A generous member of the wider curl community stepped up and donated an unused Mac mini m1 model to me to be used for curl development. Today it arrived at my home. An 8C CPU/16GB/1TB/8C GPU/1GbE model as per the sticker on the box.
Apple is not helping
Apple has shipped and used curl in their products for twenty years but they never assist, help or otherwise contribute to the development. They also don’t sponsor us in any way, like with hardware.
Yet, there are many curl users on the different Apple platforms and sometimes these users run into issues that are unique to those platforms and are challenging to address without direct access to such.
I decided to accept this gift as I believe it might help the project, but this is not a guarantee or promise that I will run around and become the mac support guy in the project. It will just allow me to sometimes get a better grip and ability to help out.
I will also offer other curl committers access to the machine in case of need. For development and debugging and whatnot. Talk to me about it.
A tiny speed comparison
My Intel-based development machine runs Linux, is ten years old and is equipped with an i7-3770K CPU at 3.5GHz. The source code is stored on an OCZ-VERTEX4 SSD on the Intel, the mac has SSD storage only.
Here’s a rough and not very scientific test of some of my most common build activities on the m1+macOS vs the old Intel+Linux machines. This is using the bleeding edge curl source code with roughly the same build config. Both used clang for compiling, a debug build.
People mention that the Intel CPU uses much more power, runs at higher temperature and that the m1 is “just first generation” and all sorts of other excuses for the results presented above. Others insist that the Makefiles must be bad or that I’m not using the mac to its best advantage etc.
None of those excuses change the fact that my ten year old machine builds curl and related code at roughly the same speed as this m1 box while I expected it to be a more noticeable speed difference in the m1’s favor. Yes, it was probably bad expectations.
On March 16 2022, the curl security team received an email in which the reporter highlighted an Apple web page. What can you tell us about this?
I hadn’t seen it before. On this page with the title “About the security content of macOS Monterey 12.3”, said to have been published just two days prior, Apple mentions recent package upgrades and the page lists a bunch of products and what security fixes that were done for them in this update. Among the many products listed, curl is mentioned.
This is what the curl section of the page looked like:
In the curl project we always make all CVEs public with as much detail as we can possibly extract and provide about them. We take great pride in being the best in class in security flaw information and transparency.
Apple listed four CVE fixed. The three first IDs we immediately recognized from the curl security page. The last one however, was a surprise. What was that?
This is not a CVE published by the curl project. The curl project has in fact not shipped any CVE at all in 2022 (yet) so that’s easy to spot. When we looked at the MITRE registration for the ID, it also didn’t disclose any clues really. Not that it was expected to. It did show it was created on January 5 though, so it wasn’t completely new.
Was it a typo?
I compared this number to other recent CVE numbers announced from curl and I laid eyes on CVE-2021-22923 which had just two digits changed. Did they perhaps mean that CVE?
The only “problem” with that CVE is that it was in regards to Metalink and I don’t think Apple ever shipped their curl package with metalink support so therefore they wouldn’t have fixed a Metalink problem. So probably not a typo for that number at least!
I reached out to a friend at Apple as well with an email to Apple Product Security.
Security is our number one priority
In the curl project, we take security seriously. The news that there might be a security problem in curl that we haven’t been told about and that looks like it was about to get public sooner or later was of course somewhat alarming and something we just needed to get to the bottom of. It was also slightly disappointing that a large vendor and packager of curl since over 20 years would go about it this way and jab this into our back.
No source code
Apple has not made the source code for their macOS 12.3 version and the packages they use in there public, so there was no way for us to run diffs or anything to check for the exact modifications that this claimed fix would’ve resulted in.
Apple said so
Several “security websites” (the quotes are there to indicate that clearly these sites are more security in the name than in reality) immediately posted details about this “vulnerability”. Some of them with CVSS scores and CWE numbers , explaining how this problem can hurt users. Obviously completely made up since none of that info was made available by any first party sources anywhere. Not from Apple and not from the curl project. If you now did a web search on that CVE number, several of the top search results linked to such sites providing details – obviously made up from thin air.
As I think these sites don’t add much value to humanity, I won’t link to them here but instead I will show you a screenshot from such an article to show you what a made up CVE number posted by Apple can make people claim:
At 23:28 (my time zone) on the 17th, my Apple friend responded saying they had forwarded the issue to “the right team”.
The Apple Product Security team I also emailed about this issue, answered at 00:23 (still my time) on the 18th saying “we are looking into this and will provide an update soon when we have more information.”
