Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 20th Mar 2009 13:51 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
Privacy, Security, Encryption Fresh from winning the PWN2OWN contest yesterday, Charlie Miller has been interviewed by ZDNet. He talks about how Mac OS X is a very simple operating system to exploit due to the lack of any form of anti-exploit features. He also explains that the underlying operating system is much more important in creating a successful exploit than the bowser, why Chrome is so hard to hack, and many other things.
Thread beginning with comment 354123
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by sadyc
by wanderingk88 on Fri 20th Mar 2009 14:45 UTC in reply to "Comment by sadyc"
wanderingk88
Member since:
2008-06-26

Why?

Apple decided not to release their code, why would they have a right to know the exploits other people find for them?

They've chosen that model, now they have to deal with the downsides.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by sadyc
by foljs on Fri 20th Mar 2009 14:54 in reply to "RE: Comment by sadyc"
foljs Member since:
2006-01-09

Why?

Apple decided not to release their code, why would they have a right to know the exploits other people find for them?

They've chosen that model, now they have to deal with the downsides.


Do you even know what you're talking about?

Safari's engine (Webkit) is released as fully open source --and it's used by many other browsers, including Google Chrome.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by sadyc
by wanderingk88 on Fri 20th Mar 2009 15:10 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by sadyc"
wanderingk88 Member since:
2008-06-26

A web browser is not just its rendering engine.

If it was, Chrome would have the same vulnerabilities as Safari.

Please learn to shut up when you don't know what you're talking about.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by sadyc
by lurch_mojoff on Fri 20th Mar 2009 15:13 in reply to "RE: Comment by sadyc"
lurch_mojoff Member since:
2007-05-12

Since the exploit in this case is for Safari Apple are in fact releasing the code, so if were a question of reciprocity the guy has no excuse.

But availability, or "openness" if you will, of the source is not an issue here. This guy supposedly is a white hat (a.k.a. "security researcher") and as such is supposedly trying to find exploitable holes so they can be fixed before people get harmed. Sitting on an exploit for a year so you can get a free laptop and 15 min of fame is certainly black hat and is even nearly criminal.

He is free to not research Apple's software and get a paying gig for someone else or apply for a job at Apple.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by sadyc
by wanderingk88 on Fri 20th Mar 2009 15:35 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by sadyc"
wanderingk88 Member since:
2008-06-26

Since the exploit in this case is for Safari Apple are in fact releasing the code, so if were a question of reciprocity the guy has no excuse.


Repeat with me: SAFARI IS NOT OPEN SOURCE.

Webkit is open source. Safari isn't. There's a huge difference there.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by sadyc
by Bounty on Fri 20th Mar 2009 16:18 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by sadyc"
Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18

Sitting on an exploit for a year so you can get a free laptop and 15 min of fame is certainly black hat and is even nearly criminal.


What's the difference with what a salaried security researcher does? The negotiation up front? I'll guarantee you this guy is making less because he's doing it under his terms, working his own hours. He's not any more black hat than Microsoft that sits on known vunerabilities for more than 6 months. Also the fact that he knows something doesn't oblige him to do a damn thing.

"I have a new campaign. It’s called NO MORE FREE BUGS." "What’s the ballpark value of that Safari bug? It was probably more than that $5,000 prize I won."

Meaning he probably used to do this for free, nobody gave him a job or money. (read that to mean greedy Apple) Now he has a nice resume, industry recognition, and some money etc. I could spend my time walking around making sure old people get across the street for free. Instead I put food on the table. Are you evil because you know how to do something good, but don't? Ask yourself again next time you fire up Half Life instead of inviting homeless people into your house. He didn't sell to criminals! I believe Mozilla has a 500$ bounty on bugs. MS and Apple could easily put a 5000$ bounty on exploitable bugs. Put your hate where it belongs.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[3]: Comment by sadyc
by StephenBeDoper on Sat 21st Mar 2009 02:54 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by sadyc"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Since the exploit in this case is for Safari Apple are in fact releasing the code, so if were a question of reciprocity the guy has no excuse.


In the interview, Miller stated that the underlying OS had as much (if not more) to do with enabling the exploit as the browser itself.

As much as I'm a fan of the reciprocity principle, I don't think it applies in this case. Unless Apple has released the full source for OS X and I managed to miss it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by sadyc
by Soulbender on Fri 20th Mar 2009 15:39 in reply to "RE: Comment by sadyc"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Allright, so by this logic if you find a fatal flaw in, say, a car from Ford the right and responsible thing to do (since Ford's designs arent "open source") would be to sit on it for an undetermined abount of time until you've find a way to trigger it. once you've done that you do NOT tell the public what the problem is but instead you try to "extort" money from Ford in exchange for not letting anyone know.
Yes, that's surely a society I'd love to live in.
Get this straight, it has NOTHING to do with if Apple's product is open or not, it's about the risk the consumers and the general public is exposed to.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by sadyc
by darknexus on Fri 20th Mar 2009 16:04 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by sadyc"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Well put, completely agree.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by sadyc
by wannabe geek on Fri 20th Mar 2009 17:23 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by sadyc"
wannabe geek Member since:
2006-09-27

Why not blame FORD executives for refusing to buy the information about defective cars, thereby exposing their customers to the risk?

I'm with Miller on this one, to some extent. Selling the information to criminals would be wrong, but I don't think anyone should work for free for closed-source, IP-paranoid company who boasts making a highly secure and usable operating system. In fact, I'd say it would be extremely shortsighted to help these companies for free instead of contributing to improve FOSS alternatives. Remember the exploit is not just about Webkit, not even about Safari. The whole OS matters for the exploit, and OSX is not open source.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by sadyc
by DaveDavtropen on Fri 20th Mar 2009 16:45 in reply to "RE: Comment by sadyc"
DaveDavtropen Member since:
2009-03-20

The exploit Miller used last year was in the open-source WebKit part of Safari. (In fact, it was in a third-party library used by WebKit, and not a bug in Apple's code as such.) It's likely, though hardly guaranteed, that the bug he used this year is also in WebKit, since he's said before that he discovered it at the same time. (By the way, he found the bug by reading source code. Pretty cool, huh?)

Since Chrome uses all the same WebKit code as Safari, it's likely that both of these bugs are (or were) present in Chrome. The exploits would still be very different, though: The initial bug will get you through the front door, but it won't lead you to the self-destruct button.

It's true that Safari's interface is closed-source, but it's also true that fixing a WebKit bug would benefit the open source community, because that's public code used by a number of browsers.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by sadyc
by dagw on Fri 20th Mar 2009 17:08 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by sadyc"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

According to rumors on some other site I read the exploit wasn't in WebKit per se, but in a third party (open source) library used by the javascript engine. The real kicker, according to the same post, was the the bug Miller exploited has already been found and fixed upstream, but Apple is using an old version of that library that still has the bug.

Of course the only people who actually know what happened are under NDA, so take this with a grain of salt.

Reply Parent Score: 6

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

It's about the users. Why should the users be left vulnerable to a known exploit just because Apple's business model isn't the same as Red Hat's? Do you extend the same towards Microsoft? It's ok for Microsoft's poor quality control to cause loss among the user base because they don't follow a FOSS business strategy?

Please..

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by sadyc
by acidblue on Sat 21st Mar 2009 02:52 in reply to "RE: Comment by sadyc"
acidblue Member since:
2006-02-06

So, what code are you referring to? Do you know the exploit? Also, if said code was open, who now is to blame?

Reply Parent Score: 1