Macs Defy Virus? Hahahahahaha

wxwax

I'm not picking on Macs, really I'm not. I think they're fine machines, lovely to look at, prized by devoted owners. I think that's wonderful. So too is choice. God bless competition, it helps all of us consumers.

However, in their evangelical enthusiasm for their machines, every once in a while Mac afficianados will make silly claims. One of those silly claims is that the Mac OS is more resistant to internet hacking than is Windows.

Oh, well, it sounded good, anyway! :lol3

:1drink

Mac OS X hacked in less than 30 minutes
By Munir Kotadia, ZDNet Australia
Published on ZDNet News: March 6, 2006, 11:17 AM PT

Gaining root access to a Mac is "easy pickings," according to an individual who won an OS X hacking challenge last month by gaining root control of a machine using an unpublished security vulnerability...

The hacker who won the challenge, who asked ZDNet Australia to identify him only as "Gwerdna," said he gained root control of the Mac in less than 30 minutes.

"It probably took about 20 or 30 minutes to get root on the box. Initially, I tried looking around the box for certain misconfigurations and other obvious things, but then I decided to use some unpublished exploits--of which there are a lot for Mac OS X," Gwerdna told ZDNet Australia.

According to Gwerdna, the hacked Mac could have been better protected, but it would not have stopped him because he exploited a vulnerability that has not yet been made public or patched by Apple Computer....

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," Gwerdna added.

Read the whole story here.

wxwax

There's more, I'm afraid.

In January, security researcher Neil Archibald, who has already been credited with finding numerous vulnerabilities in OS X, told ZDNet Australia that he knows of numerous security vulnerabilities in Apple's operating system that could be exploited by attackers.

"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," Archibald said at the time.

dragon300zx

Hmm sounds like what I have been saying all along.

Hmmm, maybe this kind of thing (as it happens so often) is part of what contributes to this supposed god complex I have.

Oh yeah Did I mention.

I was right.

wxwax

Thing is, I can see myself owning a Mac. If they'll have me.

JohnR

This was discussed at a mac board I participate in.

Some responses:

Certainly OS X isn't totally secure. But after researching the article more it was setup by a MS sponsored developer with an unusual server configuration that isn't typical.

Our IT admin said this comment was dead on...

In reply to:<hr>"That's why 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."

and furthermore:
"This is the place you add yourself an account on my Mac.

To log in, simply SSH to rm-my-Mac.WideOpenBSD.ORG using the name and password you've choosen. It might take a while to log in as SSH is started from inetd and needs to generate keys upon startup.
Username:
Password: (pick a secure one)"

let me get this right, he actually enables everybody to add his own home account? and gives them ssh access to his machine? and then he wonders that it is insecure?

i dont know what to say...

other that any normal mac user doesnt have to worry because that's such a stupid, non standard configuraation that it will never happen on their machine.
<hr>

...nuff said.

And then someone else provided this link:

http://test.doit.wisc.edu/

JohnR

That link at the bottom of my post says this at the beginning:

6 March 2006 10:00 AM CST
In response to the woefully misleading ZDnet article, Mac OS X hacked under 30 minutes, the academic Mac OS X Security Challenge has been launched.
The ZDnet article, and almost all of the coverage of it, failed to mention a very critical point: anyone who wished it was given a local account on the machine (which could be accessed via ssh). Yes, there are local privilege escalation vulnerabilities; likely some that are "unpublished". But this machine was not hacked from the outside just by being on the Internet. It was hacked from within, by someone who was allowed to have a local account on the box. That is a huge distinction.
Almost all consumer Mac OS X machines will:
Not give any external entities local account access
Not even have any ports open
In addition to the above, most consumer machines will also be behind personal router/firewall devices, further reducing exposure

wxwax

And they're off!

mercphoto

JohnR wrote:

That link at the bottom of my post says this at the beginning:

6 March 2006 10:00 AM CST
In response to the woefully misleading ZDnet article, Mac OS X hacked under 30 minutes, the academic Mac OS X Security Challenge has been launched.
The ZDnet article, and almost all of the coverage of it, failed to mention a very critical point: anyone who wished it was given a local account on the machine (which could be accessed via ssh). Yes, there are local privilege escalation vulnerabilities; likely some that are "unpublished". But this machine was not hacked from the outside just by being on the Internet. It was hacked from within, by someone who was allowed to have a local account on the box. That is a huge distinction.
Almost all consumer Mac OS X machines will:
Not give any external entities local account access
Not even have any ports open
In addition to the above, most consumer machines will also be behind personal router/firewall devices, further reducing exposure

Wow, imagine that. You configure a machine in a way that its easily hacked, and then shout "Look, the Mac is vulnerable!". What a dweeb. Anybody can break into a home if the owner starts unlocking the doors.

