Zibb

Brian DipertEDN Senior Technical Editor Brian Dipert exposes, analyzes and
opines on diverse topics in technology. Follow the Brian's Brain Twitter feed at www.twitter.com/BrianzBrain.



   Advertisement

Profile

RSS Feed

  • Add this blog to your RSS newsreader!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Most Commented On

Archives

By Category

Consumer Electronics Design Articles

Blog

Wednesday, August 6, 2008

The DNS Vulnerability: Apple's Irresponsibility And OpenDNS's Utility

Aug 6 2008 9:32AM | Permalink |Comments (5) |


Consider me disappointed, but not necessarily surprised. As I mentioned two weeks ago, Apple's OS X (by virtue of its BSD Unix heritage) employs BIND as its DNS server (and client) code base. In spite of being briefed (along with other BIND implementers) by Dan Kaminsky and his peers early this year on the now-being-exploited DNS poisoning vulnerability, and in spite of being told of the coordinated patch roll-out plan scheduled for July 8th...it took Apple until August 1st to release patches for the server versions of OS 10.4 and OS 10.5 (but not OS 10.3, whose users have yet to receive a formal end-of-life notification from the company). And, believe it or not, the client-side variants of the various OS X versions (including, presumably, the flavors that run inside the iPhone and iPod touch) are (as I write these words on the morning of August 6th) still vulnerable to DNS spoofing. Yes, Apple fanboys, Microsoft patched Windows weeks ago.

If you're an OS X user, therefore, pay particular attention to this post. But more generally, any of you using Internet-centric devices in a mobile manner that involves connection to random DNS servers should pay attention, too. While O/S vendors can (and in most cases, by now have) rolled out their patches, it's up to their customers to install them. And again, not surprisingly, IT administrators are being irresponsibly slow at tackling this critical task. So, since for the foreseeable future you can't be absolutely certain that your ISP-of-the-moment's preferred DNS servers are safe, I recommend you follow the advice offered by Larry M in the comments section of my day-later follow-up post; override the default DHCP-assigned DNS server assignments with hard-coded references to OpenDNS (208.67.222.222 and 208.67.220.220).

To be clear; if you've already verified that your home and office ISPs are patched, then you don't need to do the override for, say, a web browser-inclusive game console that's never going to leave the premises. But portable gizmos such as laptop computers, cell phones and Internet tablets are prime DNS workaround candidates. Larry M's instructions were Windows-specific, but every piece of equipment I've examined in the last few weeks since first hearing of the spoof vulnerability supports (in one way or another) hard-coded DNS server assignments in conjunction with DHCP connections. And specifically regarding cell phones, once you've confirmed that your primary service provider has implemented the patch, you probably only need to worry if you're on a roaming cellular data tether or if you're using a phone that also embeds a Wi-Fi transceiver.

So why am I not necessarily surprised by Apple's lame response to this security crisis? Stay tuned to Brian's Brian for an in-depth expose of the vast (and growing) gulf between the company's words and actions, which I'll hopefully publish tomorrow.

Reader Comments



at 8/6/2008 7:16:32 PM, Victor M said:
10.3.x was EOL in 2006.






at 8/6/2008 8:05:07 PM, Brian Dipert said:
Dear Victor M, can you please share with us the official Apple notification of this? The release of OS 10.4 does not automatically mean the EOL of OS 10.3 from a support standpoint. Ask Microsoft, who just ended shipments of (but not support of) Windows XP 7 years after its release



at 8/7/2008 5:37:13 AM, Scunnerous said:
I'm not sure irresponsible fits here. What I'm hearing is that the patched BIND is incompatible with some firewalls, which breaks all DNS resolution and that it is crashing persistently with some versions of the OS. Apparently this has been acknowledged by the authors... that the first patch was a rush job and that a later more stable version will be available, umm, soon.



at 8/7/2008 7:35:26 AM, Victor M said:
Brian, support means two separate things. It's the issuance of updates as you think of it, and also the answering of questions about the product. For the former, Apple released maintenance security updates for 10.3 while 10.4 was the current system. Now that 10.4 is the non-current system, 10.3 will never see another update.

At the same time, if you had a machine that shipped with 10.3 and purchased AppleCare for it, you could get phone support for it three years from date of purchase. The last 10.3 product sold in April 2005. I do suppose that a customer with 10.3 could phone Apple and pay for the privilege to ask a question about it, but practically, the product is EOL and has been for some time and went into maintenance when Apple introduced 10.4.

Apple, for good or bad, is not Microsoft. If Apple had released OS X in a fashion similar to XP, you and I would be stuck using a patched copy of 10.0, the version which was so unsatisfactory that 10.1 was released for $20. Apple's naming convention of a point release for a new major version does confuse those who aren't familiar with it - each major version (10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5) does introduce huge sweeping changes with benefits and some incompatibility issues. XP managed to undergo no sweeping changes and still introduce compatibility issues. Apple released 5 major versions of an operating system within the same time frame that Microsoft released XP, Server 2003, and Vista.

Do you really intend to have Apple release security updates for 10.1.5, 10.2.8, 10.3.9 across iMac (Bondi), iMac DV, iMac G4, iMac G5, PowerMac G3, G4, G5, PowerBook G3 Lombard, Bronze keyboard firewire, Titanium G4, Aluminum G4, iBook G3 Dual USB, iBook G4, Mac Mini G4, eMac G4 ? Is this a good use of resources when we know that 30% of users upgrade the OS to current within the first three months and the rest follow shortly after the early adopters have tested the waters?



at 8/7/2008 7:45:48 AM, Brian Dipert said:
Dear Victor M,
I'm not necessarily asking for Apple to continue releasing patches for older OS versions (though I am still running OS 10.3 on my two PowerPC-based Power Macs) but at minimum for formal and public patch EOL notification as do Microsoft and other O/S providers. After all, Apple continued releasing OS 10.3 updates for a time after the release of OS 10.5, leaving users to guess when the updates would/will end. p.s...Huge sweeping changes? I don't particularly consider the OS 10.3-to-10.4-to-10.5 transitions to be at all 'major'...in the Windows world, they're called 'Service Packs'

Post a comment



Display Name

Change Image
Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above.
Note the letters are NOT case sensitive.


ADVERTISEMENT

©1997-2009 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Please visit these other Reed Business sites