Slashdot Log In
A Closer Look At Apple Leopard Security
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Oct 23, 2007 02:12 PM
from the changing-spots dept.
from the changing-spots dept.
Last week we discussed some of the security features coming in Leopard. This article goes into more depth on OS X 10.5 security — probably as much technical detail as we're going to get until the folks who know come out from under their NDAs on Friday. The writer argues that Apple's new Time Machine automatic backup should be considered a security feature. "Overall, Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard is perhaps the most significant update in the history of Mac OS X — perhaps in the history of Apple — from a security standpoint. It marks a shift from basing Macintosh security on hard outside walls to building more resiliency and survivability into the core operating system."
Related Stories
[+]
Apple Adds Memory Randomization To Leopard 311 comments
.mack notes a ZDNet blog outlining some of the security features added to OSX Leopard (10.5). Here's Apple's brief description of all 11 new security features. "Apple has announced plans to add code-scrambling diversity to Mac OS X Leopard, a move aimed at making the operating system more resilient to virus and worm attacks. The security technology, known as ASLR (address space layout randomization), randomly arranges the positions of key data areas to prevent malware authors from predicting target addresses. Another new feature coming in Leopard is Sandboxing (systrace), which limits an application's access to the system by enforcing access policies for system calls."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Security (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Security (Score:5, Insightful)
It is basicly a case if one can say I am more secure then you then I win.
Parent
Re:Security (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Leopard Screenshots and Tutorials (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Security (Score:5, Informative)
On top of that Apple regularly credits security researchers and links to their websites in software updates when they report vulnerabilities to Apple. They work with the community, not against it.
You can work with Apple on these open source projects. The fact that you don't, and that you don't know about them in the first place probably means you aren't a programmer, and aren't really serious about contributing to open source. What you really like doing is feeling superior.
It's perhaps most telling that you use the iPhone as an example of why you're upset at Apple's lack of security. You have it all backwards. The issue with the iPhone was that there were security vulnerabilities. The iPhone was cracked with a buffer overflow exploit. Apple fixed the exploit, which broke hacked phones. They did not intentionally brick phones, and instead told people not to update if they had hacked phones. You're probably remembering the whole thing wrong because you were too smug to learn the facts. Hint: fixing buffer overflows is good security, not bad. Apple is under no obligation to preserve a buffer overflow on a product they ship. If you don't want a security hole patched, don't update the product.
Apple hasn't violated the terms of any open source license. They give back to the community. They maintain a number of open source products. You can be mad about the iPhone being locked, but that's a separate issue from security or open source.
Parent
Significance (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe in the history of Mac OS X, but definitely not the history of Apple itself. I'd say that would be, oh, the shift to Unix.
Re:Significance (Score:5, Interesting)
myself, i would consider the shift in architechure a greater historical shakeup. it's still amazing to me apple has shifted their core processor/architechure setup twice, including an emulation layer (each time) to ease transition. i had (and still own) a Motorola Mac (SE/30, Moto 68030 CPU) and remember the titanic shift it was migrating to the PowerPC. And, more recently, shifting from the Power/RISC platform to Intel. I think Apple's continued demonstrated ability to shift its underpinnings with damn near nary a disruption is scary impressive.
-r
Parent
Re:Significance (Score:5, Insightful)
It wasn't a lot of people. It was a vocal minority, the same minority which swore up and down that they'd never touch Apple again after the Intel switch and who spend hours debating the tiniest "flaws" in OS X's GUI. In other words, people for whom computers are an obsession or a fetish.
The the rest of us--people for whom computers are tools used to make money--OS X, and the features it brought, were long overdue. The switch was entirely worth it if only for the addition of a modern memory susbsyetem to an Apple OS. No more preemptive multitasking and having to specify how much memory each application got.
Parent
Re:Significance (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Significance (Score:4, Informative)
Definitely. The old OS model allowed certain shortcuts such as hacks that directly patched the code segments of other programs that were running to change their behavior. The new protected memory model flat-out makes that hackery impossible, so it was up to programs to add explicit support for message passing and other external control systems. There isn't a message passing system in the world that's as fast as just overwriting a destination application's buffers with new data.
That's just one example of why some things are inherently slower if done right. Sometimes it's just not avoidable. That doesn't mean that the new way is inefficient or bad, just different.
I was never into Macs back in the day so I can't comment on old vs. new Finder or spring loaded folders, etc., but I find it telling that the only people who seem to seriously dislike the new Finder are the ones who seriously loved the old one. To everyone else it's pretty spiffy and a reasonably good model of how such things are supposed to work. That is, I'm not at all convinced that the old Finder was actually superior; it's just that people liked it that way, darnit, and anything different is inferior by definition.
You're right: it doesn't. I'm not sure why you even brought it up.
Parent
The Classic interface (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong, I still think OS X is better overall, because of its underlying architecture and a functional CLI, but the Classic Mac GUI had been honed incrementally over almost two decades before Steve just decided to bin the whole thing and reinvent the wheel. It was that interface which made the crappiness of OS 9 worth dealing with, despite the fact that you could hang the whole system by holding down the mouse button, and had to manually allocate memory, and everything else. It was the Mac's saving grace -- perhaps its only saving grace -- throughout the 'lean years' of the platform. And that's why a lot of users just never got over its elimination; it was, for many people, the only reason why they'd stuck around for so long.
There was no real reason to change it when the old codebase was dropped for NeXT's: even if none of the code needed to be kept, the interface guidelines that had evolved as best practices, arrived at by painstaking trial-and-error by generations of Mac programmers, could have been retained. What I think happened is that Steve Jobs wanted more eye candy, and wanted to make the entire desktop reflect the OS's "newness." It was a sales tactic, and although I don't think there's any debate that it worked, it was a pretty huge cost.