Andy

I'll sleep well tonight.. how about you less-enlightened folks?

wxwax

Andy wrote:

I'll sleep well tonight.. how about you less-enlightened folks?

Oooh, good one. That was especially thin-skinned!

Richard

Andy wrote:

I'll sleep well tonight.. how about you less-enlightened folks?

I'll sleep well, too. My Windows machines are well protected. It really isn't all that difficult.

wxwax

:argue :argue

Andy

rsinmadrid wrote:

I'll sleep well, too. My Windows machines are well protected. It really isn't all that difficult.

Yeah, but Richard, you know you are in like that 1% who actually take the time and energy to button their fly...

ChrisJ

For the most part, I agree with merc and JohnR on this. Allowing a user account on the machine is an open invitation to being hacked...

That being said, in a business environment, most data corruption/stealing/hacking is done by an inside source, e.g. someone already with an account. If there are several unpublished exploits available for OS X, it is a reason for concern.

Unquantifiable: It would be interesting to know how many unpublished exploits exist for fully patched versions of XP, Linux (choose your variant), and OS X.

Bodwick

Nochnoi Dozor

wxwax wrote:

:argue :argue

I chose the side of the 'dark forces'. Buy yourself that VAIO and join the darkness of XP.... Who wants a computer thats about the same spec as an old Amiga and looks like a coffee table from Ikea.

"Set in contemporary Moscow, NIGHT WATCH revolves around the conflict and balance maintained between the forces of light and darkness — the result of a medieval truce between the opposing sides. As night falls, the dark forces battle the super-human “Others” of the Night Watch, whose mission is to patrol and protect."





Bod...

kini62

"It took a hacker less than 30 minutes to gain root-level access to Mac"
For those that insist on one of the great benefits of OSX, some news that comes as no surprise to those that have not been blinded by the snow(Job):D from Mr. Jobs.

Here's the link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20060306/bs_nf/41948

Andy

kini62 wrote:

For those that insist on one of the great benefits of OSX, some news that comes as no surprise to those that have not been blinded by the snow(Job):D from Mr. Jobs.

Here's the link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20060306/bs_nf/41948

Kini, merged your post into an existing thread on the subject...

Andy

Andy wrote:

Kini, merged your post into an existing thread on the subject...

PS: As with most things, take it with a grain of salt!

wxwax

So anyhoo....

What's the best anti-virus software for a Mac?

:lol4 :lol4


:gone

Andy

Where the heck is DavidTO???

Bodley

Andy wrote:

Where the heck is DavidTO???

How's that "Change of Llife" going for ya? The once secure and mighty - now screaming for help! It's a sad day :cry

Don't worry as this to will pass and you'll discover the errors of your ways. Canon and Gates will welcome you back just like the prodigal son.

Andy

Bodley wrote:

How's that "Change of Llife" going for ya? The once secure and mighty - now screaming for help! It's a sad day :cry

Don't worry as this to will pass and you'll discover the errors of your ways. Canon and Gates will welcome you back just like the prodigal son.

NEVER Gates. I'm still a Canon-man, don't believe everything you read

StevenV

where's the Smiley for yawn?

Shay Stephens

Look, any technology is exploitable, from lowly soda machines to lofty government servers. Any suffeciently clever and motivated person(s) can eventually break into anything.

My problem is with the position foisted on the public that macs are bullet proof. And don't try to parse that that image is not promoted. It is. And it is a dangerous position to embrace.

Everyone should assume that there are security vulnerabilities with all technology. And I would say that windows users may have a mental advantage at this point in time because they basically realize that, while the mac community continues to hide their heads in a false sense of security and deny and downplay exploits. The coming year or two is going to be a sad wake up call for many who sit on their imaginary ivory towers of "security".

Welcome to the real world. Mac is vulnerable. We all are.

Bodley

Andy wrote:

NEVER Gates.

Never is a long - long time. Mac/Apple may NEED Gates to bail them out again. Hmmmmmm Does that mean that Mac's are actually Gates NOW?

Andy wrote:

I'm still a Canon-man, don't believe everything you read

I figured ya'll (that's a southern word) have a bet on how much traffic the "Bogus" shots will produce.

peestandingup

Bodley wrote:

Never is a long - long time. Mac/Apple may NEED Gates to bail them out again. Hmmmmmm Does that mean that Mac's are actually Gates NOW?

