We're not really certain why anyone's surprised by the iPhone libtiff exploit at this point -- it's the entire
basis of the
1.1.1 jailbreak, after all -- but apparently Fast Company didn't get the memo, because it just posted up this video of "self-employed security consultant" Rik Farrow using the 'sploit to surreptitiously install a voice recorder on an unpatched 1.1.1 iPhone. That would have been huge news when the iPhone first came out, obviously (and look at that -- it
was) but FC and Rik are a little late, here: the libtiff exploit has already been patched, first by the Jailbreakme 1.1.1 web-jailbreak and then by Apple in the
1.1.2 update. There's no doubt that it's a serious vulnerability -- and Rik's confidently paranoid tone in this video makes it a must-watch -- but it's funny to see people get all worked up over a patched security hole hackers have been exploiting on a
variety of devices for some time now.
posted Nov 16th 2007 6:49PM
lol @ ipwn
Somehow I'm less afraid of a hacker wire tapping my phone than a government official with a sweeping license to kill and creep via the patriot act...
1.0.2 for life nigga!
And 1.0.2 prevent this how?
because I don't have to use att the fbi and cia favorite source for listening in on every phone convo grandma and every ot her self respecting person has a constitutional right to written in the United States Constitution of America to Privacy! Duh? Need I say more sheepfucker?
and to answer yes 1.0.2 matters because it was the first commercial release of iphone firmware after they announced the 200 amereuro price drop. It is significant because most third party apps worth half a shit were derived during this period also. 1.1.1 procedeed to further break funcionality of these applications to patch a fictional security flaw that this farce of a story covers. i.e. some guy uploading a tiff image through wifi to your phone which is a joke in and of itself to get you stupid fucks to upgrade to a locked state.
This guy is probably hired by apple anyway.
and furthermore he has to have installed ssh on the iphone for this to work...
So this is infact an ad from apple to get you to upgrade to apple due to the new att service where you don't even have to use t-mobile for a good plan. Is it coincidence that they just made available a -$20 for non edge data phones???
No it is not. This is a fear tactic.
Even if this Skeletor looking grey haired buffoon tried to tiff exploit my phone I'd laugh at all the shit he would record. Possibly me taking a horrible dump after a night of heavy boozing and dehydration. Maybe he would install something I can't see (which is nothing because I have access due to 1.0.2 firmware to all process running on my os at anytime)
I've made my case.
This is fear tactics to get people to upgrade and brick phones.
Steve and the rest=full FAIL
let me guess...
9/11 was planned by Bush
JFK was killed by the Cuban Mafia
The moon landings were staged
Paul is dead
There are aliens at Area 51
Did I miss any?
Oh, they're going to Iraq for liberating the people there. That's a big conspiracy
@thethirdmoose
The government puts fluoride in my drinking water!
The camera angle in the first 8 seconds of this video is incredibly unnecessary.
This whole video is unnecessary, lol.
Because Apples are perfect... duh!!!! All issues are the fault of the ignorant n00b!!!
All kidding aside, all OSes have exploitable and have weaknesses whether it is MS Windows, Apple OSX, or various flavors of *nix. Heck, "unbreakable" Oracle is a rats nest of security issues. There are flaws in OSX but they just have not been exploited or discovered yet.
Big Microsoft security flaws make easy news since many people have at least one Windows based system in their homes and many work on a Windows based system at work. Plus the malware creators want to hit a huge number of systems at once and make an impact when they look for code virii, trojans, and worms.
The iPhone is a victim of its own success. Lots of publicity has put it on the radar of those seeking to gain from the iPhone's popularity. While the TIFF buffer overflow was used for "good," it was only a matter of time before it was used for something bad.
Before the fanboys from various sides swarm and sling their death threats, I am in charge of a network of 500+ *nix, MS Windows, and OSX Servers. There are patches to close security holes for all the above OSes along with the apps that run on top of them
Well Nilay Patel, clearly you are not a infosec person but to say the least, not everyone is updating their phones regularly, and I have just bought and IPhone yesterday and it came with 1.1.1
those eyes scream........ "tox screen"!
