OS X Crimeware Kit Emerges 202
Trailrunner7 writes "Crimeware kits have become a ubiquitous part of the malware scene in the last few years, but they have mainly been confined to the Windows platform. Now, reports are surfacing that the first such kit targeting Apple's Mac OS X operating system has appeared. The kit is being compared to the Zeus kit, which has been one of the more popular and pervasive crimeware kits for several years now. A report by CSIS, a Danish security firm, said that the OS X kit uses a template that's quite similar to the Zeus construction and has the ability to steal forms from Firefox."
Mac users are also being targeted by a new piece of scareware called MAC Defender.
Masses reaction (Score:4, Funny)
"It can't be! Macs don't get malware! Protect us, Steve J!"
Re:Masses reaction (Score:5, Funny)
Sent from my iPad.
Re:Masses reaction (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This is true. The next step up from this is restricting what apps can access, which Apple does in iOS and to some degree Google does in Android. I don't see how they'd do this for every MacOS application, but there are plenty of MacOS applications they *could* do this for. It doesn't matter if your C compiler is vulnerable to a stack smash if there's no way for a network attacker to get to it.
iPhone exploits (Score:3)
Yeah, right. Because, thanks to the restrictions inside iOS, no exploit has ever been made against iPhones. No one has ever successfully jail-broken them~~
Neither for the PlayStation 3 : as soon as Sony blocked the OtherOS, absolutely nobody found alternative way to get homebrew on the PS3~~
DRM gives you only the illusion of security.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not to worry, my faithful, mandatory binary signing will be here soon enough.
Yes, worry. The "malware" binary will be validly signed; and in some way, not technically malware -- the malware will be part of the unsigned data payload loaded by the benign binary. The benign binary will be something like /usr/bin/python, and may be shipped with the OS itself...
(how much higher a level of trust can you get for a binary?)
Re: (Score:3)
So just like IOS, you won't be able to install any application that lets you create or run unpaid^wunsafe code.
Re:Masses reaction (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, Faust's deal with the devil was signed too.
Re:Masses reaction (Score:5, Interesting)
Not wanting to go for a cheap "FTFY", I'll just say that the reaction of everyone imitating a Mac user's reaction will be yours.
The rest of us actual Mac users carry on as normal, just like the Linux users.
Interestingly, does this count as the 44th malware threat on OS X (based on a cited post from the AV thread yesterday that said there are 43 threats over the life of OS X), or does it count as more than one, since it's a tool kit. Is a swiss army knife one tool or several? :p
Re:actual Mac users (Score:3)
Actually I was playing off quotes about 2-3 stories ago "Mac doesn't need anti-virus" where slahdot users were promoting that very idea.
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't a virus. It's a trojan, and it can't do anything unless you put in your admin password, and then allow the installer to actually install. Not exactly low profile. I agree with the parent. Mac users will probably just ignore it.
Re: (Score:3)
Seeing as how this type of malware seems to account for some 99% of all infections in the PC world, I'm anxious to see how well it'll work for all those "I bought a mac because it looked so shiny" people.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if people are installing warez or free programs without some background check, they are asking for it.
Re: (Score:3)
or free programs without some background check
Damn, I better uninstall Linux then, I don't know where its been...
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't a hack. It asks for an admin password and then launches an installer, assuming you have Safari set to open 'safe' packages. It's another trojan, not a virus. I seriously doubt that anyone believes a Mac is unhackable (white hat conventions put that to bed years ago as OS X is typically one of the first to be hacked). This is a lot of noise about nothing and no different than someone downloading software from an unknown source and installing it, putting in the admin password when prompted, and the
Re: (Score:3)
Last time I had to clean up a Windows was because my ex-wife's 13 year old cousin just needed to have smileys on Messenger. I don't know where she downloaded the package. She got smileys and couple of other things which took me 4 hours to remove.
So in my mind trojans aren't just noise about nothing. They may need user interaction to install or run but there's plenty of users who happily install every application they get their hands on.
You are right. The problem is the user. But you are wrong about Windows.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, lots of programs don't work right if you don't run as administrator.
That is an interesting way to put it. But we know the real issue is that lots of Windows programmers don't code right if you don't force them to test their fucking code. I believe the entire point of Vista, besides the whole 'New Coke' money grab, was to retrain Windows developers to do things correctly.