That was almost 10 years ago when MS invested in Apple by purchasing shares of non-voting stock ($150 million worth, me thinks) and the agreement was they could only keep it for a period of like 3-4 years, so no, Gates owns zero of Apple.

I dont think MS bailed Apple out, but they did help. Remember, up until that point Steve Jobs wasnt working at Apple + they had allot of really stupid people on their board of directors, so basically when Jobs got back there, he cleaned house & got them moving forward again. So, MS helped but there were many other contributing factors in Apple's success to this point.

peestandingup

Oh, and Apple also helped out MS in a BIG way in that agreement. Remember the whole "Microsoft ripping off Apple's GUI back in the 80's" thing?? Well, after suing the pants off Bill Gates multiple times, Apple let them off the hook & signed a cross-patent license.

colourbox

Bodley wrote:

Mac/Apple may NEED Gates to bail them out again.

Hmmm...$150 million invested by Microsoft in Apple, a company worth several billion at the time. Mathematically, 150 mil was but a drop in Apple's buckets of billions. Since the amount was far too small to "own" or even influence Apple in any significant way, the money was strictly a exercise between Microsoft and Apple that came out of the PR budget, probably. And the story goes that when Microsoft sold their Apple shares, the shares had gone up in value so Microsoft made a profit on their "bailout" ! Hardly a charity case.

Nikolai

MS does that from time to time

colourbox wrote:

Hmmm...$150 million invested by Microsoft in Apple, a company worth several billion at the time. Mathematically, 150 mil was but a drop in Apple's buckets of billions. Since the amount was far too small to "own" or even influence Apple in any significant way, the money was strictly a exercise between Microsoft and Apple that came out of the PR budget, probably. And the story goes that when Microsoft sold their Apple shares, the shares had gone up in value so Microsoft made a profit on their "bailout" ! Hardly a charity case.

Few years ago MS paid Borland, its old rival in compilers and other development tools area, a hefty sum of a hundred million dollars ($100,000,000.00 - pinky by the mouth:-). Both companies made a huge deal about it in PR. Well, in the end a poor management lead Borland out of the game. Also, MS lured away Borland's head guy, who ended up creating no less than .NET itself - for MS!

I guess what I'm saying is: hundred mil for MS is like a nice ribs dinner for Andy: small expense, lots of pleasure - and all that for Andy, not for ribs:-).

And speaking of the original thread's subject: no, you can't assume your data is safe unless your computer is shut down, locked in a steel safe and buried under six feet of 700 grade concrete, next to Jimmy Hoffa, so nobody would know where it is...:):

Nikolai

John,

JohnR wrote:

Almost all consumer Mac OS X machines will:
Not give any external entities local account access
Not even have any ports open
In addition to the above, most consumer machines will also be behind personal router/firewall devices, further reducing exposure

With all due respect, I'm afraid you're getting a bit carried away by the marketing BS.

"No ports open" would mean you'd have to use telepathy to make your posts on dgrin or even browse it (HTTP, port 80); carrier pigeons to deliver your emails (SMTP: port 25) and receive it (POP3: port 110); and so on and so forth. And even if some security freak actually decide to close them all (therefore also blocking LAN access), you'd still have some USB/FireWire sockets, CD/DVD reader, or maybe even floppy... And let me tell you: sneaker-net is as full of malicious software as the internet, and even more so, since you usually trust the messenger.

The actual solution is, in fact, quite simple: step out of the sterilized room and join the rest of the world. It's pretty nice out here. Yes, you'll be getting some seasonal flu attacks, but you'll survive, and eventually become even stronger than you were:-)

Cheers!

Shay Stephens

Great post!

Nikolai wrote:

With all due respect, I'm afraid you're getting a bit carried away by the marketing BS.

"No ports open" would mean you'd have to use telepathy to make your posts on dgrin or even browse it (HTTP, port 80); carrier pigeons to deliver your emails (SMTP: port 25) and receive it (POP3: port 110); and so on and so forth. And even if some security freak actually decide to close them all (therefore also blocking LAN access), you'd still have some USB/FireWire sockets, CD/DVD reader, or maybe even floppy... And let me tell you: sneaker-net is as full of malicious software as the internet, and even more so, since you usually trust the messenger.

The actual solution is, in fact, quite simple: step out of the sterilized room and join the rest of the world. It's pretty nice out here. Yes, you'll be getting some seasonal flu attacks, but you'll survive, and eventually become even stronger than you were:-)

Cheers!