, SecurityFocus 2005-11-29
When the SANS Institute, a computer-security training organization, released its Top-20 vulnerabilities last week, the rankings continued an annual ritual aimed at highlighting the worst flaws for network administrators. This year, the list had something different, however: The group flagged the collective vulnerabilities in Apple Computer's Mac OS X operating system as a major threat.
Expand all |
Post comment
Mac OS X security under scrutiny
2005-11-29
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Mac OS X security under scrutiny
2005-11-29
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Re: Mac OS X security under scrutiny
2005-11-29
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Mac OS X security under scrutiny
2005-11-29
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Mac OS X security under scrutiny
2005-11-29
Anonymous (3 replies)
Anonymous (3 replies)
Re: Mac OS X security under scrutiny
2005-11-30
Matthew Murphy (1 replies)
Matthew Murphy (1 replies)
Re: Re: Mac OS X security under scrutiny
2005-12-01
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Mac OS X security under scrutiny
2005-11-29
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Mac OS X security under scrutiny
2005-11-30
Jeffsters (1 replies)
Jeffsters (1 replies)

So far there have been only a couple of remote exploits and they were quite a long time ago. The last one that I remember was the "launch services" bug where a website could change your helper application and then run arbitrary code. This was fixed within two weeks and it was a major update to the launch services code. It was actually pretty impressive. And the Mac community had a couple of solutions that didn't require Apple out in two days or less of the problem becoming known.
Since then, the most serious vulnerability was a slight flaw in the Dashboard that could load new Dashboard widgets that looked like built-in widgets. Again, fixed in a matter of weeks.
The idea that there are lots of OS X boxes out there that are not patched is also not likely to be very true. OS X comes with software update automatically enabled. The majority of machines are automatically patched. So that shouldn't be a major concern unless there is some evidence that users are turning off automatic updates.
There needs to be more research (or at least something published) before I can take this seriously. Oh and I wouldn't buy software from Symantec anyway.
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/11359/32805#32805