A Little .Mac Security Flaw

deleuth writes "The de facto online connectivity software sold along with many Apple computers, .Mac, has a Web interface through which users can check their 'iDisk' while away from their own computer. However, there is no Log-Out button in this Web interface, so most users just close the browser and walk away... not realizing that their iDisk has been cached by the browser and that anyone who wants to can open up the browser, go back to the link in History, and get into their iDisk completely logged in. From here, files can be downloaded and/or deleted. This seems like a minor security flaw via bad interface design, and podcaster Klaatu (of thebadapples.info) posted this on the discussion.apple.com site, only to have his post removed by Apple. Furthermore, feedback at apple.com/feedback has gone unanswered. The problem remains: there is no way for the average computer user to log-out of their iDisk on public computers. A quick review of any public terminal's browser history could bring up all kinds of interesting things."

Apple's response?

[PFAK (524350)]

Am I the only one that notices that Apple's response to every problem is a swift "let's delete this topic and pretend the problem doesn't exist"? .. Seems like bad business practise to me.

Re:Apple's response?

[mboverload (657893)]

> Am I the only one that notices that Apple's response to every problem is a swift "let's delete this topic and pretend the problem doesn't exist"? .. Seems like bad business practise to me.

0H N0ES U DIDNT APPLE IS TEH PERFECT

A minor flaw? Tosh.

[blowdart (31458)]

0H N0ES U DIDNT APPLE IS TEH PERFECT

Indeed; I'm somewhat amused that this is described as a "minor" security flaw in the summary and blamed on the user interface. If it was a Microsoft web site it would be described as a major flaw and the foaming at the mouth would begin. Nor is it a user interface problem; by using session cookies closing the browser would logout the user, with or without a logout button.

The site listed (but not linked [thebadapples.info]) in the summary doesn't describe the issue as minor, or a UI problem, so one can only assume that description comes from the summary author.

Re:A minor flaw? Tosh.

[Colin Smith (2679)]

Indeed; I'm somewhat amused that this is described as a "minor" security flaw in the summary and blamed on the user interface. If it was a Microsoft web site it would be described as a major flaw and the foaming at the mouth would begin.

Macs make up about 3% of the computer using population. This means all flaws are minor.

 

Re:A minor flaw? Tosh.

[stuboogie (900470)]

"What's the point? It's the equivalent of when people had CompuServe in the early-to-mid 90s. They'd pay through the nose to use a proprietary web browser and get access to groups that only other CIS users could use. It's the internet for people that don't know what's out there for nowt, a gated net community."

hmmm...sounds familiar...what was the name of that?

Ah, Oh weLl.

I can't remember right now.

When Will Apple Learn

[numbsafari (139135)]

I am an new Apple user. And reasonably happy.

However, there is one thing that I am very troubled by and it is simply this: Apple apparent arrogance and ignorance when it comes to security.

Apple has enjoyed a "blanket" of security because it is low profile and a niche. However, as its market share and mind share expands, this period of respite will soon fade.

You would think that, during this time, Apple would have used the opportunity to develop and internal culture, policies and procedures, as well as infrastructure for dealing effectively with security issues. However, the complete opposite appears to be the case.

Apple has failed miserably to publicly and actively address such issues. It also fails to respond in anything that could be called a rapid manner to reports of exploitable security holes. Taking actions such as deleting posts that point out security problems makes the situation worse, not better. Failing to publicly document the existence, status and nature of defects makes the situation worse, not better. Being secretive makes the situation worse, not better.

Apple makes decent hardware. Leopard is very nice to use, though far from perfect. The whole ecosystem and vertical integration is nice. However, the whole thing could come crashing down because of a serious security flaw. If people think Microsoft is susceptible to such a scenario, the Apple empire is even more so.

It's not a question of if, but when. Will Apple be prepared? So far, all signs point to "NO".

PS... the CAPTCHA word for this post was "condom".. how appropriate considering the whole point is to have a good profolactic. A good metaphore for Apple's current approach to security.

Re:When Will Apple Learn

[Auckerman (223266)]

Apple has enjoyed a "blanket" of security because it is low profile and a niche. However, as its market share and mind share expands, this period of respite will soon fade.

You would think that, during this time, Apple would have used the opportunity to develop and internal culture, policies and procedures, as well as infrastructure for dealing effectively with security issues. However, the complete opposite appears to be the case.

Apple has failed miserably to publicly and actively address such issues. It also fails to respond in anything that could be called a rapid manner to reports of exploitable security holes. Taking actions such as deleting posts that point out security problems makes the situation worse, not better. Failing to publicly document the existence, status and nature of defects makes the situation worse, not better. Being secretive makes the situation worse, not better.

