Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Fixes 'Misleading' Leopard Firewall Settings

Posted by Zonk on from the walls-need-to-be-just-a-teensy-bit-thicker dept.

4 for 52 writes "ZDNet is reporting that Apple has fessed up to at least three serious design weaknesses in the new application-based firewall that ships with Mac OS X Leopard. The acknowledgment comes less than a month after independent researchers threw cold water on Apple's claim that Leopard's firewall can block all incoming connections. The firewall patches come 24 hours after a Mac OS X update that provided cover for at least 41 security vulnerabilities."

51 of 264 comments (clear)

  1. As usual, other considerations... by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Informative
    Apple's "everything just works" niceties depend on things like Bonjour, in particular, being able to be accessed, and most users would end up selecting "Block all incoming collections" when making a firewall choice, because they won't really understand anything else...and "more" is "better", right? So blocking all must mean I'm super secure! Firewall good! Hacker bad! ...Except that now when I get my AppleTV and buy my son or daughter an iMac and expect to be able to do all the cool stuff that doesn't require any configuration and "just works"...nothing works. Why doesn't it work?

    They won't be able to answer that any more than they know what to pick on the Firewall preferences screen.

    So what Apple does is a little bit of deciding for the user what makes sense. The first step was going to an intelligent application level firewall that makes it a lot more functional and easier to use. The next was making some policies that allow services Apple considers "essential" to the whole Mac OS X user experience. And like it or not, Bonjour is an integral part of that.

    Anyone who knows enough to know, for certain, that they don't want, e.g., Bonjour open, also knows how to use any of a number of free or commercial commandline or graphical options to set up ipfw or other network level protections any way they wish. That's the bottom line: anyone who knows enough to "know" they "really" want to disable all incoming connections can still easily do so.

    This is about making security easy for typical, average users, while still keeping things that make the Mac experience "just work".

    Now, I *do* wish that Apple had one more option: Block *everything*, but explain, hey, this is going to break some things like Bonjour, etc., so be SURE that you want to do this, and don't complain if all of a sudden your AppleTV syncing and iTunes sharing and automatic local machine discovery no longer work.

    Apple describes all of this very explicitly here:

    The 10.5.0 Application Firewall blocked all but:

    Processes that are running as UID 0
    mDNSResponder

    The 10.5.1 Application Firewall blocks all but:

    configd, which implements DHCP and other network configuration services
    mDNSResponder, which implements Bonjour
    racoon, which implements IPSec

    So, while I haven't extensively tested yet, it does NOT appear to allow UID 0 processes, but rather only the above processes.

    And from here:

    CVE-ID: CVE-2007-4702

    Available for: Mac OS X v10.5, Mac OS X Server v10.5

    Impact: The "Block all incoming connections" setting for the firewall is misleading

    Description: The "Block all incoming connections" setting for the Application Firewall allows any process running as user "root" (UID 0) to receive incoming connections, and also allows mDNSResponder to receive connections. This could result in the unexpected exposure of network services. This update addresses the issue by more accurately describing the option as "Allow only essential services, and by limiting the processes permitted to receive incoming connections under this setting to a small fixed set of system services: configd (for DHCP and other network configuration protocols), mDNSResponder (for Bonjour), and racoon (for IPSec). The "Help" content for the Application Firewall is also updated to provide further information. This issue does not affect systems prior to Mac OS X v10.5.

    CVE-ID: CVE-2007-4703

    Available for: Mac OS X v10.5, Mac OS X Server v10.5

    Impact: Processes running as user "root" (UID 0) cannot be blocked when the firewall is set to "Set access for specific services and applications"

    1. Re:As usual, other considerations... by daveschroeder · · Score: 4, Informative

      The * by my name means subscriber, which means I see the articles early, and have an opportunity to compose a reply before the article goes live.

    2. Re:As usual, other considerations... by djh101010 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There ya go, Dave, being all informative, complete, accurate, and factual. You realize the haters are about to label you, let's see, what is it this time? Fanboi, apologist, and employee of Apple I think is due this time, right?

      For the record, I saw the writeup and was hoping you'd have written a response, and am glad to see you did. Those of us who are capable of understanding facts and logic, rather than knee-jerk pretending that "w000, this is just as bad as Vista on a good day" and all that, appreciate your time and efforts.

    3. Re:As usual, other considerations... by Rodyland · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Let me first say that I get what you're saying, and I can understand where Apple are coming from....


      But... can anyone here honestly say that if you took the entire story about the 'dodgy' firewall and replaced Apple with Microsoft that there wouldn't be people literally screaming themselves blue in the face about how insecure MS is _by_design_?

