Live data from Hacker News

Blizzard Exempt from iOS and MacOS Security Sandbox

twitter.com

11–20 of 69 posts

Re: Blizzard Exempt from iOS and MacOS Security Sandbox

#11
post #6

Tweet 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.

Could they though? The way I understand the answer is that the security hole happens if a privileged user which manipulates files for an unprivileged user calls access() and then open(). In this case Blizzard's application is an unprivileged user, thus even if you manage to insert yourself between the calls, you will only be able to make Blizzards application execute code. The application still runs in a sandbox so you will not get that far.

Re: Blizzard Exempt from iOS and MacOS Security Sandbox

#12
post #2

I 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.

Warden isn't particularly widespread, and impersonating it wouldn't gain you any extra privileges. Seems pretty unlikely.

Re: Blizzard Exempt from iOS and MacOS Security Sandbox

#13
post #2

I 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…

Apparently Steam games are favourite attack vector of NSA, they love exploiting Steam games on sysadmin machines.

https://www.wired.com/2016/01/nsa-hacker-chief-explains-how-...

Re: Blizzard Exempt from iOS and MacOS Security Sandbox

#14
post #13
post #2

I 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…

Apparently Steam games are favourite attack vector of NSA, they love exploiting Steam games on sysadmin machines. https://www.wired.com/2016/01/nsa-hacker-chief-explains-how-...

The steam uri handler probably has lots of avenues of easy RCE.

Re: Blizzard Exempt from iOS and MacOS Security Sandbox

#15
This guy published an app that did jailbreak detection and some other stuff on the App Store, it was taken down, and has been rambling since then in a very very childish way about stuff like this: https://twitter.com/i0n1c/status/738286205708738560

Truth is--he knew what was going to happen, so this looks just like another excuse to rant.

Re: Blizzard Exempt from iOS and MacOS Security Sandbox

#16

This guy published an app that did jailbreak detection and some other stuff on the App Store, it was taken down, and has been rambling since then in a very very childish way about stuff like this: https://twitter.com/i0n1c/status/738286205708738560 Truth is--he knew what was going to happen, so this looks just like another excuse to rant.

He is known in the jailbreak scene as someone who cannot stay serious - he's always involved in some kind of drama.

If I recall correctly, the pangu dev team attended some of his sessions about iOS hacking and used this knowledge to create a publicly available jailbreak tool. He then started to rant about how they "stole" his technologies on twitter (see for example https://twitter.com/i0n1c/status/481020166483238912).

More about his childish public behavior related to the jailbreak scene can be read here: http://www.iclarified.com/41983/pangu-jailbreak-stops-using-...

Re: Blizzard Exempt from iOS and MacOS Security Sandbox

#17

This guy published an app that did jailbreak detection and some other stuff on the App Store, it was taken down, and has been rambling since then in a very very childish way about stuff like this: https://twitter.com/i0n1c/status/738286205708738560 Truth is--he knew what was going to happen, so this looks just like another excuse to rant.

He is known in the jailbreak scene as someone who cannot stay serious - he's always involved in some kind of drama. If I recall correctly, the pangu dev team attended some of his sessions about iOS hacking and used this knowledge to create a publicly available jailbreak tool. He then started to rant about how they "stole" his technologies on twitter (see for example https://twitter.com/i0n1c/status/481020166483238912…

Yeah, I remember this. He's always taunting people about having jailbreaks and not sharing them.

Re: Blizzard Exempt from iOS and MacOS Security Sandbox

#18

This guy published an app that did jailbreak detection and some other stuff on the App Store, it was taken down, and has been rambling since then in a very very childish way about stuff like this: https://twitter.com/i0n1c/status/738286205708738560 Truth is--he knew what was going to happen, so this looks just like another excuse to rant.

He is known in the jailbreak scene as someone who cannot stay serious - he's always involved in some kind of drama. If I recall correctly, the pangu dev team attended some of his sessions about iOS hacking and used this knowledge to create a publicly available jailbreak tool. He then started to rant about how they "stole" his technologies on twitter (see for example https://twitter.com/i0n1c/status/481020166483238912…

The problem at the time was that they had used his bug that he gave away only for training purposes to the people attending his class.

After the first release, pangu replaced his bug by one of theirs (and both bugs were fixed by apple in a subsequent iOS release.) He probably had to spend some time finding a new bug to use in his classes so it's understandable to be pissed.

Re: Blizzard Exempt from iOS and MacOS Security Sandbox

#19
post #2

I 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…

Okay, nitpick time. Your story about the game is surely wrong. Rollercoaster Tycoon was developed for Windows 95/98.

Perhaps you meant it's a later version of Windows, or the game's spiritual predecessor, Theme Park, which ran in DOS.

Re: Blizzard Exempt from iOS and MacOS Security Sandbox

#20
post #6

Tweet 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.

And for an attacker to exploit this (which in all likelihood is impossible anyways), they'd need to already be executing arbitrary code.
Post reply on HN