Re: (Score:2)
:"Social engineering" is indeed a "hack". The malware creator somehow enticed the user into desiring to install the malware, and the user let down whatever defenses prevented the malware from installing. H B Gary Federal was "hacked" through social engineering, along with other methods. Mac, Linux, and even Unix can be hacked in the very same way. Ask the user for whatever you need to bypass his defenses, and if he responds favorably, you have "hacked" him.
Every hacking guide that I have ever seen inclu
Re: (Score:2)
white hat conventions put that to bed years ago as OS X is typically one of the first to be hacked
Because they require you to use zero-day exploits - IOW exploits that have never been used before even theoretically.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure that's entirely true at least in a meaningful sense. For example moving from a permissions system to a capabilities system and really using capabilities makes an OS vastly less hackable. Systems where the OS has multiple one way penetrable barriers like VMWare view or MVS tend to be from a practical sense much less hackable. Apple's culture of being able to dictate to their developers, and a developer expectation hat OS bugs can very easily require an
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Interestingly, does this count as the 44th malware threat on OS X (based on a cited post from the AV thread yesterday that said there are 43 threats over the life of OS X)
43 confirmed viruses for OSX. Virus is only one VERY specific type of malware, and in fact viruses are seldom seen on any platform these days.
When was the last time Apple actually claimed to be immune or secure from viruses? They don't. They make vague claims of being "more secure", and run ads which seem to imply they don't get infections although they don't actually ever say It. Instead, they just make vague comments about how "vulnerable" the "PC's" are (as if a Mac isn't a personal computer or something
Re:Masses reaction (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody with a brain has ever claimed that OSX is impervious. And nobody with a brain has ever claimed that OSX is impervious to PEBCAK.
What *has* been claimed is that the automatic propagation of evil over OSX (and BSD and Linux and *every other sane OS out there*) is terribly inefficient, because unless you pack the evil in a container, permissions (including the permission to execute) are stripped as soon as you send your file. And then you have to either unpack it or you have to manually assign the execute bit through right clicking and using the dialog or using chmod. And only then can you run the file.
Compare and contrast this to the Windows world where the execute bit is tied to 3 letters in the file name and Windows will duly execute the file as soon as it's double-clicked. Malware in this system goes from machine to machine because Windows assumes that a file is permitted to execute if it whispers the correct shibboleth of "exe, com, scr" or what have you.
While OSX's advantage of using the Unix model of tossing permissions does not cover warez, the equivalent of purple gorillas on OSX or braindead users, even the small amounts of protection that OSX gives goes a long way in preventing network effects on the spread of malware.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This might have been a good point in 1987, but today most serious malware spreads by exploiting bugs in legitimate software. Why rely on the user to run your evil program manually when buffer overflows and such are so abundant?
Having an "execute bit" doesn't do anything to stop that (unless you mark all your programs non-executable, of course; that'll make sure you're secure ;))
Re: (Score:2)
You missed his point. The software runs as the user and does not run as ROOT or SYSTEM, meaning limited access at most. You may infect the user account with a buffer overflow but you won't get SYSTEM access. Now compare that to Windows and be real about it.
Re: (Score:2)
In Windows, software doesn't run as root or system by default, either. Since Vista, there has been UAC, unless you turned it off. Modern Windows applications cannot even write anything to Program Files without elevated permission.
That said, you seem to wrongly think that there are no privilege escalation exploits that allow malware to gain root or system privileges.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly I know of (because we have the bl**dy thing deployed) Windows applications that don't run with UAC switched on OR the user running as anything other than administrator... I know!
In fact, in the UK pretty much EVERY school administration system is setup this way - because the software demands it. On Windows 'legacy' is one of the greatest enemies of security. On Mac OS X there is very little legacy, "Classic" is long gone, and PowerPC isn't installed by default on Snow Leopard. Expect more of the same
Re: (Score:2)
And people can configure software to run as root as well. Intentionally disabling your security system should not be a valid argument.
Re: (Score:2)
My point is there are a whole lot of Windows systems that HAVE to run in a way that anyone at Microsoft would probably weep at, to run legacy software. This "I'll just keep running it" attitude is endemic. It is one thing that just doesn't exist on the Mac - you simply can't, Apple take the legacy support away - quite quickly actually. It would be possible to improve Windows security a great deal faster, if they took a more "Apple approach" to legacy.
My point is legacy is the enemy of security.
When people c
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that you help to make GP's point. You can't have legacy and security together. If you want good legacy support, you get crap security. If you want good security, you sacrifice the legacy. Take your choice, but you can't have both.
I quote GP: "When people complain that Windows Vista/7 won't run this or that bit of legacy software, and that they want better security - they are trying to argue both ends of the problem. You can't have your cake and eat it."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You can look at IBM. You can do it. The OS has to have capabilities for handling legacy applications which are unsafe, sandboxing them and virtualizing their interconnections with other applications.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it should as disabling occurs in real life. Windows NT since the 3.51 days had an excellent capabilities security model that software (including explorer / shell) didn't use. Installers didn't use. There weren't good user commands for it. And so it was effectively disabled and worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look I totally agree with you. The system is a mess (I'm talking about the application - "SIMS") it is shocking that it simply doesn't work properly with Windows (because it really is working against Windows). I don't "blame" Microsoft at all for this. Pretty much EVERY UK school has the same setup. I can't change it, as I'm not the one looking after SIMS - it is frequently updated (mostly because stuff doesn't work properly, usually the updates break something else) again by the local authority, and wow th
Re: (Score:3)
But in the end you really can't blame MSFT for this one, since their recommendations on writing permissions has been the same since Win2K pro, it is just nearly every third party vendor just gave MSFT the bird and wrote everything as admin because it was the lazy way to go. But if you are dealing with a vendor who after FOUR YEARS of UAC STILL hasn't bothered to write an acceptable program with normal permissions I would seriously be pushing for another vendor. After all if they can't even code correct permissions, what other shoddy code have they let slip by?
As would I, but the OP you're replying to is a slightly special case because they're working in a school.
Educational software tends to fall into one of two camps:
1. It does a first-class job of getting the message across to the pupils. Unfortunately the person who wrote it wouldn't know a Microsoft recommendation if it bit them on the bum. It ships to the school with installation instructions saying "Visit every PC in turn, insert the CD and go Start, Run, D:\install.exe"; there isn't an MSI. Further in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You may find this less comforting when all your bank account information, which is owned by you, not by root, gets scooped off of your computer over the net. Likewise, it's trivial to add startup items; these run with your permissions, so they don't have total control over the machine, but they can still stick around and propogate.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
In fact more Windows malware is doing this (Score:2)
We've come across more than a few malware apps these days that don't bother to try and install in to the system, they just install for the user. The assume correctly that most systems are single user so owning a user account is as good as owning the system.
We discovered it when someone got nailed with something Malwarebytes cleans up nicely. We ran it and it came up with a big negative, however when the user logged back in, there it was. Turns out that Malwarebytes (at the time) didn't scan all users, just
Re: (Score:2)
Except, of course, when the software with the vulnerability is already running as root or SYSTEM. Perhaps the flaw is even in the kernel (which happens from time to time).
Seriously, the execute bit argument is stupid. If someone sends a user an attachment of lady gaga nude, they're going to set the damn execute bit to view it. And malware can be malware even if it runs as the user (it can still send tons of spam and be used as part of a zombie network to DDoS people, it can still rape your address book a
Re: (Score:2)
If someone sends a user an attachment of lady gaga nude, they're going to set the damn execute bit to view it.
One would hope that anyone smart enough to know how to set the execute bit, would be smart enough to know not to set the execute bit.
(One would probably be disappointed, though ;^))
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so let's look at the practical differences between infecting a user account and infecting a system account.
1. If you're running as a user, you might find it harder to start an application as part of the boot process. Not the end of the world, however, because it's easy enough to start as soon as the user logs on - and this is true on Windows, OS X and Linux.
2. You can set up TCP/IP connections as any user. You can't listen on a privileged port, but that's hardly a showstopper.
3. You can still ste
Re: (Score:2)
This hasn't been true for a *long* time. Go ahead; try downloading something and run it on any patched and updated XP, Vista, or Win7 box. At the
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, maybe Macs still have an advantage here, in that the OSX is the pinnacle of design perfection, so no user would ever *want* to download and install a purely cosmetic change.
wow. fanboi much?
Re:Masses reaction (Score:4, Interesting)
You miss the point, I think.
Whoever double clicks something to install assuming it is legit will also gladly insert their username/password.
In terms of security windows is actually more robust from a security standpoint than mac os, but it's also targeted a lot more. And I don't mean file permissions, I mean actual design flaws.