Wow, Engadget takes a que from Karl Rove and puts this in their Friday night news drip as to minimize damage to Apple. You guys sure you are not on Apples payroll?
What's up with the recording the guy made? The file he played didn't match what he was saying when he recorded it.
You guys are missing the point. Any security on a computer or device can be exploited if the hacker has physical access. That's the most basic principle of computer security. It's not whether an operating system has exploits and security holes, but whether those security holes can be exploited remotely, i.e., over an open internet connection.
With Windows, most hackers found out that yes, it was easy to hack Windows remotely for a variety of reasons, mostly because Microsoft left ports completely open and allowed every user to run as root. Windows also didn't require authentication during installing, opening itself up to mountains of malware. Internet Explorer exposed lots of user to viruses by automatically executing ActiveX plugins.
In OS X, on the other hand, you don't run as root and you need authentication to install anything on the system. And the Mail client does not execute scripts hackers send in e-mails. It has a completely different design architecture.
clak,
The Safari exploit must have happened so fast you missed it. He roots the iPhone with a web link. After that he is in total control of the iPhone, no local access is needed.
No, I didn't miss that, but he's using an exploit that has already been patched. That is the whole point of the article here. My point is, you got these Microsoft fanboys coming on here saying that because there was an exploit for the iPhone, there must be an exploits for OS X. While the iPhone runs everything at root, OS X does not. They are completely different animals. And that's exactly why Apple has avoided releasing an SDK for so long. They want to get the security aspect right.
I'm not saying there aren't exploits yet to be discovered on OS X, but the harm you can do once you gain access to OS X is drastically different than the harm you can do on a swiss cheese OS like Windows XP. Most of the security faults in Windows would be nullified by throwing away the registry and incorporating a level of authentication (not Allow/Deny but full password authentication) for critical tasks. Of course, I haven't used Vista yet, so maybe some of the exploits I mentioned have been fixed, but the majority of users still use XP.
clak,
No you are simply mistaken. Once this exploit is run via libtiff or whatever the jailbreak exploit is in the latest flavor, the iPhone is rooted. That is not as bad as XP or Vista, it is worse. Even worse, the iPhone does not have any of the security infrastructure in place to prevent damage. No firewalls, no sandboxs, nothing. This is a complete and total rooting of the operating system, the security in the iPhone is more on par with windows 95, just forget about XP like security for the time being. The guy covers it in very fine detail on his metasploit blog.
First of all, the point I have been trying to make is that security problems on the iPhone does not necessarily indicate security problems on OS X, as the MS fanboys immediately try to suggest whenever a story like this appears. OS X has had an open development platform for a while now. The iPhone has not. While I've already acknowledged that the iPhone runs at root, you're mistaken in claiming that the iPhone doesn't have a firewall or isn't sandboxed. No report I have seen backs up that statement (if I am wrong, provide your sources for that assertion).
While it is certainly possible, I personally believe there is no firewall simply because the iPhone has a closed environment, which is incidentally the same reason it runs as root. When the SDK comes out and the iPhone is officially open, that is likely to change. In fact, mark my words, application signing and permission levels will be some of the first features implemented in the SDK.
The misinformation campaign of Apple and its fanboys never stops. Are you comparng Windows 98 with OSX? Besides, application signing originated from Windows.
What? A hacker who gets physical access to my iPhone can do damage to it? Say it ain't so!
I believe an idiot with a hammer can also do damage if he has physical access to it, and he'll do it in a lot less steps than this crazy lookin' coot demonstrates.
Clak,
If you had minimally informed yourself about iPhone security you would know it does not have a firewall. Since you seem ignorant of that basic fact, I am forced to dismiss everything else you say. The simple fact of the matter is, the iPhone would not be threatened right now (this exploit would not work) if Apple had taken basic security precautions into consideration when designing the iPhone, and included a firewall. Considering how badly the security on the iPhone is botched (and it is) I think you need to re-evaluate Apples security in general.
