Slashdot Mirror
MacBook Air First To Be Compromised In Hacking Contest
Multiple readers have written to let us know that the MacBook Air was the first laptop to fall in the CanSecWest hacking contest. The successful hijacking took place only two minutes into the second day of the competition, after the rules had been relaxed to allow the visiting of websites and opening of emails. The TippingPoint blog reveals that the vulnerability was located within Safari, but they won't release specific details until Apple has had a chance to correct the problem. The winner, Charlie Miller, gets to keep the laptop and $10,000. We covered the contest last year, and the results were similar.
There goes their geek cred. Hey, at least they still sell a metric crap load of iPods!
No, this year Vista and Ubuntu were in the contest as well. But the mac got hacked in two minutes and the Vista and Ubuntu machines resisted every hack. Big difference there. Oh, and I'd like to say, HA HA /nelson - now tell us again how absense of mac malware is not because of small market share.
Pretty much says that a laptop widely meant for home users was only compromised when allowed access to some of the most widely used applications? I'm not sure what you're trying to say (or not, rather) but a hole in safari is a bit of an issue; unless of course you're just concerned with that server running on your Air ;).
Well. Big shock there. These days, most vulnerabilities require the user to be at the helm.
Good to see that social engineering is still all it requires to compromise something.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
This space for rent.
But the issue is really not which is more vulnerable, it is that you can't run a secure browser and a convenient browser unless they are two separate browsers.
It's time to abandon the general purpose browser. It's also time to quit surfing as your log-in user. You need a browser for surfing that you run (sudo or something) as a strictly limited privilege user without log-in capabilities.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
To me, a web hack to worry about (on any platform/browser) is one that can just be triggered by viewing a compromised page (like happens to most unpatched Windows machines that get nailed by drive-bys). I'm not nearly as worried about ones that require user intervention - clicking on a link, button, or something of the sort.
So if the Mac was tagged by just loading a page that delivered the hack, that's bad. Quite bad. If he had to click and download something (and perhaps defeat the auto-quarantine they use), that's not so much a big deal, though still a hole that needs patching.
One of the things about vulnerabilities on all platforms is that a significant part of the magnitude depends on how difficult it is to exploit. Remote connections to a system that avoid/defeat a firewall are really dangerous. Attacks that require the user to do something stupid are inevitable, but far less dangerous.
Thus far most of the Mac vulnerabilities have been the second type. Luckily.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
because of Apple's rep., people would be eager to take on the Mac first.
Hold on - are you saying that Mac's have a better reputation for security than linux?
Congratulations sir. Apple fanboy's capacity for self-delusion never ceases to amaze me.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
The Mac was hacked 2 minutes into day 2. After day 2 was over no other OSs or browsers had been hacked. Period. Give it up. Safari sucks. The web is a jungle. Tame it by not using Safari on your Mac.
I haven't RTFA but from the surface it sounds like a fair exploit test, and sure it only fell over with user interaction, but it still fell first. So good on them, they'll enjoy their prize of a macbook air and a sweet $10k.
Wow, at +4 already for just quoting the summary and tossing in a vague and meaningless sentence.
So anyway, what exactly is it saying? The only thing I see there is that a completely passive attack (that is, absolutely no user interaction, like many well-known worms worked) failed. Once this part of the test was passed they allowed interactive attacks (where the user must assist the attacker in some way). Since this is how nearly all malware and malicious software spreads these days, I don't see anything wrong with this. Aside from just attaching hardware to the network, a web browser and email client are the two applications with the most Internet "surface area". As all major operating systems come bundled with a primary browser (IE, Safari, Firefox) a flaw in the browser essentially amounts to a flaw in the OS. It seems natural and obvious to put them to the test.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
This space for rent.
I'm typing this on a Macbook Pro running Safari, and I'm happy about the results of this competition. As Apple computers (slowly?) gain market share, they will eventually be forced to significantly adjust their terrible attitude in terms of security.
I would rather have Apple "shamed" into providing me (and other OS X users) a more secure web browser/operating system than gain some pathetic "my system is more secure than yours" bragging rights.
There needs to be a "-1, Divorced From Reality" mod. That's a powerful persecution complex you have going there.
You forgot to factor in the $10,000 cash prize.
This space for rent.
In other words, the first to hack it gets it! Who wants a Vaio or a Fujitsu anyway? Given a choice between the three, I'm sure everybody wanted the MacBook Air. Naturally, the only machine getting the pounding is going to be the first to crack.
... Zzzzzzzap.... couldn't.... Zzzzzzzzzap. ... agree... Zzzzzzzzzzap.... more. ;)
Yes, that sounds logical, if your genitals are hooked up to a car battery.
The winner got to keep the unit AND 10,000. So OBVIOUSLY they should crack the easiest unit, flip it on ebay, and then buy whatever they actually want, while pocketing the remaining 8-9 grand...
