On Wednesday, October 17, 2001, at 10:32 AM, Cranz, Gregory wrote:
> And Solaris, IRIX, Linux, AIX, and any other flavor of UN*X you get 
> ALSO ALL
> need SERIOUS work out of the box to make them secure.

yup.

and i can attest that at SGI a lot of work went into tightening the OS 
up as shipped, and in providing scripts to help the admin further secure 
the machine.  however, that only goes so far; security of the local 
configuration is a local administration issue.  the default installed 
configuration of MacOS X seems to me to be quite reasonable, 
security-wise, relative to UNIX distribution norms.

nonetheless, it's useful to distinguish between security flaws due to 
misconfiguration and those due to bad design or coding.  the behavior 
that Randall initially reported is bad design and/or coding.

i do note, however, that attempting to securing a UNIX box when there is 
direct physical access is rarely a useful endeavor -- if you can force a 
reboot from an arbitrary volume, or heck, yank the hard drive, it just 
ain't secure...  if there is a remote exploit of this general SUID 
problem, that's the place to start worrying.  that and the obvious 
implications about trusting a remote public MacOS X box.

> I suggest that we start a document that can be circulated to outline the
> steps that should be taken to secure OS/X.  Similar documents exist for 
> all
> of the above platforms I mentioned.

yup.

though this may not be the right list to host such work.  except, i 
guess, where Perl can be used to secure or test the security of a 
configuration.  and where Perl itself presents security issues.  i 
expect the former is likely, and later (from the bad design/coding 
viewpoint) unlikely (except where generally understood, and already well 
documented).  (hmm, well, mod_perl gets tricky, but it's not loaded in 
the default httpd config).

> I don't think we should leave it to Apple to make us secure.

yup.

but they shouldn't ship gratuitous security holes.

> There's several million people who made the same mistake with 
> Micro$oft & I think we
> all know just how much effort they put into security...
> Macro virus anyone?  pathetic...

yup.

but then again, they're the big fat easy target.   let's hope that in a 
few years you aren't saying the same about Apple Script viruses.  or 
maybe we should hope that...

-Greg
-- www.suddensound.com --

Reply via email to