digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Mac OS X hacked in less than 30 minutes

zdnet.com.au — Gaining root access to a Mac is "easy pickings," according to an individual who in less than 30 minutes won an OS X hacking challenge last month by gaining root control of a machine using an unpublished security vulnerability.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Seumas, on 10/12/2007, -32/+76I see no mention of it being set behind a firewall or having something like "little snitch" running to monitor connections visually or anything else. What do you expect? I can have a world-class lock and alarm system on my house and unless I activate it and lock the door, it's not going to prevent a ***** thing.
    • CLIFFosakaJAPAN, on 10/12/2007, -41/+26You've got to be kidding "lukas88"....with all the Mac haters out there, I'm sure many of them would love to cause havoc with OS X, but I guess it's a bit more of a challenge for those script kiddies...
    • GuineaPig, on 10/12/2007, -11/+35Does OS X come with a software firewall or something like "little snitch" on by default? If not, then it's a huge security threat, especially given that Macs are marketed primarily to consumers who want a computer that "Just Works" without really understanding how a computer works.
    • Burns, on 10/12/2007, -29/+3Wow dose that remind me of Seinfeld
    • lukes, on 10/12/2007, -10/+36it's a fair test of mac security without a firewall. my friends with macs don't have firewalls installed, they have no virus scanners installed. they say they don't need them, and i believe this is a common sentiment among mac owners.
    • giant.robot, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25Every copy of OSX has come with BSD's IPFW installed. It is not enabled by default but a short trip to the Sharing pane of System Preferences will turn it on for you. You can manually configure IPFW like you would on a FreeBSD system or use a program like Flying Buttress (formerly Brick House).
    • sporkwitch, on 10/12/2007, -14/+20They DON"T need anti-virus applications, though, that's the point. I've yet to hear of an infectious program of any sort for MacOS that didn't require a user dumb enough to blindy punch in his or her root password. As far as a firewall, the statistical likelihood of some random yahoo surfing the net to be singled out for an active hack is just slightly low (to say the least) and as such, a firewall is really not entirely necessary for a Mac user. Nice thing is this: the macs are really what they're marketed as, a stable, powerful computer, that just WORKS.

      (NOTE: I'm not a Mac fanboy, I'm a Linux user forced to suffer with Windows so I can run my games.)
    • superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22For GuineaPig - No, OS X does not ship with the firewall enabled by default. But it also does not ship with ANY network services open by default either, negating that as a problem.

      The guy used an exploit from a local login, and you can't log in over the network with SSH and telnet disabled by default.
    • Omicron, on 10/12/2007, -17/+8superkendall:

      the mac also doesn't come already hooked up to the internet. neither does a PC. so according to your philosophy, both are completely safe from attack out of the box.
  • lukas88, on 10/12/2007, -70/+64everyone knows that the only reason why virus/hackers aren't a problem for macs is because they aren't a target. Not because of any superior design.
    • harmoniacal, on 10/12/2007, -24/+44Okay, anything *nix is safer than Windows XP. Period. However, just as with any software, when it becomes popular, jerks will try to abuse it for their own petty gains. It's just the way it works.
    • Seumas, on 10/12/2007, -19/+51That isn't true. The entire nature of the OS is very different on OSX than Windows. OSX is basically UNIX and just like in UNIX, you can't just randomly run something and have it destroy your machine or do something evil. You have to knowing make a choice to do it as an administrator -- OR just be a really dumb administrator.