You're safer while using a mac, no doubt about it. But the OS with the most security features IS windows.
And if you don't believe me, I'll quote:
"Paul Kocher, president and chief scientist at Cryptography Research: "The fair answer is that with the latest versions of each operating system there isn't a compelling security reason to pick one or the other. It used to be that Apple was doing a better job, but with Windows 7 Microsoft has caught up. There are some differences; Windows has a better security ecosystem. On the other hand, Apple tends to have more expensive hardware and has a smaller market share, so it attracts fewer malware writers. Both have security bugs. Both need patches. Both can be broken if someone finds a zero-day exploit."
or
"Charlie Miller, a principal analyst at consultancy Independent Security Evaluators: "Technologically speaking, PCs are a little more secure than Macs. Macs have a larger attack surface out of the box (Flash, Java, support for a million file formats, etc.) and lack some anti-exploitation technologies found in PCs like full ASLR [Address Space Layout Randomization]. This means Macs have more vulnerabilities and it's easier to turn a vulnerability into an exploit on the platform. Despite the fact it is less secure, paradoxically, Macs are actually safer to use for most people. This is because there simply isn't much risk of being exploited or installing malware."
or even
"Rich Mogull, CEO at Securosis: "It depends on which version of Windows we're talking about. Clearly there are major differences between Windows XP and Windows 7. Second is, are we talking about safety versus security? Microsoft has done more in terms of its inherent security features than Apple has in the operating system. All of that said, Microsoft gets attacked a lot more than Apple does. Right now your odds of being infected as a Mac user by malicious software are quite a bit lower than a Windows user, unless you do stupid things, such as download free versions of commercial software. And some of the pornography sites on the Internet, the dark corners of the Internet have stuff that will hurt a Mac."
It's not my opinion. It's the expert's opinion.
Re:Masses reaction (Score:4, Interesting)
"Charlie Miller, a principal analyst at consultancy Independent Security Evaluators: "Technologically speaking, PCs are a little more secure than Macs. Macs have a larger attack surface out of the box (Flash, Java, support for a million file formats, etc.) and lack some anti-exploitation technologies found in PCs like full ASLR [Address Space Layout Randomization]...."
Your quote from Mr. Miller is way out of date. Apple now doesn't include Flash or Java by default, and does implement (although weakly) ASLR.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple now doesn't include Flash or Java by default
I have an Air from a couple months ago, and it came with Java right there in /usr/bin/. I haven't installed Lion yet, but I would be surprised if Java was absent. It's not impossible, but that would be a fairly sudden removal.
Re: (Score:2)
"But the OS with the most security features IS windows."
By this logic, the largest military force would also be the best military force. Maybe you've missed some of the Hollywood movies, like 300, that attempt to depict the heroic efforts of small forces handing the asses of larger forces to the larger force, on a platter.
I don't want more security features, especially if those features cost a lot in terms of resources and performance. I want SAFETY, ie, efficient security. Besides - no security feature
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody with a brain has ever claimed that OSX is impervious
There you go. There's your problem right there.
Re: (Score:3)
Compare and contrast this to the Windows world where the execute bit is tied to 3 letters in the file name and Windows will duly execute the file as soon as it's double-clicked.
No it doesn't, don't spread FUD. You will always get security warnings when trying to run unsigned executables.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, technically Windows does have an Excute bit (lots of them, even - one for each ACL, allowing you to permit or deny on a fine-grained basis).
Of course, Windows also has a distinct tendency to default the Execute permission to Enabled. This is a terrible idea, but 9x didn't have file permissions at all, and most people seem completley unaware that NT has them, so it would be a huge problem for Microsoft to change the default behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Compare and contrast this to the Windows world where the execute bit is tied to 3 letters in the file name and Windows will duly execute the file as soon as it's double-clicked.
No it doesn't, don't spread FUD. You will always get security warnings when trying to run unsigned executables.
Which why you will soon ignore them and just click yes - because you can't easily get rid of those warnings for things you start often. Very clever design.
