Apple: Most OS X Users Safe from 'Bash' Security Flaw, Software Update Coming Soon

[MacRumors]

Yesterday, it was revealed that security researchers from Red Hat uncovered a major exploit in the "Bash" command shell found in OS X and Linux. Named "Shellshock" by security experts, the exploit allows hackers to gain access to web connected devices and services through the use of malicious code.

Now, an Apple spokesperson (via iMore) has commented on the matter, stating that the majority of OS X users are safe from the exploits and that the company is working to provide a software update for advanced UNIX users:

The vast majority of OS X users are not at risk to recently reported bash vulnerabilities," an Apple spokesperson told iMore. "Bash, a UNIX command shell and language included in OS X, has a weakness that could allow unauthorized users to remotely gain control of vulnerable systems. With OS X, systems are safe by default and not exposed to remote exploits of bash unless users configure advanced UNIX services. We are working to quickly provide a software update for our advanced UNIX users.

The exploit was called "as big as Heartbleed" by security researcher Robert Graham, who was referring to a flaw discovered in the popular open-source software OpenSSL that affected 66% of the Internet earlier this year. Apple eventually announced that Heartbleed did not affect its software or key services, and also released updates for AirPort Extreme and Time Capsule. It is likely that a fix for the Bash exploit will arrive relatively soon for users.

Article Link: Apple: Most OS X Users Safe from 'Bash' Security Flaw, Software Update Coming Soon

 

[akfgpuppet]

Might as well include this with the Yosemite update.

 

[brdeveloper]

What does "advanced UNIX services" mean?

I hope it doesn't mean ssh or a http web server supporting PHP scripting.

 

[Glassed Silver]

Might as well include this with the Yosemite update.

Even after Yosemite will be released prior major versions of OS X like Mavericks are still in active support, especially for security patches.

If you think that holding this sort of an update for 3-4 weeks when a patch is available is acceptable I think your expectations are a little low.

Update needs to be shipped asap. End of story.

Glassed Silver:mac

 

[oldmacs]

I really hope they release an Update for Lion forwards. A lot of users on White MacBooks were prematurely left behind with Lion because Apple couldn't be bothered to rewrite the graphics driver.

Also there are a lot of people who won't want to update to Yosemite, so an update for 10.7,10.8,10.9 and 10.10 will hopefully ship

 

[Glassed Silver]

What does "advanced UNIX services" mean?

I hope it doesn't mean ssh or a http web server supporting PHP scripting.

http://alblue.bandlem.com/2014/09/bash-remote-vulnerability.html

Fixes it now and for any OS X version regardless of Apple's support status for your OS.

I really hope they release an Update for Lion forwards. A lot of users on White MacBooks were prematurely left behind with Lion because Apple couldn't be bothered to rewrite the graphics driver.

Also there are a lot of people who won't want to update to Yosemite, so an update for 10.7,10.8,10.9 and 10.10 will hopefully ship

See above, also, Lion and up remain supported for security patches.
Also, I could imagine that even unsupported OS X versions like Snow Leopard (its security support cycle ran out this year) MIGHT get an official goodwill update from Apple.

Glassed Silver:mac

 

[dagger01]

What does "advanced UNIX services" mean?

I hope it doesn't mean ssh or a http web server supporting PHP scripting.

Here's a link to an example of the exploit:

http://security.stackexchange.com/q...ow-the-shellshock-bash-bug-could-be-exploited

If you have to run a non-Apple daemon or script for a service you're running, then you might have a problem. So, ssh is probably safe, but depending on what system level CGI shell scripts you're running on your webserver (not PHP) you may be vulnerable. Basically, any script starting with "#!/bin/bash" (minus the quotes) at the top of it is going to expose your system, potentially, until it's patched.

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

Lets hope so.

 

[oldmacs]

http://alblue.bandlem.com/2014/09/bash-remote-vulnerability.html

Fixes it now and for any OS X version regardless of Apple's support status for your OS.


See above, also, Lion and up remain supported for security patches.
Also, I could imagine that even unsupported OS X versions like Snow Leopard (its security support cycle ran out this year) MIGHT get an official goodwill update from Apple.

Glassed Silver:mac

Wops! I missed that!

If its such a massive issue lets hope Apple has good will We just put a SSD in our 2008 Macbook with Lion and it runs like a dream, it would be sad to be forced off it due to this

 

[1member1]

you can check if your machine is vulnerable http://lifehacker.com/how-to-check-if-your-mac-or-linux-machine-is-vulnerable-1639211806

 

[iVoid]

Might as well include this with the Yosemite update.

I'd rather they fix it for ML and Mav now.

 

[MH01]

What does "advanced UNIX services" mean?

I hope it doesn't mean ssh or a http web server supporting PHP scripting.

