crazipper writes "Tom's Hardware interviewed Charlie Miller, winner of this year's Pwn2Own contest and formerly with the NSA. He discusses the effort it took before the contest to be able to take down a MacBook within seconds, sandboxing, and the effectiveness of the NX bit and ASLR. His outlook on end-users protecting themselves against attacks? 'Users are at the mercy of the products they buy.'"
ASLR is just more defense in depth. Real security, physical or virtual, comes from having multiple layers. While it is a nice theory to say "Well just make sure X is secure and nothing will ever get past it," that doesn't work in reality. Shit happens, your border security can fail. Thus real security comes in multiple levels. Not all of them are as critical or as effective as others, but they all help.
ASLR is just another level. If you find a flaw in some software connected to the network, you now have an additional problem in terms of getting code to execute. Is it insurmountable? No, but it is just more shit to get around.
The more levels of security you have, the less likely someone is to break through all of it, especially before you notice they are trying. Have a border firewall, and host based firewalls. Run a virus scanner on every computer. Enable execute disable on systems. Operate as a deprivileged user whenever possible and so on. The more you do, the more things there are to trip up an attacker. Don't say "Well we don't need this because we have this other thing."
I see that most common with firewalls. People will have a network firewall and thus assume that host based firewalls aren't worth the trouble. Well, they are. What if something gets by the network firewall? Just because it isn't supposed to doesn't mean it won't happen. Maybe someone brings in an owned laptop, maybe there's a flaw in the firewall, maybe yo just set it up wrong. Whatever, point is have multiple security layers. Make it so that just because you got by the network firewall, doesn't mean you are in.
So while I certainly wouldn't want to see a company rely on ASLR, as in say "No we don't need to fix that app bug, they can't exploit it since we randomize addresses," I do like it as another layer of defense. Not a magic bullet, but just that much harder to get in.
Yes, layers of security are indeed the key. Any one layer isn't totally impenetrable but, like layering nets over nets over nets, if you have enough layers then eventually you end up with something that's damn-near watertight.
People always laugh at me because they can't get on my wireless at home easily when they visit. This is because it has:
- WPA2 with secure passphrase and MAC filtering (so this defeats 99% of my visitor's casual attempts to log on) - Onto a locked-down network with only one visible IP and on that IP, only one visible port (all clients have their own firewalls so that they regard the wireless as "untrusted" and don't transmit information over it) and that port is only open to known IP's. So even if they do get onto the network by sniffing / guessing/stealing the key (or WPA2 is cracked, etc.), there's nothing interesting to look at with nmap or sniff. - On that port, an instance of OpenVPN which is secured by its own key infrastructure with passphrases. - On that VPN, you have to set IP's, DNS and proxy correctly (and manually, no DHCP!) or nothing goes out.
Yet, on the "authentic" client side, all you have to do is copy some keys from a USB key and run one little tiny script and everything just runs... I even play Counterstrike over the wireless/VPN and don't even notice any extra latency. But when WPA2 is cracked, or OpenVPN has a bug discovered in it, or MAC filtering is rendered useless (already is, I know), or they guess my internal network numbering etc. then I have still bought myself an incredible amount of time and security to fix the problem before anybody can get onto the network - and anyone trying will be tripping over so many wires that I will notice them trying and just switch it off until I'm sure it's secure. And, from the outside, it just looks like an ordinary wireless connection. You could go overboard - I could run SSH over the VPN, I could hide the wireless broadcasts, I even have a port-knocking setup that I can use to authenticate the opening of ports, without affecting my use of the system.
Security is a question of probability... it's not that your security guard couldn't be overcome, or the safe cracked, or the cameras disabled, or the alarm cut, but that the chances of that ALL happening without anyone noticing are incredibly slim.
The NX bit should have always been there, and the fact that it wasn't is incomprehensibly stupid.
x86 was originally designed with a segmented memory model. You'd have one segment for code, one for data, one for stack. It was (and is) indeed possible to set data and stack segments non-executable. Actually, I believe this is achieved by the simple expedient of all jump instructions automatically using the CS (code segment) register, with no option to use any others -- thus you can't jump to or call the data or stack segments unless they overlap with the code segment.
I agree. One time when I was cleaning malware off of a neighbors computer (wasn't my idea, I got volunteered by someone else in my household), the NX bit kept one of those annoying fake antivirus ones from reinstalling itself when I had Procmon kill its process. At least I think it was Procmon.
Anyway, Windows came up with a nice dialog box telling me that execution was blocked, and it didn't appear to be running after a reboot.
Because you would end up being able to sue almost everyone... ask the same type of question about a car and you will get the same answer "Why can't I sue a car manufacturer for a shitty design?"... "Because you would end up being able to sue almost anyone"
I illustrate the ridiculousness of your question, I'll rephrase it "Why can't you sue the construction company that built your house if someone vandalizes oor you suffer a loss due to break and enter?"
Because you're not buying the software you have none of the explicit protections of a normal sale. You're licensing it. And read the license: "We don't guarantee this even does anything. It could wipe your hard drive for all you know. WE PROMISE NOTHING"
If you do want software that approaches optimal security, it is going to be expensive, not as expensive as making sure it has no bugs, but similar
There would be no software companies left, and we try to avoid making laws that wipe out an entire industry.
When someone I'm working with writes a bug or leaves a security hole, I tease them, but the truth is I still have not found a way to write bug-free code myself. You can't really sue someone for not doing something that is impossible.
OK, I admit some companies could do a significantly better job of making things secure. The article gives a couple examples of what Apple could have done to make their code more secure. But if it were possible to sue someone for that, I would be quite worried personally, as a programmer, I don't trust a jury to determine what is a reasonable vulnerability and what is not, so from my point of view it is better to not make insecure software illegal. And in most non-internet code, security isn't really an issue.
But if you want something with guaranteed security or uptime or the like, you aren't going to be allowed to mess with it. That means whatever software/features it comes with, you are stuck with. No installing 3rd party tools and such. The design needs to be verified, which means testing all the components against each other and making sure there are no unexpected problems.
So not only would your computer be more expensive, and use older technology (since it'd take longer to develop and test) but it'd be an a
You know what? Fuck Mozilla in the ear for putting that shit in all capital letters. There is no reason to do so, unless you actively want people to not read and understand it.
Actually it's a legal requirement: under the Uniform Commercial Code, some items in a contract/license, like warranties or disclaimers, must be conspicuous [cornell.edu]. CAPITALS MAKE THEM SO.
Tom's Hardware [NEXT PAGE>
PWNs & OwnZ U [NEXT PAGE>
If you read [NEXT PAGE>
their articles [To continue reading this comment, click here [brokenlink.com] ]
It's true. Not only that, but the interviewer ended up with the majority of the words on the screen anyway. I don't know why the interviewer felt the need to talk so much, but I would have much preferred if the questions were shorter and the answers longer.
"Vulnerabilities have a market value so it makes no sense to work hard to find a bug, write an exploit and then give it away."
Who know what other goodies they have in store. But the browsers and the phones were hardly touched. The contestants are holding out for something better.
yeah it's a little sad that these guys are hoarding this info for so long just to win a stupid contest. And he only had to use one of these exploits. What else is he's hoarding for next year?
Just saying that that might be of interest to someone with time to get his macbook ya know;p he does carry around to many countries.
Try this then - I have the cure for Cancer (all of it), but I will only take the bounty for each one. How much will you give me for breast cancer? Oh and BTW I set my own price.
yeah it's a little sad that these guys are hoarding this info for so long just to win a stupid contest. And he only had to use one of these exploits. What else is he's hoarding for next year?
Which is why software vendors should have standing bounties for useful exploits or, at very least, make a point of hiring these people to do pen testing on their software.
It's not like if he spills it all then the platform will be secure.. there are a million vulnerabilities and he's not doing anything wrong by keeping a few up his sleeve.
