Slashdot Mirror
Ex-NSA Researcher Claims That DLL-Style Attacks Work Just Fine On OS X
An anonymous reader writes Ex-NSA and NASA researcher Patrick Wardle claims to have developed a reliable technique of Shared Library replacement which renders Apple's OSX operating system just as vulnerable to exploitation as Windows has been (via its 'DLL' shared libraries) for years. Speaking at CanSecWest, Wardle explained that Apple's refusal to encrypt software downloads via its App Store allows an attacker on the same network to inject a malicious 'dylib' (shared library) without altering the hash of the legitimate-but-vulnerable software, thereby leaving the Developer ID signature intact. Wardle ran a crafted Python script on a typical Mac and discovered 150 dylib-dependent applications, including Apple's own Xcode developer environment — revealed last week by Edward Snowden to be a priority target for the NSA due to its ability to propagate compromised software.
don't the shared libs need to be signed.
Of course the problem is that when you make signing mandatory you make everyone pay for a cert.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I was going to make a joke about this being a NSA feature and not an exploit, but it seems the article already did that.
If people "ON THE NETWORK" can modify unsigned bins/libs what can they NOT modify?
...an attacker on the same network...
In most scenarios, unless you have an NSA mole in your home/business, Isn't that basically the same as requiring direct access to the machine? Or are we just talking about "on the same planet" type of access?
I tend to agree with Apple on this one; there shouldn't be any need for HTTPS as the contents of the packages aren't meant to be secret. If this researcher was successful in his attempts to replace the shared libraries in a dmg package the problem is that the installer isn't checking for the signature on the dmg, or individual signatures of files within.
tldr; so long as proper signatures are in place and handling is observed traffic interception is not a problem as it will be caught and the hijacked package discarded.
Note that proper signatures are more secure than HTTPS, as the trusted Root CA list is necessary for HTTPS to work, and who really thinks that Verisign or the like would turn down a request from the US Government?
If they don't want to sign the dll's, then at least they should be able to provide the MD5 checksums for them so folks can check if their machine has been compromised.
It would seem that Apple would want to get ahead of this before their security mojo is exposed as not so strong.
Why is DLL in quotes? Is it an attack that utilizes DLL's or not?
there are lots of shared object files in /usr/lib/[some-file-name].so
arent those the equivalent of dll files? or close to it?
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
If I understand the article right, a/c is saying that 150 different black hats have pwned most macs
renders Apple's OSX operating system just as vulnerable to exploitation as Windows has been
Another arrow for my quiver, and I get to say I told you so.
Shit has always been insecure, remember? It relied on the fact almost no one used Apple "security through obscurity".
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_...
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
XCode is pwned. Android Developer Tools are unsigned. The Android SDK and tools are unsigned. That makes me sad because I work with these tools. I can assume my systems are all pwned at this point and act accordingly...
Uh... I'm sure quite a few Apple® fanboys will require Preparation H®, after being mocked by Microsofties; after this came to b light.
The degree of response by our government to terrorism does not seem to be justified. We did lose some large buildings and a few aircraft but considering the size and nature of the US the 9/11 attacks were simply a very limp effort and came far from doing major damage to our nation. The three trillion dollar expense of our wars in the mid-east have surely done us more harm than the attacks. And one can only wonder about the massive expense of all the spying that is going on. I also wonder why, considering all the information police agencies have gathered why we are not seeing huge numbers of arrests for mundane criminal activities. One would think that drug dealers and drug runners would be buried under our jails already. And income tax cheats as well as those who make a living from crime should be vanishing as well. With data mining how hard can it be to find people who are living well beyond their reported income?
They've done some smart analysis
I think any OS could fall under a attack if the potential rewards are enough to warrant the effort. Apple's OS X has for years been irrelevant in numbers to justify the effort. Windows was simply there on most PC's and had end users that were more then ample. Now of course, we have seen a click up in OS X exploits because some now think the numbers are there. However, not to stick up for Apple or OS X, I do believe that this is still not a big deal for most Mac user. The focus is still on Windows until a more suitable and more vulnerable target comes along.
From the article: "Wardle noted that apps from Appleâ(TM)s Mac App Store are not vulnerable."
AFAIK app store apps are not vulnerable.