Mac security advice (Score:2)
You make a valid point, but Safari seems to auto-open certain "safe" files in the case of this crimeware kit: http://www.securitynewsdaily.com/new-malware-goes-after-mac-users-0747/ [securitynewsdaily.com]
However, a huge amount of malware doesn't propagate by someone running an executable - these days it frequently uses exploits in browsers, Flash, PDF readers, etc. Simply visiting an infected website or opening a malicious PDF is enough to execute the malware on your machine. Exploit kits make it easy to set up a website that w
How do you execute the script? (Score:2, Funny)
Or you can just distribute through a .dmg with script that executes as soon as the user mounts the .dmg file
You can? I don't think DMGs have anything like windows Autoplay, there's no ability to automatically run a script.
Safari will automatically play some kinds of files or mount DMG, but only if you have the option for that checked (though it is the default),
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You just include the mpkg file in the DMG, and it should find and run the installer automatically.
It may open the installer application (which is an Apple shipped and signed application) which might open the package to be installed, in some specific cases. It does NOT run any executable code in the package whatsoever without user interaction.
Well? (Score:5, Funny)
If I'm going to get Mac malware, I damn well better have the best malware experience that the industry has to offer. Heck, I'd probably even be willing to pay $20 for something that windows users get for free and linux nerds compile from source, if the interface is good enough...
Re:best malware experience (Score:2)
Mods, parent is brilliant satire!
Re: (Score:2)
Despite the obvious satire, the answer is yes, since the system handles GCD for the software running on it :p
Re: (Score:2)
Despite the obvious satire, the answer is yes, since the system handles GCD for the software running on it :p
Well, no, actually, the system doesn't magically make all software use GCD. If it's using a framework where the run loop is inside the framework, the Snow Leopard and later version of the framework might use GCD, but if you have your own run loop....
Re: (Score:2)
No, this is true but it was designed to make multi-threaded apps more simple to develop. If you're writing for OS X you can assume it's there for you in SL.
Re: (Score:2)
"If it's using a framework where the run loop is inside the framework, the Snow Leopard and later version of the framework might use GCD, but if you have your own run loop...."
GCD requires the application developer to explicitly call dispatch_async and pass in the task blocks to be executed.
Re: (Score:2)
"If it's using a framework where the run loop is inside the framework, the Snow Leopard and later version of the framework might use GCD, but if you have your own run loop...."
GCD requires the application developer to explicitly call dispatch_async and pass in the task blocks to be executed.
O RLY? [apple.com]
Re: (Score:2)
All I want to know is whether this malware is worthy of the Apple platform or not: Does it use Grand Central Dispatch to efficiently allocate the load of multiple form-stealing processes between all my system's cores? Are the misleading dialog boxes that frighten me further into folly fully compliant with Apple's HID guidelines?
Well, that "MAC defender" scamware uses Growl [growl.info] for its fake virus notifications and with this uses the theme you selected for notification bubbles and such. Depending on your own style it's surely stylish. And you can of course even customize the theme it uses! Try that with Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
Just needs to be modded Flamebait then 6 people mod it "underrated".
I haven't seen a "+5 Troll" or "-1 Funny" in quite a while.
Re: (Score:2)
99c? (Score:2)
Can someone tell me how "form stealing" works? (Score:2)
I googled the phrase and I got a lot of non-meaningful results (and links to TFA). Is this some basic keylogger-type thing?
Re:Can someone tell me how "form stealing" works? (Score:4, Interesting)
Assuming that this software is actually intended to be running on the "compromised" system (which I find no indication of in either TFA, the article it links to, or google results), then what it does is exploit FireFox to "hijack" cgi webscripts on websites and use them to send spam email. Pretty much it would send data through a web request to a page that's intended to send email (like forum registration perhaps) that would essentially make the email handler crash or open a backdoor and then inject spam email into the form that would get sent by the website's server. It's a clever way of getting around spam filters blocking known spam email carriers - if your spam is being sent from multitudes of legitimate websites that just have poor software security it's much harder to identify and block.
