Latest Gear Live Videos
Tuesday March 7, 2006 2:45 pm
Mac OS X: Hacked Root In Less Than 30 Minutes
Windows detractors are generally more than happy to point fingers at Microsoft’s failings in making their operating systems secure. It’s hard to blame them, as it does seem that barely a day goes by without some new exploit popping up. However, one has to look at the percentages of installed systems. With Microsoft products commanding the vast majority of the market share, they make prime targets for anyone with too much free time or a grudge to bear. In contrast, Mac OS X and Linux seem to blend quietly into the background noise, with nary a peep to be heard with regards to security problems. Okay, that’s oversimplifying things a tad, but the basic idea remains the same - Microsoft products appear to have more security holes than their competitive counterparts due in part to market share and their public presence.
As a case in point, an obliging Mac user set a Mac mini up and told would-be hackers to give it their best shot. Within six hours, the mini had been compromised and root-level access obtained. Total time to actually hack the mini? Less than 30 minutes. Granted, there aren’t a lot of details as to patch level, security measures taken, etc., but the hacker claimed the use of an unpublished hack that would have worked regardless of counter-measures implemented.
With regards to recent viruses and exploits related to Mac OS X, a senior director of Symantec’s Security Response Division is quoted as saying, “The lesson here is that if we look at Mac OS X and compare it to, say, Windows XP, we find that, in terms of the number of vulnerabilities, they are actually quite comparable.”
Keep in mind that we’re not out to bash the Mac by any means, and many Gear Live members love the Mac. Would an equivalently configured Windows or Linux system have fared any better? Not likely. Therefore it’s important to be mindful, that regardless of your operating system of choice, security holes do exist and it’s better to be as prepared as possible than sorry due to blissful ignorance.
EDIT: Turns out, this is a lot less important that it first seemed. Check out the comments section, and you will find that the “hack” was made to be extremely simple - this is not something that took place in a real-world scenario.
Read More 
| Top Tech News
- Related Tags:
Digg ThisAdvertisement
Advertisement
Follow Gear Live!
Recent Galleries
Facebook Fans
Featured Poll
Which is more important to you: Audio quality or video quality?
Thanks for voting in this poll.
Categories
Advertisement
Site Links
All About GearLive
GearLive Tools
Check out the Gear Live Tools that let you integrate Gear Live into your site and add Google features.
Advertise
GearLive Store
New! Get Gear Live hats, shirts, hoodies and more at the new Gear Live Store, coming soon.
© Gear Live Inc. – User-posted content, unless source is quoted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Public Domain License. Gear Live graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, videos, articles, blogs, forums, scripts and other service names are the trademarks of Gear Live Inc.
Comments:
FUD. Root was hacked from within. This wasn’t a legitimate contest… The users were allowed fully ssh access and were provided with local user accounts. First off—OS X does not ship with SSH activated. Second, hacking root from within an established user account is the same as trying to steal something from within your own house.
This was hardly a test of OS X security. If they had achieved breaking into a stock mac without having an account setup for them first, and a big back door left open (ssh)—then that would have been a feat to be newsworthy.
This is a real security test: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/07/1324256
Reply to this: comment | thread
<a href=“http://www.tuaw.com/2006/03/07/another-look-at-mac-os-x-security/”>Damien Barrett</a> over at TUAW has a good explanation about Mac OS X security as it relates to the article and contest in question.
<blockquote>This violates the very first and most important rule of securing a computer, by giving external access to users who shouldn’t have it and don’t need it. I certainly don’t go around enabling SSH for my Mac users, do you? For the record, SSH (called Remote Access in FileSharing System Preference) is disabled by default on Mac OS X workstations, and on Mac OS X Tiger Server, there’s even a GUI for allowing or disabling SSH access to different users. Mac OS X workstation users can modify the sshd_config file in /etc.</blockquote>
As pointed out by bob, a real academic <a href=“http://test.doit.wisc.edu/”>Mac OS X Security Test</a> is being held and will conclude tonight.
Any exploits will then be reported to be fixed and no SSH access is given to would be attackers.
Security, no matter which system, should be taken lightly so by no means is all this an attempt to claim Mac OS X is completely secure so everyone that runs Mac OS X should take <a href=“http://www.macgeekery.com/tips/security/basic_mac_os_x_security”>measures to secure it</a>. Both from outside attackers and against someone trying to access your computer physically.
Reply to this: comment | thread
Shame on Gearlive for posting such a fraudulent and misleading article. I used to think you guys had integrity…
Reply to this: comment | thread
Not sure how this article shows a lack of integrity - it’s not like we were trying to lie. That is why Oscar (the commenter above you) left his informational comment - he is one of our editors, chiming in to add the information that the original author didn’t have.
If we lacked integrity, I would think we would be deleting all these comments so that our story wouldn’t be questioned. We aren’t like that though.
Reply to this: comment | thread
I’d also like to point out that reference was made to the fact that we weren’t sure of the exact configuration of the machine when it was hacked.
There was no attempt made to mislead the reader into believing that the machine was fully secure, no open ports, all patched up, etc.
Reply to this: comment | thread
Touche, Andru. That is a good point.
I guess I just shot from the hip a little bit, there. I just couldn’t believe that such an obvious FUD piece was published by you guys. It’s the sort of thing that you generally tend to avoid.
My apologies.
-ian
Reply to this: comment | thread
<blockquote>Not sure how this article shows a lack of integrity - it’s not like we were trying to lie. That is why Oscar (the commenter above you) left his informational comment - he is one of our editors, chiming in to add the information that the original author didn’t have.
If we lacked integrity, I would think we would be deleting all these comments so that our story wouldn’t be questioned. We aren’t like that though.</blockquote>
I agree with you that this is obviously not an “integrity” issue.
The author was obviously not trying to hide anything and included the fact that “there aren’t a lot of details as to patch level, security measures taken, etc…”
But now that we DO know some of the details, wouldn’t it be a good idea to modify the article to include that information? None of the comments appear when you click on the “Apple” tag.
How many people heard about the Wendy’s finger-in-the-chilli? How many people heard that the woman who “found” the finger actually planted it so that she could sue them?
Reply to this: comment | thread
Done
Reply to this: comment | thread
Comments: Page 1 of 1 pages