Slashdot Mirror


Ancient Flaws May Leave Mac OS X Vulnerable

mdeb writes "ZDNet Australia is running a story that claims Mac OS X 'contains unpatched security flaws of a type that were fixed on alternative operating systems more than a decade ago.' As an example, in August of last year, Apple patched the 'dsidentity' bug, which could easily have been exploited to grant a non-privileged user with admin rights the capability to create and remove 'root' user accounts."

34 of 388 comments (clear)

  1. Steve Gibson... by Ravatar · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now we will just have to sit and wait for Steve Gibson's assessment that Apple intentionally left these exploits open as a backdoor to the system!

    1. Re:Steve Gibson... by frdmfghtr · · Score: 4, Informative

      Now we will just have to sit and wait for Steve Gibson's assessment that Apple intentionally left these exploits open as a backdoor to the system!

      I wouldn't hold your breath on that one, he doesn't deal with Macs at all. I know, I asked.

      Well, it was one of his employees, anyway. I was wondering how the built-in OS X firewall compared to other available products and asked why GRC didn't do any OS X stuff. Here's the reply:

      Also, since Gibson Research only produces software for the
      IBM-compatible personal computing platform, we are sometimes asked
      why we don't write software for the Mac. The answer is:

      (1) We don't know anything about the Mac. We're a small PC software
      development shop and we've become leading experts with the PC. But
      the PC and the Mac are SO DIFFERENT that knowing one tells us nothing
      about the other.

      (2) Being small, we must be careful to expend our resources where
      they will yield the greatest return. With more then 90% of the
      personal computer market dominated by IBM-compatible machines running
      MS-DOS underneath the Microsoft Windows graphical operating
      environment, that's where we much focus our efforts.

      (3) Steve is an insane perfectionist who insists upon authoring all
      of our software in assembly language. Assembly language is tied
      directly to the processor chip in the computer, thus none of our
      software CAN be moved from the PC to the Mac. It's completely tied
      to the Intel processor platform. But because of reasons (1) and (2)
      above, we're doing just fine, and Steve's slavish devotion to the
      highest performance, tight and lean code helps make our products even
      more unique and attractive to PC users.


      This may not be related very well to your remark (yes, I recognized the jab at GRC) and overall OT but I thought the Slashdot crowd might find it somewhat interesting.

      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    2. Re:Steve Gibson... by Minwee · · Score: 4, Funny
      It's worse than that. GRC has recently discovered that OS X uses something called "Sockets" which, if used incorrectly, could not only completely destroy the entire Internet but also reach out from inside your computer to turn down the dial in the freezer and make all of your ice cream go melty. It's that bad.

      Your only protection against this is Steve Gibson's patented new "Snake Oil!" technology which uses a combination of Stealth PicoWankoProbulators and Network Monkeyspanks to defeat all known "Socket" based attacks. Why Apple chose to include such dangerous technology in every release of OS X is a mystery, but only by paying Steve Gibson a large amount of money can you ever hope to protect yourself against it.

  2. I thought OS X... by msauve · · Score: 4, Insightful

    was an "alternative" operating system. Why is a hole which was patched 6 months ago news? No harm, no foul.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  3. Yeah, okay... by daeley · · Score: 5, Funny

    ZDNet Australia is running a story that claims OS X 'contains unpatched security flaws of a type that were fixed on alternative operating systems more than a decade ago.'

    Only in the Southern Hemisphere. Up here, trolls rotate counterclockwise.

    --
    I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
  4. OSX is a security nightmare by QCompson · · Score: 5, Funny

    Good thing I use Windows ME.

    1. Re:OSX is a security nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yup, good thing I'm using your Windows ME as well.

  5. Self-serving press release story by cratermoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So Neil Archibald, senior security researcher at software security specialists Suresec, says so, and futher said his opinion is justified because Apple does not use software auditing tools to scan enough of its software. This same Suresec, as can be seen on their web page, sells tools and consulting around source code auditing.

    1. Re:Self-serving press release story by goofyheadedpunk · · Score: 4, Funny

      Now that's not fair. It's entirely possible that Mr. Archibald is very passionate about source code auditing and that his business and this story are just outpourings of... BWAHAHAHA. Oh geez, I can't believe I typed that for so long.

      Yeah, good point.

      Hehe...

      --

      What if the entire Universe were a chrooted environment with everything symlinked from the host?
  6. Ancient? by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 5, Funny

    It must have happened when they translated the binary off of the stone tablets, likely because they were limited to only bronze tools.

