5 ms·

Are you talking about his comment about -no_shared_cr3, which causes a noticable performance degradation, and how he will be releasing a kext soon - neither of

Are you talking about his comment about -no_shared_cr3, which causes a noticable performance degradation, and how he will be releasing a kext soon - neither of which is mentioned in the github readme, but buried in HN comments? A small portion of users might be considered vigilant, but they're not psychic. The largest target for local privesc are the people who get hit by different kinds of malware, usually as a payload in sleazy spyware installers. The malware authors now have a few profitable weeks before Apple patches it (here's hoping they're quick!) and only the elite few who know how to deploy an unsigned kext (that still isn't available) will be able to protect themselves. Still not seeing the upside to this.

scintill76 11y ago
I'm counting on the press and community to distribute the information about the no_shared_cr3 workaround and any kext that comes out, just as Apple's fix is most effective when everyone's being told they should be sure it gets applied. There are people in this thread more secure today than they were yesterday, and they owe it to this "irresponsible disclosure." Do they have less of a right to security than the "unelite"? We don't know whether this is already being exploited by someone else, and as you said, it could be weeks before an official patch. This release both lights a fire under Apple and helps a few people patch early or at least be extra-careful about what they execute. That's an "upside"... I guess it's down to one's own values and possibly omniscience to conclusively determine whether the downsides outweigh that. A more responsible version of this might be to release the source of a kext that patches the issue concurrently with confirmation from Apple. Apple got a few hours' head-start, some people can patch early, malware authors will have to spend some time reverse-engineering a complete exploit.
- MagerValp 11y ago
  As a bare minimum Apple needs a few hours to analyze the bug, and if the fix is straightforward and doesn't cause any regressions the QA process can begin. Getting the it out to the general public in less than a week is extremely unlikely, and that's provided that they deem it critical enough for an emergency patch (my guess is no). Otherwise we're going to be vulnerable until 10.10.6 and security update 2015-007. Malware already preys on those least capable of defending themselves, so an unsigned 3rd party kext or a performance degrading boot option does nothing to protect them. We have no indication that this was being exploited by anyone else, if they were that would be newsworthy in itself. I like your idea of releasing an unofficial patch instead of exploit code though. I still think that you should follow the established responsible disclosure process, but it would at least show some interest in helping users. Oh, and don't be a dick and release it on a Saturday afternoon.
- gress 11y ago
  This argument is a general argument for is irresponsible disclosure of 0-days. You don't need omnicience to determine whether the downsides outweigh the potential benefits to a tiny number of jumpy elite who would have to be constantly following and applying patches. Notably those patches couldn't be applied blindly - so all of those 'elite' in parallel would have to fully understand the exploit and patches lest these become just another attack vector. There is clearly no justification for this. This isn't just irresponsible. It's a straight up attack on users.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Malware that uses this exploit to cause damage is a straight up attack on users. Merely revealing a vulnerability isn't an attack. The vulnerability was there all along, and there's no guarantee that this person is the only one who could find it, or even the first. I'm all for responsible disclosure. But I think we need to clarify good and bad here. Responsible disclosure is better than just announcing findings to the world, but telling people about what you've discovered is not bad.
    - MagerValp 11y ago
      There's writing a nicely worded letter, and sending it in a rose scented envelope. And then there's scribbling a note, tying it to a rock, and throwing it through the window. Telling the world via a fully working exploit causes a ton of collateral damage, and the author made no effort at all to reduce the impact. Waiting for 10.10.5 and releasing it on a Saturday afternoon makes it seem like the point was to cause as big a mess as possible.
      - mikeash 11y ago
        Maybe Saturday afternoon just happened to be when he finished. And no, it's not like throwing a rock through somebody's window. The information may be used by other people to cause damage, but the mere act of releasing it is not by itself damaging. Let's put blame where it belongs: on the people actually using exploits for bad purposes. If you want to encourage responsible disclosure, don't lead with bad analogies about what happens when you announce a vulnerability to the world, because it just reduces your credibility.

scintill76 11y ago

I'm counting on the press and community to distribute the information about the no_shared_cr3 workaround and any kext that comes out, just as Apple's fix is most effective when everyone's being told they should be sure it gets applied. There are people in this thread more secure today than they were yesterday, and they owe it to this "irresponsible disclosure." Do they have less of a right to security than the "unelite"? We don't know whether this is already being exploited by someone else, and as you said, it could be weeks before an official patch. This release both lights a fire under Apple and helps a few people patch early or at least be extra-careful about what they execute. That's an "upside"... I guess it's down to one's own values and possibly omniscience to conclusively determine whether the downsides outweigh that. A more responsible version of this might be to release the source of a kext that patches the issue concurrently with confirmation from Apple. Apple got a few hours' head-start, some people can patch early, malware authors will have to spend some time reverse-engineering a complete exploit.

MagerValp 11y ago
As a bare minimum Apple needs a few hours to analyze the bug, and if the fix is straightforward and doesn't cause any regressions the QA process can begin. Getting the it out to the general public in less than a week is extremely unlikely, and that's provided that they deem it critical enough for an emergency patch (my guess is no). Otherwise we're going to be vulnerable until 10.10.6 and security update 2015-007. Malware already preys on those least capable of defending themselves, so an unsigned 3rd party kext or a performance degrading boot option does nothing to protect them. We have no indication that this was being exploited by anyone else, if they were that would be newsworthy in itself. I like your idea of releasing an unofficial patch instead of exploit code though. I still think that you should follow the established responsible disclosure process, but it would at least show some interest in helping users. Oh, and don't be a dick and release it on a Saturday afternoon.
gress 11y ago
This argument is a general argument for is irresponsible disclosure of 0-days. You don't need omnicience to determine whether the downsides outweigh the potential benefits to a tiny number of jumpy elite who would have to be constantly following and applying patches. Notably those patches couldn't be applied blindly - so all of those 'elite' in parallel would have to fully understand the exploit and patches lest these become just another attack vector. There is clearly no justification for this. This isn't just irresponsible. It's a straight up attack on users.
- mikeash 11y ago
  Malware that uses this exploit to cause damage is a straight up attack on users. Merely revealing a vulnerability isn't an attack. The vulnerability was there all along, and there's no guarantee that this person is the only one who could find it, or even the first. I'm all for responsible disclosure. But I think we need to clarify good and bad here. Responsible disclosure is better than just announcing findings to the world, but telling people about what you've discovered is not bad.
  - MagerValp 11y ago
    There's writing a nicely worded letter, and sending it in a rose scented envelope. And then there's scribbling a note, tying it to a rock, and throwing it through the window. Telling the world via a fully working exploit causes a ton of collateral damage, and the author made no effort at all to reduce the impact. Waiting for 10.10.5 and releasing it on a Saturday afternoon makes it seem like the point was to cause as big a mess as possible.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      Maybe Saturday afternoon just happened to be when he finished. And no, it's not like throwing a rock through somebody's window. The information may be used by other people to cause damage, but the mere act of releasing it is not by itself damaging. Let's put blame where it belongs: on the people actually using exploits for bad purposes. If you want to encourage responsible disclosure, don't lead with bad analogies about what happens when you announce a vulnerability to the world, because it just reduces your credibility.