I've been in a lengthy argument about this guy on the Ars Technica forums. I ended up emailing Bruce Schneier [schneier.com] about this and asked his thoughts.
Here was my email to him:
Hi Bruce,
I've been following the Pwn2Own contest for the last couple of years. Last year a researcher from ISE ( http://securityevaluators.com/ [securityevaluators.com] ) named Charlie Miller used an exploit in a Perl library included in WebKit, the base code for Apple's Safari browser and won a cash price for his effort. In the press it was claimed he "hacked Safari in mere seconds". In truth it took a lot more time than that to devise the exploit and only seconds to execute it.
This year he did it again with another preplanned exploit which he says he discovered while researching last years bug. Again he won a cash prize of $10,000.
In an interview with ZDNet he said: "I never give up free bugs. I have a new campaign. It's called NO MORE FREE BUGS. Vulnerabilities have a market value so it makes no sense to work hard to find a bug, write an exploit and then give it away," Miller told ZDNet. "Apple pays people to do the same job so we know there's value to this work."
I have a major problem with his philosophy and feel this is a dangerous precedent to set and a bastardization of the goals of security in the fist place. I feel he has an obligation to inform Apple and not dangle a dollar amount for the how-to.
Sure he should be paid for his time and effort which is why he works at a security firm. This contest is basically bonus money and about bragging rights. Sitting on a bug puts the safety of other users at risk. But he is basically demanding bribe money for bugs. Who is to say he wouldn't give up his research to the highest bidder? I'm sure there are blackhat groups like those in Russia and China that would pay handsomely for some juicy exploits like this.
Yes there is a long history of security firms hiring hackers and there have been many questions of whether that is a good idea. But security firms should take notice of this philosophy and not employee those who engage in this kind of behavior. It's bad form for his employer and makes the security industry as a whole look bad by proxy. Would you hire a security company that employees hackers who blackmail for bugs to work on your systems? If we hired his firm while I was working IT at a large New York bank I would advised my boss to make sure he's not on our project (and perhaps hire an entirely different firm altogether).
I've been in a discussion with other users about this. There seems to be a split in viewpoint, one side saying he should let Apple and the WebKit developers know about this exploit for the betterment of everyone (for free). The other side feels this is purely about capitalism and he has no moral or ethical obligation to tell anyone.
Some have likened it to seeing a crack in a bridge that might fail. Are you obligated to inform someone of the problem? What if Dan Kaminsky demanded $1 million to divulge details on the DNS BIND problem?
Between Mac and PC, I'd say that Macs are less secure for the reasons we've discussed here (lack of anti-exploitation technologies) but are more safe because there simply isn't much malware out there.
That pretty much been my take on the situation as well. Vista SP1 really is one of the most secure OSes I've used.
They glossed over Linux on this question, but I suspect Vista SP1 is probably more secure than linux too 'out of the box'... but again less safe in actual practice. Again simply due to the sheer relative volume of malware and the relative high value of windows exploits to linux ones.
(Although Linux at least does have 'SE Linux', AppArmor, Exec Shield, support for ASLR, etc, etc so its more a case that its just not on by default yet. (Ironically a complaint usually levelled at Windows).
And while improvements are added with each kernel release, too Linux admins refuse to install them because would reset their belowed uptime scores which they feel the need to post to/. on a regular basis...
Surely he meant that the mac is easy to break if you DROP it or knock it off your desk. That's what went through my head. That has to be it... Whew... Getting warm in here... ahhhh... pressure... aghhhh! (pfffft!) [youtube.com]
I'm beginning to think this "Mac zealot" business is a figment of overly sensitive Windows users imaginations. I work at a place where around 40-50% of the employees choose to use a Mac. The only derisive comments I EVER hear are little snipes aimed at Macs by the Windows crowd. "The page isn't loading? Is it because you're using a Mac?" "You just can't get any work done on a Mac." And yet the Windows crowd loves to complain about Microsoft. I think Microsoft owes their success to the Stockholm syndrome.
