apple
Report a problem

Apple fixes 17 Mac OS X flaws

Slimy   on 25 May 2007 - 19:29 · 37 comments & 16010 views

Advertisement (Why?)
Apple has released the year's fifth major security update for Mac OS X to patch 17 vulnerabilities, the first time this year that an OS security update from Apple did not patch a vulnerability disclosed by the January Month of Apple Bugs project. Eight out of the 17 exploits could do no more damage than to generate a denial of service of, or crash, the affected component. Only five of the patched vulnerabilities could result in an attacker executing his own code. Apple's year-to-date patch total may be over 100, but this month included fixes for fewer flaws than last month (25) and the month before (45).

Among the serious bugs is one in how Mac OS X 10.4 handles PDF files. "By enticing a user to open a maliciously crafted PDF file, an attacker could trigger the overflow, which may lead to an unexpected application termination or arbitrary code execution," Apple's advisory said. Attacks sporting this strategy, although rare on Macs, would mean Apple’s users would have to be careful when opening attachments. Another dangerous flaw fixed exists in the code that maps ports on home networks in iChat, Apple's instant messaging service and software. An attacker with access to the local network to exploit the bug could send a malformed packet to trigger a buffer overflow, which could then be used to add malicious code to the Mac. Other parts of Mac OS X that were patched include Berkeley Internet Name Domain, the de facto standard Domain Name System server software, which was patched against four vulnerabilities; the Ruby CGI library (two vulnerabilities); and Fetchmail (one vulnerability).

Download: Security Update
News source: InfoWorld

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 37 additional comments
#1 drygnfyre on 25 May 2007 - 19:42
Thanks for the notice, I'll check Software Update later to see if (10.4.10?) is available.
(1 reply) #2 Netrack on 25 May 2007 - 19:54
there are no virus's(sp) for Mac's...only exploits and vaulnerabilities [/sarcasm]
#2.1 black_death on 26 May 2007 - 04:45
"Hi I'm a Mac" "And I'm a PC" "Say PC get any viruses yet?" "Nope, hey wanna view my quicktime movie?" "Sure, did you know that Apple-" "Uh oh Mac fell down and died!"
#3 hapbt on 25 May 2007 - 19:56
Oh but wait OS/X has no security holes! It certainly dosen't have 100... think to yourself.. if 100 have been found without anyone even really trying, how many holes does the OS really have in it, that would be discovered if it had been subjected the the same scrutiny as Vista/XP...
(2 replies) #4 Helba on 25 May 2007 - 20:00
La-la-la-la-la-la-la I can't hear you idiots trying to start an OS X security flame war!

Thanks for the news.
#4.1 sirghost on 26 May 2007 - 06:10
Quote - (Helba said @ #4)
La-la-la-la-la-la-la I can't hear you idiots trying to start an OS X security flame war!

Thanks for the news.


lol..typical mac user ingoring the issues that apple has...
#4.2 +Dakkaroth on 26 May 2007 - 08:50
Typical Apple maturity. Or lack of, really.
(7 replies) #5 NateB1 on 25 May 2007 - 20:27
Wow. Microsoft hasn't patched this many flaws within a similar time period. It's nice to know that Apple is trying to catch up to Microsoft in the security arena. I think Microsoft released 10 or so patches for Vista in the past 3 months. Apple has patched how many now? 45+25+17 = 87! Hmm... Which OS is inherently more secure?

OS X = Security via obscurity...
#5.1 vetmarkjensen on 25 May 2007 - 20:58
Only an idiot would use the single metric of "number of patches" as a determination of which OS was more secure.

You are not an idiot, are you? Then don't post like one.
#5.2 dhan on 25 May 2007 - 21:07
while I agree with you mark, that was/is the case with most XP fixes. Just because XP had more fixes than OSX, bam...XP is less secure (which is true but number of fixes is certainly not a good scale).
The real test is when people actually start exploiting it and then how the OS can withstand it. I have a gut feeling that OS X might be capable of it but thousands of idiotic mac users might be the real problem. (just like on the Windows side)
#5.3 guruparan on 25 May 2007 - 21:23
Quote - (markjensen said @ #5.1)
Only an idiot would use the single metric of "number of patches" as a determination of which OS was more secure.

You are not an idiot, are you? Then don't post like one.



So you say OS X is secure always...as some one cited, in a lake of fishes, windows fishes are about 95% and chance of catching a windows fish is always High..and now compare...

No OS or software is 100% secured or stable including Windows, Unix, Linux & Mac os X..
#5.4 Chad on 25 May 2007 - 21:26
Quote - (guruparan said @ #5.3)
Quote - (markjensen said @ #5.1)
Only an idiot would use the single metric of "number of patches" as a determination of which OS was more secure.

You are not an idiot, are you? Then don't post like one.



So you say OS X is secure always...as some one cited, in a lake of fishes, windows fishes are about 95% and chance of catching a windows fish is always High..and now compare...

No OS or software is 100% secured or stable including Windows, Unix, Linux & Mac os X..


What are you talking about?
#5.5 vetmarkjensen on 25 May 2007 - 22:14
Quote - (guruparan said @ #5.3)
So you say OS X is secure always...as some one cited, in a lake of fishes, windows fishes are about 95% and chance of catching a windows fish is always High..and now compare...

No OS or software is 100% secured or stable including Windows, Unix, Linux & Mac os X..
Huh? I never made any claims (comparative or absolute) about OSX security.

In fact, search out my posts here on Neowin, and you will see me clearly state that
  1. Security is a process, not a product or feature, and
  2. Coming to a overall security conclusion based on any single metric is horribly flawed
No need to imagine me saying things in order to try to start online flamewars, buddy.
#5.6 Typhon on 26 May 2007 - 02:59
Quote - (markjensen said @ #5.1)
Only an idiot would use the single metric of "number of patches" as a determination of which OS was more secure.

You are not an idiot, are you? Then don't post like one.


Wow I think you need to calm down. Also calling people an idiot is not very smart on your part. You do not need to attack him see the reason people say this is cause Apple always advertises that it is secure and it just works no matter what. Witch we all know is not true I mean like you said only an idiot would in this case believe that Apple is the golden fleece.
#5.7 +Dakkaroth on 26 May 2007 - 09:01
Quote - (Typhon said @ #5.6)
Quote - (markjensen said @ #5.1)
Only an idiot would use the single metric of "number of patches" as a determination of which OS was more secure.

You are not an idiot, are you? Then don't post like one.


Wow I think you need to calm down. Also calling people an idiot is not very smart on your part. You do not need to attack him see the reason people say this is cause Apple always advertises that it is secure and it just works no matter what. Witch we all know is not true I mean like you said only an idiot would in this case believe that Apple is the golden fleece.


No, I agree with Mark. You can't measure security in the number of patches released, or how many fixes each patch actually fixed. In fact, you can't measure them at all!

Like that guy up above was saying when he was talking about "windows fish" (or trying to anyway), Windows has a greater userbase. That said, there are a lot more people pushing to find flaws within the software. If OSX had the same userbase that Windows did, then yes, I think you'd find a lot more flaws with OSX. However, since we can't test that, you really can't measure the security of each system, other than by the numbers. And once again, you got a stupid way of measuring.
(4 replies) #6 NateB1 on 25 May 2007 - 21:14
No, but it does provide a good reference point. Vista is constantly being hacked and scrutinized - OS X not as much. It would make sense, if Microsoft didn't do a good job with security, that more flaws would be found/patched in Vista since it is under so much scrutiny. Instead, we are seeing the opposite.

Ad hominem attacks certainly don't help your case.

If an OS's security is not determined by its flaws, then what is it judged by? The intelligence of its users? How many "in the wild" malware can infect it?

Don't get me wrong; OS X is more secure than Vista, only not inherently more secure. If the tables were turned, there would definitely be a ton of malware for OS X.

Has Apple taken drastic measures to improve OS X's security? Last I heard, Microsoft removed all instances of strcpy() from Vista because of security concerns. Do you realize how much code would need to be changed?

Edit: I accidentally replied to the wrong thread. This is meant to be a reply to markjensen's post above.

Last edited by NateB1 on 25 May 2007 - 21:29
#6.1 guruparan on 25 May 2007 - 21:27
Quote - (NateB1 said @ #6)
Last I heard, Microsoft removed all instances of strcpy() from Vista because of security concerns. Do you realize how much code would need to be changed?


