Macbook Hacker Charlie Miller: "I have a new campaign. It's called No More Free Bugs."

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2941

by tptacek • 17 years ago

80 39 17 years ago

blogs.zdnet.com

karl11• 17 years ago

I've always thought it was funny when someone would try to sell me on macs by saying there are less bugs and viruses on them. You have to remind them that if Apple had 90% of the business computer market that wouldn't be true anymore. Apple's best security is the fact that far fewer people buy their products than they do Microsoft's.

tptacek10• 17 years ago

A really common response to that is, "well, malware share on Macs should track the market share of Macs; it doesn't, ergo Macs are more secure".

This is, of course, silly. We haven't hit "peak oil" for Windows infections. A new Windows worm still pays off wildly better than a Mac worm; writing Mac malware is economically irrational.

weaksauce• 17 years ago

But, at the moment, there are less viruses on them for precisely that reason. Security through popularity is working for the time being. That and linux/unix/os x have the principal of least privileges working for them too.

hollerith• 17 years ago

Someone does not know what 'principle of least priviledge' means.

tptacek10• 17 years ago

No, they don't. We can go through the motions on this "OS X has a better privilege model than Windows" argument, but I know how it'll end: malware doesn't need (or even want) root to win.

GHFigs• 17 years ago

I've always thought it was funny when someone would try to sell me on macs by saying there are less bugs and viruses on them.

Why do you find that funny? You said yourself that it's true.

riferguson5• 17 years ago

Miller says that the bugs have a market value beyond $5000 -- indeed, he claims that an IE8 exploit has a "market value" of over $50k.

But that market value exists only if you're willing to sell the exploits to people who either (a) are planning to use them or (b) want to fix them. The former group are the ones setting the market value, since they're the ones who are going to monetize the exploits.

The idea of announcing NO MORE FREE BUGS really amounts to saying to the world "I'm either going to sell my work to criminals, or am going to participate in an ongoing blackmail scheme to make myself rich."

Nice. Good luck with that, Charlie.

tptacek10• 17 years ago

I don't like vulnerability markets. It seems to me like a flaw is more valuable before it's patched, and more valuable before it's disclosed. Like plutonium, anything done to make it safer makes it less valuable. If you're going to pay top dollar for something like that, you bother me.

But I have two problems with where you're going.

First, finding a bug in your own time and not telling Apple about it unless they pay you isn't blackmail. Charlie Miller bills $300/hour. His work product is worth money. Apple has no right to confiscate it. If the dilemma was, "pay up or it's going to the Russian Mafia", it'd be blackmail. But if you think Charlie Miller is selling vulnerabilities to the Russian Mafia, you're a jackass.

Second, the reason you don't see me at CanSecWest --- well, one of them, another being that Nils and Charlie and Dino would crush me --- is that I spent all day reversing protocols, writing fuzzers, and finding flaws. For cash. Vendors pay us, and so do large companies that buy from those vendors. It's my day job; it's a job; money changes hands. How is Charlie's proposal different?

I think it is different. But it's way more subtle than you're making out to be. It's also a common industry practice, so making him the face of it isn't a great play.

(You can see where we stand on this: http://www.matasano.com/log/mtso/ethics/).

riferguson5• 17 years ago

I have no problem with you, Charlie, or anyone else being paid top dollar for his or her work, particularly in an important field like security research.

Indeed, I think it's a great idea for Apple and the other vendors to reimburse 3rd parties for high quality results.

But he wasn't saying "I put X hours into this, and therefore it's worth $X*(billing rate)."

He was saying "the market value of this is $Z., and it's more for things that have a greater impact."

I don't know Charlie Miller from a hole in the ground, and so I have no idea if he's going to be selling his work to the Russian Mafia. If you say he's a great guy, I'm sure you're right.

Nevertheless, if he thinks that security exploits have a market value beyond a reasonable billing rate, he's implicitly using the threat of the Bad Guys to raise the value of his work.