      Seriously, if an MS-shipped firewall decided (without telling you) that 'block all incoming connections' really meant 'block all incoming connections except for MSN Messenger and oh, I don't know, maybe Media Player', would you be making excuses about how it was really necessary and understandable to deliver the "Microsoft Experience(TM)"?

      No, I didn't think so either.


      Yes, Apple should be applauded for recognising a problem in their software, as well as a problem in the way their software presents itself, and fixing it.

      But they should not be forgiven for creating the problem in the first place because their hearts were in the right place. That kind of thinking leads to bad places.

    4. Re:As usual, other considerations... by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's about reputation.
      MS has a well deserved crappy reputation. Apple has a well deserved good reputation.

      Historically speaking, MS would avoid, pretend it doesn't exist, refuse to take the blame, and release a patch 2 weeks later that just happened to fix this issue.

      Yeah,Apple screwed up but they are fixing it and the admit it. Integerity can go a long way.

      In your world it seems nothing and nobody can every be forgiven for making a mistake. How sad.

      Appl ewas very clear about what it does:
      The 10.5.0 Application Firewall blocked all but:

                          Processes that are running as UID 0
                          mDNSResponder

      The 10.5.1 Application Firewall blocks all but:

                          configd, which implements DHCP and other network configuration services
                          mDNSResponder, which implements Bonjour
                          racoon, which implements IPSec

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:As usual, other considerations... by dave562 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Apple is facing the same problem that Microsoft is facing. Microsoft wanted to make their software appear user friendly and easy to use. They went ahead and created ActiveX and in numerous places like with network shares, setup the default permissions so that everyone could use it. That eventually came back in the end to bite them in the ass. Luckily for Apple, they are able to learn from the collective wisdom of all who have gone before them. But like this instance shows, Apple is not necessarily any better when it comes to making arbitrary decisions about the balance between ease of use and security.

    6. Re:As usual, other considerations... by rmerry72 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So what Apple does is a little bit of deciding for the user what makes sense.

      MS did exactly the same with Windows. All those nice important services that are on and open and insecure just for the user. Comcast do the same for all their users - let you do what makes sense and block everything else. Sony also did what makes sense with their rootkit - after all a CD shouldn't be played i a computer, right, that's what a CD player is for?

      And all LIED about it and misled paying customers.

      But this is Apple so it's different right? Must be hard to take when you see your God making mistakes and deceiving you. Hypocrite!

      --
      We do not inherit the Earth from our parents. We borrow it from our children.
    7. Re:As usual, other considerations... by davidsyes · · Score: 2, Funny

      "In your world it seems nothing and nobody can [*every*] be forgiven for making a mistake. How sad."

      ON MEE-SA-PLANET, WEE-SA CALL A BIG MAC A NABU ROYALE... How's daaad????

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    8. Re:As usual, other considerations... by Rodyland · · Score: 3, Informative
      Quick update before I get flamed, I re-read my original post and saw where I said they should not be forgiven. Seems I'm the one who should read their own posts.

      I admit in my original post my words were inaccurate.

      I meant something more like "forgive, but don't forget". Also more like I said in my reply to your reply.

      Again, apologies for inaccurate and/or argumentative tone.

    9. Re:As usual, other considerations... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But... can anyone here honestly say that if you took the entire story about the 'dodgy' firewall and replaced Apple with Microsoft that there wouldn't be people literally screaming themselves blue in the face about how insecure MS is _by_design_?

      Umm, people were screaming themselves blue about how Apple's firewall was broken or fundamentally flawed or misleading. There were dozens of articles about it and hundreds of postings in discussion groups.

      The difference between Apple and MS (or for that matter Linux developers and MS) is that Apple does not have a monopoly so they actually have to listen to their users and make changes to make them happy. They very quickly made sensible changes to make it clearer how the firewall behaves and addressed pretty much everyone's concerns, even those of people who really didn't know what they were talking about.

      But they should not be forgiven for creating the problem in the first place because their hearts were in the right place. That kind of thinking leads to bad places.

      Security is a journey not a destination. Security is about trying to allow users to do what they want while stopping things they don't want from happening. There will always be security holes and room for improvement. Concentrating on mistakes made by any vendor is counter productive. So long as the vendor responds and fixes the problem and takes a responsible attitude, they're doing fine by me.

    10. Re:As usual, other considerations... by Rodyland · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I agree wholeheartedly with your post. What I objected to mostly was the way the OP explained away why it was broken like it didn't matter. It does matter when companies put out software that doesn't do what it says it does, moreso when it's security software and what it doesn't do is make things more secure.

