-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Fwd: Major Mac OS X Vulnerability]
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:42:34 -0400
From: Vivian Hasiuk <hasiuk@physics.upenn.edu>
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Vivian, could you please forward this along to the department? Thanks.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Major Mac OS X Vulnerability
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:25:14 -0400
From: Christopher M. Leary <learycm@sas.upenn.edu>
To: hasiuk@physics.upenn.edu
CC: help@physics.upenn.edu <help@physics.upenn.edu>
---
Hello Everyone,
There has been a major vulnerability found in the screen sharing utility
built into Mac OS X 10.4 and 10.5 which allows root (admin) access to
the attacker. It is a simple attack to execute and is a very large
vulnerability. This attack will work even if you do not use or have not
enabled the screen sharing utility.
However, there is an easy fix where we can just remove permissions from
the vulnerable client.
You can fix this by opening up Terminal (hit Apple-Spacebar then type in
Terminal) and pasting in the following command:
sudo chmod -s
/System/Library/CoreServices/RemoteManagement/ARDAgent.app/Contents/MacOS/ARDAgent
After executing the above command it will ask you for your password.
While typing in your password no asterisks will appear, just blank
space. If the command executed properly it should look like nothing
happened and you can just type exit and hit Apple-Q to quit.
If you have any Mac machines with OS X 10.4 or 10.5 installed and would
like assistance closing this hole please let us know by emailing
"help@physics.upenn.edu" and one of us will come help.

Signature
Christopher M. Leary
IT Support Specialist (IRCS/Perception Psych/Physics)
215.746.2396
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~learycm
--
Dudley Henriques
Gregory Weston - 19 Jun 2008 19:32 GMT
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [Fwd: Major Mac OS X Vulnerability]
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
> like assistance closing this hole please let us know by emailing
> "help@physics.upenn.edu" and one of us will come help.
It's apparently real, but there's some question as to how widespread it
is. I can't reproduce it, but people I've come to consider reliable
sources over several years here can.

Signature
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
- Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix
Calum - 19 Jun 2008 20:44 GMT
> It's apparently real, but there's some question as to how widespread it
> is. I can't reproduce it, but people I've come to consider reliable
> sources over several years here can.
Same story here. We've tried it on about 20 different Macs in our
place, and it's only reproducible on about half of them. So far, we
haven't deduced any pattern as to which ones are affected and which aren't.
Dudley Henriques - 19 Jun 2008 22:17 GMT
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [Fwd: Major Mac OS X Vulnerability]
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
> like assistance closing this hole please let us know by emailing
> "help@physics.upenn.edu" and one of us will come help.
Thanks everyone who replied.

Signature
Dudley Henriques
Jolly Roger - 20 Jun 2008 00:06 GMT
> However, there is an easy fix where we can just remove permissions from
> the vulnerable client.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> /System/Library/CoreServices/RemoteManagement/ARDAgent.app/Contents/MacOS/ARDA
> gent
I've verified this fixes the problem on several Macs running 10.5.

Signature
Please send all responses to the relevant news group rather than directly
to me, as E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry
SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups.
You'll need to use a real news reader if you want me to see your posts.
JR
Matt Broughton - 20 Jun 2008 00:57 GMT
> > However, there is an easy fix where we can just remove permissions from
> > the vulnerable client.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> I've verified this fixes the problem on several Macs running 10.5.
Same experience here -- at least until you repair permissions. When you
repair permissions, it will revert back to original problem.
Original listing --
-rwsr-xr-x 1 root wheel 1439952 Nov 15 2007
/System/Library/CoreServices/RemoteManagement/ARDAgent.app/Contents/MacOS
/ARDAgent
After running the sudo chmod -s --
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 1439952 Nov 15 2007
/System/Library/CoreServices/RemoteManagement/ARDAgent.app/Contents/MacOS
/ARDAgent
After repairing permissions --
-rwsr-xr-x 1 root wheel 1439952 Nov 15 2007
/System/Library/CoreServices/RemoteManagement/ARDAgent.app/Contents/MacOS
/ARDAgent

Signature
Matt Broughton
Only relatives are absolute.
Jolly Roger - 20 Jun 2008 01:42 GMT
> > > However, there is an easy fix where we can just remove permissions from
> > > the vulnerable client.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Same experience here -- at least until you repair permissions.
No problem for me - I rarely repair permissions. Repair permissions
simply isn't the magical tool most people think it is.

Signature
Please send all responses to the relevant news group rather than directly
to me, as E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry
SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups.
You'll need to use a real news reader if you want me to see your posts.
JR
Megadave - 22 Jun 2008 03:24 GMT
> > > > However, there is an easy fix where we can just remove permissions from
> > > > the vulnerable client.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> No problem for me - I rarely repair permissions. Repair permissions
> simply isn't the magical tool most people think it is.
Is there a "downside" to running permissions repair? I mean, I can see
an issue with doing so on certain home-compiled tools/databases.. but
aside from that..?

Signature
[P]eople
[E]ating
[T]asty
[A]nimals
Jolly Roger - 22 Jun 2008 17:16 GMT
> > > > > However, there is an easy fix where we can just remove permissions
> > > > > from
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> an issue with doing so on certain home-compiled tools/databases.. but
> aside from that..?
Repair Permissions has a flaw, in that it does not know how to resolve
the case where multiple receipts list the same file or folder with
differing ownership and permissions. This actually happens fairly
frequently, particularly when more than one software package installs
and uses a shared library or other system resource that happens to be
used by another software package. If there are multiple receipts that
list a file or folder in /private, for instance, and the ownership and
permissions differ between those two receipts, the Repair Permissions
function will encounter the first receipt, change the ownership and
permissions to reflect that receipt, then encounter the second receipt
and change the ownership and permissions to match the second receipt.
This typically manifests itself in Disk Utility's Repair Permissions log
as a file/folder that never seems to be actually repaired.

Signature
Please send all responses to the relevant news group rather than directly
to me, as E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry
SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups.
You'll need to use a real news reader if you want me to see your posts.
JR
Barry Margolin - 20 Jun 2008 02:25 GMT
See the thread "Applescript Vulnerability" in comp.sys.mac.system.

Signature
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Megadave - 22 Jun 2008 16:20 GMT
The warning is authentic, but based on what I've read and tried on my
own machines someone would have to have physical access to your machine
to execute the exploit it plugs. So for lab machines I would do this,
but for private machines I do not see the point.

Signature
[P]eople
[E]ating
[T]asty
[A]nimals
william mitchell - 23 Jun 2008 14:11 GMT
> The warning is authentic, but based on what I've read and tried on my
> own machines someone would have to have physical access to your machine
> to execute the exploit it plugs. So for lab machines I would do this,
> but for private machines I do not see the point.
One reason for doing so is that leaving the vulerability means that
anyone who manages to break into a user account could easily escalate
to root.