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.

Risk

8/1/2008
08:58 PM
George V. Hulme
George V. Hulme
Commentary
50%
50%

FileVault Is Flawed; And Apple's Not Talk'n

A security researcher hoping to discuss an undisclosed Apple flaw at next week's annual Black Hat conference in Las Vegas pulls his talk. Then, Apple suddenly jumps ship on a planned security panel to be conducted by its engineers. These incidents expose Apple's being a laggard in its approach to IT security.

A security researcher hoping to discuss an undisclosed Apple flaw at next week's annual Black Hat conference in Las Vegas pulls his talk. Then, Apple suddenly jumps ship on a planned security panel to be conducted by its engineers. These incidents expose Apple's being a laggard in its approach to IT security.Apple software expert and security researcher Charles Edge wanted to present information on a potential weakness in Apple's FileVault disk encryption: until he didn't. As Brian Krebs reports in the Washington Post's Security Fix blog, Edge cites a nondisclosure Agreement (NDA) for the reason he withdrew his proposed talk:

Contacted via cell phone, Edge said he signed confidentiality agreements with Apple, which prevents him from speaking on the topic and from discussing the matter further.

But that's not all. No. Apple yanked a Black Hat presentation its own engineers wanted to give that would help to explain Apple's security practices. From Robert McMillian's report:

Apple Inc. has pulled its security engineering team out of a planned public discussion on the company's security practices, which had been set for next week's Black Hat security conference in Las Vegas.

The panel would have been a first for Apple, but the company pulled out of the discussion at the last minute, Black Hat Director Jeff Moss said in an interview Friday.

"Marketing got wind of it, and nobody at Apple is ever allowed to speak publicly about anything without marketing approval," he said.

I have differing opinions on both of these talks being pulled.

First, if the flaw Charles Edge was set discuss isn't yet fixed by Apple, the talk should absolutely should be pulled until Apple finds a remedy. More often than not, discussing flaws, especially before there's a fix, raises risk for everyone. I recently covered why here. Not to mention, if Edge is under NDA, he needs to honor that agreement.

The second talk, which Apple's engineers wanted to give but was squelched by Apple's Marcom suits, tells me two things: marketing runs the show, and Apple hasn't learned from the experience the rest of the industry went through in the past decade. In addition, numerous news reports state that these engineers would get fired if they publicly named themselves. How trite.

Before January 2002, when it came to security, Microsoft put forth a tougher defense than the Steel Curtain line of the late-1970s Pittsburgh Steelers. The vendor's patch announcements were as random as could possibly be generated; there wasn't much technical detail provided about the flaws; and when it came to determining the public security ratings of its flaws, it seemed more marketing-driven than helping its customers understand the real-world risks of the vulnerabilities. And they outright stonewalled security researchers. Through its Trustworthy Computing initiative, Microsoft either solved, or dramatically improved, in all of these areas.

Now let's take an account of where Apple stands when it comes to IT security as it applies to corporate users.

Apple's security updates are random. If you don't believe me, just take a look at Apple's patch release history this year. These sporadic announcements drive IT operations teams nuts. They'd much rather know that a bunch of patches are coming on the second Tuesday of the month, if you get my drift. They can plan their resources around this schedule.

Apple provides no technical detail, at least that this customer can find, about the nature of its security flaws. As a consumer with only a couple systems to update, I just update because Apple thinks it's best, and they provided a patch. Not all companies can stop production systems for updates, or pull employees from other projects just because "Apple told us we need to patch." This brings us to the third, and final point.

Apple's security ratings can't be trusted. Why? See point No. 2. We have no way of evaluating the technical details of the flaws. Therefore, we have no way of knowing if a high-risk flaw is being sold as a medium or low-risk flaw. But more important: This lack of transparency can, at times, make it difficult for security teams to justify stopping production systems and to spend the time testing and applying the patches.

It's time for Apple to grow up when it comes to security, especially if it wants to be an enterprise provider. The company needs to start talking more publicly about security, and maturing its security game. Other software makers, such as Microsoft and Oracle have -- years ago.

 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 8/3/2020
Pen Testers Who Got Arrested Doing Their Jobs Tell All
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  8/5/2020
New 'Nanodegree' Program Provides Hands-On Cybersecurity Training
Nicole Ferraro, Contributing Writer,  8/3/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal, a Dark Reading Perspective
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
This special report takes a look at how enterprises are using threat intelligence, as well as emerging best practices for integrating threat intel into security operations and incident response. Download it today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-15058
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-07
Lindy 42633 4-Port USB 2.0 Gigabit Network Server 2.078.000 devices allow an attacker on the same network to elevate privileges because the administrative password can be discovered by sniffing unencrypted UDP traffic.
CVE-2020-15059
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-07
Lindy 42633 4-Port USB 2.0 Gigabit Network Server 2.078.000 devices allow an attacker on the same network to bypass authentication via a web-administration request that lacks a password parameter.
CVE-2020-15060
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-07
Lindy 42633 4-Port USB 2.0 Gigabit Network Server 2.078.000 devices allow an attacker on the same network to conduct persistent XSS attacks by leveraging administrative privileges to set a crafted server name.
CVE-2020-15061
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-07
Lindy 42633 4-Port USB 2.0 Gigabit Network Server 2.078.000 devices allow an attacker on the same network to denial-of-service the device via long input values.
CVE-2020-15062
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-07
DIGITUS DA-70254 4-Port Gigabit Network Hub 2.073.000.E0008 devices allow an attacker on the same network to elevate privileges because the administrative password can be discovered by sniffing unencrypted UDP traffic.