      Don't explain it away with "the apple experience". Apple stuffed up badly, and now have fixed it. Simple

    11. Re:As usual, other considerations... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Crazily, he actually *pays* for Slashdot. Subscribers can see stories like a half hour early and compose their reply during that time.

      Paying for Slashdot? *shakes head slowly*

      --
      Comment of the year
    12. Re:As usual, other considerations... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Microsoft wanted to make their software appear user friendly and easy to use. They went ahead and created ActiveX and in numerous places like with network shares, setup the default permissions so that everyone could use it.

      There is a significant difference between Apple's firewall settings and MS's use of DirectX. Apple changed the way the firewall worked to be application level and sandboxed the services that it let by the firewall. Unfortunately they misleadingly labeled that setting. When users tested it, they became upset. Apple needs to keep customers happy in order to make money, so they changed it to conform to what customers wanted. It is good business and the way the market is supposed to work. Apple wants to make money, so acting out of what could be called avarice, they give users what they want.

      Microsoft has monopoly influence in the desktop OS market as well as a few other markets. They included ActiveX partly to motivate sales, but also partly to try to make Web applications tied to their monopoly to lock in customers and help leverage that OS monopoly into a Web monopoly and into the online media and services markets. It makes them a lot of money, even if it brings negative consequences to users. Users don't want to be locked in making migrations and cross-platform tools hard. Users don't gain benefit from MS taking over other markets. Because MS has a monopoly, however, it doesn't matter what users want. Since they don't have to keep users happy, MS has literally no financial motivation to fix the security problems ActiveX creates and they have significant financial motivation to not fix it.

      On a very basic level, a monopolist will almost always be worse at innovating and giving users what they want than a company competing in a healthy market. The #1 best way I can think of to fix all of Window's security problems is to break up MS. Split the company into two new companies, forbid them from any non-public communication or collusion, and give both the rights to all the code, copyrights, trademarks, and patents in Windows. Users want security and both will start making real improvements since otherwise the other will be getting the money from consumers. It is my firm belief that until MS's monopoly is broken one way or another, MS will never be able to compete with Apple or Linux when it comes to security. They just aren't motivated.

    13. Re:As usual, other considerations... by geekoid · · Score: 4, Funny

      Curse you!

      I was about to quote you and make you eat those words. But you had to go read you post and post a nice apology.

      How can I insult you now, and retain the high ground?

      Jeez, we get anymore people like you on slashdot it might get all 'reasonable' and 'adult' like. ;)

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    14. Re:As usual, other considerations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Supporting the services he uses with monetary compensation? Absurd!

    15. Re:As usual, other considerations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Microsoft has monopoly influence in the desktop OS market as well as a few other markets. They included ActiveX partly to motivate sales, but also partly to try to make Web applications tied to their monopoly to lock in customers and help leverage that OS monopoly into a Web monopoly and into the online media and services markets. It makes them a lot of money, even if it brings negative consequences to users. Users don't want to be locked in making migrations and cross-platform tools hard. Users don't gain benefit from MS taking over other markets. Because MS has a monopoly, however, it doesn't matter what users want. Since they don't have to keep users happy, MS has literally no financial motivation to fix the security problems ActiveX creates and they have significant financial motivation to not fix it. What ??? Do you even read what you type? Since when is making money bad and trying to get maximum market share for your platform/service bad? People weren't forced to **DEVELOP** applications for activeX even if it came installed with the OS. They were certainly not tied in or locked in any way shape or form. Technically competent people were capable of easily disabling it (which is bad for the newbies.. i agree) Other software firms still had the option of creating their own standard. Hello... Java??

      On a very basic level, a monopolist will almost always be worse at innovating and giving users what they want than a company competing in a healthy market. The #1 best way I can think of to fix all of Window's security problems is to break up MS. Split the company into two new companies, forbid them from any non-public communication or collusion, and give both the rights to all the code, copyrights, trademarks, and patents in Windows. Users want security and both will start making real improvements since otherwise the other will be getting the money from consumers. It is my firm belief that until MS's monopoly is broken one way or another, MS will never be able to compete with Apple or Linux when it comes to security.

      Wow did that just come out of your ass? So the thousands of Windows Server installations are being hacked 24/7? Linux is never hacked? No Vulnerabilities? Get real... Linux or OS X is in *NO* way more secure than windows given a competent sys-admin.