My big question is how this is supposed to get on the target system. To date, the only Mac OS X malware discovered in the wild has been virtually harmless, since it all comes in the form of a trojan. Some not very nice person disguises their malware in a piece of pirated software and upload it to torrent sites or whatnot. Some people download it and get infected because they don't realize the danger of such an occurrence. From what I've read, the security firms typically classify these trojans as extremely low-risk, with something like fewer than 50 confirmed infections. The point is, there are as yet no "drive by" or otherwise spontaneous infections you can get on a Mac. Any bad things that could happen rely on some form of social engineering or deception. The way OSes work, if you can convince an Administrator (of any system) to run something then you generally can do whatever you want. The Mac OS X security model is in many ways stronger than the Windows security model, but it's certainly not infallible. Macs are immune to the type of autorun viruses that are spread by removable media because they don't support automatic execution of programs on removable media (I can't for the life of me understand why the hell anyone would want autorun enabled on their system). On the other hand, the default OS X user/first one created is an Administrator. They aren't a superuser but things like global-scope installers have the permission to use the equivalent of 'sudo' if an Administrator enters their password. It's like UAC on Vista/7 - a large majority of people don't think twice about clicking "Yes" to whatever comes up on their screen (the other day my fiancé unwitting installed a browser toolbar and changed her home page on her PC because she didn't uncheck a few boxes in the installer for some freeware). I'd like to think that by being asked to enter a password a user is more likely to consider what they're authorizing but in most cases, the user is the weakest link.
Re: (Score:2)
Regarding MACDefender (Score:2, Insightful)
MACDefender requires that you agree to install it. It's not able to infect your Mac without your knowledge and consent.
AND : Just drop it in the trash bin to get rid of it. Hassle free. Click and drag. That's it.
BTW : The Kit has not yet proven it's functionality and works (if it does) currently only with FireFox.
Still too early for iHate, schadenfreude or panic.
There is still no single widespread, dangerous and working malware for OS X out there. Period.
Re: (Score:2)
I know of no malware that (a) would give up so easily or (b) would not take the opportunity once it got the first privileges to run with them as far as they could.
Drag it to the trash? If it doesn't rewrite .bashrc to start a process to make sure it's installed and running when the system starts u
Re: (Score:2)
MACDefender requires that you agree to install it. It's not able to infect your Mac without your knowledge and consent.
That's the case with software on all platforms.
Re: (Score:2)
Compare that to Antivirus 2011/2010/2009/Pro/etc. Where it installs via a drive by download.
Yeah.
Consider the infection vectors, then call me.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait a minute. It is well understood that the biggest threat on the Windows platform comes from fly-by automagic installation of viruses and worms, or from trojans that then infect the rest of the system in order to continue propagating or give root access to remote attackers.
It is also understood that amidst all these critical threats there is a huge number of other annoyances of much less immediate danger, that require user intervention to act on their payload or do anything "useful" at all.
So far, the O
Where others have failed, Apple will win (Score:3)
The reason Apple will be able to win here where Windows hasn't been able to is because of the App Store for the Mac. Users who are not sufficiently savvy to vet software themselves can rely solely on the App Store to do that, and since only software that is verified by Apple can get on there, we are unlikely to see any malware sneak into the App Store or stay there for long. And if it does, Apple has the author's identity (CC info, etc), which although able to be faked could still serve as a starting point for a criminal investigation by the police. People who know enough to keep safe can still install software from other places, but for most people the App Store, privilege system based on the Unix model, and a more secure starting codebase is going to protect them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're assuming they get this malware from installing an app - more likely they get this while browsing the net.
Anyhow who's to stupid not to know how apps work or are installed won't know not to click on a dialogue that pops up while doing something "you need to update your mac - click here!".
Re: (Score:2)
You're absolutely right, but Apple has managed to make it easy to use, popular, and most importantly, profitable. Linux has only recently been able to achieve one of those, Ubuntu's package manager is very easy to use now but wasn't always; and that's only one distro out of many.
The success and popularity IS something new, and Apple can leverage that walled garden into a user experience no one else is going to be able to offer.
Idiotware? (Score:2, Interesting)
Since you have to enter the admin password for it to install, what's different from NT,*NIX and other OSes?
*ANY* OS can and will be compromised if the user sitting at the keyboard grants root access...
We're not talking about malware hidden inside freepr0n.wmv that will install via Windows Media Player or via an ActiveX control, or by itself on a pre-SP2 WinXP...
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but we all know macs don't get viruses. So what's the problem with letting this totally legit-looking program install?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3Z386vXrt4 [youtube.com] See? Macs don't get viruses. Only silly PCs do.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, fake-scan scams rely on Windows users' fear of Windows viruses in order to trick users into installing malware. I guess evil psychology tricks hurt users of both platforms.
Re:Idiotware? (Score:5, Interesting)
The difference is that only very few Mac apps require an admin password since most are just bundles you throw into your Applications folder (or where you want them to be) without actually "installing" (= spraying files and data all over the system) anything.
