No opponent of embryonic stem cell research opposes the use of non-embryonic stem cells; most of us are happy to point to the many successful therapies that have been developed using other sources of stem cells.
My objection to embryonic stem cell use is that it sets a scary precedent - I really don't want to live in a society that believes living beings - even non-viable, merely potential living beings, as a private property and a commercial resource.
This is no different than my opposition to patenting human cell lines or DNA sequences.
My firm belief is that we will eventually get to the point where it is possible to harvest some stem cells right from a patient and use them to grow the needed replacement parts directly. Heck, companies are already working on that very thing.
So why screw around with controversial, not to mention unsuccessful, techniques when better methods already exist?
I actually wish they had reported this a year or two ago - if you dig into the bug, they link to an in-depth analysis of the malloc system works and I could have really used that when I was porting some software from Linux to OS X; I spent weeks working out how to trick the Mac libc into letting me pin user memory for DMA operations.
I want to point one thing out, though. The rtsp hole *does* exist on all Macs, MOAB just screwed up their demo of it. If you look at the fix that was posted here, the author of the fix identified the function affected.
In my mind, that's the worst thing about all this because the MOAB people have effectively damaged their reputation and confused the issue about a serious security hole.
An example QTL file exploiting this issue (pwnage.qtl) is available (it will say 'happy new year' via/usr/bin/say, and expects the command string to be located at 0x17a053c, tested on Mac OS X 10.4.8 8L2127, x86 architecture). If it doesn't work on your system, use the exploit to generate another QTL with your own options or the shell spawn variant (pwnage-shell.qtl, 100% reliable for a current up-to-date x86-based OS X system).
A security researcher has to be professional about how they release their information.
1) Who died and left you to decide what "professional" means?
2) How, exactly, do you know that they haven't tried informing Apple first? If you were actually familiar with the issue you would know that they have been complaining about Apple being unresponsive since last year.
So, again, I stand by my insults. You pompously assert that you are the arbiter of "professional" behavior and you ignorantly claim that they never tried to go through "normal" channels without bothering to find out if they have or not.
Someone, I think it was Macslash reported that a few machines got the full exploit, while most simply got the crash. Crashes aren't good, but they're hardly arbitrary code execution, either.
Also - I seem to remember hearing that the newest intel chips have hardware protection that prevents the execution of code loaded into data buffers (i.e., buffer overrun attacks) - could that have an effect?
But the coward is right, using APE to patch function entry points really isn't the way to go; Apple needs to fix it themselves.
I have to say, though, I am impressed that you apparently saw more into this problem that the MOAB guys did - the way the bug report is written they didn't realize it was a general exploit against all quicktime URLs.
On the other hand, maybe they *did* realize it was a general URL validation bug and they were hoping to get several days of "Apple Bugs" out of it.:-P
Oh, I get it now. You're saying that security researchers are unprofessional... Funny, I'd have thought the real security researchers would go through the normal channels
Dear Lord. Pompous *and* ignorant.
I'm sorry; but as I've mentioned elsewhere, publishing vulnerabilities on a website or a newsfeed is "normal channels". Often, when you're talking about people who are used to the FOSS scene, they are the only channels.
I regularly get warnings about unpatched security holes in Ubuntu, Drupal, and more. I've never seen Ubuntu users get pissed because someone warned them about a security hole. Usually we just gratefully check to see if we're exposed and do whatever we have to do to protect against the problem until a patch is found.
So, basically, your point is that they are bad because they weren't superior to all the people who attacked them?
I'm sorry, I still don't understand what the fuss is about. I'm a member of news feeds and podcasts that publish vulnerabilities every day for Linux, Windows, Apache, Drupal, MySQL, and so on. But for some reason many Apple users think they should be exempt from this process and behave badly when no one else agrees with them.
1. Security researcher publishes Mac OS X vulnerability. Just has (s)he would a Linux or Windows bug. 2. Researcher is immediately attacked by hundreds of rabid Apple fanboys, who act as if Researcher tried to nail them to a cross. 3. Researcher gets pissed off. Every Linux user and other computer professional who understands the state of computer security gets pissed off. 4. Apple now has a public relations problem as multiple individuals decide they need to poke smug Apple users with a sharp stick to show them they aren't as smart as they think they are.
How hard is this to understand?
Try listening to various security podcasts; especially pauldotcom - they don't mind OS X because they know it's just another flavor of Unix and just as secure (and insecure) as any other flavor of Unix. But they all absolutely hate people who *use* OS X and consider us all to be smug pricks who wouldn't know a security hole from their bung hole.
Certainly not that Apple is hard to work with. If you actually read what I said, I said that Apple has a troubled relationship security researchers and that part of it was due to Apple's users and part of it was due to the researchers themselves. At which point did I blame Apple for anything?
