Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Comments
Apple: Majority Of Mac OS X Users Not At Risk To 'Shellshock'
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
securityaffairs
50%
50%
securityaffairs,
User Rank: Ninja
9/30/2014 | 2:38:52 AM
Re: Apple is attempting to minimize.
I agree theb0x!
theb0x
50%
50%
theb0x,
User Rank: Ninja
9/29/2014 | 9:26:22 PM
Re: Apple is attempting to minimize.
The following conditions must be true in OSX to exploit the system:

1) Root must be enabled. The setting is pretty well hidden and the user must knowly access it. (System default is disabled in latest OSX.)

2) A local terminal session must be spawned with the following command followed by root password:

sudo systemsetup -setremotelogin on

This enables the SSH Daemon. How many average Apple users do you think have configured their systems this way? At this point I see this as nothing more than a social engineering attack for these system conditions to be true for most users. Unless they know what SSH is because they're a Sys Admin. I am not taking sides with Apple. Their security responses are a joke and always make me chuckle.
securityaffairs
50%
50%
securityaffairs,
User Rank: Ninja
9/29/2014 | 11:02:09 AM
Re: Apple is attempting to minimize.
I agree, OS X is anyway affected by the Bash bug flaw and its announcement is giving a fake sense of security to many people that aren't able to check their systems.
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
9/29/2014 | 9:12:11 AM
Re: Apple is attempting to minimize.
Very good point Robert. I think even if there is the possibility of a vulnerable configuration within your hardware that you need to account for it. How difficult would it be for Apple to design a quick app to check if the system settings you have on your Mac are vulnerable? 

The answer is not very difficult at all if it is just a series of enables/disables. If enabled true if not than false. A quick scan should be made available for all OSX users. I think it isn't too lofty of a request considered that this vulnerability was given the highest severity rating possible by NIST.
Robert McDougal
50%
50%
Robert McDougal,
User Rank: Ninja
9/28/2014 | 12:48:25 PM
Apple is attempting to minimize.
True, in order to be vulnerable to a remote execution you need to enable some inbound service, such as SSH.  However, the fact is that ALL versions of OSX have the vulnerability.  In my testing, every version of OSX, including the beta of Yosemite, have proved to be vulnerable.

I know Apple hasn't had to deal with major vulnerabilities routinely in the past, but this isn't the way to address it.  Apple should admit that all versions of OSX have the vulnerability but, users are not exposed unless they enable X, Y or Z.  They shouldn't leave the subject up for debate by making a nebulous statement such as "systems are safe by default and not exposed to remote exploits of Bash unless users configure advanced UNIX services".  This doesn't actually explain to users how they might currently be vulnerable, or what they may do for a work around.

Apple gets an F for this response in my book.

 


Commentary
What the FedEx Logo Taught Me About Cybersecurity
Matt Shea, Head of Federal @ MixMode,  6/4/2021
Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
A View From Inside a Deception
Sara Peters, Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  6/2/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
The State of Cybersecurity Incident Response
In this report learn how enterprises are building their incident response teams and processes, how they research potential compromises, how they respond to new breaches, and what tools and processes they use to remediate problems and improve their cyber defenses for the future.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-32552
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-12
It was discovered that read_file() in apport/hookutils.py would follow symbolic links or open FIFOs. When this function is used by the openjdk-16 package apport hooks, it could expose private data to other local users.
CVE-2021-32553
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-12
It was discovered that read_file() in apport/hookutils.py would follow symbolic links or open FIFOs. When this function is used by the openjdk-17 package apport hooks, it could expose private data to other local users.
CVE-2021-32554
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-12
It was discovered that read_file() in apport/hookutils.py would follow symbolic links or open FIFOs. When this function is used by the xorg package apport hooks, it could expose private data to other local users.
CVE-2021-32555
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-12
It was discovered that read_file() in apport/hookutils.py would follow symbolic links or open FIFOs. When this function is used by the xorg-hwe-18.04 package apport hooks, it could expose private data to other local users.
CVE-2021-32556
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-12
It was discovered that the get_modified_conffiles() function in backends/packaging-apt-dpkg.py allowed injecting modified package names in a manner that would confuse the dpkg(1) call.