Maybe not a really huge difference, but most people are not really used to that and any app running an actual installer is eyed with suspicion.
It would help a lot if apps like Adobe Reader wouldn't needlessly come with such an installer. But then it's very nearly malware anyway.
Terms of Art (Score:3)
God, I love jargon.
"Crimeware", "scareware"... I heard there's a group of Buddhist cybercriminals who have created something called "Beware". When it infects your system it gives all your worldly possessions to them.
If you happen to encounter this type of malware while using your computer, kill it.
But does it F'ing work?!!?? (Score:2)
What I have not seen is a validation that the offered kit actually -works on a Mac- (or Linux) running Firefox. It's been asserted by the malware's marketing literature this works, but the Danish company does not state they've validated that claim.
Not only do we have no verification this works on Mac OS X/Firefox, but the "sales literature" also claims Safari and Chrome "real soon now". I'd be so shocked to see have a vendor's marketing literature end up being wrong....
Or could this be someone trying to
Safe practices say, run an antivirus (Score:2)
No matter if your OS is Windows 5.x, 6.x, Mac OS X 10.x or GNU/Linux Kernel 2.4.x or 2.6.x. If your machine is a desktop run an antivirus.
You owe it to the rest of the world to extermitate viruses, both the many (or few) that your machine is susceptible to, as well as those that, even though will not infect your machine, will be passed on to someone else...
. ;-) ...because YOU, saavy and enlightened slashdot user, did not catch and exterminated it. Do it for the unwashed mases, that are clogging the pipes w
Re: (Score:2)
My Amiga OS4 machine and Haiku installs are probably reasonably safe.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I submit they are more so, since they have a falsely inflated sense of security.
I submit that Mac users are safer with their feelings of security because they will avoid scareware, a huge threat to platforms perceived to be less secure.
So, scareware out of the Mac side of the equation, and all else being equal, who is safer randomly downloading crap off the Internet?
I know, I know!!1
Re:Security through Obscurity = FAIL (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the answer will be "yes" - if you are stupid (which is harsh - let's say uninformed) enough to be fooled by the sorts of things that malware gets up to (like "click here for a free system check!" or "check it out, so sexy!!! - natalie-portmans-hot-grits.jpg.exe" then the penetration rate per-platform is going to be broadly similar. You're going to have a portion of your userbase who are susceptible to this, along with another portion who set blanket passwords for all of their activities and set it to "password1".
Windows has the problem that not only does it have to contend with this user problem (which is common to both platforms [win and OS X], and less common on Linux/non-Mac-BSD), but it has also faced the "swiss cheese operating system" problem that they have been trying to fix since malware first came about. OS X at least has the benefit of starting from a better platform (BSD core) than Windows' legacy issues. That's not to say it's immune to threats - the fact that there are security updates for OS X disprove that.
I'm surprised that there hasn't been a more high profile virus or malware outbreak on OS X before now, since even with the smaller marketshare (1 in 5 new computers sold in the US is a Mac, but total install base is still nearer 10%), the "kudos" for "sticking their nose in it" is high.
Re: (Score:2)
"check it out, so sexy!!! - natalie-portmans-hot-grits.jpg.exe"
So you are saying, the risk of being penetrated by a trojan is positively correlated with the desire to penetrate Natalie Portman? Only too true. An unfortunate corollary is that the malware can never be defeated by technological means alone.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised that there hasn't been a more high profile virus or malware outbreak on OS X before now
The answer has got to be that it (and its users) have better overall security practices than is the norm on Windows. It's not just a matter of getting APIs right and strong, but also of ensuring that users are supported by the system in making normal activity secure. There's also a possibility that the users are more savvy by default due to selection effects: Mac users are more likely to better off because they usually pay for their own machines, and general intelligence is one of the things that tends to l
DOS (Score:2)
Rouse me from my smug slumber when my compartmentalized privileges no longer protect me from these so-called threats.
Trojans don't need administrative privileges to DOS your Internet connection.
Re: (Score:2)
Think before running random untrustworthy shit.
Then how do you recommend that a developer of "random shit" make it trustworthy?
Re: (Score:2)
You should have got it on Friday. Everyone is getting down on Friday! Saturday is for partyin' partyin' yeah! Sunday comes after-wards.
o_O
Re: (Score:2)
Mac users, welcome to the real world.
Linux users, you can keep on believing you are safe from harm.
Re: (Score:2)