That was a very good move & code alterations like these made them the delay...but its good for customers.
#6.2 vetmarkjensen on 26 May 2007 - 01:17
Quote - (NateB1 said @ #1)
...
Ad hominem attacks certainly don't help your case.
...
I guess I could have said that you either were being deliberately disingenuous in attempt to troll, or were woefully ill-informed about what comprises "security". Neither is complimentary, I agree. But either would apply to your so-called conclusion based on a single metric.

Quote - (NateB1 said @ #1)
...
If an OS's security is not determined by its flaws, then what is it judged by? The intelligence of its users? How many "in the wild" malware can infect it?
...
My complaint was with your narrow-sighted focus on a single metric (number of patches) to arrive at your implied conclusion on security. And now, you seem to think I intend you throw away that metric in favor of a different "single metric", which is not the case at all. You need a better analysis than just counting up the number of patches. You need to consider time to patch. Days of exposure. Severity of exploit. Exploit Vector. Any actions that can mitigate the problem prior to patch release.

In short, you have to analyze, not just count.
#6.3 J_R_G on 26 May 2007 - 04:10
Quote - (markjensen said @ #6.2)
Quote - (NateB1 said @ #1)
...
Ad hominem attacks certainly don't help your case.
...
I guess I could have said that you either were being deliberately disingenuous in attempt to troll, or were woefully ill-informed about what comprises "security". Neither is complimentary, I agree. But either would apply to your so-called conclusion based on a single metric.

Quote - (NateB1 said @ #1)
...
If an OS's security is not determined by its flaws, then what is it judged by? The intelligence of its users? How many "in the wild" malware can infect it?
...
My complaint was with your narrow-sighted focus on a single metric (number of patches) to arrive at your implied conclusion on security. And now, you seem to think I intend you throw away that metric in favor of a different "single metric", which is not the case at all. You need a better analysis than just counting up the number of patches. You need to consider time to patch. Days of exposure. Severity of exploit. Exploit Vector. Any actions that can mitigate the problem prior to patch release.

In short, you have to analyze, not just count.


Do you have such a analysis? If not, you're worse than him, obviously. And I like how you mention 'time to patch' but not 'thoroughness of testing' to make sure it doesn't break tons of **** and put users off from installing the patch.
I mean, it doesn't make you look biased or anything.
#6.4 +Dakkaroth on 26 May 2007 - 09:13
Quote - (J_R_G said @ #6.3)
Quote - (markjensen said @ #6.2)
Quote - (NateB1 said @ #1)
...
Ad hominem attacks certainly don't help your case.
...
I guess I could have said that you either were being deliberately disingenuous in attempt to troll, or were woefully ill-informed about what comprises "security". Neither is complimentary, I agree. But either would apply to your so-called conclusion based on a single metric.

Quote - (NateB1 said @ #1)
...
If an OS's security is not determined by its flaws, then what is it judged by? The intelligence of its users? How many "in the wild" malware can infect it?
...
My complaint was with your narrow-sighted focus on a single metric (number of patches) to arrive at your implied conclusion on security. And now, you seem to think I intend you throw away that metric in favor of a different "single metric", which is not the case at all. You need a better analysis than just counting up the number of patches. You need to consider time to patch. Days of exposure. Severity of exploit. Exploit Vector. Any actions that can mitigate the problem prior to patch release.

In short, you have to analyze, not just count.


Do you have such a analysis? If not, you're worse than him, obviously. And I like how you mention 'time to patch' but not 'thoroughness of testing' to make sure it doesn't break tons of **** and put users off from installing the patch.
I mean, it doesn't make you look biased or anything.


From what I read, he's not the one trying to measure the security here. Nate's the one trying to do the measuring. He's just stating what factors should be taken into place when attempting to measure the security of an OS. Forgive him if he didn't name all of them as I'm sure he didn't expect good ol' Nate here to follow through and analyze the situation.
(4 replies) #7 +Ely on 25 May 2007 - 21:33
There we go again, the mighty OS X which is all secure and never breaks not long ago they patched a whole lot of vulnerabilities and other issues and now this, which proves the fact that NO OS is %100 secure. I'm just glad it is NOT ONLY Windows anymore.