The first rule next page>
about robot overlords is next page> we don't talk about robot overlords next page> !!!
-- http://vancouvercondo.info [vancouvercondo.info]
Linux is NOT perfect. Anyone who thinks so is either an idiot or lying. For a lot of people, it is the best and of much better quality and calibre than the alternatives (windows, macOS), but definitely not perfect.
Disclaimer: Proud Ubuntu user since 7.10 and have never even considered moving back to windows.
I think the OP's comment about perfect was within the context of the most basic users. And I'd agree. For the vast majority of "simple" tasks (a very ambiguous statement), the setup/use of Linux (esp. Ubuntu) is exceptionally easy (also subjective).
Within the spheres of some Windows power users, who understand the ins and outs of Windows perfectly, Linux is foreign and useless. But the same could be said about Linux power users and Windows. So that is more of a statement about the difficulty users who are strongly versed in one OS have in switching to another. And that proves nothing in the Linux vs. Windows debate.
As far as security is concerned, I'd probably argue that Linux is more secure, but not completely secure. It's possible to get a Linux box completely screwed up (someone was talking about that here, where they accidentally exposed a Linux box with a very old version of OpenSSL to the web and got it compromised), but the question of which is easier to get more secure, or which will have fewer issues. No software is perfect (please no BSD comments), it's all a game of lesser of two evils.
Uh, I think you're quite wrong there. I know more than a few Grandmas running Linux. The thing is, they're the ones that usually need the least amount of software. A browser, maybe e-mail if they don't do it in a browser, that's about it. Linux is perfect.
You can't be serious.
Of those "more than a few" Grandmas you know running Linux, how many bought and set up their own computer? How many Grandmas do you know that enjoy compiling drivers?
I'm not a Mac user myself, but for what it's worth, my own Grandma was able to buy herself a Mac and get it plugged in and running on her own. It's similarly easy with a Windows machine as soon as you figure out where all the plugs go, Windows setup is a breeze.
Sure, they need help figuring out what to do once the thing i
Um... how many grandmas do you know who set up their own windows machine? Plugging it in doesn't count, they have to actually install windows.
0?
thought so. Windows is just as much of a PitA as Linux, and the same people who need help setting up one need help setting up the other.
Where Linux fails is the power users, who have learned how to do things beyond email (that someone else set up) in windows, and who have to re learn a sometimes less intuitive way in Linux. (that and peripheral hardware)
If grandma needs to use Linux, she just seduces a 20 something... and gets any task done correctly and for free.
Thats where grandma's decades of real life experience is more useful than a 20 something's decade in moms basement.
Grandma can seduce her way onto any OS or system or network.
Or just have the best looking forum, blog, webpage or social networking page ever.
The best part is she passed the same skills onto her daughter too.
PC has not meant "personal computer" for a long, long time. If every "personal computer" is a PC, then your iPhone is a PC. Your freaking wristwatch is a PC. I think we can all agree that this usage is dead. "PC" means an Intel architecture computer capable of running Windows. It stands for nothing. Let's call it an "obsolete-cronym"
Whenever I hear someone referring to systems like that I get in a mood to tell them off. Last time I checked PC meant Personal Computer.
Actually, as I recall the term was originally, "IBM compatible personal computer". Thus, the term excluded Macs. It was shortened to "PC" after the meaning was established.
NX and ASLR (Score:2)
The NX bit is awesome.
ASLR is effective, but it's generally used as a way to slow down attackers after they've already figured out how to break your broken shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:NX and ASLR (Score:5, Insightful)
ASLR is just more defense in depth. Real security, physical or virtual, comes from having multiple layers. While it is a nice theory to say "Well just make sure X is secure and nothing will ever get past it," that doesn't work in reality. Shit happens, your border security can fail. Thus real security comes in multiple levels. Not all of them are as critical or as effective as others, but they all help.
ASLR is just another level. If you find a flaw in some software connected to the network, you now have an additional problem in terms of getting code to execute. Is it insurmountable? No, but it is just more shit to get around.