Going back to market share - we're talking about two different things, I think. Yes, the number of holes is unrelated to market share - but the ability of an exploit to propagate in the field is directly affected by it.
Consider two diseases that are passed by physical contact. The first disease affects 90% of the population, but 10% are immune. Such a disease will spread quickly, simply because of the likely hood of physical contact between people who are vulnerable.
By contrast, the second disease only affects 10% of the population, and 90% are immune. This disease will spread very, very slowly because it is much less likely for vulnerable people to make contact. While this isn't the same as true immunity, it has a similar practical affect.
Have you considered exposing him to Security Now? Not to get him to convert to Mac, but simply to help him get informed about how bad computer security is these days.
I'd suggest PaulDotCom but he'd probably have a heart attack if he found out the kind of stuff IT guys get up to when looking for security problems in their networks.
There's so much blather on the security sites about it, it's hard to even get a clear time line let alone a canonical recitation of the facts. As I mentioned elsewhere, the guys who originally published this exploit clearly mangled the disclosure; and now there's so much pointless hostility around the whole process that the entire subject has become poisoned.
That's why I mentioned in another post that it's possible for Apple to spin this whole process their way - if they make nice and aggressively pursue these bugs, they have a chance to pull a PR win out of this. If they allow the poison pen atmosphere to continue, I think they're looking at more trouble down the road.
I'd really prefer Apple got into the habit of treating security issues as aggressively as the Linux distros do than end up being treated with the same contempt have for Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
No opponent of embryonic stem cell research opposes the use of non-embryonic stem cells; most of us are happy to point to the many successful therapies that have been developed using other sources of stem cells.
My objection to embryonic stem cell use is that it sets a scary precedent - I really don't want to live in a society that believes living beings - even non-viable, merely potential living beings, as a private property and a commercial resource.
This is no different than my opposition to patenting human cell lines or DNA sequences.
My firm belief is that we will eventually get to the point where it is possible to harvest some stem cells right from a patient and use them to grow the needed replacement parts directly. Heck, companies are already working on that very thing.
So why screw around with controversial, not to mention unsuccessful, techniques when better methods already exist?
I actually wish they had reported this a year or two ago - if you dig into the bug, they link to an in-depth analysis of the malloc system works and I could have really used that when I was porting some software from Linux to OS X; I spent weeks working out how to trick the Mac libc into letting me pin user memory for DMA operations.
Well, aren't you just a wet blanket, ruining all our fun! :-D
(porkchop goes to sit in the corner, facing the wall)
I want to point one thing out, though. The rtsp hole *does* exist on all Macs, MOAB just screwed up their demo of it. If you look at the fix that was posted here, the author of the fix identified the function affected.
In my mind, that's the worst thing about all this because the MOAB people have effectively damaged their reputation and confused the issue about a serious security hole.
Why did these villains publicize an unpatched exploit? Why didn't they go through normal channels?
I question the timing. What are they trying to prove, by doing this? They must be trying to profit from it.
Oh, wait, this is about Adobe and not Apple. Nevermind.
It's on the front page of the main site which, for some reason, isn't the web site the code is on:
http://applefun.blogspot.com/
An example QTL file exploiting this issue (pwnage.qtl) is available (it will say 'happy new year' via /usr/bin/say, and expects the command string to be located at 0x17a053c, tested on Mac OS X 10.4.8 8L2127, x86 architecture). If it doesn't work on your system, use the exploit to generate another QTL with your own options or the shell spawn variant (pwnage-shell.qtl, 100% reliable for a current up-to-date x86-based OS X system).
A security researcher has to be professional about how they release their information.
1) Who died and left you to decide what "professional" means?
2) How, exactly, do you know that they haven't tried informing Apple first? If you were actually familiar with the issue you would know that they have been complaining about Apple being unresponsive since last year.
So, again, I stand by my insults. You pompously assert that you are the arbiter of "professional" behavior and you ignorantly claim that they never tried to go through "normal" channels without bothering to find out if they have or not.
having to re-apply a collection of kernel patches for the USB drivers every time I got a kernel update. (This was back in early 2.4, you understand).
These days, it's Linux goes on the back end machine, OS X on the front end, and Windows off the deep end.
It's popular enough that every minor release was posted to /. *and* it plays videos I wasn't able to play with QuickTime. I've used it for years.
Apparently it works on *some* machines.
Someone, I think it was Macslash reported that a few machines got the full exploit, while most simply got the crash. Crashes aren't good, but they're hardly arbitrary code execution, either.
Also - I seem to remember hearing that the newest intel chips have hardware protection that prevents the execution of code loaded into data buffers (i.e., buffer overrun attacks) - could that have an effect?