When Microsoft patches a few Windows flaws all the MAC fanboys start the flame war, but when their mighty OS breaks and reveals itself as it is ( just like any other OS) They can't withstand the critic, wake up; it is life, yes your OS just happens to be less popular thus being less attacked that's all.

Last edited by Ely on 25 May 2007 - 22:06
#7.1 Chad on 25 May 2007 - 22:57
Quote - (Ely said @ #7)
There we go again, the mighty OS X which is all secure and never breaks not long ago they patched a whole lot of vulnerabilities and other issues and now this, which proves the fact that NO OS is %100 secure. I'm just glad it is NOT ONLY Windows anymore.

When Microsoft patches a few Windows flaws all the MAC fanboys start the flame war, but when their mighty OS breaks and reveals itself as it is ( just like any other OS) They can't withstand the critic, wake up; it is life, yes your OS just happens to be less popular thus being less attacked that's all.


Noone has claimed OS X is 100% secure.

And no, Mac users don't start flamewars in those threads.

Stop pulling stuff out of thin air to make your opinion look valid.
#7.2 XerXis on 26 May 2007 - 07:24
Quote - (Chad said @ #7.1)
Quote - (Ely said @ #7)
There we go again, the mighty OS X which is all secure and never breaks not long ago they patched a whole lot of vulnerabilities and other issues and now this, which proves the fact that NO OS is %100 secure. I'm just glad it is NOT ONLY Windows anymore.

When Microsoft patches a few Windows flaws all the MAC fanboys start the flame war, but when their mighty OS breaks and reveals itself as it is ( just like any other OS) They can't withstand the critic, wake up; it is life, yes your OS just happens to be less popular thus being less attacked that's all.


Noone has claimed OS X is 100% secure.

And no, Mac users don't start flamewars in those threads.

Stop pulling stuff out of thin air to make your opinion look valid.


the problem is, apple and steve job did, it's their arrogance that is backslashing when people hear this news
#7.3 +Dakkaroth on 26 May 2007 - 09:17
Quote - (XerXis said @ #7.2)
Quote - (Chad said @ #7.1)
Quote - (Ely said @ #7)
There we go again, the mighty OS X which is all secure and never breaks not long ago they patched a whole lot of vulnerabilities and other issues and now this, which proves the fact that NO OS is %100 secure. I'm just glad it is NOT ONLY Windows anymore.

When Microsoft patches a few Windows flaws all the MAC fanboys start the flame war, but when their mighty OS breaks and reveals itself as it is ( just like any other OS) They can't withstand the critic, wake up; it is life, yes your OS just happens to be less popular thus being less attacked that's all.


Noone has claimed OS X is 100% secure.

And no, Mac users don't start flamewars in those threads.

Stop pulling stuff out of thin air to make your opinion look valid.


the problem is, apple and steve job did, it's their arrogance that is backslashing when people hear this news


Yeah, I hate the way they try to market their OS. It's about the sorriest way to do it. Then again, they need all the help they can get selling an overpriced piece of crap.
#7.4 Chad on 26 May 2007 - 13:45
Quote - (XerXis said @ #7.2)
Quote - (Chad said @ #7.1)
Quote - (Ely said @ #7)
There we go again, the mighty OS X which is all secure and never breaks not long ago they patched a whole lot of vulnerabilities and other issues and now this, which proves the fact that NO OS is %100 secure. I'm just glad it is NOT ONLY Windows anymore.

When Microsoft patches a few Windows flaws all the MAC fanboys start the flame war, but when their mighty OS breaks and reveals itself as it is ( just like any other OS) They can't withstand the critic, wake up; it is life, yes your OS just happens to be less popular thus being less attacked that's all.


Noone has claimed OS X is 100% secure.

And no, Mac users don't start flamewars in those threads.

Stop pulling stuff out of thin air to make your opinion look valid.


the problem is, apple and steve job did, it's their arrogance that is backslashing when people hear this news


The problem is, you are making things up. Apple has never said OS X is 100% secure.
#8 C_Guy on 25 May 2007 - 21:58
It's too bad that these posts always deteriorate into Mac vs. Windows wars.

Which, in the case of patches, is completely pointless. Software will never be 'perfect' because it is prone to human error and changes in technology. Therefore, there are 2 choices for Apple and Microsoft: Continue patching their operating system for eternity or patch it for a reasonable length of time before moving onto their next operating system.

