IMac is vulnerable to Shellshock

Hi,
My iMac has is vulnerable to Shellshock. See test and results below. Please advise.
Test:
Is my machine vulnerable?
Shellshocker.net provides two tests, one for each vulnerability, (CVE-2014-6271) and (CVE-2014-7169). On a Mac, open the Terminal program and type:
env x='() { :;}; echo vulnerable' bash -c "echo this is a test"
If you see "vulnerable" echoed in the response, your version of Bash is affected. Then type:
env X='() { (a)=>\' bash -c "echo date"; cat echo
If you see today's date (alongside any errors), your version of Bash is vulnerable.
Results:
Last login: Sun Sep 28 11:30:39 on console
Daryls-iMac-2:~ darylkennedy$ env x='() { :;}; echo vulnerable' bash -c "echo this is a test"
vulnerable
this is a test
Daryls-iMac-2:~ darylkennedy$
Daryls-iMac-2:~ darylkennedy$ env X='() { (a)=>\' bash -c "echo date"; cat echo
bash: X: line 1: syntax error near unexpected token `='
bash: X: line 1: `'
bash: error importing function definition for `X'
Sun Sep 28 11:36:27 EDT 2014
Daryls-iMac-2:~ darylkennedy$

d-nc wrote:
Hi,
My iMac has is vulnerable to Shellshock. See test and results below. Please advise.
Don't run a web server and don't allow remote access. But, I imagine that is true already.
Unless you are using an Airport Extreme, your router is likely the biggest vulnerability. The others are generally configured through a web server.
See the other posts Esquared linked.

Similar Messages

Is ESX v3.0 / 3.5 vulnerable to Shellshock?

Greetings,
Is ESX v3.0 / 3.5 vulnerable to Shellshock? - I have searched all over and cannot find this answer. I tried finding out the linux shell version as well, but did not locate that. I thought Google would answer this in 2 minutes
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks,
Rick

It should be as ESX 4 is vulnerable as well, with the difference being there is a patch available for ESX 4. I think the recommendation would be to upgrade to atleast ver 4 and apply the patch.
Security advisory located at
VMSA-2014-0010.4 | United States
Regards
Girish

I have an iMac protected by Intego. If I buy an iPhone 6 and it gets hacked, will by iMac be vulnerable?

I have an iMac protected by Intego. If I buy an iPhone 6 and it gets hacked, will by iMac be vulnerable?

Mac users often ask whether they should install "anti-virus" (AV) software. The usual answer is "no." That answer is right, but it may give the wrong impression that there is no threat from what are loosely called "viruses." There is a threat, and you need to educate yourself about it.
1. This is a comment on what you should—and should not—do to protect yourself from malicious software ("malware") that circulates on the Internet and gets onto a computer as an unintended consequence of the user's actions.
It does not apply to software, such as keystroke loggers, that may be installed deliberately by an intruder who has hands-on access to the computer, or who has been able to take control of it remotely. That threat is in a different category, and there's no easy way to defend against it. AV software is not intended to, and does not, defend against such attacks.
The comment is long because the issue is complex. The key points are in sections 5, 6, and 10.
OS X now implements three layers of built-in protection specifically against malware, not counting runtime protections such as execute disable, sandboxing, system library randomization, and address space layout randomization that may also guard against other kinds of exploits.
2. All versions of OS X since 10.6.7 have been able to detect known Mac malware in downloaded files, and to block insecure web plugins. This feature is transparent to the user. Internally Apple calls it "XProtect."
The malware recognition database used by XProtect is automatically updated; however, you shouldn't rely on it, because the attackers are always at least a day ahead of the defenders.
The following caveats apply to XProtect:
☞ It can be bypassed by some third-party networking software, such as BitTorrent clients and Java applets.
☞ It only applies to software downloaded from the network. Software installed from a CD or other media is not checked.
As new versions of OS X are released, it's not clear whether Apple will indefinitely continue to maintain the XProtect database of older versions such as 10.6. The security of obsolete system versions may eventually be degraded. Security updates to the code of obsolete systems will stop being released at some point, and that may leave them open to other kinds of attack besides malware.
3. Starting with OS X 10.7.5, there has been a second layer of built-in malware protection, designated "Gatekeeper" by Apple. By default, applications and Installer packages downloaded from the network will only run if they're digitally signed by a developer with a certificate issued by Apple. Software certified in this way hasn't been checked for security by Apple unless it comes from the App Store, but you can be reasonably sure that it hasn't been modified by anyone other than the developer. His identity is known to Apple, so he could be held legally responsible if he distributed malware. That may not mean much if the developer lives in a country with a weak legal system (see below.)
Gatekeeper doesn't depend on a database of known malware. It has, however, the same limitations as XProtect, and in addition the following:
☞ It can easily be disabled or overridden by the user.
☞ A malware attacker could get control of a code-signing certificate under false pretenses, or could simply ignore the consequences of distributing codesigned malware.
☞ An App Store developer could find a way to bypass Apple's oversight, or the oversight could fail due to human error.
Apple has taken far too long to revoke the codesigning certificates of some known abusers, thereby diluting the value of Gatekeeper and the Developer ID program. Those lapses don't involve App Store products, however.
For the reasons given, App Store products, and—to a lesser extent—other applications recognized by Gatekeeper as signed, are safer than others, but they can't be considered absolutely safe. "Sandboxed" applications may prompt for access to private data, such as your contacts, or for access to the network. Think before granting that access. Sandbox security is based on user input. Never click through any request for authorization without thinking.
4. Starting with OS X 10.8.3, a third layer of protection has been added: a "Malware Removal Tool" (MRT). MRT runs automatically in the background when you update the OS. It checks for, and removes, malware that may have evaded the other protections via a Java exploit (see below.) MRT also runs when you install or update the Apple-supplied Java runtime (but not the Oracle runtime.) Like XProtect, MRT is effective against known threats, but not against unknown ones. It notifies you if it finds malware, but otherwise there's no user interface to MRT.
5. The built-in security features of OS X reduce the risk of malware attack, but they are not, and never will be, complete protection. Malware is a problem of human behavior, not machine behavior, and no technological fix alone is going to solve it. Trusting software to protect you will only make you more vulnerable.
The best defense is always going to be your own intelligence. With the possible exception of Java exploits, all known malware circulating on the Internet that affects a fully-updated installation of OS X 10.6 or later takes the form of so-called "Trojan horses," which can only have an effect if the victim is duped into running them. The threat therefore amounts to a battle of wits between you and Internet criminals. If you're better informed than they think you are, you'll win. That means, in practice, that you always stay within a safe harbor of computing practices. How do you know when you're leaving the safe harbor? Below are some warning signs of danger.
Software from an untrustworthy source
☞ Software with a corporate brand, such as Adobe Flash Player, doesn't come directly from the developer’s website. Do not trust an alert from any website to update Flash, or your browser, or any other software. A genuine alert that Flash is outdated and blocked is shown on this support page. Follow the instructions on the support page in that case. Otherwise, assume that the alert is fake and someone is trying to scam you into installing malware. If you see such alerts on more than one website, ask for instructions.
☞ Software of any kind is distributed via BitTorrent, or Usenet, or on a website that also distributes pirated music or movies.
☞ Rogue websites such as Softonic, Soft32, and CNET Download distribute free applications that have been packaged in a superfluous "installer."
☞ The software is advertised by means of spam or intrusive web ads. Any ad, on any site, that includes a direct link to a download should be ignored.
Software that is plainly illegal or does something illegal
☞ High-priced commercial software such as Photoshop is "cracked" or "free."
☞ An application helps you to infringe copyright, for instance by circumventing the copy protection on commercial software, or saving streamed media for reuse without permission. All "YouTube downloaders" are in this category, though not all are necessarily malicious.
Conditional or unsolicited offers from strangers
☞ A telephone caller or a web page tells you that you have a “virus” and offers to help you remove it. (Some reputable websites did legitimately warn visitors who were infected with the "DNSChanger" malware. That exception to this rule no longer applies.)
☞ A web site offers free content such as video or music, but to use it you must install a “codec,” “plug-in,” "player," "downloader," "extractor," or “certificate” that comes from that same site, or an unknown one.