For example, Apples recent release of Leopard has some basic security issues with their firewall! Well Duh, without a firewall OSX is vulnerable. Just accept that. Because also included in the last round of patches were privilege level escalation fixes. Which means leopard computers were not exploited only because no one tried.
Is OSX now the lowest hanging fruit? I honestly do not know. However given the lack of hubris on Apple users and Apple its self on this matter I will rue the day it does become the lowest hanging fruit.
It is basically apparent that Apple has managed this exploit news to be released on Friday evening to minimize the impact on their stock. As a self professed OSX security researcher, your hair should be on fire. Apple should be dealing with these issues up front and out in the open. They are not.
Get ready! Because it is comin.
Has anyone noticed that GregA finally posted this reply to a comment I made 11 hours ago?
You guys are missing the point. Any security on a computer or device can be exploited if the hacker has physical access. That's the most basic principle of computer security. It's not whether an operating system has exploits and security holes, but whether those security holes can be exploited remotely, i.e., over an open internet connection.
With Windows, most hackers found out that yes, it was easy to hack Windows remotely for a variety of reasons, mostly because Microsoft left ports completely open and allowed every user to run as root. Windows also didn't require authentication during installing, opening itself up to mountains of malware. Internet Explorer exposed lots of user to viruses by automatically executing ActiveX plugins.
In OS X, on the other hand, you don't run as root and you need authentication to install anything on the system. And the Mail client does not execute scripts hackers send in e-mails. It has a completely different design architecture.
I didn't want to resort to personal attacks, but some of you Windows fanboys are absolute morons. It is a common delusion among fanboys that Microsoft invented everything in existence. Code signing was invented by Verisign, a concept which was heavily encoded into Windows XP for all the reasons I've been talking about. Microsoft has always stunk at security. In fact, Windows Mobile didn't even have code-signing until Microsoft enlisted the help of GeoTrust, a company which, incidentally, was later bought out by Verisign.
At any rate, why are you deflecting to a false premise that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I've been discussing? Who cares who invented it?
And let me ask you a question, Jim: there are millions of Microsoft clones just like you who hate Apple users with a passion and yet not one of you guys have hacked OS X. Why not? Yeah, yeah, I know the old argument about market share and the whole security through obscurity myth, but you would think that at least one hacker would hack into OS X or write a virus for OS X, just to be able to say "I'm s0 1337 taht i pwn ur @ss n00bs!"
The simple fact that it hasn't happened makes me believe that many have tried and failed.
If OSX is truely so secure as you claimed, why does it start to have code signing, a concept first implemented in Windows? The point is, OS exploits do so through poorly implemented third-party applications executed with root privilege. In that sense, OSX is not more or less secure than Vista.
Jim, you got owned... and I don't even own a mac
I'm pretty much for both of them, Microsoft because the market and everything has shifted in their direction... also I love macs not only for style, but being so damn stable. Woot for both!?
I have to admit, I love the iPhone, Leopard, hell even OS10... yet I don't own either one
I like being able to slowly upgrade my PC part by part, I hate the feeling of buying one system and pretty much only being able to upgrade the hdd and ram (I hope I'm wrong, that that's all you can upgrade)
Cormin, I understand. I have to admit Steve Jobs is truely a marketing genius. He should have been in those late night TV infomericals instead of wasting his life in Apple, being seen by the public only a few times a year.
I must of rattled you, Jim, because now you're just blurting out nonsense. You're questioning why Apple incorporates good security design into their operating system, rather than the way Microsoft does it, which always an afterthought?
Unlike XP, Mac users didn't have to wait for to Service Packs for Apple to get it right. And I don't know if you read my last comment, but Microsoft DID NOT invent code signing. Variants of code signing have existed since the seventies and you would have to understand OS X's Unix heritage to fully grasp the subtleties, but something tells me you're not the type of guy that would fully understand, so you'll just have to trust me. LOL.
If you have ever used Vista once (assuming you are smart enough to use it that is), you wouldn't blurting out such nonsense that OSX (or Linux, Unix whatever) is more secure than Windows.