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    1. Re:Ancient? by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 5, Funny
      It must have happened when they translated the binary off of the stone tablets

      Rosetta will remedy all that.

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
  7. Windows. The new alternative. by autophile · · Score: 4, Funny
    ...a type that were fixed on alternative operating systems...

    That's the first time I've heard operating systems other than OSX described as "alternative".

    --Rob

    --
    Towards the Singularity.
  8. Requires User to Authenticat by ta+ma+de · · Score: 5, Funny

    Considering the user must be priviliged is it safe to say that the user has already authenticated and in the system. I always use passwords like "asldkfje983r0u!56@#987$%^rnYA(*U()*U&0u" for standard users. If they can crack that they deserve to gain admin rights too. You should see my admin key: it is a 10^12 digit mersenne prime.

    1. Re:Requires User to Authenticat by AutopsyReport · · Score: 5, Funny
      You should see my admin key: it is a 10^12 digit mersenne prime.

      Also known as the number of days you'll be spending as a virgin.

      --

      For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.

    2. Re:Requires User to Authenticat by ta+ma+de · · Score: 4, Funny

      LOL. I had to run and find an extinguisher to quence that BURN.

  9. Re:Stop the Presses by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Funny
    Or does somehow the magic Apple logo protect you from all harm - and Bill Gates?

    It protects you from everything up to the Triassic period. After that, you're on your own. These were ancient flaws, vulerable to ancient threats. Don't boot up in a museum of natural history or you're toast.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  10. You really should try... by aardwolf64 · · Score: 4, Informative
    ...reading the article. From TFA:
    Another vulnerability described by Archibald could allow memory corruption and hand control of a process over to an attacker: "At the time of writing, the vulnerability remains unpatched. However Apple is aware it exists."


    Of course, you might have actually read that part and part of your subconscious dismissed it as false. Reminds me of this post from yesterday.
  11. Re:Huh??? by Big_Al_B · · Score: 4, Informative

    The awkward wording hides the actual meaning. The problem is that a non-priviledged user could *acquire* admin rights and *then* misbehave.

  12. Re:Big f-in deal by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Interesting

    now that you've gone and said that, i went and tested it... WITH A GUEST ACCOUNT. and suprise! doesn't work.

  13. Save me Jeebus! by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think the article makes a good point and one that Apple needs to address. I've long had the impression that Apple does not do enough security auditing, especially of some of their inherited code and that some of their new software has not been as security minded as it could be. I've not heard any of the grumbling the author has about security researchers being treated poorly or response times being particularly slow, but he may be closer to such things than I.

    That said, from the article it is unclear if any of the discovered bugs are remotely exploitable. The one concrete example given is just a local privilege escalation, which is not really all that serious. I do wish that Apple would pay more attention to security and I hope they have a team of elite hackers with their ears on IRC and their hours spent trying to hack boxes. I'm not sure that they do though. My suspicion is a lot of the security comes from the fact that many of the employees are old school UNIX guys that take it more seriously than management. This is, however, unlikely to really bite Apple given the giant target that is Windows where local privilege escalations like the one described here are so common no one reports on them and I don't think MS even bothers to fix them.

  14. I'm switching! by Anonymous+Poodle · · Score: 5, Funny

    That does it! I'm swiching back to Micorosoft Bob!

  15. There are bigger problems with OSX by argent · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are bigger problems in OSX. Auto-installing Dashboard widgets was stupid, and "Open Safe Files After Downloading" (a silly name for "Open Potentially Unsafe Files After Downloading") is an unnecessary risk only minimally mitigated by adding warning dialogs... but at least you can turn it off. More details in these comments:

    http://www.scarydevil.com/~peter/io/osx-security.h tml
    http://www.scarydevil.com/~peter/io/apple.html
    http://www.scarydevil.com/~peter/io/apple2.html

    Thankfully even these are not as easily exploited as Microsoft's poisoned gumbo of IE, Outlook, ActiveX, and Security Zones... but Apple really needs to take a good look at the way they approach the Internet, and quit being so trusting.

  16. Uh huh... by msauve · · Score: 4, Insightful

    you quoted a claim that there is an unsubstantiated, unnamed hole. You really should try critical thought sometime.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  17. Author is right, and wrong by theolein · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He's right that Apple users are complacent about security. What he doesn't metnion is that this is a trend amongst security companies (scream loudly about how vulnerable Apple users are because they aren't buying his company's fucking products).

