Blizzard Exempt from iOS and MacOS Security Sandbox
1–10 of 69 posts
Re: Blizzard Exempt from iOS and MacOS Security Sandbox
#2I recall a story of how the windows 95 team (or the like) was crazy dedicated to backwards compatibility, so they had a check to see if the user was running Roller Coaster Tycoon and if so, disabled virtual memory so the game would run.
Though I'd like to know more details, like:
* Why does blizzard need to run in the sandbox on Mac OS X? The app sandbox is opt-in (though required for App Store apps)
* Can anyone set their team ID to blizzard's?
* Are blizzard games attack vectors?
Re: Blizzard Exempt from iOS and MacOS Security Sandbox
#3There are a lot of checks for specific apps in the Cocoa framework. It's pretty much what the undocumented CFExecutableLinkedOnOrAfter() is for (sometimes called in conjunction with a check for a specific bundle name).
Re: Blizzard Exempt from iOS and MacOS Security Sandbox
#4I recall a story of how the windows 95 team (or the like) was crazy dedicated to backwards compatibility, so they had a check to see if the user was running Roller Coaster Tycoon and if so, disabled virtual memory so the game would run. Though I'd like to know more details, like: * Why does blizzard need to run in the sandbox on Mac OS X? The app sandbox is opt-in (though required for App Store apps) * Can anyone set…
Interesting point. Never heard of any program impersonating 'Warden' for malicious purposes but it seems possible.
Re: Blizzard Exempt from iOS and MacOS Security Sandbox
#5[deleted]
Re: Blizzard Exempt from iOS and MacOS Security Sandbox
#6Tweet has been deleted: https://twitter.com/i0n1c/status/738258436161449984
I deleted the tweet with the picture of the sandbox because people start hyping it up without linking the clarification.
And the "clarification" tweet: https://twitter.com/i0n1c/status/738084828202053633
For those late to the party: the sandbox bypass exception for Blizzard only affects the access() family of syscalls - probably harmless
Edit: Original tweet screenshot http://imgur.com/c8RnYjo (it's still in Google cache… for now).
Re: Blizzard Exempt from iOS and MacOS Security Sandbox
#7I recall a story of how the windows 95 team (or the like) was crazy dedicated to backwards compatibility, so they had a check to see if the user was running Roller Coaster Tycoon and if so, disabled virtual memory so the game would run. Though I'd like to know more details, like: * Why does blizzard need to run in the sandbox on Mac OS X? The app sandbox is opt-in (though required for App Store apps) * Can anyone set…
> * Can anyone set their team ID to blizzard's?
No, at least not for apps that are distributed on the official channels and signed with an official developer cert.
> * Are blizzard games attack vectors?
All games are, savegame manipulation is often the first step towards jailbreaking a game console.
Re: Blizzard Exempt from iOS and MacOS Security Sandbox
#8Tweet has been deleted: https://twitter.com/i0n1c/status/738258436161449984 I deleted the tweet with the picture of the sandbox because people start hyping it up without linking the clarification. And the "clarification" tweet: https://twitter.com/i0n1c/status/738084828202053633 For those late to the party: the sandbox bypass exception for Blizzard only affects the access() family of syscalls - probably harmless Edit…
I Google'd and here is one result, showing at least one theoretical security vulnerability of access(): http://stackoverflow.com/a/14333217/3650441
If an attacker knows what files Blizzard is calling access() on, they could likely use this exploit and execute arbitrary code.
Re: Blizzard Exempt from iOS and MacOS Security Sandbox
#9There are a lot of checks for specific apps in the Cocoa framework. It's pretty much what the undocumented CFExecutableLinkedOnOrAfter() is for (sometimes called in conjunction with a check for a specific bundle name).
Do you have examples?
Re: Blizzard Exempt from iOS and MacOS Security Sandbox
#10Tweet has been deleted: https://twitter.com/i0n1c/status/738258436161449984 I deleted the tweet with the picture of the sandbox because people start hyping it up without linking the clarification. And the "clarification" tweet: https://twitter.com/i0n1c/status/738084828202053633 For those late to the party: the sandbox bypass exception for Blizzard only affects the access() family of syscalls - probably harmless Edit…
I Google'd and here is one result, showing at least one theoretical security vulnerability of access(): http://stackoverflow.com/a/14333217/3650441 If an attacker knows what files Blizzard is calling access() on, they could likely use this exploit and execute arbitrary code.
The existence of the inherent time-of-check versus time-of-use hole with access is a several steps away from "execute arbitrary code". The example given presumes you are using access on crontab (and that the app can write to it).