        I've been running windows since Windows 3.1 and have never been infected by a virus, spyware or rootkit and nor has my installation ever been compromised. No matter what horror stories you have about Windows they are almost always the result of somebody's stupidity. If you aren't competent enough to secure your installation, get someone else to do it, stop blaming the OS. No *OS* can ever be 100% secure.
    16. Re:As usual, other considerations... by toadlife · · Score: 3, Funny

      yes. I disagree.
      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    17. Re:As usual, other considerations... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The scenario has you in a hostile environment. It is untrusted. You shouldn't want to expose anything except the bare minimum.

      Funny. Technically, I don't need to use the Web at all in coffee shops, so by your argument I should block all traffic. On the other hand, I prefer my computer to be functional, when that functionality does not pose a significant security risk. Guess what, I also have SSH enabled for access, even though I only need to access it occasionally. The service I originally referred to (Bonjour) is unlikely to pose a security risk, especially since in addition to finding an exploit in it, an attacker would have to find an exploit in the Mandatory Access Control sandbox OS X runs it in by default. I'm a lot more likely to be exploited by an attack on my Mail.app than by an attack on Bonjour. Do you also advocate that I do not check my e-mail while at the coffee shop?

      Save the "nice" services for when you are on a trusted network.

      Screw that. Half the benefit of Bonjour enabled chatting is that I can easily talk to people I don't have in my "buddy" list while at conferences and coffee shops. Sacrificing function out of unjustified fear is not my cup of tea.

      I don't want 3rd party.

      Umm, okay, then don't use it. Good luck finding a capable first party GUI firewall configuration tool on a platform that is not riddled with security holes.

      Honestly, it sounds to me like you're looking for something to complain about. I really wish people with your sort of an attitude on security would revisit your basic assumptions. Security is about allowing users to do what they want with a system, and prevent things they don't want from happening, especially without their permission. Reducing functionality just means users turn off security features or move to a system where they have more functionality. If I had a dollar for every time I've seen someone at a LAN party shut off their firewall completely because it was restricting something they wanted to do and was too hard to enable just that application/behavior... well, I'd have enough cash to buy a good steak and some scotch anyway.

    18. Re:As usual, other considerations... by dave562 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Were you actively using computers when ActiveX was introduced? Were you involved in doing any web development? On one hand you can go on and on about how Microsoft leveraged their monopoly to get into the web arena. I will agree with you there. Perhaps you can realize that at the time that Microsoft introduced ActiveX, there weren't any other technologies out there that allowed the content delivery and functionality with the ease that ActiveX and IE did. It was a big fat security hole and no one in their right mind will argue against that. However the reason that they rolled it out was to enable developers to target web users with applications. I'd say they were right on the money with the need for that. They went ahead and picked ease of use over security to allow app developers to develop web content. We all know how that worked out with regard to malware. You can't argue that it didn't allow content developers to get their content out there... even if 85% of it was unwanted. ;)

      I disagree that Microsoft doesn't have any financial motivation to fix the problems in ActiveX and their various technologies. Take a look at IE7. Where are all the ActiveX exploits that target IE7? Microsoft has a HUGE installed userbase that depends on IE/IIS and Visual Studio for development. They have a huge incentive to keep that cash cow secure.

      From real world experience, I can tell you that Microsoft does just fine with security. I have hands on experience with literally thousands of desktops and hundreds of servers running 2000/XP/2003 and zero security incidents. With good firewalls, security policies, group policies, WSUS, AV, etc. it is possible to secure Microsoft networks. You just have to know what you are doing and stay abreast of the latest developments. It also helps if you use some open source tools like Snort, nmap and the like to keep an eye on what is going on behind the scenes.

      The original point of my first post still stands though. As Apple moves forward, they are going to have to face the same challenges that Microsoft faced... balancing the user expectation of an easy to use interface and "it just works" mentality with security needs.

    19. Re:As usual, other considerations... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What ??? Do you even read what you type? Since when is making money bad and trying to get maximum market share for your platform/service bad?

      Making money and maximizing market share is fine, when they lead to increased efficiency and innovation in the market. That is why capitalism is so successful, because in a capitalist system competition for custom leads to innovation and efficiency. The problem is monopolies break capitalism and lead to reduced innovation and inefficiency. It is sort of like combining the worst aspects of socialism and the worst aspects of capitalism. That is why abusing monopolies is illegal, pretty much everywhere. They were made illegal when giant companies lowered the quality of life significantly for the average person.

      People weren't forced to **DEVELOP** applications for activeX even if it came installed with the OS.

      No it was just made artificially profitable, breaking the normal way innovation works in capitalism. Monopolies don't have to force anyone, all they have to do is undermine the normal functioning of the market.

      They were certainly not tied in or locked in any way shape or form.

