Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,294
30,379



safariicon.jpg
Every year for the past seven years, hackers have gathered at the annual PWN2OWN event to hack high-profile software and mobile devices using previously unknown vulnerabilities. Apple's Safari browser and iOS platform are often included in the annual contest, which also targets Internet Explorer, Chrome, Firefox, and Adobe's Flash and Reader applications. This year, Safari was taken down on day two by a team of vulnerability researchers and exploit developers from China, reports ThreatPost.

China's Keen team exploited two vulnerabilities that allowed the team to execute arbitrary code using a Safari WebKit flaw and circumvent Apple's sandbox via an OS X system-level vulnerability. Speaking about the vulnerabilities they found, the Keen team stated that Apple's OS X is difficult to exploit and the operating system overall is very secure.
"For Apple, the OS is regarded as very safe and has a very good security architecture," Keen team member Liang Chen said. "Even if you have a vulnerability, it's very difficult to exploit. Today we demonstrated that with some advanced technology, the system is still able to be pwned. But in general, the security in OS X is higher than other operating systems."
Apple representatives attended the contest and were made aware of the security exploits used in the contest. This isn't the first time Safari has been exploited during the contest. In 2011, a team of French security researchers compromised a MacBook by remotely running code within five seconds of contacting the machine.

Article Link: Chinese Security Team Exploits Safari Security Flaw at PWN2OWN
 

nt5672

macrumors 68040
Jun 30, 2007
3,290
6,943
Midwest USA
Public awareness of security flaws is the best way to ensure the security of our devices. Thank you Chinese security team.
 

2457282

Suspended
Dec 6, 2012
3,327
3,015
The article also said the team felt that Safari was more secure than other platforms. I am no expert but it does look like at least one is simple to fix and if I understood correctly you would have to use both to really get control. So if they fix either it would solve the problem.

Having said all that, if this is the most secure, the others have some really big problems.
 

BigBeast

macrumors 6502a
Mar 6, 2009
643
39
[...]if I understood correctly you would have to use both to really get control.

I would guess that if the second vulnerability circumvents sandboxing, that it should be the first fix. Webkit vulnerabilities are almost inevitable; that's why sandboxing exists. If sandboxing doesn't catch the threat or is bypassed, that's a greater weakness.
 

JerryCards

macrumors member
Nov 20, 2011
78
0
Richmond, VA
The most secure OS maybe FreeBSD or Linux. MAC OS X evolved from FreeBSD or Unix. OS X contains indecent number of vulnerabilities, but, still can be considered relatively safe.
 

Silencio

macrumors 68040
Jul 18, 2002
3,447
1,552
NYC
The most secure OS maybe FreeBSD or Linux. MAC OS X evolved from FreeBSD or Unix. OS X contains indecent number of vulnerabilities, but, still can be considered relatively safe.

I think you mean OpenBSD, which has a greater focus on security. Mac OS X is based on FreeBSD.
 

leman

macrumors Core
Oct 14, 2008
19,153
18,920
The most secure OS maybe FreeBSD or Linux.

Which one of thousand existing Linux distributives are you talking about? Linux is not an OS, its a kernel - and this is the reason why Linux is not even considered at PWN2OWN. The kernel is usually quite secure, its the software stack on its top that has vulnerabilities.
 

iamkarlp

macrumors regular
Oct 15, 2008
102
0
Which one of thousand existing Linux distributives are you talking about? Linux is not an OS, its a kernel - and this is the reason why Linux is not even considered at PWN2OWN. The kernel is usually quite secure, its the software stack on its top that has vulnerabilities.

Indeed. And with the average GUI linux install being anywhere between 3~10 GB on disk, with the kernel only making up ~100MB of that, there is a lot of software stack to go around.

Karl P
 

laurihoefs

macrumors 6502a
Mar 1, 2013
792
23
Public awareness of security flaws is the best way to ensure the security of our devices. Thank you Chinese security team.

Yes it is, indeed.

We do not know if the security team in question are the first ones to discover this vulnerability, so someone might have already attempted to exploit it, and even succeeded. Now that information about the flaw is out in the open all affected parties are aware of the issue, and can start working to get it fixed. No-one has to rely on security-by-obscurity.

Sincerely: Thank you team Keen.
 
Last edited:

JerryCards

macrumors member
Nov 20, 2011
78
0
Richmond, VA
Most major distributions of linux should be pretty secure. Like Ubuntu, Linux mint (based on Ubuntu) , Fedora. openSUSE. Yes, wrong configuration of any OS will make it vulnerable to attack.

