Infected XP computers unpatched
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Low-res icons in Dock?
Next: iPod touch won't update?
From: Jim on 19 Apr 2010 07:37 On 2010-04-19, Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > >> In other words, although Mac OS X is in no way immune, it's still harder >> than Windows. > > Charlie Miller did say he thought the Mac would be easier to hack, > although even then it required the user to click on a link. True, but could that be simply because Charlie is very, very familiar with the OS X security model? Jim -- Twitter:@GreyAreaUK "[The MP4-12C] will be fitted with all manner of pointlessly shiny buttons that light up and a switch that says 'sport mode' that isn't connected to anything." The Daily Mash.
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on 19 Apr 2010 07:56 On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:37:49 +0100, Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: >On 2010-04-19, Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: >> Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: >> >>> In other words, although Mac OS X is in no way immune, it's still harder >>> than Windows. >> >> Charlie Miller did say he thought the Mac would be easier to hack, >> although even then it required the user to click on a link. > >True, but could that be simply because Charlie is very, very familiar with >the OS X security model? He's more familiar with cracking into Safari - I can't find any descriptions of his results, but he got a command shell. There wasn't a further step to get privs escalation to install anything beyond the local user, so it wasn't a test of OSX as such. It seems likely you'd get the same effect in Safari/Windows. The pwn2own compo sections are all targeted at the browser rather than the OS. In passing, I don't use Safari. Cheers - Jaimie -- "Jesus died for our sins. Let us not cheapen his sacrifice by failing to commit any of them."
From: Jim on 19 Apr 2010 08:02 On 2010-04-19, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: >>> >>> Charlie Miller did say he thought the Mac would be easier to hack, >>> although even then it required the user to click on a link. >> >>True, but could that be simply because Charlie is very, very familiar with >>the OS X security model? > > He's more familiar with cracking into Safari - I can't find any > descriptions of his results, but he got a command shell. There wasn't > a further step to get privs escalation to install anything beyond the > local user, so it wasn't a test of OSX as such. It seems likely you'd > get the same effect in Safari/Windows. Actually, was it Safari or Webkit? > The pwn2own compo sections are all targeted at the browser rather than > the OS. > > In passing, I don't use Safari. Heh. Jim -- Twitter:@GreyAreaUK "[The MP4-12C] will be fitted with all manner of pointlessly shiny buttons that light up and a switch that says 'sport mode' that isn't connected to anything." The Daily Mash.
From: Chris Ridd on 19 Apr 2010 08:15 On 2010-04-19 13:02:30 +0100, Jim said: > On 2010-04-19, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Charlie Miller did say he thought the Mac would be easier to hack, >>>> although even then it required the user to click on a link. >>> >>> True, but could that be simply because Charlie is very, very familiar with >>> the OS X security model? >> >> He's more familiar with cracking into Safari - I can't find any >> descriptions of his results, but he got a command shell. There wasn't >> a further step to get privs escalation to install anything beyond the >> local user, so it wasn't a test of OSX as such. It seems likely you'd >> get the same effect in Safari/Windows. > > Actually, was it Safari or Webkit? It was a bug in Apple Type Services, presumably some kind of malformed font. I don't know whether that would affect Safari on Windows. -- Chris
From: Jim on 19 Apr 2010 08:19
On 2010-04-19, Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote: >>> >>> He's more familiar with cracking into Safari - I can't find any >>> descriptions of his results, but he got a command shell. There wasn't >>> a further step to get privs escalation to install anything beyond the >>> local user, so it wasn't a test of OSX as such. It seems likely you'd >>> get the same effect in Safari/Windows. >> >> Actually, was it Safari or Webkit? > > It was a bug in Apple Type Services, presumably some kind of malformed > font. I don't know whether that would affect Safari on Windows. Interesting. Thanks. Would that imply that _any_ browser on the Mac might have been at risk? Jim -- Twitter:@GreyAreaUK "[The MP4-12C] will be fitted with all manner of pointlessly shiny buttons that light up and a switch that says 'sport mode' that isn't connected to anything." The Daily Mash. |