Top25 cigar database hacked

The Mac operating systems have always been harder to hack into than windows. That's mainly a function of the strict control that Apple maintains over it software as opposed to all the bugs and backdoors that seem to be inherent in Windows. I don't know what the military is using now but I do remember, also about six or seven years ago that after a number of military websites were hacked that DOD bought a large number of the Macserves to house websites on, for the same reason, they are not impossible to hack, just a lot harder.
I'm sorry, I know folks want to avoid the whole Mac vs PC thing here, but this sort of misinformed nonsense is hard to ignore.

Apple has had a very consistent track record of being incredibly sloppy when it comes to bugs and patches. In fact, given that OSX uses a fair number of open source components, it's absolutely inexcusable that they are still shipping vulnerable open source components whose patches have been available for months, and in some cases over a YEAR!

I wasn't kidding when I said Apple is to security now what Microsoft was to security in 1999. The difference is that in 2008, the online community is a helluva lot more dangerous than it was in 1999 and there's absolute no excuse given the lessons learned the hardway by Microsoft and Windows users.
 
I'm sorry, I know folks want to avoid the whole Mac vs PC thing here, but this sort of misinformed nonsense is hard to ignore.

Apple has had a very consistent track record of being incredibly sloppy when it comes to bugs and patches. In fact, given that OSX uses a fair number of open source components, it's absolutely inexcusable that they are still shipping vulnerable open source components whose patches have been available for months, and in some cases over a YEAR!

I wasn't kidding when I said Apple is to security now what Microsoft was to security in 1999. The difference is that in 2008, the online community is a helluva lot more dangerous than it was in 1999 and there's absolute no excuse given the lessons learned the hardway by Microsoft and Windows users.

Judging by your location, I'm guessing you work for Microsoft. That disclosure might serve to temper the debate a tad, not that this is the thread for it anyway.
 
I really doubt it's a password issue.
Most server side exploits aren't due to weak passwords since even with a weak password, trying to brute force it takes too long for scripted attacks.

This is probably something really basic like not checking the input data properly leading to a buffer overrun, which often leads to remote code execution.

While using strong password is definately a good idea, it's not a panacea. Especially since these days almost every form of attack is either exploiting a known bug (which means the patch is usually available but just not applied for whatever reasons) or through social engineering (click here for naked pictures of <fill in the name of hottie de jour>).

For consumer desktops/laptops, the single best thing you can do is keep up with the available patches and just exercise common sense when clicking on things on the web and certainly exercise a healthy dose of skepticism when faced with email attachments of any sort.


True, but it's a fine first step, since you can have the machine secured into a virtual alcatraz, but by using a lame password like "adminrocks", it can be completely compromised. It's surprising how easy it is to get into some systems due to stuff like this.

For example....here at work we have a machine that is considered mission critical and secure. I compromised it by having access to a guest level account.

How? Permissions weren't set properly, so I could view /etc/passwd.

The next problem... passwords were not shadowed

final problem, weak crypto was used (the password was hashed against itself to make the encypted password)

Using this, I cracked the password for the admin account in under half an hour....less time than the two days it took to get hold of the admin who forgot to give us the password when he left for vacation.

Their problem was it was secured against most overflows and other "automated" exploits, but they completely forgot about oldschool fudging about. Thankfully they missed this, as we needed access to the machine for revenue reasons. It was fixed before he even got back from vacation....I fixed the problems myself on the way out.

So any accounts being locked down is a huge first step.

The other side of this is making sure freemail (yahoo/hotmail/gmail/etc) accounts and ebay/"pay pal" type accounts remain under your control...a "pay pal" acct in a scammer's hands can be potentially quite nerve-racking (think wiped out bank account, unless you use a special account just for it...then think NSF fees), as can having access to personal info that often find their way into emails.

For email attatchments, if from a "friend", ask them if they sent you anything...if they did, then consider looking at it after it goes through a virus scanning....otherwise delete. It's very easy to fake an email from someone else.

The other valuable thing is having both a software and hardware (between the cable/dsl modem and router) firewall protecting your home network, and configure it properly.


There's always more, as it's a cat and mouse game betweeen those that want to annoy/harm, and those that want to stop those people in their tracks.
 
