Slashdot Mirror
BBC Writer Responds To Mac Security Critiques
minimunchkin writes "BBC Correspondent Bill Thompson responds to the flaming he received for an article on the vulnerabilities in Mac security. He knows that there are no Mac OS X viruses in the wild, and he doesn't believe there ever will be." From the article: "However the wider point, that there are exploitable vulnerabilities and sometimes Apple puts them there, remains. Even if I'm careful to apply updates when they are made available, some people might not and their systems could be compromised. And there is always a gap between the discovery of an issue and an available fix, a gap which could be exploited. "
Add to that the following statement (my own): "Being a Microsoft proponent in an argument about operating systems is like being a white male in a discussion on discrimination."
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
Mac users demonstrate an indefensible smugness when it comes to the dangers of having their systems compromised by malicious software and opened up to exploitation by others. It's time they started behaving a bit more responsibly.
Dear Mr. Thompson:
When you accuse several million people of demonstrating "indefensible smugness" based solely on the type of computer they're sitting in front of, you must certainly expect something of a backlash from those of us who do, in fact, take security seriously. When you tell the likes of systems administrators and security experts they should behave "a bit more responsibly", they're rightly going to tell you to go piss up a rope.
On the Internet, we refer to people who make statements such as the one quoted above as "trolls". Engaging in this type of behavior is generally frowned upon. For example, if I were to say "this is the sort of idioctic drivel the world has come to expect from those effete Brits," I, too would be guilty of trolling and would receive untold amounts of well-deserved invective from the readers of this post.
Fortunately for me, I know better than to make such outrageous statements.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
We forgive you on one condition: you admit publicly that emacs is the one true editor. Then you won't have to worry about anyone flaming you ever again.
But spyware and keyloggers are written for Mac OS as for other Unixes, and could be installed on a compromised system by a worm or even by a Trojan that is installed with user permission.
Gee, who would think? This statement gives the impression that Unix is especially vulnerable to this issue and that there is some solution to this problem. The fact that Unix's user segregation is one of the cleanest and most secure out there obviously doesn't factor into his security assessment and what I really wonder is what his suggestion for changing this "vulnerability" is. If he's looking for a technical one, I think he'll be looking for a while, since there is none. The human is always a security risk on the system. The question is only to what degree. Technology can help minimize the damage but in the end, it's always the same problem.
Please don't misuse the word "troll". Like it or not, he is pointing out a very serious issue that affects all operating systems, be it Windows, Mac OS X, OpenBSD, UnixWare, OS/2, MS-DOS, VMS, or basically any other operating system.
Frequent updates are necessary, especially when it comes to networked systems. Concurrently, many users (even experienced administrators) fail to keep their systems patched and up to date, be it for a lack of time or due to financial constraints.
Remember, Mac OS X is often targetted towards more inexperienced users, or those who just want a system that works. For the most part, that is true of Mac OS X. It does often just work. But likewise, it is necessary to keep it updated.
Now, he isn't a "troll" for pointing out that very real, very serious fact. Sure, it might have angered some people, but that's not his fault in any way.
If your doctor were to diagnose you with AIDS, and you did indeed have the syndrome, he would not be a "troll", regardless of how much you were angered by his diagnosis. In much the same way, this BBC author is not a "troll".
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Just because a legitimate, completely truthful opinion angers some, it does not make the opinion "flamebait".
Words like "flamebait" and "troll" are most often used seriously by those who are trying to incite trouble amongst people who are pointing out real, solid facts.
We see this today in the media, where various governments label their opponents as "terrorists". Of course, in many cases those governments are partking in the very same actions that may be construed as "terrorism".