Crap, I'm so sleepy that I can't even write straight. Should have read:
I must of rattled you, Jim, because now you're just blurting out nonsense. You're questioning why Apple incorporates good security design into their operating system, rather than the way Microsoft does it, which (is) always an afterthought?
Unlike XP, Mac users didn't have to wait for (2) Service Packs for Apple to get it right. And I don't know if you read my last comment, but Microsoft DID NOT invent code signing. Variants of code signing have existed since the seventies and you would have to understand OS X's Unix heritage to fully grasp the subtleties, but something tells me you're not the type of guy that would fully understand, so you'll just have to trust me. LOL.
Clak,
The firewall did not work on the release version of leopard. Your quality assurance assumptions are way off base.
Dudes, chill out. It seems that every time Microsoft or Apple get mentioned, the comments degenerate into a war between the two bases, and it's really starting to get old. It would be nice to come into an article about Microsoft/Apple and see comments about the article and what is in it, rather then people bickering about which is better/worse/more secure/etc.
Just my $0.02 worth.
You chill out. This is exactly why we have a comment section, so that people can discuss, real civil like, the intricacies of their favorite computers. I got out of hand a bit, because I abhor ignorance, but I think I've made my point regardless, but thanks for your concern.
I'm sure none of what I just said will make any sense tomorrow morning. I'm tired. Mostly of fanboys. But I'm really, really tired.
Dear Engadget, I say we make a post only for Microsoft vs. Apple wars...
"Ladies and Gentlemen, Let's get ready to rumble!"
There needs to be a spot for this, it happens a lot.
wouldnt happen if engadget asked for it. it has to be in a post with a tiny reference to either os "iphone libtiff exploit...hmmm...the iphone runs mac! lets troll away into the night!" or something like that
mac pwns at most things. the only reason people use windows is because they either a)think they need to or b)play video games or have a task that truly cant be done in mac
i own a 24" imac and it hurts to use windows when i have to. in my opinion there are no "windows fanboys", or at least not very many, there are only those who need it and loathe it and those who know no better. oh and trolls of course. damned trolls. how did they ever figure how to get on engadget?
As for code signing, who is the copycat? And Apple is constantly saying others are copying?
Jim, you're just digging a bigger hole for yourself when you keep suggesting that Microsoft invented code signing. Next thing you know, you'll claim that Microsoft invented the longer lasting light bulb.
I am saying, Windows first brought code signing to OS level as a security feature. Cannot you apple fans even read, for god's sake!
Oh Geez! Okay, Jim, whatever. Microsoft invented computers, the internet, softcore porn, and Gary Coleman. I would ask you for a source, but why bother. Good night all.
I tried to go to sleep, but I just couldn't let it stand. I finally understand what has been lost in translation. You're under the impression, Jim, that Apple stole code signing from Windows. What I have been TRYING to get across to you is that Apple inherited a variant of code signing (look up something called crytographic hash function) when they decided to incorporate Unix (actually NeXT Step, but let's not split hairs), a 38 year old operating system that very secure and stabile.
OS X has always had good security from the ground up. If you look at Microsoft's history, they really didn't get serious about security until 2003, which is the year Service Pack 2 was released.
Okay? Got that? Good. Pleasant dreams.
Crytographic hash is not invented by anybody (just like multi-touch which Apple claims they invented). The idea came from many years of academic research in computer science and mathematics. But just like I recognize Apple brought multi-touch to the public, you should also recognize what Windows did to code signing. Otherwise why OSX is just starting to have it now when the basic functionality has been in the code that OSX is based on for so many years?
OK now we are on the same page. Pre-Vista Windows is indeed less secure. But Apple conveniently ignores the fact that Vista is now as secure as an OS can be and constantly resorts to smear campaign (the one and only tech company that uses this tactic), which sickens me.
No, I don't think we're on the same page. You keep saying that Microsoft popularized code signing, when I'm saying that Apple had code signing from the very beginning and for many years BEFORE Microsoft implemented it into Windows. That is one reason (there are many others) why malware and adware has never become an issue with Macs. When Microsoft finally decided to use code signing, they didn't develop it in-house, they simply used a method that was already commercially available on the market.