☞ You win a prize in a contest you never entered.
☞ Someone on a message board such as this one is eager to help you, but only if you download an application of his choosing.
☞ A "FREE WI-FI !!!" network advertises itself in a public place such as an airport, but is not provided by the management.
☞ Anything online that you would expect to pay for is "free."
Unexpected events
☞ A file is downloaded automatically when you visit a web page, with no other action on your part. Delete any such file without opening it.
☞ You open what you think is a document and get an alert that it's "an application downloaded from the Internet." Click Cancel and delete the file. Even if you don't get the alert, you should still delete any file that isn't what you expected it to be.
☞ An application does something you don't expect, such as asking for permission to access your contacts, your location, or the Internet for no obvious reason.
☞ Software is attached to email that you didn't request, even if it comes (or seems to come) from someone you trust.
I don't say that leaving the safe harbor just once will necessarily result in disaster, but making a habit of it will weaken your defenses against malware attack. Any of the above scenarios should, at the very least, make you uncomfortable.
6. Java on the Web (not to be confused with JavaScript, to which it's not related, despite the similarity of the names) is a weak point in the security of any system. Java is, among other things, a platform for running complex applications in a web page, on the client. That was always a bad idea, and Java's developers have proven themselves incapable of implementing it without also creating a portal for malware to enter. Past Java exploits are the closest thing there has ever been to a Windows-style virus affecting OS X. Merely loading a page with malicious Java content could be harmful.
Fortunately, client-side Java on the Web is obsolete and mostly extinct. Only a few outmoded sites still use it. Try to hasten the process of extinction by avoiding those sites, if you have a choice. Forget about playing games or other non-essential uses of Java.
Java is not included in OS X 10.7 and later. Discrete Java installers are distributed by Apple and by Oracle (the developer of Java.) Don't use either one unless you need it. Most people don't. If Java is installed, disable it—not JavaScript—in your browsers.
Regardless of version, experience has shown that Java on the Web can't be trusted. If you must use a Java applet for a task on a specific site, enable Java only for that site in Safari. Never enable Java for a public website that carries third-party advertising. Use it only on well-known, login-protected, secure websites without ads. In Safari 6 or later, you'll see a padlock icon in the address bar when visiting a secure site.
Stay within the safe harbor, and you’ll be as safe from malware as you can practically be. The rest of this comment concerns what you should not do to protect yourself.
7. Never install any commercial AV or "Internet security" products for the Mac, as they are all worse than useless. If you need to be able to detect Windows malware in your files, use one of the free security apps in the Mac App Store—nothing else.
Why shouldn't you use commercial AV products?
☞ To recognize malware, the software depends on a database of known threats, which is always at least a day out of date. This technique is a proven failure, as a major AV software vendor has admitted. Most attacks are "zero-day"—that is, previously unknown. Recognition-based AV does not defend against such attacks, and the enterprise IT industry is coming to the realization that traditional AV software is worthless.
☞ Its design is predicated on the nonexistent threat that malware may be injected at any time, anywhere in the file system. Malware is downloaded from the network; it doesn't materialize from nowhere. In order to meet that nonexistent threat, commercial AV software modifies or duplicates low-level functions of the operating system, which is a waste of resources and a common cause of instability, bugs, and poor performance.
☞ By modifying the operating system, the software may also create weaknesses that could be exploited by malware attackers.
☞ Most importantly, a false sense of security is dangerous.
8. An AV product from the App Store, such as "ClamXav," has the same drawback as the commercial suites of being always out of date, but it does not inject low-level code into the operating system. That doesn't mean it's entirely harmless. It may report email messages that have "phishing" links in the body, or Windows malware in attachments, as infected files, and offer to delete or move them. Doing so will corrupt the Mail database. The messages should be deleted from within the Mail application.
An AV app is not needed, and cannot be relied upon, for protection against OS X malware. It's useful, if at all, only for detecting Windows malware, and even for that use it's not really effective, because new Windows malware is emerging much faster than OS X malware.
Windows malware can't harm you directly (unless, of course, you use Windows.) Just don't pass it on to anyone else. A malicious attachment in email is usually easy to recognize by the name alone. An actual example:
London Terror Moovie.avi [124 spaces] Checked By Norton Antivirus.exe
You don't need software to tell you that's a Windows trojan. Software may be able to tell you which trojan it is, but who cares? In practice, there's no reason to use recognition software unless an organizational policy requires it. Windows malware is so widespread that you should assume it's in every email attachment until proven otherwise. Nevertheless, ClamXav or a similar product from the App Store may serve a purpose if it satisfies an ill-informed network administrator who says you must run some kind of AV application. It's free and it won't handicap the system.
The ClamXav developer won't try to "upsell" you to a paid version of the product. Other developers may do that. Don't be upsold. For one thing, you should not pay to protect Windows users from the consequences of their choice of computing platform. For another, a paid upgrade from a free app will probably have all the disadvantages mentioned in section 7.
9. It seems to be a common belief that the built-in Application Firewall acts as a barrier to infection, or prevents malware from functioning. It does neither. It blocks inbound connections to certain network services you're running, such as file sharing. It's disabled by default and you should leave it that way if you're behind a router on a private home or office network. Activate it only when you're on an untrusted network, for instance a public Wi-Fi hotspot, where you don't want to provide services. Disable any services you don't use in the Sharing preference pane. All are disabled by default.
10. As a Mac user, you don't have to live in fear that your computer may be infected every time you install software, read email, or visit a web page. But neither can you assume that you will always be safe from exploitation, no matter what you do. Navigating the Internet is like walking the streets of a big city. It can be as safe or as dangerous as you choose to make it. The greatest harm done by security software is precisely its selling point: it makes people feel safe. They may then feel safe enough to take risks from which the software doesn't protect them. Nothing can lessen the need for safe computing practices.

