Slashdot Mirror


Apple Yet To Push Patch For "Shellshock" Bug

An anonymous reader writes "Open source operating systems vulnerable to the Shellshock bug have already pushed two patches to fix the vulnerability, but Apple has yet to issue one for Mac OS X. Ars Technica speculates that licensing issues may be giving Apple pause: "[T]he current [bash] version is released under the GNU Public License version 3 (GPLv3). Apple has avoided bundling GPLv3-licensed software because of its stricter license terms....Apple executives may feel they have to have their own developers make modifications to the bash code."" It's also worth noting that there are still flaws with the patches issued so far. Meanwhile, Fedora Magazine has published an easy-to-follow description of how Shellshock actually works. The Free Software Foundation has also issued a statement about Shellshock.

2 of 208 comments (clear)

  1. Is it actually a bug at all? by anynameleft · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Once upon a time, I learnt that one should not make setuid-root sh scripts, exactly because the shell has so many unpredictable ways to make your script unsecure and because secure input validation inside shell scripts itself is nearly impossible. So why do we have the situation now, that internet services are calling bash scripts to run as root with data input from the internet without proper validation?

    In other words: It's no wonder that bash is still 'vulnerable' after two patches, because it isn't supposed to be used like this. And the remaining problems are not a bug in bash, but wrong usage of bash.

  2. Re:Stallman would be proud by marcello_dl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Moron: Yeah I wanna redistribute your software but not abide to the license it comes with it, because it's not freedom enough! I mean, give my source modification to everybody who asks? Avoid patenting and so effectively closing up the work you intended for the world? Why should I do that?

    Dev: how about you write your own damn code and license it as you please? And I suppose you are perfecly fine when your own licenses are being ignored?
     

    --
    ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol