Login  |  Register  |  Contact

Mac

Monday, February 18, 2013

AV’s False Sense of Security (and a possible Mac hack?)

By Rich

Oh F-Secure, how you amuse me.

In a post about the hack of Facebook, F-Secure claims it is likely Macs were targeted, and that this could be related to the recent Twitter hack:

And while everybody else is bashing Oracle, we have a more interesting question: what malware on what type of laptop?

Why? Because Macs are the type of laptop we almost aways see in Facebook’s employee photos.

and

Well, interestingly enough, last Friday evening, we received (via a mailing list) new Mac malware samples to analyze. Samples that were uploaded to VirusTotal on January 31st, one day before Twitter’s announcement.

Now look, I see where they are coming from, and I know Macs get infected by malware at times (especially when targeted), but the evidence is definitely too thin to speak in absolutes here. But then it gets worse:

There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of mobile apps in the world. How many of the apps’ developers do you think have visited a mobile developer website recently? With a Mac… and a very false sense of security?

Er… how about we go back to Facebook’s post on the hack (quoted by F-Secure themselves):

The laptops were fully-patched and running up-to-date anti-virus software.

In other words, Mac or Windows, whatever the platform, it was patched with AV installed. That seems like a safer conclusion to draw, without resorting to pictures of Macs on Facebook’s website.

–Rich

Friday, February 08, 2013

Flash actively exploited on Windows and Mac; how to contain, not just patch

By Rich

Adobe just released a Flash update due to active exploitation on both Macs (yes, Macs) and Windows:

Adobe is also aware of reports that CVE-2013-0634 is being exploited in the wild in attacks delivered via malicious Flash (SWF) content hosted on websites that target Flash Player in Firefox or Safari on the Macintosh platform, as well as attacks designed to trick Windows users into opening a Microsoft Word document delivered as an email attachment which contains malicious Flash (SWF) content.

Instead of patching, do the following:

  1. Uninstall Flash from your computer (WIndows, Mac).
  2. Download Google Chrome.
  3. Profit!

Use Chrome’s internal Flash sandbox, so you can uninstall Flash at the OS level. Not perfect, but much better than using Flash through other browsers and having it available on your system for things like those nasty embedded Word attachments.

–Rich

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Most Consumers Don’t Need Mac AV

By Rich

I can’t believe I forgot to post here when I put the article up on TidBITS, but here you go:

Do You Need Mac Antivirus Software in 2013?

While Macs aren’t immune to malicious software (malware), and we even experienced one reasonably widespread incident in 2012, malware on Macs is still not nearly common enough to recommend antivirus software for everyone. And while antivirus tools are effective against certain known attacks, they often don’t provide the level of protection people expect.

If Mac antivirus tools offered 100 percent effectiveness – or even 99 percent – I might take a different position. If we ever see massive volumes of malware, as happens in the Windows world, I might change my recommendations. But at this point, there are so few Mac malware infections, and antivirus tools are so limited, that for most users of current versions of OS X, antivirus doesn’t make sense.

During the Flashback infection there were accusations that Mac users were too smug, or too ill-informed, to install antivirus software. But the reality is that antivirus tools offer only limited protection, and relying on antivirus for your security is as naive as believing Macs are invulnerable.

Enterprises are a different story.

–Rich

Monday, January 24, 2011

Rich at Macworld

By Rich

Just a quick note that I'm speaking at the Macworld conference this Friday in San Francisco on iOS security.

This is one of the few times I get to talk about basics with a completely-consumer audience. Last year was my first time speaking (after attending for a few years), and you can't spend any time there and still believe the stupid "Mac users think they are invulnerable and don't care about security" meme.

There are two cool things about this year. First, that I was invited; with the new baby I missed the call for papers and wasn't planning on speaking, but it seems they wanted some more security content. Second, that this is hands-on. I have a 75 minute session to walk everyone through securing their iOS devices (and yes, un-jailbreaking is high on the list).