      Bundling is a classic form of tying, as called out in US antitrust law.

      Technically competent people were capable of easily disabling it...

      Sigh, way to completely miss the point.

      Other software firms still had the option of creating their own standard. Hello... Java??

      And did Sun have the option of simultaneously bundling Java with every desktop OS, while at the same time bundling a broken version of ActiveX? No, they didn't because MS had a desktop OS monopoly to leverage while Sun did not. Thus there was no fair competition between the two for many years. You'll recall MS lost in court eventually on that count? I take it you did not understand why?

      So the thousands of Windows Server installations are being hacked 24/7?

      Great way to illustrate my point. MS does not have a monopoly on server OS's, they have to compete with Linux. They do have a monopoly on desktop OS's and they are hacked en masse every day.

      Get real... Linux or OS X is in *NO* way more secure than windows given a competent sys-admin.

      Windows is less secure, demonstrable simply by the numbers hacked. For real users, Windows is insecure by comparison as any competent and objective securty expert will tell you.

      Get real... Linux or OS X is in *NO* way more secure than windows given a competent sys-admin.

      Good for you, too bad that is not the general case. Most people are not so lucky or careful.

      If you aren't competent enough to secure your installation, get someone else to do it, stop blaming the OS. No *OS* can ever be 100% secure.

      No, but it could be a lot better and the average person could have a choice of which OS comes with the computer they buy so they can make purchasing decisions based upon which is more secure. Are you telling me you honestly don't think security would be better if you had a choice between Windows A or Windows B and could vote with your wallet as to which is more secure? It is a rare user (like you) who argues against choice. Someone drank the kool-aid.

    20. Re:As usual, other considerations... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Were you actively using computers when ActiveX was introduced? ... Perhaps you can realize that at the time that Microsoft introduced ActiveX, there weren't any other technologies out there that allowed the content delivery and functionality with the ease that ActiveX and IE did.

      Yup, one year after Sun introduced a Java runtime for Windows and MS started bundling a broken version to undermine the platform (perhaps you recall the antitrust conviction).

      However the reason that they rolled it out was to enable developers to target web users with applications.

      ... and to make sure those applications were tied to Windows so that people could to easily target multiple platforms using the Web, a strategy they still pursue with their refusal to support newer Web technologies, or even older and capable Web technologies fully and in accordance with the specs.

      You can't argue that it didn't allow content developers to get their content out there... even if 85% of it was unwanted. ;)

      I can and do, however, argue that it only allowed developers to get their content to Windows users, not to all Web users and I can further argue, that was very intentional.

      I disagree that Microsoft doesn't have any financial motivation to fix the problems in ActiveX and their various technologies. Take a look at IE7. Where are all the ActiveX exploits that target IE7?

      MS has incentive to appear to be making security improvements and actually are making a few in response to competition from Linux on the desktop in corporate environments. Some of their general security work is helping, but in truth since most users have no other option, they just don't care to devote the resources, especially when they can use them to expand into console gaming, or online media delivery, or publishing tools, or one of the many markets they don't already have locked-in.

      Microsoft has a HUGE installed userbase that depends on IE/IIS and Visual Studio for development. They have a huge incentive to keep that cash cow secure.

      They have incentive to keep IIS secure because they have to compete with Apache in the server space, but not really end users of Windows on the desktop.

      As Apple moves forward, they are going to have to face the same challenges that Microsoft faced... balancing the user expectation of an easy to use interface and "it just works" mentality with security needs.

      Oh, I think they already are facing that same problem. They're a smaller target, but they also have a better track record so far. My point, however, is that Apple and Linux will both do a better job of it than MS, simply because they have more significant financial motivations. The best way to fix MS's security problems is to provide them with similar motivation.

    21. Re:As usual, other considerations... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The people who think that Microsoft is less secure than Apple or Linux don't really know security or the security market well at all. They simply have formed an opinion by listening to fanboys, advertisements and the uninformed.

      Well, I've been working at a network security company for the last four years and have been reading detailed weekly reports for internal consumption, written by well regarded professionals. What, exactly is your expertise?

      The average linux / apple system in production is no more secure than the average microsoft system ---- in reality they BOTH have tons of vulnerabilities.

      Everything has vulnerabilities. Linux and OS X boxes, have fewer, exposed for shorter periods of time, and less regularly exploited, especially in an automated fashion.

      IF (and thats a BIG if) a linux system is configured properly, including SE Linux...

      You did note that the new version of OS X ships with a MAC ported from SELinux and comes with all the services exposed by default preconfigured to run in sandboxes. And because it is included by default, unlike Linux distros, applications developed from now on can count on it and come preconfigured as well.

      ...they are ALL just as vulnerable to directed attacks.

      No, they're not because default Linux and OS X install have fewer exposed services and fewer known, unfixed vulnerabilities at any given point. Aside from that, most exploits are not directed, but automated and Windows is vastly more exposed to those attacks.

      People who buy MAC / Linux for the 'security benefits' are simply deluding themselves into thinking they've improved anything.

      Please. The numbers belie your assertion. The average user, simply buying a Mac significantly reduces their risk of having their machine compromised.

      There IS a place for Linux in the corporate world. There is also a place for Microsoft. I'm not so sure about Apple ---

      Interested in finding Apple's place? Go to BlackHat, or DefCon, or one of the other big security conferences in the next year. When there, take a quick count of how many Mac laptops you see in use among security experts. It was upwards of 50% at the last one I went to, and it was a private conference for security experts at tier 1 network operators. Why do you suppose that is, because all those security experts are idiots and just not as brilliant as you are?

    22. Re:As usual, other considerations... by djh101010 · · Score: 2

      I wonder why you would be hoping to see his response unless he had some sort of pattern to his posts... What do you call someone who, without fail, defends a particular company? Informative/insightful, in this case. He knows what he's talking about, and has the communication skills to present it in such a way that anyone who isn't blind to reality will understand. And it's not so much "defend(ing) a particular company", it's more about sharing his subject matter expertise with the group. Just because someone is correct and consistent doesn't somehow undermine their credibility - quite the opposite, in fact.
    23. Re:As usual, other considerations... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2

      That's fine, but the real problem is that the work here SUCKS.

      If you read the comments, you're ok, but only because the first couple of posts are usually about how misleading or just plain wrong the frontpage article is. If you came to this site and only read the frontpage article, you'd be getting LESS educated about technology, not more educated. Front page articles are wrong probably a solid third of the time, and not just a little wrong, but a lot wrong.

      I mean a lot of people complain about the spelling and grammar. That doesn't bother me as much; what bothers me is that the editors are just as likely to put up a wrong, or at least very misleading, article summary when there were probably 10 good ones written on the same story. That's not something I'd pay for.

      --
      Comment of the year
  2. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  3. Does it move files correctly? by Hatta · · Score: 2, Informative

    My biggest concern about Leopard is the bug which causes it to delete files you're moving if the destination becomes unavailable. They forgot to put in a check to see whether the move completed correctly. So it just deletes them whether it finished or not. Is this behavior fixed with this update?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Does it move files correctly? by slyn · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes.

      Its listed under system and finder.

    2. Re:Does it move files correctly? by arlanTLDR · · Score: 3, Insightful

      All apple computers now ship with two button mice, and have for a while. Just because it looks like it has only one button, doesn't mean it lacks two button functionally. Also, I cant see why it would be a flaw to have the default action of a drag and drop be a copy instead of a move. I understand that it's a flaw to delete the moved files without checking to see if the move was successful, but really you should be just copying and then manually deleting after confirming that your files moved properly.

    3. Re:Does it move files correctly? by Stamen · · Score: 4, Funny

      Stop bringing facts into Myth propagation. Without the ability to propagate myths, what would many /. users do? You insensitive clod.

      Macs have one mouse button. Java is slow. You can't run Office on a Mac, so it's useless. Windows machines lock up every 14.5 minutes. Microsoft innovates (tm). An iPod can't play mp3s.

      / Myths are cool
      // So are slashies
      // Oh, sorry, this isn't Fark

    4. Re:Does it move files correctly? by argent · · Score: 2, Informative

      Now you're making it sound like MacOS is copying Windows 3.1.

      The multi-button mouse comes from Xerox: Smalltalk, Interlisp-D, and the Xerox Star office system.

  4. Skype vs. the Leopard firewall! by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 2, Informative

    A rather entertaining issue - if you have the firewall enabled and run Skype then quit it, then Skype gets horribly broken, and doesn't start again. Nobody can decide if it's Leopard cryptographically signing (and modifying) the Skype executable and tripping up Skype's own excessive intrusion detection, or Skype modifying its own executable and tripping up Leopard's checks that it's the same application being allowed access to the interweb. I suspect it's the former - as older installations of Skype got killed on my two recently upgraded machines in that way.

    I had to re-download and install Skype, and now I have to run it with the firewall switched off. Pending a fixed Skype in 'a few weeks'. Aaaargh...

    Time Machine doesn't work on my old-fashioned partitioned external hard disk (half is an NTFS partition for Windows backups...), the Leopard installer initially wouldn't detect my MacBook Pro's own hard disk, and my iMac got nearly deaded by the upgrade (fortunately I had SSH enabled, and was able to get in and run Software Update from the command line, and thus could install the important iMac updates). Oh, and it's all a little bit crashy. It's nearly fantastic - apart from those issues... ;-)

    --
    Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
  5. Haven't tested, but the notes said yes. by attemptedgoalie · · Score: 5, Informative


    http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=306907

    - Addresses a potential data loss issue when moving files across partitions in the Finder.

    --
    My mom says I'm cool.
  6. "macosux" ... ? by dal20402 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wow. Our lovely tag trolls have been forced to go all the way back to 1986.

    I remember the endless "macs sux" ... "dos sux" ... repeat ad nauseam flamefests on BBSes. Evidently nothing has changed since we were all 8 and had nothing better to do than keep our parents from using the phone.

    Seriously, people, if you don't want to hear about Mac OS X, is it really that hard to turn off the Apple stories in your /. preferences?

  7. modes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In all honesty, why don't integrated firewalls have a basic/advanced settings mode?
    Basic is ideal for most folks, but if you're so inclined just click on the advanced tab and not only have more configuration options but also a through, detailed explanation oh what the firewall is actually doing.

    That'd be a great feature.

  8. Slightly Disingenuous Summary by ickoonite · · Score: 5, Informative

    The firewall patches come 24 hours after a Mac OS X update that provided cover for at least 41 security vulnerabilities.

    Yes, that was an update for Mac OS X 10.4. This patch is for Mac OS X 10.5. The two are essentially unrelated, so trying to imply that this represents some kind of patch frenzy is at least a little disingenuous.

    :|

  9. Misleading! by ducasi · · Score: 3, Informative

    The article blurb is misleading - the "41 security fixes" released in the Mac OS X update was part of 10.4.11.

    The three issues in the 10.5 firewall were the only security fixes for 10.5.

  10. Re:So don't use the firewall. by sqlrob · · Score: 2, Informative

    The firewall is not an essential component on a UNIX system the way it is on Windows, because you can actually turn off all listening ports and go "dead" without having to firewall off internal services that can't run without a TCP port open.

    Not all Unix systems. cf. OS X 10.5, which is a certified Unix.

    A computer system with no open ports is just as secure whether it's firewalled or not.
    Probably true on a modern system, but not a completely accurate statement. If there's flaws in the TCP stack, it doesn't matter if something's listening or not whena maliciously constructed packet blows things up before the "is something listening here" logic is hit.

  11. Re:Nice. by WinterSolstice · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As opposed to seeing a whole site where anyone who likes any company but google gets pounded into the dust? Pages and pages of hate, fud, criticism, and conjecture?

    I think his comment was reasonable. Not at all lunatic fringe like some Roughly Drafted stuff can be.

    --
    An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
  12. Oxymoron by osu-neko · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hopefully you can just turn the bloody thing off.

    "Software firewall" is an oxymoron. A firewall is a physical box that sits between two networks, filtering the exchange of information between them.

    For those of us who actually have firewalls, having the operating system muck things up with a "software firewall" is just a nuisance. For those who don't, it's a false and dangerous sense of security.

    --
    "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    1. Re:Oxymoron by Ant+P. · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And how do you think that physical box works? Hard-wired transistors between the ethernet ports?

    2. Re:Oxymoron by G-News.ch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And that hardware box you're talking about is most likely running some sort of firewall software, so it doesn't really make that much of a difference.

  13. Re:maybe not by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the flawed firewall application is just a GUI app for a standard UN*X firewall, so the firewall wasn't flawed, just the settings and GUI for the settings.

    I'd argue that the GUI an CLI are both standard interfaces to the firewall. A flaw where either of them incorrectly informs the user about the settings is a flaw in the firewall. I'd further argue that since the GUI is the more used interface, the flaw reflected there is more serious than a flaw in the CLI.

  14. Now they need to fix the Printing options by Paul+Pierce · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In Tiger I had a bunch of drop-down options, like, say, hmmm, 'selection only' or say, duplex. This is entirely gone in Leopard for the printers that I have tried (i.e. HP 4050).

    There is an app online that can do this for you, but it seems to only be for native programs (Safari, mail, etc...). Is it just me or should those options be built into the OS.

    Everything else on Leopard has been very impressive, most of all it sped my computer up. Everything is faster, which I find very impressive for a new OS (ahem, buy-a-new-computer-4-me Vista).

    1. Re:Now they need to fix the Printing options by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 2, Informative

      Those options are still there. When you "print" something and it brings up the window with the option to "Save as PDF", click the downward facing black on blue triangle right next to the printer name and it'll expand the window and give you all the other options like duplexing, color matching, paper handling and so on. To get those other options, select the drop-down box with the name of the application you're printing from after hitting the triangle and you'll see the rest of the options. At least, that's how it works on my Brother HL-1650N Laser Printer using IPP printing.

  15. That's not the product. by shmlco · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "The 'product' here is aggregated stuff that flows in _after_ it has been placed online elsewhere - and you enjoy paying for dated content?"

    That's not the product. The product is the analysis and commentary and opinion posted ABOUT the content. Knowing viewpoints and trends can be as valuable as the content itself, if not more so.

    --
    Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
  16. OT: IPv6 still isn't working for me. by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I upgraded from Tiger to Leopard last week and love it, except that I can no longer use IPv6. I've triple-checked my router, address, and prefix length manual settings and they're all correct. I just can't get out of the machine at all:

    $ ping6 www.kame.net
    ping6: nodename nor servname provided, or not known
    $ ping6 2001:200:0:8002:203:47ff:fea5:3085
    ping6: UDP connect: No route to host
    $ ifconfig -a | grep inet6
    inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1
    inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128

    Even though I have an address and router set up, it doesn't seem to be actually configuring any interfaces to use them. Another machine on the same network has no trouble:

    $ ping6 www.kame.net
    16 bytes from 2001:200:0:8002:203:47ff:fea5:3085, icmp_seq=0 hlim=55 time=207.462 ms
    16 bytes from 2001:200:0:8002:203:47ff:fea5:3085, icmp_seq=1 hlim=55 time=206.939 ms
    16 bytes from 2001:200:0:8002:203:47ff:fea5:3085, icmp_seq=2 hlim=54 time=339.163 ms

    Even our old CRT iMac running Tiger works perfectly. Is anyone else successfully using IPv6 on Leopard? Is there some new gotcha that everyone but me knows about?

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  17. What /. does by LKM · · Score: 3, Insightful

    you're paying for nothing here, except a platform. What /. does is
    1. Filter the news so I don't have to read everything on every site, but can hit one site for all (or most of) the tech stuff that's relevant for me
    2. Provide a somewhat civil way to discuss the news
    I didn't pay, but I also don't block the ads, and I see nothing wrong with paying for it. If /. provides nothing, why are you here?
  18. mod this one up 100 ... by rs232 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    '"Software firewall" is an oxymoron. A firewall is a physical box that sits between two networks, filtering the exchange of information between them'

    And you only really need a firewall if you are running services on ports that you don't want visible on the Internet. And in this day and age a firewall is next to useless as so many services are being piggybacked over HTML, in order to bypass the firewall ...

    was Re:Oxymoron

    --
    davecb5620@gmail.com
  19. Re:Really really dumb OS X question here by xiaodidi · · Score: 3, Informative

    Updates by default are not automatic. You will be prompted to accept them or not. Also, "restart" updates (about 50% or less) are marked so. See under "System Preferences"->"Software Update"

    You can manually start an update: [Apple-Menu]->Software Update

    To see which updates have been installed, open /Applications/Utilities/Console, and look under Logs->Software Update.log

    In some cases, you can re-install an update by

    1) removing the corresponding "package" at /Library/Receipts/

    2) running Software Update again, which should list the offending/removed update.

  20. Re:pfft... by mstone · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ---- The 'product' here is aggregated stuff that flows in _after_ it has been placed online elsewhere

    No, the 'product' is the service of aggregating all that content in one place, so you don't have to trawl all over the net looking for new places to get your snark on.

    Aggregation doesn't just happen. It takes back-end tools to select, organize, and present all that 'stuff that flows in'. The Slashdot team wrote the software, built the database, and maintains the network that keeps it all going. They also have a ten-year track record of selecting and aggregating stuff that geeks find reasonably interesting. If you think that's trivial or easy, go right ahead and start your own aggregation service. We'll see where you stand ten years from now.

  21. 802.1X still broken by Greatmoose · · Score: 2, Interesting

    10.5.1 (revised) is out, and 802.1x is STILL broken. The really scary part is when we talk with the Apple reps and system engineers, they uniformly tell us that "we don't know a whole lot about 802.1x." Ummm, what? You've had 802.1x since 10.3. I won't even go into how long MS has had 802.1x compatibility. C'mon Apple, FIX YOUR SHIT!

    --
    Clearly I forgot to equip my +5 Codpiece of Karma.