Slashdot Mirror
Mac OS X Security Competition Ends in 30 Minutes
ninja_assault_kitten writes "ZDnet is running an article on how a Swedish Mac OS X enthusiast held a competition to prove how good security was on his new fully patched Mac Mini was. Unfortunately, 30 minutes after the competition began, a hacker known as 'gwerdna' had broken in and defaced the website, thus winning the contest.
According to gwerdna, 'Mac OS X is easy pickings for bug finders. That said, it doesn't have the market share to really interest most serious bug finders.'." It's also worth noting a piece that says all the security news is much ado about nothing, in practical terms. The security contest also allowed people to have local access via SSH, so that had a lot to do with the crack.
That's one of the first things you turn off to protect the machine.
Don't lead me into temptation... I can find it myself.
I wonder if the hacker's name is Andrew G. by any chance?
P ublicProfile?gid=gwerdna
What kind of hacker do you suppose he is? gwerdna is a pretty poor anagram of Andrew G.
If that's not his name, it's fairly random.
He's been using it since the end of 2004 at least. http://p212.ezboard.com/bnendowingsmirai.showUser
Mac OS X Security Challenge
In response to the woefully misleading ZDnet article, Mac OS X hacked under 30 minutes, I have decided to launch a Mac OS X Security Challenge.
The ZDnet article, and almost all of the coverage of it, failed to mention a very critical point: anyone who wished it was given a local account on the machine (which could be accessed via ssh). Yes, there are local privilege escalation vulnerabilities; likely some that are "unpublished". But this machine was not hacked from the outside just by being on the Internet. It was hacked from within, by someone who was allowed to have a local account on the box. That is a huge distinction.
Almost all consumer Mac OS X machines will:
- Not give any external entities access
- Not even have any ports open
The challenge is as follows: simply alter the web page on this machine, test.doit.wisc.edu (128.104.16.150). The machine is a Mac Mini (PowerPC) running Mac OS X 10.4.5 with Security Update 2006-001, has two local accounts, and has ssh and http open - a lot more than most Mac OS X machines will ever have open. Email das@doit.wisc.edu if you feel you have met the reqiurements.
What was this fool trying to prove? He allowed direct SSH access to the machine! Of course someone is going to hack it! Once you're inside the system, it becomes incredibly easy to find configuration mistakes, and exploit holes in priviledged programs. Remember, this system runs much of the same software as Linux and FreeBSD. Much of that software hasn't been properly audited and locked down. Why? Because this is a desktop machine.
Mac OS X security primarily stems from not doing anything stupid by default. Which means that there are no remote services enabled, the system tries to be intelligent about handling executable files (like most Unixes), and super-user functionality is handled by Sudo. But that's not a bullet-proof vest. There's nothing in the system that makes it automagically secure against all attacks. So if you want security, don't turn on those remote services, and don't give out SSH accounts!
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I'm not really sure why this competition happened in the first place. If you were a Mac OS X enthusiast wanting to show the "amazing" security of your OS, why would you leave the first major door wide open?
And who gains from this publicity? It would seem like sponsoring a hacking competition that took MORE than 30 minutes (seemingly the goal of such an event) would be good for Apple, but then why leave the system more vulnerable at the start of the contest? And if it was really sponsored by an anti-Apple group posing as an pro-Apple group, why have the hacker claim that Macs are essentially "small pickin's"?
It just doesn't make sense...
This was a while ago, but when you give a user a local account, its almost assumed that if they really wanted to they could get root. You should take care when giving out accounts.
It like giving physical access to a machine. If you give physical access to any linux machine, its not hard to log onto it. (this is why you lock up the machines!)
I have a feeling that the Reality Distortion Field has already cancelled whatever negative effect this has had
So SSH was on and accessible? Dumb move. Like saying "I dare you to steal my jewelry from my bedroom -- oh, and my house is unlocked with the windows open."
But maybe people WANT something to be stolen. Many years ago, the garbagemen (sanitation workers) in NYC went on strike, and garbage was piling up in the streets. A relative of mine in Brooklyn still managed to get rid of his: he put it in big boxes, wrapped the boxes in gift paper with bows, and left them in his car with the doors unlocked. They always got stolen.
How this applies to the story, I dunno, but I still think it's funny.