If you are there, drop me a line. I get in Thursday afternoon and fly home Friday night... normally I like to have more time, but it's too close to RSA this year and it's hard to get out for back to back trips with my kids so young.

–Rich

Thursday, May 28, 2009

The Government Must Save Our Children from Apple!

By Macalope

Editors Note: This morning I awoke in my well-secured hotel room to find a sticky note on my laptop that said, “The Securosis site is now under my control. Do not attempt to remove me our you will suffer my wrath. Best regards, The Macalope.”

ComputerWorld has published an interesting opinion piece from Ira Winkler entitled “Man selling book writes incendiary Mac troll bait”.

Oh, wait, that’s not the title! Ha-ha! That would be silly! What with it being so overly frank.

No, the title is “It’s time for the FTC to investigate Mac security”.

You might be confused about the clumsy phrasing because the FTC, of course, doesn’t investigate computer security, it investigates the veracity of advertising claims. What Winkler believes the FTC should investigate is whether Apple is violating trade laws by claiming in its commercials that Macs are less affected by viruses than Windows.

Apple gives people the false impression that they don’t have to worry about security if they use a Mac.

Really? The ads don’t say Macs are invulnerable. They say that Macs don’t have the same problem with exploits that Windows has. And it’s been the Macalope’s experience that people get that. The switchers he’s come into contact with seem to know exactly the score: more people use Windows so malicious coders have, to date, almost exclusively targeted Windows.

Some people – many of them security professionals like WInkler – find this simple fact unfair. Sadly, life isn’t fair.

Well, “sadly” for Windows users. Not so much for Mac users. We’re kind of enjoying it.

And perhaps because the company is invested in fostering that impression, Apple is grossly negligent in fixing problems. The proof-of-concept code in this case is proof that Apple has not provided a fix for a vulnerability that was identified six months ago. There is no excuse for that.

On this point, the Macalope and Winkler are in agreement. There is no excuse for that. The horny one thinks the company has been too lax on implementing a serious security policy and was one of many Mac bloggers to take the company to task for laughing off shipping infected iPods. He’s hopeful the recent hire of security architect Ivan Krstic signals a new era for the company.

But let’s get back to Winkler’s call for an FTC investigation. Because that’s funnier.

The current Mac commercials specifically imply that Windows PCs are vulnerable to viruses and Macs are not.

Actually, no. What they say is that Windows PCs are plagued by viruses and Macs are not.

I can’t disagree that PCs are frequent victims of viruses and other attacks…

Ah, so we agree!

…but so are Macs.

Oops, no we don’t.

The Macalope would really love to have seen a citation here because it would have been hilarious.

In fact, the first viruses targeted Macs.

So “frequent” in terms of the Mac here is more on a geologic time scale. Got it.

Apple itself recommended in December 2008 that users buy antivirus software. It quickly recanted that statement, though, presumably for marketing purposes.

OK, let’s set the story straight here because Winkler’s version reads like something from alt.microsoft.fanfic.net. The document in question was a minor technical note created in June of 2007 that got updated in December. The company did not “recant” the statement, it pulled the note after it got picked up by the BBC, the Washington Post and CNet as some kind of shocking double-faced technology industry scandal.

By the way, did you know that Apple also markets Macs as easier to use, yet continues to sell books on how to use Macs in its stores? It’s true! But if it’s so easy to use, why all the books, Apple? Why? All? The? Books?

A ZDNet summary of 2007 vulnerabilities showed that there were five times more vulnerabilities for Mac OS than for all types of Windows PC operating systems.

No citation, but the Macalope knows what he’s talking about. He’s talking about this summary by George Ou. George loved to drag these stats out because they always made Apple look worse than Microsoft. But he neglected to mention the many problems with this comparison, most importantly that Secunia, the source of the data, expressly counseled against using it to compare the relative security of the products listed because they’re tracked differently.

But buy Winkler’s book! The Macalope’s sure the rigor of the research in them is better than in this piece!

How can Apple get away with this blatant disregard for security?

How can Computerworld get away with printing unsourced accusations that were debunked a year and a half ago?

Its advertising claims seem comparable to an automobile manufacturer implying that its cars are completely safe and its competitors’ cars are death traps, when we all know that all cars are inherently unsafe.

That’s a really lousy analogy. But to work with it, it’s not that Apple’s saying its car is safer, it’s saying the roads in Macland are safer. Get out of that heavy city traffic and into the countryside.

The mainstream press really doesn’t cover Mac vulnerabilities…

The real mainstream press doesn’t cover vulnerabilities for any operating system. It covers attacks (even lame Mac attacks). The technology press, on the other hand, loves to cover Mac vulnerabilities, despite Winkler’s claim to the contrary, even though exploits of those vulnerabilities have never amounted to much.

When I made a TV appearance to talk about the Conficker worm, I mentioned that there were five new Mac vulnerabilities announced the day before. Several people e-mailed the station to say that I was lying, since they had never heard of Macs having any problems. (By the way, the technical press isn’t much better in covering Mac vulnerabilities.)

So, let’s get this straight. Winkler gets on TV and talks up Mac vulnerabilities in a segment about a Windows attack. But because he got five mean emails, the story we’re supposed to get is about how the coverage is all pro-Apple? Were the five emails from TV news anchors or something?

And just to be clear, it is not that Apple’s software has security vulnerabilities that is the problem; all commercial software does. The problem is that Apple is grossly misleading people to believe otherwise.

Wow, there is an awful lot of loose talk about how badly Apple is misleading the public with its wild claims. It’s somewhat surprising that Winkler doesn’t get around to actually quoting any of those very dangerous claims that the FTC should immediately investigate.

The Macalope thought about going back and pulling the quotes from the commercials and showing how all they actually do is say the Mac simply doesn’t have the virus problems Windows does (true!), but then he thought, hey, Winkler’s the one making the accusations. Why shouldn’t he be forced to back them up?

But buy Winkler’s book! The Macalope’s sure it’s awesome.

Winkler’s right that all commercial software has vulnerabilities. And Vista actually better implements technologies designed to make writing exploits harder. He’s also right that there’s been much to criticize Apple about over security. But the mildly honest parts of Winkler’s piece conflate vulnerabilities and exploits in an effort to make the Mac look worse and the dishonest parts are just utter fabrications (e.g. Macs are “frequently” hit by viruses).

An FTC investigation? That’s just standing on the diving board and jumping up and down yelling “Look at me! Look at me! Hey, everyone, look what I can do!”

If Winkler had a serious argument about there needing to be an FTC investigation, he would have linked to the FTC’s guidelines for the substance of advertising claims and contrasted them with quotes from Apple’s ads. But he didn’t do that.

Because he doesn’t have a serious argument to make.

But buy his book!

This post thanks to www.macalope.com

–Macalope

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Using a Mac? Turn Off Java in Your Browser

By Rich

One of the great things about Macs is how they leverage a ton of Open Source and other freely available third-party software. Rather than running out and having to install all this stuff yourself, it’s built right into the operating system.

image

But from a security perspective, Apple’s handling of these tools tends to lead to some problems. On a fairly consistent basis we see security vulnerabilities patched in these programs, but Apple doesn’t include the fixes for days, weeks, or even months. We’ve seen it in Apache, Samba (Windows file sharing), Safari (WebKit), DNS, and, now, Java. (Apple isn’t the only vendor facing this challenge, as recently demonstrated by Google Chrome being vulnerable to the same WebKit vulnerability used against Safari in the Pwn2Own contest). When a vulnerability is patched on one platform it becomes public, and is instantly an 0day on every unpatched platform.