      For example, if something on OSX tried to automatically install itself, it would pop up a little dialogue box and ask for the administrator password. On Windows, it'll just install. Especially since most windows users run in admin anyway.
    • lukas88, on 10/12/2007, -43/+27alright don't get your panties in a bunch, I wasn't trying to say windows was better then OSX. You can't deny that the tiny market share has way more to do with it then the design.
    • skunkman62, on 10/12/2007, -42/+8Welcome to the real world Mac losers, oops i mean users.
    • sporkwitch, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Interesting expansion on that last reply: in 2001 over THIRTY-THOUSAND (30,000) malicious applications (though I think it might have just been viruses alone, I'll say mal-ware in general to cover my ass) were written for windows and eighteen (18) were written for linux. Seeing as MacOS is an even lower-profile target than *nix is, well, I'll let someone else think about it from there....
  • degree, on 10/12/2007, -64/+46lol. mac got ownd and all of you fanboys are denying it. this isnt talking about viruses, its talking about getting hacked via exploits. gg guys.
    • Seumas, on 10/12/2007, -24/+32You fail to understand a simple concept. If they can't get to your machine, the exploit doesn't matter. Hence the importance of a firewall between it. Regardless of the OS.
    • stoops, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7I am a true mac user and am not denying the fact that there are vuneralbilities in OS X. However it's true (mentioned by the first poster) that they did not say anything about having a proper firewall enabled, IDS programs, etc. while running the server so its not a surprise this happened.

      This article opened my eyes because I actually did believe that OS X was pretty much secure (more than 30 minutes worth anyways). WoW.

      I digg it!
  • estvir, on 10/12/2007, -25/+25for all those people who tout the user-authentification system (like needing a password to install updates or do system important things), you'll have to find a new argument as uap (user account protection) is now there in vista, and they have other secuity features which linux/mac os don't, like 'protected mode' for ie7 and possibly other programs.

    the days of 'script kiddies' using programs like sub7 has been over for a few years now.
    • locomorto, on 10/12/2007, -12/+22I thought the whole point of *nix was that every program ran in 'protected mode'. And this for what? Decades?
    • saleens281, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11they don't all run in protected mode. Some have the option... some require root mode.
    • SyDIGG, on 10/12/2007, -13/+24Last time I checked, Vista is not due until several months from now.
    • flinx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25the 'superuser' model is great. But there are many ways around it. It will be interesting to see if Vista's security model remains tight, but it has two achilles heels:

      a) backwards compatibility raising it's ugly head
      b) developers, developers, developers writing poor code and/or overlaying the security model in insecure manners

      And with regard to sub7...yes they've moved on...to rootkits and bot armies.
    • estvir, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10locomorto, not all programs do and their 'protected mode' is very, very different.

      SyDIGG, and your point is ? just because it isn't released doesn't somehow mean it's not there or real, go play with one of the betas.

      flinx:
      a) there are hardly any backwards compatability problems, and if there are any real major ones, it is because of the coders being lazy, but most popular programs work fine in vista.
      b) a developer can't simply code his program to ignore uap or bypass it in anyway, if he codes something which tries to modify a system setting or modify a file or whatever which triggers one of the 'security warnings' that program will be stopped and the user will have to allow it.

      rootkits aren't nowhere near as big as backdoors were [yet ?] and bot armies don't affect the normal user (as in, they aren't attacked by them, but their computers are used as zombies, and most people don't notice so it's not a big user problem).
    • panique, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15You are not accounting for "user tunnel vision": http://www.pantsland.com/?p=83

      "Microsoft has upped security so that when a program that could be potentially harmful is run, either by the user or by some other means, Windows will ask permission before actually running it. The dialogue contains two buttons - Allow and Cancel - but Microsoft have totally missed a principal design idea with this: user tunnel vision.

      These boxes will very quickly become an automatic thing for less tech-savvy users; automatically clicking Allow, that is. Gadgetophile uses the example that the box will soon look like it only has one button to the user - the ‘Make it Work’ button, and I completely agree with this."
    • geezusfreeek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Protected mode? That has nothing to do with this. AFAIK, protected mode is just a state that an x86 architecture can be in. You may be thinking protected address spaces, in which case, yes, this would be true. Basically, no software can access memory that other software is using unless it is output or shared in some way.
    • Shopko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No... Not protected mode like what the processor can use to get a flat memory space. This "protected mode" in Vista is similar to a chroot'ed environment in Linux, where the application thinks it is the only thing installed on the computer. It sees its own filesystem, its own address space, and its own process tree which are all separate from the rest of the operating system.