ISE 1.2.0.899 vulnerable to Shellshock?

Hi, I just saw that version 1.2(0.747) is vulnerable. How about 1.2.0.899?
https://tools.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCur00532
KR

I've asked the PSIRT Team and they confirmed that ISE is vulnerable.
http://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20140926-bash
(Prime Infrastructure is vulnerable as well but is not yet mentioned in the advisory. It will be added in an upcoming revision.)

HP hardware vulnerable to ShellShock bug?

Hi all,
I have been asked to check whether our HP hardware is affected in any way by the recent Bash vulnerability.
We use the following HP hardware:
E-MSM460 Access Point (ww)(J9591a) - Wireless Access Point
ProCurve 2520G-24-POE (J9299A) - POE Switch
ProCurve Switch 2510G-24 (J9279A) - Switch
Can anyone advise whether these devices use any type of Linux or OSX based software?
Many thanks,
James.

Hi,
Please post your question on Business Support forum. HP rep at your country should tell you. I know we have many HP products in our halls (ie computer rooms) but I only talk with other vendors, not HP.
Regards.
BH
**Click the KUDOS thumb up on the left to say 'Thanks'**
Make it easier for other people to find solutions by marking a Reply 'Accept as Solution' if it solves your problem.

Prime Infrastructure vulnerable to ShellShock?