Connected to the big bad internet....

Its just a PR blurb, using a lot of big words and yet saying nothing. Damage control.

The quicker they roll out the patch, the sooner all the users can be safe.

 

[oldmacs]

I'd rather they fix it for ML and Mav now.

And Lion!!!

 

[bradl]

What does "advanced UNIX services" mean?

I hope it doesn't mean ssh or a http web server supporting PHP scripting.

It does. Anything that allows remote access to bash would be considered vulnerable. That could be anything from SSH to Apache (especially if running mod_cgi, or any other module that allows system() calls), to DHCP.

You can configure PHP to not execute system() functions and still leave mod_php running, but until Apple puts out the update (or you roll your own), you may want to look at allowing only people who need to connect remotely to your mac to connect and firewall off everything else. Setting the AllowUsers variable in sshd_config will take care of that, but if you are truly paranoid, change your user's shell to something other than /bin/bash.

And disable mod_cgi. You're already asking for it just by nature of it being enabled.

BL.

 

[cowbellallen]

you can check if your machine is vulnerable http://lifehacker.com/how-to-check-if-your-mac-or-linux-machine-is-vulnerable-1639211806

So my computer is apparently vulnerable. Wonderful!

 

[dakota747]

you can check if your machine is vulnerable http://lifehacker.com/how-to-check-if-your-mac-or-linux-machine-is-vulnerable-1639211806

Vulnerable and running Yosemite Beta

 

[kerrikins]

Good to see Apple reacting swiftly to these things, hope they get the fix out soon.

 

[subsonix]

It does. Anything that allows remote access to bash would be considered vulnerable. That could be anything from SSH to Apache (especially if running mod_cgi, or any other module that allows system() calls), to DHCP.

Allowing remote access to bash is vulnerable by definition, it's not a bug but a feature. It doesn't look like dhcp is affected on OS X btw, you need a service that sets environment variables from user input.

 

[iLilana]

wait

the sky isn't falling?

 

[oldmacs]

Vulnerable and running Yosemite Beta

I'm vulnerable on both Lion and Mavericks.

 

[katewes]

I really hope they release an Update for Lion forwards. A lot of users on White MacBooks were prematurely left behind with Lion because Apple couldn't be bothered to rewrite the graphics driver.

Also there are a lot of people who won't want to update to Yosemite, so an update for 10.7,10.8,10.9 and 10.10 will hopefully ship

I'd rather they fix it for ML and Mav now.

And Lion!!!

All of you. Spare a thought for those loyal Mac users still running Snow Leopard.

I'm forced to keep my 2006 white, matte-screen iMac because Apple won't make anti-glare screen iMacs anymore. While the current iMacs have less glare, you can still use it as a mirror.

 

[poematik13]

typical online media always blowing things out of proportion

 

[bradl]

Allowing remote access to bash is vulnerable by definition, it's not a bug but a feature.

Not necessarily; tcsh, ash, zsh, and ksh don't have this issue, and they are just as accessible remotely.

It doesn't look like dhcp is affected on OS X btw, you need a service that sets environment variables from user input.

IIRC, the DHCP server can set those, let alone run scripts as soon as it successfully allocates an IP address to a client. So if running as a server, it could possibly affect it. It definitely does in Linux. I haven't set up dhcp server on my MBA, nor do I intend to, but the situation could still exist, especially if someone rolls their own.

typical online media always blowing things out of proportion

I don't think you understand the magnitude of this vulnerability. EVERY version of Unix or unix-like operating system that uses bash is vulnerable: Linux, Solaris, OS X, Next, Ultrix, SunOS, OSF/1, AIX, HP/UX, NetBSD, FreeBSD, and Irix are all included. If you wanted to stretch it, Windows is also vulnerable through Cygwin. That sure as hell isn't the media blowing it out of proportion, especially if nearly every service a machine could run uses these as its underlying OS.

The magnitude of this is far more reaching than you realize.

BL.

 

[subsonix]

Not necessarily; tcsh, ash, zsh, and ksh don't have this issue, and they are just as accessible remotely.

Yeah, but the point was that allowing remote access is a vulnerability regardless of what shell your are using, and that is not the issue here.

IIRC, the DHCP server can set those, let alone run scripts as soon as it successfully allocates an IP address to a client. So if running as a server, it could possibly affect it. It definitely does in Linux. I haven't set up dhcp server on my MBA, nor do I intend to, but the situation could still exist, especially if someone rolls their own.

BL.

Yeah the point wasn't that a dhcp server can not be affected, it's an implementation detail because setting environmental variables isn't a requirement for dhcp per se.

 

[CrazyForApple]

If they want to do that to me, by all means go right ahead. I really don't care.