      So, the worst thing IE7 will be able to do is screw up its own little environment. It will have no ability to screw up the rest of the OS. This is why most Linux system administrators will run their services in a chroot environment. The problem is, on Linux if you try to run something chroot that was not designed to easily support it, it can become a huge pain in the ass to set up and maintain.

      So, no not all Linux programs can run in a chroot'ed environment. Similarly, stuff in Vista like notepad.exe will not run in protected mode either. Right now it's just IE7. What I wonder about is stuff like Outlook, Frontpage, and other software that use the IE7 rendering engine to load HTML views. Will the IE7 component always run in protected mode, or just iexplore.exe? If the component runs with normal permissions, then it seems like it will still be possible to have malware installed on Vista.
    • VStrider, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yeah, whatever, if you think you'll be safe in vista, keep on dreaming.

      As about the so called "protected mode", if it's your only last ditch defence, it's a joke.
      It only drops privilidges for a program. If you crack the said program you gain system access with the priviledges the program was running on. Then it's up to the cracker to find a way to elevate his priviledges. Granted, it's a baby step towards security, but don't depend on it like it's the end-all.

      Compare that with linux security where daemons not only run on reduced privs but you can also chroot them. (chrooting is like creating a fake enviroment where if the daemon is cracked, the attacker thinks he got into your system but he cannot get out of the chroot jail. He's trapped in that fake dir.). I run all high risk daemons, like p2p progs, both with reduced privs and chrooted.

      And I didn't even mention the rest of safeguards, like MACs (SELinux, GRSec), AppArmor, NXbit, gcc stack smashing protection etc.

      Call me back when windows gets even remotely close to all that. Maybe in 100 years?
  • flinx, on 10/12/2007, -7/+30OSX Advantage: *nix security model

    OSX Disadvantage: *nix roots...with lots of common knowledge and thoroughly researched classes of vulnerabilities
  • trogdoor, on 10/12/2007, -31/+13This story will be a good prooving ground for the new comment system.
  • Rice, on 10/12/2007, -28/+6You win some, you lose some. Who cares?
  • saleens281, on 10/12/2007, -23/+61funny watching the fanboys get all irate. I hate to break it to you, but the "popup windows" don't exist when someone comes in via command line with a remote root exploit. Just because you lack the knowledge to understand the BSD/mach base that the OS is built on doesn't mean everyone in this thread does.

    As for those claiming "apple would have to have more exploits look at the thousands for windows". Why? The reason that people have made the viruses/exploits they have for the past 10 years was to gain access to government installations, corporate espionage, or kiddies making botnets. Macs didn't function in any of the above positions, and if so it was such a small number it wouldn't be worth the time for anyone that was going to use it to go public. As hard as it may be to understand, the people writing these things aren't doing it *just because* no matter what they tell you. The very simplest of reason would be respect from their peers, and nobody ever got respect for releasing a mac exploit.
    • TheSolomon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8You're right, the pop-up windows don't occur in OS X when you're doing things via the shell. However, if you try and overstep the bounds of the account you're using, for example changing the contents of a system directory, you will be denied access just like you would via the GUI. In order to perform the operation, you'd either have to switch to the root account (using the 'su' command) before you attempt the operation, or you can execute the command using 'sudo' instead.

      Access to the system will be limited based upon the active user's credentials, regardless of whether they are using the GUI or the shell.
  • trogdoor, on 10/12/2007, -15/+16The guy says that he could have hacked into the OS even with more security in place but ask yourselves this:
    Would a hacker admit that the guy's password for VNC was 'password'?

    I am not completely denying this is true, just suggesting it be taken with a grain of salt.
    • estvir, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15in the article the hacker mentions how it the owner could have done some 'hardening' measures so he seems rather humble.
  • sire, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20The simple fact is that Apple should be taking note of these occurrences and understand that with increasing popularity they will be scrutanized more. It shouldn't take real world mishaps before they get off their asses. It would be impressive if they acted proactively and made an effort to catch as many of these problems before they are publicized. Maybe thats just wishful thinking on my part =)
    • degree, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11but whats going to happen is that as apple gets increased popularity, they will become part of the game in which the devs are ALWAYS trying to catch up with the hackers. The number of exploits in any OS is innumerable, they just all have to be found.
    • sire, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Yes, that is very, very true. I hope it doesn't get to that point. For once I would like to see a different approach. Apple is no slouch when it comes to innovation. And remember, they have one huge thing going for them right now, they have a chance to get out ahead before the exploits start piling up.
  • GTPilot, on 10/12/2007, -45/+17i call propaganda, everyone knows macs are hack-proof.
    • stoops, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2lol. I guess digg users didn't like your joke. ;) I did.
  • Zorkon, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16Nifty.