So... the moral of this story? Never underestimate the ability of an Apple fan to rationalize how the Mac could be the first to fail, yet still be the finest computer in the competition. d(^_~) [Thumbs up!]
I
I am an apple fan and enjoy a lot of their products.
There is no way any system can be perfectly secure, but this is a significant hole. While they probably won't get me to click that stupid link, they might get my mom or any number of the other avg everyday users.
At least now we can get beyond the macs can't be hacked BS and move on to securing my favorite OS and keeping it that way.
Now lets see how long it takes for apple to post a patch, that is really where the rubber meets the road.
This space for rent.
This space for rent.
Can't we admit that, for whatever reason, the Air/Safari was easier hacked than Vista/IE7? I know this is an unpopular bandwagon to be on, especially on Slashdot, but it seems there's no two ways about it. I refuse to believe that it was a conspiracy and that every hacker was actually just trying to hack the Air and make Ubuntu and Vista pass, that's stupid. If I were a hacker, I'd totally hack the EASIEST one simply to get the $10k and the laptop. And if there were known or open vulnerabilities, it should have fallen in what, 30 seconds?
Seriously, it's not a huge deal. If we, like good open source cronies, admit that there was a problem with *gasp* part of the Apple software/laptop combo (whether it was Safari or the OS or whatever), then maybe it will be fixed. Isn't that the main idea here? I thought the point of these things were to discover vulnerabilities so that they could be fixed, not to place bets on Microsoft falling and go up in arms if it doesn't.
Unless, of course, we really aren't interested in open source software or good software at all, but are more about claiming a company name as our own.
Yes, the walk of shame with a $3,000 laptop that's highly ebay-able and $10,000 in prize money. I wish someone shamed me like that.
The World's Worst Webcomic!
I am worried that Apple is assuming too much about the security of the Mac OS X operating system. I am a long time user (since first beta) and it has been an incredible ride, but I'd really like for Apple to "step up" and take this bull by the horns and let the world know that they are very serious about security and eliminating *any* means of intrusion, either automated or user driven... and not just rely on the FOSS community to remedy the security problems in the software that they have incorporated into the OS.
Just as long as they don't implement some Vista like "Allow or Deny?" crap... God that would drive me *nuts*!
"To make a mistake is only human; to persist in a mistake is idiotic." Cicero
Oh sweet jesus... Apple owners... spinning a truly piss-poor performance into a plus.
The thing I enjoy most about the responses to this article is the rather predictable "Ha, so Apple DOES suck!!! Take that fanbois!" responses. It's certainly true that this is an important find and that an exploit in the wild is something to be concerned about. But the point of this is really that there's no such thing as a secure OS yet (and there probably never will be). Not unless you've removed the power source from your system, encased it in concrete and sunk it to the bottom of the sea.
The perceived general level of security in a system can be directly correlated to the most recent compromise of that system. The fact that the Linux and Windows systems involved in this contest have not yet been compromised does not indicate that they are more or less secure in a general sense than the Mac. It does indicate that no one has found the vulnerability that inevitably lurks within the kernal or a piece of installed software on those system. But rest assured, the exploits are there.
"FireFox is more secure than IE", you say on Monday. Then Slashdot posts "HUGE FRIGGING HOLE FOUND IN FIREFOX: DOOM!!!" on Tuesday. And suddenly the absolute statement you've made sounds silly.
If you don't believe this is true, try this: get hold of a system exactly like the ones currently considered "unhackable" in the contest and disable any automatic updates (and don't install any manually). Wait three months and then compare that system against one with the most recent updates. You're sure to find that your unhackable system is now full of known exploits and security holes.
The systems we rely on today are very complex and in a very real sense cannot be completely understood. There are techniques that can make them generally more secure and all of the OS developers are working to bring these features online every day. Some are better than this than others (or so it seems), but they all do it. Even Microsoft. But the thing about security is this: the bad guys only need one hole and the good guys have to cover all the bases.
The only real security in a system comes from user practices, not software. If you don't install updates on your system, it will be vulnerable. If you don't consider HOW and where you use your system, it will be vulnerable. In other words, the core component in a secure system is YOU.
It's probably true that there is a "most" secure OS and a "least" secure OS right at this moment. Take a guess which is which and you might even be correct. But there's no absolute answer that will be true tomorrow. We need to stop with the absolutes and "MY FLAVA ROCKS YER FLAVA" hyperbole and start to think more like real security experts do. The next big hack for your favorite OS is just around the corner. And there's no doubt about that.
"apt-get update; apt-get upgrade;" on a Debian Stable works like a charm (because they push ONLY security and major bugfixes). I manage a farm of 30 servers for about 2 years and Debian update ALWAYS worked without any problem.