As detailed by Landon Fuller, Java on OS X is vulnerable to a 5 month old flaw that’s been patched in other systems:

CVE-2008-5353 allows malicious code to escape the Java sandbox and run arbitrary commands with the permissions of the executing user. This may result in untrusted Java applets executing arbitrary code merely by visiting a web page hosting the applet. The issue is trivially exploitable.

Landon proves his point with proof of concept code linked to his post.

Thus browsing to a malicious site allows an attacker to run anything as the current user, which, even if you aren’t admin, is still a heck of a lot.

You can easily disable Java in your browser under the Content tab in Firefox, or the Security tab in Safari.

I’m writing it up in a little more detail for TidBITS, and will link back here once that’s published.

–Rich

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Is There Any DLP or Data Security On Mac/Linux?

By Rich

Had a very interesting call today with a client in the pharma research space. They would like to protect clinical study data as it moves to researcher’s computers, but are struggling with the best approach. On the call, I quickly realized that DLP, or a content tracking tool like Verdasys (who also does endpoint DLP) would be ideal. The only problem? They need Windows, Mac, and Linux support.200902241153.jpg

I couldn’t remember offhand of any DLP/tracking tool (or even DRM) that will work on all 3 platforms. This is an open call for you vendors to hit me up if you can help.

For you end users, where we ended up was with a few potential approaches:

  1. Switch to a remote virtual/hosted desktop for handling the sensitive data… such as Citrix or VMWare.
  2. Use Database Activity Monitoring to track who pulls the data.
  3. Endpoint encryption to protect the data from loss, but it won’t help when it’s moved to inappropriate locations.
  4. Network DLP to track it in email, but without the endpoint coverage it leaves a really big hole.
  5. Content discovery to keep some minimal tracking where it ends up (for managed systems), but that means opening up SMB/CIFS file sharing on the endpoint for admin access, which is in itself a security risk.
  6. Distributed encryption, which *does* have cross platform support, but still doesn’t stop the researcher from putting the data someplace it shouldn’t be, which is their main concern.

While this is one of those industries (research) with higher Mac/cross platform use than the average business, this is clearly a growing problem thanks to the consumerization of IT.

This situation also highlights how no single-channel solution can really protect data well. It’s the mix of network, endpoint, and discovery that really allows you to reduce risk without killing business process.

–Rich

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

What to Buy: Part Three

By Adrian Lane

Finally took the plunge last week- I went out and bought a Mac. Actually, I bought a couple of them. That was not what I originally intended, as my plan was to get a top-of-the-line MacBook Pro and a high-end monitor to go with it. But every time I sat down in front of my wife’s iMac, I was really impressed with the quality of the display and the simplicity of the machine itself. When I learned the 24-inch version had the Core 2 Duo at 3GHz, I was sold. Given the amount of travel I do I needed a laptop, so I picked up an entry-level MacBook as well. It worked out about even money as far as hardware costs, and it will only cost me a little more for software, so I kind of feel like I got two for one.

For the last week I have not been blogging all that much as I have spent every waking hour moving files, downloading software, installing, configuring, and learning a bunch of new applications. I don’t think I have bought this much personal software before. And with Rich and myself reworking the Securosis infrastructure at the same time, it has been a hectic week.

For those who do not know me; I started my career with UNIX; moved to CTOS; then a mixture of Windows, UNIX, and Linux for about 5 years; but over the last 8 years it has been almost all Windows PCs. So learning a new OS is no big deal, and the UI design on the Mac is pretty darn easy, which has helped smooth the transition. But I must say I am glad that there is a UNIX-based OS sitting underneath … makes me feel a little more comfortable and made the learning process faster.

