To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I believe that the user had simply to visit the site with the exploit. That site might as well have been a Google search result.
Apple is already working on a fix, as they always do when these things come out so publicly.
"I'm a MAC"
"I'm, a PC"
"And I'm a cracker. Bang! Bang! You're dead!"
Also from the description above: "Nobody was able to hack into the systems on the first day of the contest when contestants were only allowed to attack the computers over the network, but yesterday the rules were relaxed so that attackers could direct contest organisers using the computers to do things like visit websites or open email messages."
From the same link: "Not a single attendee entered the contest on day one, when all vulnerabilities had to reside in the machine's operating system, drivers or network stack."
Nobody even tried under 1st day rules, because exploits are were very unlikely. As Elseware already mentioned, the days of zero user interaction remote exploits are pretty much over. Even XP-SP2 can withstand that.
Yes it is. Because visiting an unknown website or opening an email is not supposed to be able to execute arbitrary commands on your computer.
You though wrong, because the Ubuntu and Vista laptops were still being attacked under the same rules when the Mac was down (each had their own cash prizes), but they withstood the rest of the day.
Of course it is still classed at hacking. How do you think a Trojan horse operates ? Exactly like the Trojan horse of legend. It would just sit there doing nothing until the people of Troy interacted with it, in their case, pulled it inside their town.
A computer Trojan horse is useless unless the user allows that into the system.
I think you made the case against, there. I for one think of "hacking" as actively breaking into a target system, without needing some unwitting assistance from the owner. Trojans and browser exploits cannot really be targeted towards a specific victim, unless you go to the trouble of performing some trick of social engineering, to get that person to run the trojan.exe or visit your poisoned website.
hacking = targeted, unaided
trojan-ing = indiscriminate, requires unwitting assistance of victim
Discussion welcome 




Member since:
2006-10-08
"Charlie Miller, who was the first security researcher to remotely exploit the iPhone, felled the Mac by tapping a security bug in Safari. The exploit involved getting an end user to click on a link, which opened up a port that he was then able to telnet into. Once connected, he was able to remotely run code of his choosing. "
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2008/03/28/mac_hack/
Do I understand this correctly? An interaction of the user has been required to achieve the goal of hacking?
From the description above: "Nobody was able to hack into the systems on the first day of the contest when contestants were only allowed to attack the computers over the network, but yesterday the rules were relaxed so that attackers could direct contest organisers using the computers to do things like visit websites or open email messages." - Is this still hacking? Relying on user interaction can help you to compromize any system. I always thought this is nothing spectacular because nearly anyone can do such "easy" stuff (faked maintenance websites, faked system alerts etc.). The same techniques could have been used to hack into the Linux and "Vista" boxes as well, just if the user replies to a mail like "Dear Bob, please send me your root password back. thanks!" :-)