OS 9 was an operating system with a great GUI and a terrible backend; OS X had a great backend, but a GUI that was almost unusable at first, and which has only very recently come back on par with the Classic OS circa System 7.5 or so. (They just recently snuck the option-click-to-close-all-Finder-windows trick back in, which I believe originated on the IIgs, and was definitely missing for a while in early OS X versions...)
(Incidentally, the interface scizophrenia isn't limited just to the Mac OS; you also see this behavior in some of the major Apple apps [e.g. iTunes] -- every time there's a whole-number version increase, some part of the interface gets changed, apparently for the sake of changing it. It's as if they realize that some people won't believe that anything is different unless the widgets change, so they scramble everything around periodically, just to keep everyone on their toes.)
Parent
Security Conserns of Time Machiene? (Score:3, Interesting)
While I do agree having good backups is important part of security... Perhaps just perhaps because it is so easy there is a security problem with it.
Re:Security Conserns of Time Machiene? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it is an important file, why would you drop it in a public location in the first place, instead of just transferring it directly to that user or putting it in a password protected location or them? The scenario you envision is already a security problem because you're posting private data in public temporarily. I'd argue the right solution, is not to do that at all.
Parent
Evil bit? (Score:5, Funny)
Wait... don't tell me they implemented RFC 3514 [wikipedia.org] .
Re:WTF??? (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple just made it easier to recover deleted files, if you're using backups. If you're not using backups, there is no problem. OS X has also long had a "secure delete" option that not only deletes the file, but writes over it with random data multiple times, ala DoD requirements. I'd be willing to bet that also does the same on your time machine backups.
Parent
TM has that option (Score:4, Informative)
It's such an obvious feature it's no surprise it's included. This is versioning 101 stuff.
Parent
Delete Instructions (Score:5, Informative)
Here are some step-by-step directions if you really need it: Leopard Time Machine: Delete Files or Folders from Backup [tech-recipes.com]
AC
Parent
Re:It's to bad that 10.5 is not comeing out for al (Score:5, Insightful)
I've heard this for years but I still haven't seen ANY hardware sample where Windows "just works". I'd put more value on the fact that Apple based the core of their OS on a unix-like system not the registry/spaghetti mess that has been windows for the past decade plus. I'm sure that eliminating poorly written drivers from the mix does help prevent some of the problems that plague windows but it's not the whole story by a long shot.
Besides, with that argument, Linux should be even more unstable because very few of it's hardware drivers are written by the device manufacturers - many are reverse engineered.
Parent
Re:Code randomization a bad idea (Score:5, Informative)
No, they won't be able to do that. At that point, they haven't gained execution yet.
Buffer overflows require you to jump to code which is in a known place in memory (usually libraries), which in turn slingshots you back to the exploit code stored on the stack (or other). Without knowing where to jump to, your malicious code will just sit there in memory, not doing anything.
Parent
Re:Code randomization a bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Virus writers will write something that searches around for the right place to patch
It's not quite that simple. Virus writers have a practical limit of how much code they can squish into a buffer overflow (which reduces the effectiveness of a NOP slide) Not only that, protected memory operating systems will bomb out if you start randomly poking at memory addresses. Since the addresses are randomized, you don't really know where to start looking which means it becomes a probability game of how many valid addresses the code your looking for could be at compared to the total address space.
Developers will think buffer overflows are now OK, and write worse code.
Developers have known about buffer overflows for years, and people still use sprintf over snprintf. I doubt anyone who is doing any serious coding will look at ASLR and say, "Hurray! We can forget about string validation!"
Parent
Re:Code randomization a bad idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
- Do you have any idea how less vulnerable you are to an attack when the attacker can't get you in 1 hit? A networked-based attack would essentially have to flood you to get the right address, and bandwidth limitations could prevent them from ever doing it (searching through a multi-gigabyte address range a few dozen bytes at a time takes a *long* while when you'r
Re:impossible; other strategies (Score:5, Informative)
Come on, at least read the whole page if you're going to start flaming Apple. I quote:
One day, no matter how large your backup drive is, it will run out of space. And Time Machine has an action plan. It alerts you that it will start deleting previous backups, oldest first. Before it deletes any backup, Time Machine copies files that might be needed to fully restore your disk for every remaining backup. (Moral of the story: The larger the drive, the farther back in time you can back up.)
Parent
Re:impossible; other strategies (Score:4, Insightful)
If you look at Apple's description [apple.com] of the time machine functionality, it's not possible for it to work the way they claim.
Could you please explain how you think Apple is claiming Time Machine works, and why you think it's not doing that? I ask because I'm not sure what you find objectionable about the page you linked to. In a simple answer to your question, you can use Time Machine to back up to either an external drive or a server. When space runs out, OSX will warn you, and you'll then be given the option of overwriting your old files. That's what Apple has said about running out of space. I would assume that you'd also have the option of adding additional storage (e.g. getting another external hard drive), and keeping your old backups.
It'll be a very sensible solution for 99% of users. (Yes, that statistic was pulled out of thin air. But it's very sensible.)
However, my OSS solution works much better for me than Apple's expensive, proprietary system would work for me.
Ok, that's great. Nobody is stopping you from using that solution, and Unison has been available on OSX for a while now. In fact, I don't see any reason to think you won't be able to use both Unison and Time Machine. So what's the problem?
Parent
Re:What about the insecure default settings? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent