Apple charges US$129 for security fix

Patrick Gray
29 October 2003 03:20 PM
Tags: atstake, patrick, chris, jaguar, gray, osx, vulnerability, @stake
U.S. based Internet security research company @Stake has warned of newly discovered vulnerabilities affecting the Mac OS X operating system.

The company released three advisories this morning. The first details "systemic" flaws in the way OS X handles file and directory permissions, while the second details a kernel level vulnerability that does not affect default installations of the operating system. The third involves a buffer overflow condition that may be remotely exploitable.

Controversially, Apple has not yet released patches for the security issues. @Stake has advised Mac users to upgrade to the latest Apple operating system, which is not vulnerable to the flaws. The operating system, OS X 10.3, or Panther, is priced at US$129.

According to the first advisory, some applications are installed on Mac OS X systems with insecure file permissions, so "many of the files and directories that compose various applications are globally writable". The problem with that, according to @Stake, is it allows attackers with limited access to the system to replace program files with files of their choice, thus obtaining "additional privileges from unsuspecting users, who may run the replaced version of the binary [file]".

"These Trojan binaries would escalate the privileges of the attacker to the privileges of the unsuspecting user who ran them," it explains.

The second issue identified by @Stake, which only affects non-default installations, may allow attackers to steal authentication details of other users on a system they have restricted access to.

"In the event a system is running with core files enabled, attackers with interactive shell access can overwrite arbitrary files, and read core files created by root owned processes. This may result in sensitive information like authentication credentials being compromised," the advisory reads.

@Stake's research director, Chris Wysopal, told ZDNet Australia  there's no technical reason a freely downloaded patch can't be released for earlier versions of the operating system. "The file permission problem is pretty serious," he said. "This is only a local [vulnerability] but is bad in environments where macs are shared such as colleges and libraries."

"People who admin Macs in these environments should check for globally writable apps using the command we give in our advisory. If they don't the attackers surely will," he added.

In the case of the insecure file permission issue, the workaround formulated by @Stake involves manually reviewing and adjusting directory permissions using Unix commands. Wysopal concedes the workaround may not be easy enough for novice users.

"The file permission issue could be worked around by someone who understood Unix file permissions, [but it's] somewhat technical," he said.

Advertisement

Talkback 21 comments

    Great headline. It's so kooky that it draws people in. It's like those National Enquirer headlines - Girl Gives Birth To Cabbage Patch Kids - you just HAVE to read the article. Although, it's mildly dissappointing to find out that in fact, the girl just PAnonymous -- 30/10/03

    Great headline. It's so kooky that it draws people in. It's like those National Enquirer headlines - Girl Gives Birth To Cabbage Patch Kids - you just HAVE to read the article. Although, it's mildly dissappointing to find out that in fact, the girl just PRETENDED that the dolls were her own kids. Like any kid.

    Similarly, it turns out Apple is NOT charging anything for a security fix. It's just that there is a new version out which is not vulnerable to the issues raised. Oh well, it's just one more reason to feel great about Panther. Thanks.

    In the future, please try to make the articles as entertaining as the headlines. It IS mildly disappointing.

    Wow. Go read the original information, and then think about it in context of actual users and in comparison to vulnerabilities in other operating systems. The author is doing a hatchet job with a really tiny hatchet. I should hope ZDnet wouldn't give otAnonymous -- 30/10/03

    Wow. Go read the original information, and then think about it in context of actual users and in comparison to vulnerabilities in other operating systems. The author is doing a hatchet job with a really tiny hatchet. I should hope ZDnet wouldn't give other assignments to this guy-- unless that's the sort of news site they want to run, in which case I'll stop clicking.

    Wow. ZDNet is certainly trying hard to find a security flaw in another OS besides Windows. Well, congratuations. You found one.. a teeny, tiny problem that requires someone to physically have access to a Mac to cause problems. Not really comparable to tAnonymous -- 30/10/03

    Wow. ZDNet is certainly trying hard to find a security flaw in another OS besides Windows. Well, congratuations. You found one.. a teeny, tiny problem that requires someone to physically have access to a Mac to cause problems. Not really comparable to the many security issues in Windows that only require a connection to the internet. But hey, at least you'll get your little check from Redmond.

    And the wording of this headline? Talk about distorting the truth for a few extra hit counts. You folks are a hair away from outright lies with this one.

    I think this site should change the catch phrase from "Where Technology Meets Business" to "Where Windows Calls the Shots". Your attempt to give Mac OS X a paint job like Windows is transparent and disturbing. You folks should be ashamed.

    That headline and article is BS. These flaws are either not enabled by default, or require physical access to the machine. Just another typical ZD article trying to paint the Mac platform in a bad light, and to increase their hit count. Well, yoAnonymous -- 30/10/03

    That headline and article is BS. These flaws are either not enabled by default, or require physical access to the machine.

    Just another typical ZD article trying to paint the Mac platform in a bad light, and to increase their hit count. Well, your hit count will be worth nothing if we tell your advertisers we won't be supporting them due to your poor excuse for journalism.

    #1: Overview: Many applications are installed onto Mac OS X systems with insecure file permissions. This is due to two distinct classes of problems: 1) a security issue regarding DMG files managed by Mac OS X 2) iAnonymous -- 30/10/03

    #1:

    Overview:

    Many applications are installed onto Mac OS X systems with insecure file permissions. This is due to two distinct classes of problems:

    1) a security issue regarding DMG files managed by Mac OS X
    2) insecure file permissions packaged by different vendors

    The result is that many of the files and directories that compose various applications are globally writable. This allows attackers with filesystem access to an OS X machine to replace binaries and obtain additional privileges from unsuspecting users, who may run the replaced version of the binary.

    Details:

    The owner is usually the only person with file system access on an OSX system. Unless the owner would like to sabotage their own files, this is unlikely to be a large problem.

    #2:

    Overview:

    In the event a system is running with core files enabled,
    attackers with interactive shell access can overwrite arbitrary files, and read core files created by root owned processes. This may result in sensitive information like authentication credentials being compromised.

    Details:

    Core file creation is disabled by default in Mac OS X.

    #3:

    Overview:

    In the event a system is running with core files enabled,
    attackers with interactive shell access can overwrite arbitrary files, and read core files created by root owned processes. This may result in sensitive information like authentication credentials being compromised.

    Details:

    Core file creation is disabled by default in Mac OS X.

    Hmm, looks to me like your headline is a tad misleading.

    That's it, ZDNET Australia. Your title of this article smacks of the National Enquirer. Shame on you. The idiot who allowed this to be posted should be sacked for lack of integrity and journalistic morals. I am hereby deleting your URL. Your web site is aAnonymous -- 30/10/03

    That's it, ZDNET Australia. Your title of this article smacks of the National Enquirer. Shame on you. The idiot who allowed this to be posted should be sacked for lack of integrity and journalistic morals. I am hereby deleting your URL. Your web site is a joke.

    I weep for journalism. So this is what it has come to. There is no news in this article, just an inflammatory title to bring suckers like me in so zdnet can report more hits and get more ad revenue. How sad. The title is a lie. The seAnonymous -- 30/10/03

    I weep for journalism.

    So this is what it has come to. There is no news in this article, just an inflammatory title to bring suckers like me in so zdnet can report more hits and get more ad revenue. How sad.

    The title is a lie. The security advisories detail "issues" that someone would have to go out of their way to OPEN on their computers and all can be avoided without the $129 Panther OS. Furthermore, Panther is not a security fix, it is a new OS, just like Windows XP is not a security fix for Windows 2000.

    This pathetic form of sensationalist journalism is becoming all too frequent on the internet, not just here at zdnet. I think I'm going to sign off for good and see if print media still has ties to reality.