These sorts of labels are useless just because they are misapplied so often, by so many different people and groups.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
is that nothing is perfect. We flawed humans created flawed machines and flawed software. No matter what OS you run there will always be flaws that someone could exploit. I use Macs but I certainly don't count on OS X being secure enough for me to connect to the internet without using a correctly configured firewall.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
The whole matter of computer security comes down to make sure your system is just a little bit harder to exploit than the one down the street. Apple has done this. Microsoft systems are much easier to gain control of than just about any other system out there. Mind you that there are Microsoft Windows systems that are very secure. The admins on those systems have take the time to patch the holes and take measures to secure those systems. Is this true of all Windows systems? No. Are all Apple systems secure? No. It comes down to how much does the end user of that system care about security and how much time, effort, and money do they want to expend securing the system. This is true of all systems.
As another poster wrote the orginal article is at best flamebait.
It's not appropriate to generalize about UNIX these days, considering how many different UNIX-style systems there are.
Linux might be vulnerable in one case, while Mac OS X, UnixWare, FreeBSD, Solaris, AiX and other such systems are perfectly safe. Likewise, Solaris might be affected, while the other systems are not. And so on, and so forth.
Now, various UNIX-like systems have run into problems in the past with regards to security. Thanks to the relative degree of fragmentation, such incidents are usually isolated to a particular brand or product, and thus do not appear overly severe. But they still do exist, and we shouldn't forget that.
As users of UNIX-like systems, the best thing we can do for ourselves is always remember that our systems are vulnerable, even if they are often of a higher quality than other systems.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Firstly, saying that vunerabilities exist is akin to saying that there are bugs in someone's software. You're just about guaranteed to be right.
Smugness, I'm not sure about (I'm a linuxite). Certainly there is something that most Windows users don't experience, and that is actual *enjoyment* from their OS. Microsoft has never tried especially hard to make their OS enjoyable, only usable.
Would things be different if OS X were the predominant OS? Without doubt. However, OS X, both the kernel (Darwin), and user interface, have been precisely engineered. Windows, one might argue, more evolved. They claim complete rewrites of the OS occured, but I'm willing to bet tons of code was copied-and-pasted in the process.
This does not guarantee it is fool-proof. Only time can tell that. But I would be willing to hedge a bet that less exploits exist for OS X than for Windows.
Invariably the security of your data is dependent on the security of your OS. If you have some wonderfully encrypted data files you have to interact with them via the OS. So somebody exploits a vulnerability, you end up with a key logger on your machine, and now your intricate password to protect your encrypted files is forfeit.
As for the article's conclusion that viruses are unlikely, I think he's wrong. What makes Unix safer from viruses, etc, is the isolation between user level activity and administrator activity. Thus while one account may be compromised a whole system isn't. So this makes it harder for viruses, but not impossible by any stretch.
For example, a virus can be destructive without becoming root. It can, as you allude to, attack only your data, instead of a whole system's data, but in the end, it's still your data getting corrupted. Furthermore, most of the exploits I've seen of Linux systems involve taking a non-root exploit and then using another vulnerability to make it a root exploit.
Something else to consider on OSX is the sudo. As I understand it, any user on an OSX system can use sudo. So, if an exploit can gain user level privleges, it can then use social engineering, keylogging, etc, to gain the users password and then, in effect, gain root priveleges through sudo.
What protects OSX for now is that it has a smaller share of the market so there are less people trying to exploit it. Eventually if OSX gains market share, then there will be far more incentive to write malware for it. Certainly it will take greater skill to exploit OSX and it will be easier to defend against those exploits, but it only takes one clever hacker to completely ruin your day.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Seriously, the argument that there are exploits is an important one to keep in mind. Nobody questions that Firefox is so far ahead of IE on security that the difference can be measured in red-shift. However, anybody who then concludes that Firefox users can afford to be complacent is completely outside the Universe entirely. The same is true of OS vulnerabilities. If a vulnerability is detected, it needs fixing. Ideally, you write the software correctly in the first place so that there are extremely few vulnerabilities that ever need to be fixed, but that doesn't generally happen.
Is Bill Thompson a troll? To a degree. He has absolutely zero diplomatic touch, which is presumably why the BBC put him on the technology desk and not in foreign affairs. If you're in a war-zone, tact is an important skill to have.