Which one of thousand existing Linux distributives are you talking about? Linux is not an OS, its a kernel - and this is the reason why Linux is not even considered at PWN2OWN. The kernel is usually quite secure, its the software stack on its top that has vulnerabilities.
 

leman

macrumors Core
Oct 14, 2008
19,153
18,920
Most major distributions of linux should be pretty secure. Like Ubuntu, Linux mint (based on Ubuntu) , Fedora. openSUSE. Yes, wrong configuration of any OS will make it vulnerable to attack.

What do you base this on? There have been three exploits of Firefox presented at this PWN2OWN - why do you think Firefox would be more secure under Linux than under Windows?
 

Truffy

macrumors 6502a
The article also said the team felt that Safari was more secure than other platforms. I am no expert but it does look like at least one is simple to fix and if I understood correctly you would have to use both to really get control. So if they fix either it would solve the problem.

Having said all that, if this is the most secure, the others have some really big problems.
Strictly speaking, they only said that OS X was relatively secure, in the OP at least they didn't make any mention of Safari's security status.
Thank you Chinese security team.
Sincerely: Thank you Chinese security team.
Oh come on, let's give proper recognition. The team name (Keen) is given in the OP.
 

Solomani

macrumors 601
Sep 25, 2012
4,785
10,477
Slapfish, North Carolina
Apple representatives attended the contest and were made aware of the security exploits used in the contest.

This is the best point regarding this news. The fact that Apple sent reps to the conference, they were standing by ready to learn of any uncovered security flaws on Apple's own browser. Hopefully it leads to Apple to plugging those holes in a timely manner.

Good.
 

steve333

macrumors 65816
Dec 12, 2008
1,267
907
I'm getting tired of Safari and it's problems with certain websites and incompatibility.
Why doesn't Apple switch to a more compatible platform already?
 

macproredux

macrumors member
Mar 3, 2014
46
0
What do you base this on? There have been three exploits of Firefox presented at this PWN2OWN - why do you think Firefox would be more secure under Linux than under Windows?

Because user-land is separate from core, programs are in /usr/bin and important stuff in /etc. because you breach user-land you don't breach the core of the system. This is thing that is not true about OS X there are ways to block user-land too but..

Linux's fragmentation will make it inherently more secure.
 

leman

macrumors Core
Oct 14, 2008
19,153
18,920
Because user-land is separate from core, programs are in /usr/bin and important stuff in /etc. because you breach user-land you don't breach the core of the system. This is thing that is not true about OS X there are ways to block user-land too but..

Linux's fragmentation will make it inherently more secure.

What difference does the filesystem layout make in this case? If you are able to get control of a browser, you gain permissions of the user which has launched the browser. This is often enough to wreck havoc on the system, like reading/deleting user files etc. Starting with Vista, the permission system of Windows works quite similar to those of OS X or, say, Ubuntu.

BTW, the filesystem organisation is one reason why I tend to stay away from Linux. Its really difficult to manage software it it puts itself all over the file tree. OS X with its bundle system is the best solution I have seen so far.
 

macproredux

macrumors member
Mar 3, 2014
46
0
What difference does the filesystem layout make in this case? If you are able to get control of a browser, you gain permissions of the user which has launched the browser. This is often enough to wreck havoc on the system, like reading/deleting user files etc. Starting with Vista, the permission system of Windows works quite similar to those of OS X or, say, Ubuntu.

BTW, the filesystem organisation is one reason why I tend to stay away from Linux. Its really difficult to manage software it it puts itself all over the file tree. OS X with its bundle system is the best solution I have seen so far.

It doesn't put everything all over the file tree it puts data on two places just like OS X and none of it is in root like OS X. If you exploit a user you exploited that user not the system, systems like Ubuntu don't even create a root user that could exploit the whole system.
 

leman

macrumors Core
Oct 14, 2008
19,153
18,920
It doesn't put everything all over the file tree it puts data on two places just like OS X and none of it is in root like OS X. If you exploit a user you exploited that user not the system, systems like Ubuntu don't even create a root user that could exploit the whole system.

OS X applications are usually a bundle, which is one single folder. Under Unix, the application files are usually scattered somewhere within \usr\local or wherever. I have no idea what you mean by 'in root', it doesn't make any sense to me. And - every Linux has a root user. Under Ubuntu, just like under OS X or Windows, the user with admin rights can temporally get root privileges by using user elevation.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.