    Y'know, it's one thing to print @Stake's credibility-damaging news release. It's another thing entirely to slug it with a headline that's a complete lie. One is just being lazy, while the other is actively irresponsible. Just to re-iterate what others havAnonymous -- 30/10/03

    Y'know, it's one thing to print @Stake's credibility-damaging news release. It's another thing entirely to slug it with a headline that's a complete lie. One is just being lazy, while the other is actively irresponsible. Just to re-iterate what others have been saying:

    a) @Stake's "security flaws" would not affect regular users of OS X 10.2

    b) Panther is not a "security update", but a full operating system

    On the other hand, congratulations on getting me to read your article. Enjoy the hits while you can.

    way to go ZDnet Aus! another one over two posterior attempt. suck that windows pipe some more; as others have said - enjoy the hits while you can!Charles U. Farley -- 30/10/03

    way to go ZDnet Aus! another one over two posterior attempt. suck that windows pipe some more; as others have said - enjoy the hits while you can!

    Well, your headline is certainly making headlines all over the world. It's "controversial" that Apple hasn't fixed a problem that was just announced this morning? And they've been charging for the new version that came out last week? Talk aboutAnonymous -- 30/10/03

    Well, your headline is certainly making headlines all over the world. It's "controversial" that Apple hasn't fixed a problem that was just announced this morning? And they've been charging for the new version that came out last week? Talk about mendacity. The author missed his calling...he should come to the U.S. and run for public office.

    Well Patrick, did M$ pay you enough to look like an idiot? This FUD is unbelievable, I do surely hope you get a good flaming over this tripe, or maybe you're suffering from the combination of "Stockholm Syndrome" and "cognitive Anonymous -- 30/10/03

    Well Patrick, did M$ pay you enough to look like an idiot?

    This FUD is unbelievable, I do surely hope you get a good flaming over this tripe, or maybe you're suffering from the combination of "Stockholm Syndrome" and "cognitive dissonance" ( http://www.macdailynews.com/opinion_comments.php?id=P1943_0_2_0_C )

    Funny you might be a bit concerned if you had know this before you write the article;

    "You might remember that in late September of this year, Dan Geer, computer security researcher, was dismissed from @Stake for calling "the ubiquity of Microsoft software a hazard to the economy and to national security." (Mac Daily News, 2003, http://www.macdailynews.com/comments.php?id=P2046_0_1_0)

    What a cheap shot headline. The FUD factor in your article is over the top.Anonymous -- 30/10/03

    What a cheap shot headline. The FUD factor in your article is over the top.

    I guess this is why ZDNet sacked most of its staff... Ummm, there is no fix for 10.2.8 because this problem was just discovered. It's not "fixed" in Panther — it's just that Panther was a later development without the flaw. Aunt Martha -- 30/10/03

    I guess this is why ZDNet sacked most of its staff...

    Ummm, there is no fix for 10.2.8 because this problem was just discovered. It's not "fixed" in Panther — it's just that Panther was a later development without the flaw.

    Got it.

    Apple's working on it.

    Got it.

    So the $129 charge is ONE OPTION, ZDNet weasel. Another would be to wait for a patch.

    At Apple's usual rate of fixing, it'll probably be tomorrow.

    Microsoft charges $412.99 for virus replicating software. (that's the cost of Windows XP on amazon) Isn't slanting the truth fun?Anonymous -- 30/10/03

    Microsoft charges $412.99 for virus replicating software.

    (that's the cost of Windows XP on amazon)

    Isn't slanting the truth fun?

    Why use a lure and some brains / skill, when a stick of jelly will do a much better job? Moreover, there’s the puerile rush from the instant gratification too… I guess this guy is embarrassed to admit that he still likes using Windows despite thEponymous -- 30/10/03

    Why use a lure and some brains / skill, when a stick of jelly will do a much better job? Moreover, there’s the puerile rush from the instant gratification too…

    I guess this guy is embarrassed to admit that he still likes using Windows despite the many, many MBs of he has to download each month just to try to keep it functioning and under his control.

    Hey, why not just sledge the other guy and take focus off the three ringed circus we have to put up with over here?

    Any one seen the brake fluid, chlorine, fertiliser and diesel?

    Mission accomplished; we commented. That was clearly the goal of this story; subtle as a sledgehammer. This is one frustrated Windows user. It’s okay Patrick. You are allowed to like Mac OS X as you so clearly do but can’t admit to youAnally Retentive -- 30/10/03

    Mission accomplished; we commented.