That's a very fine line to be walking.

nihilocrat• 17 years ago

Conversely, he is basically stating that third parties like himself are working as exploit-oriented QA Engineers for the software they are exploiting. If full-time QA people get paid for it, why shouldn't he?

Please enlighten me... I don't see any mention of selling the exploit to criminals, just mention that they could get a lot more money than is offered. Is there just a subtext I'm missing with those statements?

nate• 17 years ago

I have a new campaign. No more reading of sites with ginormous interstitial ads.

mcav• 17 years ago

Cool:

> Q: Google Chrome was the one target left standing. Surprised?

> A: There are bugs in Chrome but they’re very hard to exploit. I have a Chrome vulnerability right now but I don’t know how to exploit it. It’s really hard. The’ve got that sandbox model that’s hard to get out of. With Chrome, it’s a combination of things — you can’t execute on the heap, the OS protections in Windows and the Sandbox.

peregrine• 17 years ago

I still use Chrome even though its become less trendy lately. Beta version has some great features.

I know many people are mad that the linux/mac version isn't available but if you think about it, the reason is the sandbox. Google loves quality and won't release something if its not of high quality. Sandboxing on windows I'm positive is different on a unix based system. And security is key.

pierrefar• 17 years ago

I thought they're only on Windows because they're using Windows-specific libraries. IIRC, I think it was the MFC.

snprbob86• 17 years ago

I also find it very interesting how he complements Windows and IE. I think people forget just how hard it is to be the biggest target.

tlrobinson2• 17 years ago

I really have no idea what I'm talking about, but I thought Leopard had the address space randomization I assume he's referring to?

Leopard also has some sort of sandbox feature, but apparently it's not used for Safari.

tptacek10• 17 years ago

Nope. They've started down the path, but with these things, if you don't do it right, you may as well not have done it all.

http://www.matasano.com/log/981/a-roundup-of-leopard-securit...

mark_h2• 17 years ago

That was a good read, thanks. Has it been submitted to HN?

pkaler2• 17 years ago

With all of the talk about morals and ethics, these are the 2 questions I ask myself whenever making a tough decision:

  1) Am I making the world a better place or a worse place?
  2) Am I providing value to the people I care about?

I can't speak for Charlie Miller. But, my answer would be no for both questions. If I were in the same position as him I would feel like a big piece of fucking shit every single morning when I looked at myself in the mirror.

jrockway2• 17 years ago

In his case:

3) Can I feed myself?

By finding Safari bugs, he does make the world a better place. But he can't live like that, so he has to stop looking for Safari bugs.

Since Safari undoubtedly has bugs, this means someone else is going to find them. That someone else could be a criminal, but you can't blame the guy for not wanting to do work that doesn't pay. In the end, Safari's security is Apple's problem, not Charlie Miller's.

pkaler2• 17 years ago

I understand that he has to eat. But making enough money to eat is not that hard.

And it isn't just Apple's problem (or just Microsoft or just Google). It's my problem, too. It's my mom's problem, too.

Think about the case where a user's data is compromised.

With great power comes great responsibility, and whatever other cheesey statement you want to make. I would feel personally responsible if I found an exploit and later that exploit was used to compromise someone's bank account or private correspondence.

My conscience is more important than my stomach. I can find other ways to eat.

tptacek10• 17 years ago

I think Charlie Miller wakes up thinking, "you're the weak, and I'm the tyranny of evil men, but I'm trying real hard to be the shepherd". Then he goes off getting in all kinds of adventures and shit, like Kane from Kung Fu.

That's just what I think.

yan• 17 years ago

My photo from his announcement: http://twitter.com/yan_i/status/1358061677

tlrobinson2• 17 years ago

Dino's slides: http://nchovy.kr/uploads/3/301/D1T1%20-%20Dino%20Dai%20Zovi%...

cool-RR• 17 years ago

Am I the only one whose browser crashed while reading this article? Spooky.

Buzzzz• 17 years ago

Wonder how long linux or *bsd would survive? Are they easier or harder than mac os x?

//olme

Macbook Hacker Charlie Miller: "I have a new campaign. It's called No More Free Bugs."

Related Stories