    Now how was this accomplished? Did the guy leave ssh turned on? File sharing? What attack vector was used to get in?

    I'm doubting it was an "out of the box" OS X install (in which services like SSH and filesharing are disabled).
    • estvir, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17if you read the article, you will see that some services were turned on which normally aren't, especially those required for it to be a 'real' server.
    • nyquist, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19Ummm,

      http://rm-my-mac.wideopenbsd.org.nyud.net:8090/ssh

      So, it seems the guy set up some script for you to login into the box. So, not really a remote exploit?
    • MikhoohkiM, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19You really shouldn't, I don't l know why most of us mac user, feel we are so safe, just because we haven't been hit yet. What will be feel like when we are hit and hit HARD!!!! like around what 5% of mac user run a firewall?,
      .01% run Anti-virus programs, and no one runs that spy-ware software that just came out.

      ALL I know is I am going be pissed if i have to switch to vista and it also doesn't live up, but until anything like that happens I will keep backing up every week maybe even more often now a days
  • phr33ksho, on 10/12/2007, -19/+20For those discrediting the arguement that the reason there aren't more virii / exploits for OSX is due to lower market share should take a moment to consider things logically. Clearly the organizer of this competition would have such basic security measures in place such a firewall, and proper configuration of services running on the machine. The reason it was so easily compromised would not have been prevented with all the safeguards in the world due to the fact that the attacker used a 0-day exploit, for which there was/is no patch. The reason it hasn't been published is likely due in large part to the fact that coders often sell or trade knowledge of such exploits (the wmf exploit was believed to have been sold for several thousand dollars by the coders who discovered it), however an exploit for an operating system which is used by so few people is not likely to be worth the trouble. The fact of the matter is that apple simply doesnt have the resources which microsoft does to weed out such exploits caused by seemingly innocous code. I'm not saying XP is secure by any means, however the fact that someone can root a mac box in under 30 minutes which has been set up to withstand attacks should make people seriously wonder about the security of the operating system.
    • ridiculoufish, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14Unless you consider allowing anyone to create an account at whim to be "proper configuration of services," you should double check your "clearlies."

      And if you really think there aren't unpatched local privilege escalation exploits in Windows, start by googling "shatter attack."
  • OregonTrail, on 10/12/2007, -15/+20If you don't like these operating systems then write your own, geez (^_-)
  • gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16It's pretty impressive and more than a little scary that this guy was able to root the box so quickly. I guess it just goes to show that you really can't be complacent about security no matter which OS you're using.
  • chadian22, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Interesting... security has always been one of the things Mac fans have boasted about their OS. But to make things fair, isn't anything virtually hackable with time?
  • ridiculoufish, on 10/12/2007, -10/+48Pardon my caps, but I am flabbergasted that NOBODY seems to have actually read the competition. All you people talking about ssh and firewalls and stuff - HE LET ANYBODY ADD THEIR OWN ACCOUNT TO THE MACHINE.

    Would you feel comfortable allowing anyone to configure their own accounts on any OS? Can you think of any OS that hasn't had a local root exploit?
    • prockcore, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Sure.. back before the web we *all* had "shell" access on a solaris or vax box.

      The nature of unix allows multiple user accounts while keeping things like your web tree safe.

      Anyone can get an account on sourceforge and ssh into and poke around.
  • polumrak, on 10/12/2007, -14/+7That's just some rumbling. It doesn't prove anything - hell, it doesn't even tell anything.
    What I'm trying to say - that's just lie.