The MITRE page got more details
After the weekend passed with no response, I looked back again on the MITRE page for the CVE in question and it had then gotten populated with additional curl details; mentioning Apple as CNA and now featuring links back to the Apple page! Now it really started to look like the CVE was something real that Apple (or someone) had registered but not told us about. It included real curl related snippets like this:
Multiple issues were addressed by updating to curl version 7.79.1. This issue is fixed in macOS Monterey 12.3. Multiple issues in curl.
Please tell us more details
On Monday the 21st, I continued to get questions about this CVE. Among others, from a member of a major European ISP’s CERT team curious about this CVE as they couldn’t find any specific information about this issue either and they were concerned they might have this vulnerability in the curl versions they run. They of course (rightfully) assumed that I would know about curl CVEs.
It turns out that when a major company randomly mentions a new CVE, it actually has an impact on the world!
At around 20:30 on March 21st, someone on Twitter spotted that the ghost CVE had been removed from Apple’s web page and it only listed three issues (and a mention that the section had been updated). At 21:39 I get an email response from Apple Product Security:
Thank you for reaching out to us about the error with this CVE on our security advisory. We’ve updated our site and requested that MITRE reject CVE-2022-22623 on their end.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
The reject request to MITRE is expected to be slow so that page will remains showing the outdated data for a while longer.
When Apple had retracted the wrong CVE, I figured I should maybe try to get exploitone.com to remove their “article” to maybe at least stop one avenue of further misinformation about this curl “issue”. I tweeted (in perhaps a tad bit inflammatory manner):
I get the feeling they didn’t quite understand my point. They replied:
As I had questions about Apple’s mishap, I replied (sent off 22:28 on the 21st, still only early afternoon on the US west coast), asking for details on what exactly had happened here. If it was a typo, then how come it got registered with MITRE? It’s just so puzzling and mysterious!
When I’m posting this article on my blog (36 hours after I sent the question), I still haven’t gotten any response or explanation. I don’t expect to get any either, but if I do, I will update this post accordingly.
Update March 26
exploitone.com updated their page at some point after my tweet to remove the mention of the imaginary CVE, but the wording remains very odd:
Imagine running a trillion dollar company that bundles various open source components into your products, making billions of dollars of profit annually. When one of your users reach out and ask for help, with the product you ship to your customers, you instead refer the user to the open source project. The project which is run by volunteers which you never sponsored with a cent.
September 25, 2001 is the official release date for Mac OS X 10.1. Exactly twenty years ago today.
Mac OS X 10.1
This was the first macOS release from Apple that bundled curl. It was a complete surprise to me as well when I realized this had happened. Nobody had told me about it ahead of time. I don’t even recall anymore how I figured this out, as I’m not a mac user and I’ve never had any direct contact with the peeps at Apple Inc who were and are responsible for shipping curl on that platform. Not before then and not after that either.
The general consensus at the time seemed to be that Apple replaced Wget with curl due to licensing reasons as Wget had been included in their previous OS X release. Wget is licensed under GPL and curl comes under an MIT-like license. I’m not sure if they shipped libcurl too already at that point.
Various Apple products have been using libcurl over the years on several of their operating systems.
We ship source, they build and ship binaries
Apple downloaded our source code tarball, built curl from it and shipped it. (They also made the exact code they used available.) If I remember this correctly, they built curl against OpenSSL and shipped a version of that as well in the beginning.
In later macOS releases (you know they later changed the name of their OS from being Mac OS X to macOS), they’ve switched curl to use different TLS backends over time. At one point they converted over to using Secure Transport (their own native TLS library) only to somewhat later switch again and then to libressl – which is what the current most recent macOS version uses for curl’s default TLS backend.
The original curl version they bundled in that first release had been released by us in April earlier that same year. It was our 55th curl release but curl was only a little over three years old at the time. It was a young project and it was just in the beginning phase of what it would become.
Early, not first
Apple was certainly early with shipping curl bundled with their operating system but they were not first. curl was already then provided to several Linux distributions. Apple might’ve been one if the first to ship it by default though.
I remember that it felt awesome and as some sort of recognition and acknowledgement of what we’ve done.
Other operating systems
During the early 2000s lots of operating systems would ultimately one by one start to package and provide curl for their platforms. Linux distributions and BSD flavors of course, but soon the legacy Unixes would also follow. If it wasn’t offered by the primary vendor, third party providers would very soon offer packages,
The third party license screen in iOS (click on the image shown on the right here for the full resolution version) includes the curl license, showing that Apple use it in iPhones and iPads. I don’t know for what.