Hi,
does anyone know if Prime Infrastructure version 1.2 is also affected?
It is not in the list:
http://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20140926-bash
KR

Hi Renata,
I'm looking for a patch for our version (and still looking) but found a list that appears to show that 1.2 is affected.
https://tools.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCur05228
Hope that helps.
Jim

ShellShock Vulnerable products

Hello
We have Cisci UCS blade servers B420 M3 serial : FCH1710J7JP
and the Fabric Interconnect : UCS-FI-6248UP
I need to know if those product are vulnerable for ShellShock
If they are vulnerable witch patch I need to install ?

Just an FYI a fix has been released (2.2(3b))......
Fixes will be available in the following upcoming releases:
3.0(1d) ==> ETA week of 10/13
2.2(3b) ==> released 10/9
2.2(2e) ==> ETA week of 10/13
2.2(1f) ==> ETA week of 10/13
2.1(3f) ==> ETA will be announced shortly
2.0(5g) ==> ETA will be announced shortly
All six CVEs, CVE-2014-6271, CVE-2014-7169, CVE-2014-7186, CVE-2014-7187 CVE-2014-6278, and CVE-2014-6277 have been fixed.
The 2.2(3b) release was published to CCO on 10/9. The other 2.2 release trains will be updated in the week of 10/13. The release schedule for the 2.0 and 2.1 release trains will be announced soon - release candidates are currently still in QA.
https://tools.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCur01379

Cisco NAC Guest Server and shellshock

Hello,
We are running NAC server v2.0.2 and would like to know if it's vulnerable to shellshock as the bug report CSCur05629 isn't clear on this.

Well you will need to use a 3rd party certificate.. Here is a link to generate and install a 3rd party certificate on the WLC for the use with Web-Auth:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk722/tk809/technologies_configuration_example09186a00806e367a.shtml
Here is a link for the NGS:
http://tools.cisco.com/search/display?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cisco.com%2Fen%2FUS%2Fdocs%2Fsecurity%2Fnac%2Fappliance%2Fconfiguration_guide%2F410%2Fcas%2Fcas41ug.pdf&pos=1&strqueryid=2&websessionid=RK88fQNWy8TCDUakpNGLOqZ
The applicances are using a self generated Cisco certificate which of course is not a trusted certificate store in most of all operating systems. So using a 3rd party certificate like RapidSSL, Verisign, etc will eliminate the certificate issue.

HT201393 how can I fix IOS 10.6.8. if vulnerable ?

How can I fix IOS 10.6.8. if vulnerable to shellshock ?

Further to the above, there is a possible fix posted on Macintouch: go to
http://www.macintouch.com/readerreports/security/index.html#d01oct2014
and scroll up to the last post on 30 September, from Jim Weisbin. See also the posts at the bottom of the page he links to,
http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/146849/how-do-i-recompile-bash-to-avoid -shellshock-the-remote-exploit-cve-2014-6271-an/146851
Disclaimer: all this is outside my technical knowledge and I pass this on for information only. I can't offer any comment on its suitability; use at your own risk.

Spyware???

one of the reasons im considering switching to mac is due to my current systems spyware infestation...will the imac be vulnerable to the same malware???
thanks,
Justin

Hello, Lucifuge.
No doubt other Mac owners will contribute their opinions, but I'd like to set a bit of perspective for you. These forums are intended for people to come here and post their problems, so by nature what you're going to see will indeed be problems. The many thousands of iMac owners who are having no troubles have little reason to post to a technical support bulletin board, so just reading here will give you a skewed perspective on the issues. Quoting another regular contributor to the Discussions, "Trying to judge Macs by this forum is like trying to judge the health of a community by looking at the hospital ER".
There can be problems with any system and yours could fail at some point. The strong likelihood, though, is that you'll have no problems with your system whatsoever, particularly if you take care to give it a proper environment - low static, high quality power protection (no $15 hardware store special surge protectors), etc. - power problems are the number one cause of chronic computer problems. I've owned at least eleven Macs over the years, and have only had a hardware problem with one (a bad hard drive in a Mac SE more years ago than I care to admit).
As to reasons to switch, here are a few (all of which come standard with any Mac):
Mac OS X
iMovie
iPhoto
iDVD
iWeb
GarageBand
Automator
AppleScript
No extant viruses or worms, and only a couple of trojans
No spyware

