Apple's Gatekeeper Still Broken (csoonline.com)

itwbennett writes: This weekend, Apple security expert Patrick Wardle will detail a vulnerability in Apple's Gatekeeper that makes it possible to bypass the anti-malware defense. This is the same vulnerability that was disclosed last April, which Apple said it patched later. Wardle was able to easily bypass Apple's fixes. He says "all Apple did was blacklist the signed apps he was abusing, but didn't fix the underlying issue, which is that, essentially, Gatekeeper functions as a guard that doesn't check" software already on the whitelist.

Comments

Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

People will still flock to Apple and buy the shit out of it. And Apple knows it.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

I really never understood the anger of someone mad that someone else bought, well any item.

"you're such a _____ fanboi and you buy _____ and you suck (____'s CEO)'s dick!"

Who the hell cares. You buy what you want to buy, If you don't have a mac this doesn't affect you in the least. At least the Linux fanboi's could bitch at MS worms taking enough bandwidth to hurt Internet speeds. Apple Mac market share is small enough (through growing) to not hurt anyone not owning a Mac. This really isn't a true new worm. Anyone getting you to install a new app that partially passes gatekeeper can probably get you to install it and override gatekeeper. It's not that big of a leap.

I honestly feel bad at anyone angry at Apple selling too many computers. Do you need a cookie? Want to talk about it? Did your parents love you enough as a child?

Re:Doesn't matter.

[The-Ixian]

Yeah no kidding.

I don't personally like Apple the company. I just think they are too much about marketing hype. I was also not a fan of Steve Jobs personally.

But I still will recommend a Mac to someone when appropriate.

Computers and operating systems are tools not ideologies. Use the best tool for the job.

I won't be buying Apple products any time soon, but that is because there are tools out there that work better for me.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[ComputerGeek01]

Windows? Which is taking away control of your computer and sending analytics to the mother ship whether you agree or not?

As opposed to Apple where you never had any control over any of their devices to begin with? Apple IS the worst of all possibilities; they are overpriced, have ZERO support options outside of the "Mac Geniuses", nothing is documented and there is no ability to customize their software or tweak the system performance. You might be as happy as a pig in shit with a device that just does one thing adequately right out of the box and is useless for anything else, but this is a site for engineers; not social runoff that thinks it's too smart for Facebook.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[The-Ixian]

Well said.

I don't think of Apple today as the same company they once were.

My first computer was an Apple II+ on which I spent countless hours wring BASIC programs. I monopolized its use so much that it eventually just ended up in my room. I would write basic by hand during boring church and couldn't wait to get home and type it in.

I loved that computer....

But Apple has always been expensive and it was much easier for me to buy PC components over time and slowly assemble a computer with my lawn mowing money. I have never really looked back.

Over the years I have looked at Apple products with envy at times. I think Mac has always been a good computer. It was just that by the time I could afford one, I was already well down the PC path. In addition to that, at the time, not much software worked with Mac and so it felt like it would be a step backwards.

That said, whenever I have the opportunity, I will use a Mac in order to be able to provide basic support.

I have a work issued iPad which I use for testing and playing some games. I like it ok, but it almost seems quaint compared to an Android table or a Microsoft Surface.

Re:Apple is New to Reacting to Security Threats

[LichtSpektren]

Apple is new to reacting effectively to security. Microsoft gets beat up about security, but they have learned to attempt to react better. May not be perfect.

I know so many Apple people that think Apple immune security issues. I seriously wonder if we will see a day when Apple is is hit with the same type of security questions that have plagued Microsoft over the years.

Windows spent almost two decades with admin privileges by default 24/7, no mandatory-access control, installations that could occur silently and without user input, core system updates through the web browser, whilst also being the only real desktop PC operating system (i.e. it was the most lucrative target for malware authors). It's actually sort of miraculous that the security ecosystem wasn't in even worse shape than it was.

By contrast, OS X's origins in unix give it a fairly safe grounding. The keyring and SIP in El Capitan also seem to be quite robust. And Apple users are more trusting of automatic security updates compared to Windows users (Microsoft poisoned that well when they started pushing shitty drivers and malware through their updates).

Re:Lack of interest based security

[dgatwood]

In any mode, you can run an unsigned or non-Apple-signed installer or app by control-clicking on it and choosing "Open".

Working As Intended

[BitZtream]

Its working exactly as its supposed to. Its not meant to stop everything, its just a whitelisting system with some authentication built it.

Blacklisting the offending apps is exactly how this type of system works.

Anything signed by a valid cert which has been signed by Apple's cert is trusted by default. Thats what having an Apple signature on top of the publisher signature means. This also means the applications are 'tamper proof' in theory, because changing the application invalidates the sig and the code no longer is whitelisted, so no virus will work.

The system then keeps a CRL, Certificate Revocation List. This list is ... blacklisted fingerprints. That is, certs or specific apps that were not known to be compromised or malicious when Apple originally vetted them, but something became known to be compromised after that process. The CRL list means Apple can effectively change its mind about apps that it previously approved.

This is all it is intended to do, and that alone mitigates a metric fuckton of exploit cases.

Doesn't prevent apps that don't get caught in review. But you won't get more than one or two malicious apps past them before you're completely cut off from getting certs ever again. Vendors outside the AppStore will have their certs revoked when exposed in the wild.

At no point was it intended to prevent every single exploit vector ever. You're pretty ignorant of how this stuff works if you think they ever said it was the cure all to security issues.

All it does is adds a layer of control to who can run arbitrary code on your system, and by default, allows Apple to give people permission to do so. You can also use your own certs and remove the AppStore cert, effectively making it so only apps signed with your cert will run on the machine ... or in the case of some companies, the company's cert is the only thing that runs on the machine.

itwbennet == bennet haselton / dumb

Re:Apple is New to Reacting to Security Threats

[pr0fessor]

I got a call at work the other day that I thought I recognized the number I was in a good mood and thought about answering "IT, have you tried turn it off and on again?" but settled for "Technical support, I'll be your password reset technician today."

Turns out it was a scammer claiming to be from MS... so after he said his intro I said "Yes, you've reach technical support. Do you need me to reset your password?" then he stammered and and tried to explain about how my computer was having issues and I said "Ok, I have reset your password but it will take about 15 minutes for the changes to go through. If you have any other issues go ahead and call back."