    This - "Mac OS X is easy pickings for bug finders. That said, it doesn't have the market share to really interest most serious bug finders," added gwerdna. - is a little masterpiece.
    I can translate it: "I can do it any time. I just don't want to.".

    People hacking unpublished vulnerabilities sounds like somebody doing something somewhere.
  • clickmyface, on 10/12/2007, -20/+8As OS X becomes more popular then yes, we will get more viruses.

    Apples policy is to fire one employee for every virus found.

    Hahaha... well, I wouldn't hold it passed Steve anyway. We shall see.
    • buss, on 10/12/2007, -16/+5damn, jkfan i meant to digg your comment but i hit bury instead. how do we change comment diggs?
    • stoops, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7yea the bury comments "feature" ***** sucks. kevin remove this ***** please.
  • neoform, on 10/12/2007, -24/+10anyone else notice that OSX is opensource? That kinda makes it a lot easier for someone to identify vulnerabilities that aren't listed.. microsoft doesn't have this problem.
    • eddieroger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Not that this obviously dumb comment deserves a reply, but you must not understand that open source is great because exploits can be found and patched. Yeah, any one can check the Darwin code and find holes, then Apple can release a security update.

      Then there's Microsoft. Their code is locked up. Did you know that when you run a file search, it sends a packet to Microsoft telling them what you looked for? On you own hard drive, too. You would have known if you could see the source. Or, win Windows Media Player plays any file (DVD, MP3, WMA), it sends the info of what's playing back to Redmond? You would, if you saw the source. And if you don't believe me, which I know you won't, get a real firewall on your system (Sygate) and run a search.

      Open source is how progress is made. Linus said it best when he said there's no problem a million eyes can't find. Just think before you post ignorant comments. Its comments like this that ruin digg.
  • aura, on 10/12/2007, -9/+20Every OS has flaws, and the bigger Mac gets, the more holes will be found. Smaller market share works in their favour sometimes.
    • MikhoohkiM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1True, all I wonder is can apple fix them fast enough?
  • neocitron, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23i love OS X but this issue of security needs to be addressed and not denied by mac people... if you keep denying it then it's gonna hit even harder, sooner... Apple needs to notice this too.
    • drakethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21You have to remember that a majority of Mac Users can be just as stupid as Windows users. Most aren't programmers or know ***** about security. The only reason Windows people don't think they are secure is because its obvious to them from news, etc. Average Apple users don't acknowledge there is a threat because there isn't one for the time being and that is enough to make an ignorant average user think hes invincible.

      The programmers, experts, security types, etc. on Macs understand that we are not safe. I know for a fact that Macs are full of buffer overflows just like any Windows box. Now part of it is obviously the market share while another part of it is the security model (user accounts is always better then administrator and this simple fact will hold windows down against any Unix).

      So the fact remains this guy had the ability to create an account and privilege escalation is a lot easier then rooting it with no access. He also obviously knows what he is doing if hes using unpatched vulnerabilities. You can't even create a windows competition like this because anyone with an account already can pretty root the system with almost no knowledge whatsoever. People who can find unpatched vulnerabilities will have anything.

      While this reminds us that Mac OS X isn't 100% secure (which should be obvious), this doesn't point out that Mac OS X is any less or more secure then rivals.
  • Wang, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22There are many unpublished OSX flaws. I know a guy who submitted a serious vuln to them almost 8 months ago, and they are still fixing it (and asking him not to disclose until they fix). They really take their time unfortunately :( I'm not saying that OS X is insecure, I am just saying that they rely a lot on people non-disclosing the vuln info until they have a patch/update out....and not everyone stays quiet :(
    • funk49, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This goes for pretty much all vendors, except for people like Theo at OpenBSD. Look at how long it took MS to fix the GDI vuln. People were getting 0wn3d upside-down at eBay for months while MS was trying to figure out a way to patch it.
  • Mudcrutch, on 10/12/2007, -20/+15uh oh -- here come all the mac fanboys to bury the comments! aghh
  • ntrsfrml, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13nothin is perfect in this world(except for Natalie Portman :p ).. I 'm a PRO PC user, handle around 80 computers @ work.. i recently switched to Mac..got a Powerbook for home and office reports, etc use just to avoid daily patches, worms, viruses etc.. Its been a month now.. not a single complaint or rant here.. Again I still use PC's @ work and for FPS game addiction :P
  • dotpage, on 10/12/2007, -17/+5bogus - no DIgg
  • teece, on 10/12/2007, -13/+10This is article is talking about Mac OS X's vulnerability *as a server* admin'ed badly.