    That was clearly the goal of this story; subtle as a sledgehammer.

    This is one frustrated Windows user. It’s okay Patrick. You are allowed to like Mac OS X as you so clearly do but can’t admit to yourself.

    That’s right, it is clearly better.

    ZDNet Headline = Slander                           What are the people at ZDNet thinking? That headline is not theAnonymous -- 30/10/03

    ZDNet Headline = Slander                          

    What are the people at ZDNet thinking? That headline is not the truth. That headline does not explain the story. That headline is quite simply a lie.
        
    I am constantly amazed at the total lack of journalist integrity at ZDNet. As this story so clearly shows, they just don't care about reporting the truth.

    It's actions like this that will be the death knell for ZDNet/CNet. Perhaps they got a few extra hits with the headline. But, in addition, they proved once again they are not a reliable new source. I look forward to the day ZDNet drives themselves out of business because of shady practices like this.

    for a few years, I have received e-mail articles from ZDNet. It used to be sort of ok. Now my e-mail trash function has learned something new. Isn't OS X's mail program wonderful?Dr. Richard Welser -- 30/10/03

    for a few years, I have received e-mail articles from ZDNet. It used to be sort of ok. Now my e-mail trash function has learned something new. Isn't OS X's mail program wonderful?

    Steve Jobs can't swim! If Steve Jobs walked on water, the headline at ZDNet would read "Steve Jobs can't swim!" On the other hand if Bill Gates grabs the food out of the mouth of an infant facing starvation the headline wouldnone -- 30/10/03

    Steve Jobs can't swim!

    If Steve Jobs walked on water, the headline at ZDNet would read "Steve Jobs can't swim!"

    On the other hand if Bill Gates grabs the food out of the mouth of an infant facing starvation the headline would read "Gates fights obesity!"

    The headline I'd really love to see?
    "ZDNet looks up the definition of 'journalism'"

    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=journalism

    Not really big deal......Unlike the majority of security flaws in Windows XP, this security flaw in OS X requires someone to already have login access to the machine. These really are not a big threat to about 99% of Mac users. To exploit any of these thrAnonymous -- 30/10/03

    Not really big deal......Unlike the majority of security flaws in Windows XP, this security flaw in OS X requires someone to already have login access to the machine. These really are not a big threat to about 99% of Mac users. To exploit any of these three issues, a cracker must have SSH remote login access. Apple, smartly, ships it's computers with remote turned off. That means, for a cracker to exploit one of these three issues, he must first find a rare machine where the user has turned on SSH remote login, then must know a valid username and password, and then he can do damage. This is 99.9% of the time NEVER going to happen. The only way this could happen is for people who have already been given access to a system like in a shared business environment or school - where the admin knows his users.

    These security issues are akin to leaving your fridge door open so a thief can steal your orange juice but keeping all the doors in your house locked so the theif would never even be able to get in the house anyway.

    man doesn't a bad headline burn in your gut..... Wonder how the folks at M$ stay sane...Anonymous -- 31/10/03

    man doesn't a bad headline burn in your gut.....

    Wonder how the folks at M$ stay sane...

Add your opinion


Latest Videos

Blogs

  • David Braue Will Rudd's bush backhaul bonanza deliver?
    Rural areas will be welcoming the government's decision to put its money where its politicising is, funnelling $250m into a regional fibre upgrade to six rural centres. Remedying over a decade of near-neglect at the hands of telecoms privatisation, the investment could be the firmest step yet for Labor's NBN dream — but with inevitable political questions and a looming election, Rudd and Conroy need to deliver, and quickly, to preserve the NBN's credibility.
  • Array Doing for AV what VoIP did for telephony
    Sydney-based start-up Audinate is making traditional analog cabling obsolete in favour of TCP/IP-based networking technology. And it's doing a pretty good job so far, with its technology used by World Youth Day and the Sydney Opera House.
  • Array WiMax in Australia: Part two
    WiMax could be the standard that drives the next phase of mobile broadband, it provides an opportunity for players wanting to establish a pure IP network to carry voice and data effectively — but is this what operators want?
  • More blogs »

Tags

Back to top

Featured