Live data from Hacker News

About the security content of Security Update 2017-001

support.apple.com

111–120 of 158 posts

Re: About the security content of Security Update 2017-001

#111

Apparently this forced update breaks file-sharing(!): https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/security-update-2017-00... (SMB still works)

NFS is still working for me. I thought "file sharing" was SMB. AFP is deprecated. What other kind of file sharing is there?

Re: About the security content of Security Update 2017-001

#112

> it will be automatically installed on all systems running the latest version (10.13.1) of macOS High Sierra So uh... where are all those people who lost their mind about Windows 10 forcing updates? http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/042/619/4ea...

People weren't upset about windows installing security updates. If this update adds nagware to OSX or forces people to restart their computer in the middle of whatever they are working on, your comment will be a fair point. Until then, it is an stupid comparison.

As of the latest update macOS has started to nag me to allow automatic updates, so I think the comparison is probably valid.

FWIW I told it No, for the same reason my Win10 laptop has been nagging me to update but I've not let it install for a month - until I've finished whatever work I'm doing I'm not going to let a possibly badly written patch stack the OS and leave me rebuilding the machine from scratch (yes - I'm looking at you Windows - TWICE) or dealing with whatever beta-level release macOS is going to throw out that breaks remote access etc. that I need on my build server.

Re: About the security content of Security Update 2017-001

#113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A graceful upgrade mechanism towards a new password hashing algorithm.

Change is so, so risky.

There's a lot that can go wrong, which is why writing testable code and then /actually/ testing it, matters so much.

Re: About the security content of Security Update 2017-001

#116

See Apple's comment on this, given to BuzzFeed I assume: https://twitter.com/JohnPaczkowski/status/935909264362586112 / https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/apple-released-a-pa... "Security is a top priority for every Apple product, and regrettably we stumbled with this release of macOS. When our security engineers became aware of the issue Tuesday afternoon, we immediately began working on an update that closes…

> We are auditing our development processes to help prevent this from happening again. That's great to hear even if it took multiple stumbles for them to finally admit - but surely they should be also audit their QA/testing processes? Or does development in AppleSpeak mean everything?

Top google search result for "software development processes" says:

What are the steps in software development?

    1. Requirement gathering and analysis.
    2. Design.
    3. Implementation or coding.
    4. Testing.
    5. Deployment.
    6. Maintenance.
So, yes, it is step 4, QA & testing.

Re: About the security content of Security Update 2017-001

#117

> it will be automatically installed on all systems running the latest version (10.13.1) of macOS High Sierra So uh... where are all those people who lost their mind about Windows 10 forcing updates? http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/042/619/4ea...

Apple still allows users to control their system's update behavior.

"Install system data files and security updates" is turned on by default in the App Store Control panel, but the user can turn it off if they (unwisely) wish to.

In Windows XP, for example, Windows Update had a similar option, but that was removed in Windows 10.

Re: About the security content of Security Update 2017-001

#118
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only automatic if you have the option enabled which is the default behaviour, it isn't 'forced'. This update doesn't even need a restart.

That's not what is being reported on daringfireball (emphasis added): "This morning, as of 8:00 a.m., the update is available for download, and starting later today it will be automatically installed on all systems running the latest version (10.13.1) of macOS High Sierra."

By default, all systems have the "Install system data files and security updates" setting in the App Store Control Panel enabled, so they will indeed automatically install it.

Re: About the security content of Security Update 2017-001

#119
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's kind of what it was: https://objective-see.com/blog/blog_0x24.html

It seems to me that the biggest problem highlighted by the link in parent is backwards compatibility of authentication metchanisms. OSX seems to support typical /etc/passwd hashed-user-credential authentication. However, it tries to "upgrade" that authentication mode to "shadowhash or securetoken", which appear to be two new auth schemes integrated with Open Directory. All of those things might be fine, on their own.…

i think the problem is it is difficult to upgrade a password from one scheme to another scheme without the user presenting the password so they just decided because they are changing both systems and password schemes they would do the migration from the old system to the new system when the user logs in.

Re: About the security content of Security Update 2017-001

#120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually entering blank passwords and automated password entry should be Test Cases #0 and #1 for any thing that has a login. OS and other critical infrastructure vendors should go beyond that and explore the vast space to make sure nothing like this ever happens.

They may have even had a test case that entered "root" and no password and hit OK once , but that wouldn't have caught it. What if you'd had to hit "OK" forty-one times to trigger the bug? It's deeply unsatisfying to just say "the problem space is so vast that it's hard to even know what to try beyond the basics that every QA person knows" but I don't personally have a better answer than that. Maybe those that study…

But if the 2nd attempt does something different, there must be some sort of logic happening, and whoever built this magic (maybe it's an if-block like: (if loginAttempts++ > 0) ... ) should've tested it.

We cam see that the function f(a, b) { return a+b; } should return the same value for the same a and b, so testing that once is enough. But if there's something in there that reads a global variable, maybe check who changes that global variable, and what happens with different values of that global variable?

Post reply on HN