    The guy that wrote the article was taken advantage of by this hacker, because he was ignorant. My Mac OS X machine presents no services to the outside world -- this guy is NOT hacking my machine unless he knows magic.

    The machine he hacked? It was either badly administered (BINGO!), or the guy uses vulnerabilities in something like apache or postfix or samba or something (or something weird like ntp or finger or something). A simple firewall will fix most of these (it will fix all of them for non-servers).

    And guess what? I would know if he rooted my machine through one of those services in minutes.

    And the last, most important thing: this guy knows what he is doing. The average Windows machine isn't even compromised by a person -- it's compromised by damn software. There will always be folks smart enough to thwart security. But they're rare.
    • skinfitz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I suggest you go look up the word 'server'. A 'server' not running any services is not a server - it's a workstation. I can just see a web farm based on OSX that you would set up - all of them not running any services. Why not just suggest we turn off the power to our servers for added secuity while you are at it?
    • jeblis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Overconfidence is a hackers best friend. A simple firewall is not a cure-all defense as these can have vulnerabilities too.
  • Willis, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7OSX isn't secure. How is this news?
    • r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11Only thing making this news is the fact that some idiot made their Mac SSHable to the internet :D

      I mean, Macs don't come with SSH enabled, let alone to the internet, out of the box. So a pretty lame test.
  • paulchu, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10i think the most important quote from the article is:

    Gwerdna concluded that OS X contains "easy pickings" when it comes to vulnerabilities that could allow hackers to break into Apple's operating system.
    "Mac OS X is easy pickings for bug finders. That said, it doesn't have the market share to really interest most serious bug finders," added gwerdna.
  • noneloud, on 10/12/2007, -10/+21I swear to God, "fanboy" is the most overused term on this site. People use it to imply that others are obnoxious in their preference of a particular product, and yet the people who usually use the term "fanboy" usually are simply acting condescending and elitist.

    People are fans of their own preferences. Get over it. Just because some people choose to take their preferences to extremes doesn't mean that the rest of the people in that category should be clumped in with them.

    Comments like "uh oh -- here come all the mac fanboys to bury the comments! aghh" and "lol. mac got ownd and all of you fanboys are denying it" and also "funny watching the fanboys get all irate." add NOTHING to intelligent conversation and only help to fan the flames of people who are not "fanboys" with what they believe in.

    As always, if you have nothing productive to add to a conversation, don't add anything to the conversation; and if you like to say "fanboy" to describe people, please do digg a favor and go outside to get some fresh air instead.
    • UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -11/+9well said. I'll take "Mac Zealot" over "fanboy", thanks.

      "Fanboy" should be relegated to the Nintendo vs. Other argument..

      Besides, when people around here say "Kevin Rose Fanboy" it makes the whole place feel flaming gay.
    • noneloud, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7"So, when people talk about fanboys, they are not talking about these people."