NeXT, the company that Steve Jobs started when he left Apple, developed an operating system called NeXTstep, which was based on BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) Unix. Apple bought out NeXT in 1996 and Jobs returned as CEO. During the intervening years, Jobs used NeXTstep as the foundation for OS X, which Apple finally released in 2001 (months before XP, I might add), although the very first version, Mac OS X Server 1.0, was released in 1999.
So code signing on Windows and code signing in OS X, have absolutely nothing to do with each other. And by all accounts, Steve Jobs had incorporated Unix security technology into the operating system that would become OS X a full decade before Microsoft released XP (in 1989).
I also would like to add that the World Web Web, the hypertext markup language that popularized the internet, was developed on a NeXT computer by Tim Berners-Lee. I just wanted to mention that in case you were under the delusion that Microsoft had something to do with starting the internet revolution.
That's one of the reasons I admire Steve Jobs. He single handedly created the personal computer revolution, he revolutionized computer animation with Pixar and he indirectly created the internet revolution, while all Microsoft has done, is copy his innovations. Now with the iPhone, he's set to revolutionize the cell phone market as well.
It also seems to me, Jim, that you're confusing basic distributed code signing with application signing, which is fundamentally different. By all indications, Apple is going to use the application signing popularized by Nokia, which involves certificates being issued by a certification authority, which verifies that the application in question has been tested against a commonly accepted test criteria and then certified. The distribution of such a system will no doubt be handled exclusively by iTunes, which will completely nullify attempts to execute code on the iPhone through other means, such as over an open internet connection.
The code signing you're probably referring to would have more in common with authenticode technology that Microsoft has been using in Internet Exploror since version 5 (1999).
GregA wrote, "It is basically apparent that Apple has managed this exploit news to be released on Friday evening to minimize the impact on their stock"
Clak mentioned it several times as did Engagdet. This is NOT new info. Apple did not convince anyone to delay releasing this "news" until a Friday. The hackers exploited this weakness in the iPhone well over a month ago, maybe two.
The chickening,
Physical access to your iPhone is not needed. The hacker only needs you to click on a link with a well designed payload.
You seem to be talking about trojans. The guy in the video uses an EXPLOIT to gain access to an iPhone that hasn't been updated with the latest firmware.
It is apparent that you don't know what you are talking about. Go read his blog. He uses the Safari Exploit to install the root kit. After that, it is over, the iPhone is pwned. If the iPhone had even minimal security measures in place, like a firewall, the attack would be stopped right there. However, the iPhone has no security counter measures in place. None.
I didn't realize how fast and furious the exploits for Safari and OS X were hitting when I started researching this story, but it is over man. Let it go, OS X (and the iPhone) is going to have a rough year. The patch that came out wednesday is proof of this.
My suggestion is, unplug your computer until it is over and Apple gets their ducks in a row.
That this particular exploit is patched is totally irrelevant, the jail break code released hours after this was patched makes it vulnerable again.
Oh, I should run and hide the same way Windows users run and hide from those 60,000 known viruses for Windows? Whatever, dude.
You obviously haven't been reading what I've been writing about for the past 12 hours. OS X security has nothing to do with iPhone security, which runs in a closed environment at root. OS X does not run at root and has several security features, because OS X has been an open environment since it was released in 2001.
You can keeping hoping, but it's not going to happen, brother. Meet me back here in a year and I guarantee you'll be eating those words.
clak,
You can't guarantee squat, because you are already wrong. You don't even know what a privilege level escalation exploit is, and assume OS X is safe from them. (hint there were a bunch of them fixed in the patch on wednesday)
And this does reflect upon OS X security, for example I would have never known about the failure of OS X's firewall in the shipping version of Leopard, if not for this hack.
And believe me, I am not sticking my head in the sand with regards to Windows failings, that's why I pwned you in this argument. I minimally knew what I was talking about when you did not.
The whole point in a privilege level escalation exploit is that you have to have root access to do serious damage. You don't run as root as an Administrator in OS X. You have to authenticate to get to that level. I haven't watched it again, but where in this video does the guy say anything about OS X security?
Also, do you have a specific example of a user that has been hacked because of Leopard's firewall? If you do, please link to it. I would really be interested in reading it. Most of the hype surrounding the firewall issue with Leopard was related to the way Apple classified the option to "Block All Incoming Transmissions," instead "Allow Only Essential Services," which refers to sandboxed applications running at root. Despite the media hype, no user was ever in any danger.
There was also lots of hype surrounding the fact that the firewall was turned off by default, although this was not news to any users who previously upgraded to Tiger, which featured the same default. Turning it back involved a one-click option. Although, even at the default setting, there is really no reason for most users to worry, because as I've stated previously, no user runs at root.
And I'll present the same question to you that I presented to a Microsoft user earlier: there are millions of Microsoft fanboys who hate Apple users with a passion and yet not one of you guys have hacked OS X. Why not? You would have thought that at least one of you clueless morons, even a glorified script kiddie, would have hacked OS X at least once, just for the bragging rights. The simple fact that you're just predicting attacks in the future, instead of citing examples of OS X attacks in its six year history, tells me all I need to know about the security in OS X.
clak,
You lose again. You can't complain about third party hyperbole when talking about Apple. You... Just... Can't...
ok mr grega, lets say you have an iphone. if i was to get a mallet and hit your iphone with it really really hard, it would break. if i watched you type your password on your iphone and then nicked it and typed it in, i would have access to it.
this is more of a reply to your previous posts but seriously. the iphone is a phone. easy to hack
and as for mac i dont believe in the whole macs will get hacks thing i agree with clak on this one. it wont forever be virgin to viruses, but osx is one tough cookie compared to windows.
I lose again, huh, despite the fact that you haven't backed up any of your bonehead assertions with actual evidence? Perhaps if you say it enough times it will really be true! And who said anything about third parties? I'm asking YOU directly to back up your bold statements. Or is this a less-than-graceful attempt to stall me as you run over to Google to find at least one user who's been touched by a virus on OS X?
I'll be waiting when you get back.
stfu man you talk too much
"Back in my day, the Commies..."
"Shut up Grandpa, go take your medicine"
Well I will just assume you concede defeat with all the name calling. And actually, there is a significant ongoing virus threat occurring to OS X right now, but you won't agree that a Trojan horse that installs a root kit represents a threat.
Pwned again... getting boring unless you have anything new?
Let see you spammed this forum first with the idea that the exploit needed to be executed locally, I smacked you down.
Then you claimed that this exploit is patched so no need to worry, and smacked you down again.
Then you claimed the non existent iPhone firewall would defend against threats like this...
Then you claimed there were no viruses for OS X. To which you have only proved you will disagree to security researchers what a virus is. Say where did you get your PHD?
Then you complain about hyperbole, while discussing an Apple product...
Lol, you are like that guy from the Chumba Wumba song. "I, get, knocked down, but I get up again!" Dude you are getting your butt whuped!! Stay down!
I love how you add stuff later, disrupting the flow of the argument, as you've done GregA.
Wrong again, I started discussing security in this forum LAST NIGHT (Don't think I didn't notice that you added comments this morning at 10:03 AM to make yourself look better) because several people made insinuations that an already patched exploit discovered on the iPhone somehow correlated to security exploits on OS X. Some of you morons also seem to think local access hacks (like those used to unlock the iPhone) have the same threat level as remotely executed hacks.
I was able clarify that a closed software environment running root (like the iPhone) has nothing to do with an open environment with restricted Administrator privileges (like with OS X). I also brought out the fact that no security expert has been able to prove that the iPhone does not have a firewall, because as you fanboys are so quick to point out, the iPhone is a closed environment. I also pointed out that if there is indeed no firewall, one will almost certainly be included with the SDK, because at that point, the iPhone will be officially "open."
So I don't see how you "pwned" me, when your every argument hinges on viruses that haven't been written and on exploits that have already been patched on the iPhone and for exploits that don't even exist in OS X.