The part that concerns me most, which I'm not seeing enough commentary on, is the extremely serious allegation that Apple have deliberately installed backdoors into their systems. If this allegation has any foundation in fact, Apple should face intense questioning on their conduct. Cisco got burned when the backdoors they installed were discovered and although you can argue that an Apple is not quite as critical a part of the infrastructure, backdoors are certainly not ethical and possibly not legal.
I've heard people arguing that you can't prove a program bug-free (actually, the Halting Problem only proves you can't do so for the general case, it says nothing about specific cases), but the more I hear of people abusing trust (eg: Sony), wilfully releasing defective software with known and documented bugs on the grounds people will update eventually anyway (Microsoft) and incorporating deliberate backdoors (Cisco), the more I am convinced that there should be consumer protection legislation that forces software companies to maintain certain standards. These sorts of wilfull, knowledgable, abuse of consumers is simply not acceptable.
And, yes, I don't care if it takes a BBC hack journalist to point this out.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The Slashdot story is misleading by saying "[Bill Thompson] knows that there are no Mac OS X viruses in the wild, and he doesn't believe there ever will be.". Actually Bill Thompson thinks it is possible but unlikely, quoting TFA: "I don't believe that Mac viruses already exist, and I think it's very unlikely that they ever will."
There is a big difference between saying "I don't believe in <foobar>" and "<foobar> is very unlikely". Such subtle differences in phrasing totally explain why some people agree with Bill and some others disagree.
Oddly enough I have yet to see a vulnerability in a major Apple implemented library.
.doc file could result in arbitrary code execution.
That's because your rose colored mac-glasses filter them out.
There are a bunch of vulnerabilities listed there that are from Apple implemented libraries.
Some of the really bad ones ("arbitrary code execution"):
CoreFoundation: Resolving a maliciously-crafted URL may result in crashes or arbitrary code execution
Quicktime: A heap buffer overflow could allow attackers to execute arbitrary code
QuickDraw Manager: Viewing a maliciously-crafted PICT image may result in arbitrary code execution.
AppKit: Opening a malicious, rich text file could lead to arbitrary code execution.
AppKit: Opening a maliciously crafted Microsoft Word
The JavaScript engine in Safari uses a version of the PCRE library that is vulnerable to a potentially exploitable heap overflow.
WebKit contains a heap overflow that may lead to the execution of arbitrary code.
Clicking on a link in a maliciously-crafted PDF file in Safari could lead to arbitrary command execution.
And those are just from the past 4 months!
As I'm sure most people have encountered in their lives, it's very easy for a very vocal minority to overwhelm a majority. Look at how many non-Americans believe that the United States is full of evangelical, "fire and brimstone" Christians. They're obviously a majority, but vocal and active enough as to appear to be a majority. They're not the only group in history who as acted as such, either.
But anyway, majorities are historically awarded rights before minorities, and, due to their majority status, are often reluctant to give up any priviledges which they perceive as rights. It can be rude and backwards, such as the perceived right of not having to hear other languages or introduced to other cultures, or it can be the idea that a company always run by black people should continue to be run by black people. True equality is exceedingly difficult to attain, as that majority you mention is usually the most reluctant to give up their priviledge.
It seems easy enough to piss of Apple/MAC fans: just say something slightly negative, no matter how grounded in fact, about Apple or Mac.
Only if you say it without knowing what you're talking about.
It reminds me a bit of the Linux zealots.
Only if you say it without knowing what you're talking about.
This guy did that, so he got flamed.
This guy didn't know what he was talking about and now is backpeddling. That's what the higher profile trolls do, they say "If you think you're safer on a Mac, you're completely mistaken!", and then "Of course I don't mean in reality, nobody who read my article could think I was talking about reality! I was talking about my own little fantasy world where you're less safe on a Mac!"
Of course, if he had said it that way, he probably would've at least gotten a laugh. Instead his retort was to play the semantics game, and no wonder lots of people got upset.
