Miller on Mac OS X, Chrome, Firefox, Economics
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.
E-mail Print r 11   · Read More · 138 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/gc3
Thread beginning with comment 354129
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by sadyc
by lurch_mojoff on Fri 20th Mar 2009 15:13 UTC 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[4]: Comment by sadyc
by kaiwai on Sat 21st Mar 2009 01:34 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by sadyc"
kaiwai 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.

Repeat with me: SAFARI IS NOT OPEN SOURCE.

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


Both Chrome and Safari use Webkit (well, technically webkit includes the javascript engine too - Google has their own one called V8) - the issue is that Chrome probably was developed with a branch that differs significantly from the Safari which Apple uses themselves. The build of the webkit which is used by Safari is different from Chrome which means there will be differences.

You are right that Safari itself isn't opensource, just the core (webkit) but it ignores the fact, like I said, that different builds combined with branches/forks and emerging later on result in different outcomes in the final product.

Edited 2009-03-21 01:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

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