      It doesn't matter who they are talking to. It's not needed. Whether right or wrong, what does labeling someone accomplish? It does absolutely nothing for inteligent conversation at all, and only make people have assumptions as to the author's intentions.
    • iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2That's why I call them "apple humpers" or apple zealots.
    • zwei, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I think the new commenting system is great for this sort of thing. Takes the fun out of flaming. Heaven forbid there be a conversation that entails thought!
  • cheesetoe, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14I agree that with time OS X will be compromised, but from an end user's point of view this article is total BS. QUOTE - "It runs a default install of Mac OS X Tiger, plus fink and some decent versions of Apache, MySQL and PHP." - and - "I set up an LDAP server and linked it to the Macs naming and authentication services, to let people add their own account to this machine. That way, they will all be able to enjoy the beauty of Mac OS X Tiger. And, of course, get a better chance of rm'ing it!" So this affects what percent of the Mac user base? Come on, how many of you reading this on your Mac have Apache, MySQL and PHP running, much less an LDAP server? Anyone with this level of tech savvy would be able to adequately protect their network using readily available OS X utilities. I call FUD!
    • MacHarborGuy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I run Apache, MySQL and PHP, all from the "Complete Apache/MySQL/PHP" installs, which are NOT the default installs. I also have my mac behind a firewall, and have the local mac firewall running as well. The only ports I forward are for Bittorrent. The only issue I have EVER had with my system is that I stupidly ran it for about a year and a half with only 10GBs of free space on average on the boot drive, a very BAD thing to do since the built-in fragmentation protection can't work like it was intended. I fixed that problem this past week.

      As long as the local firewall is turned on, you are behind a hardware firewall, and you don't use any of the sharing functions on ANY system, not just Mac or PC, you should be fine.
    • skinfitz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3You sound like the sort of person that goes around boasting that OSX is invulnerable, then when something like this happens you start saying 'well nobody would have it set up like that anyway.' Wake up.

      If what you are saying is true and that nobody uses Apache etc (and incidentally they were not used in the exploit FOR WHICH THERE IS NO PATCH YET (hint)) then you are effectively saying that OSX is no use as a server and is only used as a workstation. I don't think Apple would be very happy about that as they sell a little something called an XServe which they market as a server.
  • degree, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11this has not yet been noted, but gwerdna is andrewg backwards.
    • 18000rpm, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0And "Werdna" was the name of the Big Boss in Wizardry 1, which was also Wizardry's creator's name spelled backwards.
    • stoops, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1or you could break gwerdna up into g-werd-na and use it in a sentence.

      Yo g, what to hack some *****?
      werd?
      na, just jokin man.
  • cdunn, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Most viruses are written to spread like wildfire and turn computers to zombie machines...

    why would you target a 5% mac user base?

    ...i can say my website is way more secure than diggs because i never get any flaw reports...but then again i have 5% the traffic... (probably less than 5% :-P)
    • Tommstein, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3I'm probably not up to speed on my malware terminology, but don't you mean worms (which spread automatically, unlike viruses, which need the human to do something to spread them)?
    • cjackson27, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4I disagree that there is no interest in writing a virus for the 5% mac user base. If nothing else, it would serve as a wake-up call for the mac fan boys who think they're invincible.
    • sporkwitch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2tommstein: virii are defined by having a "payload" or some negative impact on the system that is a direct goal (not causing trouble as a side-effect). However, the majority of virii, worms, and other malware are actually a combination of multiple types.

      The three official types are trojans, virii, and worms, IIRC.
  • nnonix, on 10/12/2007, -15/+14Ah, yes. Reality slowly slapping the face of the fanboys. Gotta love it.
  • r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4@jkfan87

    "With time? 30 minutes?"

    Yeah, you forgot to add the other 5 years. OS X has been out longer than 30 minutes!
  • 3vil, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4Well, to look at even a slightly protected MacOSX is even easily infiltrated, now a few of you might not know this saying, but "Cracking a mac is as easy as holding down a key on your keyboard" which is absolutely true if you hold down shift on your keyboard during start up on maxOS's oh I dunno say 5.5 - X, this would disable all the extensions including firewalls and such and allow free access to the PC. Some programs like Foolproof Control, have now fixed some of those bugs by the same time that program in particular is disabled it ejects the Hard drive DX. But anyways, cracking a Mac is still not the most deserving thing of an award.
    • starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i'm not sure what your point is. if a somebody can't break in to any box from the console they aren't worth much as an admin.
  • xedeon, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2hmm seems fishy..
  • bristolz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3As far as security experience is concerned, it seems that MS has gotten much more than Apple. Yes, a cram course but...
  • mikeintosh, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3If it's true, then that's pretty disappointing for the majority of mac users. Until this starts happening on a large scale though, i'll be skeptical.
  • Laughingman234, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17ok...wait a second...the point of this site is to hack it...after you get ssh access?