Apple has kept updating curl in their subsequent operating updates and has done a somewhat reasonable job at keeping up with our releases. In their most up-to-date macOS version 11.5.2 (release date: August 11, 2021) they ship curl 7.64.1, released from us on 2019-03-27. Our 181st release. It has twenty-two known vulnerabilities.
This can be compared to Windows 10 which keeps shipping OS updates very frequently but is seemingly stuck with curl 7.55.1, released in August 2017.
Futile attempts to help
For a while I reported security issues we found (that would be relevant) to Apple product security ahead of time before our releases went public, to give them time to react and ship fixes, the same way we send alerts to free operating systems.
I stopped doing that because 1. the Apple security people always complained on me for giving them too short time to react (something like two weeks, which is also the maximum notification time allowed by others) and 2. Apple never released any quick updates as a reaction to my notifications anyway. It took them months or years, making my efforts pointless. Basically they were just rude.
Nothing in return
Neither me personally nor the project have ever gotten anything or any compensation from Apple. Nothing. Nada. Perhaps Apple using curl early on was somewhat of a stamp of approval for some, which helped persuade others that curl is a tool to trust. Perhaps.
Apple has not sponsored the project, not paid for feature development, not helped us with hardware and never paid for support. They don’t cooperate with us to help us fix Apple-specific issues nor do they ever report problems to us (which we know they must find occasionally). Apple users who run into problems with curl on Apple’s operating systems regularly contact the curl project to get us to help fix Apple’s products. For free of course. We never even get a thank you.
I have a mac these days (purchased with my own money) that I use to debug and test mac-specific issues and problems on.
Apple is of course far from alone is this almost predatory behavior, but this post is about curl’s twenty years of serving Apple customers. Also: yes curl is open source and the license allows them to do this. We continue to ship a product that runs perfectly on macOS and other Apple operating systems. They continue to ship curl bundled with their operating systems.
The curl project has no drastic course-altering changes planned ahead and we’re not going away, so I believe the tool and library have the potential to continue being used on Apple products going forward as well. Possibly for a long time ahead. I have zero knowledge or visibility into that, so it’s just guessing on my part based on what’s been done in the past twenty years.
In the curl project we make an effort to ship security fixes as soon as possible after we’ve learned about a problem. We also “prenotify” (inform them about a problem before it gets known to the public) vendors of open source OSes ahead of the release to alert them about what is about to happen and to make it possible for them to be ready and prepared when we publish the security advisory of the particular problems we’ve found.
These distributors ship curl to their customers and users. They build curl from the sources they host and they apply (our and their own) security patches to the code over time to fix vulnerabilities. Usually they start out with the clean and unmodified version we released and then over time the curl version they maintain and ship gets old (by my standards) and the number of patches they apply grow, sometimes to several hundred.
We always ship at least one official patch for each security advisory. That patch is usually made for the previous version of curl and it will of course sometimes take a little work to backport to much older curl versions.
The other day I was reading LWN when I saw their regular notices about security updates from various vendors and couldn’t help checking out a mentioned curl security fix from Red Hat for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7. It was dated July 29, 2019 and fixed CVE-2018-14618, which we announced on September 5th 2018. 327 days ago.
Not quite reaching Apple’s level, Red Hat positions themselves as number three in this toplist with this release.
An interesting detail here is that the curl version Red Hat fixed here was 7.29.0, which is the exact same version our winner also patched…
(Update after first publication: after talks with people who know things I’ve gotten some further details. Red Hat did ship a fix for this problem already in 2018. This 2019 one was a subsequent update for complicated reasons, which may or may not make this entry disqualified for my top-list.)
At times when I’ve thought it has been necessary, I’ve separately informed the product security team at Apple about a pending release with fixes that might affect their users, and almost every time I’ve done that they’ve responded to me and asked that I give them (much) longer time between alert and release in the future. (Requests I’ve ignored so far because it doesn’t match how we work nor how the open vendors want us to behave). Back in 2010, I noticed how one of the security fixes took391 days for Apple to fix. I haven’t checked, but I hope they’re better at this these days.
With the 391 days, Apple takes place number two.
Oracle Linux published the curl errata named ELSA-2019-1880 on July 30 2019 and it apparently fixes nine different curl vulnerabilities. All nine were the result of the Cure53 security audit and we announced them on November 2 2016.
These problems had at that time been public knowledge for exactly 1000 days! The race is over and Oracle got this win by a pretty amazing margin.
In this case, they still ship curl 7.29.0 (released on February 6, 2013) when the latest curl version we ship is version 7.65.3. When I write this, we know about 47 security problems in curl 7.29.0. 14 of those problems were fixed after those nine problems that were reportedly fixed on July 30. It might mean, but doesn’t have to, that their shipped version still is vulnerable to some of those…
Summing up, here’s the top-3 list of all times:
Oracle: 1000 days
Apple: 391 days
Red Hat: 327 days
I’m bundling and considering all problems as equals here, which probably isn’t entirely fair. Different vulnerabilities will have different degrees of severity and thus will be more or less important to fix in a short period of time.
Still, these were security releases done by these companies so someone there at least considered them to be security related, worth fixing and worth releasing.
This list is entirely unscientific, I might have missed some offenders. There might also be some that haven’t patched these or even older problems and then they are even harder to spot. If you know of a case suitable for this top-list, let me know!
When Mac OS X first launched they did so without an existing poll function. They later added poll() in Mac OS X 10.3, but we quickly discovered that it was broken (it returned a non-zero value when asked to wait for nothing) so in the curl project we added a check in configure for that and subsequently avoided using poll() in all OS X versions to and including Mac OS 10.8 (Darwin 12). The code would instead switch to the alternative solution based on select() for these platforms.
With the release of Mac OS X 10.9 “Mavericks” in October 2013, Apple had fixed their poll() implementation and we’ve built libcurl to use it since with no issues at all. The configure script picks the correct underlying function to use.
Enter macOS 10.12 (yeah, its not called OS X anymore) “Sierra”, released in September 2016. Quickly we discovered that poll() once against did not act like it should and we are back to disabling the use of it in preference to the backup solution using select().
The new error looks similar to the old problem: when there’s nothing to wait for and we ask poll() to wait N milliseconds, the 10.12 version of poll() returns immediately without waiting. Causing busy-loops. The problem has been reported to Apple and its Radar number is 28372390. (There has been no news from them on how they plan to act on this.)
curl has been shipped by default on Mac OS X since many years – I actually couldn’t even manage to figure out exactly how many. It is built and bundled with the operating system by Apple itself and on Apple’s own terms and even though I’m the main curl developer I’ve never discussed this with them or even been asked or told about their plans. I’m not complaining, our license allows this and I’m nothing but happy with them shipping curl to millions of Mac users.
Originally, curl on Mac was built against OpenSSL for the TLS and SSL support, but over time our friends at Apple have switched more and more of their software over to use their own TLS and crypto library Secure Transport instead of OpenSSL. A while ago Apple started bundling curl built to use the native mac TLS library instead of OpenSSL.
As you may know, when you build curl you can select from eleven different TLS libraries and one of them of course is Secure Transport. Support for this TLS back-end in curl was written by curl hackers, but it apparently got to a quality level good enough for Apple to decide to build curl with this back-end and ship it like that.
The Secure Transport back-end is rather capable and generally doesn’t cause many reasons for concern. There’s however one notable little glitch that people keep asking me about…
curl doesn’t support HTTP/2 on mac!
There are two obvious reasons why not, and they are:
1. No ALPN with Secure Transport
Secure Transport doesn’t offer any public API to enable HTTP/2 with ALPN when speaking HTTPS. Sure, we know Apple supports HTTP/2 already in several other aspects in their ecosystem and we can check their open code so we know there’s support for HTTP/2 and ALPN. There’s just no official APIs for us to use to switch it on!
So, if you insist on building curl to use Secure Transport instead of one of the many alternatives that actually support ALPN just fine, then you can’t negotiate HTTP/2 over TLS!
2. No nghttp2 with Mac OS
Even without ALPN support, you could actually still negotiate HTTP/2 over plain text TCP connections if you have a server that supports it. But even then curl depends on the awesome nghttp2 library to provide the frame level protocol encoding/decoding and more. If Apple would decide to enable HTTP/2 support for curl on Mac OS, they need to build it against nghttp2. I really think they should.
Homebrew and friends to the rescue!
Correct. You can still install your own separate curl binary (and libcurl library) from other sources, like for example Homebrew or Macports and they do offer versions built against other TLS back-ends and nghttp2 and then of course HTTP/2 works just fine with curl on mac.
Did I file a bug with Apple?
No, but I know for certain that there has been a bug report filed by someone else. Unfortunately it isn’t public so I can’t link nor browse it.
