Apple Adds Memory Randomization To Leopard
.mack notes a ZDNet blog outlining some of the security features added to OSX Leopard (10.5). Here's Apple's brief description of all 11 new security features. "Apple has announced plans to add code-scrambling diversity to Mac OS X Leopard, a move aimed at making the operating system more resilient to virus and worm attacks. The security technology, known as ASLR (address space layout randomization), randomly arranges the positions of key data areas to prevent malware authors from predicting target addresses. Another new feature coming in Leopard is Sandboxing (systrace), which limits an application's access to the system by enforcing access policies for system calls."
Apple is finally catching up with BSD, Linux and Vista!
If only this broke bootcamp compatibility - then they'd really prevent viruses.
From the changelog:
It sounds like a high-level player finally decided to take on Exchange. My biggest questions: are there Windows programs that support these features via CalDAV, and is there a CalDAV server in FreeBSD's ports?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Even Vista has a not-completely-broken implementation of ASLR. Linux, of course, has been doing it for years...
Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
To give you closeted folk an excuse to talk about your feelings in public.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Because the Macintosh is the Gay Computer.
Why bother.
Eventually? Look back at the past! IBM System/390 mainframes (and the zSeries derived from it) have all those features in hardware. Array overrun? Hardware exception. Integer overflow? Hardware exception. Touch memory you deallocated? Hardware exception. ALU produces a spurious result? System picks it up because it runs all the code on at least two cores, and the same fault is unlikely to occur in two cores simultaneously - operation is retried on two more cores to determine which of the two original cores was correct, and the failing core is taken out of service.
You know why we don't do all that in hardware in PCs? Because it requires a huge amount of silicon. Sure, it's great. You learn good programming practices, because you can't get away with slipping even a little. But it costs a lot, gets hot, and goes slow. PCs are meant to be a good enough and cheap enough solution - not necessarily the best solution.
When I first started using Quark XPress 6.5 in Mac OS X here at my new job, it took a while to work out the kinks for a rather complex project (doing layout for a journal w/ a 24 hr. turn-around), to the point that I actually put up a ``crash log'' outside of my cubicle, so that people could gauge my mood before entering. It's been a year now, and while I've gotten the project in question worked out (had to train myself _never_ to undo re-sizing a text box &c.), the totals might be interesting to people:
2006:
Quark XPress: 207 crashes (as many as 9 per day)
Adobe Illustrator: 25
InDesign: 35
PhotoShop: 15
Acrobat: 65
Microsoft Word: 23
Macromedia FreeHand: 9
Mac OS X: 14 (this includes Mac OS X apps like Mail.app and Safari.app)
The totals for this year are a bit more reasonable --- Quark XPress v6.5: 26, v7: 46 (I had to move the afore-mentioned journal over to Quark 7 after a re-design and that involved a new set of things to work-around) --- but I find Mac OS X overall reliable and workable as an environment (thought not as nice, consistent and synergistic as NeXTstep).
William
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
There is a trend emerging, ever so slowly... It used to be Mac users attacking Windows users... More and more I'm starting to hear Windows users attacking Mac users. Fortunately, so long as the argument is "Mac is gay," I don't really feel like Mac users need to bother responding. Linux I respect, though... because once I'm in the command line, it's just like OS X. (ducks)
Music - www.richardmac.com
"Changing the memory address layout is roughly akin to doing home security by locking different doors on different nights, but always leaving one unlocked. The would-be burglar just has to try all the doors to get in. Doing this kind of thing is trivial on a computer."
Yes, it's just like that, except you have millions of doors, and a intruder can only try to open one door per night, and the unlocked door changes randomly every night.
"People really need to stop adding these kinds of things that increase complexity and do not address the real issue, which in this case is access to the memory space of another application without some sort of credential or approval. When the real problem is addressed, this overly complex and fundamentally useless random memory address layout 'feature' will be left in to cause bugs and complexity forever."
This has nothing to do with access to the memory space of another application.
Another new feature coming in Leopard is Sandboxing (systrace), which limits an application's access to the system by enforcing access policies for system calls
Folks,
Just FYI, the sandboxing in Leopard is not systrace. Systrace is vulnerable to race conditions -- see Robert Watson's paper "Exploiting Concurrency Vulnerabilities in System Call Wrappers". I asked him about this at WWDC, and he told me that Leopard's sandboxing is based on a different technology and is not vulnerable to the same attacks.
--Paul
Seems like you might have some issues - I plug firewire drives into Tiger systems multiple times per day and have never had a crash. And even if it did, you'd get the multi-lingual "please restart" screen - I haven't seen OSX do a black screen panic since 10.1 ...
...
Also, if applications are "just vanishing" on launch, you may have disabled the little popup that tells you the 'application quit, wrote a crash log, and would you like to reopen it?'
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure