Are apparmor profiles available for rhythmbox or Totem?

[Hungry Man]

I don't know enough about how OSX/BSD permissions work. I would think it's as simple as Windows - you can download and execute any .exe or .msi or whatever.

If the exploit gives them root it can do whatever. If the permissions allow the program to manipulate files that it owns' permissions it can change the payload how it likes. It could mmap() or virtualalloc() it and get it to execute that way.

Not really sure how it did it or how the best way to go about doing it would be.

[rookcifer]

I don't know enough about how OSX/BSD permissions work. I would think it's as simple as Windows - you can download and execute any .exe or .msi or whatever.

Yeah, from reading I found out that OSX uses the default umask of 022, which is the same as most Linux distros. This means new files should not be executable.

If the exploit gives them root it can do whatever. If the permissions allow the program to manipulate files that it owns' permissions it can change the payload how it likes. It could mmap() or virtualalloc() it and get it to execute that way.

Yeah this malware didn't need root -- it worked directly within the user's directory. So, I was just wondering how it overcame the umask setting. Only thing I can figure is that since it exploited the browser, it may have gained the permissions that way (i.e, it assumes the same permissions the browser has automatically, which probably allows it to execute). Though this is just a guess.

[Hungry Man]

It wouldn't get the browsers permissions, it's just a plugin and it has its own separate permissions.