Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Safari 3.1 For Windows Violates Its Own EULA, Vulnerable To Hacks

Posted by Zonk on from the you-have-chosen-poorly dept.

recoiledsnake writes "The new Safari 3.1 for Windows has been hit with two 'highly critical'(as rated by Secunia) vulnerabilities that can result in execution of arbitrary code. The first is due to an improper handling of the buffer for long filenames of files being downloaded, and the second can result in successful spoofing of websites and phishing. This comes close on the heels of criticism of Apple for offering Safari as a update for approximately 500 million users of iTunes on Windows by default, and reports of crashes. There are currently no patches or workarounds available except the advice to stay clear of 'untrusted' sites." Further, Wormfan writes "The latest version of Safari for Windows makes a mockery of end user licensing agreements by only allowing the installation of Safari for Windows on Apple labeled hardware, thereby excluding most Windows PCs." Update: 03/27 17:23 GMT by Z : Dave Schroeder writes with the note that the license has been updated to correct this mistake.

34 of 368 comments (clear)

  1. It has begun... by muffen · · Score: 4, Funny

    Guess this article was right!

    1. Re:It has begun... by Divebus · · Score: 5, Funny

      "The latest version of Safari for Windows makes a mockery of end user licensing agreements by only allowing the installation of Safari for Windows on Apple labeled hardware, thereby excluding most Windows PCs." Damn! Now, where did I put those Apple stickers?
      --

      Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
    2. Re:It has begun... by Mattsson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also, if you do choose to buy an ipod, you don't have to use itunes.
      You don't even have to use apple-firmware in your ipod. There's an upgrade-firmware that makes itunes totally obsolete.
      It's not available for all ipod-models yet though...

      All in all, though, an installer that offers the option of installing irrelevant software (like installers that offer "google toolbar" or "Safari" or "superduper spywareinstaller") should have that option unselected as default.

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
    3. Re:It has begun... by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Considering Apple's notorious heavy-handedness in their software updates and the aggressive way their software "takes over" your computer when installed, I wouldn't install a piece of Apple software on my computer if you put a gun to my head (I'd as soon install Realmedia player). I used to put Quicktime on my system, but I got so tired of putting up with that sneaky turd (would NOT let you completely uninstall it, insisted on always running in the background no matter what you did to stop it, would try to sneak its way back into your registry even if you deleted its entries, aggressively took over neutral file types, would constantly try to trick you into installing iTunes too, etc.) that I finally refused to even install that much (I use "Quicktime alternative").

      Anyone who installs Apple software had better be prepared to join the cult, otherwise stay the hell clear of it.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    4. Re:It has begun... by AvitarX · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The EULA is not a red herring.

      People are having software that they have no license to use being automatically installed on their systems. I would think a term like that is not valid (non-obvious terms may not be valid in the US), but if it does hold, they will have millions of people in the US infringing on their IP. If they decide they are desperate and start suing (not likely any time soon) there are a lot of potential targets.

      This is like the RIAA giving away MP3s on their website, saying "you agree to listen to this on only RIAA approved devices". When you suddenly have millions of people acting innocently illegally using your product it is not good for them.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    5. Re:It has begun... by grahamd0 · · Score: 5, Funny

      If Safari becomes the default browser on these systems, you end up with critical vulnerabilities in a browser installed on non-tech-savvy individuals' computers.

      Good god, man! We've got to get them back on Internet Explorer!

    6. Re:It has begun... by MrNaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The security issues isn't the real problem here, all software has them from time to time.

      Oh blow me. Can you imagine the shitstorm of a comment thread that would result from this exact same thing being the result of MS's doing? The massive gaping security hole *is* a big deal, it is not made less so just because Apple did it and not MS.

      And what the hell are you talking about with MS giving guidelines? You mean like, MS should give you guidelines on what you should and should not do with your PC? Dude, seriously, where the hell did you come up with your ideas?

      --
      I hate printers.
    7. Re:It has begun... by erc · · Score: 4, Funny

      I used to work for Sun back in the early 90's, when Linux was first getting off the ground. We had finally gotten X to run under Linux, and so I figured I'd see what it would do on a 386SX/25 laptop with 16MB of RAM. It was pretty slow, but as long as I wasn't doing anything it was fine. When the screensaver kicked in, I saw the traditional Sun logo, and that gave me an idea for a prank.

      I went down to engineering and got one of the old metal Sun logos, the ones that used to be on the front of Sun-2 boxes, and put it over the logo of the laptop, fired it up in my office, and waited for the first victim to wander by. A while later, one of the senior software developers walked into my office to ask me something, and spied the laptop with the Sun logo and the screensaver running with the Sun logo on it. "How'd you get a Sparc laptop? I didn't think they were in production yet!" I have lots of friends ... [chuckle]...

      It didn't take long for the prank to be found out, but it sure was fun for a while... :)

      Reminds me of the time that I got Wine running under A/UX (Apple's version of UNIX, SVR4 flavor) - I was working for Apple at the time, and it was fun to see people's faces when they'd come by and see the Windows logo on the screen on what was obviously a Mac, but that's a story for another time. Sure was a fair bit of work, but it worth the prank value... :)

      --
      -- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
    8. Re:It has begun... by Zonk+(troll) · · Score: 5, Informative

      Considering Apple's notorious heavy-handedness in their software updates and the aggressive way their software "takes over" your computer when installed, I wouldn't install a piece of Apple software on my computer if you put a gun to my head (I'd as soon install Realmedia player). I used to put Quicktime on my system, but I got so tired of putting up with that sneaky turd (would NOT let you completely uninstall it, insisted on always running in the background no matter what you did to stop it, would try to sneak its way back into your registry even if you deleted its entries, aggressively took over neutral file types, would constantly try to trick you into installing iTunes too, etc.) that I finally refused to even install that much (I use "Quicktime alternative").


      Anyone who installs Apple software had better be prepared to join the cult, otherwise stay the hell clear of it.

      I agree with that, but if you need Qucktime support in, say, an organziation there is a way around that without using Quicktime Alternative.

      Download the installer. Run cabextract on it. You'll get the following files:

      AppleSoftwareUpdate.msi
      QuickTime.msi
      QuickTimeInstallerAdmin.exe

      Only install Qucktime.msi. Delete the others. Just do msiexec /qn /i Qucktime.msi.

      Then run this registry file:


      Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

      [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run]
      "QuickTime Task"=-


      Make sure to delete the shortcuts so users can't bring it up. Doing it this way will let the browser plugins work, and also enable software that uses quicktime to work (lots of educational software uses it) without being hostile to your system. It will only take the quicktime file extensions this way.
      --
      "The Federal Reserve is a fraudulent system."--Lew Rockwell
      End The FED. -
    9. Re:It has begun... by MMC+Monster · · Score: 4, Informative

      To call rockbox an upgrade firmware is streching the truth a bit. Limited support for video, limited support for album art, and cluttered UI are real issues for individuals that want their players to "just work".

      Mind you, I last installed it about 4 months ago. I'll try again if people say it's much better now.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    10. Re:It has begun... by eck011219 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Look at it another way. You have a Mac, and you run Office. Somewhere during the routine update process, some new, not-ready-for-primetime version of IE gets installed and is set as your default browser.

      The issue is in part that Safari is not related to iTunes or Quicktime. There's no reason to believe that by installing music software, the manufacturer will also push a browser to you.

      All this will do is piss people off and make them turn off automatic update options, which will eventually result in some flaw in iTunes or Quicktime being less widely patched. It was not a capital crime, but it was dumb and irresponsible of Apple.

      And the EULA thing is just funny. What with the ample fleet of lawyers they have in Cupertino, I'm surprised ANYTHING gets out without a full legal vetting. Software gets out with bugs, but EULAs don't typically get out without great scrutiny.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    11. Re:It has begun... by mrbluze · · Score: 5, Funny

      Anyways, going back to the article, I think the EULA is just a mistake and believe they will correct it. It does however bring up a valid point about the usefulness and legalities around EULA's.

      Any EULA is basically saying:

      • This software is mine, so piss off!
      • If you use it, it's your stupid fault, so piss off!
      • You can't sue me but I can sue you, so piss off!
      • Oh, and by the way, piss off!
      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    12. Re:It has begun... by flosofl · · Score: 4, Funny

      I had two, and I put them on a large stone block and my printer. Anyone know how to install safari on a printer?
      No, but I did manage to get it installed on a medium stone block. I'm sure the steps I used can be scaled up to your large one. Page renders are very crisp, but refresh takes forever.
      --
      "This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence" - Vyvyan "The Young Ones"
    13. Re:It has begun... by recoiledsnake · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Good god, man! We've got to get them back on Internet Explorer! Though you meant it as a joke, for users on Vista, that could actually be a good thing. IE on Vista runs in a sandbox, so any code owning IE can only mess with the cache folder or something, and can do nothing to your system as well nor any thing to your user files like documents. Whereas, almost every other browser out there runs with the user permissions(not root or admin) by default(on all OSes, AFAIK), so that a compromise can result in viruses/keyloggers etc. that can run on startup, delete your user files/documents and/or email them to Nigeria whereas that's not simply possible with IE on Vista.
      --
      This space for rent.
    14. Re:It has begun... by watzinaneihm · · Score: 4, Informative

      Thats a great suggestion .. a minor nitpick ..
      "msiexec /qn /i Qucktime.msi " will run the msi with no UI at all.. replacing "/qn" with "/qb!" will do the same install with a limited UI. Atleast that way there is some indication that an install is in progress.

      --
      .ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR
  2. Acidity by n3tcat · · Score: 5, Funny

    So Acid 4 will include security tests too now, right?

    1. Re:Acidity by MooseMuffin · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes. You pass if the website renders correctly. You fail if the website owns your machine.

  3. Some ideas are not so good by Miros · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sometimes it's just really not a good idea to push a piece of software out to hundreds of millions of people on its first release just because they use/update your other products. This is the real way that it could come back and bite them, and it certainly seems to have.

  4. I wonder... by Fenice · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...if Apple can sue itself for proposing illegal installs of safari on windows?

  5. It was bound to happen by downix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    EULA's have gotten to the point that they conflict with themselves. One can then assume that Safari is intended for the Windows install on Mac machines, *or* on machines to which someone has applied an Apple brand sticker.

    I am waiting for the EULA that requires all users to declare the programmer their god and send off their first born child to him in sacrifice.

    --
    Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
    1. Re:It was bound to happen by peipas · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Case in point: the Mozy online backup EULA, which requires you to use the service only for good and for awesome, and warns against taunting the happy fun ball.

      See paragraphs 2 and 3 in the LIMITATION OF LIABILITY section.

  6. Violating the EULA by sm62704 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How can you violate an agreement that you never agreed to? Does Microsoft have a copy of a contract with my signature on it saying I'll accept its terms of use for XP? If I had Safari would Apple have a signed contract?

    When I go to best buy I don't "license" an OS or piece of software; I pick a box up off the shelf, pay money for it and am delivered a purchase reciept. I then own the goods that I just BOUGHT. I am under no statutory obligation to read anything or sign anything. I tear open the box and do what I want with it, short of violating copyright law.

    Your EULA is fiction, and until I see one stand up in court I'm going to ignore it.

    -mcgrew

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    1. Re:Violating the EULA by ari_j · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are mistaking "signature" and "agreement." Signatures are not a prerequisite to a valid contract, they are merely very good evidence of agreement. You can get out of some contracts you signed and you can be held to some contracts you didn't. The lack of a signature is not the reason EULAs are of questionable enforceability.

    2. Re:Violating the EULA by Kjella · · Score: 5, Informative

      Your EULA is fiction, and until I see one stand up in court I'm going to ignore it. I guess you better close your eyes and hum real loud then. I'm not saying it's universal, but to take a few examples from the wikipedia page in Brower v. Gateway "the Supreme Court of New York ruled that the terms of the shrink-wrapped license document were enforceable because the customer's assent was evident by his failure to return the merchandise within the 30 days specified by the document." And regarding click-wraps: "Click-wrap licenses have met with more support in the courts, though notable counterexamples exist. In ProCD v. Zeidenberg, the license was ruled enforceable because it was necessary for the customer to assent to the terms of the agreement by clicking on an 'I Agree' button in order to install the software."

      The whole section on enforcability starts with "The enforceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court in which the case is heard. Some courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license agreements have found some EULAs to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion, unconscionable, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C." If you read between the lines, it says "No court has rejected EULAs outright". If you're outside the US, it seems to be much the same. Yes, Germany declared the bundling with Windows to be unenforcable, but the EULA as such still remains. In short, you're talking about the way you want it to be not legal reality except possibly in Kansas where there was a ruling agreeing with you.
      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  7. I think you're not reading closely enough by hassanchop · · Score: 5, Informative

    "The latest version of Safari for Windows makes a mockery of end user licensing agreements by only allowing the installation of Safari for Windows on Apple labeled hardware, thereby excluding most Windows PCs."