    He's right that Apple is very secretive and sometime extremely slow to address security vulnerabilities. He's wrong that Apple not speaking to him means it isn't interested. Apple just learnt the lesson early that being too open to the press (on any topic) is make yourself a victim of their fickle moods.

    He's right that there might be large holes in Apple's OS from earlier NeXT days, but he's sure as fuck wrong when he says it applies to both PPC and Intel architectures. Any crack that relies on memory in the stack being overwritten will not be cross platform.

    He's right that there are open vulnerabilities. He's wrong and simply trolling (probably for profit, the fucker) when he doesn't mention that none of them are remote.

    1. Re:Author is right, and wrong by prockcore · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Any crack that relies on memory in the stack being overwritten will not be cross platform.

      The exploit won't be cross platform, but the vulnerability sure can be.

  18. Ancient Flaws by robertjw · · Score: 5, Funny

    When I saw the headlines I thought someone had found Egyptian Hieroglyphs from aliens explaining how to break into OSX.

    Guess my definition of Ancient isn't the same as the posters.

  19. Most irritating part of this article by aftk2 · · Score: 4, Informative
    The only thing which has kept Mac OS X relatively safe up until now is the fact that the market share is significantly lower than that of Microsoft Windows or the more common UNIX platforms
    Umm, sorry. The moment Mac OS X 10.0 started shipping, it immediately became the most common desktop UNIX-like operating system. This guy is divorced from reality.
    --
    concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
  20. So like, I was writing a paper on my Mac... by Lothsahn · · Score: 4, Funny

    And then it was like... beepbeepbeepbeep, and then, like, half my accounts were gone. And I was like, huh?

    They were really good accounts too. And then I had to recreate them and I had to do it fast, and they weren't as good...

    --
    -=Lothsahn=-
  21. Top ten reasons why OS X has no viruses yet by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Funny


    10) Ten million+ active boxes still "too small a number" to target.

    9) Worlds virus writers all work at Valve; have no idea what the hell OS X is.

    8) OS X originally scheduled to have virus this year; pushed back till Q2 next year to add Intel support and a Universal Binary.

    7) Russian Mafia all actually use Macs, tell underlings to keep macs virus free so they don't have to run virus scanners.

    6) Forget buffer overflows; real mechanism viruses use to spread is actually second mouse button.

    5) No viruses released for sale on ITMS yet.

    4) Actually viruses everywhere but Jobs Reality Distorition Field keeps Mac users thinking they are not there.

    3) XCode secretly detects and transforms viruses into RSS readers instead at compile time; explains glut on Macs.

    2) Virus writers accientally drug virus into one of several hundred "Untitled Folders" on Desktop, now have no idea where it is.

    1) Mac owners just too damn pretty for God to let them get viruses.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  22. Re:Stop the Presses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wait. I will reply to myself here to beat the Mac heads to the punch...

    "Name one exploit in the wild for the Mac."

    I don't have to name one today, it's the unnamed one that's going to hit you in the next day/week/month/year that you don't know about that is the problem. Even Windows users have no idea what unrealized exploits are waiting to be discovered in thier systems. But they are smart enough not to deny that there are any.

  23. The "only" reason Max OS is safe? by Kelson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The author shows his true colors in the following statement:

    "The only thing which has kept Mac OS X relatively safe up until now is the fact that the market share is significantly lower than that of Microsoft Windows or the more common UNIX platforms."

    Anytime someone claims that the only reason A is safer than B is that B is used more often, alarm bells should go off. It's never the only reason.

    We went through the same thing with Linux vs. Windows, Firefox vs. IE, I've seen people make the claim about Opera vs. Firefox, it was said about Mac vs. Windows long before OSX, etc.

    If you think about it, the popularity-as-sole-reason argument boils down to claiming that security by obscurity is enough.

    1. Re:The "only" reason Max OS is safe? by nathanh · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "The only thing which has kept Mac OS X relatively safe up until now is the fact that the market share is significantly lower than that of Microsoft Windows or the more common UNIX platforms."

      Anytime someone claims that the only reason A is safer than B is that B is used more often, alarm bells should go off. It's never the only reason.

      We went through the same thing with Linux vs. Windows, Firefox vs. IE, I've seen people make the claim about Opera vs. Firefox, it was said about Mac vs. Windows long before OSX, etc.