The more levels of security you have, the less likely someone is to break through all of it, especially before you notice they are trying. Have a border firewall, and host based firewalls. Run a virus scanner on every computer. Enable execute disable on systems. Operate as a deprivileged user whenever possible and so on. The more you do, the more things there are to trip up an attacker. Don't say "Well we don't need this because we have this other thing."
I see that most common with firewalls. People will have a network firewall and thus assume that host based firewalls aren't worth the trouble. Well, they are. What if something gets by the network firewall? Just because it isn't supposed to doesn't mean it won't happen. Maybe someone brings in an owned laptop, maybe there's a flaw in the firewall, maybe yo just set it up wrong. Whatever, point is have multiple security layers. Make it so that just because you got by the network firewall, doesn't mean you are in.
So while I certainly wouldn't want to see a company rely on ASLR, as in say "No we don't need to fix that app bug, they can't exploit it since we randomize addresses," I do like it as another layer of defense. Not a magic bullet, but just that much harder to get in.
Parent
Re:NX and ASLR (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, layers of security are indeed the key. Any one layer isn't totally impenetrable but, like layering nets over nets over nets, if you have enough layers then eventually you end up with something that's damn-near watertight.
People always laugh at me because they can't get on my wireless at home easily when they visit. This is because it has:
- WPA2 with secure passphrase and MAC filtering (so this defeats 99% of my visitor's casual attempts to log on) /stealing the key (or WPA2 is cracked, etc.), there's nothing interesting to look at with nmap or sniff.
- Onto a locked-down network with only one visible IP and on that IP, only one visible port (all clients have their own firewalls so that they regard the wireless as "untrusted" and don't transmit information over it) and that port is only open to known IP's. So even if they do get onto the network by sniffing / guessing
- On that port, an instance of OpenVPN which is secured by its own key infrastructure with passphrases.
- On that VPN, you have to set IP's, DNS and proxy correctly (and manually, no DHCP!) or nothing goes out.
Yet, on the "authentic" client side, all you have to do is copy some keys from a USB key and run one little tiny script and everything just runs... I even play Counterstrike over the wireless/VPN and don't even notice any extra latency. But when WPA2 is cracked, or OpenVPN has a bug discovered in it, or MAC filtering is rendered useless (already is, I know), or they guess my internal network numbering etc. then I have still bought myself an incredible amount of time and security to fix the problem before anybody can get onto the network - and anyone trying will be tripping over so many wires that I will notice them trying and just switch it off until I'm sure it's secure. And, from the outside, it just looks like an ordinary wireless connection. You could go overboard - I could run SSH over the VPN, I could hide the wireless broadcasts, I even have a port-knocking setup that I can use to authenticate the opening of ports, without affecting my use of the system.
Security is a question of probability... it's not that your security guard couldn't be overcome, or the safe cracked, or the cameras disabled, or the alarm cut, but that the chances of that ALL happening without anyone noticing are incredibly slim.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The NX bit should have always been there, and the fact that it wasn't is incomprehensibly stupid.
x86 was originally designed with a segmented memory model. You'd have one segment for code, one for data, one for stack. It was (and is) indeed possible to set data and stack segments non-executable. Actually, I believe this is achieved by the simple expedient of all jump instructions automatically using the CS (code segment) register, with no option to use any others -- thus you can't jump to or call the data or stack segments unless they overlap with the code segment.
The problem is, in practice peopl
Re:NX and ASLR (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree. One time when I was cleaning malware off of a neighbors computer (wasn't my idea, I got volunteered by someone else in my household), the NX bit kept one of those annoying fake antivirus ones from reinstalling itself when I had Procmon kill its process. At least I think it was Procmon.
Anyway, Windows came up with a nice dialog box telling me that execution was blocked, and it didn't appear to be running after a reboot.
Parent
so buy nothing (Score:2)
at then you will not be at anyone's mercy ...of course you may not be able to do much then..
I'm Just saying'
Re: (Score:2)
Pirating software won't make it any less vulnerable...