    I got Safari as part of the iTunes update. I have a non-Apple Windows machine, running Safari. They basically forced the software on me, and the EULA says I can't use it.

    Does that answer your question?
  8. Fine by me by asc99c · · Score: 5, Funny

    My iPod came with a big Apple sticker which for some reason I did stick on my PC. Guess I'm OK to use Safari then.

  9. You can stop ignoring them by hassanchop · · Score: 5, Interesting

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD%2C_Inc._v._Zeidenberg

    "ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir., 1996), is a United States contract case involving a "shrink wrap license". The issue presented to the court was whether a shrink wrap license was valid and enforceable. Judge Easterbrook wrote the opinion for the court and found such a license was valid and enforceable."

    They've been held up in court. The issue isn't totally decided, with other cases dealing with more specific issues, but your "nah nah nah MARY HAD A LITTLE LAMB nah nah nah" fingers in the ears stance may not be legally prudent.

  10. Profit? by crt · · Score: 5, Funny

    Step 1: Install Safari on millions of unsuspecting Windows PCs
    Step 2: Sue non-Mac owning PC users for violating EULA
    Step 3: ???

  11. Yet more proof by an.echte.trilingue · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yes. You pass if the website renders correctly. You fail if the website owns your machine. Yet another "standards" test designed to make IE fail. This is just more proof that the W3 has it out for Microsoft.
    --
    weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
  12. Hardly surprising by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Anyone who has ever tried to REALLY uninstall one of their apps (or get Quicktime to stop running in the background or sneaking back into your registry) should not be surprised. Apple software is sneaky, aggressive, and not to be trusted.

    And the heavy-handed tactics they use to push said software is truly amazing. If MS did half of the underhanded stuff Apple does, they would be dragged back into court in a heartbeat. Why Apple continues to get a free pass on such crap is beyond me.

    I will NOT install Quicktime, iTunes, Safari or any other Apple software on my computer. And I always advise others not too as well. It's just not worth the hassle (if Apple really wanted your business, and not just to sleaze their way onto your computer, they would sell iTunes songs through their website and not require a software download).

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Hardly surprising by Shados · · Score: 4, Interesting

      B...b....but Apple is not a monopoly! That means they can and SHOULD do this!!! /sarcasm.

      Seriously though, Apple is allowed legaly for said reason, but I never understood why people accept it... I mean, last I checked, when Microsoft -started- doing that crap, they weren't a monopoly either...and look where it got us.

      That being said...watching a media player (iTune)conflict with a RAID (I swear Ive seen that happen) is quite amusing... Just exactly WHAT is that stupid thing doing anyway?

    2. Re:Hardly surprising by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Informative

      I call BS. I just uninstalled iTunes and there's no background process or anything like that running, and no executable remaining. Maybe the program should have offered to remove the program preferences in your account, but there's no binary there.

      That "spyware" service you refer to is just a notifier to open iTunes when an iPod is connected. That's all it does. It's hardly malicious, and it doesn't report to Apple what you do with your computer.

  13. Re:You keep saying that word.... by Daimanta · · Score: 4, Funny

    I am a naturalist and I don't wear any clothes you insensitive clod!!

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
  14. A buffer overflow? In 2008? Seriously? by pyrbrand · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Man, they're not even trying are they? This day an age, not only is there no excuse to ship with such a basic flaw, there's really no excuse to be programming in a fashion that would allow it. It's so easy to audit for basic overflows (at least on Windows) that it's silly. Even just compiling /GS with VC++ should protect you against a lot. Seriously, people give MS a bad rap these days, but any exploit you're going to see in their software these days usually takes advantage of complex system interactions or odd exception throwing.

    Apple should take a serious look at their coding practices and consider banning the use of unsafe CRT functions and using _s versions of any C functions their using (Visual C++ has them and they're part of the next standard) or at a minimum requiring audits of all raw pointers. Static analysis tools should also be mandatory and should catch most issues.(http://www.spinroot.com/static/)