You are incorrect in so many ways, I find it hard to begin.

1. There is no proof what so ever that Apple's install base is the reason Macs are more secure than Windows. Having network servers off by default and having a default web browser that doesn't run code written in C++, visual basic, and whatever the hell else ActiveX supports these days to be FAR more important than the install base. There are reasons that in the past, if you took a Windows computer out of a brand new box, hooked up via a DSL or Cable modem that your machine was hacked before you were finished logging in for the first time, and it isn't because of the installed base (you do remember that don't you). The Windows machine has active network servers running.

2. Apple doesn't ignore security updates and issues. They fix them. Sometimes even before someone posts about them. If you don't like their update schedule and want Apache or whatnot to be running up-to-date you can install from the CVS just like the Linux and BSD people do. To me it's like saying Red hat doesn't respond rapidly to security holes. If you want a day zero fix, update from CVS. For the common user all of this is irrelevant, since their default install isn't listening to network traffic. Apple has also included other under the hood improvements, just like all other venders, to minimize the risk of buffer over flows.

I'm sorry, Apple's not walking some kind of security minefield just getting lucky all the time. Just like Linux isn't. Unix style security just works very well and is easy to manage. Your computer isn't magic, there's a reason why Microsoft's operating systems are getting owned all the time. There are a LOT of reasons for this, most of them boil down to bad default installs and the environment Microsoft has created within it's developer community. An environment that fosters laziness and has typically done very little to stop their bad practices. Things like making applications that require the admin to be login in order to run. Which in turn leads to the floor level tech just giving everyone admin access.

You computer is not made of magic, there are reasons Microsoft's operating systems suck and people complain about them and it's not because they are "not Apple and have a small install base".

Re:When Will Apple Learn

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746)]

However, there is one thing that I am very troubled by and it is simply this: Apple apparent arrogance and ignorance when it comes to security.

Apple is a mixed bag when it comes to security. They have employees they acquired from other companies specializing in Web technologies, graphics, video, and numerous other topics, as well as old-school Apple employees many of whom do not take security seriously enough. On the other hand they have all the Next employees and all the old-school Unix guys they've hired on to manage the guts, who live and breath security. As a result, in some ways Apple is way ahead of the game for security (like with their new sandboxing and signing frameworks in Leopard) and in others they seem oblivious. I can't think of another consumer desktop oriented OS that ships with so few services running, and with almost all of those sandboxed. Then you get to other things Apple, like some of their userland applications and Web services and you wonder that the same company could produce both of them. Apple is pretty schizo in this regard.

Apple has enjoyed a "blanket" of security because it is low profile and a niche. However, as its market share and mind share expands, this period of respite will soon fade.

I disagree. Apple is a juicy target for exploitation for many reasons. They are less likely to be exploited due to a number of market and social factors, but in general, Apple's security has been fairly sound and that is why they are not worm food. Further, I don't see Apple's security record becoming poor in the future. Apple, Linux, Solaris, etc. all have one major thing that will keep them more secure than Windows is today... motivation. If Apple's security starts to fail for their users, Apple loses money as they move away. Thus, Apple has direct financial motivation to fix the problem, and they will. This is the advantage of a free market. Microsoft, however, has a monopoly, so even when their users are screaming out for better security, MS loses very few, if any, if they ignore their customers and focus instead on locking in a new market and this latter action will make them more money. They have direct financial motivation to do little more than provide the appearance that they are doing something security-wise, and that is what they keep delivering.

You would think that, during this time, Apple would have used the opportunity to develop and internal culture, policies and procedures, as well as infrastructure for dealing effectively with security issues. However, the complete opposite appears to be the case. Apple has failed miserably to publicly and actively address such issues. It also fails to respond in anything that could be called a rapid manner to reports of exploitable security holes. Taking actions such as deleting posts that point out security problems makes the situation worse, not better. Failing to publicly document the existence, status and nature of defects makes the situation worse, not better. Being secretive makes the situation worse, not better.

Here is my experience with Apple's security response. My co-worker found a potentially exploitable hole in OS X. He went to Apple's Web site and reported it as a security bug in the bug report section, not commenting the forums that are for users not Apple employees. Apple sent him a message a few days later saying they'd look into it. A few weeks later the next security update for OS X came out and fixed the problem, including crediting my co-worker with discovering it. It was painless and quite rapid for that large of a project, considering the time for research, coding a fix, testing, and rollout, in fact a lot faster than our average response time to that same priority of bug (and we sell much more critical security devices). From everything I've seen, Apple responds fairly quickly to security issues reported to them and the only instances where there are major problems are where researchers refuse to give Apple details before p

No, incident does prove Apple is lacking ...