And the question isn't whether I have something new, it's whether you have anything at all. I'm still waiting for the evidence that backs up your bonehead statements.
Hello all,
fast company here. clak and gregA, i won't pretend to understand half of what you're saying, but it's a blast watching you kill each other. a couple quick points: we weren't posting this bec it was news to geeks that the iphone (and as Farrow say, pretty much any other smartphone) is hackable--we did it because it's news to rank and file users, and a video (even a pretty brutal coding seminar of a video) brings that home in a way a blog post or story cannot. Second, Farrow did NOT need physical access to the phone. the only reason the phone was in the same place as he was was because he did the whole thing himself and the man only has two hands and two legs. it could easily have been down the hall in the pocket of a third party. finally, we made this before the new patch was issued. we knew one was coming, but not when, so we went ahead--i have a sneaking suspicion if wouldn't take too long to reproduce this experiment with the patch in place. but again, i'm no hacker. that said, i'd be happy to sponsor the effort!
you guys make me think i should put you up on stage (in a steel cage?) and slug this out in front of a live audience. thanks!
Will Bourne
Executive Editor
Fast Company
I'm sorry if I got out of hand, but when people start suggesting that OS X is not secure because an exploit or a hack has been created either to unlock or install applications on the iPhone, I have to speak up, because that's exactly the sort of ignorance holding back innovative companies like Apple.
And I understand that Farrow hacked the iPhone remotely, but you can't equate that to the vast majority of the hacks that people have engineered by having local access to the iPhone itself. It just doesn't work that way.
I think it's also hypocritical for people to criticize Apple for keeping the phone closed, when Steve Jobs has been saying all along that the reason the phone is closed is for security reasons. You can't have both ways. Anyway, thanks for calming the tone, Will. I appreciate it.
I get knocked down
But I get up again
You're never going to keep me down
Pissing the night away
Pissing the night away
He drinks a whisky drink
He drinks a vodka drink
He drinks a lager drink
He drinks a cider drink
He sings the songs that remind him
Of the good times
He sings the songs that remind him
Of the better times
Don't cry for me
Next door neighbour
I get knocked down
But I get up again
You're never going to keep me down
GregA is the epitome of a vacuous fanboy. He can't support his argument so he resorts to insults, leet speak and now, singing!
Now this is really getting me abit concern that the exploit can be used for mischief for now I guess I hold off of using it and continue using my iphone and ipod for more ipod downloads at http://www.ipodtunesdownloads.com
GregA, I've just read through it all and as I windows user myself, I'd say you haven't "pwned" anything or anyone. Backup your comments with some factual points or data to gain some respect from the non-fanboy population.
Apparently you missed the post by Will Bourne. No local access needed, check. Probably easy to reproduce, check. Farrow installed and accessed ssh remotely on a iphone by "tricking" a user to click on a link, check.
That part of the argument, I am the definitive winner. QED.
Clak went on to claim that there were no viruses on OS X. However, There is a very serious virus in the wild for OS X right now. I am not going to post a link to it, because Clak (and probably you as well) will disagree that a Trojan horse that exploits a quick time vulnerability and installs a fake dns server on the local computer is a threat...
Clak then continues to insist that the OS X firewall offers protection, even though said Trojan horse virus exploits deficiencies in in the OS X firewall to phone home.
Clak then resorts to name calling, petty insults and semantics to somehow deduce that all the facts are irrelevant. Which is my que to declare victory and do a little victory dance while singing Tubthumper, because you know internet flame wars have such a rich history of the loser admiting defeat, LOL.
Got it yet? Pwned... But only because as it turns out I am acutally leet.
But this is now VERY boring because nothing new has been said for like 10 posts.
GregA is still promoting baseless FUD. You are right in assuming that I wouldn't equate this trojan to a virus.
Look up "computer virus" on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_virus) and you'll find this:
"A computer virus is a computer program that can copy itself and infect a computer without permission or knowledge of the user. However, the term "virus" is commonly used, albeit erroneously, to refer to many different types of malware programs."