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
Andrewg does know what he talking about. andrewg has published papers (not on mac security) and is part of some wonderful communities pulltheplug.org and felinemenace.org . I assure you that this machine would of been hacked... with SSH access or not. I think it shows the importance of having patches that minimize possible exposure (i.e grsec/pax etc) that would of decreased the chances of successful exploitation dramatically.... but then again nothing is bullet proof
Excuse me, but if your OS can be rooted in 30 minutes from a local account, you have no business calling it secure. UNIX is supposed to have multiple local accounts and still be secure with them all running. If you close down every network port on a machine and say "come get me now", that's really not saying much. I, for one, would really like to know how he managed to get root from a local account, so I can verify I don't have the same problem on my server, which really does have ssh access to more than one person.
We have a Mac server here at work for testing, we set it up 100% default mainly because none of us are Mac people. A quick nmap (using just well known ports) reveals not only is SSH open, but several others. Also, non-open ports report closed, not filtered indicating no firewall, at least none with respect to it's local subnet.
Not saying there's anything wrong with this, Solaris, FreeBSD, et al are the same, but while SSH may need enabling on a Mac desktop, it does not appear to on a Mac server.
Kang might have something to say about that.
The CB App. What's your 20?
The whole article seemed to culminate in the following information: some guy said if Macs were more popular they would have a worse record than "other operating systems." It seems to be comparing OS X to Linux, but it isn't entirely clear what the baseline is for their eval of Mac OS.X and it also doesn't clarify what exactly makes these OSs different. Also, the web site defacement isn't proof that the person with an unprivileged account acquired superuser privileges to do anything other than deface the web page. I don't doubt it could have happened, but maybe it did and maybe it didn't...
Also, giving people LDAP accounts on the machine is really cheating. Maybe some noobs get a boner when someone fuzzes the hell out of a box from a local account until they get some fuzz escalated **BORING**. If they really wanted to throw down the gauntlet, then we would see Mandatory Access Control implemented on OS X . The big difference is that the MAC policies would be enforceable at the Mach MK level (on Mach ports, tasks, processes...), and OS X would be the ONLY OS with a security policy interface that could come close to usable for average people.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
Then he should put his gpg public key at
http://test.doit.wisc.edu/ and sign and publish on slashdot an invitation to hack this machine to prove that he's the owner of this machine.
k2r
"Would HAVE", not "would OF".
What good is a door if it's welded shut? Wouldn't a proper lock be more useful? Security should be about maximizing functionality securely, not limiting it.
Ideally, any user should be restricted to the behaviors intended by the administrator and there should be no local privilege escalations. Realistically, however, this does not really happen except in a few special cases of extremely security oriented OS's. The first line of defense is how many services you have, think of them as gates in a castle. The second is the firewall, how many gates are open for business. The third is the username/password, do the guards know you and will they let you in. These guard against most threats except for someone who can impersonate someone else or insider threats who have access but want more access. In this case the "hackers" was given legitimate access to come in through the open gate. (A gate the admin specifically had to open and using the username and password the admin gave them.)
Once inside there is still security, but it is much, much less. On the average Windows machine at this point there is no security at all and even on a well secured Windows machine there are thousands of unpatched privilege escalation exploits. At this point on either a Mac OS X desktop or the average Linux machine a knowledgeable security person will be able to gain admin access. That is a sad fact, but it is the case for the vast majority of systems. Exceptions might be a locked down OpenBSD box running jails, an SELinux box, or some other specialized ultra-secure OS running virtual machines. Very few people run those machines as desktops and those that due generally don't have the best experience because they sacrifice a lot of usability to gain that level of security.
This "test" was no surprise to anyone with a clue. That is exactly what would be expected to happen. Also, some of the better security guys out there can definitely gain remote access to machines using unpublished vulnerabilities. If they really want in they will get into the average OS X or Linux box. So what are we talking about here? Well obviously this is still much better than Windows, but not impregnable. What it does is make you pretty safe from automated worms and your average script kiddie, which far outnumber the knowledgeable crackers out there.
Ideally, all desktop OS's would be locked down more tightly. They would do more security auditing and they would implement ACLs, VMs, or jails for all remote access and all applications. Some day perhaps they will. But for right now it is not a big concern, simply because market does not call for it. Not many people really have data that needs to be kept secure against experts and those that do have specialized OS's to use. Of course they can't run photoshop or World of Warcraft and the users would not trust their internet connection to talk to WoW servers anyway using all closed source. That is a task better allocated to a regular desktop, not a locked down, ultra-secure server. And that is what this "test" has shown. OS X is a desktop and if you bypass all the primary security on it, it will not stand up to a cracker from the inside like OpenBSD might. Of course anyone who really cares already knew that.