[AHumbleOpinion (546848)]

Huh? You seem to have conflated their corporate policy, which is sometimes very stupid, with their security policy, which is generally good. The two have nothing to do with each other. Apple's overzealous moderation of their own forums is well known, and unfortunate. But it has nothing to do with how well they manage their OS security and how well they respond to exploits.

You are very mistaken, this incident does prove that Apple's security policies and responses are indeed lacking. Don't get fixated on the deletion of a post, consider that they did not respond by adding a logout option to a *web* interface.

Re:No, incident does prove Apple is lacking ...

[Trillan (597339)]

You realize that the post was probably deleted by someone in poorly-trained low level support monkeys, right?

Apple has a bug reporting system and an email for security issues. Use them, not the forums, if you want to make sure the post is actually evaluated by someone with understanding of... well, anything technical.

Re:No, incident does prove Apple is lacking ...

[wish bot (265150)]

The few times I have submitted comments/bugs to the ADC bugreport email address, I've always received an answer back (even if it's "we're working on it"). The first time it happened I was completely shocked - it was a real email written by a real person with a real answer. Brilliant.

Re:No, incident does prove Apple is lacking ...

[noewun (591275)]

You are very mistaken, this incident does prove that Apple's security policies and responses are indeed lacking. Don't get fixated on the deletion of a post, consider that they did not respond by adding a logout option to a *web* interface.

How? What is the causal connection? Unless you have specific information about Apple's internal organization, and the relationship between the people who admin their forums and the people who work on OS security, the only connection is the one in your mind. Apple is not a monolithic entity with the ever-vigilant head of Steve Jobs on constant watch. It's a large corporation with multiple divisions, each of which has their regions of control and expertise. The decision to nuke posts about a security flaw, while stupid and short-sighted, does not immediately mean that Apple's OS security people are lax or lazy. They may be working on a fix already. They may not. They may roll it out in a week. They may not. And an article may appear tomorrow which proves that this security "flaw" was vastly overrated and is not that serious.

If you wanted to critique Apple's security prowess you could compile a list of known security flaws, with their severity and a list of how long it took Apple to patch them. That would be a logically constructed argument. However, this is Slashdot, so I won't hold my breath. This is the same lax "logic" which leads to a lot of the Microsoft bashing around here, and it looks stupid no matter which way it's pointed.

Re:No, incident does prove Apple is lacking ...

[NMerriam (15122)]

You claim that what forum admins do is unrelated to security. That is mistaken. Either a forum admin failed to report a security issue or they forum admin reported it and no one felt the need to update a *web interface* in a timely manner. Either scenario indicates that something is lacking at Apple.

Or it indicates that user forums are not the place to report security flaws, and that user forum administrators are in no way able to evaluate what is a stupid user error vs what is an actual security issue across the hundreds of different hardware and software combinations Apple offers. If you think every forum post should simply be echoed to the bug tracker, that's your prerogative, but it seems to be a great way to waste a lot of the qualified bug-squashers' time.

Other Apple security controversy

[DigitAl56K (805623)]

The Reg is currently questioning Apple's approach even in addressing well-known security vulnerabilities that it has actually acknowledged:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/15/apple_security_fixes/ [theregister.co.uk]

Slant much?

[Osty (16825)]

I love how this is a "little", "minor" security flaw, and even though Apple actively deleted the post exposing this information nobody's really up in arms as it's just due to "bad interface design". If this were a Microsoft property, people would be screaming bloody murder.

Huh?

[Yaztromo (655250)]

After accessing your iDisk in Firefox:

• Tools -> Clear Private Data"

In Safari:

• Safari -> Reset Safari

Or if you remember to do so before visiting .Mac's iDisk page:

• Safari -> Private Browsing

Problem solved.

So yes, there are ways for the average user to log-out of their iDisk from a public terminal. They just simply have to use the existing facilities at their disposal.

Yaz.

Re:Huh?

[admactanium (670209)]

That's great and all, but it doesn't change the fact that (a) any web interface with confidential or private information should have an obvious method of logging out that doesn't require specific knowledge about how to delete cookies for a certain browser/applicationn, and (b) Apple is yet again ignoring and censoring users who are pointing out this flaw.

i agree. but fyi, i just did this with my own idisk account. if you quit the browser, then you cannot get back to the idisk interface without a password prompt. there should be a log-out function, but it's not as if it's impossible to end the session.

Re:Huh?

[tedrlord (95173)]

The whole problem is that they're not concerned about security. Most security measures are because users aren't concerned about security. They get really concerned when they find out someone's taken all their stuff, but that's a different subject.

Anyway, as computer nerds, we're supposed to be concerned about computer security. Most people aren't. They have their own concerns. I'm glad that they're around to look after other things, so I don't have to be concerned about my bank running out of money, or my medication not being poisoned, or my car falling apart while I drive it, or all those nice other things that could be a really big problem if there weren't people making sure we were safe.

Anyway, a good computer security example is antivirus software. I stay the hell away from the stuff, it's slow and buggy and bogs down my system more than most viruses do. On linux, it's not an issue since security issues there are better handled by better configuration and monitoring, and on my windows box I just use manual system/network diagnostic tools to keep an eye on it and fix whatever's needed.

Does that mean I recommend the same to my friends? Hell no! I make sure they always run both a good antivirus and a firewall at all times. Otherwise they get viruses constantly. They just don't have the background to understand what they should and shouldn't do to avoid the things, not to mention the lack of skill necessary to deal with viruses as they come.

My friends aren't stupid (most of them anyway), it's just not what they do. They use computers as tools to get things done, and if they're not making it safe and easy to do the work they want, then the computers aren't working right. That's just how it is, and that's why services that allow people to use public terminals need to be built from the ground up to make it secure to use a public terminal.

You'd think Apple of all people (er, companies) would understand the need to make the right interface for different kinds of applications. Well, maybe I'm thinking back to the Eighties, way before their brushed metal/colorful candy era. If I had my way, they'd have canonized Raskin by now.

Re:Huh?

[Knuckles (8964)]

Of course its a toss up if an average user would use a log off button

That's why all bank sites I know log you out if you are inactive for a while. Seems like a good idea.

In other news...

[Dieppe (668614)]

Slashdot editor kdawson and Slashdot submitter deleuth mysteriously disappear...

Re:In other news...

[ColdWetDog (752185)]

Slashdot editor kdawson and Slashdot submitter deleuth mysteriously disappear...

I don't know about M. deleuth, but if Apple's Reality Distortion Field(R) can make kdsawson disappear, I'm buying another Mac. Maybe two.

That's interesting

[Auckerman (223266)]

I've never noticed that before. Probably because desktop WebDav on OS X is so slow that I just use dedicated client apps. The poster isn't being perfectly clear on the whole process for accessing your iDisk via dot mac. Here's how it goes. You sign into dot mac, then you sign into your iDisk. Same username, same password for both. You get a web page that access your WebDav folder on Apple's servers. Signing out of dot mac doesn't sign you out of the iDisk. A simple history check pulls it right back up with full write access to your iDisk (clearly not from web cache). No one would expect that behavior. I would assume there is a network idle time out, as dotmac has.

In real experience terms, this isn't going to be much of an issue until it's fixed, but does put a small stain on the portability of the service. Which is one of Apples main advertising points for it. Gotta remember though, Apple, like all other companies is filled with a lot of people. There are moderators on Apple forums, for all we know one of them removed it then notified management of the problem and it's working it's way up the command. It's not like Steve Jobs read it and said, "OMGWTFBBQ!?!?! PULL THAT NOW!".

Though, the extra publicity will help.

Wait, what??

[Khyber (864651)]

No SSH session for transmission of personal data, and reliable logout for protection? Insane security practice from a now UNIX-certified OS vendor, especially when it comes to something so private as the transfer of one's hard disk contents to an internet backup? Ah well, it was bound to happen, and it has probably happened in the past, and will likely happen again in the future. Anyone can slip up.

You are a heretic, sir!

[Quiet_Desperation (858215)]

Anyone can slip up.

Ah, but this is Slashdot, where corporations are composed of primordial evil and capitalism is the beefy fart of the Devil. Every slip up is cause for running to the hills to prepare revolutionary strikes, and then run to the other hills and plan counter-revolutionary terror, and we all run around like decapitated chickens shouting comforting mantras like "Information wants to be free!" and "It am teh suk!"

Re:How many people actually use iDisk?

[admactanium (670209)]

So, my question is, how many people actually use iDisk? How much of a problem is this actually.

actually, i use it all the time. it's a very convenient way for me to let clients download files. i have a hosting account with a traditional host as well, but i never went through the trouble of making/figuring out a nice-looking interface for my clients to use. with idisk i throw them into the public folder, then log into the web interface to set-up/edit their download page. obviously, this isn't great for confidential information, but i rarely deal with stuff that sensitive. i also host one of my personal websites on .mac. i will say however that i don't use the finder's idisk implementation nor do i manage the input/output of my files on the web. i just ftp into my idisk and then deal with the interface afterwards. ftp is much faster than the native interface. but i do find idisk to be really convenient in my particular case.