Wording (Score:2)
Users are at the mercy of the products they buy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Because you would end up being able to sue almost everyone... ask the same type of question about a car and you will get the same answer
Actually, you CAN sue a car company if their poor design causes you harm - think of the Ford Pinto or any number of automotive recalls.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Because the EULA says so.
*dodges rotten tomatoes*
Re:Users are at the mercy of the products they buy (Score:5, Insightful)
The same reason you can't sue an alarm company when someone breaks into your house.
If your data is
Parent
Re:Users are at the mercy of the products they buy (Score:5, Insightful)
I illustrate the ridiculousness of your question, I'll rephrase it "Why can't you sue the construction company that built your house if someone vandalizes oor you suffer a loss due to break and enter?"
Parent
Re:Users are at the mercy of the products they buy (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why can't you sue a software company if you suffer a loss due to poor security in their product?
You can. You are just highly unlikely to win.
Re:Users are at the mercy of the products they buy (Score:5, Insightful)
When someone I'm working with writes a bug or leaves a security hole, I tease them, but the truth is I still have not found a way to write bug-free code myself. You can't really sue someone for not doing something that is impossible.
OK, I admit some companies could do a significantly better job of making things secure. The article gives a couple examples of what Apple could have done to make their code more secure. But if it were possible to sue someone for that, I would be quite worried personally, as a programmer, I don't trust a jury to determine what is a reasonable vulnerability and what is not, so from my point of view it is better to not make insecure software illegal. And in most non-internet code, security isn't really an issue.
Parent
Not only that (Score:3, Interesting)
But if you want something with guaranteed security or uptime or the like, you aren't going to be allowed to mess with it. That means whatever software/features it comes with, you are stuck with. No installing 3rd party tools and such. The design needs to be verified, which means testing all the components against each other and making sure there are no unexpected problems.
So not only would your computer be more expensive, and use older technology (since it'd take longer to develop and test) but it'd be an a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You know what? Fuck Mozilla in the ear for putting that shit in all capital letters. There is no reason to do so, unless you actively want people to not read and understand it.
Actually it's a legal requirement: under the Uniform Commercial Code, some items in a contract/license, like warranties or disclaimers, must be conspicuous [cornell.edu]. CAPITALS MAKE THEM SO.
pwnd & ownD (Score:5, Insightful)
Tom's Hardware
[NEXT PAGE>
PWNs & OwnZ U
[NEXT PAGE>
If you read
[NEXT PAGE>
their articles
[To continue reading this comment, click here [brokenlink.com] ]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:pwnd & ownD (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
He was sitting on the winning weakness (Score:5, Insightful)
since last year.
A quote from another interview:
"Vulnerabilities have a market value so it makes no sense to work hard to find a bug, write an exploit and then give it away."
Who know what other goodies they have in store. But the browsers and the phones were hardly touched. The contestants are holding out for something better.
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably very easy to work out.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Just saying that that might be of interest to someone with time to get his macbook ya know ;p he does carry around to many countries.
Just tip off the TSA. They'll confiscate it in a heartbeat.
Then its just a matter of liberating it from the TSA and getting it into the hands of someone who'll know how to read the information on it.
Baby steps...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The software companies could offer worthwhile bounties. Short of that, I can't fault the prizewinners much.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Try this then - I have the cure for Cancer (all of it), but I will only take the bounty for each one. How much will you give me for breast cancer? Oh and BTW I set my own price.
This guy is the Pharma of computers.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah it's a little sad that these guys are hoarding this info for so long just to win a stupid contest. And he only had to use one of these exploits. What else is he's hoarding for next year?
Which is why software vendors should have standing bounties for useful exploits or, at very least, make a point of hiring these people to do pen testing on their software.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:He was sitting on the winning weakness (Score:4, Interesting)
I've been in a lengthy argument about this guy on the Ars Technica forums. I ended up emailing Bruce Schneier [schneier.com] about this and asked his thoughts.