I wanted to share the experience as I was wondering if some people had come to the same conclusions that I have about the Apple products. First the MacBook:

The MacBook is nice-looking, but nothing all that spectacular IMO. While the 2.4GHz Intel processor is fast and I like the OS, the keyboard is decidedly ordinary and the display is really not all that great. Contrast, color saturation and accuracy are all pretty poor. Tried to calibrate as best I could without tools, but I only think I am going to get so far with this effort. My real concern at the moment has been stability. I have only been running the machine for a couple of days and Mail has hung twice, and the machine would not respond to shutdown requests. I installed all of the patches I could and hopefully that will help. I also upgraded the machine to 4gb, and when I did, I found an interesting white residue caked on the pins of the DIMMs. I am wondering if the installers are putting talc or something on the pins to make insertion easier, but there was so much I have to wonder if there were memory errors. Seems to be more stable now and I am hoping for the best.

The iMac- in a word, WOW! It is the nicest machine I have ever owned. Fast. Put 4 gig of memory in it. The aluminum keyboard has a great feel to it. Keep looking for the right mouse button, but that’s OK, I am retraining myself. But the most amazing thing about this box is the monitor. 24 inches of real estate. The color, depth and detail is stunning. It’s fun just to look at the pre-supplied backgrounds. And everything has worked without a hitch. Software installed in a fraction of the time of other platforms. The one time I messed up I simply drug the application to the trash, started from scratch, and was done in two minutes. The only anomaly I found is the machine is spec’ed for DDR2 800, but came with DDR2 667. Other than that, perfect. The MacBook is nice, but the iMac is why I am beyond happy.

Hard for me to imagine that this┬áis true, given the long line that I had to wait in when I went to the Apple store. Plus I know 5-6 people who just switched to Macs, and half the people I know are saving up to get iPhones. With a product that is this solid, I don’t think that they have a lot to worry about.

–Adrian Lane

Saturday, July 05, 2008

What To Buy?

By Adrian Lane

This is a non-security post… I did not get a lot of work done Thursday afternoon. I was shopping. Specifically, I am shopping for a new laptop. I have a four year old Fujitsu running XP. The MTBF on this machine is about 20 months, so I am a little beyond laptop shelf life. A friend lent me a nice laptop with Vista for a week, and I must say, I really do not like it. Don’t like the performance. Don’t like the DRM. Don’t like the new arrangement of the UI. Don’t like the lowest-common-denominator approach to design. Don’t like an OS that thinks it knows what I want and shoves the wrong things at me. The entire direction it’s heading seems to be the antithesis of fast, efficient, & friendly. So what to buy? If you do not choose Windows, there really are not a lot of options for business laptops. Do you really have a choice?

I was reading this story that said Intel had no plans to adopt Windows Vista for their employees. Interesting that this comes out now. Technically speaking, the Microsoft “End of Life” date for Windows XP was June 30th. I sympathize with IT departments, as this makes things difficult for them. I am just curious what departments such as Intel’s will be buying employees as their laptops croak? With some 80,000 employees, I am assuming this is a daily occurrence, so I wonder how closely their decision-making process resembles mine. I wonder what they are going to do. Reuse XP keys?

I have used, and continue to use, a lot of OSes. I started my career with CTOS, and I worked on and with UNIX for more than a decade. I have used various flavors of Linux & BSD since 1995. I have had Microsoft’s OSes and Linux dual booting on my home machines for the last decade. I am really not an OS bigot, as there are things about each that I like. For example, I like Ubuntu and the context cube desktop interface, but I am not sure I want that for my primary operating system. I could buy a basic box and install XP with an older key, but worry I might have trouble finding XP drivers and updates.

Being an engineer, I figured I would approach this logically. I sat down and wrote down all the applications, features, and services I use on a weekly basis and mapped out what I needed. Several Linux variants would work, and I could put XP in a virtual partition to catch anything that was not available, but the more I look, the more I like the MacBook. While I have never owned a Mac, I am beginning to think it is time to buy one. And really, the engineer in me got thrown under the bus when I visited the Mac store http://store.apple.com/. %!&$! logic, now I just kind of want one.

If I am going through this thought process, I just wonder how many companies are as well. MS has a serious problem.

–Adrian Lane