In the sense that it affects Apple machines, sure.
But, yeah, it's kind of weak. If this is the best they can come up with, Apple can rest easy.
But the coward is right, using APE to patch function entry points really isn't the way to go; Apple needs to fix it themselves.
:-P
I have to say, though, I am impressed that you apparently saw more into this problem that the MOAB guys did - the way the bug report is written they didn't realize it was a general exploit against all quicktime URLs.
On the other hand, maybe they *did* realize it was a general URL validation bug and they were hoping to get several days of "Apple Bugs" out of it.
Oh, I get it now. You're saying that security researchers are unprofessional... Funny, I'd have thought the real security researchers would go through the normal channels
Dear Lord. Pompous *and* ignorant.
I'm sorry; but as I've mentioned elsewhere, publishing vulnerabilities on a website or a newsfeed is "normal channels". Often, when you're talking about people who are used to the FOSS scene, they are the only channels.
I regularly get warnings about unpatched security holes in Ubuntu, Drupal, and more. I've never seen Ubuntu users get pissed because someone warned them about a security hole. Usually we just gratefully check to see if we're exposed and do whatever we have to do to protect against the problem until a patch is found.
Nothing like being mature about it...
So, basically, your point is that they are bad because they weren't superior to all the people who attacked them?
I'm sorry, I still don't understand what the fuss is about. I'm a member of news feeds and podcasts that publish vulnerabilities every day for Linux, Windows, Apache, Drupal, MySQL, and so on. But for some reason many Apple users think they should be exempt from this process and behave badly when no one else agrees with them.
You can see it happening in this very article.
1. Security researcher publishes Mac OS X vulnerability. Just has (s)he would a Linux or Windows bug.
2. Researcher is immediately attacked by hundreds of rabid Apple fanboys, who act as if Researcher tried to nail them to a cross.
3. Researcher gets pissed off. Every Linux user and other computer professional who understands the state of computer security gets pissed off.
4. Apple now has a public relations problem as multiple individuals decide they need to poke smug Apple users with a sharp stick to show them they aren't as smart as they think they are.
How hard is this to understand?
Try listening to various security podcasts; especially pauldotcom - they don't mind OS X because they know it's just another flavor of Unix and just as secure (and insecure) as any other flavor of Unix. But they all absolutely hate people who *use* OS X and consider us all to be smug pricks who wouldn't know a security hole from their bung hole.
I write device drivers, actually. I use Mysql as the backend for a club website I manage.
Unless you think using drupal makes me a sql developer.
Okay. Thanks; I didn't realize that MySQL abstracted the actual file I/O layer, although that certainly makes sense.
I mean, I've been using MySQL for years without a "storage engine" so what does this offer me that I don't have now?
Certainly not that Apple is hard to work with. If you actually read what I said, I said that Apple has a troubled relationship security researchers and that part of it was due to Apple's users and part of it was due to the researchers themselves. At which point did I blame Apple for anything?
Going back to market share - we're talking about two different things, I think. Yes, the number of holes is unrelated to market share - but the ability of an exploit to propagate in the field is directly affected by it.
Consider two diseases that are passed by physical contact. The first disease affects 90% of the population, but 10% are immune. Such a disease will spread quickly, simply because of the likely hood of physical contact between people who are vulnerable.
By contrast, the second disease only affects 10% of the population, and 90% are immune. This disease will spread very, very slowly because it is much less likely for vulnerable people to make contact. While this isn't the same as true immunity, it has a similar practical affect.
Have you considered exposing him to Security Now? Not to get him to convert to Mac, but simply to help him get informed about how bad computer security is these days.
I'd suggest PaulDotCom but he'd probably have a heart attack if he found out the kind of stuff IT guys get up to when looking for security problems in their networks.
There's so much blather on the security sites about it, it's hard to even get a clear time line let alone a canonical recitation of the facts. As I mentioned elsewhere, the guys who originally published this exploit clearly mangled the disclosure; and now there's so much pointless hostility around the whole process that the entire subject has become poisoned.
That's why I mentioned in another post that it's possible for Apple to spin this whole process their way - if they make nice and aggressively pursue these bugs, they have a chance to pull a PR win out of this. If they allow the poison pen atmosphere to continue, I think they're looking at more trouble down the road.
I'd really prefer Apple got into the habit of treating security issues as aggressively as the Linux distros do than end up being treated with the same contempt have for Windows.
Yeah, people who can't support their arguments often retreat.
Seeing how you want me to support arguments I never made, I don't see how I can.
Do you find spewing hostility on slashdot to be cathartic, or are you like this in real life, too?
After having used Macs since (literally) Finder 1.0 it's a little bewildering to be attacked as pro-microsoft.