U of Wisconsin's Mac OS X Security Challenge

digitalsurgeon writes "The University of Wisconsin [ed: Go Badgers] has launched a Mac OS X Security challenge, in response to a 'woefully misleading ZDnet article'. From the site: 'The challenge is as follows: simply alter the web page on this machine, test.doit.wisc.edu. 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.' Are you up to the task? Can you prove ZDNet wrong, or can you show that Mac OS X can really be hacked in less then 30 minutes? More information about the challenge is at http://test.doit.wisc.edu/ The challenge ends Fri 10 March 2006 10:00 AM CST." Update: 03/07 14:32 GMT by Z : Commentary on the contest and original claim is available at VNUNet

Comments

A Different Test

[Paradise Pete]

While I appreciate this test, and expect it to not be breached, it is simply not the same test. The original test was to see if a regular local user could elevate its privileges to admin. The fact that the "proof" was to be done by changing a web page is a red herring. The real story was that someone was (apparently) able to do that.

This test is of the web server, and of remote cracking without local access. Also, the explanation page says that the original article did not mention that local access was given. Well, perhaps they've updated the article, but it certainly says so now:

"Participants were given local client access to the target computer and invited to try their luck."

As I said, I appreciate this test, but I am also concerned about the apparent ability of an ordinary local user to gain admin status.

Re:A Different Test

[daveschroeder]

Yes, they updated the article.

And the whole point isn't that the test "isn't the same". This is how most Mac OS X machines will appear to outside entities on the internet. The original article - and definitely before it was updated - left people with the impression that a Mac OS X machine could be owned in 30 minutes just by being connected to the internet, without the user "doing" anything, and the subsequent coverage of this in most press proves it. None speak to the fact that a local account was given, or even explore the implications. What could have been a useful article was useless, vague sensationalism. I updated the bottom of the page this morning:

Update

The ZDnet article has been updated to include the sentence, "Participants were given local client access to the target computer and invited to try their luck." But might it not have been interesting to explore:

- What are the implications of local account access, and under what conditions might a computer be used in that way?

- How can such access normally be obtained? Do home users behind firewalls and with no ports open need to worry?
How can a vendor fix the claimed local privilege escalation vulnerabilities when they are not informed of the issue?

- What are the moral and ethical implications of knowing about allegedly severe vulnerabilities in products, like the "hacker" they interviewed, and actively choosing to NOT give the vendor an opportunity to fix the problem(s)?

- How might a Linux or BSD distribution, other commercial UNIXes, or Windows stand up to a similar challenge, where anyone who wishes is given local account access?

- A discussion about how since much of OS X is closed, this might make it more difficult for the community to discover - and report and fix - potential vulnerabilities in the closed pieces

...and things of that nature, instead of leaving people with the impression that any Mac OS X machine connected to the Internet can be taken over in 30 minutes?

Re:A Different Test

[Tim C]

Lots of hosting companies offer ssh access, not to mention that if an account exists on the machine with ssh access, it may be only a matter of time before someone manages to gain access to it.

Re:* yawn *

[plate_o_shrimp]

[quote]I'd rather have a nice manual ... on how to improve/lock down an OS X machine.[/quote] There's this..... http://www.nsa.gov/snac/downloads_macX.cfm

Re:the original post

[daveschroeder]

Yes, this is approved. But it's getting moved to its own /29 today...unfortunately, that didn't happen before slashdot got to it. ;-)

There is an identical clone of that Mac mini waiting to go on the new network, and our DNS TTL is currently set to 5 minutes, so when the cutover happens, it should be pretty transparent.

The IP

[zaguar]

The IP of the server under the test. Saves you a ping of the site.

128.104.16.150

Hint

[spike2131]

One of the user names is "das".... as in http://test.doit.wisc.edu/~das/

So run that against a dictionary and see if you can get in....

Re:Hackorama Windows

[IflyRC]

Windows 2003 Professional doesn't exist.

1) Windows XP Home

2) Windows XP Professional

3) Windows Server 2003

Your wish has been granted:

[daveschroeder]

Corsaire - Securing Mac OS X Tiger

NSA - Mac OS X Security Configuration Guide (not yet updated for Mac OS X 10.4)

Apple - Common Criteria configuration guide

And for the "average joe"?

- Keep your machine patched
- Don't randomly open ports for services you don't use
- Have a personal firewall/router
- Don't run software you don't trust

And this doesn't "prove" anything, except that the initial ZDnet article was totally vague and sensationalistic, making it seem to an average person reading that article that a Mac OS X box could just be "hacked" by being on the internet. That is wrong, and I'm showing that. Simple. It's all explained on http://test.doit.wisc.edu/

No, you're still wrong about the REAL problem

[xiphoris]

The real problem is that tests like this are garbage in the first place.

In fact, Bruce Schneier (a respected cryptographer, responsible for Blowfish) addressed the topic thoroughly almost 8 years ago in his column Crypto-Gram. Here's a relevant snippet:

You see them all the time: "Company X offers $1,000,000 to anyone who can break through their firewall/crack their algorithm/make a fraudulent transaction using their protocol/do whatever." These are cracking contests, and they're supposed to show how strong and secure the target of the contests are. The logic goes something like this: We offered a prize to break the target, and no one did. This means that the target is secure.

It doesn't.

Contests are a terrible way to demonstrate security. A product/system/protocol/algorithm that has survived a contest unbroken is not obviously more trustworthy than one that has not been the subject of a contest. The best products/systems/protocols/algorithms available today have not been the subjects of any contests, and probably never will be. Contests generally don't produce useful data. There are three basic reasons why this is so.

You can read the original here.

Mac Mini Survives Slashdotting

[Anonymous Coward]

I love how the mac mini is surviving the slashdotting no probs. Sure its mostly text, but I've seen similar sites crumble in no time.

http://test.doit.wisc.edu/

Chris

Re:This whole thing is bogus.

[aurum42]

Try again troll. See Apple's documentation

Intel processors include a bit that prevents code from being executed on the stack. On Intel-based Macintosh computers, this bit is always set to On.

You must work for that Eweek rag, you appear to follow the same brand of FUD-spreading methodology, involving outright lies...

Re:Doubtful...

[daveschroeder]

For the record, no, the passwords are not the same.

(And for those wondering, the NetID/username is the non-private part of our NetID credential.)

Also, I'd hope that one would also understand that going after other machines in that way is bad form, and doesn't speak to Mac OS X's security (or insecurity), but rather to the practice of having strong/different passwords across multiple secure systems.

Re:Still no comparison

[kaffiene]

The reality is that a user was able to elevate their permissions to root - that's a security concern and ought to be pointed out as a weakness. It would be a weakness if it happened on Windows or Linux, it doesn't become a non-issue because fan boys think that only web security is important.

The fact is *all* security gaps are important. If there's a network hack that can only get you a non-priviledged account, but you can then jack that up to root access using this local hole, then that hole was mighty significant. This whole "Mac has no security faults" meme is dangerously delusional. It's significantly more secure than Win32, but at least own up to faults (small as they may be) and get them fixed, don't bury your heads in the sand.