4 ms·

Anyone who thinks Chrome and Firefox are safe from this bug doesn't understand the issue. SecureTransport is used for updating software. So an attacker could tr

by djao 13y ago

Anyone who thinks Chrome and Firefox are safe from this bug doesn't understand the issue. SecureTransport is used for updating software. So an attacker could trick you into installing a malicious update to Chrome, FireFox, or for that matter anything on your system. They could even slip in malware under the guise of a patch that purportedly fixes this bug. Using alternative browsers does NOT completely protect you.

mikeash 13y ago
Chrome uses its own updater which presumably uses the same non-vulnerable SSL implementation as the rest of the program.
- djao 13y ago
  Doesn't matter, the system updater can blow away Chrome or anything else.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    Yes, I suppose that's true. However, I believe OS X's software update requires packages signed by Apple and doesn't simply trust the integrity provided by SSL, so I don't think that can happen.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - djao 13y ago
      That makes it slightly harder. Still, Apple will sign anything that is successfully submitted to the App Store for approval, right? So you just need to slip a single trojan past their approval process. Normally, the transport layer provides an important second level of defense: a victim would have to consciously choose to install YOUR program in order to get hacked. That doesn't work anymore when the security of the transport layer is compromised. Now anything that you install from the App Store could be surreptitiously compromised. Better hope that Apple's signature revocation infrastructure is sound.
      - mikeash 13y ago
        All new App Store apps require sandboxing now, so as long as Apple's sandbox is tight (not a given, but it's supposed to be) then you can't do anything harmful. Apple won't sign anything you give the that isn't sandboxed. The updater for Apple's own stuff obviously doesn't have this constraint, but it should involve a different signing key than the one used for third-party apps.

by djao 13y ago

mikeash 13y ago

Chrome uses its own updater which presumably uses the same non-vulnerable SSL implementation as the rest of the program.

djao 13y ago
Doesn't matter, the system updater can blow away Chrome or anything else.
- mikeash 13y ago
  Yes, I suppose that's true. However, I believe OS X's software update requires packages signed by Apple and doesn't simply trust the integrity provided by SSL, so I don't think that can happen.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - djao 13y ago
    That makes it slightly harder. Still, Apple will sign anything that is successfully submitted to the App Store for approval, right? So you just need to slip a single trojan past their approval process. Normally, the transport layer provides an important second level of defense: a victim would have to consciously choose to install YOUR program in order to get hacked. That doesn't work anymore when the security of the transport layer is compromised. Now anything that you install from the App Store could be surreptitiously compromised. Better hope that Apple's signature revocation infrastructure is sound.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      All new App Store apps require sandboxing now, so as long as Apple's sandbox is tight (not a given, but it's supposed to be) then you can't do anything harmful. Apple won't sign anything you give the that isn't sandboxed. The updater for Apple's own stuff obviously doesn't have this constraint, but it should involve a different signing key than the one used for third-party apps.