Bash: Apple should continuously support Bash update 1.x for all prior-Snow Leopard OS X and Servers

I don't see any reason why Apple should ignore all pior-Snow Leopard OS X and Servers' Bash Update 1.0.
In my work environment, I have a mixture of Unix servers (from the old to the latest). Now, all Unix machines are vulnerable to Shellshock. It is worse than heartbleed bug. Why do Apple still let crackers have chance to attack those old Apple machines and Xserves? For God's sake, please provide Bash updates to them all. This is a historical glitch. Poor users had no choice of what version of Bash to install or remove at the time. Their securities are on Apple's hand. Apple has the responsibility to fix it.
Put it another way, on May 1, 2014, despite the end of support for the Windows XP (April 8, 2014, over 12 years since its long release), Microsoft released an emergency patch to correct a major, recently discovered security exploit in the Internet Explorer browser on all versions of Windows.
If Microsoft can do it, why Apple cannot do it better?

Don't tell us. Tell Apple.
BugReporter
<http://bugreporter.apple.com>
Free ADC (Apple Developer Connection) account needed for BugReporter.
Anyone can get a free account at:
<http://developer.apple.com/programs/register/>
And/Or
Mac OS X Feedback
<http://www.apple.com/feedback/macosx.html>

Linksys SRW224G4 Managed Switch

Does anyone know if this switch is vulnerable to the Shellshock issue? I asked in the Linksys forum, but was told to ask in the Cisco forum. Thanks.

This switch is not a Linksys product - it's Cisco. It is not vulnerable to shellshock.

Shellshock Vulnerability

Are any of the Adobe Creative Cloud services vulnerable to the Bash / Shellshock bug?

The Cisco PSIRT is investigating the impact of this vulnerability on Cisco products and will disclose any vulnerabilities according to our security policy, which is available at http://www.cisco.com/web/about/security/psirt/security_vulnerability_policy.html .
An INTERIM Cisco Security Advisory was published on September 25th, 2014 and is available at the following URL:
http://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20140926-bash
The Cisco PSIRT will update this Cisco Security Advisory as more information becomes available.

HT5228 I am running OS 10.5.8 on an iMac. There is no security update issued for this operating system - it only covers 10.6. Is my comuter vulnerable? Do I need to do anything?

I am running OS 10.5.8 on an iMac. There is no security update issued for this operating system - it only covers 10.6. Is my comuter vulnerable? Do I need to do anything?

I'm still not clear why Apple only issued security updates for 10.6 and later. I assume they think we should all update our operating systems or maybe they are just focusing on the majority of users?
Apple has had a long standing policy of only supporting the current and previous operating system releases. Whether they decide to make an exception for even older releases is anyone's guess.
You can send them feedback to express your opinion.
Or does the new Trojan not affect older OS? I'd like to know , if anyone has information.
As far as is known, it does affect older unsupported releases. Disabling Java in your web browser is the current preventive approach (and that is a community derived approach)

ShellShock / Bash bug / iOS 7, 8 vulnerable or not?

Hi,
does anyone has a confirmation that iOS is also vulnerable to current ShellShock (problem with Bash)?
Has anyone tested this on your iDevices?
Thx.

iOS doesn't appear to use bash, so you wouldn't be vulnerable.
If you use software that is visible to the outside world and uses bash, then you would be at risk. Since most Mac users don't have a lot in the way of external facing software, (software that other users access and use resources on your local machine or server), individual users don't have a lot of risk. But if an attacker were to somehow find your machine's name, bash could be exploited, but since iOS doesn't use bash iPhone users don't have anything to worry about.

IMac is vulnerable to Shellshock

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for