to my "No Outlook" policy WHILE I'M CLEANING OUT HIS COMPUTER THAT WAS INFECTED THROUGH AN OUTLOOK HOLE... I reckon that there's some fundamental difference between "average computer users" (no matter how skilled) and people like myself myself that goes far beyond experience and training and into some kind of "Zen" thing... I don't know.