Here was my email to him:
Hi Bruce,
I've been following the Pwn2Own contest for the last couple of years.
Last year a researcher from ISE ( http://securityevaluators.com/ [securityevaluators.com] )
named Charlie Miller used an exploit in a Perl library included in
WebKit, the base code for Apple's Safari browser and won a cash price
for his effort. In the press it was claimed he "hacked Safari in mere
seconds". In truth it took a lot more time than that to devise the
exploit and only seconds to execute it.
This year he did it again with another preplanned exploit which he
says he discovered while researching last years bug. Again he won a
cash prize of $10,000.
In an interview with ZDNet he said: "I never give up free bugs. I have
a new campaign. It's called NO MORE FREE BUGS. Vulnerabilities have a
market value so it makes no sense to work hard to find a bug, write an
exploit and then give it away," Miller told ZDNet. "Apple pays people
to do the same job so we know there's value to this work."
I have a major problem with his philosophy and feel this is a
dangerous precedent to set and a bastardization of the goals of
security in the fist place. I feel he has an obligation to inform
Apple and not dangle a dollar amount for the how-to.
Sure he should be paid for his time and effort which is why he works
at a security firm. This contest is basically bonus money and about
bragging rights. Sitting on a bug puts the safety of other users at
risk. But he is basically demanding bribe money for bugs. Who is to
say he wouldn't give up his research to the highest bidder? I'm sure
there are blackhat groups like those in Russia and China that would
pay handsomely for some juicy exploits like this.
Yes there is a long history of security firms hiring hackers and there
have been many questions of whether that is a good idea. But security
firms should take notice of this philosophy and not employee those who
engage in this kind of behavior. It's bad form for his employer and
makes the security industry as a whole look bad by proxy. Would you
hire a security company that employees hackers who blackmail for bugs
to work on your systems? If we hired his firm while I was working IT
at a large New York bank I would advised my boss to make sure he's not
on our project (and perhaps hire an entirely different firm altogether).
I've been in a discussion with other users about this. There seems to
be a split in viewpoint, one side saying he should let Apple and the
WebKit developers know about this exploit for the betterment of
everyone (for free). The other side feels this is purely about
capitalism and he has no moral or ethical obligation to tell anyone.
Some have likened it to seeing a crack in a bridge that might fail.
Are you obligated to inform someone of the problem? What if Dan
Kaminsky demanded $1 million to divulge details on the DNS BIND problem?
What are your feelings on this?
Thanks
Here's the discussion I've been following:
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/174096756/m/996001677931?r=869003677931#869003677931 [arstechnica.com]
http://dvlabs.tippingpoint.com/blog/2009/03/21/pwn2own-wrap-up [tippingpoint.com]
Bruce wrote me back today with his response:
There's a fine line between being paid for your efforts and extortion. This seems to cross it.
Parent
I think the best quote was... (Score:5, Interesting)
Between Mac and PC, I'd say that Macs are less secure for the reasons we've discussed here (lack of anti-exploitation technologies) but are more safe because there simply isn't much malware out there.
That pretty much been my take on the situation as well. Vista SP1 really is one of the most secure OSes I've used.
They glossed over Linux on this question, but I suspect Vista SP1 is probably more secure than linux too 'out of the box'... but again less safe in actual practice. Again simply due to the sheer relative volume of malware and the relative high value of windows exploits to linux ones.
(Although Linux at least does have 'SE Linux', AppArmor, Exec Shield, support for ASLR, etc, etc so its more a case that its just not on by default yet. (Ironically a complaint usually levelled at Windows).
And while improvements are added with each kernel release, too Linux admins refuse to install them because would reset their belowed uptime scores which they feel the need to post to /. on a regular basis...
I kid... I kid...
