|
Posted on 01/26/2006 3:25:15 PM PST by Salo
OS X contains unpatched security flaws of a type that were fixed on alternative operating systems more than a decade ago, according to a security researcher credited with finding numerous bugs in Apple's increasingly popular platform.
Neil Archibald, senior security researcher at software security specialists Suresec, told ZDNet Australia that as Apple's market share increases, OS X will come under more scrutiny by security researchers, who he believes will find plenty of "low-hanging bugs".
Archibald, who has already discovered a number of security vulnerabilities in OS X, speculates that should Apple's market share continue to increase, users of the platform could actually end up less secure than users of other platforms such as Microsoft Windows or Linux.
"The only thing which has kept Mac OS X relatively safe up until now is the fact that the market share is significantly lower than that of Microsoft Windows or the more common UNIX platforms.… If this situation was to change, in my opinion, things could be a lot worse on Mac OS X than they currently are on other operating systems, regarding security vulnerabilities," said Archibald.
Archibald said his opinion is justified because Apple does not use software auditing tools to scan enough of its software. These types of tools have been heavily employed by Microsoft since the company launched its Trustworthy Computing initiative, in order to discover simple coding mistakes that could allow, for example, buffer overflow errors.
"The code that Apple uses in its applications and libraries is relatively under-audited, which leaves a lot of low hanging bugs.… Some of the security vulnerabilities we've seen during research on OS X were fixed on most other operating systems 10 to 15 years ago," said Archibald.
To prove his point, Archibald gave a number of examples.
In August last year, Apple patched the "dsidentity" bug, which was discovered by Archibald and affected OS X versions 10.4.x up to 10.4.2.
This "trivial" bug, according to Archibald, could easily have been exploited to grant a non-privileged user with admin rights and allow that user to create and remove "root" user accounts.
"Bugs like this require a simple glance over the code to notice and are long dead on other operating systems.… When we spoke to Apple on the phone about this issue, the security team had never even heard of the application, and burst out laughing at the simplicity of the vulnerability," said Archibald.
He also described another recently patched flaw in OS X's memory allocator that could allow certain applications to overwrite any file on the system and gain root privileges.
Another vulnerability described by Archibald could allow memory corruption and hand control of a process over to an attacker: "At the time of writing, the vulnerability remains unpatched. However Apple is aware it exists."
Software auditing is not the only thing Apple underutilises, according to Archibald, who also criticised the manner in which the Mac maker deals with security researchers that discover vulnerabilities.
"In my experience -- which is also the experience of some of my peers -- Apple has been very slow to respond to reported security vulnerabilities. It expects security researchers to wait indefinitely to release the vulnerabilities and offers no incentive for them to do so," said Archibald.
Apple's impressive security record is likely to be tarnished if the company continues to grow its market share while undervaluing security researchers and not properly auditing its code: "During the small time Suresec researchers spent auditing Mac OS X, many vulnerabilities like this turned up. Suresec is currently aware of many bugs which exist by default in the latest version of Mac OS X, on both the Intel and PPC Architecture."
Apple refused to comment on Archibald's views. A spokesperson for Apple told ZDNet Australia that the company is "not going to comment on what other people say about Mac OS X".
"There's a lot of information on Mac OS X security on our Web site and we've done a great deal to ensure Mac OS X is a stable and secure platform for our customers, large and small," the spokesperson added.
Does the fact that XP automatically makes the first named user of the system an Administrator, with the root-equivalent power to do anything he wants to the computer, have anything to do with the perception that Windows is inherently more vulnerable than most UNIX variants? Especially given the fact that most users run their Windows computers from accounts with full administrative privileges for convenience's sake?
That was a very polite and well-reasoned response.
If 90% of the cars on the roads were Honda civics, what majority of cars would get into accidents?
Go ahead and protest all you want, but the undertone is exactly what I've posted, and is really the implied conclusion.
I'm posting this on a WinXP Pro computer I built. A few feet to the right, I also have a Quad-core G5, running Mac OS X v10.4.4. I use both. The Mac is far more secure IN PRACTICE. The reason for that security doesn't matter. I still spend zero time or money trying to protect it, and I simply don't have any security problems with it.
You say, "Apple's safety rests on the fact that it hasn't been the subject of hack attacks." I respond: IRRELEVANT.
"That was a very polite and well-reasoned response."
And you were getting annoyed. :)
Yes, I'm not into the big fight thing. I just get annoyed by zealots on either side. It's all just computers. Macs are fun. So are Linux boxes. Windows fits my needs, and they have done some impressive things with it since the early days. Micro$oft has also done some evil stuff, but, not enough to drive me from the Windows platform, yet. If they push ahead with the "subscription" versus outright purchase of software, I'm going to have to move to Fedora Core.
If that's an example of your logic skills, then my first comments might have torched you personally. Posting a typo because I didn't even look at what I'd typed is not equivalent to not being able to spell.
I don't know why you seem intent on flaming me, but if it assuages your ego, go for it.
Has anyone seen the new apple-Intel commercial on TV? Apple puts down the PC as being ugly. They praise Intel chips and all that they can do. And now they are going to offer them in a pretty case. They imply that you should By a PC simply based on looks. It is a pretty screwed up commercial. It really burned me to see it.
"I don't know why you seem intent on flaming me, but if it assuages your ego, go for it."
Never liked zealots. Flaming a flamer is always good fun.
See, you're falling into the same error I led with: confusing today with some unknown time in the future. In spite of your protests, you're still doing it.
You betcha I'm spending time and money on WinXP - anti-virus, firewall, anti-spyware AND the time it takes for scans and updates of those apps. None of that on my Mac.
You can warn about the future if you want, but TODAY my Mac is secure without all the effort that goes into my WinXP box.
The vast majority of Windows exploits are not caused by bugs.
They are exploits of Active X, which by default, allows a website to install and run software on a user's computer.
Microsoft has finally become more security conscious, but they dropped the ball for years and their customers are paying the price. Apple needs to be very aggressive in squashing bugs and security holes to ensure that they continue to be secure, but hackers will still need to find bugs to exploit rather than disasterous design decisions.
Bugs ARE bad design decisions.
Would this be the cult of Windows users accusing Mac users of being cultists?
It's really getting old.
No, actually, it bashes regular PCs as being unremarkable in what tasks they perform and how they perform them. And it has a point: there really isn't much difference between the various OEMs on the market, besides price. Apple still offers something different, mainly because they're still focused on quality over price. The entire commercial is a technical architecture promotional.
Rewatch it.
Apple is not immune to viruses or hacking. I have experienced both. I recently checked my users file and had two new strangers there. (I had visited a peer to peer file swapping site.) Years ago, OS 7.5 I think, I had a self replicating virus and before I knew it it had used up so much of my memory I couldn't even empty the trash. Had to erase the disk and start over. Even now Norton will occasionally detect something and either fix it or isolate it.
It is natural that the more the Mac operating system resembles Windows or Unix that it will experience the same vulnerabilities in the areas of commonality.
What OS are you using... OS X.4 requires YOU to OK the downloading and saving of any file (including Windows) that is an executable. The "strangers" had to have been OK'd by you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