The trojan you are referring to, UltraCodec 1237, first has to be downloaded by a Mac user from a porn site. Now in the current version of Leopard, there is a new tagging feature to track this type of malware. I'll reproduce the feature directly from Apple's web site here:
(http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/300.html)
"Tagging Downloaded Applications
Protect yourself from potential threats. Any application downloaded to your Mac is tagged. Before it runs for the first time, the system asks for your consent — telling you when it was downloaded, what application was used to download it, and, if applicable, what URL it came from."
Okay, so getting back to this so-called virus (trojan) that GregA is talking about, first the user has to download and click through a warning built into Leopard, which allows the user to see the source of the aforementioned trojan. But there's another layer of security. Before you actually install any application in OS X, you have to type in your Administration password, at which point you're infected.
Now if you go back to the definition of a virus, the first criteria is that a virus "copy itself and infect a computer without permission or knowledge of the user." So the UltraCodec trojan doesn't meet the first criteria, since user interaction is necessary for it to be useful. Getting infected with this virus would be tantamount to a person who pays for a state of the art security system and installs dead bolts into his home, only to give out his keys and the password to his security system to first shady looking character on the street. That doesn't mean his house (or in this case, OS X) is any less secure.
The second criteria of a virus, is that it copies itself. From every source I've read about this virus, the UltraCodec is a phishing trojan, which simply redirects your web traffic. It is not, however, malicious in the sense that it can propagate, spreading itself to other machines.
If you trust Wikipedia (I'm citing Wikipedia because I doubt the majority of readers are going to go out and purchase the myriad security manuals I could cite here), the second criteria is that a virus copies itself. From every source I've read about this virus, the UltraCodec is a phishing trojan, which simply redirects your browser.
The definition of a trojan, according to Wikipedia:
"In the context of computing and software, a Trojan horse, or simply trojan, is a piece of software which appears to perform a certain action, but in fact, performs another. Contrary to popular belief, this action, usually encoded in a hidden payload, may or may not be acutely malicious, but Trojan horses are notorious today for their use in the installation of backdoor programs. Simply put, a Trojan horse is not a computer virus."
For more in depth information about this trojan, you can also go and read what Carl Howe's blog, who sums up all these issues rather nicely, in a plain, easy to understand diction.
http://blackfriarsinc.com/blog/2007/11/mac-os-x-malware-myth-continues-and-no
Damn phony idiot...
Metasploit is not used by security experts. It is used by script kiddies.
You do not have to be an expert in order to use Metasploit. The fact that the hack is even inside Metasploit shows how old it is - it takes time for the real hackers to add exploits into Metasploit, and by that time the exploit is almost always already patched (even by Microsoft). Script kiddies use it to hack into unpatched machines, which are far too common, to be then called by the ignorant media "hackers"...
I guess he is self employed since no decent security company will hire such a buffoon...
"I hope Steve Jobs never makes another revolutionary product, just to spite you idiots. He taps water from a rock and everyone wants wine!" http://www.blogsmith.com/profile/1336179/page/3/
blasphemy.. equating jobs as moses.. to think i almost believed in you..
Well, at least some Mac users have a sense of humor. Since so many people have been referring to the iPhone as the "Jesus Phone," seems to me that a biblical reference would be appropriate. Of course, you're probably the first person to make the connection.
And to think, I had given up on the intelligence of the blog reading public!
What has been overlooked here (and mentioned only in passing in the video) is that this exploit requires SSH in order to be of any use, and SSH has to be installed and configured on the iPhone BY THE USER.
This isn't meant to belittle the seriousness of this exploit (because it is -- or was -- a serious exploit), but even with a compromised iPhone an attacker cannot gain access if the owner hasn't first installed SSH, or some other application that will allow remote access. I have a feeling that your rank-and-file iPhone users won't be up late figuring out how to install SSH onto it.
Note how Fast Company's sign up page ends with:
'); else document.write('');
rendered visibly on the HTML page. OK, no biggie, but it doesn't make them look particularly professional...