How can you not love this guy? (Score:5, Funny)
Every time you quote this, somewhere in the world a mac zealot's head explodes. I just did my part :P
Re: (Score:2)
Surely he meant that the mac is easy to break if you DROP it or knock it off your desk. That's what went through my head. That has to be it... Whew... Getting warm in here... ahhhh... pressure... aghhhh! (pfffft!) [youtube.com]
Re:How can you not love this guy? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm beginning to think this "Mac zealot" business is a figment of overly sensitive Windows users imaginations. I work at a place where around 40-50% of the employees choose to use a Mac. The only derisive comments I EVER hear are little snipes aimed at Macs by the Windows crowd. "The page isn't loading? Is it because you're using a Mac?" "You just can't get any work done on a Mac." And yet the Windows crowd loves to complain about Microsoft. I think Microsoft owes their success to the Stockholm syndrome.
Parent
ASLR? (Score:5, Funny)
in other movies.. (Score:2, Funny)
next page>
about robot overlords is
next page>
we don't talk about robot overlords
next page>
!!!
--
http://vancouvercondo.info [vancouvercondo.info]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
we don't talk about robot overlords
--
Ya, know.... I thought about that. Then I thought...what if they know what I'm thinking?!!
So then, naturally, I didn't think about that. Showed them!
Re:Grandma can't run Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux is NOT perfect. Anyone who thinks so is either an idiot or lying. For a lot of people, it is the best and of much better quality and calibre than the alternatives (windows, macOS), but definitely not perfect.
Disclaimer: Proud Ubuntu user since 7.10 and have never even considered moving back to windows.
Parent
Re:Grandma can't run Linux? (Score:4, Insightful)
Within the spheres of some Windows power users, who understand the ins and outs of Windows perfectly, Linux is foreign and useless. But the same could be said about Linux power users and Windows. So that is more of a statement about the difficulty users who are strongly versed in one OS have in switching to another. And that proves nothing in the Linux vs. Windows debate.
As far as security is concerned, I'd probably argue that Linux is more secure, but not completely secure. It's possible to get a Linux box completely screwed up (someone was talking about that here, where they accidentally exposed a Linux box with a very old version of OpenSSL to the web and got it compromised), but the question of which is easier to get more secure, or which will have fewer issues. No software is perfect (please no BSD comments), it's all a game of lesser of two evils.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, I think you're quite wrong there. I know more than a few Grandmas running Linux. The thing is, they're the ones that usually need the least amount of software. A browser, maybe e-mail if they don't do it in a browser, that's about it. Linux is perfect.
You can't be serious.
Of those "more than a few" Grandmas you know running Linux, how many bought and set up their own computer? How many Grandmas do you know that enjoy compiling drivers?
I'm not a Mac user myself, but for what it's worth, my own Grandma was able to buy herself a Mac and get it plugged in and running on her own. It's similarly easy with a Windows machine as soon as you figure out where all the plugs go, Windows setup is a breeze.
Sure, they need help figuring out what to do once the thing i
Re:Grandma can't run Linux? (Score:4, Insightful)
Um... how many grandmas do you know who set up their own windows machine? Plugging it in doesn't count, they have to actually install windows.
0?
thought so. Windows is just as much of a PitA as Linux, and the same people who need help setting up one need help setting up the other.
Where Linux fails is the power users, who have learned how to do things beyond email (that someone else set up) in windows, and who have to re learn a sometimes less intuitive way in Linux. (that and peripheral hardware)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, you must be talking about the mythical "Aunt Tilly"
Please provide some proof of these Grandmas' existence... I would like to see some actual seniors using Linux
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, here [slashdot.org] you [slashdot.org] go [slashdot.org].
Re:Grandma can't run Linux? (Score:4, Funny)
Thats where grandma's decades of real life experience is more useful than a 20 something's decade in moms basement.
Grandma can seduce her way onto any OS or system or network.
Or just have the best looking forum, blog, webpage or social networking page ever.
The best part is she passed the same skills onto her daughter too.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whenever I hear someone referring to systems like that I get in a mood to tell them off. Last time I checked PC meant Personal Computer.
Actually, as I recall the term was originally, "IBM compatible personal computer". Thus, the term excluded Macs. It was shortened to "PC" after the meaning was established.