      There's a difference. Firefox and Linux and Apache were fairly secure from the very start so as they increased in marketshare the viruses and attacks and exploits didn't increase significantly. However IE and Windows and IIS were fairly insecure from the very start but even so they weren't exploited very much until they had reached a fairly large marketshare. You were pretty safe surfing the web with IE3 and even to a lesser extent IE4 (at least initially) despite being insecure pieces of crud.

      Now what I find most amusing about these "OS X is insecure" stories are the people with their heads in the sand saying "it's not true". They point to the lack of exploits and lack of viruses as proof but that's not proof that OS X doesn't have security holes, just that so far as we know they haven't been exploited yet. Take for example the dsidentity bug which IIRC was a setuid binary with this code...

      if (strcmp(getenv("USER"), "root")) { /* do privileged stuff */ }

      I kid you not. That's the quality of code in OS X. Now any seasoned security veteran at this point would be rolling around on the floor laughing. Apparently that's what the OS X developers did when they were informed of this bug. Because remember that OS X is not a brand-new rewritten-from-the-ground-up OS; it has an extremely long history dating back to the 80s. It began as AT&T UNIX, warped into BSD by students (*shudder*), was partially rewritten to avoid AT&T lawsuits, was further mangled by NeXt!1!1one!, then got a code infusion from FreeBSD, and has been further hacked by Apple since it's "birth" in 2000. There's code in there that is possibly older than you are. I was at a security conference recently where one of the presenters ran through a dozen bone-headed security mistakes in Tiger including kernel overflows of all things. The entire audience was laughing themselves silly.

      Now don't get me wrong. OS X is still significantly better than Windows. They've done a lot of very sensible things such as not running with admin privileges, decent (not perfect) permissions, services disabled by default, built-in personal firewall, etc. Those are all good. But it's not enough. How the hell did getenv("USER") slip into a setuid binary? Why is there a kernel overflow; can't Apple afford one copy of Rational? Where is the virus scanner; even if all it looks for are UNIX-common attacks like the known Apache and Samba exploits. You guys are too complacent. OS X is not all that secure; impoverished marketshare and the subsequent lack of attention from criminals is hiding this truth from you.

      So given that OS X is insecure and does have exploitable code it's only the fact that nobody has seriously attacked it yet that gives it this aura of impenetrability. I fully agree with the statement made by the security professional in the article. If OS X was better written then I would disagree with the security professional's opinion but my own experience and knowledge says that he is right and you are wrong.

  24. No, he's right, personal experience by theolein · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I, together with another guy on the MacNN boards, discovered some of the more serious aspects of the vulnerability pertaining to url types and mounting of remote volumes around two years ago, when a website could quite easily download, mount and execute an applescript or any application on your machine without you seeing it (Apple's response to this was the fact that you have to authenticate any new application the first time it's run these days, something now also in WindowsXP and Vista). We notified Apple and waited. And waited. And waited. Finally, after 3 or 4 months, Apple finally released the patch with the new functionality.

    It was an extremely serious vulnerability because it was so easy to exploit and Apple really dragged their feet on that, and on other similar cases.

    The guy is spot on with that comment. Apple is really slow in responding to possible exploits.

  25. Re:Stop the Presses by Michalson · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ok, here is one.

    On Jan 10 (2006), Apple, after having 2 and 3 months respectively to fix them, finally released a patch (7.0.4) that closed major holes in QuickTime, that allows .MOV, .GIF and QTIF (an Apple specific image format, like Microsoft's WMF) files to execute arbitrary code on both Mac OS X and Windows (assuming Windows has QuickTime installed) just by viewing them (such as through a webpage with an embedded QuickTime video).

    However as with many Apple patches and updates, it hadn't been properly tested, resulting in the forums being flooded with complaints about lost functionality (DVDs stopped playing and such). Apple quickly withdrew the patch, with little notice - as if the patch never existed.

    Of course eEye, the security firm that had reported the vulnerabilities to Apple months before, had now already posted rather detailed advisories which included precise exploit details.

    So ask yourself: Are you a Mac user (and thus have QuickTime because it's an integrated part of the OS used for OS 9 legacy emulation [long story]) or a Windows user that has installed Apple QuickTime by choice? Have you checked for patches for QuickTime in the last 2 weeks, or seen any kind of public advisory, like you normally do when Microsoft or just about any other large software maker releases a patch? If you answered yes to number one, but no to number two, congratulations. You a giant target for a zero-day exploit thanks to Apple and the Jobs reality distortion field.