Apple and Microsoft can never stop patching their software so the oh-so-old Mac vs. Windows debates, when based on patch quality, quantity, or speed, is one that can never be settled.
(4 replies) #9 LTD on 25 May 2007 - 22:20
# of viruses in recent memory (from the very beginning, actually) that have infected OS X = 0.

# of viruses in recent memory (since, say 2001, when MS released XP with FIVE open ports! that have infected Windows =

How high can you count?

Yeah, folks in the OS X camp have plenty to be happy about. Some are pretty vocal. The more vocal, the better. Perhaps that way, we can get even more to switch over and enjoy a better computing experience overall. There's a REASON for all this enthusiasm about OS X. Look into it, people!

When Windows is criticized, it's because MS has given critics truckloads of fodder to use against it. Taking a shot at Windows is bloody easy. Disturbingly easy. It doesn't happen because of some my-OS-is-better-than-yours bull****. It's all about track records.
#9.1 J_R_G on 25 May 2007 - 22:52
If it's all about track records, this should be relevant:

# of vulnerabilities in OS X's first 3 months: about 30.
# of vulnerabilities in Vista's first 3 months: about 2.

This last update for OS X alone fixes almost 10 times more vulnerabilities than Vista has had total.
#9.2 Chad on 25 May 2007 - 23:01
Quote - (J_R_G said @ #9.1)
If it's all about track records, this should be relevant:

# of vulnerabilities in OS X's first 3 months: about 30.
# of vulnerabilities in Vista's first 3 months: about 2.

This last update for OS X alone fixes almost 10 times more vulnerabilities than Vista has had total.


'Vulnerabilities' fixed is not at all relevant. It is not indicative of the total vulnerabilities in the OS.
#9.3 J_R_G on 26 May 2007 - 03:59
Quote - (Chad said @ #9.2)
Quote - (J_R_G said @ #9.1)
If it's all about track records, this should be relevant:

# of vulnerabilities in OS X's first 3 months: about 30.
# of vulnerabilities in Vista's first 3 months: about 2.

This last update for OS X alone fixes almost 10 times more vulnerabilities than Vista has had total.


'Vulnerabilities' fixed is not at all relevant. It is not indicative of the total vulnerabilities in the OS.


Duh. It's just the best indicator we have for those types of things.
#9.4 Chad on 26 May 2007 - 13:46
Quote - (J_R_G said @ #9.3)
Quote - (Chad said @ #9.2)
Quote - (J_R_G said @ #9.1)
If it's all about track records, this should be relevant:

# of vulnerabilities in OS X's first 3 months: about 30.
# of vulnerabilities in Vista's first 3 months: about 2.

This last update for OS X alone fixes almost 10 times more vulnerabilities than Vista has had total.


'Vulnerabilities' fixed is not at all relevant. It is not indicative of the total vulnerabilities in the OS.


Duh. It's just the best indicator we have for those types of things.


No it isn't. It is NO indicator at all. All it indicates is how anal the company is about fixing them, how quickly they close the holes, and how good they or others are at finding them.
(2 replies) #10 LTD on 25 May 2007 - 23:17
You really need to give Vista about a year before any real fallout becomes evident.

Give it time. Things tend to stink worse when left in the sun for extended periods.
#10.1 RAID 0 on 26 May 2007 - 00:35
You work for Apple, don't you?
#10.2 J_R_G on 26 May 2007 - 04:01
Quote - (RAID 0 said @ #10.1)
You work for Apple, don't you?


Leave Steve alone, he's sensitive.
(1 reply) #11 ikyouCrow on 26 May 2007 - 00:16
85 flaws to date? and they patched them?
hooray for Mac users. really. not being sarcastic here.

just shows that Apple cares about the security of their products. end of story for me.
how about you, buddy?
#11.1 J_R_G on 26 May 2007 - 04:02
How about what? If MS fixes flaws, it's insecure, if it doesn't, it doesn't care about security. That about sums it up, I think.
#12 +CrimsonRedMk on 26 May 2007 - 03:07
If anyone cares, this is named Security Update 2007-005 (not 10.4.10).

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Advertisement (Why?)