    On his blog he said he wasnt up and running until he got the ssh signup done. Therefore the hack was...internal? Through ssh? Does that not take out the hardest part of hacking? Sure anyone with terminal access to a computer could screw stuff up...hell I probably could. I want more info on this hack before I'll accept that my iBook is more exploitable than my PC.
    • timmarhy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5gaining a local shell is often trival to acheive. what you are proposing is turtle security. hard on the outside, soft inside.

      you can never just assume a firewall will protect you.

      this exploit isn't really that stunning, it's just mac fan boys won't accept mac's are just as prone to being exploited as any OS in history.

      to all the people waffling on about protect mode. so ***** what. your assuming he installed something, and didn't just use some kind of buffer overflow attack on a service running as root. you don't know what your talking about.
    • jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Then maybe you should realize that someone having a trivial account on your computer shouldn't be able to ***** stuff up. If you think it's so easy I'll give you one on my FreeBSD box, and as much time as you want. Gurantee you won't be able to do a damn thing.
  • hayden.evans, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1there will be a patch in a few days.
  • mindsinker, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Oh noes!!!! Must sell Mac...
  • prockcore, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Apache and SSH are turned on by default on OSX server. You guys seem to forget that Apple sells these things called xserves.
    • MacHarborGuy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8question is, was the mac mini that was hacked running OSX Server? Most likely anyone running OSX Server or an XServe is going to have plenty of extra protection around it to prevent this type of hacking. I am assuming the hacked Mac Mini was just 10.4.4 OSX standard, with some of the file sharing/ssh access functions turned on.

      The story doesn't really give enough information about the specifics of the setup. Was it behind a hardware firewall. What was turned on in the Sharing Preferences? Was the local firewall turned on? Did he tell anyone the IP of the computer (remember, in the real world, hackers actually have to FIND you in order to HACK you). If there was a hardware firewall, did he set it up for DMZ and place the mac within that?

      There is alot of information that is needed for this story to really mean anything.
    • drycounty, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I thought it seemed overly vague as well. I'd like to know if FileVault was turned on, as well as any other services? Seems like it was a poorly done test, but I have no doubt that certain vulnerabilities do exist.
    • alternapop, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1"a lot" is two words
  • Hanthus, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Portuguese / Brazilian : http://www.htk.com.br/noticia.php?noticia=192

    ---------------------------------------------------
    http://www.htk.com.br/
  • MOGua, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1gwerdna -> Andrew G
  • karamba_kid, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Oh, so the guy posted a login for user account on his machine, I was worried there for a moment. I read about too many exploits out there that can escalate a users privilege's to trust my operating system in the hands of strangers. Just proves the weakest link in computer security is still the human factor.
  • sfacets, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4*Nelson laugh*
  • epkphoto, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7After reading that ZDNet article, I immediately discredit the author as he made a common mistake of much of the media today. Namely, he called the recent security threats to Mac OS X "viruses." The recent exploits were worms or trojans at best and should not be confused with viruses.

    Additionally, be sure to read the comments users have posted with the ZDNet article. Some users raise some interesting points on the uselessness of this experiment since the Mac mini's configuration was far less than secure.
    • Tommstein, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I commented above on the distinction, and so far it has received a negative digg rating. Who needs correctness when you've got little red thumbs-down buttons next to it. I think a lot of people here aren't ready to graduate from slashdot.org.
    • seanasy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Look at the author's other articles. He is ZDNet Australia's resident Apple troll.
  • sigginike90, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8i was intrested at first... but when he added that Apple dosen't have the market share to intrest serious bug searchers or whatever. you could tell this was an "apple hater" of some sort....
    • jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Or since he has pre 0-day exploits, maybe this is actually the truth, since HE'S THE ONE MAKING THE EXPLOITS!
  • numacra, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2There's some guy on efnet in #macosx named gwerdna... He's on a apple.com HOST?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 103 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.