Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Tyler McAdams · Dec 22, 2007, 02:32 PM

Did you know that popular PC firewalls include backdoors for facilitating government remote access?

From: The Inquirer
The NSA 0wnz popular firewalls and 'secure' email services - The INQUIRER

I can only imagine this means the same for OS X firewalls... but I have heard nothing on the subject.

A firewall that *facilitates* remote access is not a firewall... it's another bastardized piece corporate marketing taking advantage of people's lack of technical knowledge about computers. Should we not have the legal right to be informed "flat out" on these product's marketing that these softwares have inherent insecurities... no matter if they're used for legitimate means? I have yet to find a product that does. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Cold Warrior · Dec 22, 2007, 02:43 PM

I'll have to see this reported on major news sites before I'll believe it.

imitchellg5 · Dec 22, 2007, 02:44 PM

It's sort of like how iTunes and Dashboard can be accessed by Apple.

Tyler McAdams · Dec 22, 2007, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

It's sort of like how iTunes and Dashboard can be accessed by Apple.

Right but this is a piece of "security software" that has a backdoor. See the conflict?

imitchellg5 · Dec 22, 2007, 02:52 PM

Yeah I can. The good news is, that the govt. doesn't have enough time (or need) to look at everyone's computer and see what they've been up to. This is helpful when doing investigations however. For example, if they had had computers around during Watergate, all they would have had to do is see where Nixon would have gone. If you saw that he had gone to the Watergate office's website and perhaps viewed a floorplan, there is some good incriminating evidence against him. Now say you are a suspected Al Queda (sp) member in the U.S. The govt. checks in and sees you have looked at some websites dealing with how to make IEDs. They then can visit that guy and stop a massacre.

Tyler McAdams · Dec 22, 2007, 02:56 PM

I could care less about the government... but those hackers who know these backdoors and write exploits for them. It can't be that hard since it's all documented.

imitchellg5 · Dec 22, 2007, 03:41 PM

Yeah, but hackers wouldn't want to mess with the feds.

gradient · Dec 22, 2007, 04:43 PM

since when?

imitchellg5 · Dec 22, 2007, 04:46 PM

Since the FBI started using Macs

I know someone will, but I doubt all your common virus programmers won't. Besides, why would we need to worry?

Rumor · Dec 22, 2007, 04:58 PM

When did the Inquirer become credible?

imitchellg5 · Dec 22, 2007, 05:36 PM

Since they started saying "0wnz"

Tyler McAdams · Dec 22, 2007, 06:55 PM

I hope this is not the case... but for some reason it seems possible to me.

Oisín · Dec 22, 2007, 07:04 PM

The solution is obviously to just use the firewall the government uses.

zro · Dec 22, 2007, 07:17 PM

What's the big deal? I have to keep 10.5's firewall off on my server anyway. Thanks a lot, Apple. :|

Face Ache · Dec 22, 2007, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

Yeah I can. The good news is, that the govt. doesn't have enough time (or need) to look at everyone's computer and see what they've been up to.

Are you imagining a clerk somewhere manually inputting IP addresses?

Big Mac · Dec 22, 2007, 09:37 PM

Short of a computer sitting in a box, the most secure computer you can have is one you don't have connected to a network. Period. Other than that you're talking about relative security. And relative security is about your level of trust. You pretty much have to assume that popular commercial OSs and security products have backdoors.

besson3c · Dec 22, 2007, 10:37 PM

This article is pure bullshit, you know this right?

iptables, ipchains, ipfw, and possibly even the new OS X firewall are open source - every single byte of source code is widely available, and these firewalls protect thousands of servers at the OS level. Even if the hardware firewalls were exploitable by the government, they'd still have to get past these aforementioned OS firewalls, and these servers would have to be accessible to the outside world.

Tyler McAdams · Dec 22, 2007, 11:13 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

This article is pure bullshit, you know this right?

I sure hope so.

Chuckit · Dec 23, 2007, 12:14 AM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Short of a computer sitting in a box, the most secure computer you can have is one you don't have connected to a network. Period. Other than that you're talking about relative security. And relative security is about your level of trust. You pretty much have to assume that popular commercial OSs and security products have backdoors.

Why on earth would you assume that a security product you're paying money for would be intentionally made so that it doesn't do its job at all? If I found that out, I'd not only demand a refund, I'd sue the company that made it.

But besson isn't quite right: UNIX firewalls are not mentioned in the article that I can see.

Big Mac · Dec 23, 2007, 12:15 AM

Because governments are very powerful, and they like exerting control in covert ways.

Chuckit · Dec 23, 2007, 12:27 AM

And that's an excuse for not doing your job?

Big Mac · Dec 23, 2007, 12:30 AM

No, I mean that governments do things to induce companies to purposely place backdoors into their systems.

Chuckit · Dec 23, 2007, 12:32 AM

Perhaps. And if those companies want to sell security products, I expect them to do things in return, like walk into the offices of the New York Times. Selling an intentionally insecure security product is plain fraud.

I mean, if I walk in there and "do things" to induce them to place backdoors for me so I can steal financial info, are you going to be like, "Oh, well, you should have expected your security software to allow him to steal your data."

Tomchu · Dec 23, 2007, 01:16 AM

"Microsoft's NSA-controlled remote admin access via IP/TCP ports 1024 through 1030"

What's that I smell? That would be bullshit, sir.

All I ask is "prove it". How long have we been hearing about secret NSA backdoors into Windows and encryption algorithms and the like, and when was it ever proven? Never.

besson3c · Dec 23, 2007, 10:43 AM

Okay, I read the article more thoroughly...

Personal Windows firewall products like MacAfee and whatnot: why would people pay money for a firewall when this is provided by the OS?

SSL email systems: there have always been privacy concerns with free email providers including GMail, Hotmail, etc. In fact, the GMail user agreement is actually quite scary. I would never recommend storing important stuff in an free email account.

Cold Warrior · Dec 23, 2007, 11:26 AM

Like others have said, this seems like pure BS. If it were real, a real news site would be all over it, and it would have been leaked to the NY Times or the Washington Post years ago.

Tyler McAdams · Dec 23, 2007, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

why would people pay money for a firewall when this is provided by the OS?

Obviously you have not seen how big a POS the Windows built in firewall is. It originally did things like automatically open ports for Microsoft based products... not sure if it still does the same but it sure doesn't instill faith in my mind.