Last edited:
Judging by your location, I'm guessing you work for Microsoft. That disclosure might serve to temper the debate a tad, not that this is the thread for it anyway.
Yes, I do work at Microsoft. However, aside for questioning my bias, I'm not sure how it impacts the information I've posted thus far. The information I'm posting are all verifiable through independent third party data.

Even my statement about Apple's attitude towards security, while an opinion, is based on their recent actions (google for "Safari" and "carpet bombing flaw"). The carpet bombing flaw with their new Safari browser, when reported by a security analyst, was referred to as an "enhancement request" instead of a security bug (considering it bloody well allowed remote code execution, it's hardly an enhancement request to ask for a fix).
 
Yes, I do work at Microsoft. However, aside for questioning my bias, I'm not sure how it impacts the information I've posted thus far. The information I'm posting are all verifiable through independent third party data.

I agree, totally fud free info, enjoyed your insights a great deal.

The thing that depresses me a bit is the web's "known exploits" used to be isolated to popular softwares like bulletin boards and blogs (for example), nowadays I can't use my modest server side programming skills to put up a tagboard or somesuch without spambots exploiting it in a very short time! So it is with the top25 review db, I've always assumed that it was a custom rolled app and would not be so vulnerable because of it.

As the exploit knowledgebase grows it becomes increasingly more difficult for amateur programmers to have some fun with self publishing using their own stuff. Humans and bots are getting smarter faster and I can't/won't keep up no mo!

Good news for the truly talented folks that make a living writing and maintaining the software however.
 
I'm sorry, I know folks want to avoid the whole Mac vs PC thing here, but this sort of misinformed nonsense is hard to ignore.

Apple has had a very consistent track record of being incredibly sloppy when it comes to bugs and patches. In fact, given that OSX uses a fair number of open source components, it's absolutely inexcusable that they are still shipping vulnerable open source components whose patches have been available for months, and in some cases over a YEAR!

I wasn't kidding when I said Apple is to security now what Microsoft was to security in 1999. The difference is that in 2008, the online community is a helluva lot more dangerous than it was in 1999 and there's absolute no excuse given the lessons learned the hardway by Microsoft and Windows users.

Well my misinformed nonsense comes from the fact that I've used Apple computers since 1986 and what I've stated is what I have learned over the years I've used Macs. As for bugs in OSX that may be but that is also partially due to the fact that Apple shifted to the new Intel chips and rewrote the operating system to work with the new chips.

I find it hilarious that a Microsoft employee is gleefully stating that Apple is to security now as Microsoft was in 1999. :r:r
 
As for bugs in OSX that may be but that is also partially due to the fact that Apple shifted to the new Intel chips and rewrote the operating system to work with the new chips.

Not really. They certainly didn't have to rewrite the operating system; most of the code simply needed to be recompiled for the Intel architecture. I'd wager that very few of the current OS X bugs are related to the architecture transition. That's not to say there aren't any; I had to deal with one myself (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25765) in gcc, which is distributed as part of Xcode. But for the vast majority of the code in a modern operating system is hardware agnostic.

The simple fact is that Apple engineers make mistakes. They're human. Such is the nature of software development.
 
Well my misinformed nonsense comes from the fact that I've used Apple computers since 1986 and what I've stated is what I have learned over the years I've used Macs. As for bugs in OSX that may be but that is also partially due to the fact that Apple shifted to the new Intel chips and rewrote the operating system to work with the new chips.
This is what I mean when I say misinformed and just plain wrong.
The current OSX origin is based on the NextStep OS which was purchased by Apple when their Copland, Rhapsody, Taligent, Pink, whatever the heck other code name they had for the next OS fell flat on it's face.

And NextStep ran natively on the x86 platform (among others).

Furthermore, the bugs in question aren't specific to the CPU architecture, it's just a bone headed mistake on Apple's part. But that's not really the problem here. All non-trivial software will have bugs. It's how they approach dealing with these bugs that's troubling.

I find it hilarious that a Microsoft employee is gleefully stating that Apple is to security now as Microsoft was in 1999. :r:r
Gleefully? No, merely appalled. Even after the pain points that millions of users went through and all the cost that Microsoft had to endure because of our own lackadaisical attitude towards security, even after all that, Apple didn't learn and are making the exact same mistakes. Only difference is that a helluva lot more people are online today then they were 9 years ago so the impact is potentially much worse.
 
Back
Top