A) generic code to handle receiving such a network-changed event and then
B) a platform specific part that was for Windows that detected such a network change and sent the event
Today I’ve landed yet another fix for part B called bug 1079385, which detects network changes for Firefox on Mac OS X.
I’ve never programmed anything before on the Mac so this was sort of my christening in this environment. I mean, I’ve written countless of POSIX compliant programs including curl and friends that certainly builds and runs on Mac OS just fine, but I never before used the Mac-specific APIs to do things.
I got a mac mini just two weeks ago to work on this. Getting it up, prepared and my first Firefox built from source took all-in-all less than three hours. Learning the details of the mac API world was much more trouble and can’t say that I’m mastering it now either but I did find myself at least figuring out how to detect when IP addresses on the interfaces change and a changed address is a pretty good signal that the network changed somehow.
I tweeted about me finding a change in Apple’s version of curl that I haven’t seen any public patch for. Apple otherwise hosts a whole slew of curl patches which they never discuss with us about but still make public and we can see what they did.
I was trying to help out a fellow curl user on IRC (we’re in #curl on freenode, come see us) and he was trying to understand some funny effects of running curl against a HTTPS site and he showed me the output from a “curl -v” log. The verbose log curiously was different than mine (same curl version built by myself on Linux). My conclusion was that something was different in the Apple version.
The users log said:
* About to connect() to host.example.com port 443 (#0)
* Trying 184.108.40.206... connected
* Connected to host.example.com (220.127.116.11) port 443 (#0)
* SSLv3, TLS handshake, Client hello (1):
… while my command against the same site said:
* About to connect() to host.example.com port 443 (#0)
* Trying 18.104.22.168... connected
* Connected to host.example.com (22.214.171.124) port 443 (#0)
* successfully set certificate verify locations:
* CAfile: /etc/ssl/certs/ca-certificates.crt
* SSLv3, TLS handshake, Client hello (1):
(I’ve bolded the part my output showed that wasn’t in the mac version, the real host name and IP have been changed.)
It seems I was wrong however.
The output above is only shown if libcurl sets the CA cert path to OpenSSL and it seems the Mac version doesn’t. Somehow they get the CA certs loaded to libcurl differently.
So ok, maybe they didn’t modify curl but they certainly changed how curl uses CA certs and they did this by modifying OpenSSL and clearly their version of OpenSSL now defaults to use their CA cert bundle. The end result for me is still the same though: I have no idea how CA certs work with curl on Mac so it leaves me with the unfortunate situation where I can’t help fellow curl users when they have CA cert problems on a Mac.
It also leaves me very curious on what –cacert does exactly on the mac version of curl.
OpenSSL is patched. Apparently it now works so that if the “normal” x509 validation fails, and TrustEvaluationAgent (TEA) is enabled, it will attempt to use the TEA to validate the certificate. The apple source code to read through for this is x509_vfy_apple.c in their patched OpenSSL tree. It is also possible to skip the TEA verification thing in OpenSSL by setting an environment variable, so that we can still have curl on mac act “as default” with a command line like:
Finally: yes, curl is released under an MIT license. They’re perfectly allowed to do whichever of these actions they want. I know this, and I chose the MIT license fully aware that any company can take the code, modify it and never return any changes. I’m not arguing against anyone’s rights to do this with curl.
Thank you, friendly anonymous helper for helping me straighten out my findings!
In the curl project, we take security seriously. We work hard to make sure we don’t open up for security problems of any kind and once we fail, we work hard at analyzing the problem and coming up with a proper fix as swiftly as possible to make our “customer” as little vulnerable as possible.
Recently I’ve been surprised and slightly shocked by the fact that a lot of open source operating systems didn’t release any security upgrades to our most recent security flaw until well over a month after we first publicized the flaw. I’m not sure why they all reacted so slowly. Possibly it is because vendor-sec isn’t quite working as they were informed prior to the notification, and of course I don’t really expect many security guys to be subscribed to the curl mailing lists. Slow distros include Debian and Mandriva while Redhat did great.
Today however, I got a mail from Apple (and no, I don’t know why they send these mails to me but I guess they think I need them or something) with the subject “APPLE-SA-2010-03-29-1 Security Update 2010-002 / Mac OS X v10.6.3“. Aha! Did Apple now also finally update their curl version you might think?
They did. But they did not fix this problem. They fixed two previous problems universally known as CVE-2009-0037 and CVE-2009-2417. Look at the date of that first one. March 3, 2009. Yes, a whopping 391 days after the problem was first made public, Apple sends out the security update. Cool. At least they eventually fixed the problem…