Here's a person who either doesn't know what he's talking about (that is, merely repeats stuff people tell him, or is making conclusions that he isn't knowledgeable enough to make) or he's a mean old troll trying to piss people off. Either way, he's to be detested.
I personally didn't know much about the Mac crowd until recently -- but they are very touchy.
Good for you! Bridge that race gap!
Meanwhile, I know many Mac users and many Windows users, and I'd agree that most Mac users are most certainly touchier than Windows users, but that most Windows users don't even know they're running users and in fact, the defenders of Windows can't ever seem to do it with something even resembling a trace of logic. These people are far more touchy than Mac users, and worse still, are morally reprehensible because they defend it at the expense to themselves and others!
Here's a clue: In the last 5 years, not a single exploit that has been deployed for Linux has affected me, and yet all those dasturdly Blasters and Code-Reds are still affecting me - despite the fact I don't run Windows.
I don't care if you patch your system, I care that all these other people don't.
I contend- and others often more so that everyone would be much happier if there were no Microsoft and no Windows. I most certainly would be: You wouldn't be talking to me, and I wouldn't need to buy more bandwidth right now.
On a planet far far away live two races of people; The Gatesians (who make up 90-95% of the poulation) and the Jobsians (who make up the rest).
The Gatesians have weak immune systems and frequently suffer from viral and bacterial infections, often necessitating a hospital stay. The problem is so bad that almost all Gatesians wear face masks and rubber gloves, use copious amounts of anti-bacterial soap, sterilize all items they come in contact with and get immunisation shots on a weekly basis. And despite all this they continue to get sick.
Jobsians, on the other hand, have very strong immune systems, so strong that no Jobsian has gotten so much as the sniffles in the last few years. Many Gatesians make the claim that the Jobsians don't get sick simply because there aren't enough of them for an infection to spread. The Jobsians point out that there are no known viruses or bacteria that affect Jobsians (the odd rumoured virus built in a secret government lab aside).
A few scare mongers (like Bill Thompson) like to argue that the Jobsians need to take the same precautions against disease that the Gatesians do and that if they don't if a virus or bacteria that can infect them ever shows up will wipe them all out. For the most part the Jobsians just ignore the ranting and get on with enjoying their carefree life and laugh at all the sneezing, coughing and hospitalized Gatesians.
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
Thompson has a track record of writing articles that are either ill-informed or technically incorrect and then defending himself with the lame excuse that his is an 'opinion piece'. I can never understand why Slashdot (or the BBC for that matter) give him the space he clearly doesn't deserve. He tries to present himself as something of a guru, but probably couldn't get a job as a junior IT helpdesk worker (apologies to all the highly competent helpdesk guys out there).
He's the poster-boy for the phrase "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". If you look at his resume it's clear that he tried to make it as a techie, but didn't have what it takes, and so became a "commentator". It's funny - there used to be a feedback section on his BBC column, but it mysteriously disappeared a few months ago, shortly after he posted some badly researched drivel about problems copying his archived email from Windows to OS X and got shot down in flames by almost everyone who responded.
It is also worth noting that "if Macs were as popular as Windows" is one of those hypotheses contrary-to-fact; perhaps, if that were the case, OS X would contain further safeguards. Perhaps Apple would bundle their own antivirus software, and perhaps it would work, and perhaps it would not pester me for yet another year's subscription to continue my protection. Perhaps they would release that information on an RSS feed, and perhaps they would propagate it via a peer-to-peer network. If I can assume that pigs fly (that a false thing is true), there's no limit to the possibilities. We can argue endlessly about what might be; what is, is an OS that is more secure by design (never had ActiveX, root privileges require a password for each activation, ports kept shut by default), that has not been host to anything like all the vermin that infest and attack Windows boxes.
This is the original sin of mac users. I myself, a mac user, have told someone that it is okay to open an email because they are using a mac. Security needs to be an important consideration in all computer use. In the same way that the /. community has imposed upo the world that good passwords are important, we must impose that good security practices are important.